|
|
#82
07-19-2007, 03:25 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: inexplicable leading men
[ QUOTE ]
Blame the stonecutters.  [/ QUOTE ] Baffled how no one gave you props for this one yet. 
|
|
#83
07-19-2007, 03:38 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: inexplicable leading men
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] I'm amazed no one has mentioned Colin Farrel yet. Awful actor. Alexander and Miami Vice were both atrocious. [/ QUOTE ] I don't think you get the point of this thread. It's not "bad actors who are stars WTF???" It's actors (good or bad) who have been cast as leading men when they shouldn't be. Sometimes it works out to go against the grain - Dustin Hoffman, for example. But usually, a leading man looks like Tom Cruise. I mean, you wouldn't cast William H. Macy (as good as he is) as the lead in Top Gun, would you? That's what I mean. Colin Farrell is definite Leading Man material, whether or not you think he's any good. [/ QUOTE ] Sorry I missed the nuance of the thread the first time around Dom. Here's my mulligan: Granted, he gave us Ash, but I'm still amazed he was cast in the first place. I present Bruce Campbell: 
|
|
#85
07-19-2007, 04:17 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: inexplicable leading men
[ QUOTE ]
Hugh Grant? He sort of falls in the middle. Often(or always?) cast in the "leading man" role but does not really fit the stereotype, a la Tom Cruise. [/ QUOTE ] wow, I think Hugh Grant is superb leading man material. Granted, he's a bit wispy in that British-concave-chest kinda way, but he's got so much charm and wit and good looks going for him, he's easily the best thing in most of the films he's in.
|
|
#86
07-19-2007, 04:52 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: inexplicable leading men
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Hugh Grant? He sort of falls in the middle. Often(or always?) cast in the "leading man" role but does not really fit the stereotype, a la Tom Cruise. [/ QUOTE ] wow, I think Hugh Grant is superb leading man material. Granted, he's a bit wispy in that British-concave-chest kinda way, but he's got so much charm and wit and good looks going for him, he's easily the best thing in most of the films he's in. [/ QUOTE ] I agree as obviously do many others since he is often cast as a leading man, but certainly does not fit the stereotype that you described. Could you really see Hugh Grant playing Maverick in Top Gun? (which is why I think he falls somewhere in the middle)
|
|
#87
07-19-2007, 05:24 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: inexplicable leading men
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] I'm amazed no one has mentioned Colin Farrel yet. Awful actor. Alexander and Miami Vice were both atrocious. [/ QUOTE ] I don't think you get the point of this thread. It's not "bad actors who are stars WTF???" It's actors (good or bad) who have been cast as leading men when they shouldn't be. Sometimes it works out to go against the grain - Dustin Hoffman, for example. But usually, a leading man looks like Tom Cruise. I mean, you wouldn't cast William H. Macy (as good as he is) as the lead in Top Gun, would you? That's what I mean. Colin Farrell is definite Leading Man material, whether or not you think he's any good. [/ QUOTE ] Sorry I missed the nuance of the thread the first time around Dom. Here's my mulligan: Granted, he gave us Ash, but I'm still amazed he was cast in the first place. I present Bruce Campbell: [/ QUOTE ] He was the director's friend when both were broke, and he was willing to work crazy hours under difficult conditions -- for free.
|
|
#89
07-19-2007, 05:42 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: inexplicable leading men
[ QUOTE ]
Yeah, but how do you feel about Clint Eastwood or John Wayne as the lead in a romantic comedy? Different kinds of stars for different kinds of flicks. [/ QUOTE ] I agree many stick with one genre. Clint Eastwood played a romantic lead in the Bridges of Madison County. I am not sure about him in a romantic comedy, but I could see him being quirky in an awkward sort of way. John Wayne...no. [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
