Which actors have failed upward?

dtweqznls vnmboh Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 08:22 PM EST

ljwfuyocx ldsbg fduaoryc wifkg uswlaong vmfjrksw ptdzgi

Greg Mon, May 14, 2007 at 05:11 PM EST

The biggest problem with Scarlett Johannson is that she makes movies that nobody sees. She has talent, but yet she ends up making stuff like "Eight Legged Freaks" and that one with Woody Allen and Hugh Jackman. And what about "If Lucy Fell?" Does anyone remember that dog. She needs to start doing nude scenes or get a new agent.

Cliff Polvent Thu, Aug 3, 2006 at 05:47 PM EST

Sir, Madam:

Colin Farrell, a flop in Alexander the Great! Look who directed Alexander. Stone, stoned, dui drug pocession!
Everyone blames the Actors. The Director is The Captain of the movie ship. Sturges, Cukor, Ford come to mind. They got the performance they needed regardless of the Actor skill, everytime. Colin may not be a lead, but who have been his directors? His Agent probably should be shot for some of the movies he's made. Young man needs more experience with vetran
actors, like Dina Merrill, Michal Cane, Kier Dullea, Gene Hackman, Al Pacino, Di Nero, et al.

Thats what I think,
Cliff

MIMI Tue, Aug 1, 2006 at 12:22 AM EST

Will someone please send Kristin Cavalerri back to Orange County before she winds up shoved in our faces and down our throats for what will be a huge movie flop? Remember the TV show she was co-hosting on WB? Didn't think so, it lasted 1 episode. When will that girl's 15 minutes be up? Thanks a lot MTV!!

MIMI Tue, Aug 1, 2006 at 12:19 AM EST

Will someone please send Kristin Cavalerri back to Orange County before she winds up shoved in our faces and down our throats for what will be a huge movie flop? Remember the TV show she was co-hosting on WB? Didn't think so, it lasted 1 episode. When will that girl's 15 minutes be up? Thanks a lot MTV!!

Aaron Mon, Jul 31, 2006 at 07:40 PM EST

My pick would be Jessica Alba. Yes, granted she has a hot bod and the blogfather adoreeessss her to death, hey, where's the acting chops? She was in 4 movies last year, one baring more than the other! See the progression in "Honey", "Deep Blue Sea", "Fantastic Four"...
Rachel McAdams is one that always fascinates me. She's choosing her projects really carefully now and it's important. She was stellar in the Notebook and Mean Girls and held her own in Family Stone.

ursula Mon, Jul 31, 2006 at 07:38 PM EST

By the way, whatever happened to Christian Slater's career?! He was really great when he was younger... Here's one talent I'd like to see make a good comeback onscreen. Yep, I miss Christian's animalistic appeal on the big screen!!! There's always a need for a good and convincing antagonist, right?

ursula Mon, Jul 31, 2006 at 07:33 PM EST

I've seen Colin Farrell in only three movies, namely: Phone Booth, Alexander and The New World. There is no doubt he sizzles onscreen, and has really great eyes that "talk" to the viewers. His talent for acting is OK and could be honed even more. I do think he can do more than he's done already in the acting department, but he just needs to clean up his "image" so that he doesn't come out tacky, trashy and irresponsible. (I don't think being somewhat like a male-Tara Reid is going to do anybody any good.)

Tim Mon, Jul 31, 2006 at 07:08 PM EST

I really hope that EW goes with this concept of failing upward. It is such an interesting concept of why Hollywood figures are perpetuated into the cinematic landscape, when there are a hosts of other inspired character actors and of course struggling artists who would do ten time the justice Colin Farrel portrays in Alexander. In what ways can we begin to change the Hollywood scence so that the Lindsey Lohans, Jessica Simpsons, etc. that do not DESERVE acting experience, as the numbers REAFFIRM. Its like that rich girl you knew in high school or that politician son who get the job not based on their resume, but because of their bloodline, filling the office with nepotism and coorelated incompetence.

Myller Mon, Jul 31, 2006 at 04:26 PM EST

I've never seen a Colin Farrell movie in the theater, just on cable. He's very charming and chatting on the talk show circuit.He has personality if not box office success.

James C Mon, Jul 31, 2006 at 03:58 PM EST

I can't believe no one has mentioned HILLARY DUFF yet.

I cannot stand that girl. She's vapid and annoying.

They should have movie theaters set up like RAID roach motels, so the idiots who pay to go see her movies check in but they don't check out.

Nose Mon, Jul 31, 2006 at 01:59 PM EST

We live in an era where all you have to do to be popular is have an ex release a sex tape...then you get all the TV, movie and record deals that you want.
Gone are the days of proper movie stars, where we all went to see a movie because of the headliner. The people who were paid exorbitant amounts to make movies over the last 10-15 years, like Hanks, Cruise, Willis, Roberts...do they have the same drawing power that they once had? How much have their movies made recently? As far as I can recall, they have all made duds in the last couple of years.
I wouldn't consider Colin Farrell's or Orlando Bloom's inability to carry a picture a failure necessarily. I think movies have changed,and we can't expect the same results that 'stars' produced. Without Orlando Bloom, would Pirates have been as successful?
Also, because of tabloids, we know every last detail about stars' personal lives...do we want to go see a Tom Cruise movie after what he has done in the press over the last year? It is harder to make the distinction for people between characters and the people they watch on Entertainment Tonight every day.

EP Sato Mon, Jul 31, 2006 at 01:10 PM EST

I'd say the big failure is Orlando Bloom. The man can not carry a movie to save his life. Elizabethtown came on the heels of Kingdom of Heaven. Both movies were bombs, but it sounds like there's still offers being thrown Mr. Bloom's way.

Others? Unfunny money losers like John Lovitz, Dana Carvey, David Spade (who's painfully untalented, unfunny and who steals his celeb comments from Popwatch), Kelsea Grammer and Rob Schnieder keep getting movie deals. WTF?

Logan Mon, Jul 31, 2006 at 12:51 PM EST

Jennifer Aniston is the definition of failing up. The woman couldn't act her way out of a wet paper bag with a hole in it but she was in at least 4 movies this year and except for the one with Vince Vaughn the others were bombs. She couldn't carry a movie if her life depended on it and always needs a big name like Vaughn (or Pitt) to keep her afloat. I wish for two things for the world: world peace and no more Jennifer Aniston movies.

Nose Mon, Jul 31, 2006 at 11:59 AM EST

I really want to like Colin Farrell, but have really only ever liked 2 movies he was in: Tigerland and A Home at the End of the World. I think it is the movies he chooses, and not necessarily because he is not a good actor or a bankable star. Alexander was doomed from the start, and not because of Farrell...there was the controversy of the other Alexander pic being made, and who in the hell casts Angelina Jolie as Colin Farrell's mother? Also, movie execs should know that any film with homosexual overtones in a pre-Brokeback era with someone like Farrel wouldn't fly.
Farrell is sexy and talented...I think if he was allowed to speak with his oh-so-sexy Irish accent and be a bit more of a regular guy, he would do better.

John Mon, Jul 31, 2006 at 11:59 AM EST

Matt Damon and Ben Afflack both need to start acting together again, and never seperate ever. Those two have more chemistry than any other acting pair i've ever seen. At least damon is doing good movies on his own... Ben can't seem to do anythign right without his buddy

mini Mon, Jul 31, 2006 at 11:44 AM EST

Gerard Butler... That Scottish hunk from the Phantom of the Opera (movie), Beowulf, Mrs. Brown, Lara Croft2, Timeline, Reign of Fire, Dear Frankie, etc... He has subtle-but-deadly charisma and emotes effectively. He can sing well, too! I believe he deserves even bigger breaks! ...We need more action movies with Matt Damon, too! ...And yes, I agree, Hollywood is better off without Jennifer Aniston, Jessica Simpson and Paris Hilton.

Jakeem Mon, Jul 31, 2006 at 11:08 AM EST

Say what you will about Colin Farrell, but he often opens big in big movies. "Miami Vice" is the sixth movie in which he's appeared that dominated the weekend box office. The others: "Minority Report," "The Recruit," "Daredevil," "Phone Booth" and "S.W.A.T."
If memory serves me correctly, those previous No. 1 hits were in a row!

bg 17 Mon, Jul 31, 2006 at 10:37 AM EST

I agree with minimarie's assessment of Colin Farell's charisma, with one exception: When playing what seemed to be an extended version of himself on Scrubs, he was hilarious. I think he should quit trying to play it cool and let his inner bloke shine.

mike Mon, Jul 31, 2006 at 10:30 AM EST

I agree w/u in theory, but the same could be said for actors like Tom Cruise and Harrison Ford who play the same character in every movie, but do well at the box office (or at least they have in the past). I think all the actors listed in your article are extremely talented, but their movies are often duds because of the movies, not the actors. Most of the movies Kate Hudson and Gretchen Mol have done just sucked. Colin Farrell on the other hand has done some wonderful movies like "A Home At The End Of The World" but they were poorly promoted.

MiniMarie Mon, Jul 31, 2006 at 09:49 AM EST

The person who pointed out that there is a difference between serious acting work and blockbuster work, and this is properly talking about the latter, not the former. Scarlett Johansen ISN'T a bankable star, but a lot of her work has been in more serious dramas like "Girl With a Pearl Earring" and "Lost in Translation" -- so it's not fair to include her in this. Kate Hudson, OTOH, has done endless romantic comedies that seem to exist only to someday fill a half-price bin of DVDs. She probably COULD be a big star given the right projects, but with Hollywood moviemaking at a low -- PARTICUlARLY when it comes to pure entertainment movies, which are now so wholly incompetent that something like "The Devil Wears Prada" seems like a masterpiece simply for being polished and witty -- the movies aren't there. Angelina Jolie? If they would put her in movies that showcase her tough-woman persona every year, she would be a much more bankable star than she is.

Colin Farrell? This guy seems like a charisma vacuum. The only think that frightens me about his sexuality is that people actually think he projects any onscreen. And the thing is, he seems equally personality-devoid in art films AND blockbusters; it's equal-opportunity. And yet Hollywood believes, despite ALL evidence, that he is a star. (Watch: the moderate success of "Miami Vice" will not be attributed to Michael Mann, because that would be giving credit to a writer/director, or to Jamie Foxx, because it remains harder for a serious black actor to be considered a star. They will say that people love Colin Farrell, and we just -- don't.)

Gem Mon, Jul 31, 2006 at 09:45 AM EST

For the talentless bunch of stars --- I always thought they found work because they slept with the right people? =)

Chuck_A Mon, Jul 31, 2006 at 09:23 AM EST

Let's not forget that Mr. Depp wasn't exactly packing them in for 15 years until his current hits. The studios didn't give up on him since they knew he had talent.

Eddie Mon, Jul 31, 2006 at 09:20 AM EST

Jessica Simpson. Absolutely useless. She's supposed to be known as a singer, but name 2 songs of hers. She had to make a TV show about how she's a famous singer, thus making her famous. She can't sing, can't act, get out of our lives. She's the perfect example of my theory that the less talented you are the more you have to be in the tabloids to compensate. See also Britney Spears, Ashley Simpson, Lindsey Lohan, Paris Hilton, Star Jones, Beyonce etc etc. These people are famous but NOT talented. People can see through this fake storm of success propaganda in the tabloids and that's why box office numbers are at all time lows.

Sara Mon, Jul 31, 2006 at 08:08 AM EST

Can't believe I made it thru all these comments and only one person mentioned Winona in Beetlejuice and Edward Scissorhands, and no one's mentioned her in Girl, Interrupted.

Colin Farrell isn't as good as he thinks he is. I can't pass judgment on his acting abilities because I can't stand his attitude enough to stomach his films. He seems like he thinks his poo doesn't stink.

Scarlett Johansson and Rachel McAdams both get major points with me for not gracing the covers of tabloids on a weekly basis. Though I don't think either of them is a box-office draw right now, they both could be because they choose projects well and behave maturely.

Chris McVetta Mon, Jul 31, 2006 at 07:26 AM EST

Physician, heal thyself, EW!!!

Your magazine has tried to shoehorn comedian, Dane Cook, into the "next great thing in comedy" when it comes to movies - but what are "Waiting" and "Employee of The Month" other than recycled, watered-down versions of "Clerks"-?

I know Mr. Cook is highly successful on the comedy club/CD circuit - but that doesn't always translate into "movie star."

I think the comedy movie is essentially "dead" in Hollywood - which is why we are constantly force-fed movies by sad and sadder Will Ferrell, Rob Schneider and David Spade.

The only worthwhile exception is the extremely talented (and funny) Steve Carell - give me "The Forty-Year-Old Virgin" and "The Office" anyday!

The id and I - "We put the 'fun' in dysfunctional!"
www.theidandi.blogspot.com

Susan Mon, Jul 31, 2006 at 06:20 AM EST

You can have the greatest actors/actresses on earth, but if the scripts and directing are bad, who cares? When all Hollywood can give us is identical remakes and rehashing of old TV shows, Winona's greatness will be lost in boredom. Let's stop focusing on upstarts and bring back some of the glorious older actors who are being passed by. Do we really care how old Sean Connery and Harrison Ford are? Not a damned bit.

JTree Mon, Jul 31, 2006 at 05:33 AM EST

Too much focus on actors. Every actor, including Olivier, has been in some real stinkers. Probably the process and the team are the biggest factors. Producers, writers, directors and then actors. Instead of being fed with a lot of crazy ideas from that ivory tower on the left coast, they should get a grip and get real. Who ever heard of Harrison Ford before Star Wars or Peter O'Toole before Lawrence? These people should be looking at the David Lean and Steven Spielberg models. Anyone who goes to a film to see an actor as opposed to the team produced film itself, will be continually disappointed. This isn't just about actors.

Roland Mon, Jul 31, 2006 at 05:14 AM EST

mary2, I'm sorry you didn't "get" Brokeback Mountain. While I'll be the first to admit that the media hoopla over the film got out of hand, I'd much rather see films like Brokeback where actors like Mr. Gyllenhaal and Mr. Ledger would gamble their careers and undertake such risky roles than films where the performers get second billing to the special effects. But unfortunately, it's all about the profits.

Sherry Mon, Jul 31, 2006 at 05:10 AM EST

There are actors and there are stars. Julia Roberts – actor: Jennifer Aniston – star. … and there is a chasm as wide as the Grand Canyon between these two definitions.

meme Mon, Jul 31, 2006 at 02:36 AM EST

At least some of the people mentioned like Winnona Ryder and Scarlett Johanssen are good actors who make good movies (Little Women, The Age of Innocence, Lost in Translation etc.) and The New World was a good movie even though I personally don't much care for Colin Farell. It's not the fault of people who make quality movies that the general public would rather watch crap. The real shame is when people obviously deficient in talent like Jessica Simpson, Paris Hilton et al. get made into stars by being in movies that pander to the lowest common denominator while legitimate talent in quality movies get overlooked.

ChicagoChris Mon, Jul 31, 2006 at 01:58 AM EST

The writers, producers, and studio execs are the ones failing upward. In part, it is the public's fault for paying inflated ticket prices to see recycled slop instead of holding out on the ticket sales for new and original quality entertainment. Okay, yes, there ARE movie genres, but being in a genre does not mean a movie has to be nothing more than a retread. A good actor is an actor who can make a good part his own. A few good actors can even make a mediocre part good through sheer presence, but that doesn't happen often--especially with the present crop of 15-minute-famers in front of the cameras. Nevertheless, with the "right" script, every actor mentioned in these comments just might be able to deliver a signature performance. Unfortunately, making movies has become so expensive that few studios appear willing to gamble on anything except what they see as "sure things" -- the remakes, the sequels, and the derivations from success in the other entertainment media. So, don't shoot the actors because they're only the messengers, delivering the slop the studios feel "safe" dishing out to the public. Small wonder people go elsewhere for their nourishment when theaters are offering nothing but slop!

mary2 Mon, Jul 31, 2006 at 01:44 AM EST

Has anyone seen the new world the movie about pocohatus that collin was in it was very good and is way better then the stuff like brokeback mountain from last year. Another actress this article should have mention was Gywenth Paltrow besides Shakespear in Love she has yet to cary a hit movie. The only reason she is even famous is becasue of her parents. Her mom is a actress and her dad was a succesful tv producer.

Lee Mon, Jul 31, 2006 at 01:34 AM EST

One thing Mr. Susman failed to mention is that plenty of people who are box office poison in the U.S. are huge stars over-seas or star in movies that make a ton of money overseas. Brad Pitt's BO record is spotty in the US but plenty of his movies make a TON of money all over the wor;d. Sure, Orlando Bloom's "Kingdom of Heaven" didn't do so hot in its initial US run, but it made $240 from the foreign markets and became a huge hit on DVD, so it all evens out.

Likewise, a lot of movies that do well at the US BO don't make a lot of moeny overseas. EW weekly publishes a list of the year's movies and their domestic and foreign grosses and a lot of movies headlined by African-Americans do well domestically but barely make any money with the foreign BO. Ice Cube had a relatively big hit with "Are We There Yet?", but it didn't make any money overseas. Also, Scarlett, Penelope, and Colin cost a lot less to book than Julia Roberts, Reece Witherspoon and Tom Hanks, so they're a good investment. So, there are more factors that go into how "bankable" a star is than just a huge US fan base that rushes out to see a movie opening weekend.

BillinSeattle Mon, Jul 31, 2006 at 12:54 AM EST

Interesting topic. I refer to the phenomenon as the Michael Douglas Syndrome. For YEARS he was in everything! It seemed like every other film starred this guy. It was only a matter of time before they gave him an Oscar because he was in friggin EVERYTHING. So, WALL STREET came around and made us think he was a great thespian. No, he just had great connections and, once again, he was in EVERYTHING!!!! Of course he'd get an Oscar. Nicholas Cage is part of that same phenomenon.
Oh...and about Winona. She WAS great. Her role in THE CRUCIBLE should have won her a well-deserved Oscar.

Auggie Mon, Jul 31, 2006 at 12:06 AM EST

Ewan McGregor-enough said

Brett E. Fricke Sun, Jul 30, 2006 at 11:27 PM EST

Forget about the actors who are "failing upward," the real blame has to go to Hollywood itself, which has been completely bereft of good movie ideas for years. Even the best actors will find it difficult to fill the seats when all Hollywood can come up with is yet another TV-to-movie or comic book-to-movie or classic-remake or fomulaic comedy/drama/historical biopic/etc. The problem isn't the actors. Its that the writers have nothing new to write about.

Sarah Sun, Jul 30, 2006 at 11:25 PM EST

I wished Beyonce's overhyped ass would go the hell away too. Add her name to the list.

Tony Sun, Jul 30, 2006 at 10:12 PM EST

Brad Pitt has NEVER carried a hit movie on his name alone. All of his hits involved other, bigger, stars. How this guys gets paid what he gets paid is beyond me. I don't think he is all that bad but he has very little drawing power at the box office.

MJ Sun, Jul 30, 2006 at 09:08 PM EST

Jessica Alba and Jennifer Aniston come immediately to mind. The former is only bearable when wearing a bikini and even that gets old after the first 20 minutes. The latter is famous only because she was lucky enough to snare Brad Pitt. Now that he has moved on to better and greener pastures, Aniston has to rely on her talent, which she has none. Attention Hollywood Producers - Stop trying to shove these two down our throats. We're tired of spitting them back up.

Jen Sun, Jul 30, 2006 at 08:41 PM EST

Okay, I think this article may have struck some nerves. Mine included. We have stars out there making money off NO talent, such as Jessica Simpson, Paris Hilton, etc. Then you have classy actresses, such as Scarlett Johansson and we call them crap. I don't get it. I would chose to watch Lost in Translation, Match Point, or In Good Company over Dukes of Hazzard or House of Wax any day. Matthew McConaughey hasn't chosen the best movies lately, but he's had a few good ones....at least worth enough to give him another chance. And Kate Hudson, she probably wouldn't have gotten anywhere without her mom, but her role in Almost Famous.....phenominal!!!!!

sarah Sun, Jul 30, 2006 at 07:58 PM EST

Thank you Cliff! My feelings exactly. Winona Ryder was in a wonderful adaptation of Little Women and The Age of Innocence, but only Mr. Deeds (ack!) counts? I would have no reason to go to the movies anymore if they were populated solely by money-earners.

Mark Sun, Jul 30, 2006 at 07:21 PM EST

I nominate Sandra Bullock. While she has appeared in some great movies, her career is like a see-saw; up and down. Her latest flick, with former Speed co-star Keanu Reeves, is one of her down films. She needs to stop making revival movies of her previous successes. IE: Speed and Miss Congeniality.

Ellen Sun, Jul 30, 2006 at 07:02 PM EST

Brittany Murphy! Brittany Murphy! She's proven neither box office strength nor great acting chops. Seriously, one cute role in Clueless has taken her WAY too far.

LYNNE Sun, Jul 30, 2006 at 06:56 PM EST

>>good scripts can do wonders for mediocre actors>>

The truest statement on this board tonight. Absolutely true.
That is exactly how Halle Berry got an Oscar for
Monsters Ball. THE SCRIPT. The story.

Same thing with what's his name...Billy Bob
He Thinks He's Great Thornton. Is that his name ?
In most of his movies.....he stinks, ( my opinion )...
but in SLING BLADE and Simple PLan....he was outstanding.

IT was the scripts , dude.

Movies are made 99.9 percent for the 14 - 25 year old age groups. The rest of us......we are lucky to
see one good film a year......if it even comes to
our small town mall. OFTEN the outstanding ones end up only in larger cities.

mark Sun, Jul 30, 2006 at 06:25 PM EST

MEL GIBSON!! Anyone who goes to see an anti-semite's movie is insane. This man should NOT be hired.

critic Sun, Jul 30, 2006 at 06:18 PM EST

Guys, please keep it clean. It is disgraceful to see x rated comments make it on a page that is linked from CNN.com's homepage. Shame on the monitors of this page!

David Sun, Jul 30, 2006 at 05:58 PM EST

Jennifer Aniston, please go back to TV

On The Edge Sun, Jul 30, 2006 at 05:33 PM EST

Two words: Lindsey Lohan. Why Lord?, Why do they push this dope on the public? We don't ask for much!

ronnie m Sun, Jul 30, 2006 at 05:14 PM EST

Thank you Adrian (above) for mentioning Will Ferrell ~ he is SO unfunny it actually hurts to watch him. Good actors will continue to make good movies (John Cusack in "The Ice Harvest") even if most of the attention-deficit-disorder movie going masses don't see them or get it. There are those of us who pay attention, and we manage to see lots of good movies (because somehow, they too still keep getting made). As for the moguls of H'wood who hire these B-listers, it's just about the $$ and the "People" magazine personalities, always was and always will be.

Barry Sun, Jul 30, 2006 at 05:10 PM EST

I would love to bury my face in Scarlett's moist muff for like 2 days.

Barry Sun, Jul 30, 2006 at 05:09 PM EST

I would love to bury my face in Scarlett's mois muff for like 2 days.

Chris Sun, Jul 30, 2006 at 04:59 PM EST

Don't blame the actors. We're the problem. We pay to see them. Consider this. THe leading movie money maker today is a movie version of a TV show that was long on style but short on substance. The movie it beat out is a sequel to a movie based ON A DISNEYLAND RIDE! And we pay to see this crap. Stop paying and maybe hollywood might make reasonable movies again.

Terminator XXX Sun, Jul 30, 2006 at 04:30 PM EST

Allow me to point our what a drooling MORON Gary Susman is for calling Scarlett Johansson a FAILURE (WTF???)...exactly HOW is she a failure, GENIUS????? Four Golden Globe noms, working with top directors not Michael Bay; obviously he was an unfortunate exception), only 21 years old...and what have YOU done with your worthless life that makes YOU so special????? If you had and guts/brains, you would articulate your worhtless, un-informed opinions better...and that goes for the ScarJo bashers who are just jealous of her and are no doubt much WORSE and much more USELESS at their jobs than Scarlett is at hers!

Jeff Sun, Jul 30, 2006 at 04:00 PM EST

Scarlett Johansson may or may not be a great actress but she is one of the most beautiful women in the world.

michael Sun, Jul 30, 2006 at 03:48 PM EST

The black guy in Becker, he pisses me off. He thinks he's so damn cool that her never takes off his shades.

Sally in Chicago Sun, Jul 30, 2006 at 03:17 PM EST

Colin Farrell IMO is a very strong supporting actor (like Philip S Hoffman or Terrell Howard), who can break out once in a while and take a starring role. There are a bunch of actors who we can make a list of, but the one factor we don't know is - how much are they being paid? Now, if I'm a producer and I want an "actor" who doesn't command a huge salary (ex: $20M), I'm going after Farrell vs. Tom Hanks. Farrell probably gets 1/3 what Hanks gets, that's why we see him in 2-3 movies a year.
So I don't think it's so much why they get the work, but how much are they being paid to work.

rags Sun, Jul 30, 2006 at 02:31 PM EST

It's a shame that as poor performances in big movies as Colin Farrel has landed roles in, he has never really taken that second step as an actor to provide us with a better performance than he did with the movie, "Tigerland." His best performance to date in my opinion, and also the role that shot him onto mainstream hollywood. Good movie, great performance. I have yet to see Colin bring that same intensity or performance to another film.

Keith Sun, Jul 30, 2006 at 02:18 PM EST

A true, great actor is known by their work. Period.

The others live off the tabloid press they receive.

Hollywood goes by looks and name recognition alone. They know when they're producing crap and put the tabloid actors in it for the quick buck. When they are making a great movie, they'll go by talent.

Lastly, don't forget to blame the public. People who are in love with "reality tv" and all the other voyeuristic and troubled shows out there. Air someone's dirty laundry and the public laps it up! A celeb made a mistake? The public rolls in it like rotted meat. They're just happy it's not their lives being displayed for the world to peck at like hungry vultures.

I turned my tv off years ago. I see less than five movies a year now because of what people consider "entertainment" these days.

Anonymous Educator Sun, Jul 30, 2006 at 01:08 PM EST

I sympathize with Mr. Farrell. I suspect that my overt sexuality keeps me from being as well-liked as I should be. Unfortunately it has not helped me in terms of my career.

Telly B Sun, Jul 30, 2006 at 12:58 PM EST

"The opposite of failing upwards? Rachel McAdams, who doesn't receive very much media or Hollywood hype at all, yet is spectacular in everything she's in, despite the varied roles, and has the box office to back it up."

Very true.
And her case is a quite interesting one...a beautiful, talented, young starlet that has been in FIVE consecutive box office hits, yet I still haven't seen a million mags and a ton of news reports or ET or EXTRA touting/hyping/pushing the hell out of her or calling her IT GIRL or THE NEXT BIG THING or whatever.

Even though she has had starring or substantial roles in
FIVE consecutive hit films: Mean Girls, The Notebook, Red Eye, The Family Stone, Wedding Crashers,

Teebz Sun, Jul 30, 2006 at 12:45 PM EST

Here's my take, from an average movie-goer and amateur critic:

Is it really the actor's/actress's fault for the roles they land in? Hollywood's studios use a performer's "three appeals": name, sex, past performance. If you don't believe me, ask yourself this question: how is that Paris Hilton gets into movies, yet couldn't act her way out of a wet paper bag?

Lindsay Lohan keeps getting hired because of her "good girl" image. She has primarily done Disney movies with whom she has had a lengthy career already. Blame Disney, not Lindsay. They approve the script and they hire the actors.

The same goes with Aniston. She has a recognizable name, she performed well in "Friends", and she has sex appeal. Sex sells, and the studios know this. This is why Angelina Jolie, Scarlett "Chesty" Johansson, and Penelope Cruz keep getting top-notch roles. As for the men, it's the same deal. Colin Farrell, Ben Affleck, and others are hired by the studio because they aim for a demographic, not an Oscar.

If they wanted Oscars, do you think a studio would be dumb enough to sign off on Dukes of Hazzard? Blame the studio for the poor acting choices that are being made. They finance them, they produce them. I rest my case.

Bob Sun, Jul 30, 2006 at 12:32 PM EST

Your article assumes that it's the "stars" who sell tickets. You admit that Colin Farrell is a good actor but seem to feel he lacks that indefinable something that draws the public to see his pictures. Could that something be a script? Lord of the Rings, Finding Nemo and the Harry Potter films are hits because they're good movies, but they had no stars. I doubt that Tom Cruise would have increased the box office for Lord of the Rings. I think the public has wised up to the game. Put a talented actor in a good movie, "he" will sell tickets. Put a "star" in a bad movie, and he won't.

mike Sun, Jul 30, 2006 at 12:02 PM EST

Did it occur to anyone that the reason these overhyped actors are always getting jobs is the enormous number of movies getting released each year. I'm guessing close to 300? The studios have to know 99% aren't Citizen Kane. So if they can get a couple of known actors or just personalities and some hype, they have a good shot of an opening weekends box office. Then, those two "actors" on a DVD box could make a profit.
BTW,I loved the posters who put Rene Zellwegger and Matt Damon on the list because they get lucky and appear in movies that make money. hmmm...

Greg Sun, Jul 30, 2006 at 11:45 AM EST

I don't think it's the actors, but the writers and backers that are off their mark. Anybody think John Wayne would be as much of a movie legand if he did a Genghis Khan (which has made worst movie lists) series such as, "Genghis Khan 5: A New World Order?"

Good actors can't save bad scripts, but good scripts can do wonders for mediocre actors (how Angelina Jolie managed to get an Emmy and an Oscar yet is mostly in horrible films, with the same going for Halle Berry and her Oscar).

Who approves these scripts? People that understand that past results might not lead to future returns on their money.

The great actors of the past would not be able to show up the "kiddies" with these scripts. Could Katharine Hepburn in her prime have save the Stepford Wives remake or the Bewitched movie? I really doubt it.

Duey Sun, Jul 30, 2006 at 11:42 AM EST

Wow, There's a really good dialogue going here. The article is about Colin Farrell (a good actor) and all the comments seem to be about everybody but! So, in that spirit, I'll express my opinions. Jessica Alba is not a great actress but she has tremendous appeal, Brittany Spears is white trash with little talent and marginal intelligence but the media has shoved her down our throats, Selma Blair is always the character, which means she's an excellent actress. Scarlett Johanson? I dont' get the hype, she's a wooden actress and "lost in Translation" was a horrible movie. Ben Affleck? Why does anybody even give him acting jobs? Brad Pitt, I keep hearing his name, does he act? And his wife, unattractive and really weird. Lindsay Lohan, a troubled girl that the media loves but has little talent or attractiveness. Did somebody mention Paris Hilton? Her talent is getting into the news and having people pay her for it. If I was marooned on a desert island with her I'd tell her to get swimmin'.And lastly, Jennifer Anniston, she was perfect for her role on "Friends" and has been living off of it ever since.

zoop Sun, Jul 30, 2006 at 11:33 AM EST

Im never a fan of big time celebrities. I like the stars that you don't see push out films fast. So when you see them in action it a rare delight.

Christian Bale for example, this guy is a great actor, picks great rolls. Is talented playing romance,villian, hero etc.

Small time actors are the best actors period.

When you throw money into the mix acting goes sour. Give a man off the street $500 to play a roll Tom Cruise would get $50 million i would rather watch the guy off the street cause he is more raw.

Miranda Sun, Jul 30, 2006 at 11:16 AM EST

No acting chops? Matthew Perry and Jennifer Anniston. No matter what they do they sound like their characters from Friends. They may have it for TV but they don't have it for the movies. Their ability to show emotions range from A to B. And WHY does the media call her beautiful? Is it her size two body? It sure can't be her long, horsey face.

aline Sun, Jul 30, 2006 at 10:57 AM EST

i dont think theres an actor out there today who can hold a candle to the likes of kathrine hepburn,john wayne,clark cable etc,i think they are all just a bunch of wanna bes

Yo Sun, Jul 30, 2006 at 10:28 AM EST

Anyone remember Colin Farrell as Bullseye in the Daredevil movie?
Him and the Afner couple (or is it Garfleck?)...
what performances!

Antoine Sun, Jul 30, 2006 at 10:17 AM EST

Rosario Dawson is perfect for this category. She keeps getting put in tons of movies despite her bizarre looks and dubious acting skills. I think some Hollywood directors must have some odd fetish for her exotic appearance -- otherwise her success is mystifying.

jay Sun, Jul 30, 2006 at 09:49 AM EST

CF is a GREAT actor! Roles like Miami Vice will once again show his multi-talents. His future only shines brighter.
peace.

pc Sun, Jul 30, 2006 at 09:42 AM EST

collin farrell sucks big time. honestly, he cannot act and he is the least bit sexy! he is too full of himself and looks horribly dumb! Alexander was such a bad movie.. I couldn't even watch it beyond 2 mins... and Angelina Jolie sucked eqaully there! that's another overrated actor! I definitely wouldn't waste my time with Miami Vice

Janeway Sun, Jul 30, 2006 at 09:07 AM EST

I don't understand why Colin Farrell keeps getting roles either. I think his movies don't make money because he is obnoxious and full of himself and not a very good actor. I don't find him sexy either. The problem with all the media hype is that an actor can no longer disappear and become the character. If I see Colin Farrell on screen I see him, not his character. On the other hand, Hugh Jackman is an extremely talented actor. He diappears into his characters. His movies may not always be critical successes, but they make money. If you see Xmen III and then Scoop, it is hard to believe it is the same actor. He stays out of limelight unless he is promoting a movie or show. Other actors could learn by his example.

MissDona Sun, Jul 30, 2006 at 07:59 AM EST

Colin isn't a bigger star because not enough people saw his tape with Nicole Narain.

Seriously, if they released that as a feature, he'd rule the world.

Raymond Sun, Jul 30, 2006 at 01:42 AM EST

It is very easy to become famous, but difficult to become a box office draw. It doesn't seem odd that Colin Farrell is always working, despite a string of underwhelming films. Only a certain number of movies can become "hits", and there are maybe 10 or 12 actors (Tom Cruise, Adam Sandler, etc.) who can get people to go to the theater regardless of the picture. Consumers, however, need more choices than whatever those 10 to 12 put out in a given year, and the gossip media needs more than 10 or 12 actors to exploit.

Rather than debating on whether an actor or actress is deserving of the career they have, appreciate the variety of work that's out there. The example the writer used, Winona Ryder, is disingenuous, because several of her films are sentimental favorites to many people, regardless of how much money they made initially. The question of "Why does so and so still get all this work?" could apply to anyone outside of the 10 or 12 supermegastars out there, so why bother asking it?

cliff Sun, Jul 30, 2006 at 12:19 AM EST

What a ridiculous, shallow notion: just hiring movie stars. Frances McDormand and Phillip Seymour Hoffman don't have any hits, should we take away their Oscars? What if Hilary Swank had lost her rights to big roles after Boys Don't Cry failed to bring big bucks? How about Katherine Hepburn? She was notoriously bad box office for years. How about Aaron Eckhart? Sean Penn? Are we seriously advocating punishing talent based on dollars?

kimepoo Sat, Jul 29, 2006 at 11:44 PM EST

I know we should all be tired of Brittany, Lindsay, Jessica (Alba & Simpson) and most definitely Paris but there's no escape. They are everywhere! Just when you think you've risen above the herd another extra juicy tabloid story debuts. Come on people? I don't care where you're from gossip is good! And incredible but true gossip..is addictive!

sina Sat, Jul 29, 2006 at 11:27 PM EST

I like Colin Farrell but I'm not rushing to see his movies. I actually like Swat but not because of him. Everyone out right now is being pushed in our face. Sarclett Joh (can't spell her name) is really being pushed in our face. Her "big movie" with Ewan didn't make any money. Sure she can act but do we really want to see her? I don't get Jessica Alba either. The only good movie she has been in is Sin City and she only had a bit part. Fanastic Four SUCKED!

Jennifer Sat, Jul 29, 2006 at 09:28 PM EST

Definitely Lindsay Lohan. I am so sick of her. I realize "Mean Girls" was a big box-office hit, but it has to be one of the most overrated movies Hollywood has come out with in the last 5-10 years. And that was two years ago. LL hasn't had a hit since. She is just tabloid fodder. She hasn't proven to be this great actress everyone says she is, in my opinion.

cj Sat, Jul 29, 2006 at 08:06 PM EST

when chris rock gave the same example with jude law people got mad and chris never said he wasn't talented he was just tabloid worthy and that's the real reason.we see so much of them tabloids its like so what.and some like heath and scarlet the press and critics try and force them on us it's like chill out we'll choose who we like.and in the world of special effects the days of star is over.(sorry orlando)

Maddy Sat, Jul 29, 2006 at 07:25 PM EST

Jessica Simpson, Paris Hilton, Nick Lachey, Brittany Spears-these people have no talent and everybody loves them! I am so sick of these people being famous, and supposedly cool, just because America can't stop oggling over other peoples lives. There are plenty of quality actors who aren't famous, so why are these talentless people so famous? I don't think Colin Farrel is one of them, but there are plenty which are!

Dylan Sat, Jul 29, 2006 at 07:00 PM EST

I don't care if these "actors" are successful or not, I am just sick to death of them, they suck and need to go away: owen wilson, catherine zeta jones, christopher walken, gwyneth paltrow, beyonce, steve martin

Lisa Sat, Jul 29, 2006 at 06:36 PM EST

No Kate Beckinsale! The woman has never been in a good movie.

Daniel Sat, Jul 29, 2006 at 05:01 PM EST

Mel Gibson is a kick ass actor and a talented filmaker
Braveheart is my favourite movie, The Passion of the Christ was a true cinematic experience and I can't wait to see Apocalypto.

Max Sat, Jul 29, 2006 at 04:40 PM EST

The media try so hard to make us like all these untalented folks ( they know who they are ) that eventually it backfires

People today are smarter than ever, they recognize a propaganda ( Da Vinci code, Harry Potter etc ) when
they see one

White's comment must be a paid one, what overt sexuality and what fear? You either have it or you don't

MrPepper Sat, Jul 29, 2006 at 04:35 PM EST

Two Words: Orlando Bloom.
Pirates is Johnny's movie and the LOTR trilogy's is Tolken and Jackson's. Still Hollywood insists in hiring his bony @#$ in every other movie. "Elizabethtown" and "Kingdom of Heaven" have both suffered from his lack of not just stardom but just plain scrren presence and charisma

qrobin Sat, Jul 29, 2006 at 04:08 PM EST

Jessica Alba. I'm still baffled as to why she was recently on the cover of EW...?

roxie Sat, Jul 29, 2006 at 02:24 PM EST

Talk about failing upward: Mel Gibson, anyone? Can you believe what he said to Malibu sheriff's after his drunk-driving spree? This dude has been bonkers for years...

http://kisskissandallthat.blogspot.com/

Shawn Sat, Jul 29, 2006 at 02:05 PM EST

The problem with Colin Farrell is this - he's not a bad actor, and he's not a great actor. His face and his body aren't unique in any way. He's just kind of...there. And when you're getting by on average looks and average talent, you'd better have something about you that people can identify with when they see you perform, and I have yet to experience that with Colin Farrell. The fact that he's made it this far is a testament to the media machine and their continued push to make him a star.

Bobby Sat, Jul 29, 2006 at 01:52 PM EST

I've never gotten the Winona Ryder thing. I love "Heathers" and thought she was good in "Mr. Deeds" but, in most of her other rolls she seems like she's reading her lines off a cue card. I really think she's usually terrible (to spite her Oscar noms.)

Jasper Sat, Jul 29, 2006 at 01:42 PM EST

Yeah, I think you're wrong about McConaughey. He's been is several modest successes and it's not like he gets Brad Pitt money. Speaking of Mr. Pitt I'd actually be more apt to put him in this category since he has such a spotty BO record but yet gets Big paychecks. Winona I would say isn't really a major star and doesn't get cast in expensive films so she's where she should be. The same goes for Scarlett Johansen. She sticks mainly to art house films that don't require huge budgets. With Kate Hudson you have a point. She has had success and is appealing but her track record does not bode well. And Colin Farrell is the epitome of undeserving of high profile projects. However, I think sometimes there are just enough people who believe in the talent of an actor and still want to see them succeed so they fight for them. And Farrell is talented but he like so many others (Lindsay, JLo, Angelina come to mind) have become more 'celebrity' than 'actor' so the buzz factor is what gets studios thinking people will be curious. Oh and I didn't read too many of the other replies but did anyone mention Jennifer Aniston?

Ned Sat, Jul 29, 2006 at 01:23 PM EST

I understand your point, but I don't think it applies to Winona Ryder or Scarlett Johansen, and Matthew McConaughey is kind of iffy. I've been a fan of Winona Ryder since Heathers, and she has definately proved her acting chops. Scarlett was amazing in Lost In Translation and Ghost World.

Dave Sat, Jul 29, 2006 at 01:19 PM EST

This might be the dumbest blog entry I've ever read on ew. Kate Hudson got a Oscar nomination, and when she AND Matthew McConaughey headlined "How To Lose a Guy in 10 Days," it made over 100 million in a typically lean time of year for films. McConaughey also headlined "Failure to Lauch," which made good bank and Hudson is in "You, Me and Dupree," which isn't doing too badly. And Scarlett Johansson? She's an art film actress "Lost in Translation," "Ghost World," and "Matchpoint," all made a lot of money considering the scale of the films. Her films typically show on 1/5 of the number of screens as the average film. How can someone who hates movies write for EW?

Just Me Sat, Jul 29, 2006 at 12:47 PM EST

I am going to have get out to the movies and take in this gorgeous, appealing actor's movies. As a rule, I am not a movie-goer, but this time I am going to make an exception. His magnetic looks alone should be a reason for going. If it turns out that I enjoy his acting, I will make it a point to know when his movies are out.

Jalenfan Sat, Jul 29, 2006 at 12:07 PM EST

Scarlet was great in that movie with Billy Bob Thornton, Ghost World, and Lost in Translation. I would like to see more black actresses in some of these roles reserved for the JLo's and Jennifer Annistons, i.e. Angela Bassett, Sanaa Latham, Nia Long.

Roxanne Sat, Jul 29, 2006 at 11:42 AM EST

Failing upward? Technically impossible. Getting hired based on gossip and looks ratehr than talent? An old Hollywood tradition.

Actors make moves to act. Some of the best movies are not blockbusters (in fact most aren't). So correlating box office numbers to talent is just a silly game to fill up entertainment pages.

laura Sat, Jul 29, 2006 at 11:41 AM EST

Anyone that agrees to work on a project and see the names = Selma Blair, Jennifer Aniston , Penelope Cruz = should know that that movie will suck ,sink, tank!

rainman Sat, Jul 29, 2006 at 11:23 AM EST

Well Theo, apparently you are in the minority here...are you related to one of these actors we speak of? I find it hard to believe you can't agree to a large extent with what the article says. Guess you are one of the few waiting in line for the next Penelope Cruz blockbuster.

Theo Sat, Jul 29, 2006 at 11:18 AM EST

Allow me to add to the chorus of "Dave White and Gary Susman are idiots". Hacks.