He’s currently in one called “Funny Games” which just came out. I think it looks awesome (partly because I like him, and also because the movie just looks so odd and bizarre in a good way).
Roth plays the villain in this summer’s *Incredible Hulk * movie as well, facing off against Edward Norton for the first time since they were rivals for Drew Barrymore’s affection in Woody Allen’s musical *Everyone Says I Love You * over a decade ago.
Yep, that’s what got me to thinking about him being on the list. 
Then of course, there’s the fact that I’m going to see Funny Games today. It’s my birthday gift to myself.
Oooh, Big Bad Voodoo Lou, you mentioned Edward Norton! That’s another yummmmmmmmmm.
This post made me laugh. Isn’t this what the thread is about? People who aren’t famous but should be? I first saw Ryan Gosling in a 2002 Sandra Bullock movie, Murder By Numbers, where he and another up-n-coming actor, Michael Pitt (Funny Games) are high school students who also happen to be intellectual serial killers, staying one step ahead of a determined homicide detective (Bullock). He was impressive in the role. I keep up with movies enough that I had already heard about him. He got a lot of attention in the arthouse world for a previous movie called The Believer, where he played a Jewish neo-Nazi (based on a true story btw). Then I saw him in The United States of Leland (about a disturbed kid in a juvenile detention facility) with Don Cheadle, and was again impressed by him. I missed his romantic movie The Notebook, and then also missed Half-Nelson, which I kicked myself for since it got him an Oscar nomination. I’ll never again miss anything Ryan Gosling does. I’m glad too he’s staying in a niche. He’s perfect where he is.
Regarding the OP, needless to say I think Happy Rhodes should be an enormous star. She has the enormous talent (amazing music, phenomenal voice, fascinating lyrics), a great back-story, the ability to inspire with passion, and is beautiful inside and out to boot. But she won’t play the game, such as changing her name or giving up the rights to her music. She prefers being a homebody to touring. She hates self-promotion. She makes the music and if people like it, fine. If they don’t, fine. She’s not in it to be famous. I admire her for it, but it’s still a shame she doesn’t get the recognition she deserves, and probably never will.
I think that there is also just a certain number of room for “enormous stars.” There is a little more room for “stars” and a space we fill with “tabloid fodder” - a different category than stars but with some overlap (Paris Hilton is tabloid fodder, but not a “star”). So in order for there to be movement, someone has got to drop off - it isn’t quite that absolute, but you get the idea.
Warning: It is a hard movie to watch. NOT a feel-good movie by any means. If you’re in a good mood and want to stay that way, you might want to pick something else.
Which means in the faithfoolverse that I’m gonna love it!! 
Reminds me of a Doonesbury strip from the mid-1970s, in which a panel discussion of People magazine staff writers and paparazzi bemoans the fact that the terms “star” and “superstar” had become so devalued. They agreed to start at ground zero: only Robert Redford would be so described!
Maybe these talented performers have seen what happens to their more famous co-workers and decide not to go that way. Maybe they want to have just enough fame to have a long career of playing interesting characters instead of the lead.
This is an understatement. “Funny Games” is a bleak, nihilistic, psychologically brutal film that pulls no punches in subverting audience expectations and will leave you wanting to take a shower afterwards. It’s also a very good film.
Disclaimer: I have not seen the English language version and I have absolutely no plans to do so. I’ve only seen most of the original Austrian version.
I think I need to make the point for those who haven’t realised yet that there are two films by the name Funny Games - one which stars Tim Roth and one which doesn’t. Hodge and Big Bad Voodoo Lou are talking about the latter.
The new one that stars Tim Roth is a shot-for-shot remake of the original Austrian Funny Games from 1997, and the same director, Michael Haneke, made both.
[Quote=Originally Posted by Manduck]
I was going to nominate Jennifer Tilley, but I maybe I shouldn’t, because of the bosoms.[\quote]
I think her sister Meg is just as pretty and way more talented. And I wonder why her career didn’t take off in a big way.
Illuminatiprimus watches as ignorance is gunned down in front of him. Silence ensues.
Beware of Doug writes:
> Alicia Witt. She’s beautiful enough, she’s talented enough, and doggone it,
> people like her.
>
> My guess is she’s too talented. Besides a degree in piano, she’s supposedly got
> an IQ pushing 180, which surely wouldn’t make life too pleasant in tinseltown.
This is a nitpick, but do you realize how absurdly unlikely it is that she has an I.Q. pushing 180? I’ll take that as meaning at least 175. That’s five standard deviations above average:
Being at or above an I.Q. of 115 (one standard deviation above the mean) is true for about one person in six. 130 (two standard deviations) is true for about one person in forty. 145 is true for about one person in 800, 160 for about one in 30,000, and 175 for about one in 3,000,000. The average person can’t distinguish I.Q.'s over 145. It’s very dubious if an I.Q. test can distinguish I.Q.'s over 160. Also, 190 (six standard deviations) is impossible to distinguish even if everybody who had ever taken an I.Q. test since they began being given could be all ranked somehow, since 190 is about one in 1,000,000,000, and I don’t think that many people have taken I.Q. tests.
[QUOTE=BMax]
Meg Tilley was mentioned earlier in this thread. Apparently, she took a sabbatical from acting around 1995 to write and hasn’t returned yet.
Jennifer Jason Leigh is the name that pops into my head. I’ve never really understood why she never became a bigger star. Hers is a relatively obscure name that will induce me to watch a move every time, and I’m rarely disappointed. She’s got a large body of work, but I still get the impression that she’s a relative unknown. She does have a tendency to play damaged or odd characters; perhaps it’s a lack of range that has kept her from prominence.
I disagree with your assessment that Jennifer Jason Leigh is “obscure” and “unknown” but you are correct that her deeply neurotic “Queen of Pain” persona has prevented her from taking her career to the next level. I think she’s one of those actors or actresses who had the misfortune of being born at the wrong time. Had Leigh been born 20 years earlier and started her career in the 60’s rather than the 80’s, she probably would’ve been a bigger star.
Rogers’ plentiful chestage is also very visible and quite literally on display in The Door in the Floor.
Quite so. Kim Basinger’s charms are also very, um, well-displayed.