The DU Lounge
Related: Culture Forums, Support ForumsName a single movie that nearly invalidates an actor's entire career.
My nominee: Quest of the Delta Knights. It makes David Warner - a "B" actor at best - seem to have wasted his entire life.
Doc Holliday
(719 posts)and venture a guess that "invalidates an actor's career" means that the movie is of such poor quality as to make the viewer ask, "Why in hell did (s)he make that piece of shit?"
Okay, let me put on my Film Critic hat.
Other than the obvious answer (money), there are a lot of movies which prompt this question. Here are a few of my picks, no particular ranking.
Kiss of Death - a huge waste of an excellent ensemble of actors: Helen Hunt, Nicolas Cage, Samuel L. Jackson, Ving Rhames. David Caruso is already a waste as an actor...shoulda stayed on NYPD Blue.
Scarface - I know it's practically sacrilege to diss Scarface... but were there no actual Latino actors who could have done this film? A bunch of white guys clumsily trying to act Cuban? Spare me. Even the usually awesome Pacino couldn't save this overdone turkey.
Breakfast of Champions - Neither this nor Slaughterhouse-5 translated very well to the big screen. Bruce Willis really should have known better. A great novel does not guarantee a great movie-- as fans of Stephen King's novels know all too well.
Waterworld - this would have been an awesome vehicle for an up-and-coming actor who wants to make a name for himself. But Costner had already shot himself in the foot with The Bodyguard; did he feel the need to double down?
LynneSin
(95,337 posts)Doc Holliday
(719 posts)By putting up the Wiki-link to Steven Bauer, are you supporting or refuting my gripe about 'actual Latino actors'? It could be interpreted either way.
Wiki lists 16 major cast members in this film, some of whom have very little screen time. Of that number, only five (including Bauer) are Latino, and Bauer is the only one of the five with a significant role in the film...which is the mathematical basis for my gripe. (I don't include extras, of course.)
Perhaps I should have said "Latino movie stars"?
It sounds like I'm quibbling, I know, but this kind of lazy casting annoys me.
LynneSin
(95,337 posts)Just as an FYI I do understand your gripe. I felt the same way when they cast "Memoirs of a Geisha" and yet none of the 3 main female actresses were Japanese (2 were Chinese and one was Chinese-Malaysian). I know that there was alot of controversy in Japan about this because there is still bad blood between the two countries.
And the thing is this - some Americans can tell the difference between someone from China vs. someone from Japan.
Having said that, the 3 actressed used for the main 3 characters were all very good choices - Zhang Ziyi, Gong Li,
Michelle Yeoh although I thought Michelle Yeoh & Gong Li were both just a tad too old to play Mameha (both were nearing 40 when they took on the roles whereas in the book these women were more in their 20s). Fortunately both women did well and looked younger than what they were in age.
Doc Holliday
(719 posts)good choices. And in my experience Asian women do age well.
Your comment about Chinese vs. Japanese reminded me of when Selena came out. I recall that some folks were annoyed that they had cast J-Lo in the part...their gripe was that she's Puerto Rican, not Mexican-- which for me is like comparing a Dane to a Swede.
But yes, a lot of us can distinguish between Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Vietnamese, etc...one more thing I can thank Uncle Sam for, I guess.
hughee99
(16,113 posts)How about a triple-down with the Postman.
Doc Holliday
(719 posts)Maybe even a quintuple?
Because we could easily add Thirteen Days and The Guardian to the list.
If only the man were consistent! How can the same guy who made Mr. Brooks and Open Range make stinkers like those listed?
hughee99
(16,113 posts)Since Costner's made so many turds, it's sort of hard to say he ruined his career with a single movie, although Waterworld seems to be the biggest one.
Doc Holliday
(719 posts)...it's certainly one of the most obvious ones, anyway.
flying rabbit
(4,632 posts)there was a lot more going on than Costner. YMMV.
Response to Doc Holliday (Reply #1)
Post removed
rustydog
(9,186 posts)Say hello to....
That movie sucked big time.
XemaSab
(60,212 posts)Natalie Portman and Ewan McGregor, among others.
deucemagnet
(4,549 posts)Too bad. He was doing pretty well up until then.
Lionel Mandrake
(4,076 posts)Why the fuck did he have anything to do with that POS?
deucemagnet
(4,549 posts)By that time his career was already invalidated for 12 years by Zardoz (1974).
Lionel Mandrake
(4,076 posts)I kind of liked wiZARDofOZ.
But then I also liked "Saturday the 14th", which is generally considered to suck.
"That's like closing the barn door after the horses have eaten your children."
So much for my taste in movies.
deucemagnet
(4,549 posts)in a trippy, early '70s sort of way. I've always been a fan of science fiction, though. And if you can get any work after wearing thigh-high boots with a red man-diaper and matching bandolier, you're probably going to work until you're good and ready to quit.
Behind the Aegis
(53,955 posts)We were trying to see if it is even on DVD. It is.
Lionel Mandrake
(4,076 posts)Saturday the 14th.
trof
(54,256 posts)User Reviews
Red Diapers + Green Baguettes = Lots of FUN!
26 July 2005 | by miszel See all my reviews
This movie just about defines what a Great Bad Movie is supposed to be.
It starts off with Sean Connery dressed only in red diapers and bandoleers sneaking into a giant levitating stone head, passes through a fruity utopian post-nuclear society, and then heads into post-modern literary references.
The film looks like it was cooked up at an LSD fuelled party in the 70's that I wish I had been at. I wonder if Boorman came up with Excalibur at the same party. Visually there is a similar thread in both films. One is just a whole lot more coherent than the other. At first viewing Zardoz makes no sense at all, but is so wonderfully weird, so out there that you stare at it in disbelief. How did they get James Bond to run around Northern England in his undies? Why is the bread green? What's with the magic marker mustache? These are the types of questions that come to mind and keep you wading through the mess on the screen. The questions keep your mind occupied while your eyes feast on state of the art 70's futuristic concepts. It's as brilliantly fascinating as a 10 car freeway pile-up and you can watch it with considerably less guilt.
Everything is so beautifully, perfectly confusing in this film that it was with a heavy heart that I had to admit after the 4th viewing that it DOES MAKE SENSE. I will not spoil the fun for anyone else but the whole thing really does come together. I can only say that you should enjoy the cacophony while it lasts because once you get the film's storyline it's not half as fun. Though there are still some great lines of dialogue left: "I'm voting for him, Monster" being my favourite.
In any case viewing the film from a 21st century perspective reminds me that back in the 70's some very original, idea based SF movies could be made with a fittingly large budget. Some of these films have become classics which is more than I can say for the big-budget, no-brainer crap that mostly comes out of Hollywood nowadays.
I wholeheartedly recommend Zardoz for those who can admit to cinephilic guilty pleasures!
Sorry I missed that one.
I guess Connery was hard up for some cash.
deucemagnet
(4,549 posts)I have to admit, whether it's giant flying stone heads or psychic hippies in a post-apocalyptic utopia, it holds your attention. Not in a plot-engrossing way, but more in a WTF way. Next time you're in the mood for midnight-movie fare, I'd give it a shot.
GoCubsGo
(32,080 posts)lunatica
(53,410 posts)I still think he's one of the sexiest men around.
Doc Holliday
(719 posts)about a LOT of his films. (Well, several of them, anyway.)
Add The Avengers and The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen to those already named here.
MrScorpio
(73,631 posts)I love it so much that I can throw in the suspension of disbelief to handle the fact that an American with a thick French accent plays a Scottish highlander and that one of Edinburgh's native sons had played an Egyptian born Spanish peacock.
You know why?
Because, I fucking LOVE swordplay movies with Queen soundtracks and HIGHLANDER rocked from beginning to end.
Highlander II sucked farts however.
Adsos Letter
(19,459 posts)sarge43
(28,941 posts)HopeHoops
(47,675 posts)What the FUCK were they THINKING!?!?!??
7wo7rees
(5,128 posts)Thatman!
PRETZEL
(3,245 posts)but Popeye most certainly doesn't fit into a movie I have any desire to watch any longer.
HughBeaumont
(24,461 posts)So many cringe-worthy moments. Every time I watch it, it gets worse and I never learn.
Even Harry Nillsson's soundtrack is crap.
You know it's bad when the Mad Magazine satire of it is 100 times better and funnier than the movie itself. Need to hunt that issue down at Big Fun or online sometime . . .
deucemagnet
(4,549 posts)Lionel Mandrake
(4,076 posts)I cried when the treasure chest was opened.
Arugula Latte
(50,566 posts)Good gawd. Patch Adams sucked more powerfully than a black hole.
wysimdnwyg
(2,231 posts)Van Helsing nearly does it for both Hugh Jackman and Kate Beckinsale. Absolutely horrible movie, with terrible performances by two otherwise quite talented actors.
NewJeffCT
(56,828 posts)Both actors are quite attractive to look at, so it had something for everybody in that regards.
MicaelS
(8,747 posts)Swede
(33,236 posts)While Jaws IV is just boring and forgettable. The only thing that sticks out about Jaws IV is this Michael Caine quote, I have never seen it, but by all accounts it is terrible. However, I have seen the house that it built, and it is terrific.
RiffRandell
(5,909 posts)Doc Holliday
(719 posts)I thought that someone would have beat me to the punch with Halle Berry & Catwoman.
Other than the undeniably droolicious sight of Halle in the costume, I thought it was a piece of crap.
Of course, it would have been hard for her to meet anyone's expectations after Monster's Ball.
Demoiselle
(6,787 posts)Oh. I just googled it. Never mind.
MadrasT
(7,237 posts)Worst. Movie. Evah.
amyrose2712
(3,391 posts)As a matter of fact, I tend to leave it on when I see it on the TV. I just felt like I needed to confess that.
BlueJazz
(25,348 posts)Morning Dew
(6,539 posts)I trashed it when it came out - budget, production problems, blah, blah, blah.
It's actually not that bad.
I like revisiting Tina Majorino's early career and the brief snippets of Jack Black.
It tickles me.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)Ikonoklast
(23,973 posts)I win this thread.
El Supremo
(20,365 posts)I know, that wasn't the question. I just hate Richard Gere's acting.
Canuckistanian
(42,290 posts)The only movie I've ever walked out on was "A Walk in the Clouds". I've never been able to watch him since.
Broderick
(4,578 posts)I cringe watching Keanu Reeves acting.
Doc Holliday
(719 posts)that you can call it "acting"....but he's getting paid, and we're here talking about it.
El Supremo
(20,365 posts)AsahinaKimi
(20,776 posts)in a mongol outfit! O.o" ... how bad is that? He never changes his voice, The booking agent, hopefully was fired.
Kimiko ~yori.
ThoughtCriminal
(14,047 posts)The exterior scenes were shot on location near St. George, Utah, 137 miles (220 km) downwind of the United States government's Nevada Test Site. In 1953, extensive above-ground nuclear weapons testing occurred at the test site, as part of Operation Upshot-Knothole. The cast and crew spent many difficult weeks on location, and in addition Hughes later shipped 60 tons of dirt back to Hollywood in order to match the Utah terrain and lend verisimilitude to studio re-shoots.[4] The filmmakers knew about the nuclear tests[4] but the federal government reassured residents that the tests caused no hazard to public health.[8]
Director Dick Powell died of cancer in January 1963, seven years after the film's release. Pedro Armendáriz was diagnosed with kidney cancer in 1960, and committed suicide in 1963 after he learned his condition had become terminal. Hayward, Wayne, and Moorehead all died of cancer in the 1970s. Cast member actor John Hoyt died of lung cancer in 1991. Skeptics point to other factors such as the wide use of tobacco Wayne and Moorehead in particular were heavy smokers. The cast and crew totaled 220 people. By 1981, 91 of them had developed some form of cancer and 46 had died of the disease. Several of Wayne and Hayward's relatives also had cancer scares as well after visiting the set. Michael Wayne developed skin cancer, his brother Patrick had a benign tumor removed from his breast and Hayward's son Tim Barker had a benign tumor removed from his mouth. [8][9]
Dr. Robert Pendleton, professor of biology at the University of Utah, stated, "With these numbers, this case could qualify as an epidemic. The connection between fallout radiation and cancer in individual cases has been practically impossible to prove conclusively. But in a group this size you'd expect only 30-some cancers to develop. With 91, I think the tie-in to their exposure on the set of The Conqueror would hold up in a court of law." Indeed, several cast and crew members, as well as relatives of those who died, considered suing the government for negligence, claiming it knew more about the hazards in the area than it let on.[8][10]
MrCoffee
(24,159 posts)Who among us would have predicted that Wooderson would go on to do such bad, bad movies?
GoCubsGo
(32,080 posts)Everything else, not so much.
Amerigo Vespucci
(30,885 posts)JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)Or vice-versa.
Bad quality doesn't invalidate good. That's just mean-spirited. And when do we ever have to watch all of one actor's films? We see them one at a time, right?
Politics, perhaps. Like if someone starts doing fascist propaganda. Of course, in the Hollywood era of "Independence Day" (1996) and "Transformers: DOTM" (last year), no one can even tell. It's normal and most well-meaning good people insist they don't see it.
Doc Holliday
(719 posts)seeing an actor in a quality film raises our collective expectations of that actor's future work?
Case in point: Costner. Multiple Oscars for Dances With Wolves. After that...what?
Robin Hood - Prince of Thieves? (How much of a smackdown is it to be mocked onscreen by Cary Elwes in a Mel Brooks film?)
The Bodyguard? The other turkeys mentioned here? Shoot, I'd rather watch No Way Out or Revenge...or even the first film of his that I ever saw, The Gunrunner.
None of Costner's later work measured up to what made him huge. JMO, of course, and I'm willing to be persuaded otherwise.
NewJeffCT
(56,828 posts)I loved The Untouchables, despite some of the liberties they took with history (every time I see the mounties in that movie, I'm reminded of Danny DeVito shouting "Mounties" in Romancing the Stone)
But, Costner was good in the role of Ness because it didn't require him to go overboard in terms of emotional acting.
Doc Holliday
(719 posts)about The Untouchables. Probably because I'm just not much into Brian de Palma.
But you're right, it wasn't half bad. Good interplay between Costner and Connery.
bigwillq
(72,790 posts)blueknight
(2,831 posts)in larry crown, just horrible
UTUSN
(70,684 posts)Bake
(21,977 posts)An otherwise gifted thespian ...
I knew I couldn't do that with a straight face!
Bake
Was it bad enough to destroy the deep, lasting authority and credibility, and all the well-deserved accolades after his landmark, career-defining performance in the 'Wicker Man' remake?
Bolo Boffin
(23,796 posts)It did inspire horror while viewing, though.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)Turbineguy
(37,322 posts)The Fiendish Plot of Dr. Fu Manchu
jmowreader
(50,557 posts)Contest over.
Supply Side Jesus
(2,528 posts)good lord....such garbage
dixiegrrrrl
(60,010 posts)One of the few times I have been embarrassed FOR someone
( Hey, somebody had to be.......)
laconicsax
(14,860 posts)You said "nearly."