Fixation of hate?

[San Bernardhinault]

I think Guy might have pinned down my thing with Tom Hanks. I thought it was an early-era Hanks vs a late-era Hanks. But it turns out that I started thinking he was OK with, perhaps, Catch Me If You Can, then Charlie Wilson's War. I enjoyed him in Bridge of Spies. And looking back, he didn't ruin Apollo 13 like I thought he would. And he actually made The Post watchable despite Meryl Streep. Basically, he's good in films where he plays versions of real people.

That run of comically over-acclaimed films from the 90s, though: Philadelphia, Private Ryan, Cast Away, Gump, Sleepless in Seattle and You've Got Mail... Oof. Along with things like the Dan Brown dross. All fictional characters.

[Hot Pepsi]

Those are all good films. Er, not the Dan Brown ones, of course. But that’s not Tom Hanks’ fault, except that he is in them.

[EIM]

Having a pint with my brother and he thinks your a wise man Guy, at least as far as Julia Roberts is concerned, also Robin Williams and Richard Burton, also Jerry Lewis.

Me it has to be Ricky Gervais, I hate him with a passion, smug unfunny shitehawk.

I hate Gervais so much it almost makes me pro animal cruelty.

[jameswba]

I remember Philip French writing, sometime in the early 2000s, that he was 'developing an aversion to Matthew McConaughey'. My own aversion to McConaughey was fully-formed even by then. The only actor whose participation in a film is enough to make me refuse to watch it.

[Hot Pepsi]

I don’t share the antipathy for Forrest Gump. I suspect it’s in my top 100 films, though I can’t really say why.

[Sporting]

Yes, I liked it too and was wondering on what grounds it's "vile". I'm open to persuasion.

[caja-dglh]

I just really don't like Vince Vaughan. He is just like an acting potato or something. It feels like any movie he got onto must have been because everyone shrugged, where as the guys most people liked someone hated enough. The acting equivalent of a divorce settlement.

[Hot Pepsi]

He’s good in Swingers, Wedding Crashers and Old School and ok in that one with Jennifer Anniston.

I fear he really only has one character but, unlike Hugh Grant and other one character actors, his one character has already exhausted all the comedic and dramatic possibilities.

That fits in with your potato hypothesis. I can’t think of anything he’s done since Old School where I couldn’t imagine somebody else doing it better or at least as well for probably a lot less money.


I’m not sure I like Jennifer Anniston that much. She seems nice enough, but none of her post Rachel roles are memorable.


I won’t watch anything with James Woods. ‘Cos f*ck that guy.

[G-Man]

Once Upon A Time In America? It's a superb film, and Woods is very good in it.

Good call on Vince Vaughan. He could play Francis of Assisi, and you'd think that he's an asshole, because Vaughan clearly is an asshole. Just like his hero Donald Trump. When Jennifer Aniston gets back together with him in that rom-com, it becomes a fucking tragedy.

Has Nicholas Cage escaped mention because he's too obvious?

[G-Man]

As for Tom Hanks... I enjoy him as an actor, and usually he manages to convinces me that he "is" the character he's playing (the same applies to most iconic actors: De Niro, Streep, Pacino, Hackman etc). He also seems to be a man of integrity and kindness.

But there is something a bit smug about him. Maybe not quite smug, in the way Boris Johnson is smug. Not even self-satisfied, though there's a bit of that, too. He has a modesty that is deficient in humility, and a self-confidence that could be nasty, if he weren't a nice guy.

Maybe Hot Pepsi called it right: he has a (not universal) American quality that grates on people who aren't American.

[Sits]

I remember Philip French writing, sometime in the early 2000s, that he was 'developing an aversion to Matthew McConaughey'. My own aversion to McConaughey was fully-formed even by then. The only actor whose participation in a film is enough to make me refuse to watch it.

You’ve triggered something for me there. I think a lot of my judgement of actors is how they behave on Graham Norton’s show. Some just go with the flow and relax into it, but some seem to think they’re holding court and MM is one of them.

[ad hoc]

Ok, briefly, why Forrest Gump is vile

1. It's a massively conservative film, sort of the perfect Republican version of the American Dream - you work hard, you obey the rules, you never say anything, you succeed.
2. Connected to 1: it's theoretically apolitical, in that Gump has no political response to anything going around him. But this in itself is political. Doing nothing is a political act. He never asks questions.
3. The two main characters are Gump and his love interest. He's the child? grandchild? (I forget) of a KKK wizard. He toes the line and does what he's told, and he is a hero. She is sexually abused as a child, fucked around with, takes drugs, and dies young. (We're supposed to be sad about that, and the film lays it on thick, but are we supposed to believe that she's not "brought it on herself"? I'm not convinced
4. It's hokey, folksy bollocks

Reading back that may be one complaint which i have reworded and repeated about 4 times.But it's a big complaint, and an awful film.

[Hot Pepsi]

Once Upon A Time In America? It's a superb film, and Woods is very good in it.

Good call on Vince Vaughan. He could play Francis of Assisi, and you'd think that he's an asshole, because Vaughan clearly is an asshole. Just like his hero Donald Trump. When Jennifer Aniston gets back together with him in that rom-com, it becomes a fucking tragedy.

Has Nicholas Cage escaped mention because he's too obvious?

They don’t get back together.

Woods is a Trumpist asshole of the highest order. FTG.

Early Nicholas Cage was good. Raising Arizona.

[Hot Pepsi]

Ok, briefly, why Forrest Gump is vile

1. It's a massively conservative film, sort of the perfect Republican version of the American Dream - you work hard, you obey the rules, you never say anything, you succeed.
2. Connected to 1: it's theoretically apolitical, in that Gump has no political response to anything going around him. But this in itself is political. Doing nothing is a political act. He never asks questions.
3. The two main characters are Gump and his love interest. He's the child? grandchild? (I forget) of a KKK wizard. He toes the line and does what he's told, and he is a hero. She is sexually abused as a child, fucked around with, takes drugs, and dies young. (We're supposed to be sad about that, and the film lays it on thick, but are we supposed to believe that she's not "brought it on herself"? I'm not convinced
4. It's hokey, folksy bollocks

Reading back that may be one complaint which i have reworded and repeated about 4 times.But it's a big complaint, and an awful film.

Not at all.

He doesn’t work hard to accomplish anything in particular, as the American Dream suggests. He doesn’t have a “dream“ beyond caring for the people he cares about. He just bounces around through life at random. The point is to show the beauty of just staying open to what life brings, albeit in an exaggerated way.

But he doesn’t just “follow the rules.” He fights for who he cares about. No more, but no less. He doesn't follow Lt. Dan's orders. He beats the shit out of the guy who slaps Jenny. He doesn't really listen to the Black Panther guy, but he doesn't argue with him either. It all just goes over his head while he looks after Jenny.

It’s a bit simplistic in that it suggests that all that matters is how one treats the people around you.* Forrest doesn’t take on racism, but he’s just a good friend to Bubba and kind to his family. He doesn’t protest the war,* but he just takes care of PTSD-shattered Lt Dan against his wishes. He doesn’t really care about the Army either. He just likes to play ping pong. Etc.

Republicans tend to argue that there is no “system,” just individuals making decisions that only affect them, except of course in all of the cases when they want to control other people.

As far as that goes, they might like Forrest Gump's myopic perspective, so I see what you mean about being apolitical is actually a political stance. But conservatives would want the film to make a stronger condemnation of Jenny’s behavior. They’d want FG to explicitly support the war or show that it was valid somehow. They’d want him to actually care about football or money. Etc. He doesn’t do any of that either.

If everyone just behaved the way Forrest did, the world would be a far kinder and more humane place to live. We might still be just living in small villages doing subsistence farming, since nobody would have any vision beyond that, but our short lives would be a lot more pleasant overall.

There is no suggestion that Jenny “deserved to die.” It’s not even clear why she does. The implication may be that she had AIDS - that would keep with the 'shoehorning in every bit of history' trend in the film, but it doesn't say that and even if it did, I severely doubt anyone involved in the film would say she "deserved it." It’s just a tragedy he has to cope with to make the ending more poignant. If they lived happily ever after, it would be far too neat and tidy.

It's a bit too neat and tidy as it is, but part of the story is that not quite everything just works out magically for him. But even when it doesn't, he's able to accept that too and be open to the next thing. Rather stoic, really.



*The soundtrack to the war scene is Fortunate Son. So Forrest might not object to the war but the film does, at least that aspect of it. It's a fair criticism to point out that Hollywood has generally only looked at how Vietnam damaged Americans. There hasn't been nearly enough exploration on what it did to Vietnam.

* This is a criticism of a lot of movies about race or homophobia or whatever - they tend to imply that all that needs to happen is for different people to get to know each other. I agree that's certainly not remotely all that needs to happen, but I do believe it's an important step in the right direction. These "conversion moments" that people have do change minds and the cumulative effect of that is powerful.

[S. aureus]

Matthew McConaughey would make my list, even though he's been in some movies that I like I would need to look extra hard for reasons to watch a movie that he's in.

[Snake Plissken]

Good shout on Vince Vaughan. Which reminds me, I really don't get the love for Dodgeball, because it has him and Ben Stiller.

[Hot Pepsi]

Good shout on Vince Vaughan. Which reminds me, I really don't get the love for Dodgeball, because it has him and Ben Stiller.

Good call. The best part of that film by far is Jason Bateman and Gary Cole as the broadcast team on ESPN8 and the old black and white movie with Hank Azaria as the dodgeball star was a good parody of US physical education classes.

Otherwise, I didn't think it was that funny and don't get why it's so popular. Ben Stiller's part felt like a moderately funny sketch character stretched out way too long. Literally any vaguely competent actor could have played the Vince Vaughn part. The rest of the misfit characters weren't funny.

The whole thing could have worked as an after-Update SNL sketch, but that's all it should have been.

[Nocturnal Submission]

Good shout on Vince Vaughan. Which reminds me, I really don't get the love for Dodgeball, because it has him and Ben Stiller.

Yes, I thought that VV probably came as close for me as anyone so far mentioned as to what Guy's looking for on this thread, though it wouldn't take too much effort for me to probably conclude that a sort of loud, bullying screen personality and the fact that I just don't find him funny, even though that's the main point of his presence, are the reasons why I'm not a fan.

TBF though I haven't seen much of his work, so maybe there are films in which he's hilarious and plays a sympathetic character.

[Benjm]

On the upside for Dodgeball, the Lance Armstrong cameo has aged well.

Gerard Butler is in a league of his own for unlikability as far as I'm concerned, whether it's in films, ads or the crowd at Wimbledon, but there's nothing mysterious about the effect he has.

[Patrick Thistle]

I consider Alec Baldwin a blank-faced waste of space and his name attached to a film is a warning flag for me. I know some people think he's the funniest actor since funny was invented but he is pretty much the same character in everything and he dials the intensity up and down.

[Snake Plissken]

He's bloody great in The Hunt for Red October though.

[ad hoc]

I don't think he's that funny, but 30 Rock is a brilliant show (and he does a very good straight man)

[ursus arctos]

As I always do, I am obliged to say that he was a pleasant and not at all stuck up neighbour, which wasn't the case for a number of less well known "celebrities" who live in our building.

[jwdd27]

Nicolas* Cage is fantastic and is my entry in the thread PT has started. The thing is, he knows it's just a stupid movie and he's having fun along with us. He performs.

It's not overacting, it's a performance, because we're watching a make believe movie and it's going to be fun.

His Oscar proved he can "act" in the classical sense (although it was a quiet year, and yes, his birth name being Coppola hasn't done his Hollywood career any harm, although an easy way out would have been to keep his surname).

He'll also appear in any old shit, which is a sign of not taking yourself too seriously (as well as being hopeless with money).

I feel quite passionate about Nicolas Cage.

* no 'h', cretins!

[Hot Pepsi]

On the upside for Dodgeball, the Lance Armstrong cameo has aged well.

Gerard Butler is in a league of his own for unlikability as far as I'm concerned, whether it's in films, ads or the crowd at Wimbledon, but there's nothing mysterious about the effect he has.

Not sure if he's bad or if he just picks terrible movies. Same with Vin Diesel. For all I know, he could crush it as Hamlet.