Actors who failed to live up to their potential (1 Viewer)

[Scott Weinberg]

Todd,

Yes, Fraser's been in many profitable movies, but I think the original point may have been:

The guy has more talent than what's on display in Dudley Do-Right and The Mummy Returns.

The most 'respected' movie-star actors generally try to mix in a few works of substance in between the CGI flicks, the sequels, and the live-action adaptations of 70s cartoons. Fraser's work in Gods and Monsters indicates some real depth of talent, and I'd like to see BF take on some tougher roles.

Nothing wrong with getting PAID, but take a few chances along the way!

 

[Colin Jacobson]

But I think Fraser IS taking some chances along the way. He does the big flicks and smaller ones like Quiet American. Seems like a pretty balanced career to me...

 

[Holadem]

I am not sure about balanced but yeah, the Quiet American was only last year, so he definitely doesn't deserve the full blown scolding just yet.

--
H

 

[Mikel_Cooperman]

Michael Scheofeling from 16 Candles and Vision Quest.

 

[buttmunker]

Say what you will for the likes of James Caan and Nic Cage, but John Cazale, before his death, has the kind of resume most actors would kill to have:

01: The Godfather (1972)
02: The Conversation (1974)
03: The Godfather, Part II (1974)
04: Dog Day Afternoon (1975)
05: The Deer Hunter (1978)

Of those five films, three won the Best Picture Oscar, and two were nominated for Best Picture. All his films were critically acclaimed - not a clunker amongst.

 

[Holadem]

Great thread!

This sort of aphorism is only as disgestible as it's author .

--
H - Sarandon? Yikes.

 

[Lucia Duran]

Michael Schoeffling is actually a furniture maker in Vermont (I believe). he left acting because he no longer had any interest in it.

Winona Ryder is one who comes to mind as someone who had/has potential to really shine in movies, but tends to pick lack luster roles. The last great movie she did (IMHO) was Little Women. She may be working, but her choice of roles haven't been great. I'd say that she has made about 10 good films out of 32 movies she has done.

 

[Raasean Asaad]

Wow, a 3 year thread bump. Don't see that everyday.

 

[Don Giro]

Holy crap...

And to think, I started this thing...

 

[Eric Peterson]

What happened to Kevin Spacey? After his late 90s run including "The Usual Suspects", "LA Confidential", "Se7en", & "American Beauty", I thought he was going to be the next great actor, but he's done virtually nothing of note since.

 

[Holadem]

It's not for lack of trying, he has done a number of flicks since American Beauty which on paper looked like potential Oscar material or critical darling, but ended up mildly received at best and rather quickly forgotten:

Beyond the Sea (2004)
The Life of David Gale (2003)
The United States of Leland (2003)
The Shipping News (2001)
K-PAX (2001)
Pay It Forward (2000)

Leland did well in Indie circles, but he role was minor.

Even the rare Summer Blockbuster with some pedigree wasn't all it could/should have been (Superman Returns).

Note that I have only seen Gale, Pay it Forward and Supes, none of which I wish to see again. My impressions of the others are what I gather here and elsewhere.

--
H

 

[Michael Reuben]

M.

 

[Eric Peterson]

Of these:
Pay It Forward (Didn't see, looked OK, but reviews were terrible)
K-PAX (Didn't see, looke stupid and reviews were terrible)
The Shipping News (Saw this, liked but not enough to see again)
The United States of Leland (Saw, liked a lot, but Spacey's role was small)
The Life of David Gale (Didn't see, looked OK, but reviews were terrible)
Beyond the Sea (Didn't see, look good and will probably see at some point)
Superman Returns (Didn't see, not really interested)

It just seems to me, that the list I made from the late 90s includes a number of modern classics that still have a strong following 10 years later. I don't see any of these films having that following except for maybe Superman, and that's because comic book films will always have a following regardless of quality.

 

[Michael Reuben]

It's unfair to judge an actor's work on that basis, because most actors, even if they're major names, have little control over the final product. You have to look at the performance that they give (or more accurately: the one that survives the editing process) and decide whether they're doing good work.

I've seen everything in Holadem's list except Leland, and Spacey was doing something interesting in all of them. And the list is missing The Big Kahuna, an entertaining little film that featured great teamwork between Spacey and Danny DeVito.

You can't plan to make a "classic", and people who do usually misfire (just ask the makers of The Shipping News, which was supposed to be major Oscar bait but turned out so badly that Miramax pulled it after a week or two). All actors can do is give their best performance and hope the thing comes together. Spacey had a charmed run in the 90s, but those never last. The relevant question is whether he keeps trying to do interesting work, and that's never stopped -- before the camera, on the stage and behind the scenes.

M.

 

[JohnRice]

One item I'd like to add to Michael's post is Eric's repeated comments of "but reviews were terrible". What ever happened to actually watching a movie yourself and forming your own opinion? Besides, is there no such thing as being very good in a mediocre movie? The only thing an individual actor really has control over is his or her own performance. Take Cate Blanchett for example. She is consistently GREAT, but she doesn't tend to be in all that many great movies. The truth is, at the time an actor has to commit to a role, it is usualy incredibly difficult to tell how good the movie will actually be. For example, and to continue with Blanchett, look at Charlotte Gray. It was a very intriguing story, had an exceptional director and a fabulous cast (Blanchett, Billy Crudup, Michael Gambon) but is still managed to fall short.

So much is put on individual actors for the financial success of an entire movie. It's just absurd.

 

[Holadem]

I am not disputing the difference in quality. My point is merely that his post American Beauty work relatively sucks not because his sensibilities or choices have changed (i.e., "sold out" or similar), but because of something I can only call bad luck (again, relative) for lack of better term. With the exception of K-PAX, and setting aside the special case of Superman Returns, everything on that list is conceptually interesting (to me anyway) and challenging. Unfortunately the final products did not live up to their promise (from most accounts, for those which I did not see). That's why I said "it's not for fault of trying".

Compare with a Harrison Ford, a guy who hasn't done anything that has made me so much as want to read a review in years. To me, most of his recent movies are dead at the concept -- long before a single frame is shot.

--
H

 

[Eric Peterson]

These kind of comments tend to piss me off. Maybe, you have time to see every film that comes out. Personally, I don't even come close to having that kind of time. I manage to find time to watch about 200-250 films a year, and about 80% of those are classics (pre-1970), so that leaves me less than 50 new films per year (..and I rarely watch that many, usually closer to 30). That said, I have to use some sort of filtering device. I use several filters including:

1. Talent involved (director, writer, etc.. but rarely actor)
2. Subject matter or story (does it interest me)
3. Professional reviews (Ebert is my primary jumping off point)

For the titles in question that I did not see, they didn't meet my criteria enough for me to spend time on. #1, the only talent that drew me was Spacey, but I almost never see a movie because of an actor, For #2, the subject matter was either mildly or non-interesting, and for #3, the reviews were almost unanimously bad. As I recall, Ebert gave David Gale ZERO stars, which he almost never does.

My question for you, is "How do you decide which films you're going to watch, do you just use dumb-luck, or decide based on marketing gimmicks?" I'm interested in knowing.

 

[Michael Reuben]

That's really a different subject. We all have our personal filters for distinguishing what films we're likely to enjoy. I think John's point was that such filters shouldn't be taken as a replacement for actually viewing the film, if one is planning to offer an assessment of it -- or, in the case of this thread, of the career trajectory of an actor appearing in it. It would be like a critic writing a review on the basis of what other critics have said, but without actually seeing the film.

M.

 

[Eric Peterson]

Fair enough, but when the films in question were bashed by nearly every critic AND did horribly at the box office, then I don't think it was just me who has the negative opinion of his more recent films.