August 12, 2008

Completely...

..overrated.

I have to whole-heartedly agree with Rachel, I have never understood the people who say Brad Pitt is a great actor. Well, maybe not wholeheartedly, because I can't think of a time when I ever found him attractive. I am amazed at how much money people are willing to pay him to suck.

I would have to add to the list of overrated actors by throwing in Tom Cruise. And I agree with the commenter who brought up Leonardo DiCaprio - he was one of the worst parts of Titanic. I have also never thought either of them were the least bit attractive. At least in the case of Pitt, he has managed at times to have a rockin' body - not that it saved his abysmal performance in Troy.

In Interview with a Vampire, we get both Pitt & Cruise to stink up the joint - awful.

There is no performance by Pitt or Cruise that could not have been done better by someone else (not on this list).

UPDATE: From her comments, "Brad Pitt doing a 60-page monologue sounds like my own personal Hell.

Could be worse…could be Ben Affleck." LOL

Posted by Vox at August 12, 2008 02:39 PM | celebrities
Comments

I think Brad Pitt is man-pretty, though I don't think he has ever given a great performance. I'm hard pressed to think of even a good one. In any role in which he has to stretch, he comes off as if he is stretching. In any role in which he simply has to show up and read his lines (the "Ocean's" trilogy, for example), he comes off as if he is simply showing up and reading his lines. He makes no impression at all.

Tom Cruise, on the other hand, is not man-pretty, but is capable of turning in memorable moments--if not memorable entire performances. I thought that most of his performance in "Magnolia" was very good, and I thought he had some excellent, very human, very real moments in "Jerry Maguire." Plus, I keep reading that he KILLS in "Tropic Thunder"...

Posted by: Special Agent Johnny Utah at August 13, 2008 10:00 PM

I haven't seen Magnolia, but the clips I have seen of his performances looked very much like he was acting - by that I mean it was SOOO obvious and OVERwrought as to negate any effect he wished to have. Perhaps that was what was called for in the movie, but those clips made me completely uninterested in seeing the rest of the movie.

As for Jerry Maguire, I think the star was the role and the way it was written. Just about anyone could have done it, and most of them could have done it better. Also true of the roles most people reference when pointing to Pitt's "acting"; Seven, Snatch, Fight Club - great roles, well written, would have been even more moving/believable played by someone with talent.

Incidentally, that doesn't mean I thought Pitt's performances were great in those films, just that those are the ones I hear referenced.

Posted by: Vox at August 13, 2008 10:21 PM

I thought Pitt was very actor-y in those movies. I've never seen him sink naturally into a role. Plus, I think it's easier to play extreme characters or characters in extreme circumstances...one or both of which applied to each of the Pitt performances you cited (also to Kalifornia).

That's one of the things I liked about Cruise in "Jerry Maguire"; it's actually a fairly normal character living out a fairly normal story. (Yeah, I know that being a big deal sports agent is hardly normal, but the character doesn't have any extreme elements or quirks that an actor can latch onto, and the story of losing your job and struggling with relationships is about as normal as it gets.) I think that's harder to play than the extremes. It's a bit like something Rich Little said about doing impressions. I'm paraphrasing, but it was along these lines: "Anyone can do Ross Perot. But try doing Robert Redford." His point was that Perot was such an extreme vocal type, it didn't take much talent to get close; lots of people could take a crack at doing Perot and you'd probably be able to guess that that's who they were doing. But Robert Redford? There's nothing distinctive about THAT voice; your average guy on the street probably couldn't come close. (Rich Little does Redford, though I've never heard him do it.) So, similarly, I think playing "normal" convincingly is much more of a challenge than playing extreme. (Have you noticed that Daniel Day-Lewis is much better at the extreme characters than the normal ones?)

As for Cruise in Magnolia, obviously, I don't know which clips you saw. Cruise's character, though, has a secret in the movie, and part of his character's personality is that he is totally overcompensating for that secret. He's supposed to be over-the-top...at least until his secret is exposed, and he has to face up to his true self. Then the air comes out of the balloon, and his performance settles down a lot.

It may be that if you saw the whole movie you'd STILL think he was trying way too hard. But I think at least some of what you've seen in the clips is that he was playing a character who was trying way too hard.

P.S. "A Few Good Men" was on last week. He has some REALLY rotten moments in that.

Posted by: at August 14, 2008 12:33 AM

I agree with that assessment - I have always said it is easy to play crazy amid the sane, though some do it better than others.

Jack Nicholson, who in his later years seems to have lost his ability to play anyone other than himself, was genius in Cuckoo's Nest because of the nuances and layers he brought out in McMurphy. He was restrained in his lunacy...

Posted by: Vox at August 14, 2008 09:21 AM

Brad Pitt - yes man pretty. As far as his acting there are only 3 films that I really liked Brad in. A River Runs Through It, Legends of the Fall and Thelma and Louise. First of all, I think he looked his best in all of these. River and Legends I think he does a really decent job as the characters. Thelma - just because it was a fun small part that seemed to suit him. All of his films since then seem to be lame as shit. I think he has just gotten lazy and not waiting for the right roles and just taking anything for the money. Fight Club, The Mexican, Mr. & Mrs. Smith and Oceans... freaking blah!

Tom Cruise - I think he is a guy who is better looking as he gets older. I'll always love Top Gun and Risky Business, my bad? There is one film I did really like his acting and that was Collateral. He was believable to me in it. Originally Russell Crowe was first pick for the role but had to turn it down because he was shooting some other flick. Russell of course is a much better actor but I thought Tom pulled it off ok. Magnolia, I never saw it and had no desire to. It looked like crap. Jerry McGuire... eh. I wasn't that impressed. The Mission Impossible movies bore the hell out of me.

Leo DiCaprio - He's average cute but not hunky or handsome. I do have to say I like Leo though. In The Departed and Blood Diamond he was very good. Especially Blood Diamond. I did also like him in This Boys Life and thought his acting in What's Eating Gilbert Grape to be believable. The one movie I really did not like him in was The Aviator. I thought he was much too young for the part and it wasn't believable at all. Just wasn't the right fit for him at all. Not good.

Some of the best actors today I think are Russell Crowe - yeah, he's not Hollywood handsome but the boy has acting skills. Just rent The Insider or a Beautiful Mind. Those were excellent performances especially in the Insider, you really believed he was Jeffrey Wigand. It seems the more unattractive guys are the better actors. For example I really like Gary Sinise. Or how about Chris Cooper? That man is good in everything he plays whether he is a good guy or an evil guy. I always think Gene Hackman is awesome.

And I definitely agree with you about Ben Affleck. Ugh! He sucks bad.

Posted by: Lori at August 14, 2008 11:42 AM

I agree that Leo can be good, or at least there was a time in his career when he could. Unfortunately, he has to be perfectly cast. There are roles that he has really pulled off well, and some he had no business even considering.

As for Cruise in Collateral, I am working on a post specific to that ;-)

Posted by: Vox at August 16, 2008 06:01 PM