|
|
Post by Fox in the Snow on Oct 27, 2018 13:10:10 GMT
Well that's the most ridiculous thing I've seen in a while.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 27, 2018 13:11:09 GMT
I enjoyed the CinemaSins take on it. I think that's my fill of this film and I won't be watching it.
|
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Oct 27, 2018 15:01:59 GMT
Then you should definitely watch Rampage  . |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 27, 2018 16:44:26 GMT
This might have been better if it was based on the novel Gridiron, people vs building, than lame Die Hard ripoff.
|
|
ravi02
Sophomore
@ravi02
Posts: 795
Likes: 418
 
|
Post by ravi02 on Oct 27, 2018 17:09:48 GMT
Little more than a toothless, PG-13 retread of the original Die Hard.
Between this and Rampage (which was worse), 2018 gave us two terrible Johnson flicks. I like the guy and feel he has talent, he just wastes it in generic fluff like these two films.
|
|
|
|
Post by ck100 on Oct 27, 2018 17:10:27 GMT
It's a Dwayne Johnson action film. What were you expecting?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 27, 2018 17:43:32 GMT
It's a Dwayne Johnson action film. What were you expecting? I doubt he has final say over the scripts. |
|
|
|
Post by ck100 on Oct 27, 2018 17:45:36 GMT
Johnson is more "movie star" than "actor" and as such he makes the scripts serve him rather than the other way around.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 27, 2018 17:48:27 GMT
Johnson is more "movie star" than "actor" and as such he makes the scripts serve him rather than the other way around. Not sure I get what you're trying to say, but I think he has potential to be a good movie star, and being a movie star and your films having good scripts aren't mutually exclusive. |
|
|
|
Post by ck100 on Oct 27, 2018 18:03:04 GMT
Johnson is more "movie star" than "actor" and as such he makes the scripts serve him rather than the other way around. Not sure I get what you're trying to say, but I think he has potential to be a good movie star, and being a movie star and your films having good scripts aren't mutually exclusive. You may disagree, but I think there is a difference between "movie star" and "actor". There are plenty of people who are both in Hollywood, but some veer more in one direction than the other. For instance, Steven Seagal is by far more "movie star" than "actor" while Daniel Day-Lewis is more "actor" than "movie star" even though he is both. A movie star makes the script serve them while an actor serves the script. A movie star appears in movies for the adulation, money, fame, box office, sticks to certain roles, etc. while an actor acts for the love of the craft, is willing to take a pay cut, focuses more on scripts than to make money and be famous, challenges themselves with different roles, avoids typecasting, regularly shows off their range, etc. Johnson strikes me as someone who is more "movie star" than "actor". He seems to be more in movies for the adulation, fame, making money, etc. than for the love of the craft of acting. I haven't really seen him take on many roles that have challenged his acting. He's become more of a go-to guy for "action-hero tough guy" roles. Not to say he doesn't have any talent or potential at all, but it doesn't feel like he's making full use of it. He's kind of fallen in a rut where he's just doing "action-hero tough guy" roles and making plenty of money from it. |
|
|
|
Post by HumanFundRecipient on Oct 27, 2018 18:53:10 GMT
I'm afraid Dwayne Johnson's biggest stretch as an actor recently was being the avatar for the geek in the Jumanji movie. Except for a few scenes here and there, it wasn't much different from his other movie roles.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tristan's Journal on Oct 27, 2018 19:06:26 GMT
Lol, then you have not seen many genre movies. But this one was the epitome of mediocre and forgettable. Poor man's Die Hard 1.0, really.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fox in the Snow on Oct 28, 2018 2:06:02 GMT
Lol, then you have not seen many genre movies. True, not what I usually go for. |
|
|
|
Post by Fox in the Snow on Oct 28, 2018 2:06:54 GMT
It's a Dwayne Johnson action film. What were you expecting? A gritty realist drama about an amputee's struggle to climb the stairs when the all the elevators went out. |
|
|
|
Post by mslo79 on Oct 28, 2018 2:33:01 GMT
It's about what you expect from it given your impression of it from the trailers. it's decent enough for a viewing but has no re-watch value. so while it did not waste my time, it's ultimately a Thumbs Down because I ultimately judge movies in a very basic sense whether I want to re-watch them from time-to-time or not.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 28, 2018 2:39:34 GMT
Not sure I get what you're trying to say, but I think he has potential to be a good movie star, and being a movie star and your films having good scripts aren't mutually exclusive. You may disagree, but I think there is a difference between "movie star" and "actor". There are plenty of people who are both in Hollywood, but some veer more in one direction than the other. For instance, Steven Seagal is by far more "movie star" than "actor" while Daniel Day-Lewis is more "actor" than "movie star" even though he is both. A movie star makes the script serve them while an actor serves the script. A movie star appears in movies for the adulation, money, fame, box office, sticks to certain roles, etc. while an actor acts for the love of the craft, is willing to take a pay cut, focuses more on scripts than to make money and be famous, challenges themselves with different roles, avoids typecasting, regularly shows off their range, etc. Johnson strikes me as someone who is more "movie star" than "actor". He seems to be more in movies for the adulation, fame, making money, etc. than for the love of the craft of acting. I haven't really seen him take on many roles that have challenged his acting. He's become more of a go-to guy for "action-hero tough guy" roles. Not to say he doesn't have any talent or potential at all, but it doesn't feel like he's making full use of it. He's kind of fallen in a rut where he's just doing "action-hero tough guy" roles and making plenty of money from it. I'm not debating that point at all. I'm saying it's a pity San Andreas and Skyscraper have garbage scripts, compared with Die Hard and some of Arnie's blockbusters. |
|
ravi02
Sophomore
@ravi02
Posts: 795
Likes: 418
|
Post by ravi02 on Oct 28, 2018 4:44:14 GMT
Johnson strikes me as someone who is more "movie star" than "actor". He seems to be more in movies for the adulation, fame, making money, etc. than for the love of the craft of acting. I haven't really seen him take on many roles that have challenged his acting. He's become more of a go-to guy for "action-hero tough guy" roles. Not to say he doesn't have any talent or potential at all, but it doesn't feel like he's making full use of it. He's kind of fallen in a rut where he's just doing "action-hero tough guy" roles and making plenty of money from it. I thought early in his career, Johnson was doing roles that weren't the stereotypical action hero variety. While the films weren't very good, his roles as the gay hitman in Be Cool, Southland Tales and a villainous turn in 2005's Doom showed some attempt to stretch away from his wrestling persona.
Arnold Schwarzenegger made a career out of action-hero roles and he was certainly more "movie star" than actor, yet he still managed to craft some action movies that still hold up today. Arnold managed to work with creative directors in their prime (like Milius, Cameron, McTiernan, Verhoeven, etc.) who knew how to work with his strengths and fit it into their visions.
Also, while he knew he was the star, Arnold also managed to have great chemistry with his co-stars (his squad in Predator, Danny Devito in Twins, the kids in Kindergarten Cop, Sharon Stone in Total Recall, Tom Arnold and Jamie Lee Curtis in True Lies are good examples) and let them all have their moments to shine.
Johnson has the charisma to sell a film. Unfortunately, he just chooses to play his Rock persona over and over in every film and wants to be the center of attention to the point where the other actors feel superfluous. It's just become boring and his films have become chores to sit through.
|
|
|
|
Post by ck100 on Oct 28, 2018 4:52:43 GMT
Johnson strikes me as someone who is more "movie star" than "actor". He seems to be more in movies for the adulation, fame, making money, etc. than for the love of the craft of acting. I haven't really seen him take on many roles that have challenged his acting. He's become more of a go-to guy for "action-hero tough guy" roles. Not to say he doesn't have any talent or potential at all, but it doesn't feel like he's making full use of it. He's kind of fallen in a rut where he's just doing "action-hero tough guy" roles and making plenty of money from it. I thought early in his career Johnson was doing roles that weren't of the stereotypical action hero. While the films weren't very good, his roles as the gay hitman in Be Cool, Southland Tales and a villainous turn in 2005's Doom showed some attempt to stretch away from his wrestling persona.
Arnold Schwarzenegger made a career out of action-hero roles and he was certainly more "movie star" than actor, yet he still managed to craft some action movies that still hold up today. Arnold managed to work with creative directors in their prime (like Milius, Cameron, McTiernan, Verhoeven, etc.) who knew how to work with his strengths and fit it into their visions.
While he knew he was the star, Arnold also managed to have great chemistry with his co-stars (his squad in Predator, Danny Devito in Twins, the kids in Kindergarten Cop, Sharon Stone in Total Recall, Tom Arnold and Jamie Lee Curtis in True Lies are good examples) and let them all have their moments to shine.
Johnson has the charisma to sell a film. Unfortunately, he just chooses to play his Rock persona over and over in every film and wants to be the center of attention to the point where the other actors feel superfluous. It's just become boring and his films have become chores to sit through.
You are right for Arnold in that working with top directors and co-stars made it easier for him to mask his acting deficiencies while also making memorable films.
You are also right in that Johnson did somewhat do less typical films as he started out in movies before falling into his action-hero rut.
However, we have to remember that Johnson is no classically-trained actor. He's not someone who was a part of the Royal Shakespeare Company or went to Julliard. I mean he's been a pro wrestler and wrestling is not known for high-caliber acting.
So like with Arnold, he can only do so much as an actor ever unless he really studies up on acting, takes chances with roles, works with directors that can draw something unique from him, etc. He's got the bankability for a film down cold, he just needs the will and drive to take risks. But it's hard to do that when he's currently complacent with his status and persona.
|
|
. 
