Shop now Shop now Shop now  Up to 70% Off Fashion  Shop all Amazon Fashion Cloud Drive Photos Shop now Learn More Shop now Shop now Shop Fire Shop Kindle Shop now Shop now Shop now
Customer Discussions > action discussion forum

Worst Actor or Actress?

Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 151-175 of 464 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on 9 May 2012 02:18:41 BDT
Then that must happen a lot, but it's a bit hard to believe.

In reply to an earlier post on 22 Jun 2012 17:09:46 BDT
Cage is a good actor when he WANTS to be....too often he just 'phones in' his performances. But lately, OY, has he done some HORRIBLE movies!

Posted on 23 Jun 2012 02:16:58 BDT
DB Edwards says:
That Knobhead Adam Sandler. Wins hands down, he does.

In reply to an earlier post on 23 Jun 2012 08:24:49 BDT
Like De Niro in the past 10 years, Cage has been doing lots of cr*p films for the "Drive Angry," Nic didn't just "phone in" his performance, he MAILED it.

In reply to an earlier post on 23 Jun 2012 08:26:02 BDT
Last edited by the author on 24 Jun 2012 10:56:22 BDT
re: Jaime Murray: Yes, but does your coffee table have legs as nice as hers?
Your reply to Shemp-Masta-Flash's post:
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)

In reply to an earlier post on 24 Jun 2012 10:59:28 BDT
re: Russell Brand - Does he ever wash his hair?!?

In reply to an earlier post on 30 Jun 2012 14:45:46 BDT
Val Kilmer stole the show as Doc Holliday in 'Tombstone' though.

Posted on 30 Jun 2012 15:10:55 BDT
Dogmatix says:
I am putting forward the name of Dolf Lundgren he is definitely on a par with Steven Segal
they are both so wooden that instead of appearing ON a stage they could BE the stage.

Posted on 18 Jul 2012 14:28:23 BDT
Wodawick says:
Nicholas Cage the most overrated actor of all time & he's not even that highly rated.

In reply to an earlier post on 18 Jul 2012 18:32:04 BDT
Last edited by the author on 18 Jul 2012 18:33:53 BDT
@SD Devine: With all respect, Cage is one of those actors - Bruce Willis is another - that can give a great performance WHEN HE REALLY WANTS TO. But too often (like Willis) he coasts on his mannerisms.

In reply to an earlier post on 26 Aug 2012 19:56:32 BDT
Last edited by the author on 28 Aug 2012 18:07:27 BDT
a customer says:
'Can't act to save their life but looks pretty' .

That's the case with MF. She is perfect for 'hot chick' roles because they focus on her looks and sex appeal. These roles don't require any acting talent. She always picks these roles. There isn't a movie where she doesn't play a sexy love interest. I have never seen her in a serious, challenging role. She hasn't done anything to prove she is much more than just a pretty face and a body. Her CV doesn't feature a single well received performance. She is bland and hasn't shown any genuine acting talent. She will never be taken seriously as an actor because she hasn't done anything outstanding to prove her worth. The movies she made outside Transformers were all critical and commercial failures, which proves she is not a box office draw. There is nothing appealing about her in terms of acting. You can tell she is not Oscar material. She is all looks but no substance and devoid of charisma. All her characters are hot chicks and look the same. Looking hot and seductive is all she does in every movie she's in, and you can't call what she does ' real acting '. I agree with you on that.

In reply to an earlier post on 26 Aug 2012 21:25:14 BDT
But look at the people at the top-Jolie, Paltrow, Clooney, Cruise, Damon-most of them utterly useless and plain annoyingand in the case of Matthew Mahonagy-McConaughey and Channing Tatum-plain replusive. Proving that usually whatever sells to the masses doesn't deserve to. The likes of Roberts, Depp, Diaz, Pitt and Barrymore are rather better than the first five named, but even they are terribly limited and rated absurdly high over the multitude of stunningly better character actors that thrive in arthouse and indie features all the time, irrespective of how "pretty" they may or may not be.

I'd add that Jodie Foster is utterly inept at comedy, dull as ditchwater in the apparent kick-ass with brains she loves to make a decent mark on the world as a director. Jodie you've lived off the gang-rape in 'The Accused' and repeating the c-word to Hannibal Lecter for far too long-go away dear and stop taking Jennifer Jason Leigh's cast-offs and everyone else's.

In reply to an earlier post on 26 Aug 2012 21:54:30 BDT
M. Freeman says:
Matthew McConaughey was EXCELLENT in Killer Joe.

In reply to an earlier post on 26 Aug 2012 21:59:57 BDT
Last edited by the author on 26 Aug 2012 22:00:17 BDT
That'd make a first but he's still repulsive.

Posted on 26 Aug 2012 22:04:41 BDT
M. Freeman says:
In what way? Don't tell me that you're criticising people for overrating actors due to their good looks and then calling somebody a bad actor because they repulse you?

In reply to an earlier post on 26 Aug 2012 22:09:16 BDT
Last edited by the author on 26 Aug 2012 22:12:47 BDT
He repulses me cos he eptomises all that is wrong with leading men today-that they're all overbulked, steroid-popping, perma-tanned, chest-waxing, strutting preeners. Moreover he has an awful smugness that is present in every film he does, he has an annoying accent, his grin is as bad as Cruise's, he can take a good film like 'Boys On The Side' and 'EDTV' and ruin almost every minute of it whenever he's present. You made a really silly point here-I call him a bad actor cos he is one!

I shouldn't have to go on. He's horrible, he's getting all the work far better people can do. And unlike Cage, Reeves and the usual suspects often being bashed by fashion on here, he's done no performance good enough to actually merit being the 'someone' he apparently is to movie directors. Oh and if he could keep his clothes on for more than five seconds in any film, I think he's get heart palpitations. Sometimes enough really is enough.

In reply to an earlier post on 26 Aug 2012 22:24:59 BDT
M. Freeman says:
You can't claim that he has no performance good enough without seeing literally all of his performances, especially considering that you even admitted to not seeing Killer Joe which was probably the best performance of his career by a long way.

I know that he did a load of crappy Rom-coms earlier in his career, I haven't seen any of them and don't plan on seeing them. The fact that he's been in terrible movies and acted badly in them doesn't mean that he's not capable of putting in a great performance.

In reply to an earlier post on 26 Aug 2012 22:47:44 BDT
What are you-the president of his fan club? I never said I didn't see 'Killer Joe' at all, you conjecture it, and I've seen more than enough of his bumbling, strutting persona in more movies than I can count-and many I avoid just cos he's in them (easy enough when it's sap rom-coms, far harder when it's something like 'EDTV' or 'The Licoln Lawyer' which are good). If his "portrayl" in 'Killer Joe' is his best by a long way, it's not like there's anything to measure it by!

I think he's entirely incapable of putting in a great performance-you have to be at least a good actor to strive for anything near great. He gets more than enough money, attention and work-he doesn't need to be a good actor to achieve any of that, he just has to be what studios deem sellable. And he's one 'actor' we can really do without.

Posted on 26 Aug 2012 22:52:07 BDT
Post Soviet says:
I'm not fan of McConaghey either, but he was good IMO in Paxton's thriller Frailty.
Strangely I even consider Tom Cruise a better actor than Johnny Depp, whose amplua basically are over the top eccentric characters.

In reply to an earlier post on 26 Aug 2012 23:20:14 BDT
Last edited by the author on 26 Aug 2012 23:23:24 BDT
We'll have to diasgree then-I disliked him in 'Frailty' big time, but I'll let you in on this-halfway through 'The Licoln Lawyer' he managed to finally stop annoying me-just for that film though, and I can get through 'EDTV' with work, but I so wish Woody Harrelson had taken the role instead or someone else. But I back you up over Johnny Depp-he really seems to be regarded as a mythical being among other actors and directors. He's not terrible of course, and I thought it funny he didn't get along with Angelina Jolie at all for 'The Tourist', but is he overrated? Hell yes-especially as everything he does, crowds of men working through indie movies could do it as easily. He's so overly-eccentrified these days, he'd probably be too afraid to play it normal, but I don't know why as The last thing he was criticised in was 'Charlie & The Chocolate Factory' years ago.

And I can't see anyone blaming him for the break-up of his relationship with Vanessa Paradis, something they'd both being tiresomely denying for months, as all the Hollywooders do.

In reply to an earlier post on 27 Aug 2012 01:53:16 BDT
M. Freeman says:
IF you haven't seen Killer Joe and have seen a load of his Rom-coms (which I assume are terrible and NEVER plan on watching) then I can perfectly understand your position in thinking that McConaughey is overrated. Still though, if you haven't seen it (if you have seen it please say and stop being so ambiguous) your position in the argument is pretty weak considering that I've not claimed that he's been very good in anything else - the whole argument lies on a movie that you haven't seen.

It's kind of like if I went and watched all of Robert De Niro's bad movies and then argued against people who'd watched Raging Bull or Cape Fear that he's "entirely incapable of a great performance." (I'm 100% not saying that McConaughey is in De Niro's league)

I'm not the worlds biggest McConaughey fan at all (for the record; I think I've seen him in 2-3 films at the most), it just kind of stuck out to me that you listed him in your rant about awful actors because it was a short time after I saw him put in such a brilliant performance in Killer Joe.

Posted on 27 Aug 2012 03:32:38 BDT
McConaughey has indeed appeared in lots of crap but he WAS EXCELLENT in "Lone Star."

In reply to an earlier post on 27 Aug 2012 13:51:41 BDT
Last edited by the author on 28 Aug 2012 10:33:38 BDT
a customer says:

' Who gives a fig if she can act or not? She is lush!'

So you think good looks are more important than talent? They will get you noticed but you can't rely on them to become a successful actor in Hollywood. What you need the most is talent. Talent counts for a lot in the film industry. Without it you will end up being stuck in small roles in limited release movies. That's exactly what is happening to MF. What dragged her down was her lack of genuine acting talent and her desire to be seen as a bombshell. She is perceived as a pretty face with no substance or talent. She complains about not being taken seriously as an actress but she has never tried to challenge herself to change people's perception of her. She keeps playing the same role - the hot chick -. If that's not true, tell me what movies where she doesn't get onscreen for her body. It makes you wonder if she has the motivation to get better at her craft or any real interest in acting. Instead of being a rising movie star she is a ' has been ' who can't have many roles lined up for herself.

Posted on 27 Aug 2012 22:23:28 BDT
Fred Simmons says:
Donald Sutherland

In reply to an earlier post on 29 Aug 2012 02:31:00 BDT
Well you are lucky, cos I HAVE seen him in way too much, though often he's just papped for falling out of his clothes on a beach which is enough to do my head (and eyes) in. You're missing the point with these rom-coms-he is useless and repellent in just about everything I've ever had the dissatisfaction to always catch him in BEFORE he started making these, but I've already made the point by listing a few of these things made in the mid-late 90s. Yet other males handle rom-coms fine-the few times one gets made that's worthwhile like 'Next Stop Wonderland', 'In Good Company' or 'The Night We Never Met' for example, but these are not the usual fare Hollywood bashes out.

Whether I've seen 'Killer Joe' or not is irrelevant-Mahogany man is so off-putting that just the thought of him being cast in a role like that would make me exit the cinema faster than if it was full of anthrax. With someone else in that role, THEN I would see 'Killer Joe' but I've suffered him more than enough for several lifetimes, so it's a fail again Mr McConaghuey; after all, he'd already mortally crippled 'Frailty' by being present, not that the film itself was impressive anyway-and one would expect far better from Bill Paxton's directorial debut.

Not wanting to catch 'Killer Joe' is no less logical than anyone else avoiding a film on the grounds that, even if it's good, it revolves around someone they can't stand, especially when hundreds of far better, more capable personalities exist to nail it, but lack the image the corporations love to sell their product.
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in

Recent discussions in the action discussion forum (517 discussions)

More Customer Discussions

Most active community forums
Most active product forums

Amazon forums

This discussion

Discussion in:  action discussion forum
Participants:  138
Total posts:  464
Initial post:  28 Nov 2011
Latest post:  13 Dec 2013

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 8 customers

Search Customer Discussions