What's new
By:

Underrated Actors/Actresses

It must be my day to disagree with KEK because just about anything I've ever seen Farrell in has been painful to watch. However, I will admit that his part looks really good in the trailer for Horrible Bosses.
 
jazzman12 said:
It must be my day to disagree with KEK because just about anything I've ever seen Farrell in has been painful to watch. However, I will admit that his part looks really good in the trailer for Horrible Bosses.
Click to expand...

His sex tape was okay. He didn't drive a boat with no hands, but it was still one of the better celebrity tapes I've seen.
 
jazzman12 said:
It must be my day to disagree with KEK because just about anything I've ever seen Farrell in has been painful to watch. However, I will admit that his part looks really good in the trailer for Horrible Bosses.
Click to expand...

Many of his movies have been box office busts but that's not necessarily a reflection on him. Have you seen any of the three movies I referenced?
 
KrazeeEyezKilla said:
Many of his movies have been box office busts but that's not necessarily a reflection on him. Have you seen any of the three movies I referenced?
Click to expand...

I've seen Minority Report, but not the other two. I'm sure I'll give them a look someday, but I don't know if they'll sway me. Just sumthin about him I seem to dislike.

I have also seen his sex tape. I came away more impressed with his partner.
 
He's brilliant in the other two. See them. I'm hetero as hell and will admit the guy is sexy as ****. ****, I wish I looked like Colin Farrell. But the dude can also act and should be given his props.

This makes me think we should have a fantasy draft of living actors and actresses. 12-16 teams....12-16 rounds...Let's do it.
 
YB85 said:
I just IMDB'd Farrell's filmography and saw that he's starring in a remake of "Total Recall", only not set on Mars. Seriously? I wonder if women in the future still have three breasts.
Click to expand...

Maybe it's actually more faithful to the source material.
 
YB85 said:
I just IMDB'd Farrell's filmography and saw that he's starring in a remake of "Total Recall", only not set on Mars. Seriously? I wonder if women in the future still have three breasts.
Click to expand...

Women with three breasts? No wonder they didn't bring Arnold back to do it.
 
YB85 said:
I thought the same thing so I Google'd the source material and it's not.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/We_Can_Remember_It_for_You_Wholesale

The original story takes place on Mars. The plot summary for the new movie looks like it takes place in the possible near-future, on Earth.
Click to expand...

You may want to check your facts counselor. I've read the original and he remains generally earthbound. It has a twist ending that can't be topped that is nowhere present in Total Recall as well.
 
Sirkickyass said:
You may want to check your facts counselor. I've read the original and he remains generally earthbound. It has a twist ending that can't be topped that is nowhere present in Total Recall as well.
Click to expand...

Too shay, though I haven't read the original story. As a matter of fact, until I googled it, I didn't even know it existed. The summary that I saw for the new movie reads "As the nation states Euromerica and New Shanghai vie for supremacy, a factory worker (Farrell) begins to suspect that he's a spy, though he is unaware which side of the fight he's on." That doesn't look like either the source material or the loosely based Arnold movie, to me at least. I could be wrong since I haven't read it and am simply judging this book by the cover notes.
 
MV5BMTMzOTU2OTA1Ml5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTcwNzMzOTkyMQ@@._V1._SY314_CR18,0,214,314_.jpg
 
Bruce Lee
Has anyone else beat 2 people at ping pong using nunchucks?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NBr0mLxJm6o
 
YB85 said:
Too shay, though I haven't read the original story. As a matter of fact, until I googled it, I didn't even know it existed. The summary that I saw for the new movie reads "As the nation states Euromerica and New Shanghai vie for supremacy, a factory worker (Farrell) begins to suspect that he's a spy, though he is unaware which side of the fight he's on." That doesn't look like either the source material or the loosely based Arnold movie, to me at least. I could be wrong since I haven't read it and am simply judging this book by the cover notes.
Click to expand...

* Two shay
 
YB85 said:
Too shay, though I haven't read the original story. As a matter of fact, until I googled it, I didn't even know it existed. The summary that I saw for the new movie reads "As the nation states Euromerica and New Shanghai vie for supremacy, a factory worker (Farrell) begins to suspect that he's a spy, though he is unaware which side of the fight he's on." That doesn't look like either the source material or the loosely based Arnold movie, to me at least. I could be wrong since I haven't read it and am simply judging this book by the cover notes.
Click to expand...

Too hard to tell from that description. Although it's weird that it doesn't have any description of memory implantation as a plot device since that's part of the basic premise of both the short story and Total Recall.
 
Sirkickyass said:
Keanu Reeves.

In many ways I think Keanu had the wrong career. There is a lot of evidence from his early career that he's got a very legitimate comedic instinct (Bill and Ted, Parenthood, etc) and had some roles where he displayed some real range and fragility (i.e. Point Break, My Own Private Idaho, etc).

Instead he got pegged as a big budget star for Speed and later typecast as being "The Matrix guy" and got cast in a bunch of roles where he was asked to continue playing "The Matrix guy" (Constantine, A Scanner Darkly, etc). In some sense I think he's been punished almost for being too good looking. If he was a little uglier I suspect his film offerings might have been a little meatier and less popcorny.
Click to expand...
I'm not so sure about that.

I brought up Glenn Close in Dangerous Liasons earlier. Keanu Reeves is in that, playing alongside Close, Malkovich, Pfieffer, and Thurman. Maybe he only looks bad by comparison, but man does he look ridiculous.

What Reeves is good at is acting confused. That's why he was so good in The Matrix... all he had to do was act confused the whole movie: "Huh? What?" About the only range I think he has is different modes of confusion.

Just one man's opinion.
 
Kicky started to convince me but I think AP's right.

Dracula has been on a couple times recently and holy Jesus is he God awful in it. Call it being miscast. I call it having limited range. Ferrell > Reeves.
 
KrazeeEyezKilla said:
Kicky started to convince me but I think AP's right.

Dracula has been on a couple times recently and holy Jesus is he God awful in it. Call it being miscast. I call it having limited range. Ferrell > Reeves.
Click to expand...
Yeah, that's the thing. You can always say someone was "miscast." Reeves certainly was in Dangerous Liasons. I mean, he was trying to portray French aristocracy, and yet he still had that terrible SoCal surfer accent. But at the same time, good actors act... they adapt themselves to the role. But Reeves... not so much. Limited range, indeed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top