The Shrine

...other than Keanu Reaves playing an emotionless alien...

the most recent trailer on tv pleaded with you to see this movie JUST so you could see the Wolverine trailer.

This movie will be awful.

Wolverine trailor? Ugh.... im refusing to see anymore comic/superhero movies, period. Fuck, i know Hollywood goes though phases (natural disaster, war, alien, etc), but this comic one is dragging on and on and on and on.

Flip wrote:Wolverine trailor? Ugh.... im refusing to see anymore comic/superhero movies, period. Fuck, i know Hollywood goes though phases (natural disaster, way, alien, etc), but this comic one is dragging on and on and on and on.

Not that I'm saying Wolverine will be any good, but did you not like Iron Man and the most recent Hulk? If every comic movie was as good as those, I'd be happy with a new one each year.

Flip wrote:Wolverine trailor? Ugh.... im refusing to see anymore comic/superhero movies, period. Fuck, i know Hollywood goes though phases (natural disaster, war, alien, etc), but this comic one is dragging on and on and on and on.

The variety is there that it's not the same thing as 20 natural disaster films in 4 months like we've seen in the past. Besides, there has been lots of good ones in recent years. If they can keep that up I'd like to see more

Y'know, I've so little enthusiasm for it now, but I have a strange feeling that I'm going to be really keen on seeing the Wolverine movie when it comes out.

Mully wrote:...other than Keanu Reaves playing an emotionless alien...

How is that a reason that the movie will be awful? An emotionless alien sounds like the PERFECT ROLE for the wooden actor that he is. I don't think they coulda picked a better actor (except maybe Data from TNG, but he's getting a bit old)

Flip wrote:Wolverine trailor? Ugh.... im refusing to see anymore comic/superhero movies, period. Fuck, i know Hollywood goes though phases (natural disaster, war, alien, etc), but this comic one is dragging on and on and on and on.

Get used to it. Movie companies are finally, FINALLY realizing that comic books are a good source of stories, just like books. Plus, comic books aren't all about superheroes, and some movies aren't obvious about being based around comic books.

Did you know that A History of Violence was based on a comic book? Also, Y: The Last Man is being made into a movie series, and it's not like your typical comic book. Sin City, while it was well known to be based on a comic book, it didn't really act like a typical one. 300 is another example.

Tessian wrote:How is that a reason that the movie will be awful? An emotionless alien sounds like the PERFECT ROLE for the wooden actor that he is. I don't think they coulda picked a better actor (except maybe Data from TNG, but he's getting a bit old)

Jesus.... what is with the Keanu hate everywhere? I actually heard a friend at work say that he acts like Ted (from Bill & Ted) in every role he's in. What the fuck? You mean this Ted? No no no! People forget just how different that role is from every other one he did. Sure, he did a "surfing cop" role after that one, but at least he didn't have to act like a fucking idiot like he did with Ted.

I really don't understand what you guys think makes an actor seem great. Why is Jack Nicholson great? Because he can act crazy and be animated? As long as he has roles he can either yell and get pissed off, or act crazy, he's considered "good"? It's just Jack Nicholson playing Jack Nicholson as Jack Nicholson in Jack Nicholson: The Movie. Hell, you guys were glad that Jack Nicholson muted his own samey batshit-crazy attitude in The Departed.

So, if Jack Nicholson is universally accepted as a quote-unquote "good actor", then why is that? Somebody please explain this to me, because quite frankly, I don't think any of you really understand what the fuck the definition of a "good actor" is. Fucking double standards. He gets all animated, and he's a fucking awesome actor. He plays quiet, muted roles, and he's a "wooden" actor.

SineSwiper wrote: So, if Jack Nicholson is universally accepted as a quote-unquote "good actor", then why is that? Somebody please explain this to me, because quite frankly, I don't think any of you really understand what the fuck the definition of a "good actor" is. Fucking double standards. He gets all animated, and he's a fucking awesome actor. He plays quiet, muted roles, and he's a "wooden" actor.

Who said Jack Nicholson was a good actor? You're right. If he's not angry/animated not good.

Examples of Keanu Reaves acting horribly/wooden: The Matrix (wooden),The Devil's Advocate (wooden), he's basically like Nicholson, but no one wants to see Keanu as the same guy all the time.

My definition of a "good actor" some one who can immerse themselves in a role and nail it every time, someone who causes me feelings towards the character, things like that . This is a short list of good Actors IMO. These actors IMO will give a top notch performance every time, but also these people have had bad roles, but you can see where they made it up: Phillip Seymor Hoffman, Don Cheadle, Daniel Day-Lewis, John C. Reilly, Alfred Molina, Willem Dafoe, my list goes on...

Bad Actors (this list of people is compiled of people whose bad movies out weight there good ones, each of these people probably had a hit, but more misses than hits) : Keanu Reeves (wooden, same "guy" in every movie), Vince Vaughn (quick talking list maker), Samuel L. Jackson (later stuff has been awful), Eddie Griffin, Jean-Claude Van Damme (LOL), George Clooney (minus O' Brother), Nicolas Cage, Eddie Murphy



(LOL...then on my own definition Keanu should be in my list. He's takes roles where he doesn't need to express emotion...and NAILS it.)

Keanu Reeves doesn't have much range. This works fine when his character is called upon to mostly deliver deadpan lines, such as in The Matrix or Constantine. He's compotent, and some roles suit him (Constantine in particular), but I don't think "Wow, what a great performance."

Nicholson's performance in A Few Good Men is beyond just some yelling. The real performance is before the yelling, where he looks like a man barely able to contain his contempt and rage. The entire movie - and his entire performance - build up to that scene. That's why it's so memorable.

Bill S. Preston Esquire and Ted Theodore Logan?

WILD STALLIONS!

Kupek wrote:Nicholson's performance in A Few Good Men is beyond just some yelling. The real performance is before the yelling, where he looks like a man barely able to contain his contempt and rage. The entire movie - and his entire performance - build up to that scene. That's why it's so memorable.

But, that still equates emotion to good acting. What about the opposite? Keanu Reeves, while good at doing more normal roles, excels at that almost deadpan emotionless feel to certain characters. It's not all about being completely devoid of emotion, but putting it in the right places. In Constantine, it was more like focused apathy with plenty of assholishness, and the role worked well.

Playing a Vulcan-like character certainly isn't easy.

bovine wrote:Bill S. Preston Esquire and Ted Theodore Logan?

WILD STALLIONS!

RADICAL! *AIR GUITAR!!!!*

SineSwiper wrote:But, that still equates emotion to good acting. What about the opposite? Keanu Reeves, while good at doing more normal roles, excels at that almost deadpan emotionless feel to certain characters. It's not all about being completely devoid of emotion, but putting it in the right places. In Constantine, it was more like focused apathy with plenty of assholishness, and the role worked well.

To some degree, yes. But it's more I can tell from his face what his character is thinking. That takes skill.

One good example is from Stranger Than Fiction, when Will Ferrell's character bring Maggie Gyllenhaal's character "flours." You can see on Gyllenhaal's face the moment her character goes from "why is this creep following me" to "that's the sweetest thing anyone has done for me." She doesn't say this, but her face does.

We pick up a lot from facial expressions and body language; not all communication is verbal. That's what good performances have: communicating with the audience about their character through more than just dialogue.

Kupek wrote:
One good example is from Stranger Than Fiction, when Will Ferrell's character bring Maggie Gyllenhaal's character "flours." You can see on Gyllenhaal's face the moment her character goes from "why is this creep following me" to "that's the sweetest thing anyone has done for me." She doesn't say this, but her face does.

I loved that movie and that was one of my favorite scenes.

/Wearing the watch from that movie... no I didn't know until after I bought the watch.

Kupek wrote:One good example is from Stranger Than Fiction, when Will Ferrell's character bring Maggie Gyllenhaal's character "flours." You can see on Gyllenhaal's face the moment her character goes from "why is this creep following me" to "that's the sweetest thing anyone has done for me." She doesn't say this, but her face does.

You think this scene wasn't discussed by the director to have her act like that? The fact that you notice that means that the director did his job in making that scene better.

Whether or not it was discussed with the director isn't relevant to my point. Being able to give such a subtle performance is the mark of a good actor.

Kupek wrote:Whether or not it was discussed with the director isn't relevant to my point. Being able to give such a subtle performance is the mark of a good actor.

Actually, it's very relevant. An actor or actress can do anything a director tells them to.

SineSwiper wrote:

Kupek wrote:Whether or not it was discussed with the director isn't relevant to my point. Being able to give such a subtle performance is the mark of a good actor.

Actually, it's very relevant. An actor or actress can do anything a director tells them to.

Not if they don't have the skill to do what the director wants them to do. I think that's Kupek's point. At the end of the scene, the director only has the power to explain what they want done. The actor must make it happen.

Directors and actors are supposed to have a dynamic, a great director can no better make a poor actor act any better than a music conductor can make a poor trumpet player play well.