🔔Alerts
Login to get notifications!
🗨ī¸Forum

🎞ī¸Movies & TV


🌐Junk

🔍
Search keywords
Join➕ Now!   or       đŸ”Ŋ Forgot Password?

Jun '17
inspired by Johan's post about actors who make a movie worth watching, thought i'd throw this out there.

started by Strong when he was a guest on Kermode & Mayo's Film Review show a few years ago, he was talking about the increase in actors asking for the 'and' or 'with' credit on film titles, and suggested there should be a 'but'. Where a film whose cast contains actors whose performance is usually of a high calibre, but that also has an actor whose output is usually of a lower quality.

eg "The Fifth Element", starring Bruce Willis and Gary Oldman, but Chris Tucker
or "Inglorious Basterds" starring Christoph Waltz and Brad Pitt, but Eli Roth

Shining was the first one i thought of, tho that's a little unfair on Shelley Duvall so - "Doghouse" with Stephen Graham and Neil Maskell but Danny Dyer...

who are your biggest 'but's?

image


🚸
avatar
foz says:
#2, Reply to #1

Jun '17
haha, poor Channing. he was funny in This Is The End...


🚸
avatar
foz says:
#5, Reply to #4

Jun '17
the cow-boy guy who loves candy


ha! that would be Woody, he usually makes films better, i liked him in Zombieland even if he's a little OTT. Abi is good but a bit part and still very young so not too much influence. Not a fan of twitchy one note speedspeaker Jesse Eisenberg.

interesting view on The Shining, can't really argue with accusing Nicholson of overacting! Scatman Cruthers wasa robbed of a best supporting oscar.



Loading...


Loading...
@ am
You have reached the end of Trash Epics.