The Movie House - Part 4

Don't call me James wrote:Ex Machina chick

Can't wait to watch her speak Danish. Also her schedule this year is amazing.

El Gunner wrote:

Freeza wrote:I said she's good she's just not the best out there. Everything about her interviews feel forced. Hope she becomes more natural when she gets older. If you want to talk about a likeable person, Emma Stone is up there, she's not beautiful or anything, but damn is she amazingly likeable. Also a better actress in that age-range.

Are we really going to do this one again?

I'll say it again, Elgee, she isn't. She's in fact ugly.

Freeza wrote:

Think Jennifer Lawrence is good but probably the most overrated actress in Hollywood today. Will watch for Cooper and De Niro though. Cooper and De Niro was the best things about SLP and American Hustle (didn't like the film at all, but they were great).

+1
Agree with everything.
SLP was a good film but not as good as people make it to be. American Hustle was a pain. Fricking fashion parade. Couldnt connect with a single character in that film.

----

Winter's bone was her best performance thats correct.
John Hawkes What an actor that guy is !!
More films please sir.
Have only seen him in 3 movies and each time he is sucha joy to watch.

Emma stone is more beautiful than J Lawrence for me and more likable too certainly. I dislike Shailene woodley with a passion btw. She for me is more overrated than J Lawrence.

Mia Wasikowska is my fav young actress. Alicia vikander is impressive as well but have only seen 1 film of hers so far.

Jennifer Lawrence deserved her Oscar for Silver Linings Playbook She is quite talented and I expect her versatility to improve once she is finally done with Hunger Games this year.

She needs to *bleep* off from that Divergent shit

El Gunner wrote:I have great hopes (or at least a personal hope) for Shailene Woodley tbh. She just needs to skip the romantic comedies for a while and take on some drama roles and her acting abilities will branch out into the sunlight.

She already attempted that once but failed miserably. White Bird in a Blizzard. Eventhough that film was pathetic and its screenplay and stuff didnt help one bit (shocking as it came from one of the most visionary directors of this day and age, Gregg Areki), In that film she was nowhere to be seen and that when she was supposed to carry the film as she played the title character.

Have seen actors in bad films and if they are legit, even despite the failings of the film at least their part will stand out (for eg, Michael shannon in Iceman).  A luxury actress Imo. When things go well, she can look good for eg. Descendants.

Not saying she cant improve, she certainly can. She is young and have time. But as the things stand she is playing to her strengths and playing it safe to garner popularity and fame, that is by means of good looks, good boobs and a nice refreshing voice.

94% on Rotten Tomatoes

El Gunner wrote:

Glory wrote:

El Gunner wrote:I have great hopes (or at least a personal hope) for Shailene Woodley tbh. She just needs to skip the romantic comedies for a while and take on some drama roles and her acting abilities will branch out into the sunlight.

She already attempted that once but failed miserably. White Bird in a Blizzard. Eventhough that film was pathetic and its screenplay and stuff didnt help one bit (shocking as it came from one of the most visionary directors of this day and age, Gregg Areki), In that film she was nowhere to be seen and that when she was supposed to carry the film as she played the title character.

Have seen actors in bad films and if they are legit, even despite the failings of the film at least their part will stand out (for eg, Michael shannon in Iceman).  A luxury actress Imo. When things go well, she can look good for eg. Descendants.

Not saying she cant improve, she certainly can. She is young and have time. But as the things stand she is playing to her strengths and playing it safe to garner popularity and fame, that is by means of good looks, good boobs and a nice refreshing voice.

Mainstream, or at least a bit more known dramas is what I'm talking about. Like Descendents. I don't even know anything about that film you just mentioned.
And I'm sure she'll get those within the coming years, she's too talented enough not too.

She was really good in The Spectacular Now and The Fault in Our Stars. Both of which has a drama feel to it, but they are indeed romcoms more than anything else per sé.

@M99 agreed. This Divergent shit (much like JLaw in Hunger Games) doesn't do much for the progress of her career (expect the money and popularity of course)

What difference thats going to make. A good film is a good film, mainstream or arthouse. Strange logic.
If she cant play a role well in an arthouse film, whats the guarantee she will do justice if she is offered the same role in a bigger production.
One wont deliberately act bad in a smaller film.

See this is the one.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2238050/?ref_=nv_sr_1

Winter's bone is a similar smaller film and Lawrence did a fine job in that.

Fault in our stars cant be a benchmark. Thats a mere okay film and her role in that wasnt special either. Anyone could have played that part.
Havent seen Spectacular now btw.
Dont even want to talk about Divergent.

Irrational Man doesn't seem to be doing too good

Not a big fan of Woody Allen at all. Only really loved Midnight in Paris.

Just my 2 cents.

Agree that Lawrence is severely overrated. SLP was excellent not because she or Cooper killed it individually, but because their chemistry as leads killed it. I always pictured an older actress such as Marisa Tomei or Anna Gunn playing her part in American Hustle....couldn't get over the fact that she just didn't seem to really "fill" into her costumes, which all looked too big for her. Just seemed like she wasn't at all a good fit for that role so when she got the nom, I was gob-smacked. She wasn't THAT good in that flick.

Never saw Woodley as anything special honestly, but she caught my eye when she was initially cast as Mary Jane in Amazing Spiderman 2, but then dropped out. Hasn't been on my radar since. She was super flat in Divergent, but not bad at all in the Fault in Our Stars. He male co-star was much better though I thought.

Emma Stone does have a bit of a buttaface, but she's undeniably fit. Beyond that, I consider her far more talented than Lawrence or Woodley and that's primarily because of her range of acting. She's done a bit of everything and she has done it quite well. Loved her in Easy A and Birdman.

I have not seen a whole lot of Mia Wasikowska so I can't really rate her along the same lines as the others. Based on the projects she's taken on alone though, I do feel I'd probably like her quite a bit. Very versatile.

El Gunner wrote:

Glory wrote:

El Gunner wrote:

Mainstream, or at least a bit more known dramas is what I'm talking about. Like Descendents. I don't even know anything about that film you just mentioned.
And I'm sure she'll get those within the coming years, she's too talented enough not too.

She was really good in The Spectacular Now and The Fault in Our Stars. Both of which has a drama feel to it, but they are indeed romcoms more than anything else per sé.

@M99 agreed. This Divergent shit (much like JLaw in Hunger Games) doesn't do much for the progress of her career (expect the money and popularity of course)

What difference thats going to make. A good film is a good film, mainstream or arthouse. Strange logic.
If she cant play a role well in an arthouse film, whats the guarantee she will do justice if she is offered the same role in a bigger production.
One wont deliberately act bad in a smaller film.

See this is the one.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2238050/?ref_=nv_sr_1

Winter's bone is a similar smaller film and Lawrence did a fine job in that.

Fault in our stars cant be a benchmark. Thats a mere okay film and her role in that wasnt special either. Anyone could have played that part.
Havent seen Spectacular now btw.
Dont even want to talk about Divergent.

I struggle sometimes to debate this mainstream vs. smaller type films with people, there is obviously a difference and factors that come in. But I just don't know how to explain myself really.

It's basically the same with people discrediting the 'Hollywood' factor.

You make it to the top with performances in bigger films. That's just my point. Most people watch Descendents and not White Bird in a Blizzard.
Let's say for argument's sake, If she delivers a good performance in White Bird and a bad one in Descendents, majority always wins and she is going to be seen as a bad actress. Doesn't matter if some guy in a little village saw her performance in White Bird and think she is good... mass media wins! Hollywood wins (most of the time)! And that's the picture she's going to be painted in, and that's how the Hollywood cycle works. Next director making a film won't consider her because a star status isn't there. Back to thugging it out in indie films it is then for that person and then it comes down to her dedication an sheer will if she can put in a performance and hope she can make it back into the bigger films.

Btw I'm not saying you are from a small village it was just an example

Okay so according to this, all actors who deliver great performances in arthouse films, people wont notice them but instead they will only when they do something substantial in a big film ? Is that what you are trying to say ?  At least Thats what I got. Sorry if i interpreted it incorrectly. So based on what I got, Pardon me I Disagree.

Also I was talking about performance of the actor in a role and his/her acting ability but not about career, fame and money. So we are basically saying 2 different things.

And that bolded part is wrong. True majority of the fans will see her as a bad actor if she is doing badly in a big film, but that majority you are mentioning are the ones who like trashy hollywood potboilers and popcorn movies. A serious film viewer (not just confined to indie film watchers or critics mind you, by a serious film viewer i mean people with some sort of awareness and knowledge about what they are watching at least) will never judge talent and ability of actors based on their performance in a mega budget or a big budget film. They simply wont.
So like I said, a good actor is a good actor, and a bad one is bad. Simple. No other factors have a say in that like you are saying.
True a Sam Rockwell will never become as famous as a say Tom hanks. But that doesnt necessarily mean Tom hanks is a better actor than Rockwell. Fame and money is not directly proportional to acting ability and talent. The ones with luck will make it big, while others wont.

"A serious film viewer (not just confined to indie film watchers or critics mind you, by a serious film viewer i mean people with some sort of awareness and knowledge about what they are watching at least) will never judge talent and ability of actors based on their performance in a mega budget or a big budget film. They simply wont. "

That's a pretentious comment if I ever saw one.
Talent should be judger in everything an actor do. If someone has the ability to perform well in a big movie, that's different than an actor that can perform well in a smaller movie. Harrison Ford and Tom Cruise are great examples of big Hollywood actors who have more ability and talent than anybody at being in a big budget film, that's their forté. No one could possibly act their blockbuster roles better than they did. If you took an arthouse actor and put them in Harrison Ford's roles, they wouldn't get close to the performance he delivered and vice versa. You aren't more talented, because you act well in a movie that doesn't get seen. But if you want to think arthouse and indies are the only way to judge talent, that's just really snobbish.

A serious film viewer judges every movie and actor individually, with no prejudices against certain types of films, which it seems you've got quite a bit of.

Freeza wrote:"A serious film viewer (not just confined to indie film watchers or critics mind you, by a serious film viewer i mean people with some sort of awareness and knowledge about what they are watching at least) will never judge talent and ability of actors based on their performance in a mega budget or a big budget film. They simply wont. "

That's a pretentious comment if I ever saw one.
Talent should be judger in everything an actor do. If someone has the ability to perform well in a big movie, that's different than an actor that can perform well in a smaller movie. Harrison Ford and Tom Cruise are great examples of big Hollywood actors who have more ability and talent than anybody at being in a big budget film, that's their forté. No one could possibly act their blockbuster roles better than they did. If you took an arthouse actor and put them in Harrison Ford's roles, they wouldn't get close to the performance he delivered and vice versa. You aren't more talented, because you act well in a movie that doesn't get seen. But if you want to think arthouse and indies are the only way to judge talent, that's just really snobbish.

A serious film viewer judges every movie and actor individually, with no prejudices against certain types of films, which it seems you've got quite a bit of.

You misunderstood my point there.
I was basically saying the same thing.  They wont be simply judged based on what happens in a big budget film. They will look at the overall spectrum. Every movie individually.  May be I couldnt express my views clearly there, apologies for that.
So i dont think theres a need to argue here.
Lol I have no bias to smaller films and hatred for bigger ones. Too bad you thought that way.

It just sounded that way based on how you wrote your post. Glad we agree though.

Please view the Revenant trailer and comment. Looks amazing.

Hardy has a real shot at both acting oscar nomination