Comments by "Morgan King" (@MorganKing95) on "Top 10 Worst Movie Actors" video.
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
3
-
1971SuperLead "My opinion is still subjective", "That's your opinion". Is that the only things you can say? Well, that's amusing. The only thing I get from you is "... is a bad actor because I say so, even though I have only seen a couple of movies from the actor, and he/she doesn't convince me for reasons I don't know". How the hell do you expect people to open their eyes and see new things with your claims and statements? If you can't even convince me, then I can assure you that there are thousands of people you won't convince either.
Usually, I ignore people like you, but since you said you wanted people to open their eyes and see new things, there is no mercy from me, because by saying that, you're implying that you're trying to be objective. And even those who are completely subjective have reasonable arguments for their statements. You can't be really that simple-minded
Your lack of arguments is not an opinion, it's a fact, because I don't even see you using terms like presence, process, achievements, dynamism, complexity, situations, and viewpoints. If you really have arguments, then prove it! Give me your arguments for why you think Marlon Brando and James Dean are bad actors, I don't care about the other actors (or at least not as much)
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
***** What I see is that his character's situation is clear and believable; a screenwriter who loses his job due to alcoholism, and therefore moves to Las Vegas to drink himself to death. There he meets a young prostitute, whom he starts a relationship with to get some love and compassion before his life has ended. The film has a dramatic and sad atmosphere, and he has good chemistry with Elisabeth Shue (shown especially when he's lying on the couch with her or in the final scene), as well as they're clearly interacting and reacting to each other, which is a sign of presence instead of just exchanging lines
Some of the most dramatic moments include when he can barely sign a check because he is shaking so much, when he desperately wants booze at a bar even though it's too early at the day, when he wakes up during the night and runs to the refrigerator in desperation to get vodka and orange juice, and the last scene where he can barely breathe, but still has a final moment with Elisabeth Shue's character. I have seen people being heavily intoxicated and I have been very drunk myself and wondered if I'm about to die, so I can relate to much of this. Playing an alcoholic is one of the most challenging roles out there, and Cage portrays it much more realistic than I have seen from many other actors, and he's clearly more calm and serious than for example in "The Wicker Man".
Cage also won an Academy Award and Golden Globe, and I can understand why.
In general, acting is about storytelling, and the audience believe the actor if the situation is clear and relatable, and Cage blends in with the situation. If "most people" don't believe in the situations in "Leaving Las Vegas", then they cannot have had much life experience
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Kaily Cubberly
I appreciate your reply and I agree that opinions are a subjective matter. However, I’m always trying to look at it from an acting point of view, and I just don’t see many flaws in Jim Carrey’s acting when doing dramatic roles. I also don’t see what’s so annoying about him in them:
- In “Doing Time on Maple Drive”, he was kind of an alcoholic, but he was at the same time one of the few functional members of his family. His confrontation with his father also reminded me of James Dean
- In “The Truman Show”, he was a common man trapped in an artificial world (or constructed reality) and it’s quite hard to not sympathize with him when you find out (especially during the ending). Truman’s emotions and initial happy mood in the world was also literally the only one that was real; all the other characters were actors acting out emotions. His (Jim Carrey) presence is also amazing
- In “Man on the Moon”, you could argue that he was annoying if you don’t like Andy Kaufman, but at the same time, he (Jim) was chameleonic and captured the essence of Kaufman close to perfection. The ending again was highly moving
- “Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind” is probably one of the few performances from him where he is completely calm and serious. That alone is a plus. Another thing is that his presence is at his best here; when he wakes up and walks to the train platform, looks at Clementine (Kate Winslet) before she wakes up in his car, when he drives his car while crying, and when he walks down the street while furniture falls down to the ground, you kind of feel the same as him.
I also have favorite actors and actors I usually don’t like, but if the performances are great/bad, I’ll cut them a break. For example, I usually don’t like Nicolas Cage at all, but his performance in “Leaving Las Vegas” was one of the saddest and most natural yet powerful portrayals of an alcoholic I have ever seen. On the flip side, Marlon Brando is my favorite actor of all time, but I have no idea why he even appeared in “Christopher Columbus: The Discovery” and “The Island of Dr. Moreau”.
1
-
1
-
1971SuperLead
Before I will ”open my eyes and see new things”, I must say that your judgement is flawed for multiple reasons:
- Your judgement is completely void of arguments and precision; you just say their acting is bad without coming up with one reason for your statements, or you say that you just
do not get convinced. There can be several reasons for that, but I do not see
anything from you. Anyone who has not seen the movies you mention will not know
what you are talking about because there is no precision nor arguments. Also,
do terms like dynamism,
tempo-rhythm, storytelling, subtext, motivation, making situations believable,
process, reaction and interaction, presence, main objective, and acting based
on given circumstances make any sense to
you? Judging by your statements, I highly doubt it. I also highly doubt that
you have heard about people like Stanislavski, Lee Strasberg, Stella Adler, and
Sanford Meisner.
- In addition of being void of arguments and precision, your judgement is void of perspective; there is always several aspects to one case,
but you just look at the bad things in each actor instead of discussing the
aspects. All of this of course is coupled with the things I mentioned above.
- I can see that you
do not think much about elocutio; by only saying ”actors that suck”, I can
already see that your criticism is poor.
- You beat around the bush by talking about psychology and IQ, which have nothing to do with the
topic. If your goal was to strengthen your ethos, I will say that your ethos
instead got weakened because you do not think about kairos.
- You seem to have watched only one or two movies from each actor. For example, you only mention
”The Wild One” with Marlon Brando, which is definitely not his greatest movie,
and even he thought the movie had not aged well because it was mostly just
influential and iconic for the 50’s, and the subculture in that decade. If you
really want to his acting that are greater and more relatable, then watch
movies like ”A Streetcar Named Desire”, ”On the Waterfront”, ”The Godfather”,
and ”Last Tango in Paris”.
- You confuse movie actor with movie star and acting performance with influence. For example,
Arnold Schwarzenegger, John Wayne, and Clint Eastwood are movie stars; their
acting are not always talked about, but The Terminator (Schwarzenegger), Ethan
Edwards (John Wayne), and both Dirty Harry and Man With No Name (Clint
Eastwood) are such iconic characters in movies that are iconic in their
respective genres, and that is why those actors are praised. Movie stars
have/had certain personalities, trademarks, and ”stock characters” that the
audience love/loved, and therefore they bring/brought it in every movie. The
title of the video may be ”top 10 worst movie actors” and not ”top 10 worst
movie stars”, and Arnold’s acting may not be as good as the acting of Eastwood
and Wayne, but putting those three on this list is just being wrong. The main
reason why James Dean is so praised is because much like Brando, he brought a
naturalism and spontaneity to acting that was really groundbreaking and
influential at the time, and he was a cultural icon for the teenagers in the
50’s. His emotions are also much stronger than from most actors I’ve seen
today. With Brando, his line delivery was much more close to how people spoke
in real life, he opened the doors to new ways of interpreting scene (for
example in ”A Streetcar Named Desire” where he builds up his anger instead of
ranting immediately with no buildup, or in ”On the Waterfront” where he slowly
pushes a gun pointed at him by his brother and sounding more disappointed
instead of angry. Another example is ”The Godfather” where he made the title
character more a fatherly figure instead of the ruthless gangster stereotype
that most actors would interpret him), he established the setting and his
characters in a more clear way than most actors (shown especially in ”A
Streetcar Named Desire” when he first meets Blanche in the kitchen), he reacts
to bring out emotions instead of acting them out, and instead of just letting
the co-star finish his/her sentences, he actually tries to interrupt or
struggle to get attention because that’s what real-life conversations are
mostly.
- "I like being controversial". Yes, I bet Elia Kazan and Knut Hamsun felt the same thing, or
maybe even Mark David Chapman.
- You try to cover up your lacking of arguments by saying ”My opinion is still subjective”. If your
goal is to make people see new things, then you should see the case from an
objective perspective to a very large degree, and be more neutral to the topic.
I can promise you, no critics or acting teachers will buy your statements, and
I can see that most of the people who reply to you don’t do it either.
I respect your opinion, but like I said, if you want to make people open their eyes and see new things, I would
say that you failed. I will definitely not change my opinion. I was once
watching a video with an adult movie lover who debated around Marlon Brando may
not be the greatest movie actor of all time, but at least he had perspective
and some good arguments unlike you; he said that Brando brought a major
influence and created some of the most iconic characters of all time, and had
great acting in the 50’s and 70’s, but was not always consistent in choosing
good movie roles and always being great at acting (especially during the 60’s
and 90’s), and that he seemed to do movies just because of money.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Pedro Torres Yes, but the most important thing is to tell a story and make the situations clear. And he has played a baseball-player in "Bull Durham" and "Tin Cup", a police detective in "The Untouchables", a Civil War lieutenant in "Dances with wolves", an attorney in "JFK", and a bodyguard in "The Bodyguard". He also has the charm and presence of a leading actor
There are also some actors like Christian Bale, Tom Hardy, Daniel Day-Lewis, and Guy Pearce who like to completely change their appearance and make every character unique. And then there are actors like Kevin Costner who instead focuses on the story and situations, and it therefore looks like he's playing a variation of himself. Doesn't mean that it's bad acting, it's just a different acting style
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1