Can We Really Call It “Great Acting?”

4 Apr

By Open Book

With all the announcements last week about actresses Amy Adams and Sarah Gadon selected to bring the “on screen chemistry” (ingredients some say missing for the films currently in pre-production) Superman: Man of Steel and Cosmopolis.[1] It makes you wonder how it all works? Of course, this only ignited curiosity regarding the big blockbuster films slated to come out this summer as well. They include: Thor, Green Lantern, Pirates of the Caribbean and Transformers 3.[2] All these films will need to rely (to some extent) on great “on screen chemistry” between the opposite sexes. So what makes on screen chemistry believable to audiences?  And, what qualifies as a authentic transformation if the actors are a couple off screen? 

Can we really call it “great acting” if an on screen romance is also one off screen? Is that fair to the actor who really transforms him or herself on screen who isn’t in a relationship with each other?  A great performance of on screen chemistry is hard to master and make look believable. The actor for one has to spend more time getting to know the characters desires and motivations. It also gets in the way of the story if audiences are focusing on the personal life of the “real couple.” So in analyzing great chemistry on screen you have to eliminate actors who are known to be in a relationship off screen.

Who’s the Top 5 film couples in history we claim had great on screen chemistry but were in relationships off screen? All these actors should be disqualified as being considered great examples of on screen chemistry because, were they really acting?

  • Spencer Tracy and Katherine Hepburn- Adams Rib
  • Humphrey Bogart and Lauren Bacall –The Big Sleep
  • Woody Allen and Diane Keaton- Annie Hall
  • Warren Beatty and Annette Benning- Bugsy
  • Richard Burton and Elizabeth Taylor- Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf?

Now, before anyone gets upset, the following Top 5 film romances are examples of actors who transformed themselves. Their on screen chemistry was flawless and convincing to audiences.[3] They include:

  • Omar Sharif and Julie Christie- Dr. Zhivago
  • Ralph Fiennes and Kristin Scott Thomas- The English Patient
  • Johnny Depp and Juliette Binoche- Chocolat
  • Daniel Day Lewis and Michelle Pfeiffer- The Age of Innocence
  • James McAvoy and Keira Knightley- Atonement

Please watch video

It takes a skilled director to spot chemistry between two actors and then have it articulated on screen.  The director can hope and pray what they envisioned gets translated on screen but that’s not always a guarantee. So when watching great chemistry portrayed by actors in the future, ask yourself? Were they really acting? Because it’s attractive to take the easy route and go with the real thing but then it becomes something else we’re watching instead of great acting.

Please join us for a discussion on this topic: Tuesday, April 5th@ 7pE/12UTC

Advertisements

164 Responses to “Can We Really Call It “Great Acting?””

  1. Littlebells April 4, 2011 at 6:07 PM #

    Hi everyone! I’m stopping by early incase I get to the live discussion late.

    I have always loved the chemistry between Julia Roberts and Richard Geer and Tom Hanks and Meg Ryan (Sleepless in Seattle).

    I can’t think off the top of my head of anymore on screen couples. I will work on it! 🙂

    • Open Book April 4, 2011 at 8:04 PM #

      Hi Littlebells,

      I almost included Julia Roberts and Richard Gere for Pretty Women, I also liked Julia Roberts and Hugh Grant in Notting Hill or how about Richard Gere and Debra Winger in An Officer and A Gentlemen?

      Anyway, with all the talk about good chemistry it seems studios marginalize an actors contribution by marketing and manufacturing chemistry with showmances to sell poor films or chemistry between actors. What they don’t realize is that it is a red flag, they don’t think the films, actors performances or chemistry is believable on screen. Good chemistry is apparent and these showmances are created to overcompensate or deflect attention away from what’s not happening on screen. IMO!! In other words if u have good performances, content, direction etc…U don’t need gimmicks like putting actors off screen relationships on exhibition to sell a film.

      • Littlebells April 4, 2011 at 8:30 PM #

        Hi Open Book!

        I whole heartedly agree with you.

        Honestly I don’t give two flying figs what actors do in their private life or who they are involved with. Yeah, yeah, I do pay attention, but it doesn’t get my bills paid, my laundry dried and folded, or buy the groceries. I appreciate actors (good or bad) who keep their noses clean (so to speak) and stay out of the public eye. Like Daniel Day-Lewis. I love that man. HE has talent!

        As for showmances, ugh, yes it’s incredibly annoying. I think it can kill a movie. And I realize this is going to sound incredibly harsh, but I cannot believe the amount of people in this world who buy the tabloid fodder!!!! Aye Caramba! I feel that the showmances are for crappy actors (not all but most) trying to make it big.

        Here is my question, if the actor or actors involved in a film can’t act worth beans and need a showmance to keep them relevant, why hire them in the first place? (I realize I have absolutely NO CLUE as to how HW works, but I had to throw out that question anyway.) I know it’s a “you scratch my back, I’ll scratch yours” thing, but geez, money is tight and when I see a film I don’t want to waste my $40!

        Like you said, you don’t need gimmicks to sell a film. The talent, story, cinemetography, direction, costuming, etc…will make the film a success. I love seeing movies where the on-screen couple are so full of passion and love and then find out later that the two actors couldn’t stand each other. To them I say, “Bravo!” That’s talent! 🙂

        • Open Book April 5, 2011 at 1:03 PM #

          Good Q Littlebells,

          This is speaking mostly about films that are made to appeal to teens and young adults, where u see a lot of these showmances occuring.

          IMO! Films, ultimately are made to advertise products to consumers. I mean u have seen product placement in films right? So marketing departments are really the stars of teen films, not the actors. Actors they see as props for their campaigns. Simply because they see it as an opportunity to appeal to one of the biggest consumers of entertainment, teens. Does that make sense?

          • Open Book April 5, 2011 at 1:06 PM #

            P.S. U said “if the actor or actors involved in a film can’t act worth beans and need a showmance to keep them relevant, why hire them in the first place?”

            Answer: They are easier to control.

            • Littlebells April 5, 2011 at 6:38 PM #

              That makes sense. I just wonder why people would want to work with actors who aren’t very talented, thus making a product or movie that isn’t great and no one wants to see.

              • Parisienne April 5, 2011 at 7:00 PM #

                Little Bells,

                Its EOE…equal opportunity employment. LOL

          • Littlebells April 5, 2011 at 6:39 PM #

            *nods head* yes, yes it does!

  2. Watch Insidious Online April 4, 2011 at 11:59 PM #

    Great blog! I truly love how it’s easy on my eyes and the details are well written. I am wondering how I could be notified whenever a new post has been made. I have subscribed to your rss feed which ought to do the trick! Have a nice day!

    • Littlebells April 5, 2011 at 10:24 AM #

      Hi WIO! Welcome! It is a great site. 🙂

  3. Parisienne April 5, 2011 at 12:13 AM #

    Open Book!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    You are genius, awesome, and completely and totally related to me. LOL! LOVE THIS ARTICLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! What about Richard Gere and Diane Lane in Unfaithful? Of course, who would cheat on Richard Gere? Anyhow, I can’t stand knowing two people are in a real-life relationship or “showmance” Take for example, Meg Ryan and Russell Crowe. I couldn’t watch the film they were in and I forgot the name of it anyway.

    I can’t watch Cleopatra either. Its a Taylor and Burton love fest. or who’s afraid of Virgina Wolf? ugh.

    I don’t see how it helps to have two people who may not be able to stand each other be in a showmance. I mean the studio who is producing it may not recoup their losses but hold your head high and have some morals about you.

    • Open Book April 5, 2011 at 1:35 PM #

      Hi Paris,

      Here’s my pet peeve. LOL!!

      There is so much that goes into producing a film. So u have actors researching their characters, profession, ethnic backgrounds, period and working with dialect coaches etc… Then u have production designers, costume, prop master etc.. studying the period, characters history and environment. Then not to mention the director and editor, etc…

      Ok, so in looking at the video of Atonement above. All these things I just mentioned are on full display to make this scene believable to audiences. So how can studios reduce all these artist contribution, by attributing it to the marketing department showmance campaigns? Whenever u reduce actors to showmances they are not only insulting all these artist hard work but audiences intelligence as well.

      • Littlebells April 5, 2011 at 6:40 PM #

        Paris, I really liked your comments and OB, you said it perfectly about insulting the hard working artists and the intelligence of the audience. It’s really annoying….

        • Open Book April 5, 2011 at 7:01 PM #

          I have a Q for u?

          Do u believe Tabloid media and reality T.V. is one in the same?

          If so when marketing departments or even actors sell there relationship on and off screen, doesn’t turn films into reality T.V.?

          • Parisienne April 5, 2011 at 7:05 PM #

            IMO, yes and no. Yes because everyone and their brothers knows that they are together and No because they are being paid to act a specific way.

          • Littlebells April 5, 2011 at 7:09 PM #

            I’m gonna have to agree with Paris. And honestly, I have little to no respect for couples who sell their relationships. I’m talking about couples who throw each under a bus, make nasty comments about one another, pimp them out, and other negative behavior. I cannot stand it and actually avoid a lot of Reality TV. I know they are being paid to act a certain way, but when it’s degrading behavior, I think there is enough in the real world. i don’t want to be a voyuer to it.

            • Parisienne April 5, 2011 at 7:12 PM #

              I have a question? Is there a correlation between what is going on right now overseas (wars) and what is on reality t.v.?

              • Parisienne April 5, 2011 at 7:14 PM #

                all the negativity I mean. You know what would really sell papers is if R and K actually had some type of public blowup. That would sell.

                • Littlebells April 5, 2011 at 7:17 PM #

                  At this point, I don’t even care! Is that awful????

                  • Parisienne April 5, 2011 at 7:22 PM #

                    No its not. Honestly, I could care less as well.

  4. Open Book April 5, 2011 at 6:57 PM #

    Hi Everyone,

    Welcome new and returning visitors. Feel free to jump in on tonight’s discussion.

    • Littlebells April 5, 2011 at 7:11 PM #

      Hi ladies!

  5. Parisienne April 5, 2011 at 6:58 PM #

    LittleBells, Thanks

  6. Parisienne April 5, 2011 at 6:58 PM #

    Hi Everyone! Open Book, how are you?

    • Open Book April 5, 2011 at 7:05 PM #

      Hi Paris!!

      Great comment above and I sooooo agree with u about “I don’t see how it helps to have two people who may not be able to stand each other be in a showmance.”

      Do u think it ultimately drives down the production value?

      • Parisienne April 5, 2011 at 7:09 PM #

        Yes. I do think that because who wants to be lied to? I mean if consumers know that what they are being sold is fake then why should they buy into the story that is being created? In other words, all of those people that you mentioned up above….actors, directors, etc. just put their time and energy into nothing. Does that make sense?

        • Littlebells April 5, 2011 at 7:11 PM #

          Yes, Paris. I agree with you. I think there are more valuable forms of art to spend my money on and I feel bad for those that work hard in the industry just to have a movie cheapened. Hopefully they are compensated.

        • Open Book April 5, 2011 at 7:17 PM #

          Paris,

          It does make sense. I think marketing departments go too far in assuming artist won’t be able to pull in audiences into theaters. So they resort to cheap gimmicks, especially when marketing films too teens. That’s what makes me angry. I mean the whole idea that teens are only into CGI and shallow plots and dialogue is what’s killing the box office numbers.

          • Parisienne April 5, 2011 at 7:20 PM #

            I think the mentality of teens is taken into consideration. I must tell you though I have met some teens that are extremely intelligent. I think also this goes back to lack of education funding. Teens are considered to be poorly educated, IMO.

            • Littlebells April 5, 2011 at 7:32 PM #

              I won’t rehash what I know about our education system, but I do think we undervalue their intelligence and I feel like most of these teen movies mock it. I don’t think intelligent teens fall for these showmances at all either.

            • Open Book April 5, 2011 at 7:48 PM #

              Paris,

              I agree there are a lot of intelligent teens I just don’t think they are challenged to think critically in school. We really teach kids to not be innovators but cogs.

              • Littlebells April 5, 2011 at 8:35 PM #

                Argh!!! Critical thinking starts in elementary and believe me, it’s not being seen. Everything is scripted for them. It’s quite scary actually.

  7. Open Book April 5, 2011 at 7:11 PM #

    Paris,

    I have to say I really like watching R and Reese interviews together for WFE. There seems to be less tension and they are more relaxed with each other. What do u think?

    • Parisienne April 5, 2011 at 7:13 PM #

      yes i agree he is more himself.

      • Littlebells April 5, 2011 at 7:16 PM #

        I like how relaxed he seems. I like giggly Rob and she seems to be able to play along with him and be funny. I think he really cares about WFE and it is very evident in how he speaks. I haven’t watched them all, but I’ve been very pleased.

        • Parisienne April 5, 2011 at 7:18 PM #

          I agree. He doesn’t have to pretend anything. Although I did notice in his photos that he no longer smiles.

          • Littlebells April 5, 2011 at 7:21 PM #

            I wonder if he is just “over it”. Getting totally off topic, but I see a guy who wants to do what he enjoys, appreciate the fans that support him, and just go home at the end of the day. I don’t see him liking any of the HW crap (pardon me) that comes with being such a wanted actor.

            • Parisienne April 5, 2011 at 7:24 PM #

              I see that too. In fact he said it himself. I’m paraphrasing but he said all the stuff they do (hotels and such) is a trap and that he wants a quiet life.

              • Open Book April 5, 2011 at 7:31 PM #

                There are a lot of ways one can choose to live in HW. U just have to be very disciplined and organized to not live the crazy lifestyle. I mean the extreme lifestyle needs to be balanced with extreme order. IMO!!

                • Littlebells April 5, 2011 at 7:34 PM #

                  Yes, OB. I agree that you can. I think it takes a lot of self discipline and making sure you find balance in your life. I think you also need to surround yourself with people in whom you can trust to put you in your place and really want the best for you without selling out.

                • Parisienne April 5, 2011 at 7:37 PM #

                  I don’t see him staying in HW though. IMO, he’ll go back to London. He’s said that he misses it.

                • Parisienne April 5, 2011 at 7:38 PM #

                  I think too that having a good sense of self helps. know who you are and all that and don’t take yourself so seriously.

                  • Open Book April 5, 2011 at 7:51 PM #

                    Absolutely, not believing your own press is the only way to stay grounded in HW. I mean I have seen some actors who will get lazy once they have reached a level of success and then there work becomes repetitive and stale. It’s horrible to see when that happens.

            • ozzie20 April 5, 2011 at 7:27 PM #

              Yes I agree. Maybe once BD is over things may settle down for him. WFE in my opinion is a small glimpse of what it will be like after BD.

              BTW, hi all! I’m tired so I don’t know if I’ll make sense for much longer! 🙂

              • Parisienne April 5, 2011 at 7:29 PM #

                Hi Ozzie!

              • Open Book April 5, 2011 at 7:32 PM #

                Hi Ozzie!!

              • Littlebells April 5, 2011 at 7:33 PM #

                Hey Ozzie!!!! I was wondering if you would be here. 🙂

                • ozzie20 April 5, 2011 at 7:48 PM #

                  Hi girls!

  8. Parisienne April 5, 2011 at 7:16 PM #

    Open Book,

    I have a question for you. Up above you said that actors are easier to control. What did you mean by that?

    • Littlebells April 5, 2011 at 7:19 PM #

      Thank you for asking that Paris! I tried asking that earlier today on my phone but it wouldn’t go through.

      • Parisienne April 5, 2011 at 7:21 PM #

        its my pleasure. 🙂

    • Open Book April 5, 2011 at 7:24 PM #

      Well I think getting actors who are not very well known is appealing. Depending on if the actors are desperate for work. It’s easier to control them because they don’t have any leverage at the BO to call the shots.

      • Parisienne April 5, 2011 at 7:26 PM #

        thats true. I understand now. 🙂

  9. Littlebells April 5, 2011 at 7:36 PM #

    Ok, ladies a few questions for you (while I try to look it up myself).

    1) What have been the biggest showmances in Hollywood history?

    2)…..ah nuts, I just forgot! 😦

    • Littlebells April 5, 2011 at 7:38 PM #

      I remembered. It’s not a question, but I would be fascinated to research HW marketing from the beginning of HW history and how tactics have changed throughout the decades….Hmmmm….

      • Open Book April 5, 2011 at 7:41 PM #

        Hmmm!

        • Littlebells April 5, 2011 at 7:48 PM #

          including tabloid and media coverage….

    • Open Book April 5, 2011 at 7:41 PM #

      LOL!! I can’t stop laughing at your second comment.

      Ummm! I would say Rock Hudson and any female he was with. LOL!!

      • Parisienne April 5, 2011 at 7:42 PM #

        LOL!

      • Littlebells April 5, 2011 at 7:47 PM #

        Duh, yeah! Now I look like an idiot! 🙂

        Any others???

        • Open Book April 5, 2011 at 7:56 PM #

          Hmm! Let me think. I will come back to that Q.

          Tick Tock……

          • Parisienne April 5, 2011 at 7:59 PM #

            uuummmmmm r & k?

            • Littlebells April 5, 2011 at 8:11 PM #

              hahahaha!!! *knee slapping and just fell out of the chair*

              Whuuuu???? You jest!

              • Parisienne April 5, 2011 at 8:15 PM #

                surely i do. 🙂 Don’t you know they are really in love and are going to have a child? LOL

                • Littlebells April 5, 2011 at 8:37 PM #

                  I hear Jamie is adorable!

  10. Open Book April 5, 2011 at 7:36 PM #

    Everyone,

    Do u believe the over saturation of actors relationships in tabloids keeps audiences from envisioning them in other roles?

    • Parisienne April 5, 2011 at 7:41 PM #

      Of course!!!!!!!!!!!!!

      • ozzie20 April 5, 2011 at 7:43 PM #

        In my opinion yes.

    • lurkerm3 April 5, 2011 at 8:03 PM #

      I think it’s a double edged sword. It’s a very competitive market for actors and the movie industry. So trying to keep you name out there has major risks when it’s tied to a fake relationship.

      • Open Book April 5, 2011 at 8:08 PM #

        So true! I think marketing departments resort to promoting showmances to sell a film because they are unimaginative.

        • Parisienne April 5, 2011 at 8:11 PM #

          thank you. OK I have a ? for everyone. Lets use our imagination. Turn back the clocks to the beginning of Twilight and how would you have marketed it? (you can’t use a showmance)

          • Littlebells April 5, 2011 at 8:14 PM #

            Oooo!!! I like it! Umm……..wow, I will have to chew on that for a while.

          • lurkerm3 April 5, 2011 at 8:18 PM #

            Well, it’s interesting that they pulled the romance portion out to highlight that instead of highlighting the fact it was ‘based on a novel’.
            People like me, who didn’t know about the books found out afterwards. Whereas, WFE is being marketed as ‘based on the NYT bestselling novel’.

            That’s one element I can tell you that I noticed.

            • Parisienne April 5, 2011 at 8:20 PM #

              I agree. I would have based the script more on the novel and left in some key scenes that were missing from the films.

              • Open Book April 5, 2011 at 8:33 PM #

                Ding, Ding, Ding…… The marketing department did not think they could sell the film based on the book written by a Mormon author on teen abstinence. Not in this day in age when teens are having sex at 13? I think they thought by doing the showmance triangle with a tough leading lady would appeal to teens.

                • Parisienne April 5, 2011 at 8:45 PM #

                  you are correct but ugh. Bella is not tough by any means. The books already had a big following though.

                  • Open Book April 5, 2011 at 9:08 PM #

                    LOL! Yeah tough was the wrong word. How about overly aggressive.

            • Littlebells April 5, 2011 at 8:39 PM #

              Yes, Lurker. I think that is definitely how they should have marketed it. It allows the audience to focus on the story as a whole and not just the two leads and their relationship.

      • Parisienne April 5, 2011 at 8:09 PM #

        that’s true. What about real relationships though? If I have to hear about how Brad and Angie raise their kids one more time….i’ll go through a roof. Showbiz Tonight was leading their program with that a few nights ago.

        • Open Book April 5, 2011 at 8:15 PM #

          It’s pure exhibitionism!! IMO!! I think there are people addicted to following these actors around because it makes them feel important. Then there are actors who are addicted to the publicity. So it’s a never ending feeding frenzy.

          • Parisienne April 5, 2011 at 8:18 PM #

            I’m sorry….but i have to say this and i’m not picking on her please don’t attack me but Kate Gosselin is not a celebrity. IMO

            • Littlebells April 5, 2011 at 8:20 PM #

              Don’t even get me started on “those” people!!!!! Ok, where I my emoticons? I really need them right now. 🙂

            • lurkerm3 April 5, 2011 at 8:22 PM #

              Oh yeah, I saw a headline at the store today about Kate G – she is horrified she might have to get a ‘real job’.

              Don’t get me started on reality TV, talentless people seeking fame. Ewww still don’t watch reality TV.

              • Parisienne April 5, 2011 at 8:24 PM #

                LOL yeah i agree she might. I don’t think anyone cares about her or her kiddies anymore.

                • lurkerm3 April 5, 2011 at 8:31 PM #

                  Yes, her 15 minutes is over!

                  • Parisienne April 5, 2011 at 8:42 PM #

                    they were over 30 min ago. LOL

          • Parisienne April 5, 2011 at 8:46 PM #

            but its constant. its like a worn out toy already.

        • Littlebells April 5, 2011 at 8:18 PM #

          Who caaaaaaaares????!!!! 9Not you Paris, I’m agreeing with you) I don’t care about anyone’s kids, what they are wearing, who’s with whom and blah, blah, blah. Just give me quality reviews of films, great interviews with directors, actors, costumers, cinematographers, etc…and maybe little tidbits about them that they are willing to share we might find interesting. Seriously.

          • lurkerm3 April 5, 2011 at 8:23 PM #

            Amen sister!

          • Parisienne April 5, 2011 at 8:25 PM #

            my halleulia moment just showed up. LOL

            • lurkerm3 April 5, 2011 at 8:29 PM #

              Or as Oprah says – your ‘aha’ moment! (LOL)

              • Parisienne April 5, 2011 at 8:42 PM #

                yep my aha moment.

          • Open Book April 5, 2011 at 8:35 PM #

            Standing O!!! Littlebells.

            • Littlebells April 5, 2011 at 8:41 PM #

              Any mags out there that really do that? I would love to have a magazine that doesn’t needs tons and tons of adds to fills it’s pages or fund the mag itself. I want something classy where the pages are filled with insightful material. I want a mag that those in the industry admire and appreciate for showcasing their talents.

              Thanks, ladies, btw…I sometimes get carried away. 🙂

              • Littlebells April 5, 2011 at 8:42 PM #

                ps. I want to read something and feel smarter and enlightened than dumbed down and stupid.

                • Open Book April 5, 2011 at 9:12 PM #

                  U are not alone. I call it Brainfood.

  11. Littlebells April 5, 2011 at 7:43 PM #

    Great question!

    Well, I think it can, but I think it also has to do with the talent and roles the actors are choosing. For example, I like Jennifer Aniston, as a person but not necessarily an actress. She is always being linked to her co-stars, which I never believe. Her showmances don’t affect me if I see her in any other role. It’s more her acting that keeps me from envisioning her in other roles. *Note to any and all reading: I am not bashing Ms. Aniston in anyway. Please do not take it as such.*

    Another example: Johnny Depp. With all the chaos that has ever followed him, I see his film for his talent because HE CAN ACT.

    Did that make sense??

    • ozzie20 April 5, 2011 at 7:46 PM #

      Yes and I agree. Also a good script helps too.

      • Littlebells April 5, 2011 at 7:54 PM #

        Absolutely 150%! Actually you need all the elements to come together, but as long as you have a great story and great actors, you can make the rest work.

        • Open Book April 5, 2011 at 8:06 PM #

          I really think Jennifer Aniston when she was doing indie films was pretty good. The characters were diverse and interesting. For example when she was in Office Space. Also, I liked her in this film with Clive Owen. Derailed.

    • Parisienne April 5, 2011 at 7:48 PM #

      yes of course. I agree about JA but the same could be said for AJ. with Jennifer all i see is Rachel from Friends. With Angelina all I see is someone who is going to kick someone’s behind really bad.

      • Littlebells April 5, 2011 at 7:49 PM #

        OMG!!! yes!!!! hahahahahahahahahaha! (honestly, I don’t get the appeal)

      • Open Book April 5, 2011 at 7:59 PM #

        LOL!!

        Paris, u and Littlebells should start a comedy act!!

        • Littlebells April 5, 2011 at 8:02 PM #

          Would you please tell my husband that? 🙂

        • Parisienne April 5, 2011 at 8:07 PM #

          thank you. 🙂

      • lurkerm3 April 5, 2011 at 8:01 PM #

        So true AJ is already typecast. That’s why she couldn’t pull off The tourist and Salt made money!

        • Littlebells April 5, 2011 at 8:03 PM #

          hahahaha!!! I rented the tourist thinking it was a thriller (which it was initially, right?) and laughed my socks off. My husband and I kept saying to each other, “Is it supposed to be funny?”

          • lurkerm3 April 5, 2011 at 8:05 PM #

            I haven’t seen it yet, just the trailer and I think I missed the Johnny Depp lines that were either supposed to be funny or were sarcasm. Either way it looked confusing.

            • Parisienne April 5, 2011 at 8:07 PM #

              I have never seen The Tourist? Is it supposed to be a comedy?

              • lurkerm3 April 5, 2011 at 8:10 PM #

                I’m not sure honestly. I think it was marketed as a drama. So I don’t know.

            • Littlebells April 5, 2011 at 8:09 PM #

              It was confusing in the sense of it wasn’t funny but it wasn’t a thriller, so you honestly didn’t know what you were watching. And what you did see, was funny in a non-funny what -is -going- on way. You didn’t miss anything. Any more confused? 🙂

              • Littlebells April 5, 2011 at 8:10 PM #

                Thriller/romance……yeaaaaaaaaaaah that did NOT happen and that’s why it was nominated in the comedies at the GGs. *curtsies*

              • Parisienne April 5, 2011 at 8:13 PM #

                i’m throughly confused. then again i’m always throughly confused.

                • Littlebells April 5, 2011 at 8:21 PM #

                  Sorry, I gave a horrible description. It’s supposed to be a thriller but there were parts that were funny that I KNOW were NOT supposed to be and I didn’t find it thrilling at all. Don’t waste your DVD coupons….

  12. lurkerm3 April 5, 2011 at 8:00 PM #

    Hi Ladies! Sorry I’m late!

    • Parisienne April 5, 2011 at 8:06 PM #

      Hi Lurker!

      • lurkerm3 April 5, 2011 at 8:07 PM #

        Howdee!

  13. Littlebells April 5, 2011 at 8:02 PM #

    Hi Lurker! 🙂

    • lurkerm3 April 5, 2011 at 8:07 PM #

      Hi Littlebells!

      • Open Book April 5, 2011 at 8:09 PM #

        Big Waves!! Lurker…..

        • lurkerm3 April 5, 2011 at 8:20 PM #

          Hi OpenBook!
          No waves today, just a lot of sweat!

          • Open Book April 5, 2011 at 8:22 PM #

            LOL!!

            Are u sipping a cocktail?

            • lurkerm3 April 5, 2011 at 8:24 PM #

              You know it!

              • ozzie20 April 5, 2011 at 8:34 PM #

                Hi! How’s it going?

                • lurkerm3 April 5, 2011 at 8:37 PM #

                  Hi Ozzie!
                  Loving the Palm trees and the great food!
                  We have found some really great restaurants so far!

                  • Littlebells April 5, 2011 at 8:50 PM #

                    Are you in the tropics somewhere???? Jealous.

                    • lurkerm3 April 5, 2011 at 8:54 PM #

                      Key West FL!

  14. Open Book April 5, 2011 at 8:21 PM #

    I’m really liking the casting for Cosmopolis. I think it’s going to be great.

    What are your thoughts Lurker given u did an article on Cosmopolis Female Characters?

    • lurkerm3 April 5, 2011 at 8:27 PM #

      Well considering some of the gossip sites who seized on the female actors, I was so trying to stay above that fray.

      However, I like the idea that they are picking actors who aren’t multi million dollar catches who might overshadow the story. I think there is plenty of unique talent and I can’t wait to see how these actors female and male really spin their characters.
      It looks to be an incredible collection of talent.

      • Littlebells April 5, 2011 at 8:31 PM #

        I’m really looking forward to it. I don’t care if the person is well known or a newcomer. I just want to escape into the story for a few hours and come out going “Holy cow that was awesome!”

        • lurkerm3 April 5, 2011 at 8:35 PM #

          LittleBells, do you think there really are more consumers like us who feel the same way?

          I too, want to escape into the story and be entertained. I honestly don’t care about the gossip that goes along with the stories.

          • Parisienne April 5, 2011 at 8:39 PM #

            I’m sure there are many consumers who would like to escape into the story and not deal with all the nonsense. However, I heard a rumor the other day that Bel Ami is shelved because the studio is afraid Rob won’t be able to sell the character of Georges Duroy. Honestly, he could sell ice to an eskimo. What do you think?

            • lurkerm3 April 5, 2011 at 8:42 PM #

              I think they are worried about him loosing his ‘appeal’ and that is a valid concern. However, I think they haven’t done enough research to find his market base. They are being a bit short sighted thinking the only appeal he has is to the ‘fanatic fans’ from twilight.

              • Parisienne April 5, 2011 at 8:48 PM #

                very true.

            • Open Book April 5, 2011 at 8:47 PM #

              Do u want my honest opinion?

              I really think BelAmi is too soon. Meaning, I think audiences today are not ready to see this R. I think after WFE then Cosmopolis then maybe Bel Ami would be good. I think what R wants to avoid is looking like a gimmick by playing a character that is such a polar opposite of the image he has now. Does that make sense?

              • Littlebells April 5, 2011 at 8:49 PM #

                Yes, absolutely and if it is being shelved for that reason, I can understand it. I think they do need to see what the fan base truly is and if he can get BO hits with other films, then releasing BA later will probably be more successful.

                • Parisienne April 5, 2011 at 8:53 PM #

                  LittleBells said it better than i did. 🙂

                  • Littlebells April 5, 2011 at 8:59 PM #

                    Not really, but thanks! haha!

                    As much as I want to see it, I’m ok with waiting. It’s quite an extreme and honestly, I want to see him do other roles before. That’s not to say he didn’t do a great job in BA, but I kind of need a warming up period myself.

              • Parisienne April 5, 2011 at 8:50 PM #

                yes it does. but i think if he did that it would show he has talent and not just looks. but the way you put it i think he’s letting people into his warm pool very slowly. Sorry if that sounded bad its the best way i could think of to put it.

                • lurkerm3 April 5, 2011 at 8:56 PM #

                  Well true, and BA has that same element that some of the have seized upon which is the ‘fake relationship’ and the physical attributes. BA doesn’t really separate him from that element either.

                  • Open Book April 5, 2011 at 9:01 PM #

                    True!

                  • Littlebells April 5, 2011 at 9:02 PM #

                    what fake relationship??? I’m confused.

                • Open Book April 5, 2011 at 8:59 PM #

                  Exactly, it’s a sign of maturity to start slowly and build over time. R does not strike me as a 15 minute person.

                  Here’s another expression. U don’t want to pound the keys on the piano because that’s the sound of a beginner learning to play.

                  • Littlebells April 5, 2011 at 9:01 PM #

                    I agree. I think he is very methodial, wants to be serious about his craft (while having a fun time) and have a successful life. I think he would be one of our consumers, ladies! He likes great things. 🙂

                    • Littlebells April 5, 2011 at 9:01 PM #

                      *methodical*

          • Littlebells April 5, 2011 at 8:47 PM #

            I do. Even though it’s hard to tell sometimes, there is a large quantity of us consumers who want quality whether it’s in the genre of thriller, horror, comedy, drama, etc…Unfortunately, I think HW is more about the BO dollars so they cater to the audiences that are willing to spend the money on mindless matter. Now do I like some of those movies that a fifth grader could have done better? Sure. But when it comes down to it, I want something great. I want something that exercises my brain. I want to be able to talk about days after and somehow applying what I saw and the things I learned to my own life and the life going on around me. I can get pretty intense that way.

            I think it’s possible for Hollywood to produce better quality movies, but I’m wondering if we can only get the message through by using their own BO against them.

            I don’t know. Now I’m just rambling…

            • Parisienne April 5, 2011 at 8:52 PM #

              I TOTALLY AGREE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! sorry for the shouting.

              • Littlebells April 5, 2011 at 8:54 PM #

                haha! I’ll wear earplugs next time. 🙂

            • Littlebells April 5, 2011 at 8:54 PM #

              Grammatical errors everywhere. My apologies!

              • Parisienne April 5, 2011 at 8:56 PM #

                its ok. my brain stopped working a while ago.

            • Open Book April 5, 2011 at 9:05 PM #

              Well said Littlebells.

              Applause!!

              • Littlebells April 5, 2011 at 9:06 PM #

                You realize you’re just setting yourself up to be disappointed, right? 🙂

        • ozzie20 April 5, 2011 at 8:36 PM #

          I agree Littlebells. I think Cosmopolis has a solid cast and I can’t wait to see how it turns out.

        • Open Book April 5, 2011 at 8:38 PM #

          Another, Standing O!!

      • Parisienne April 5, 2011 at 8:34 PM #

        Lurker,

        i agree. Cosmopolis will be interesting to see.

  15. Parisienne April 5, 2011 at 9:07 PM #

    Ladies,

    I’m going to go. Have a good night!

    • lurkerm3 April 5, 2011 at 9:08 PM #

      Night!

      • lurkerm3 April 5, 2011 at 9:11 PM #

        Ladies, I need to go as well.
        Talk to you on Thursday!

        • ozzie20 April 5, 2011 at 9:12 PM #

          Night Lurker. Hope you continue to have fun! 🙂

    • Littlebells April 5, 2011 at 9:11 PM #

      Good night Paris! 🙂

      • ozzie20 April 5, 2011 at 9:11 PM #

        Night Paris!

  16. Open Book April 5, 2011 at 9:13 PM #

    Goodnight Everyone.

    This was a great discussion.

    Take Care!!

  17. Littlebells April 5, 2011 at 9:14 PM #

    Good night everyone!

    • ozzie20 April 5, 2011 at 9:21 PM #

      Night All!

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: