I hate people like this

[bigred760]

http://film.guardian.co.uk/features/featurepages/0,,1944909,00.html#article_continue

I hate shit like this. I hate these people that assume that because he doesn't like a particular movie, that the actors must never make another movie again. And what's worse, he's basing this article - first on movies he personally didn't like, and then goes off on movies that didn't make much money. So which is it, bad movies or underperforming movies?

The Prestige is getting pretty good reviews and has surpassed its budget at the box office. This guy seems to want blockbusters from everybody in the business. I hate to break this guy's ego, but not every movie that is released will break $100 million at the box office.

A lot of movies are hit or miss or target a certain audience. First he bashes Christopher Nolan for not making another masterpiece like Memento - which only made $25 million; meaning that Batman Begins wasn't up to par - which made $205 million. Then he goes on bash Johanssen for being in it, though she barely has 15-20 minutes of screentime.

Now I'll give him that Scarlett Johanssen has not had the best of luck as far as the box office is concerned post-Lost in Translation. And she wasn't the only bad thing in The Black Dahlia. A lot of these actors choose not to be in blockbuster movies, but more challenging roles that may or may not find an audience. Now Nicolas Cage and John Travolta seem to go back and forth a lot; their critical faves are the indies that don't make a lot of money, and they're bombs are the ones that had the blockbuster signature all over them that failed to deliver.

He seems to think that actors like Mark Ruffalo and Adrien Brody are superstars or something. The title of the article mentions "some of the biggest names in Hollywood;" but I'd bet most people could pick most of these actors out of a lineup. I don't know if Ruffalo's even headlined a movie.

It's so-called critics like this that piss me off. I don't consider them movie fans or anything of the like; it just seems that they're bitter that others have made a mark on movies and they haven't. And I really hate it when they can't make up their mind why these actors supposedly suck - is it because he just doesn't like them, or is it because they don't make as much money as it should (or he thinks it should)? Just shut the f*ck up.

[bob]

Agreed, that was a terrible article. For an article so obsessed with financial success, it seems awfully biased to leave out the fact that Match Point was Woody Allen's greatest financial success in over 20 years.

But it's hard to criticize the article specifically, because all of it was so nonsensical and idiotic.

[Bruno Kirby]

A movie critic should never focus on anything financial, unless say, for example, a movie cost a hundred million dollars, but you just don't see it up there on the screen, that seems reasonable.

Their job is criticize what is up their on the screen, nothing else. And I think that should go for critics saying how they think a scene should've played out or should've taken place... that's crossing the line from critic to artist. If they feel that strongly, they should go make their own movie - put all their theories to the test.

Maybe this is where we are though these days, where critics don't even watch the movies, just how well their doing in the box-office, because clearly if a movie makes a ton of money, it must be good, right... right guys? hahaha.

I know Hollywood cares more about commercial failures than artistic ones and that is perfectly all right and makes sense, but that's their business, not a critics.

And that whole business about saying Johansson doesn't look like a movie star is just ridiculous - yeah, maybe in some of the movies she's been in, because that was the character, but if you see her walking down a red carpet or posing for pictures that girl is “movie star” fucking personified. She looks like she was ripped out of old Hollywood and put here for us to ogle and enjoy.

Ugh, and she was great as Nola Rice in Match Point simply because the whole movie all I could think about is how I wanted to fuck her. She seemed so desirable...

Yeah, she has been doing a lot of movies lately, maybe too many, but I guess you might as well work while you can. While your skin is still creamy and your tits are still hanging the right way, before you have to go the Sharon Stone route and turn yourself into a Barbie doll. Hopefully Johansson doesn’t do that or have to do that because she is a good actress, well I think she is (then again Stone is great in Casino and in a few other movies. I don’t know). And her doing those L’Oreal ads is sort of, in your face, it is hard to escape her, but I mean, fuck that doesn’t have jack shit to do with the quality of Match Point or The Prestige or any other movies, that’s more or less her celebrity which should always, ALWAYS be separated from the artist. (And I know calling some actors artists is a stretch, but I feel OK putting her in the category.)

Ugh, fuck. I'm getting angry. And I'm...

Whatever. This Joe Queenan is a douche bag.

[powersauce]

I agree. It's sad to see critics confuse personal/tabloid lives with quality of movie/performance. Yes, Sean Penn can be a humorless prick at time. That doesn't change the fact that he's a damn good actor in some good movies like The Interpreter and the underrated Casualties of War.

Not everybody thinks she's the best actress in terms of looks/talent but to say that SJ doesn't look like a "movie star" on the red carpet is ridiculous. That's like saying that Charlize Theron doesn't have those looks just because of Monster and North Country or (my personal favorite) Rachel McAdams in a grungy looking role like The Family Stone whereas at the premiere she's blonde and "pin up" esque on the red carpet for the technical Oscars this year like my current avatar from the same event.

[Country1969]

Not all movies are Blockbuster hits. OK, say a movie made 50 million and they expect 100 million. That does not make that movie bad. You can't expect people to go and see every movie that comes out. That's life.
It's all about estimates and predictions for the movie industry. Then you got the critics, "he or she played a terrible part,could their career be over after this flop at the box office."

Come on people, it's entertainment. I agree that some movies should have different actors playing a certain part would have been better but too say that it will ruin their career it's nuts.

You might like a certain actor/actress in an action movie but in a comedy you think they stink. There's nothing wrong with that. Not all parts are made for the actors. When they wrote the script, some writers have an idea who might play the part but most of the time its the character they are writing for and then they have to find a actor to fill his shoes.

example:
John Travolta to me seems to be awesome in movies like Pulp Fiction,Ladder 49,Be Cool, Face Off,The Punisher but for Look Whos Talkin movies NO! He was even cool in GREASE.

It's hard to take an actor like Vin Diesel and put him it an comedy like they did. You see him as a tough guy. A Man Apart, The Fast and the Furious, Pitch Black

The Rock - Dwaye Johson.
Walking Tall,Doom,
Gridiron Gang (Great movie)

You see these are good movies and good actors but not all movies make box office hits,but so what we enjoy them for what they are and who they are and thats what matters.