|
|
|
|
#1
07-19-2007, 03:12 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: inexplicable leading men
So we're back to anyone who's good looking being leading man material? [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]
|
|
#2
07-19-2007, 03:13 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: inexplicable leading men
[ QUOTE ]
So we're back to anyone who's good looking being leading man material? [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img] [/ QUOTE ] yes. sorry if you don't get it. [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img] Whether or not you think Ben Affleck has any talent, he's LOOKS like a leading man. Period.
|
|
#4
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.
|
|
#5
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)
|
|
#7
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]
|
|
#8
07-19-2007, 07:45 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? [/ QUOTE ] Wayne was great in the Quiet Man and I prefer it to many of his westerns/war movies. Not really a romantic comedy in the sense of a Tom Hanks/Meg Ryan flick it was quasi romantic and comic and different from his cowboys and soldiers. Eastwood never really did much outside of genre? Any which way but Loose and Any which way You Can are the only true comedies I can recall?
|
|
#9
07-20-2007, 10:11 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: inexplicable leading men
Klaus Kinski.
Using Dominic's logic, which isn't totally wrong in my opinion, Kinski should never be a leading man. Nonetheless he was perfect for Aguirre and Dracula. In Fitzcarraldo he was stiff and out of place, and that makes sense as it was a dramatic role. As for looks, he looks like a Jack Nicholson who hasn't slept for a month.
|
|
#10
07-20-2007, 10:27 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: inexplicable leading men
[ QUOTE ]
Klaus Kinski. Using Dominic's logic, which isn't totally wrong in my opinion, Kinski should never be a leading man. Nonetheless he was perfect for Aguirre and Dracula. In Fitzcarraldo he was stiff and out of place, and that makes sense as it was a dramatic role. As for looks, he looks like a Jack Nicholson who hasn't slept for a month. [/ QUOTE ] He's great for maniacs and monsters. He could open a movie, at least in Europe, but when he was in his heyday, America was hardly the place for truly scary looking anti-heroes in the movies. America tends to enjoy their leading men very clean cut and handsome, and he was neither.
|
 |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
