A cranky moviegoer writes:

[jake_fink]

*Warning: spleen-cleaning ahead, scenes of unfocused anger and general disgruntlement; sweet people may be offended*

I think movies are getting worse by the second. Films and filmakers are getting more desperate and willing to sink to all new lows... I mean, James Cameron can't stop talking about 3D.... 3D!?!?!

There are a number of websites that provide as "content" little bits of trivia designed to interest us in the upcoming debacles Hollywood is planning to dump on us. Ain't it Cool News is one of the worst for its tone, managing to be both gormless and pretentious, and for it's absolutely hideous design. There are many many others, among them, ComingSoon.net.

Recently I posted a thread related to an item on CS.net, the item being that Peter Dinklage would play the villain in the upcoming Underdog movie. It is while reading items like that I resolve to get more fresh air, to take up cello and to reread all of Dosoyevsky... and then I get mad. Let me put aside my innermost private personal feelings (and my personality disorder) for now and focus on the item itself, a blantant plant or shill by Dinklage's or Underdog The Movie's publicity hack (match me, Sidney), because, frankly, who but someone with a financial interest in this dreck could possibly care. So, along with proving that the law of diminishing returns is Hollywood's guiding principle, it proves, yet again, that the internet has nothing like what Hemingway once described as an unshakeable s#!t detector.

And now, in my idle minutes between meaningful and useful industry, I come across this insanity:

http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=14284

Another occasion for self-serving publicity on CS.net.

This time it hit a real nerve. The item - save yourself some time and don't bother reading it - is a paen to Luke Wison and a preview of all the goodies he has in store for us. My problem is that Luke Wilson and his brother Owen represent one of the big problems I have with the modern movie industry, the inexplicable overuse of and even stardom of actors who cannot act. Of course there have always been stars and "actors" who cannot act but they often have something called charisma, they are fascinating, or at least interesting enough that they work on the screen, even if they aren't all Laurence Oliviers. But Luke Wilson!?!?

Oh how I dislike those useless Wilsons. Luke, we are told, has starred in "some of the most daring and darkest comedies" of the last ten years. The cloth ear of the writer aside, though this crepitant diction puts my teeth on edge, this is blatantly untrue; since Bottle Rocket he has been in, to my reckoning, a non-stop, fast-flowing stream of cinematic sewage, and all without moving a single, stoic muscle on his unremarkable face! Somebody, somewhere is putting a lot of effort into manufacturing Luke Wilson's nominal stardom while the "creatives" in the industry seem less able to create anything of worth than the proverbial monkeys at their typewriters. It's enough to make a cineaste despair!

I'm going to end now with a question that I hope you can help me with, if you made it this far. Who are the great actors of this generation? I don't want to lead your answers, so I'll refrain from naming the greats of the past as examples, but I will say that I can't think of a single actor or actress currently at work in film who is anything but marginally passable occassionally.

But then, what do they have to work with.

Dismally yours,

Jake_Fink

 

[Baron Kurtz]

I'll have a think about good actors, but i must say one of Wilson's upcoming treats sounds great:

"Wilson's character is a regular guy who dumps his superhero girlfriend who then decides to use her powers to make his life a living hell."

I can't wait!!!!

bk

 

[Marc Chevalier]

The theater has good actors, helped by good directors.

Motion pictures have, for the most part, average actors with directors and editors who make them "good". A movie actor is only as "good" as his/her director and editor. Actually, it goes both ways: I've seen some movie actors' fine performances edited into mediocrity.

.

 

[Feraud]

And now, in my idle minutes between meaningful and useful industry, I come across this insanity:

http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=14284

Oh man.. Why did you post that link!? I know you warned us but..
I am still trying to figure out what exactly Wilson's "dark & daring" comedies are! It has to be either Legally Blonde II or Charlie's Angels. Those films gave me nightmares.
I have been digging into my thoughts to answer your question about this generation's great actors. I have a couple in mind but when I try to type their name I realize they have not done a decent film in a long while.
I cannot name any current actor that can be called great. One performance does not (or should not) build a career or garner everlasting accolades.
I am stumped.

 

[Baggers]

I nominate Gary Oldman, simply because he is the only actor I can think of working today who totally loses himself in a role. He never seems to be playing subtle variations on himself, he creates a completely different character each time. More than once my wife has had to remind me that he was the actor playing a particular role in a film we've just watched. The man has acting chops that I can only dream about having.

Cheers!

 

[Maj.Nick Danger]

Tom Cruise

NOT! lol


Just kidding!

But seriously,.....I'm at a loss to think of one really outstanding actor. Many have given memorable performances, but not consistently. [huh]

Maybe Cristopher Walken? But he generally ends up being type cast as an edgy, sorta crazy eccentric.

 

[MDFrench]

I agree that 95% of films today are pretty bad and the actors are not memorable in the long run, but after having watching MANY obscure films played on Turner Classic from the golden era I can say with safety and proof that there were MANY mediocre and even bad films of the 1930s and 1940s with bonafide stars in the leading roles. I think bad films have forever plagued the industry, but where 65 years ago only 45% were bad, now the scales have tipped due to what I call "creative inbreeding."

Where filmmakers and actors were once refugees, war veterans, immigrants and the sons of poor shoe cobblers with rich life experiences to bring to their movies, now all of the directors and actors are the product of the entertainment system. All they know is from movies and hence many of these artists have nothing poignant to say anymore. Welcome to the American Idol generation, where everyone wants to be a star even though they have nothing rich to say.

 

[Benny Holiday]

Sir Anthony Hopkins.

I can't think of any others in his league right now.

 

[The Captain]

"And still we go to the movies!"

I, too, am constantly underwhelmed by the screen performances of most of todays' "stars". I'm too old to be impressed by some vapid, just-out-of-their-teens blond du jour who can barely speak a sentence without saying, "You know?" Charlize Theron is one who gives a role her all. To be honest, when someone says "actor", the names that come to mind are Robert Duvall and Gene Hackman. They have always impressed me as true artists. There are many more, I'm sure, that fit that category, but...........

 

[Feraud]

How are we defining "this generation"? Would this include actors working within the last 10-20 years or so?

Duvall, Hackman, Hopkins, while all fine actors are of which generation exactly? I assumed they are from an earlier one. Someone enlighten me!

 

[jake_fink]

How are we defining "this generation"? Would this include actors working within the last 10-20 years or so?

One of the first answers was Gary Oldman, but I'd say he was of another generation since I was watching him in films and on television in the 1980s and he was blowing me away then.

Anthony Hopkins was also suggested, but again, not exactly this generation.

Anyone who is a current or recent star - Tom Cruise would qualify, though I'd consider Al Pacino an earlier generation.

Basically, just tell me who in film can act, who could be called an artist as well as a star?

Tomorrow I'll vet a few names from the past to give you a better idea of what I'm getting at, but for now.... What, no Will Farrell!?!? No Jack Black? No Keanu Reeves?

There are a few I'd conced. I was a littel uptitght and a little dispeptic when I wrote the original post.

 

[Doh!]

All hope is not lost: go see Thank You for Smoking starring Aaron Eckhart. He never disappoints, and the movie's terrific.

 

[Senator Jack]

Though he never seems to get a good role, and he was in Forrest Gump which I hated, I think Gary Sinise is a damned fine actor.

And yes Jake Fink, you get the high honors and cheers for using 'gormless'.

Regards,

Senator Jack

 

[jamespowers]

Though he never seems to get a good role, and he was in Forrest Gump which I hated, I think Gary Sinise is a damned fine actor.

My gosh! I actually agree with you. He is indeed a fine actor who hasn't found a fine film to showcase his talents.
I was think of actors and could not come up with one. Sinise is a good call. :eusa_clap

Regards,

J

 

[Baron Kurtz]

Hmmm Baggers beat em to Gary Oldman. And he's apparently not current.

What about Johnny Depp? I've always thought he is underrated as a actor ...

bk

 

[Feraud]

What, no Will Farrell!?!? No Jack Black? No Keanu Reeves?

Nah. The first two have made a funny film or two but they have not yet established anything to crow about. Keanu Reeves is barely out of his "Bill & Ted" stoner phase. I will say he plays obtuse to a "T"! lol

I think George Clooney is a great actor of our Generation and will be remembered as such. He has "movie star" good looks, can act, and has a brain. He can hold his own in comedies (O Brother, Intolerable Cruelty), drama ( Good Night Good Luck, Syriana), and is involved in Producing and directing. He makes consistently watchable films. Clooney is no pretty boy "flash in the pan" a hit or two to his name. 20-30 years from now no one is going to be asking, "what ever happended to George Clooney" like we do Jan Michael Vincent or Mickey Rourke.

Other actors I would add to the list would be David Strathhairn and Chris Cooper.

 

[Naama]

Come on guys! How can one complain about hollywood movies if he never seen a trailer for a german TV movie! I mean, they understand how to steal from a bunch of different lousy hollywood films to make an even lousyer movie, with baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaad (and I mean baaaaaaaaad) actors and baaaaaaaaaaaad directors and I think they don't even use a cinematographer. But who cares, you will see like 10000.0000 nude and/or bed scenes! So what do you want more?!
I know, today hollywood situation isn't that great, but remember, it could be worse (really, belive me)!

Naama

 

[Feraud]

I agree things could always be worse. My personal complaint is not the quality of US films versus the rest of the world. I am judging American Film against itself.

Either we are in a creative slump or the percent of good to bad films & actors have always been there.

If I am reading this correctly, what jake_fink is asking is who will we look back on with pride and joy. Will some young actor or actress 30 years from now say, "I remember the first time I saw Lindsay Lohan on screen..."?:eusa_doh:
Will names like Depp, Cruise, or Clooney be as recognizable as The Duke, Bogie or Cagney?

That is the question as I see it...

 

[johnnycanuck]

First you did not define "this generation" so I will try and center on who is in theatres right now. Robert Redford, Morgan Freeman, Paul Newman, Harrison Ford. Ok they are all over sixty. George Clooney, Patric Dempsey, Keanu Reeves, Jim Carry. Ok They are all over fourty. Matt Damon, Joaquin Phoenix, Sean Patrick Flanery, Tobey Maguire, Brendan Fraser. Now lets not even think of kids under thirty.
When thinking about movies you have to think about a few things. Some actors can just make a character come to life and fill a room, John Cleese for example, but if that character is not that big or important you don't what. Jeff Daniels is great but he plays normal people so well he, like normal people, can be overlooked. How many people noticed his stellar performance in "Good night and good luck"? Exactly. Now besides directors directions and editors cuts the next most important thing is Script. Movies now are action, eye candy based. Few movies are character based anymore. Matrix I liked. I think they should have stopped there. The sequels action, eye candy based. So where is the acting? I don't know but did you see that CGI explosion. Last I would like to point out is actors get better with age. Men and Women alike. I don't really like Tom Cruse. For his age I think he should be taking on better roles then the third sequel to a TV show remake. But compare "Risky business" to "interview with a vampire" he has improved. My opinion is turn off the computers leave the CGI to the next PS2 game and get to making the films with a script not a blue screen.
Johnny

 

[jamespowers]

My opinion is turn off the computers leave the CGI to the next PS2 game and get to making the films with a script not a blue screen.
Johnny

And quit making remakes of movies in hopes that the people who have seen the original have died already. :rage: Poisidon again!? It affects my wife more than it does me and I really don't like it.
Where has all the originality gone in Hollywood? Resting on long past laurels seems to be their modus over the last 20 years.
How about going out on a limb and bringing in the video games that have been made into movies?

Regards,

J