Actors You Just Can't Stand

[BigBeagle]

18 hours ago, dusang said:

No, apparently he's a complete ass IRL - Dwayne Johnson publicly called him out for being a disruptive, entitled diva on the set of F&F8.

Wow. Apparently, I need better information.

[Bruinsfan]

Yeah, he'd always seemed a cheerful, friendly geek in interviews I've seen. Maybe the success of the Fast & Furious franchise went to his head? (I can also easily imagine egos clashing between him and Johnson without there actually being a bad guy.)

[slf]

I know I've said Jeremy Renner before but earlier I caught some of The Bourne Legacy (a waste of Rachel Weisz) and I'm cackling. He must've pissed the makeup artists and hairstylists off because he looked douchey af. Truly terrible.

[ribboninthesky1]

On 2/2/2017 at 1:41 PM, Bruinsfan said:

Yeah, he'd always seemed a cheerful, friendly geek in interviews I've seen. Maybe the success of the Fast & Furious franchise went to his head? (I can also easily imagine egos clashing between him and Johnson without there actually being a bad guy.)

Didn't he and Paul Walker allegedly clash during the first film? Yes, they became friends later on, but perhaps there's a pattern.  

[Cobalt Stargazer]

On 1/21/2017 at 4:40 PM, Wiendish Fitch said:

 "You're 50! There's no crime in being 50, unless you're trying to be 25!" ~ Joe Gillis (William Holden), Sunset Boulevard. 

Tom Cruise, please read the line above, and make it your mantra every time you look in the mirror.

Now I have this image of Tom Cruise wearing a turban, so....thanks?

Edited March 12, 2017 by Cobalt Stargazer

[methodwriter85]

On 1/21/2017 at 6:40 PM, Wiendish Fitch said:

 "You're 50! There's no crime in being 50, unless you're trying to be 25!" ~ Joe Gillis (William Holden), Sunset Boulevard. 

Tom Cruise, please read the line above, and make it your mantra every time you look in the mirror.

I wish the guy would let himself age in a movie. For real age. Not carton-age, like in Tropic Thunder. I feel like he's vaguely trying to keep his screen image as somewhere between 30 to 38 (with leading ladies that age to boot) and while it's not looking too bad quite yet, he's really delaying the inevitable.

Could you imagine Tom Cruise EVER casting himself to play the father of a person who's an actual adult even though he actually is one in real life? (His two oldest kids have to be at least in their early 20's by now.)

I was watching Logan and actually thinking about that...about how Hugh Jackman was willing to let himself be an old man in a movie, and how someone like Tom Cruise is going to stay "35" for as long as he possibly can.

[Wiendish Fitch]

1 hour ago, methodwriter85 said:

I wish the guy would let himself age in a movie. For real age. Not carton-age, like in Tropic Thunder. I feel like he's vaguely trying to keep his screen image as somewhere between 30 to 38 (with leading ladies that age to boot) and while it's not looking too bad quite yet, he's really delaying the inevitable.

Could you imagine Tom Cruise EVER casting himself to play the father of a person who's an actual adult even though he actually is one in real life? (His two oldest kids have to be at least in their early 20's by now.)

I was watching Logan and actually thinking about that...about how Hugh Jackman was willing to let himself be an old man in a movie, and how someone like Tom Cruise is going to stay "35" for as long as he possibly can.

 

At 55, Tom Cruise should be playing the actual Mummy, not the dashing leading man. Hell, he's old enough to play the father of a 35-year-old... or older! 

As for Hugh Jackman, I'm not surprised, for he is everything Cruise is not: classy, a legitimate triple threat, and could you see Cruise being happily married for over 20 years to a woman 13 years his senior?

[Cobalt Stargazer]

6 hours ago, Wiendish Fitch said:

At 55, Tom Cruise should be playing the actual Mummy, not the dashing leading man. Hell, he's old enough to play the father of a 35-year-old... or older!

I'm just going to ask a question and then shut up, because I don't care about Tom Cruise enough to make this a hill I'm willing to die on.

Is it that he's still playing leading man roles, or that he seldom if ever plays dad-types? Because I'm on record as recognizing that he's aged, but I'm troubled by the idea that 55 is so "old" (which is something that would completely be insulting if you were saying it about, say, 41 year old Angelina Jolie) that he should be sitting more often than standing.

[vibeology]

6 minutes ago, Cobalt Stargazer said:

Is it that he's still playing leading man roles, or that he seldom if ever plays dad-types? Because I'm on record as recognizing that he's aged, but I'm troubled by the idea that 55 is so "old" (which is something that would completely be insulting if you were saying it about, say, 41 year old Angelina Jolie) that he should be sitting more often than standing.

For me, the issues is that he's actively playing younger than he actually is by at least ten years. And that's not to say that men in their fifties are all old dads. That's obviously not true. But Cruise sets up scenario after scenario in his movies (because when you're Tom Cruise, you do have control over this) where his love interests are all much younger and in the few cases where he does have children, they are all young. This creates a scenario where he is young by association.

I'm not saying I want him to play doddering grandpas. He can be active. In real life Cruise is an active 54 year old who still does many of his own stunts. He can be that guy in a movie too. It's very believable. (Liam Neeson in Taken is an active badass with a wife and daughter who's ages mostly line up with his actual age.)  But by always surrounding himself with youth and trying to take that on himself, Cruise is the one sending the message that youth is what matters and that its better to be a forty-something than in your fifties. You can still hang onto the side of a plane and have a fifty-something year old wife and a child or two in their late teens or early twenties.

[Browncoat]

10 hours ago, Wiendish Fitch said:

could you see Cruise being happily married for over 20 years to a woman 13 years his senior?

Or to any woman, really.

[Wiendish Fitch]

48 minutes ago, Browncoat said:

Or to any woman, really.

 

Oh, snap! Good point, Browncoat. :)

[Silver Raven]

When Tom Cruise was younger, he had a lot of relationships with older women.  He was in a relationship with Cher, and she's 16 years older than he is.

[SherriAnt]

I haaaate Tom Cruise with the heat of a thousand suns, and it finally got to the point of refusing to watch anything he's in when he decided to play Jack Reacher. In the books, Reacher is described as very tall, very physically intimidating, and Tom Cruise is so none of that. Add the insane way he acts in interviews, and the fact that he's a scientologist, and that is wife felt she had to escape from him, and he's just a total loser IMHO.

[Ohwell]

2 hours ago, Silver Raven said:

When Tom Cruise was younger, he had a lot of relationships with older women.  He was in a relationship with Cher, and she's 16 years older than he is.

And he was married to Mimi Rogers, who was about seven years older.

[slf]

I'm not saying he's never given a good performance but Joaquin Phoenix always looks like he's on the verge of tears to me and it makes me uncomfortable. I sometimes avoid watching a movie if I know he's in it.

Ben Affleck is so boring to me. So taupe. The only performance of his I've enjoyed in the past ten years was as Nick Dunne in Gone Girl- the douchey 'everyman' married to a type-A who cheats on her (with a woman in a subordinate position) and constantly has to be coached on how to act like a decent person in public. What that says, I don't know.

Gerard Butler is another guy who just oozes creep. It's in almost all of his performances. I'll sit out a movie if he's anything more than a supporting player. Ditto Vince Vaughn. 

[Bruinsfan]

20 hours ago, Silver Raven said:

When Tom Cruise was younger, he had a lot of relationships with older women.  He was in a relationship with Cher, and she's 16 years older than he is.

This is news to me, but strangely I feel absolutely no surprise about Cruise being wild about Cher. I wonder where those two crazy kids met?

Edited March 14, 2017 by Bruinsfan

[Bastet]

On 3/13/2017 at 5:45 PM, slf said:

I'm not saying he's never given a good performance but Joaquin Phoenix always looks like he's on the verge of tears to me and it makes me uncomfortable. I sometimes avoid watching a movie if I know he's in it.

For an embarrassingly long time, I had no idea Leaf and Joaquin Phoenix were the same person.  I haven't seen him in anything as Joaquin, but, as Leaf, I loved him in Space Camp and Parenthood.  Of course, he was, indeed, often on the verge of tears in both those roles.

[UYI]

9 hours ago, Bastet said:

For an embarrassingly long time, I had no idea Leaf and Joaquin Phoenix were the same person.  I haven't seen him in anything as Joaquin, but, as Leaf, I loved him in Space Camp and Parenthood.  Of course, he was, indeed, often on the verge of tears in both those roles.

The story goes that, as a kid, Joaquin told his dad that he wished he had a name more similar to his siblings (who, in addition to River, were named Rain, Summer, and Liberty), and his dad suddenly saw a leaf and picked it up, and that became Joaquin's name for a long time after that.

I swear to God, I'm not making this up, no matter how weird it may sound. 

Edited March 15, 2017 by UYI

[DisneyBoy]

Quote

Gerard Butler is another guy who just oozes creep.

I've loathed him since he was cast as the Phantom of the Opera (ugh) but it was really TMZ - during the hot second to that I paid any attention to them - that opened my eyes to how much of a douche he really was in real life. There seemed to be constant reports of him bedding various women and fans and playing Mr. Big Shot. Just gross. I'm kind of glad his film roles have withered away. Did you guys see him in that ancient Egypt fantasy film? It was awful. I'm not a big Jennifer Aniston fan either by any means but when she had to play opposite him in that romcom, she came out looking about a million times better by comparison. I'm not saying she's a bad person, mind you, but rather that I don't think she has much range and she seems really uncomfortable as a celebrity and actress to the point where I wonder why we have to keep seeing her in things.

I'm not a big fan of Catherine Zeta-Jones. I don't particularly like her voice and the botox hasn't helped much. I can tolerate her in Chicago, where even I have to admit she did a really good job, but I just haven't seen her in any role that seemed like a natural fit. I couldn't believe they tried to make her and Julia Roberts appear to be sisters in that movie about her being a big Hollywood actress whose life falls apart. They look and sound absolutely nothing alike!

And now she's in Feud which really bums me out. I would rather she wasn't in there. And didn't she played Desiree on Broadway in the production of A Little Night Music? I don't really like her singing voice. I did like her however in The Mask of Zorro.

I'm also a little put off by Glenn Close now that I know much more about the Sunset Boulevard fiasco of the nineties. She played a very over-the-top Norma Desmond and chewed the scenery and won a Tony Award all the while saying nothing to Patti LuPone, who was basically thrown out like trash by Andrew Lloyd Webber and nearly had a breakdown in the aftermath originating the part in London and being promised the Broadway premiere. I realize it would be considered poking the beast with a stick, but some kind of message from Glenn Close to Patti about wishing her well after being given the Broadway premiere might have be appreciated.

And now she's back on Broadway getting great reviews for playing Norma Desmond again...only she's not playing Norma Desmond the way she played it in the nineties. If you're going to bring back the actress who won a Tony Award for her part and she's going to completely change how she plays the part I feel like that's disingenuous. If you go online, you can find a whole video of Betty Buckley in the production - she took on the part after Glenn left - and she played it very differently. Her Norma was sympathetic and human and there's a lot of nuance there in addition to a powerhouse singing voice. I feel like Glen is now cribbing from Betty Buckley's performance with this new take in the revival and that rubs me the wrong way. Maybe she and the new director came about this new take organically, but it just feels to me like no matter how good Glenn Close is, at some point she is screwing someone over when it comes to this show.

I'm also not a fan of Shia LaBeouf, Joaquin Phoenix and Christian Bale. I actually liked Bale before he was cast as Batman but nothing he's done since has pleased me.

[topanga]

Even though Johnny Depp annoys me with the heat of a thousand suns, I cannot deny how beautiful he is--at least sometimes. My son is watching one of the Pirates movies trght now, and I'm like, wow. His olive skin is so smooth and blemish-free--he could be the next Neutrogena spokesperson. 

[SherriAnt]

I'm having such a dilemma with myself right now. I loathe Tom Cruise so much that I wouldn't piss on him if he were on fire, but I adore the Mummy movies. Can someone watch a trailer and tell me if it looks good enough to be a hypocrite for? Lol.

[dusang]

On 4/16/2017 at 9:23 PM, topanga said:

Even though Johnny Depp annoys me with the heat of a thousand suns, I cannot deny how beautiful he is--at least sometimes. My son is watching one of the Pirates movies trght now, and I'm like, wow. His olive skin is so smooth and blemish-free--he could be the next Neutrogena spokesperson. 

I will never forget the audible gasp from the audience as they beheld his beauty when he first appeared on screen in Chocolat. 

6 hours ago, SherriAnt said:

I'm having such a dilemma with myself right now. I loathe Tom Cruise so much that I wouldn't piss on him if he were on fire, but I adore the Mummy movies. Can someone watch a trailer and tell me if it looks good enough to be a hypocrite for? Lol.

It looks pretty good and it's launching a whole "Monsters Universe" for Universal, so you can think of it as a stepping stone to a larger story. Also, although he's revived, it appears that they do kill TC in that plane crash so you can enjoy that.

[Ohwell]

I'm getting sick of Chris Pratt.

[methodwriter85]

3 hours ago, Ohwell said:

I'm getting sick of Chris Pratt.

Hollywood seems extremely desperate for a box office star that as soon as anyone starts showing potential as one, people jump on him. Although of course, the relative "meh" on Passengers doesn't really suggest he can turn everything into gold.

It's kind of funny how he's the inverse of Channing Tatum, the previous Flavor of the Month. Channing Tatum basically used his smoking hot body to get him to where he got. Chris Pratt decided it would be easier to play himself as the funny fat guy so he gained weight and it helped him be taken seriously as a comedic actor. I think if Chris Pratt had kept his jockboy body when he was no longer playing Bright, he would have been typecast as the loveable dumb jock.

[ribboninthesky1]

9 hours ago, Ohwell said:

I'm getting sick of Chris Pratt.

By all accounts, he's a nice guy.  But I've been annoyed by him, or rather his acting, ever since Everwood.  I thought Gregory Smith was far more talented, but dem's the breaks. 

[methodwriter85]

On 4/20/2017 at 7:25 PM, ribboninthesky1 said:

By all accounts, he's a nice guy.  But I've been annoyed by him, or rather his acting, ever since Everwood.  I thought Gregory Smith was far more talented, but dem's the breaks. 

Unfortunately for Greg, he didn't develop leading man looks, and at the same time, his features were a tad too delicate for him to go the character actor route. (The same basic problem Elijah Wood has although he seems to be doing a lot of t.v. now.) If he were from the U.K. he probably could worked it, like the similar-looking James McAvoy, but his look doesn't really work in the North American market.

I feel like Chris Pratt's main strength is playing a golden retriever in human form. I would kind of like to see him play an out-and-out villain to see if he can do it. I do like the guy, but I do think he's got a very limited range which shows when he tries to be a character for whom humor isn't a crutch he can use.

Edited April 29, 2017 by methodwriter85

[Wings]

On 4/19/2017 at 1:25 PM, SherriAnt said:

I'm having such a dilemma with myself right now. I loathe Tom Cruise so much that I wouldn't piss on him if he were on fire, but I adore the Mummy movies. Can someone watch a trailer and tell me if it looks good enough to be a hypocrite for? Lol.

I saw the preview and it looks really bad.  I loathe Cruise, too.  

On 4/19/2017 at 8:29 PM, dusang said:

I will never forget the audible gasp from the audience as they beheld his beauty when he first appeared on screen in Chocolat. 

 

I just watched Chocolat again recently.  What happened to Johnny Depp, he used to be so nifty. 

On 3/13/2017 at 5:45 PM, slf said:

Gerard Butler is another guy who just oozes creep. It's in almost all of his performances. I'll sit out a movie if he's anything more than a supporting player

Yep, I agree.  He does not have leading man appeal, at all.  

[Ohwell]

36 minutes ago, methodwriter85 said:

I feel like Chris Pratt's main strength is playing a golden retriever in human form.

He's got that look and that vibe about him.  However, I just don't see him as leading man material.  I certainly could understand him wanting to break out of Parks and Rec mode and into movies (and more $$$) but I kinda miss likable slob Chris with some belly, drinking beer and eating Doritos.   But hey, I realize that that's my problem--not his.  

[spiderpig]

On 4/20/2017 at 6:45 AM, Ohwell said:

I'm getting sick of Chris Pratt.

Pratt and wife Anna what's-her-name seemed kind of nice guesting on Top Chef.  Then the story came out about their dog, and I immediately put them on our Do Not Call list.

[Ohwell]

1 minute ago, spiderpig said:

Pratt and wife Anna what's-her-name seemed kind of nice guesting on Top Chef.  Then the story came out about their dog, and I immediately put them on our Do Not Call list.

What happened with the dog?

[spiderpig]

Here's a link to the dog, which makes reference to a story about a cat they had previously.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-4043794/Anna-Faris-pays-5k-fine-emaciated-rescue-dog-homeless-five-years-Chris-Pratt-tried-cat-away-Twitter.html

[MrSmith]

14 minutes ago, wings707 said:

I saw the preview and it looks really bad.  I loathe Cruise, too.

Yeah, we saw a preview when we went to a movie early this month. The new Mummy movie looks like it's going to be horrifyingly bad. I like Tom Cruise as Jack Reacher, though, and I'll pay to see those movies.

[spiderpig]

1 minute ago, MrSmith said:

Yeah, we saw a preview when we went to a movie early this month. The new Mummy movie looks like it's going to be horrifyingly bad. I like Tom Cruise as Jack Reacher, though, and I'll pay to see those movies.

Apparently Universal is trying to resurrect their 1930s monster classics into a new franchise.

I'll only watch The Mummy if Cruise suffers a long, excruciating death onscreen.

[MrSmith]

@spiderpig Yeah, Universal is trying to do that. They're trying to take what they've got and make an analogue for the MCU (Marvel Cinematic Universe). If anyone here has not yet seen Kong: Skull Island, what are you waiting for?!? Move. Your. Ass. to the nearest cinema still showing it. (It was at this movie that we saw the preview for The Mummy.) Kong: Skull Island is outstanding and worth the price of admission. I'll be buying this on DVD/Bluray when it comes out. It's going to be my excuse to convince my wife that I need a 100 inch television and new surround sound system. If we owned this house, I'd use it as an excuse to build a home theater room, instead! (And the best part? I know she'll agree!)

[spiderpig]

1 minute ago, MrSmith said:

@spiderpig Yeah, Universal is trying to do that. They're trying to take what they've got and make an analogue for the MCU (Marvel Cinematic Universe). If anyone here has not yet seen Kong: Skull Island, what are you waiting for?!? Move. Your. Ass. to the nearest cinema still showing it. (It was at this movie that we saw the preview for The Mummy.) Kong: Skull Island is outstanding and worth the price of admission. I'll be buying this on DVD/Bluray when it comes out. It's going to be my excuse to convince my wife that I need a 100 inch television and new surround sound system. If we owned this house, I'd use it as an excuse to build a home theater room, instead! (And the best part? I know she'll agree!)

I love your enthusiasm, MrSmith!  I would love to see Skull Island, but our recent theatrical experiences have been so annoying due to rude, clueless, idiotic customers that we just wait for video.  Ironic, isn't it, that movies have such astonishing technical capabilities, yet boorish people keep fans like moi away?

We watch on our humble 55" Panny, but I agree the theatrical experience can be great.  We saw Peter Jackson's King Kong at the Odeon Leicester Square, where there was a huge marquee blasting in individual bulbs "King Kong: The Eighth Wonder of the World!".  We were excited before we even entered the cinema.

Thankfully, Tom Cruise was not involved.  Or Chris Pratt.  The cast included Naomi Watts, Jack Black, Andy Serkis, and the Wilhelm Scream, which was more than enough for me.

[Ohwell]

27 minutes ago, spiderpig said:

Here's a link to the dog, which makes reference to a story about a cat they had previously.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-4043794/Anna-Faris-pays-5k-fine-emaciated-rescue-dog-homeless-five-years-Chris-Pratt-tried-cat-away-Twitter.html

Thanks.  I noticed that one of the comments was that she had to give the dog away because their child was allergic to dogs, so the person she gave the dog to left it homeless?  At any rate, it sounds like neither she nor her husband should have pets.

[Shannon L.]

I'm kind of on the fence when it comes to Tom Cruise.  I don't like him personally (although, I do know someone whose job it was to take him on a private tour of Boston and she said he was really nice--just a bit hyper), but he really commits to his roles and I've liked many of his movies.  He's one of the few that I don't like personally and can separate that from the parts he plays.

Having said that, I have no interest in The Mummy because I have no interest in the movie and can't think of anyone who I like enough to make me sit through it. 

As for Chris Pratt, I have a hard time seeing him in anything except goofy roles because while I think he's good looking,  he doesn't have the ruggedness that's needed for something like Jurassic World (which I enjoyed as a popcorn flick and thought he was good, but not great, in).  Action adventure, imo, needs a rugged looking leading man.

And yes, go see Kong: Skull Island.  Lots of fun to be had in that one  :)

[MrSmith]

17 minutes ago, spiderpig said:

I love your enthusiasm, MrSmith!  I would love to see Skull Island, but our recent theatrical experiences have been so annoying due to rude, clueless, idiotic customers that we just wait for video.  Ironic, isn't it, that movies have such astonishing technical capabilities, yet boorish people keep fans like moi away?

We watch on our humble 55" Panny, but I agree the theatrical experience can be great.  We saw Peter Jackson's King Kong at the Odeon Leicester Square, where there was a huge marquee blasting in individual bulbs "King Kong: The Eighth Wonder of the World!".  We were excited before we even entered the cinema.

Thankfully, Tom Cruise was not involved.  Or Chris Pratt.  The cast included Naomi Watts, Jack Black, Andy Serkis, and the Wilhelm Scream, which was more than enough for me.

Well, when you finally do get to see Kong: Skull Island, get yer popcorn ready beforehand, go to the bathroom, then turn off all the lights, your phones, and put up a sign on your door that says "Not now! Go away!" because you are not going to want or appreciate any interruptions!

And, sadly, I do know what it's like to have to put up with rude people in the cinema. We went to see Star Trek: Nemesis when it came out years ago and there were two teen girls who would not shut up. After the movie, they were talking about how good it was. I failed to resist saying to them, "Well, all your yammering throughout the movie and what you're saying now shows how little you know about or actually like Star Trek." That movie was an absolutely putrid pile and I should have known that going in since they managed to reverse the polarity of the Star Trek Odd-Even Movie Rule with Star Trek: Insurrection. (In case you're wondering, the polarity is still reversed. The odd-numbered ones are now good, the even-numbered ones are now crap.)

We have a 50 inch not-LG TV in our living room and no surround sound again, yet. It's good for movies, even though it's not 3 stories tall. LOL

[Wings]

3 hours ago, MrSmith said:

Yeah, we saw a preview when we went to a movie early this month. The new Mummy movie looks like it's going to be horrifyingly bad. I like Tom Cruise as Jack Reacher, though, and I'll pay to see those movies.

Wander over to the Leah Remini forum and read the horror of Scientology, then we will talk about Tom Cruise.  ;^) 

Edited April 29, 2017 by wings707

[JenTen1585]

For me, it's Kirsten Stewart.  She always looks like a selfish, petulant teenager who doesn't know how to smile.  

[SherriAnt]

On ‎2017‎-‎04‎-‎29 at 4:33 PM, wings707 said:

I like Tom Cruise as Jack Reacher,

See and in my opinion that's one of the worst casting decisions ever made. In the books Jack is 6'5" and a muscular man. I don't think casting someone who is a foot shorter and about 50 lbs too small is a good plan. My hubs is totally against the new  Ghostbusters movie, and I'm totally against the Jack Reacher movies, so we've come to an agreement that we wont' watch either of them.

Edited May 1, 2017 by SherriAnt
I made my hubs look mysoginsitic

[Wings]

Just now, SherriAnt said:

See and in my opinion that's one of the worst casting decisions ever made. In the books Jack is 6'5" and a muscular man. I don't think casting someone who is a foot shorter and about 50 lbs too small is a good plan. My hubs is totally against the new all female Ghostbusters movie, and I'm totally against the Jack Reacher movies, so we've come to an agreement that we wont' watch either of them.

ACK!!!  I despise Tom Cruise and have never seen Jack Reacher.  That line is from a post I quoted from  @MrSmith!  

[MrSmith]

6 minutes ago, SherriAnt said:

See and in my opinion that's one of the worst casting decisions ever made. In the books Jack is 6'5" and a muscular man. I don't think casting someone who is a foot shorter and about 50 lbs too small is a good plan. My hubs is totally against the new all female Ghostbusters movie, and I'm totally against the Jack Reacher movies, so we've come to an agreement that we wont' watch either of them.

I thought Cruise pulled it off in Jack Reacher. Hopefully, your husband isn't against the new Ghostbusters simply because the Ghostbusters are women. My wife and I recorded it on HBO just to see how bad that movie is. Your husband should hate that movie because it's a terrible, horrible, very bad, no good movie with only two lines in it that even elicit a chuckle (and no actual funny parts). Definitely do NOT watch the new Ghostbusters. Two hours spent watching paint dry is two hours better spent.

[SmithW6079]

I hate both Will Smith and Tom Cruise, and it pisses me off that they both make SF films, which is a genre I love. I'd probably go to see their movies, if, you know, they weren't in them.

And I'm into total agreement about Reacher. Reacher's height, muscularity, and overall physicality is a huge part of his character. Casting the humunculus Tom Cruise as Reacher was a slap in the character's face (if Tiny Tom could reach that high).

[SherriAnt]

11 hours ago, MrSmith said:

your husband isn't against the new Ghostbusters simply because the Ghostbusters are women

No, not at all, he just doesn't get why it needed a remake at all. I phrased it totally wrong, sorry.

[MrSmith]

7 hours ago, SherriAnt said:

No, not at all, he just doesn't get why it needed a remake at all. I phrased it totally wrong, sorry.

Nothing to be sorry for, really. I wasn't sure that was actually why he hated it and I know there were a lot of people online who seemed to hate it for that reason. I agreed with your husband from the start: Why did it need to be remade? And why did they think it would actually be successful? Fortunately, it was a massive failure: It cost $144M to make, grossed only $229M worldwide, needed to gross $300M to break even, and at least $500M to be considered a success. Based on the first trailer alone, you could already tell it was going to fail and fail hard. The filmmakers completely blew their wad on the trailers, leaving nothing that might otherwise be able to be considered funny for audiences to discover in the theatre. As I mentioned, there were two bits of dialogue my wife and I chuckled at; one near the beginning of the film and one near the end. The entire rest of the film constitutes what is probably the least humorous comedy film of all time, including at least the next 200 years of cinema that has yet to even happen! To be perfectly honest, the acting was actually ok. The parts were written terribly; to say they were two dimensional is to give them at least two too many dimensions. There was literally nothing there for the cast to work with. You know what? Instead of me rehashing all this here, here's my review that I posted to Facebook (originally only accessible to my friends and family, but now made public just so you all can access it; see how much I like my Previously.TV friends?): 

[Blergh]

It wasn't the trailer nor the all-women team that did it for me, it was that Progressive  tie-in ad with FLO as a giant ghost! NO WAY was I going to pay ANY monies to in any way encourage the continuation of supporting a shill I'm utterly SICK OF!  Maybe one day I may see it if makes it way to regular cable movies with no extra fees (or at least see enough of it to get the gist).

[SherriAnt]

I kind of think the new Ghostbusters would have worked better if they had gotten Bill Murray, Dan Ackroyd, etc. to reprise their roles, have the women be their daughters or nieces or something and make it a sort of passing the family business movie. That at least would make a bit of sense. It's like the recent  tv movie of Steel Magnolias. It's a good movie, why did it need to be remade? Especially word for word.

[Browncoat]

16 minutes ago, SherriAnt said:

I kind of think the new Ghostbusters would have worked better if they had gotten Bill Murray, Dan Ackroyd, etc. to reprise their roles, have the women be their daughters or nieces or something and make it a sort of passing the family business movie. That at least would make a bit of sense. It's like the recent  tv movie of Steel Magnolias. It's a good movie, why did it need to be remade? Especially word for word.

I liked your post so much @SherriAnt, that I had quote the whole thing.  A continuation of the original story would have been a MUCH better idea than this random remake thing.

[HunterHunted]

On 12/20/2016 at 6:13 PM, starri said:

Jennifer Lawrence.  Yeah, I said it.

One of my biggest issues with her is that David O. Russell insists on casting her in roles where she is solidly 10 to 20 years too young for. In Joy, a 25 year old Lawrence was playing a divorced 35 year old mother of 3. Really?!?!? I get that Russell likes to use some of the same people over again (Mark Wahlberg, Jennifer Lawrence, Bradley Cooper, Robert De Niro, Christian Bale and Amy Adams), but try to cast appropriately. I find it curious that he's not casting inappropriately for any of the other actors he likes to use, just Lawrence. The woman who was the basis for her character in American Hustle was in her forties. Her character was written like a woman in her late 30s to 40s, but played by a 22 year old.

Scarlett Johansson who when she has to do serious or dramatic goes flat affect. She doesn't have the subtlety to do interesting performances in drama. I've been calling her "the thinking man's Carmen Electra." She mostly picks roles in "smart" films, but she's hot not good. She's better in the Marvel movies, but those allow her to do some comedy, which she's surprisingly better at. 

I was just watching The Hobbit and I'm always astounded thinking of Sean Connery turning down the role of Gandalf because he didn't understand it. They offered him $10 million per picture and 15% of the net. I don't understand how he couldn't understand the part. It's not that complicated. And if he found it complicated, he could have talked to Peter Jackson, done some research online, picked up the books, listened to any of the many BBC radio plays, or put even the slightest effort into trying to understand the property that was being adapted. I've always found him to be a really lazy actor when he's just taking a paycheck. There is no light behind his eyes in those roles.

Edited September 5, 2017 by HunterHunted