Baseball Crank
Covering the Front and Back Pages of the Newspaper
January 19, 2006
POP CULTURE: This Is Not The Actor You Are Looking For

Christopher Lee:

The problem today, and I think it's a very dangerous one for the people concerned, is that there are quite large numbers of very young men and women - boys and girls to me - from 18 to 30, and they are playing very large parts in huge films and they simply, through no fault of their own, don't have the background and the experience and the knowledge to pull if off.

Via Althouse. He doesn't actually say the name "Hayden Christensen," . . .

Posted by Baseball Crank at 7:57 PM | Pop Culture | Comments (16) | TrackBack (0)

Ben Affleck.
Matt Damon.
Colin Farrell.

He did make one good point: Johnny Depp is one talented actor. Too bad he's a moonbat who chooses to star in a lot of indy films that stink, but I must confess that the man is quite good at what he does.

Wonder what Elijah Wood thought of his comments?

Posted by: RW at January 19, 2006 8:58 PM

You're wrong about something, because Matt Damon's pretty good and Ben Affleck belongs in dinner theater.

I don't think Elijah Wood ever got a role based on his good looks, either.

Posted by: Devin McCullen at January 19, 2006 11:22 PM

Yes, but these comments come about the same time we hear that Affleck and Damon are being considered to star in remake of "Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid".

I don't care how good Damon is in comparison to Affleck, those guys couldn't carry Newman and Redford's bags.

I might be interested in getting Depp to play Newman's part if we could find an actor who could recreate the chemistry that Newman had with Redford with Depp.

Posted by: Strick at January 20, 2006 12:14 AM

How many films must manboy Orlando Bloom ruin before they stop casting him?

Posted by: grandcosmo at January 20, 2006 4:41 AM

IMO the best role Matt Damon played was in "Team America: World Police". :)

Posted by: RW at January 20, 2006 5:58 AM

Mr. Lee is right! I can't think of anyone but Jonny Depp, who has had the guts to take on difficult roles. And the young "stars" he talked of, I am as sick of them as he is. I am an amature actress, and if I thought I would end up like some of these "little pop-tarts" I would end my dreams of an acting career right now!

Why add to all the rubbish?

Good for Mr. Lee!

Posted by: Jessica at January 20, 2006 6:16 AM

My personal talent rating on a scale of 1 to 10:

9.5 - Depp
8.5 - DiCaprio
9 - Mark Ruffalo
8 - Brad Pitt
7.5 - Matt Damon
8 - Ewan McGregor
7 - Jude Law
9 - Edward Norton
8.5 - Joaquin Phoenix
6 - Affleck
7 - Ed Burns (a better writer than actor, methinks)
8 - Christian Bale
8 - Jamie Foxx

2 - Keanu Reeves

and of the young women:

9.5 - Natalie Portman
8 - Milla Jovovich
8 - Liv Tyler
8.5 - Scarlett Johansson
7.5 - Kirsten Dunst
8 - Kate Winslet
8 - Kate Beckinsale
9 - Claire Danes
8.5 - Brittany Murphy
8.5 - Naomi Watts

3 - Katie Holmes

So it's not all bad, IMHO. As for Cassidy and Sundance, I'd love to see Depp tackle it along with either Phoenix or Mark Ruffalo - if you don't know that name, check out Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind or In the Cut, a very dark film featuring Meg Ryan opposite Ruffalo actually acting. I think either of these guys could match Depp if they gave it their all. Given the history between Damon and Affleck, it might not be a horrible remake, just based on their chemistry.

Posted by: macsonix at January 20, 2006 10:30 AM

Agree re Ruffalo. Love him in "You can count on me" with the great Laura Linney.

But DeCaprio at 8.5 and Bale at 8??? Huh.

Posted by: Mike at January 20, 2006 10:41 AM

Bale was fantastic in American Psycho and the Machinist, not to mention a multitude of earlier, lower budget films. DiCaprio was very iffy earlier in his career to me but redeemed himself and became much more consistent and focused around the Basketball Diaries, then Romeo & Juliet, then Titanic, and lately as the Aviator. Just my opinion.

Posted by: macsonix at January 20, 2006 1:23 PM

"He did make one good point: Johnny Depp is one talented actor. Too bad he's a moonbat who chooses to star in a lot of indy films that stink..."

On a percentage basis of good films versus films that stink Depp is nails.

Gilbert Grape, Dead Man, Edward Scissorhands, Donnie Brasco (fuhgetaboutit), Ninth Gate, Sleepy Hollow, Chocolat, Blow, Pirates of the Caribbean, Finding Neverland. He was even in Platoon and Nightmare on Elm Street although certainly not in any lead capacity. So he's done Nick of Time (bad), Wonka (haven't seen it as I see little point in doing so), Astronaut's Wife (ouch), Fear and Loathing (and you can certainly go either way on that one) and a couple of truly indy films that most likely few people have actually seen. That still puts him way above average all-time and certainly makes him stand out in the 40-ish and under crowd.

Posted by: jim at January 20, 2006 3:52 PM

ummmm....Marilyn Monroe? C'mon Christopher, this isn't a new phenomenon . . .

Posted by: Sean at January 20, 2006 4:32 PM

Depp and Norton are the only ones that can act.

Then again, plenty of H'wood stars from the Golden days were mediocre at best-Crawford, Gable... Grace Kelly especially was awful, at least in the early years.

Actually on the whole I think acting has gotten better-it's the writing that sucks today.

Posted by: Campagna at January 20, 2006 9:41 PM

Re-making "Butch and Sundance" would be criminal. What could you do to make it better? Re-making great films drives me crazy. Certainly I understand the motivation for doing it but in most cases it only serves to sully a great picture. Some films are re-doable. Cape Fear was a film that could be re-done for the purposes of updating it (not that I am saying the second version is better than the first, only that it could be done with a more modern theme and feel). How many re-made films are better the second time around?

Posted by: jim at January 21, 2006 8:02 PM


Art vs. Commerce. And that's about all she wrote.

It may have been about making money the first go around, but the only "may" in the re-make is in the pronunciation.

Posted by: Mike at January 21, 2006 8:41 PM

That's insane. I wouldn't go to a remade Bucth & Sundance if you paid me. I hope that idea, as Mike Tyson would say, fades into Bolivian.

Posted by: The Crank at January 22, 2006 12:05 AM

That Bolivian comment has always killed. Thanks Crank. BTW, the same comments can be said about the music industry. Now I may be older than most of you (based upon references, etc in past year's comm's), but have you seen the little girls & boys that they throw up there on stage? That little Avril Laviegn (sp??) girl is just awful live (no I wouldn't walk across the street to see, but have seen in clips, etc) stage presence at all. Deer in the headlight look doesn't quite make it on stage. Same for the little boy groups. I don't appreciate the "art" in hip-hop, but at least they seem to have come up thru the outlets and let their talent come to the forefront, not just a marketable face. See "50" vs."Lachey, Nick".

Posted by: Dave at January 23, 2006 11:40 AM
Site Meter 250wde_2004WeblogAwards_BestSports.jpg