Is it me or? (1 Viewer)

[Tom McDonald]

I'm I missing something or am I not alone in not being able to watch any Ben Affleck films? I just dont get how this guy has become so popular, his movies are unwatchable, I've tried and there are even a few I would love to like, "Sum of All Fears"&"Dogma" come to mind but Ben is the same person in every role he has ever done. Just not a very good actor.

 

[Jack Briggs]

Apparently it's not just you. All of Hollywood is asking the same thing, according to the lead story in last Wednesday's Calendar section of the Los Angeles Times. After a string of on- and offscreen embarrassments over the past two years, Affleck's career is hanging in the balance. No one knows if his career can recover in this dream-crushing town.

 

[Glenn Overholt]

I won't even think about discussing his acting ability, but couldn't you say that Rock Hudson/Cary Grant et al - sort of played the same person in a lot of their flicks too?

I thought that his 'placements' in films were just the same. I don't really like or really dislike him, but for me he is sort of like a wall fixture.

Like - "Oh yeah, I know that guy. He's going to be doing such and such later in the movie, and say this or that."

Glenn

 

[LanieParker]

Ben Affleck is another Tom Cruise for me. Can't watch any of his movies.

 

[GeorgePaul]

Of course, Glenn, let's make sure we all know that Rock Hudson and Cary Grant had real charisma in the parts they played. They weren't exactly wallpaper because they had real presence in their parts.

I haven't been able to see one Affleck movie all the way through since Changing Lanes, and in retrospect, it appears that film was better than he deserved. I'm not sure what target audience he represents, save annoying white guys. Are they that big of a demographic these days?

 

[TheLongshot]

I really only think Affleck is watchable in Kevin Smith films. Kevin seems to know how to use him, and keeps him from hamming it up too much. I think it also helps that he has a decent enough chemistry with his buddy, Matt Damon.

Course, I think looking at the choices both of those actors say a lot of what they look for in film projects. Damon seems to be a bit more picky about the projects he chooses, while Affleck seems to go for some very high profile/low brainpower films. In the short term, it was a bit better for Affleck, but now he's starting to pay the price for it. It does seem like he realises that now, but what is he going to do about it?

Jason

 

[Steve Felix]

I haven't seen some of his big bombs, but I thought he was more than good in both Dogma and Changing Lanes. He's always struck me as a smart guy, not annoying at all.

 

[Jason Seaver]

I tend to just figure that Affleck is like Bruce Willis a few years ago - he'll take any paycheck thrown his way but not put a whole lot of effort into it. Of course, for Bruce, Armageddon was when he started to start getting sick of it, whereas it's about when Affleck started coasting.

 

[Ernest Rister]

Yeah, Shakespeare in Love was a real piece of @#$%.

(sigh)

Let's all hop on the "bash the rich actor" train!

 

[Jason Walstrom]

I like the Affleck I think he's talented but may fall into the category of taking a chance on working with certain people in his choices. Like his current film he probably wanted to work with Gandolfini, Reindeer Games he probably wanted to work with Frankenheimer etc. His choices of scripts I am puzzled at. He jumped at the chance to work with John Woo but unfortunatley he needs to start taking passes at these bad scripts no matter who is involved. He is a talented actor but needs someone to read scripts for him. Doesn't he help select scripts for project greenlight?

 

[TheLongshot]

And Affleck was barely in that film. His presence didn't affect much wether or not it was good.

Jason

 

[JonZ]

"Ben Affleck is another Tom Cruise for me"

While I didnt like the Top Gun and Cocktail stuff he did in the 80s,I do like alot of what hes done snce Born On The Fourth Of July - Eyes Wide Shut, Magnolia,Interview W/ The Vampire,Mission Impossible, Last Samurai, Vanilla Sky,etc

 

[Colin Jacobson]

This has nothing to do with "bashing the rich actor". There are plenty of well-off actors out there who don't inspire threads such as this. As noted, there was an LA Times article dealing with the issue - clearly Affleck's making bad choices that spread beyond just Internet nastiness.

And as noted, SIL is a bad example. He plays a supporting role, and hell, the movie came out six years ago!

Look, I like Affleck - I think he's bright and funny and will watch any movie for which he does an audio commentary. But the guy's not doing anything to help his career. Commenting on that doesn't make this a thread about bashing successful people...

 

[Shawn_KE]

I thought he was decent in Daredevil.

 

[Michael Martin]

I think Affleck was good in Changing Lanes and Sum of All Fears. He was good as a supporting character in Good Will Hunting. And I think he did a great job as Daredevil - and I went into it thinking he was gonna suck at being an action superhero.

He's made a lot of bad or unwise film decisions - Paycheck, Gigli, Surviving Christmas, etc. - but he's not talent-less. I think he needs a strong director and strong script or focused plot to bring out his ability.

And in some respects, I feel sorry for the guy. The press decided to make him their #1 attraction. Fame is one thing, universally intrusive coverage is quite another.

 

[Holadem]

I like Affleck and think he is a decent actor and leading man.

Tom Cruise as far as I am concerned is a freaking legend.

Haters.

--
H

 

[TheLongshot]

Must not have seen the same movie I did.

Some of his worst overacting tendencies are on fine display in Daredevil. He's fine when he's being charming, but any sort of "emoting" he does comes off as very false.

Jason

 

[Ernest Rister]

Ben Affleck is the new celebrity whipping boy for people infected with the green-eyed monster and in need of an easy target. The worst thing he ever did was fall in love and propose to J-Lo, and make a movie with her. Ever since, he has been a target for the press, looking to make him out ot be a weak tool of the powerful Jennifer Lopez. Despite solid work in numerous films, he is now villified as some sort of hack. You people have a serious infestation of Entertainment-Weeklius/Nationalus-Enquirerus Bashius Clebritus.

 

[Julian Lalor]

No, the worst thing he ever did was appear in drivel like Armageddon and Pearl Harbor and then turn around and provide audio commentaries on the DVDs of these films informing everyone how ridiculous they are. To this day, I don't understand why an actor of his wealth and status needs to take roles in films he clearly has contempt for. I understand that he's hardly in the league of his soul-mate Matt Damon, but he's not Pauley Shore, either. His choices, both on and off screen have led him to where he is today: ridiculed as an actor and fodder for the tabloids.

 

[Grant H]

Affleck's fine with me. Dogma is about as different a character as he could be from anything else. Such a complicated and HORRIBLE individual he turned out to be. Certainly not his Jack Ryan.

I still don't like Tom Cruise at all. Too much "I'm so damn cool" coming from him all the time. Save "Interview with the Vampire" he's always "Tom Cruise playing this character". Risky Business and Top Gun were okay before his ego took over.

Sure, there are similarities in a lot of Affleck's roles. See, there used to be this thing called a "vehicle" for actors. There used to be Arnold movies, and Sly Movies, and Harrison Ford movies, just like there used to be John Wayne movies, Cary Grant movies, and so on and so forth. Same for actresses: Doris Day movies, Marilyn Monroe movies... Now, whenever someone gets plugged into a movie in a role that suits their overall personality, society rips them for it. I think it's just how cynical the world has become. The movie stars of yesterday would be lucky to have had more than one successful film these days. Sandra Bullock used to pull off those vehicle roles, but she sort of emerged at the beginning of the end of that era. Hence, you don't see her as much as you used to. Thankfully, we don't see quite as much of Julia Roberts either.

Back to the men. Let's face it; the days of the tall, handsome or rugged, man's man actor have passed. If you're not nerdy, fat, or otherwise odd-looking, or some sort of weird boy-man these days people aren't going to like you, and even then you're a flavor of the week most of the time.

I used to think Hollywood needed a new Harrison Ford-type, but anyone who has come close to filling that type has seen their film career flounder. Look at David Duchovny. People would rather watchy rap stars take over franchises from skinhead Stallone wannabees. Maybe they don't want to see movie stars because they might get jealous. It's like the girl who dates a really ugly stupid guy so she feels superior. Even most of the TV stars aren't TV stars thanks to all the reality crap. If people just want to see ordinary-looking talentless people why don't they just go out instead of watching TV? These days people can't relate. Usually, a little humanity in the potrayal was all it took to make a character relatable, even if the person was obviously superior to most common men. You could still relate, and maybe look up to that person as an idealized version of yourself. But, I don't think audiences are willing to do that anymore. They want somene at or below their level so they can feel good about themselves and not have anything to aspire to. Funny how Bruce Willis with his then-common man Die Hard portrayals, seems superhuman by today's standards.

These days, I feel like anyone who has a modicum of good looks and talent combined has it held against them from the get-go. Those actors end up struggling for years to win the approval of audiences. They're probably more likely to win an Oscar.