Good actors that just don't seem bankable

L31mr0d

Can't really phrase it differently.

Was watching "Traitor" last night with the wife, and while I found that the lead, Don Cheadle, did an excellent job he just doesn't strike me as an interesting individual. I mean his acting was believable, he portrayed the emotions effectively he just seemed too... too...non distinctive.

His fellows actors, Guy Pearce and Neal McDonough, whilst not having as many lines and really only had roles to flesh out Cheadles story, where much more watchable.

I've found this with a few actors, they just aren't distinct enough to make watching them interesting. They aren't particularly ugly, nor good looking, they don't have any peculiar or distinctive idiosyncrasy's or mannerisms and end up being completely forgettable.

Can you think of any other actors that fit into this category? Do you think it would have an adverse affect on a movies sales if they have one of these individuals as the floating head on the movie poster?

Off the top of my head, other actors I can think of would be:
Ashley Judd
Cuba Gooding Jr
Gwenneth Paltrow
Sandra Bullock
Liv Tyler
Kevin Costner
Mike Farrell
Chris O'Donnell
Michael Keaton
Catherine Zeta-Jones

Handsome Bob

One that screams out to me is Cuba Gooding. He has impressed me in more than one film, it's such a shame that he has been reduced to the likes of Daddy Day Care.

Sad Professor

Well, I think you may just the describing the difference between a regular actor and a movie star. It may be that Cheadle simply isn't leading man material, at least when it comes to Hollywood-type films. But I do think he's a very talented actor.

Most of the people on your list are former movie stars who have vanished from sight due to terrible taste in scripts. An actor is only as good as the roles they play. A movie star has to have certain qualities, yes, but the main thing that will continue to attract audiences to their films for years to come is if they have a reputation for being in *good* films.

Some actors are good at finding and choosing roles, others aren't. And that's the problem with Gooding Jr, Costner, Judd, Bullock, etc — they're too dependent on their agents to find them scripts. I mean look at Harrison Ford, he's turned down tons of great roles over the years in favour of the usual garbage. And when they flop he fires his agent.

Galvasean

Val Kilmer - He's a very good actor but just can't get back on the A list.

Mark Hamill - horribly horribly typecast as Luke Skywalker

I'd also love to see William Fichtner get a big lead role. He's impressed me in everything I've seen him in.

L31mr0d

Sad Professor wrote: »

Well, I think you may just the describing the difference between a regular actor and a movie star.

Well yeah. But how do you decide whos a movie star and whos a regular actor? I mean Cheadle has been in and done an excellent performance in a number of great and good movies imo, but I can never see him selling a movie like Brad Pitt, Edward Norton or Christian Bale. These guys could be in secondary roles and people would pay to see a movie with them in it. I don't think it goes on looks alone, Norton isn't classically good looking, but then you've also got the likes of the bug eyed Buscemi who would sell a movie for his uniqueness

Galvasean wrote: »

I'd also love to see William Fichtner get a big lead role. He's impressed me in everything I've seen him in.

I find Fichtner watchable though. He's odd enough looking and has enough ticks and unique mannerisms that he would be memorable.

grames_bond

Galvasean wrote: »

Val Kilmer - He's a very good actor but just can't get back on the A list.

Mark Hamill - horribly horribly typecast as Luke Skywalker

I'd also love to see William Fichtner get a big lead role. He's impressed me in everything I've seen him in.

+1 on all of the above, val was great in movies like heat and i even liked him in deja vu, but he just cant get the roles!

hamill is pretty much self explanitory

William Fichtner is a guy i wouild be really interested to see getting a lead role, he can do serious, angry, even comedy (blades of glory anyone?) very well!

Sad Professor

L31mr0d wrote: »

Well yeah. But how do you decide whos a movie star and whos a regular actor?

Well I guess a movie star, a real movie star, has a very strong on-screen presence, enough to carry a film by themselves and not be wiped out by another co-star or the special effects. When I think of movie stars I always think of the "My name is Maximus, etc" scene in Gladiator — Crowe absolutely eats up the screen, that's a movie star.

Cheadle isn't really a star in that sense. He's a very successful and talented actor but doesn't have that kind of presence. I haven't seen Traitor but I'd imagine Pearse might come across stronger.

I think Costner and Kilmer are good examples of actors with a somewhat limited on-screen presence. Kilmer is an excellent actor though but probably more of a character actor than a movie star. And Costner has spent his career being acted off the screen by his co-stars — JFK, Robin Hood, etc. But both of them have a quite but confident on-screen presence which works well alongside the right cast.

Christian Bale. These guys could be in secondary roles and people would pay to see a movie with them in it.

Bale will be be in a supporting role to Johnny Depp in Public Enemies next year. But I wonder if since TDK Bale has become a bigger draw than Depp?

grames_bond

Sad Professor wrote: »

Bale will be be in a supporting role to Johnny Depp in Public Enemies next year. But I wonder if since TDK Bale has become a bigger draw than Depp?

in the same light if you believe ANY of the rumors goin around depp will be in a supporting role to bale in the next batman (nothing confirmed so i dont really believe it) but they can both swap around, i personally prefer bale but in terms of bigger draw id put them on parity! but thats just me!

punchdrunk

Ray liotta

L31mr0d

Sad Professor wrote: »

Kilmer is an excellent actor though but probably more of a character actor than a movie star.

Yeah he is, but he would never be the deciding factor for me. When I first heard of Kiss Kiss Bang Bang, I heard Kilmer was in it and lost interest. When I heard Downey Jr was in it I watched it. Now Kilmer put in an excellent performance in my opinion, probably equaling Downey Jr. But he just doesn't draw my interest, or have a notable presence.

In the same vein, I seen the cover of Traitor and Cheadle as the lead, but passed it up. When I heard Guy Pearce was in it I decided to give it a watch.

It's hard to define what makes an actor bankable or have the kind of movie star presence you speak of. Some just have it, some don't, and it seems to be completely separate to their physical appearance and their acting abilities.

Firetrap

Ashton Kutcher.
Hayden Christensen
Jude Law
Orlando Bloom

It's hard to put your finger on why some actors are interesting and others are a one-person charisma vacuum. It's like in our everyday life where some people just have that certain something that draws others towards them and other people don't

irish_bob

Firetrap wrote: »

Ashton Kutcher.
Hayden Christensen
Jude Law
Orlando Bloom

It's hard to put your finger on why some actors are interesting and others are a one-person charisma vacuum. It's like in our everyday life where some people just have that certain something that draws others towards them and other people don't

you have there a list of pretty boy very average actors

magicass

tim robbins

Heckler

Firetrap wrote: »

Ashton Kutcher.
Hayden Christensen
Jude Law
Orlando Bloom

It's hard to put your finger on why some actors are interesting and others are a one-person charisma vacuum. It's like in our everyday life where some people just have that certain something that draws others towards them and other people don't

They are bad actors who got a couple of good scripts and directors. In relation to the thread there are A-list bankable actors who can sell a film by their name alone then there are character actors who are frequently better but maybe not as high profile or "good-looking" ,like Don Cheadle.

MagicMarker

Personally, I think Ashton Kutcher is a very good actor, his performance in The Butterfly Effect leaves no doubt about that. But he is typecast into stupid comedy roles which do nothing for him.

Photi

Paddy Considine should be one of the leading actors in the world.

krudler

Kurt Russell, hes a solid actor but doesnt get many big roles, but he was in The Thing and Big Trouble in Little China so he's automatically one of the coolest actors who ever lived

RichTea

Photi wrote: »

Paddy Considine should be one of the leading actors in the world.

100% agreed.

Pigman II

Galvasean wrote: »

Mark Hamill - horribly horribly typecast as Luke Skywalker

Is he? I don't remember him being in much sci-fi / fantasy other than SW.