Oh yeah hugh grant is pretty awful unless you want a really awkward stereotypical posh englishman then he is your go to guy
I haven't seen After Earth so I can't comment on that but I have seen him in The Pursuit of Happiness and The Karate Kid, and I thought his performances in those films were fine, especially POH. Having said that there are better kid actors out there who really out class him, Nathan Gamble and Asa Butterfield being just two I can think of off the top of my head.Hoplon said:Having been taken to a screening of after earth, Jaden Smith is one of the worst actors working today.
80sboy said:I was going to say this. I loved Collateral, it's such a fantastic film and Tom Cruise and Jamie Foxx are both perfect in their roles. Tom Cruise seems a lot less like a slimy twat when he's rocking the silver fox look too.Legion said:Interesting thing about Tommy there is he makes exceptional assholes or villains... his best work is in Collateral.VoidWanderer said:Or in the case of Tom Cruise, as was already mentioned, he is always "Tom Cruise". The exception being Tropic Thunder, but then again he was playing a caricature more than an actual character.
I think he has a better knack to play an asshole... hmmm... I wonder why?
![]()
I was actually really shocked to find out they were the same people, because I thought Digory was really solid in Goblet of Fire. I don't think there's much anyone could do to save Twilight and having pictures of you in the ridiculous makeup they gave everyone is probably never going to be good for improving what people think of you as an actor.Aesir23 said:Robert Pattinson actually did pretty well in Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire. It just seems that his primary mistake was auditioning for a poorly written movie based off of a poorly written book that is so massively popular that it's become what he's most known for now.
The nicest I can say about Nickolas cage is that his acting is exactly like a rice cake topped with styrofoam. But it has a little party hat on ... It's quirky that way.shootthebandit said:Nick cage. I think thats all i need to say
I have to admit, I like Pattinson's acting. Twilight sucked, but look at what the guy had to work with for god's sake. And I might actually want to see him in something better, I just know that he can act. I guess we'll just have to wait and see.BrotherRool said:I was actually really shocked to find out they were the same people, because I thought Digory was really solid in Goblet of Fire. I don't think there's much anyone could do to save Twilight and having pictures of you in the ridiculous makeup they gave everyone is probably never going to be good for improving what people think of you as an actor.Aesir23 said:Robert Pattinson actually did pretty well in Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire. It just seems that his primary mistake was auditioning for a poorly written movie based off of a poorly written book that is so massively popular that it's become what he's most known for now.
I say if you want to watch a movie where Ryan Reynolds will convince you that he is a good actor when he's given a decent role, and those are few and far between, watch Buried. His performance held me until the very end. He's a good actor.Galletea said:I find Ryan Reynolds is the only one I can see no redeeming features in.
Defending Keanu Reeves, he's played at least two roles that work, one due to his vacant performance, and the other is just plain fun (the first one, I haven't seen the 2nd one), in order, A Scanner Darkly. That movie is soul-crushingly depressing, but well performed. It's one of my favorite movies, as an anti-drug statement as well as a film. Keanu does quite well in the role. The other is Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure, but I don't think that really counts, I suppose, but I like Keanu in it.Johnny Impact said:Don't care for Keanu Reeves. He has that, I don't know, vacancy I guess? It worked to his advantage in The Matrix. As a messianic figure, Neo was supposed to be more or less a blank slate whom the audience/characters could pin all manner of significance and personal wishes onto.
For my legit pick, I've gotta go with this.Galletea said:I find Ryan Reynolds is the only one I can see no redeeming features in.
shogunblade said:I'm not a giant Adam Sandler fan but in the spirit of giving credit where credit is due.Galletea said:.
Rob Schneider is only one notch above Adam Sandler as an actor I cannot stand, but the guy does play his roles well enough, comic foils are what he seems to do best, especially when he's performing against Adam Sandler. It is also my understanding that Rob did do a comedy/drama a few years ago where his dramatic capabilities came out of hiding. It's not very good, from what I've heard, but at least he's tried, and I can't fault him on that.
"Happy Gilmour" is flat out funny. I will accept that the stories don't feel like they have changed much since.
IMHO "Punch Drunk Love" is good and his performance is out of of his normal range and is good.
Some of his acting tics appear in "50 First Dates" but I thought he was pretty good in that.
My memory of "Funny People" is that the movie is disjointed and not very good but his performance is credible.
My only caveat is that I have relied on my memory for these opinions, so I could well be wrong. Oh dear, maybe I do not have the courage of my convictions.
If you see any of his Twilight interviews your opinion of him will probably improve. It seems he's not really a fan of the books or the character but money is money.keniakittykat said:I have to admit, I like Pattinson's acting. Twilight sucked, but look at what the guy had to work with for god's sake. And I might actually want to see him in something better, I just know that he can act. I guess we'll just have to wait and see.BrotherRool said:I was actually really shocked to find out they were the same people, because I thought Digory was really solid in Goblet of Fire. I don't think there's much anyone could do to save Twilight and having pictures of you in the ridiculous makeup they gave everyone is probably never going to be good for improving what people think of you as an actor.Aesir23 said:Robert Pattinson actually did pretty well in Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire. It just seems that his primary mistake was auditioning for a poorly written movie based off of a poorly written book that is so massively popular that it's become what he's most known for now.
I've seen True Grit, and honestly it struck me as just drunk John Wayne. I liked it, but still, he has never made me see him as anyone else then John Wayne.trty00 said:That's because you've probably only seen the movies that John didn't have to act. You ever see True Grit or The Searchers? Those were just a few of the films he really put a performance into.Shock and Awe said:Gonna catch shit for this, but John Wayne. He doesn't act, he just played John Wayne in everything. Not saying it wasn't great, but he was still John Wayne in everything. This applies to Clint Eastwood to a lesser extent, and I fucking love Clint Eastwood.