I dont think Colin Farrell is that bad -major or not. I think its a good choice. The problem with big name stars in films is that its just that actor in the film as themselves....Arnie is always just Arnie, Sean Connery is just Sean Connery...and Tom Cruise is always Tom Cruise, they dont embody a character much anymore as they are so recognised. So Farrell is a good choice, he's not in your face.

J

Colin needs a movie that exploits his strengths as an actor. So far that hasn't happened. For Arnold Schwarzenegger, it was mainly his physique. For Sean Connery, it was his wit and charm. For Tom Cruise, it was his cockiness, and he usually picked movies that exploited that. Collin has not found his calling as an actor yet and this remake doesn't look to do that for him. Colin needs one movie that defines "HIM", unfortunately he keeps choosing roles that don't do that.

I dunno, I'm not a big fan of him, but he was really good in In Bruges... dark comedy, maybe that's him?

Comedy is not his forte. Thats probably why Bruges made only 7.8 million here in the states. I think Brad Pitt would have been a better choice for that movie IMO. He does Dark comedies really well, and so does Bruce Campbell, or maybe even Edward Norton. Death To Smoochy was an awesome movie.

I think he was great in In Bruges (box office take doesn't = quality) and also in Tigerland. He's been in some movies that haven't been very good but I've got no problem with him as an actor.

Big fan of the Verhoven original though, so not sure what I make of this one... time will tell.

Usually it does, and most of his movies could have done alot better if it weren't for the studios mentality about movies. They just don't want story, but Colin still needs to define himself alot better.

- Umm yer I`m with you there

THX - Have you seen twilight and transformers - and the highest box office ever Avatar - is not the best film around (although I am a fan - don`t get me wrong - but not Cam`s best work)

You really believe that box office take = quality?

So many examples of bad films raking it in, while good ones perform badly.

THX, I think most people are going to disagree with you. Really, you only have to go look at rotten tomatoes every now and again and see green splots frequently at the top of the box office chart. Wouldn't it be nice if the good movies got the most money?

I stand by my comment. "USUALLY", Box office take= quality. I never said it "ALWAYS"= quality.

Well i'm finding it really hard to think of any apart from lotr. all the really good films I have seen the last few years have been mid budget.

Being box office hits definitely doesn't equate to quality. In my opinion, the ones in the top 10 were not very good, Pirates was decent but don't get me started on Transformers, Twilight, Harry Potter, Thor etc.

No I think you are missing my point. When I see an Arnie, Tom Cruise or even a Connery movie, I dont see the character they are playing, all I see is them being 'them' not a character in particular, they are almost cliched and type cast. If you look at the Alec Guinness generation of actors, they 'became' those characters and you forgot about the actor same can be said of Harrison Ford, he is Indiana Jones and Han Solo, not just Harrison Ford. So for me Farrell is good enough, he will be invisible to me in the film as the actor, he will be the character. Its probably one of the reasons he was given the part, he's not directly in your face as a personality.

I'm in agreement with Gen, and call me old fashioned, but box office hits is, are and will always be such a fickle thing. Generally when you look at a box office hit its usually because its the latest 'in thing' (craze) or the actor leading in the film is just popular at that moment, its such bull. I could give you half a dozen movies that in MY opinion wipe the floor with such high end FX movies like Avatar (that has no original story btw, or is based off Dances with wolves) either way its not original. Although the Dark Knight is a great film, I dont think its above Batman Begins in a lot of ways, I think because of Heath Ledgers departure in our world, that everyone and their nan went to see it because of him, I would have seen it anyway regardless but my thinking is that its popularity increase was down to the Ledger factor.

Also when people bang on about avatar they dont actually realise that there isn't a damn thing in there that hasn't been seen before I can guarantee it, the factor for that film was it was sold purely on the improvement of the 3d Camera, to improve the viewing experience, which now in hindsight we all love to hate, but thanks to us viewers paying for the gimmick has now caused nearly all movies to get a 3d conversion - anyway.......thats another gripe story for another day LOL, so why is that film a hit???? I think its just the visual feast it gives, not a story. It bores me to tears, since owning it on Blu ray I still havent had the patience to watch it thru the first act LOL.


Edit: I was just looking at that box office list, I think the majority of the top ten should be made illegal LOL, in fact the top 50 need a good shuffle, how the hell some of those got green lit is a mystery to me. If you want a quality movie with good characters and 100% story, Im telling you you gotta see Real Steel....that was one movie that I did not expect from, yet that delivered the whole damn package, I was really surprised with that film.


J

Lol my father in law LOVES Avatar! I think it's the blue ray on an led LCD, he's all like "Ooh it's so pretty" and his eyes get all sparkely, it's hilarious. Every time they come over he wants to see it.

Hey Gen

thats funny, my step father loves it as a matter of fact, it must be the pretty pictures LOL

Jay