The whole suspension of disbelief thing.
I’ve lost it completely. Movies suck.
There are some things movie makers (and TV show makers) could do to make it easier for me to suspend my disbelief, like:
1. Stop using the same 5 actors all the time. I actually liked Michelle Pfeiffer in Stardust (which we watched last night), but kept thinking the whole time she was Michelle Pfieffer, and she’s aging pretty well. Robert de Niro was horrible. And he’s Robert de Niro. I love Claire Danes but kept thinking it should’ve been Gywneth Paltrow. The only actor I could see as only the character he was playing was the guy who played the lead, cuz I don’t know him. (Except for when he got his hair “cut” and I kept thinking they must’ve filmed the last half of the movie first, and then I got distracted by Claire Dane’s roots showing or not showing in different scenes.)
2. Stop making the make up so obvious. Lipstick and mascara on guys (I’m looking at you, David Caruso) is the biggest distraction there could possibly be.
3. There’s a fine line between cool lighting or camera work and a huge pile of stinky garbage. Walk it carefully.
4. Overacting. While funny, it doesn’t help anything (I’m looking at you, David Caruso).
I know, I shouldn’t post about movies, there’s so few I can stand, and they’re generally the ones everyone else hates. But I had to vent a little.
PS Anyone see Hot Rod? What a weird mix of Napoleon Dynamite-wannabe and Adam Sandler-esque comedy. During the scene where he “punch-dances out his rage,” my husband and I found ourselves trying to explain Footloose to the kids. (Try doing that to someone who hasn’t seen it before. That wasn’t alive in the 80s.) Best moment: Josh Homme from Queens of the Stone Age as an afro-sporting corporate rock star.
Susan, may I ask you what your favorite movie of all time is?
Comment by Tim J — December 31, 2007 @ 2:44 pm
I’m mixed on repetitive use of actors. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn’t. Some actors, such as Jack Nicholson, are always playing variations of themselves. And that sometimes works and sometimes doesn’t. However I agree that I overall tend to prefer movies with lesser known actors. The fact is though that a lot of people choose movies with known actors. Even beyond that recognizable faces gets movies noticed.
There are plenty of folks who return to the same actors and it doesn’t bother me. Think Tim Burton and Johnny Depp. Or James Cameron and his usual crew. Or Wes Anderson reusing the Wilsons a lot.
In other cases it does.
My big problem with de Niro is that he’s like some actors (Samuel L. Jackson in particular) who just love to act and aren’t picky about their projects. Often that ruins careers but those guys have big enough names that they can get away with it. Yet this means most of their projects suck and often they just call in performances if they don’t feel excited. It’s sad with de Niro since in the 70’s and 80’s he was picky and had classic performance after classic performance.
I agree that there is way too much bad makeup in Hollywood. I think some folks in TV were used to bad resolution and are having trouble transitioning to higher resolutions and more creative lighting. But it sucks.
Cool lighting can be good. But way too many adopt the MTV effect and pulls one out. Sometimes it can work. (Pushing Daisies for instance - but then that has an intention fairy tale attitude) Often though I think folks are trying to be creative but are under such tight time and budget demands that it just comes off looking bad. And, as I said, sometimes location shots are just difficult. (This was why the first half of Chuck had some of the worst lighting I’ve seen) When you’re shooting on the cheap on location with HD cameras you can get really bad lighting. Occasionally directors and producers can make a great product in spite of this. (Think the first season of Dexter) Typically it just looks bad. (Way too may WB shows)
Bad acting is always just bad. Ugh. There’s way too many actors hired for their looks rather than their acting chops.
Comment by clark — December 31, 2007 @ 2:44 pm
Scorsese’s projects with DiCaprio have gotten better and better.
The only two performances I’ve really liked from Tom Cruise were Magnolia and Collateral — the only two films that come to mind in which he wasn’t asked to play Tom Cruise.
Comment by Scudworth — December 31, 2007 @ 2:56 pm
Favorite movie of all time:
Life is Beautiful
Also: Spitfire Grill, Journey of August King
Old faves I love (but haven’t really seen in years):
After Hours
Agnes of God
Repoman
Heathers
Also, movies with slow tempos and sometimes quirky characters: Dancer, TX: Pop. 81, Napoleon Dynamite, The Snow Walker.
Example of a movie I liked that everyone else seemed to hate: Elektra.
I tend to love sappy, cheesy tearjerkers/chick flicks, like A Walk to Remember and Something to Talk About.
Comment by Susan M — December 31, 2007 @ 3:07 pm
“Football season is over, Veronica. Kurt and Ram had nothing left to offer the school except for date rapes and AIDS jokes.”
“Now there’s a school that self-destructed, not because society didn’t care, but because the school was society.”
“The only place different social types can genuinely get along with each other is in heaven.”
Comment by Scudworth — December 31, 2007 @ 3:38 pm
I love Heathers.
I agree that it’s very distracting to watch over-familiar actors act. I can’t watch Meryl Streep or Tom Hanks anymore, in anything. Johnny Depp is an exception because he manages to transform so completely, but I’d still rather watch somebody I’ve never/rarely seen.
I’m also distracted by obvious makeup, especially in period movies, and by haircolor. Kate Bosworth’s dye job in Superman was so bad it ruined every one of her scenes for me (seriously, a professional colorist should be able to pull off an even brown with no blonde roots).
Comment by Allison — December 31, 2007 @ 11:11 pm
I laughed hard at the “punch dance” scene in Hot Rod. I saw it on a plane and Kristen had to elbow me for laughing too loud. That scene totally ruled.
Comment by Geoff J — December 31, 2007 @ 11:18 pm
Most movies nowadays seem to be focused more on style and delivery than content–and when they boast something of content it usually has to do more with a slick premise than with a compelling narrative or characters.
Let’s hope for better stories, scripts, and scores first–and then attack the more (shall we say) supportive elements if they don’t serve the core elements as they should.
Comment by Jack — January 1, 2008 @ 1:42 am
That just goes without saying, Jack.
However if I attacked the stories, scripts and scores I think I’d tick off everyone, since most of the movies people love are ones I think are stupid.
Comment by Susan M — January 1, 2008 @ 11:54 am
Since I don’t watch a ton of movies repetetive use of actors doesn’t usually phase me. Not watching R movies narrows the opportunitites to see the same people over and over since the list of available movies is so slim. So I think my enjoyment of De Niro in a purely fun and playful role was directly influenced by that. I didn’t think Gwenyth in that role, I was thinking more of an Emmy Rossum or Anne Hathaway. Maybe it’s a subconcious anti-blonde thing
though I am happy to hear that I wasn’t the only one bothered by Danes’ roots changing places.
I loved the Footloose homage in Hot Rod, guffawed even, but overall I thought the movie was cliche ‘loveable loser fails but succeeds’ genre. Funny, but not going on my best of ‘07 list.
Heathers, now there’s a classic.
Comment by mo mommy — January 1, 2008 @ 1:02 pm
I’m disturbed by the Napoleon Dynamite influence on both Hot Rod and Juno. You can’t copy something like that and have it be effective. ND was brilliant because it was fresh and unique. Hollywood just doesn’t get it, I guess.
Comment by Susan M — January 1, 2008 @ 1:09 pm
I completely agree about the repeated actors thing. While I was watching Music and Lyrics the other day, I realized that I can no longer enjoy Hugh Grant in a romantic comedy. He’s just as cute and charming as ever, but he’s played the same character so many times that I simply no longer buy that he’s falling in love with whatever woman happens to be on screen this time. (I can still enjoy him in other types of roles, though–I love About a Boy).
Also, Heathers rules.
Comment by Anna G. — January 2, 2008 @ 4:13 pm
Instead of a writers strike, maybe an audience strike will help the “movie makers” get their act in gear. But it is so hard to compete against all the people publishing their own entertainment blogs so cheaply.
However - I find it pretty funny the my non-LDS co-worker thinks that the greatest thing on her tv set is the BYU channel.
Comment by California Star — January 7, 2008 @ 11:34 pm
I don’t remember who it was, but some critic made the distinction between “actors” and “movie stars.” Actors play roles; movie stars play themselves. I don’t remember the critic’s examples, but it’s usually a pretty obvious distinction. Nicholson, De Niro, Pacino, and Cruise, for example, are movie stars. P. S. Hoffman, W. H. Macy, Buscemi, and Depp are actors. Sam Jackson used to be an actor, but he’s become a movie star.
Comment by kuri — January 8, 2008 @ 10:51 am
What was so great about Tom Cruise in Magnolia wasn’t that he wasn’t playing Tom Cruise, but that he was playing a wounded Tom Cruise instead of the invulnerable Tom Cruise he usually plays.
Comment by kuri — January 8, 2008 @ 10:55 am
Kuri, De Niro used to be the actor’s actor. He would completely reshape himself for roles. Some time in the early 90’s he stopped being focused on acting and just became a movie star.
Comment by Clark — January 8, 2008 @ 2:39 pm
Clark,
I think most movie stars probably start as actors. At some point there is a transformation.
Comment by kuri — January 8, 2008 @ 4:54 pm
So we watched “Stardust” last night, and I have to agree with Susan’s thoughts. DeNiro was awful. I couldn’t for the life of me understand why everyone else in the movie, including the other American actors, all spoke with storybook English accents, but DeNiro’s character sounded like DeNiro. Is it too much to ask DeNiro to act these days. Also, the closeted gay caricature was really annoying. Clare Daines was just horrible casting, I thought. She was completely wrong for the part. I kept thinking that there has to be some young Hollywood leading lady that could have done better. Naomi Watts, maybe. Michelle Pfeiffer was fine, but it bothered me that they kept going back and forth with how much the witch was supposed to look old and decrepit. It seemed inconsistent and it was really distracting.
Comment by BTD Greg — January 14, 2008 @ 9:05 am
Naomi Watts is young Hollywood? She’s my age! Plus didn’t her breakout America role (Lynch’s Mullholland Drive) come out almost 10 years ago?
The problem is that “new” Hollywood isn’t much. Outside of that annoying albeit attractive girl from The Transformers movie (boy I hated that film) is there anyone?
Comment by Clark — January 14, 2008 @ 12:33 pm
BTW - I think the problem with a lot of films like Stardust is that the producers just get big names and throw it all together without a whole lot of passion. It’s calculating and is much more likely to fail because of that. I think actors pick up on that. While we can fault DeNiro one probably should also look to the Producers and Director and ask why they got such a bad performance out of him. It’s not like he’s never been in Science Fiction or Fantasy films before and done a good job.
Comment by Clark — January 14, 2008 @ 12:35 pm
“Naomi Watts is young Hollywood? She’s my age! Plus didn’t her breakout America role (Lynch’s Mullholland Drive) come out almost 10 years ago?”
Oops, you’re right. Naomi Watts is a lot older than I thought she was (and Claire Daines is a lot younger.)
So who are the young, hot (preferably blond) Hollywood actresses? Someone who can pull off “celestial” without looking like a gawky overaged adolescent, which is how Daines came off to me. Could it be that there are a lot of great young actresses out there, but that the unholy trinity of Lindsay/Paris/Britney have blocked out the sun?
Comment by BTD Greg — January 14, 2008 @ 12:43 pm
Young Hollywood actress? The only ones I can think of are too big for a movies like Stardust.
Reese Witherspoon
Scarlett Johansson
But maybe someone like a Rachel McAdams or Natalie Portman perhaps?
Comment by Tim J — January 14, 2008 @ 1:37 pm
Reese Witherspoon is getting a little old for that role, too. I dislike Scarlett Johansson — too much of her acting is letting her mouth hang slightly open and alternating depressed/puzzled looks. Keira Knightley is guilty of the same thing, although she’s a little better at it.
Rachel McAdams might work. I think we should be thinking of young British actresses instead of young Hollywood actresses, though. Wouldn’t want to be distracted by her being too familiar (to get this back on topic).
Comment by Allison — January 14, 2008 @ 3:05 pm
Johansson bugs me too. I don’t know why. She was in a lot of good movies as a kid. I think it’s because they are trying to ‘mold’ her as this classic Hollywood glamour queen. When to me she looks like the typical college freshman I knew and hung out with. Not that there’s anything wrong with that. It’s just the role they are putting her in.
Rachel McAdams is pretty class and is a better actress. She just hasn’t found the breakout role yet. (Which is an other reason Johansson bugs me: what film is supposed to have made her a star?)
Witherspoon is getting a bit old to be the young starlet now. But she’s also expanded her repertoire quite a bit. Plus she seems a likable down to earth person. Who knows how much of that is PR. After all they made Meg Ryan out to be the girl next door. (This might be why Johansson bugs me - call it the Meg Ryan factor minus actually having good ’star’ movies although she has done more artistic films.)
Keira Knightly bugs me as well. I think your point about how she acts is dead on. But she has at least been in quite a few hit movies and has done some reasonably good performances as well. She probably deserves the title more than anyone.
Comment by Clark — January 14, 2008 @ 4:01 pm
I’ve been thinking about this more. The question is really bugging me.
Actually, Gwyneth Paltrow ten or fifteen years ago, when she was very young but before she was super-famous, would have been good for the role. I kept thinking they were trying too hard to make poor Claire Danes look like Gwyneth (the overbleached hair, the absent eyebrows), and it just made her look horrible.
Comment by Allison — January 14, 2008 @ 5:30 pm
One of the things that I really liked about the Lord of the Rings trilogy was that the actors weren’t too well known (at least to me), and they did a great job with make-up, making even the more recognizable actors look like new, different people.
How about Emmy Rossum, of Phantom of the Opera and The Day After Tomorrow? I know she’s not blonde, but hey, what are wigs for? Kristen Bell is young, hot, and blonde, but it seems like she does the street-smart thing too well to make the innocent fallen star very believable. Hayden Panettiere does a respectable job with Heroes (I think), though I also wonder if she could convincingly portray a celestial ingenue.
Comment by kristine N — January 14, 2008 @ 5:50 pm
What about Rachel Hurd-Wood? I think a star could have red hair. She’s young, but she was great in Peter Pan. And along those lines, Jason Isaacs could replace DeNiro. You’d instantly have a much better movie.
Comment by Allison — January 14, 2008 @ 9:24 pm