|
Post by Ritsu on Jan 11, 2005 9:17:25 GMT -5
About Rusell Crowe and Mel Gibson. I said they had no manners and things like that. But I'm not one of those who let their personal habits get in between my opinion of their acting. Thing is, I don't like their acting either. Mel Gibson is good on comedies, he plays that 40 year-old-bachelor-with-women-after-him really well. But then, his parts are always the same. If you watch his movies, the dialogs and sort of character is always the same. The guy from What Women Want could be Brett/Bert from Maverick.
It's different with Russel Crowe. The parts he has played so far are different from each other, but there's something about him that annoys me. I started to think that he always wants to be the lead, and only accepts possible Oscar winning roles, and gets upset when he doesn't win. That's not being an actor, at least in my opinion. That's acting materialistically. An actor should be in Oscar winning roles and other not so good movies, whatever pleases him and interests him.
And I also don't like when you have a movie poster and there's the name of the actor above the movie title. Like Nicolas Cage on National Treasure or Russell Crowe in Master and Commander. There are other people involved, other than the lead. That's thirst for calling the attention and giving airs of what good performances they're pulling. I don't know. I'm a discreet person or something, or maybe I'm just too picky.
But Tom Hanks for instance is a wonderful actor, does all sorts of movie and is a humble person about it.
But better pull the attentions to oneself than make a wonderful presentation at some movie and be marked with it throughout their whole lives. Like Mark Hamill with Luke Skywalker. Or Malcolm McDowell and Alex DeLarge. You never get to do other roles without having the shadow of that previous role above you. I think that's one of the worst things that can happen to an actor, and I'm quite afraid it'll happen to the Harry Potter kids.
Ko, here's Julie Delpy... the image's a bit big, sorry
|
|
|
Post by d on Jan 11, 2005 10:02:02 GMT -5
I have always respected Mel as an actor for his ability to engage his emotions. Personally, I think he's big on his family, which is what he probably taps into for that. He has done some independent films though that no one knows about, but alot of the leading man stuff comes from the fact that most studios only offer those roles to him. Guys like Mel and Harrison Ford can rarely get much else unless they actually take part in the producing themselves. I also respect that Mel didn't insert himself into a role in "The Passion" just for the sake of being in his own movie. He actually wanted to cast someone else in Braveheart, but the Wallace family insisted on it.
The headline posters aren't a result of the actors (usually - don't get me going on Julia Roberts), and guys like Crowe would probably be happier not being over-promoted. One of the reasons Russell acts out is because he's sick of having to protect his privacy. The "National Treasure" thing is ridiculous because Cage is hardly even a box office draw anymore anyway. I think that movie would have been successful with anyone in his role.
Tom Hanks has more of an ego than he usually lets on in public, but he is also guilty of taking vanity roles. There was no reason to have him do six performances in "The Polar Express" except to say "Tom Hanks in six roles!" He was also reported as being upset when he didn't win the Oscar for "Cast Away".
|
|
|
Post by KoNeko on Jan 11, 2005 22:06:01 GMT -5
Blah! Cast Away was like the worst movie ever. I can't imagine why anyone would sit there for two hours watching Tom Hanks talk to a bloody volleyball. I guess he has had some good roles, but I don't really know. I told my sister about him being Robert Langdon and the first thing she said was "No way! Forest Gump can't be a symbologist!"
Hmmm, Julie Delpy is kinda hot. She looks a lot like the girl that's playing Fleur in GoF though methinks. Like an older version of her.
|
|
|
Post by d on Jan 12, 2005 8:46:56 GMT -5
I didn't like "Cast Away" either. I actually did like the concept, but it was about the worst final 1/3 of a movie I'd ever seen I can see Hanks doing anything though. I mean, Forrest Gump was also hitman Michael Sullivan, astronaut Jim Lovell, and AIDs victim Andrew Beckett. How many different roles can a person play? Any good actor will want challenges that stretch beyond the people they've played before and what's been expected of them. If they stick to a certain group of character types, they'll never be respected from an artistic point-of-view. Plus, everyone has different views on the characters they read in books. There are probably just as many people out there who are grateful for Hanks' casting. My view is that I have to see it first. Judging movies before they are released can cause one to miss something they'd really like. I thought - based on initial reviews, casting, and its general concept - that I would HATE "King Arthur". When I finally saw in on DVD, I was upset that I'd missed it in the theater.
|
|
|
Post by KoNeko on Jan 12, 2005 20:12:19 GMT -5
Hmmm, I guess. Maybe it's because I'm thinking that it'll be harder for Tom Hanks to convince me that he's being Robert Langdon, but if he can pull it off, then that must be good for him.
Question: any news on who is going to be Silas for this movie?
|
|
|
Post by d on Jan 13, 2005 9:02:54 GMT -5
Oh, I know Tom Hanks will have to do alot to pull it off. I just want to reserve too much doubt until I see it. I don't want to feel dumb again after doubting he could do "Road to Perdition" (which was a favourite graphic novel of mine).
|
|
|
Post by hermoine on Jan 22, 2005 12:36:33 GMT -5
Sorry to interrupt this great conversation, but I happened to be wandering around Comingsoon.net and found an article there on who will be playing Bezu Fache.
And mysteriously, I also found that:
I dunno about the last one. I just happened to find it there. But personally, the woman in that picture is a bit more like I imagined Sophie to be.
|
|
|
Post by Ritsu on Jan 22, 2005 13:21:43 GMT -5
Monica Bellucci! Omg! I love her, she's like... so... hot.
Anyway, I figured out Jean Reno would be the French cop. He's always the one American cast agencies choose when theres a French guy to be played. He must represent all French actors in one or something.
|
|
|
Post by KoNeko on Jan 22, 2005 20:16:48 GMT -5
Hoy! Jean Reno! I totally love him. He's a really good actor, although if I were him I'd really try to get out of that froggy stereotype. But yeah, Mina, there's only really him and Gerard Depardieu in terms of frogs in Hollywood, and it's not like they'd ask Gerard. He'd be too old and he just doesn't look the type.
Sophie Marceau... yeah, she looks more edgy and hardcore than Julie Delpy. But is there any word on who is going to be Silas? I don't know why I'm so curious, but I didn't think there were that many six foot albino actors around...
|
|
|
Post by Zicdeh on Jan 23, 2005 0:00:41 GMT -5
Maybe they'll get Mel Gibson to play Silas, considering how he's supposed to be involved with Opus Dei and all
That is an interesting question. Who would make a good Silas? I want to know who they're going to get to play Sir Leigh Teabing....he's a pretty importaint character. I had this discussion with a friend, and we came to the conclusion that Ian McKellen would make a good Teabing, but that was as far as we got
I'm not sure i agree with Tom Hanks as Langdon, though.....
|
|
|
Post by KoNeko on Jan 23, 2005 1:33:31 GMT -5
Yeah, I'd pay to watch Mel Gibson flagellate himself.
Hmmm, Leigh Teabing... I always sort of thought of him as someone that looks a bit like Richard Attenborough or something. Like the portly and jolly British type, which you can contrast with the cranky frogs.
|
|
|
Post by Zicdeh on Jan 23, 2005 1:43:36 GMT -5
hmmm.......Richard Attenborough could work...although i can't really imagine him being an evil uber-religious guy
|
|
|
Post by KoNeko on Jan 23, 2005 1:49:04 GMT -5
Well, that's the thing. Because you don't realise the twist until the end (if you haven't read the book) he just comes across as a nice, jolly Pom. But he can probably pull off an evil guy as well. Or something in between... I was sort of thinking about Jurassic Park when he was the person that brought in all the technology and it just went awry.
|
|
|
Post by Zicdeh on Jan 23, 2005 1:59:06 GMT -5
yeah, i suppose he'd only be evil for about 20 minutes of the movie....and David Attenborough isa very jolly pom
|
|
|
Post by hermoine on Feb 28, 2005 4:39:37 GMT -5
The Sophie matter is really starting to get on my nerves! I checked to see if perhaps someone else had been cast, and what do I find? An article saying that Sophie Marceau won't be playing Sophie Neveu. Audrey Tatou will. And once again I'm not that happy. She seems too young. Maybe they could change that with make-up.
|
|