I was watching Perfect Stranger tonight, and turned it off after about ½h. But from what I saw, Giovanni Ribisi was his usual great. From the first time I caught him as Phoebe’s semi-retarded brother, and in everything after, he’s always made good performances. By all evidence I can gather, he’s a brilliant actor.
Yet, maybe the name or the not so handsome (but still interesting) face keep him from becoming an actor just about anyone can recognize and name.
I’m not looking into why this is happening. Only doing the opposite of the “Why is Y still famous? Why does [del]Cuba Gooding Jr.[/del] that Oscar winner still work, since all the work since the award has been crap.”
Or, in other words, who are the Harry Dean Stantons of today?
Well fuck.
I clicked on edit, but it too sofucking long for the window to reload, got timed out for the editing by two minutes. :sigh:
This is what I wanted to add:
Or for that matter Gene Hackman, Michael Caine, Robert Duvall, Richard Burton? All great actors who always deliver solid performances, even in craptacular movies.
I will nominate Thora Birch. After turning in a great performance in Ghost World and being the only watchable element (for me) of American Beauty, I haven’t seen her in anything else of note. (Yet somehow Scarlet Johannson, also of Ghost World, goes on to great fame. Grrr.)
Four words: Dungeons and motherfuckin’ Dragons. That movie basically killed everyone involved with it except for Jeremy Irons, including the rookie director, Courtney Solomon.
I read an article in EW or People or something a little bit after Ghost World came out and it implied that Thora Birch was trying to BE Enid during the entire time they were making the movie, even when they weren’t filming.
Apparently, it really screwed her up for a while.
And count me as someone who thought Gene Hackman, Robert Duvall and Michael Caine were big stars.
Really? I think of them all (with the possible exception of Burton) as actors first, “stars” second (if at all). Well-known and well-respected, but basically about the work rather than the persona.
Maybe they don’t act like “stars,” but I always thought they (with the exception of Burton) were “name actors.”
Just look at Gene Hackman’s output in the last couple of years: Enemy of the State, Behind Enemy Lines and The Royal Tenenbaums. His name was used to advertise these movies just like the names of the bigger (read: younger) “stars” were.
The method acting did not serve her as well as it did Pacino or Hoffman.
I do remember reading that Steve Buscemi was so uncomfortable at playing Seymour that he’d change clothes when they were done filming to distance himself from the character. Maybe Thora should’ve followed suit.
They seem pretty big to me, though. Robert Duvall, Gene Hackman, Richard Burton–they have name recognition and all can draw an audience. Michael Caine, maybe, not so much. I guess I think of him less as a big star and more as a classy English actor who is above degrees of stardom, and more about the craft. (English actors make me feel this way a lot, though.)
John Hannah, who is probably best known as the comedy sidekick in the *Mummy *movies, is one of my favorite actors and I believe he deserves some leading roles. I’m probably a little biased as his Scottish accent gives me warm fuzzies even though accents normally don’t do a thing for me.
I’ve also been impressed by Jena Malone and keep hoping for her to have a(nother?) breakout performance since Saved!
And put me down for another person who think Hackman, et al *are *stars.
Because Exene had this problem after Los Angeles that…oh, wait.
My vote goes for Jenna Malone. She’s been totally killer in all of her roles, and yet still seems to be stuck with only the fringiest parts.
On the other end, I’ve always thought that Lili Taylor was way, way, way too great to only be the small-time “character actor” that she is. I mean, she should have been winning Oscars and stuff.
Ok, ok. Let’s skip the four names I mentioned in my second post. I did it, because they have all made a lot of crappy movies, often as supporting actors or in bit parts, but almost always with a solid performance.
Scott Wilson has always been my “Why?”. He’s had a definite successful career, but I would have thought with “In Cold Blood” and “The Grissom Gang” so early on, he would have been huge. Must be my personal fan-dom getting in the way.
I have to second Thora Birch and Jena Malone. I also think that Sara Gilbert is so incredibly talented and since Roseanne ended has not really done what I had expected she would.
I think this tread illustrates the distinction (for me) between great actors and movie stars. Gene Hackman is a brilliant actor. Cate Blanchet, too. I don’t know who they’re married to (if they are married), and haven’t seen them pursued by paparazzi onto the tabloid covers I will admit to scouring (not just furtive glances, I really look) at the grocery store.
I’d guess that Harry Dean Stanton, and Gene Hackman, and Toni Colette don’t have full time publicists working on getting them into Vanity Fair and making sure they’re photographed at Fashion Week. They have agents getting them good scripts (and some clunkers, too, but people gotta eat, right?).
Baskin-Robbins only has one Flavor of the Month, but most of the sales are still made by the other 31 flavors. That super-stardom machine can only chew up and spit out a few celebs at a time. The really solid actors seem to prefer to work all the ime, give rock-solid performances, with the occasional stand-out, and fly under the People magazine radar. The really good ones can make 5 crappy films for every one good film and not be have it affect their career. The Star makes a couple high- profile flops and their career is on the skids.