Originally posted by Bardock42I know he isnt a pretty boy, thats what I mean, thats why I am suddenly agreeing that someone should have played him that wasnt a pretty boy.
Constantine isn't really a pretty boy.Didn't see that movie though, is it good?
GOOD movie. Josh Hartnett is pretty gruff, kind of a laid back badass.
Originally posted by vintageSW77
Owen Wilson,Will Ferrell,Ben Stiller...they are always the same
put them in a period drama and theyd still be Owen Wilson.Will Ferrell and Ben Stiller.Quentin Tarantino is a BAD actor but hes very entertaining in whatever hes in
Owen Wilson and Ben Stiller aren't bad actors, they're extremely talented and highly comedic.
Will Ferrell, I agree with 😂
I see what you mean about them coming over as themselves rather than the character they're playing but that's the point, I think. They make the character, could you imagine anyone else playing said character as well as Wilson or Stiller or injecting even half of the vivacity? I certainly couldn't.
As for putting either of them in a period drama, who would? shrug
Originally posted by Bardock42
I certainly disagree with that. Owen Wilson's charavters in Shanghai Noon, Zoolaner, Starsky and Hutch and Wedding Crashers were certainly not the same.
well i guess you need to take a step back because...
they are
they are always 99% Owen Wilson
he cant escape from it
the only dramatic bit of acting the guy has done was the failed suicide attempt
that certainly doesnt fit the same old same old Wilson you see onscreen
hang on though maybe hes the new De Niro
offscreen hes a damaged insecure needs to be loved type but on screen hes the cool laid back ladykiller...Owen wilson...I SALUTE YOU!!
hes the new ****ing Olivier!
Originally posted by vintageSW77
well i guess you need to take a step back because...they are
they are always 99% Owen Wilson
he cant escape from it
the only dramatic bit of acting the guy has done was the failed suicide attempt
that certainly doesnt fit the same old same old Wilson you see onscreen
hang on though maybe hes the new De Niro
offscreen hes a damaged insecure needs to be loved type but on screen hes the cool laid back ladykiller...Owen wilson...I SALUTE YOU!!
hes the new ****ing Olivier!
Odd. In the world I live in there is a little more space between worst and best. Must be easier in yours.
Not suggesting Keanu Reeves is a good actor at all, but I think people are misunderstanding his role in The Matrix.
The role of Neo would have been played that way by anyone, as it needed to be. Keanu was just lucky enough to find a character who matched his inability to act. The part was meant to be about a human man who is more or less thrust into an ironically robotic way of thinking after being told to free his mind. That's why, toward the end of the first movie and for the next two, he is more or less emotionless.
Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
I do NOT, however, buy him as the "one", running around kiciking everyones ass.
He wasn't just running around kicking "everyone's" ass. It wasn't like Bruce Lee where you're genuinely meant to believe he beats all these people as a normal man.
It wasn't about bad assery or him being some kind of musclebound fighter.
Now I see why you stick to Rocky and Aliens Vs Predator to be honest. I don't mean that in a bad way, I just think you should lay off any movie that isn't intensely straightforward.
Saying that, I find Rambo as believable as The Matrix. Less so. At least Neo had a reason for being able to do what he did.
-AC
It is overrated in the second and third movies, they bought into their own "intelligence" and tried making it too smart, and it just ended up being like someone was reading from a thesaurus. Funnily enough, it was the stupid people with no vocabulary who got tricked into thinking The Architect's speech was profound and smart, that praised it. It was people who got it that didn't see why it was needed, like me, and slated it.
The first genuinely had about a million possible paths to take, and was chock full of ideas and references, philosophy and theology. Of course, they got their first big cheque and then took the worst path; the path to the next big cheque.
-AC
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
It is overrated in the second and third movies, they bought into their own "intelligence" and tried making it too smart, and it just ended up being like someone was reading from a thesaurus. Funnily enough, it was the stupid people with no vocabulary who got tricked into thinking The Architect's speech was profound and smart, that praised it. It was people who got it that didn't see why it was needed, like me, and slated it.The first genuinely had about a million possible paths to take, and was chock full of ideas and references, philosophy and theology. Of course, they got their first big cheque and then took the worst path; the path to the next big cheque.
-AC
Even though there might have been a million possible paths (though I am not exactly sure what you are referring to, that doesn't refer to any movie, ever), I don't think the first movie itself was such an intelligent masterpiece. You'll probably say "I don't get it", but to me it was nothing more than a decent action movie, with an interesting, though not really revolutionary, plot idea. Not really much better or worse than it's sequels.
Also, Carrie-Ann Moss is ugly. Doesn't really have anything to do with the movie...just saying.
There's always the possibility that someone gets it and just doesn't find it interesting, so I'm not going to assume you don't get it.
I just find the ideas and philosophy put into it to be interesting anyway, and it combined a lot of intelligent questions and notions with some revolutionary cinematic ways of putting it across. I enjoyed it very much.
-AC
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
There's always the possibility that someone gets it and just doesn't find it interesting, so I'm not going to assume you don't get it.I just find the ideas and philosophy put into it to be interesting anyway, and it combined a lot of intelligent questions and notions with some revolutionary cinematic ways of putting it across. I enjoyed it very much.
-AC
I can agree with that second thing. It's enjoyable and it does have interesting ideas. But I am sure you also know those dumbass Matrix lovers that just refer to it as if it is the Holy Grail of everything. I recently rewatched the trilogy and afterwards read a review by one of those idiot that just interpreted everything he could think of in the movie. But that's not really the film's fault.
Also not that of a shitty actor.
Like Nicholas Cage for example.
Originally posted by Bardock42
I can agree with that second thing. It's enjoyable and it does have interesting ideas. But I am sure you also know those dumbass Matrix lovers that just refer to it as if it is the Holy Grail of everything. I recently rewatched the trilogy and afterwards read a review by one of those idiot that just interpreted everything he could think of in the movie. But that's not really the film's fault.Also not that of a shitty actor.
Like Nicholas Cage for example.
Yeah, but a lot of that is usually caused by the desire to fit in.
Like when people say South Park is very intelligent. It's not, it's just obvious commentary on "important" issues made simple enough for people who wish they were smart, to understand.
-AC
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Yeah, but a lot of that is usually caused by the desire to fit in.Like when people say South Park is very intelligent. It's not, it's just obvious commentary on "important" issues made simple enough for people who wish they were smart, to understand.
-AC
Ouch.
I think it is intelligent. Not in the way that what they say needs years of thinking and research to realize as true, but it is quite well done and sadly one of the few commentaries that do actually say what needs to be said, at least in the US as far as I can tell. I agree though, it is nothing where I'd say "Shit, I never looked at it that way, those guys must be gods", just "Damn, that had to be said, and they said it well". It's a very head on approach to political satire, not very much room for interpretation.