Movies you really like a lot but could have enjoyed much better because of an actor?

In case you hadn't noticed, the Academy know very little. Or are you one of those people who thought Forest Gump was the best movie in the year in which Pulp Fiction came out? Either way, using the amount of Academy Awards a film wins as proof of it's quality is pretty idiotic, no offense.

Originally posted by BackFire
Platoon being superior than FMJ is entirely valid. Many many people see it as the BEST vietnam movie ever, I think it definately beats Hamburger Hill as well.

Platoon, as I said earlier, achieves its greatness by doing what was once thought to be impossible - Showing combat not as exciting, but as tragic and scary. The combat in most other war films comes off as exciting, and sometimes fun. Platoon's portrayal is by far the most plausable and accurate, with the sense of pure insanity during the combat scenes, you, as the characters in the film, often can't even see where the enemies are firing from. Many veterans of Vietnam also feel Platoon is the most accurate at depicting combat, not to mention it's accurate depiction of the negative morale and the deplorable actions executed by US soldiers, something no other movie had tackled up until that point.

It makes sense, seeing as Oliver Stone based much of the film on his own experiences in Vietnam. Don't get me wrong, Full Metal Jacket is my personal preference, it's one of my favs, but Platoon being the better film is an entirely plausable argument.

Maybe to some people. I think I should explain exactly why I don't think Platoon is a very good movie compared to FMJ, otherwise I'm just going to sound silly.

You mentioned the accuracy. I accept that it is one of the most accurate depictions of war, but seeing as I have never experienced war myself, I don't see why I should see that as a major plus point. Kubrick handles the war scenes very differently in FMJ, but goes to great lengths to explain why, and I for one believed in FMJ just as much as I did Platoon, why shouldn't I? As long as the movie isn't showing the soldiers flying around the jungle on wires a la Crouching Tiger, or sprinting though hails of gunfire unscathed a la any Schwarzenegger movie, and if the sense of fear and danger are palpable, then you have an accurate war movie. FMJ kept me on edge just as much as Platoon, and the brilliance of that is you don't even like the characters in FMJ; they're no longer human-humans let loose in a war-torn country with heavy firepower.

The characters in Platoon are also pretty stereotypical. They're all the same demoralized, dope-smoking racist idiots, for the most part. And when Charlie Sheen is your protagonist, well, there goes the whole caring about the characters thing. In FMJ though, Kubrick does this deliberately, he shows you the decline into monstrosity that some of these marines went through, and then dangles Joker (who in the beginning is very likeable) in front of the audience right up until the last moments of the film, you're hoping and hoping that he'll hold on to his humanity amongst this crowd of animals he's patrolling with. His journey, along with the frankly horrifying destruction of Pile, are both far more personal and emotionally gripping than the entire contents of Platoon.

Basically, FMJ is a more powerful, personal and definitely original movie, and made by a far superior director. Platoon on the other hand, IMO, relies on a ensemble of guys desperately trying to win Oscar nominations, and while it does generate a genuine sense of danger and a faithful depiction of war, it's too generic plot-wise to compete with FMJ certainly, as well as The Deer Hunter (which makes Platoon look incredibly shallow).

Well, for one Platoon and FMJ attempt to show different aspects of 'Nam. Platoon is about the jungle warfare and is simply meant to show what ACTUALLY happened in that aspect of Vietnam, and little more than that. In the end it's both bleak and hopeful. FMJ is about the urban warfare and the dehumanization of the soldiers into heartless killing machines. Platoon also shows the dehumanization of the soldiers, but in a different way. They're not transformed into merciless, cold killing machines through training, but through necessity. They become heartless machines because they need to too deal with their station in life. I'd hesitate to even compare them, seeing as their goals are utterly different. But since both films are war movies, comparisons are unavoidable. I sincerely think both movies are excellent in their own way.

The characters in both films seem pretty stereotypical and cliche but that's only because other films have adopted those types of characters and injected them into their films, at the time the characters were very unique. But their simplistic nature makes it easier to identify with them quickly and accurately. This is especially important with Platoon because the film isn't about the people as much as their plights and their actions. After all, as its name infers, it's about a group as a whole rather than a few choice characters. And like it or not, that's how people were in 'Nam. FMJ is a bit more character driven and is trying to make a point, where as Platoon is, again, just trying to show what really happened there, ignoring the rhetoric and agenda other films dealing with Vietnam tend to embrace.

Also, Platoon is hardly generic plot-wise. It barely even has a plot. It was incredibly unique for it's time by simply trying to show the events of Vietnam in an honest way, without agenda or linear plot. It was made 20+ years ago, so again, there have been many movies that have copied aspects of it, so it may come off as generic since it seems that other films have done similar things, but it's important to keep in mind that at the time it was made, there had never been a film quite like it. If anything, FMJ has a more generic feel to it since it's attempting to make a point about war like other war films in the past.

The Deer Hunter is even more incomparable to either of these films. It's primarily a drama, secondly a war movie. And I'd definitely disagree that it makes Platoon look shallow. Both films are very deep and powerful, and honest.

Oh, and for the record: As far as the Pulp Fiction/Forrest Gump year goes, I think Shawshank Redemption should have won.

I watched The Assassination of Richard Nixon at the weekend and thought while the subject matter was interesting, Sean Penn's acting was waaaay to over the top. Shame, I really like him.

Originally posted by BackFire
Well, for one Platoon and FMJ attempt to show different aspects of 'Nam. Platoon is about the jungle warfare and is simply meant to show what ACTUALLY happened in that aspect of Vietnam, and little more than that. In the end it's both bleak and hopeful. FMJ is about the urban warfare and the dehumanization of the soldiers into heartless killing machines. Platoon also shows the dehumanization of the soldiers, but in a different way. They're not transformed into merciless, cold killing machines through training, but through necessity. They become heartless machines because they need to too deal with their station in life. I'd hesitate to even compare them, seeing as their goals are utterly different. But since both films are war movies, comparisons are unavoidable. I sincerely think both movies are excellent in their own way.

The characters in both films seem pretty stereotypical and cliche but that's only because other films have adopted those types of characters and injected them into their films, at the time the characters were very unique. But their simplistic nature makes it easier to identify with them quickly and accurately. This is especially important with Platoon because the film isn't about the people as much as their plights and their actions. After all, as its name infers, it's about a group as a whole rather than a few choice characters. And like it or not, that's how people were in 'Nam. FMJ is a bit more character driven and is trying to make a point, where as Platoon is, again, just trying to show what really happened there, ignoring the rhetoric and agenda other films dealing with Vietnam tend to embrace.

Also, Platoon is hardly generic plot-wise. It barely even has a plot. It was incredibly unique for it's time by simply trying to show the events of Vietnam in an honest way, without agenda or linear plot. It was made 20+ years ago, so again, there have been many movies that have copied aspects of it, so it may come off as generic since it seems that other films have done similar things, but it's important to keep in mind that at the time it was made, there had never been a film quite like it. If anything, FMJ has a more generic feel to it since it's attempting to make a point about war like other war films in the past.

The Deer Hunter is even more incomparable to either of these films. It's primarily a drama, secondly a war movie. And I'd definitely disagree that it makes Platoon look shallow. Both films are very deep and powerful, and honest.

Oh, and for the record: As far as the Pulp Fiction/Forrest Gump year goes, I think Shawshank Redemption should have won.

See this is where the concessions stop, in terms of my opinions. I didn't find Platoon incredibly deep, I found it incredibly average, and that it had a certain aura of, well, machismo I suppose, that prevents it from ever gripping me like FMJ did. Also, Joker is not a cliched character in the slightest. You might not have meant to include him in what you said, but just to make sure. He's at first portrayed to be one kind of person, in the training half, but then proceeds to subvert, on multiple occassions, what the viewer themselves have been trained to think about him during the course of the second half.

And I definitely disagree with what you said about FMJ having a more generic feel because it's ''attempting to make a point about war'', mainly because I think it's one of the very few war films that doesn't try to make some kind of commentary on the war itself. As you said, it's very character driven and Kubrick focuses entirely on the effects of the various surroundings and situations on them, and even then in quite a distant, calculating way. FMJ is a very cold film, it never tries to force ideologies onto the audience, it simply presents them with a set of characters, in a war-time situation, and let's them make whatever they want of those character's destruction. It's not about making points, it's really just about the fragility of morality, but from an entirely neutral perspective. No preaching, no Apocalypse Now-style philosophy, just cold, hard narrative. There is nothing like it.

I hate the Shawshank Redemption, but I certainly would have taken it over Forest Gump.

SAW if it was not for Cary Elwes

just thought of another movie where I loved the story and everything but would have liked it so much better if someone else had starred in the movie.Die Hard.I pretty much cant stand any movie Bruce willis does.

I think in gone with the wind and west side story. The first one because of Leslie Howard and the second one because Richard Beymer.

I thought DOOM was decent....but the Rock did a really good job.

I'd say Kirsten Dunst in Spiderman and Mona Lisa Smile..loved both of them but I would have enjoyed them more if she wasnt in them.

Keanu Reeves in Parenthood, Matrix AND Constantine...I just cant stand him as an actor

Also Diana Scarwid who plays Jody in What Lies Beneath