I Am Legend 2 (film) - Will "slappy" Smith returns...

[Neil]

Uxtx0KjE1uk

[beat_truck]

Didn't he die at the end of the first one?:rockbrow: Not that that ever stops the lazy ass writers in Pedowood.....:rolleyes:

Doesn't really matter to me, though. The first one was a major let down, so I won't be wasting my time on this one. The CGI alone was enough to make me :barf:.

It's far from perfect, but I'll gladly stick with Vincent Price in "The Last Man On Earth".

[EvilNed]

I thought this was the best adaption so far.
Omega man a solid 2nd.

Last Man on Earth I didn't care for.

[beat_truck]

I haven't seen The Omega Man since I was a kid ~25 years ago. I didn't care for it then. I picked up the DVD from the thrift store a while back, so maybe it's time to revisit it.

[EvilNed]

I haven't seen The Omega Man since I was a kid ~25 years ago. I didn't care for it then. I picked up the DVD from the thrift store a while back, so maybe it's time to revisit it.

I've noticed myself using the term "I don't care for it" more and more lately. I think it's got to do with this interview:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UcXBCgsghAM

[MinionZombie]

I thought this was the best adaption so far.

I Am Legend???

:rockbrow: :shifty: :confused:

[shootemindehead]

I've noticed myself using the term "I don't care for it" more and more lately. I think it's got to do with this interview:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UcXBCgsghAM

I think Close Encounters is a good film, but I understand Carpenter's criticism of it here. However I think he's being a little harsh too. I agree with him on some of Altman's work and that includes 'Nashville', which is a boring load of codswallop leading up to an underwhelming conclusion. A hideously well regarded film that doesn't deserve the praise it got/gets. But Altman has made some good pictures too, like 'Short Cuts' or 'The Player'. Although these came after Carpenter did that Frost interview in 1979.

On Carpenter's choices, he has always referenced John Ford, who I think is one of the most incredibly overrated directors to have ever worked in the business. His movies are continuously lauded by many, but outside of a few selections like 'The Grapes of Wrath', 'How Green Was My Valley' or 'The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance', I've always found his material to be largely mediocre (to be kind) and it's often interrupted by the most awful of "comedy" sequences. Howard Hawks, too, another of Carpenter's favourites can often leave me shrugging my shoulders and wondering what the fuss is supposed to be about. His best effort is probably 'The Big Sleep'.

Although in later years, he seemed to reevaluate his opinion on Ford to more coincide with my own.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2yOAMKuBxOc

[EvilNed]

I Am Legend???

:rockbrow: :shifty: :confused:

Yeah. I mean the competition isn't great.

[MinionZombie]

Yeah. I mean the competition isn't great.

As an adapatation of the book it's hideous. The previous two versions, while also wide of the mark, are relatively closer IMHO.

[Neil]

I looooooove The Omega Man... One of my fond childhood memories stumbling across it.

[EvilNed]

As an adapatation of the book it's hideous. The previous two versions, while also wide of the mark, are relatively closer IMHO.

I think The Omega Man is the one farthest from the book. I Am Legend is closer (and better, I think).

But yeah, the original Last Man on Earth is the closest. But also - not very good.

[MinionZombie]

I remember reading the part in the book where he's desperately trying to get back home and he's struggling to battle off the vampires in his garage and get locked up for the night, and I was gripping the book with clammy hands and just racing through the text. Always stuck with me.

One of my numerous problems with the Will Smith film is, well, Will Smith - there's a whole hell of a lot of Will Smith hanging around the film's neck in a distracting way. He's just Will Smith: Apocalypse Edition, rather than the character.

Plus there's the hideously bad CGI monsters, the trouncing of the entire point of the title of the book, etc ... about the only thing it had going for it was the budget and some of the big scale shots of post-apoc NYC, but sheesh...

The Omega Man was at least a heck of a lot of fun. TLMOE was a bit too campy and cheap, unfortunately, but tried to be faithful.

[JDP]

TLMOE was a bit too campy and cheap, unfortunately, but tried to be faithful.

It also has another advantage: Mr. Vincent Price. Will Smith? Seriously?? Against Vincent-FRIGGIN'-Price??? PFFFF... At least The Omega Man had Charlton-FUCKING-Heston in it, so the two films are on more equal grounds in respect of quality veteran actors in the lead role.

[EvilNed]

I like Will Smith (as an actor). I think he can carry a film.
Charlton Heston too, I just find both Omega Man and especially TLMOE to be a bit....... Lifeless. I watched Omega Man about a year ago and after about the midway mark it just kinda died on me.

[MinionZombie]

I like Will Smith (as an actor). I think he can carry a film.
Charlton Heston too, I just find both Omega Man and especially TLMOE to be a bit....... Lifeless. I watched Omega Man about a year ago and after about the midway mark it just kinda died on me.

Will Smith can indeed be very good as an actor (e.g. Ali), but just as often he's just playing a version of Will Smith, or swaggering about like Will Smith, and other times he's making an effort to be the part but Will Smith is such a big personality that he kinda can't get out of his own way as a result ... if that makes sense? IAL just kinda felt like 'sad Will Smith in the post apocalypse', you know?

[beat_truck]

I'll take "campy and cheap" any day over some big budget shit-fest filled with horrid CGI and an actor that isn't really right for the part.

Many people today probably look at NOTLD '68 as campy and cheap. And as much as I like it, to a certain extent, they are correct.

[EvilNed]

Will Smith can indeed be very good as an actor (e.g. Ali), but just as often he's just playing a version of Will Smith, or swaggering about like Will Smith, and other times he's making an effort to be the part but Will Smith is such a big personality that he kinda can't get out of his own way as a result ... if that makes sense? IAL just kinda felt like 'sad Will Smith in the post apocalypse', you know?

I agree with all of that, but that's basically every leading actor or actress. Including Heston and including Price. I think Will Smith's got a wider range than those two.

[JDP]

When you think "Will Smith" you think The Fresh Prince of Bel Air, Men in Black, Independence Day, that kind of stuff. When you think "Charlton Heston" and "Vincent Price" you think of anything from The Ten Commandments to Batman. There's just no comparison. Heston and Price played a host of very different characters in their very long careers, and they did it very well.

[Neil]

6eWsFFQP0gA

[MinionZombie]

I think Price had a very distinct and specific style and delivery, which limited his potential range (think, albeit to a lesser all-round extent, how Sean Connery could never do any other accent and speech style than his own) - whereas, despite his recognisability, I think Heston had a more maleable style and sound that could fit a broader range of roles more comfortably.

Now, not to be unfair to Price, when it works it works - such as Witchfinder General, which he was great in and really suited the role (so damn creepy and dangerous).

By comparison to Heston, who had a whole heck of a lot of star power, Will Smith has a whole heck of a lot of celebrity to go along with his star power ... so much so that it overpowers his star power, if that makes sense? His music career, his personal life etc etc. I mean, just look at the title of this thread - he'll never get away from that ridiculous fuck-up at the Oscars, making a damn fool of himself (similarly that rather humiliating and sad video where Jada is chasing him around his own damn house forcing him to be on-camera to talk about some intensely personal shit, or those sickening round tables where she's putting all their private messes out there for everyone to chew on ... I mean, dude, fucking your son's best mate and basically rubbing it in your husband's face? Sheesh. Gross.)

There was more mystery to film stars of old (which Heston benefited from). Now we've got to a point where the mystery has been destroyed by social media. I really don't want to know what these people think on a minute-by-minute basis, and that's how you end up with PR disasters like Rachel Zegler. It's certainly not all current stars, but there's far too much oversharing that has dimmed the star power.

I've gone off on a right old ramble now ... where was I? :lol:

[JDP]

Vincent Price was typecast later in his career as a horror movie actor, principally because he played creepy characters so well, but if you look at his whole work he was actually in a lot of different stuff, including comedies and westerns. He could easily play pretty much any kind of role.

[EvilNed]

Yeah, I'm not seeing it. I enjoy the performances by all of the above, but I think Will Smith is the better actor and with a wider range. Looking at Ali for instance, great performance. He feels like an actor in the way that the other's really weren't. Vincent Price is way too theatrical, which is not to my taste. Charlton Heston is just the same character in every movie, and it's a character I love.

Look at Sean Connery. He's always Sean Connery. Still love him.

[JDP]

You know it must be close to The End of Days when someone actually thinks that Will Smith is a better actor and with a wider range than Vincent Price and Charlton Heston.

Regarding Sean Connery: another veteran actor who played a whole bunch of different characters very well. James Bond was NOTHING like William of Baskerville, for example. Yet he could play both of them so well to that you can hardly imagine any other actor being able to play them better than he did. He made the roles his own. I have yet to see one Will Smith movie where I can hardly imagine that anyone else could do an equal or better job than he did. The only character that you can justifiably consider to be "his" and no one else's is The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air, which was in fact modelled after him.

PS: and don't get me started on Wild Wild West. The late great Robert Conrad (the ONE AND ONLY "Jim West") had every reason to be pissed off at that movie.

[beat_truck]

Yeah, I'm not seeing it. I enjoy the performances by all of the above, but I think Will Smith is the better actor and with a wider range.

You have got to be joking.:duh:

[EvilNed]

Well, I'm just glad we can have different opinions on things. I grew up on Heston and watch Price to this day. But are they great actors with a wide range? No.

[JDP]

Definitely wider than Will Smith, no question about it.

[EvilNed]

Well, it's all down to taste in the end.

[JDP]

It's a bit more than just a matter of individual taste. Let's look, for example, at how the Encyclopedia Britannica refers to the three men in question as a good example of how they are generally seen and considered:

Vincent Price:

https://www.britannica.com/biography/Vincent-Price

"Vincent Price, in full Vincent Leonard Price, (born May 27, 1911, St. Louis, Missouri, U.S.—died October 25, 1993, Los Angeles, California), American actor who was best known for his brilliant performances in horror films. His villains were debonair yet menacing, played with a silken voice and a self-mocking air that oozed treachery."

Charlton Heston:

https://www.britannica.com/biography/Charlton-Heston

"Charlton Heston, original name John Charles Carter, (born October 4, 1923, Evanston, Illinois, U.S.—died April 5, 2008, Beverly Hills, California), American actor who was known for his chiseled features and compelling speaking voice and for his numerous roles as historical figures and famous literary characters."

Will Smith:

https://www.britannica.com/biography/Will-Smith

"Will Smith, byname of Willard Carroll Smith, Jr., (born September 25, 1968, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, U.S.), American actor and musician whose charisma and quick wit helped him transition from rap music to a successful career in acting."

I think the difference is very clear: while Price and Heston are mostly remembered as actors and praised for their respective abilities in that profession, Will Smith is mostly treated as a music artist who successfully crossed-over to movies and became a popular actor. In other words: reality. The truly professional "thespian" here is certainly not Will Smith but the other two.

[EvilNed]

I'm sorry, I haven't referred to the Encyclopedia Brittanica to settle any dispute of taste I've ever had with anyone and I don't think I'm going to start right now.

How anyone can think Will Smith is a worse actor than those two is beyond me. But like I said, it's all down to taste and I really dig that we can have different opinions on it!

[JDP]

That's because it is beyond a matter of just "taste". While Will Smith's "versatility" is acknowledged, he is still really a rap artist who successfully "crossed over" into movies. The other two started as actors from very early on in their lives and their abilities in that department are widely recognized.

As for personal taste: how can anyone possibly compare "The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air" to Vincent Price and Charlton Heston and say he is a better actor sounds like something straight out of The Twilight Zone to me. What's next in this bizarre world?

Jared Leto: Master Thespian - Sir Laurence Olivier: Absolute hack with no range who keeps playing the same character over and over again!

[EvilNed]

Point taken! Let's just agree to disagree.

[shootemindehead]

None of the three actors in question are particularly good actors, even if they all have their appeal at certain times.

Heston only ever played himself, no matter what role he was in, whether that was Moses in 'The Ten Commandments', Michelangelo in 'The Agony and the Ecstasy' or Taylor in 'Planet of the Apes'. He was a guy who was essentially a brand and used his brand well in the movies he appeared in, but every character he played was pretty interchangeable. The man had no range to speak of, but in the vehicles he chose or that were chosen for him he didn't really need it. He's typical of the generic Hollywood leading man of a particular era.

Price was an actor of extremely limited talent, but managed to find himself in a niche, largely due to Roger Corman who made him a household name in the AIP horror pictures. He was a character actor before, during and after his starring roles and you knew exactly what you were going to get when you saw Vincent Price on the bill. Price's voice and delivery accounted for a lot of the man's appeal and he wasn't afraid to do camp silliness when it was required...and it was often required of him. But without the Corman roles, Price would have probably sunk into history and be forgotten today. His output pre 1960, were mostly support roles (usually the villain) and his starring roles were only coming via horror, which was considered the lesser of the movie world. But, like Heston, Price was always Price because he couldn't do anything else.

Smith, for the most part, plays Will Smith from 'The Fresh Prince of Bel Air' to smacking Chris Rock in the mouth. People keep referencing 'Ali' as an example of his "range" (I haven't seen it myself), but outside of that movie he's just playing Will Smith. But playing Muhammad Ali would be rather easy if you can manage to emulate Ali, who was a very distinctive personality already on display for you. If you can do a relatively accurate copy of his mannerisms and voice patterns then you've got him and there's a ton of impressionists who have pulled that off because he was so unique. But, really, in anything that I've seen him in he's just been a version of himself.

Out of the three of them I, personally. get the most enjoyment out of Vincent because he's a man I grew up watching on late night TV. He was also a guy who simply embraced what he had and made it his own and he seemed to not take himself or his profession too seriously, which is always admirable in my book. And that luxuriously creepy voice is so associated with horror of a particular time and place. He is, however, in the Ha'penny place when put up against the likes of other horror icons of the period such as Peter Cushing or Christopher Lee.

I grew up watching Charlton Heston, too, in things like 'Ben-Hur', but with Heston it was always the films themselves that I was watching as opposed to him in the films. Those epics could have had a lot of other leading men in the Heston role and I don't think much would have changed at all. Heston is that leading man archetype of 50's conservative America. Always right, tough, and on the side of good. It's an easy role to play with little in the way of any kind of challenge and while he did it well, there's nothing really to write home about in any of his performances.

Will Smith? Well, simply put, I never cared for him and, frankly, he can be downright annoying at times.

[beat_truck]

Will Smith? Well, simply put, I never cared for him and, frankly, he can be downright annoying at times.

Well, that part I can agree with at least.

Lots of actors are only really good at playing a certain niche of characters. But that's not necessarily a bad thing. John Wayne and Clint Eastwood are some other examples. Yet they were wildly popular and happened to star in some of my favorite movies of all time. Clint Eastwood tried to do some other types of characters but IMO, failed miserably. The Bridges Of Madison County and White Hunter Black Heart were a few of those times, and both were complete DOG SHIT.:barf:

[JDP]

Well, that part I can agree with at least.

Lots of actors are only really good at playing a certain niche of characters. But that's not necessarily a bad thing. John Wayne and Clint Eastwood are some other examples. Yet they were wildly popular and happened to star in some of my favorite movies of all time. Clint Eastwood tried to do some other types of characters but IMO, failed miserably. The Bridges Of Madison County and White Hunter Black Heart were a few of those times, and both were complete DOG SHIT.:barf:

Also Charles Bronson. They usually played "tough guys" because, well, they did a great job at it and got typecast. When you wanted a tough cowboy, soldier, cop, "vigilante", hitman, working-class-hero, etc., you knocked on John Wayne's, Clint Eastwood's and Charles Bronson's doors. They were great at that.

But saying that Vincent Price and Charlton Heston weren't good actors and always played "the same character" is quite silly. The comedic tongue-in-cheek villain Price played on Batman, for example, is quite different from the dark, sinister, depraved, Satanist villain he played in Masque of the Red Death. He did a great job on both very different characters. And he continued to do so in other movies and TV shows. Vincent did such stuff so well, that you can hardly imagine anyone else getting away with saying such a ridiculous line as "The funk of 40,000 years" and you loving it!

[EvilNed]

Well, that part I can agree with at least.

Lots of actors are only really good at playing a certain niche of characters. But that's not necessarily a bad thing. John Wayne and Clint Eastwood are some other examples. Yet they were wildly popular and happened to star in some of my favorite movies of all time. Clint Eastwood tried to do some other types of characters but IMO, failed miserably. The Bridges Of Madison County and White Hunter Black Heart were a few of those times, and both were complete DOG SHIT.:barf:

The Bridges of Madison County is one of Clint Eastwood's best films, and best roles.

Anyway, I agree with shootem on Vinny Price and Heston. They're just... themselves. All the time.
And I like it that way.

[beat_truck]

The Bridges of Madison County is one of Clint Eastwood's best films, and best roles.

Now I KNOW you are on some hardcore drugs.:eek:

I barely made it through that movie. It felt like an absolute eternity. I think I'd just about rather gouge my eyes out than watch it again.

Two And A Half Men got it right. Charlie walked in while Alan was watching a movie. Charlie asked him what was he watching. Alan responded "A Clint Eastwood movie." Charlie asked which one. Alan said The Bridges of Madison County. Charlie exclaimed "Even Clint Eastwood doesn't think that's a Clint Eastwood movie!". ;)

[MinionZombie]

Perhaps The Bridges of Maddison County is "a movie with Clint Eastwood" rather than "a Clint Eastwood movie"?

Also, I would agree that it was a good role for him and something a bit different - a strong turn in general.

The interesting thing with Eastwood is how he has embraced the stages of his life, and growing older, and put that into his movies - the two big ones in that regard, for me at least, are Unforgiven (superb) and Gran Torino (also really good). The Mule, on the other hand, was kind of awkward and occasionally a bit cringy (but also a bit touching at times - his age has caught up with him now, as it will for all of us).

Eastwood has had a ballpark to work within, but he's also managed to get different shades out of that niche with different projects. The Dollars Trilogy versus Dirty Harry, for instance, or Escape From Alcatraz, or The Beguiled, or when he was in the two films with Clyde the Orangutan - yes, another tough guy, but also they were populist goofy comedies. He had his various bread and butter pictures like The Rookie or In The Line Of Fire, but he always found a little something different to chew on within those 'classic Clint' margins.

And who can forget him as a clumsy scientist in Revenge of the Creature? :D

However, Eastwood has expressed himself more in the director's chair that necessarily in the actor's shoes, if you will. A significant string to his bow that the others being discussed here haven't really had the benefit of.

[EvilNed]

The Bridges of Madison County is generally a very well regarded film. It's both well directed, emotional, tragic and with great performances. You don't have to like it, but it's got a very high average scoring on Letterboxd, imdb and rotten tomatoes.

[beat_truck]

Though the ratings on imdb are usually pretty accurate, but just because something has good ratings doesn't necessarily mean it's good. There are a lot of movies that have won a bunch of awards, yet when I talk to family members or friends, or see people talk about them on the 'net, they think they were awful. And look at movie critics. They'll masturbate over some pretentious piece of crap, yet sneer at movies normal folks enjoy.:rolleyes:

[EvilNed]

Though the ratings on imdb are usually pretty accurate, but just because something has good ratings doesn't necessarily mean it's good. There are a lot of movies that have won a bunch of awards, yet when I talk to family members or friends, or see people talk about them on the 'net, they think they were awful. And look at movie critics. They'll masturbate over some pretentious piece of crap, yet sneer at movies normal folks enjoy.:rolleyes:

Of course, but this is a highly regarded film. You don't have to like it, but most people do.

[beat_truck]

Of course, but this is a highly regarded film.

Go ahead and keep repeating that. It's never going to make me give a fuck. ;)

[EvilNed]

Go ahead and keep repeating that. It's never going to make me give a fuck. ;)

Alright, if that's what you want:
It is a highly regarded film.

;)