QuoteReplyTopic: Worst Supporting Actor of 2005 Posted: February 11 2006 at 3:19am
LOL, I wasn't really serious about that. However I still can't believe Tom Cruise got enough votes to be nominated as worst actor. I fully believe it was because of problems people have with his personality. In my opinion, Tom Cruise is a very good actor who has had many powerful performances. How do you feel on this matter, HeadRAZZBerry.
You've stated that you feel Tom cruise hasn't had a good performance in recent years. Did you not feel that his work in Collateral, Vanilla Sky, Minority Report, Eyes Wide Shut and The Last Samurai was effective?
As for his work in the nominated film, I thought it was OK. It certainly wasn't great, but I don't think anyone else would have been nominated for such a performance. So much has been said on this subject, HeadRAZZBerry, and I'd like to hear your opinion. Do you really think Cruise's performance was Razzie worthy? Or is it just fun to?
Reply from HeadRAZZberry: I personally have never been a big fan of Tom Cruise, though I'd hardly say I have it out for him. I just rarely find him compelling or in any sense "deep" -- To me, he's the male equivalent of a blonde bimbo, someone who's been trading on his looks for years, almost never putting genuine emotion or effort into his performances. As for his getting enough votes to be a Worst Actor contender for 2005, Tom came in a strong third among the five finalists, handily ahead of both Will Ferrell and The Rock. There has alwaze been an element of "Zeitgeist" to the RAZZIES, and anyone who didn't sleep through 2005 would have to admit, Cruise seriously damaged himself in the public's eye with 97% of his behavior last year...
I had originally addressed the issue of billing in my previous reply, but thought including it pushed past thorough and straight into excessive, so I cut it out. It seems I should not have done so.
To be honest, I can think of quite a few examples where billing order doesn't reflect the importance of someone's role in the cast (especially in cases where younger, more inexperienced actors are paired with older and more proven ones), but if you want examples where a lead actor or actress received third billing in a movie, that's cool.
Linda Hamilton received third billing in The Terminator, and Edward Furlong gets third billing in T2. Natalie Portman received third billing in The Professional, Ewan McGregor received third billing in Shallow Grave, Orlando Bloom received third billing in Pirates of the Caribbean, Ashley Laurence received third billing for Hellraiser, Sandra Bullock gets third billing in Speed, Bill Pullman received fourth billing in Spaceballs, and the one to probably trump them all:
Christopher Reeve received third billing in Superman.
Never listen to those who tell you to do what they say and not as they do, for if they're good people, you could do as they do, and if they're not, you can't trust what they say.
If you are going with screen time and importance to the movie then Toto should have received top billing in the Wizard of Oz, since nothing in the movie would have happened, including the discovery of the Oz without Toto... there are too many factors in determining weather somone is a lead actor or supporting... I would go with supporting on him since the focus of the film is the rise of Palpatine to power... I'm not a Starwars junkie, but I support the idea of supporting actor... if nothing else his lackluster performance caused the audience to believe he was just there to support the rest of the cast.
Well, actually by the criteria I used, Toto would be considered a prop for about ninety percent of his onscreen time. Plus, you do have to contend with the fact that ultimately, Toto didn't cause anything to happen. It was Dorothy's decisions which placed her in harm's way, and it was a natural disaster which found her transported to Oz. Toto didn't have anything to do with that. Toto also didn't have anything to do with the inciting events of the plot, nor with the prime events of it as it unfolded, so Toto was of very minor importance to the plot.
As for the point of Revenge of the Sith, George Lucas has said ad nauseum it's about Anakin's turning to the dark side (the documentary entitled "The Chosen One" on disc two of the DVD release is probably the easiest place to find him saying it). I'll grant you the creation of the Empire was part of it, but Anakin didn't turn because the Empire was created. The Empire was created because Anakin turned.
Never listen to those who tell you to do what they say and not as they do, for if they're good people, you could do as they do, and if they're not, you can't trust what they say.
Just want to say that Hayden did a lot better in EP III as opposed to II. So I can't cast my vote for him. Mine went to Reynolds because the Dukes movie was an abomination of the TV show, no matter how you look at it (Jackass and Stiffler as the Dukes? GIVE ME A BREAK!)Everyone involved ought to be run over by the General Lee!
My vote still went to Hayden Christensen for these reasons: I can't vote for Eugene Levy or Burt Reynolds. I just can't. I love them both too damn much. And I didn't see the other two.
I agree with the one dude, also. Burt Reynolds was awesome in Dukes. I understand that Dukes wasn't the best-made movie ever, but I prefer to see it like Evil Dead: it's so bad it's fun.
Don't do it, brah! The waves are too big! --Keanu Reeves, Point Blank
Speaking of Bob Hoskins, I just watched Mrs. Henderson presents, and he should have gotten nominated for the Oscar. I thought he gave a better performance in that film than Gyllenhaal did in Brokeback Mountain.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Share Topic
Printable Version
Delicious
Digg
Facebook
Furl
Google Boomarks
Google Buzz
MySpace
Newsvine
reddit
StumbleUpon
Twitter
Windows Live
Yahoo Bookmarks
Topic Search 
Topic Options
Post Options
Quote 
Topic: Worst Supporting Actor of 2005
Worst Supporting Actor of 2005