Yeah that's actually a pretty good point - Hollywood itself is a lot less interested in trying to make good movies than it used to be. Literally to the point of rejecting good or great directors because they'd rather have someone who is merely workmanlike but easy to control and keep "on brand" (even though the good/great directors aren't exactly wild and wooly these days!).And to be fair, I think Hollywood in general is less concerned with making good movies, and are comfortable with cookie cutters filmed by average directors. Schwarzenegger was working with directors like Cameron, McTiernan, Verhoeven.
Problem with the Rock is he is just playing himself in different costumes. He is more or less the same in every movie.
I think there's a big difference between playing approximately the same role if you're Jack Nicholson or Al Pacino or even Will Smith, and if you're Dwayne Johnson, though. Those first three can really nuance relatively similar characters, and are able to go outside their comfort zone and remain convincing. Johnson... not so much.Yeah, but I think in fairness, the same accusation can be leveled at a lot of actors, including Schwarzenegger or Stallone, but even award winning actors like Jack Nicholson, for instance. At a certain point, I think a lot, maybe even most actors, settle into a comfort zone and don't move outside of it. Pacino made Scent of a Woman, and really never looked back. De Niro settled into his Scorsese gangster zone and that's basically the character you get from him ever since. It's not that they can't act, it's that there's an easy path to not having to challenge themselves. Stallone, in particular, always seemed like that guy who could've gone on to much more dramatic roles, and I think his acting chops were sorely underrated, but he hit it big with action movies.
I agree with this, but I gotta say, his acting in Black Adam was the only good thing in that movie.The Rock is a surprisingly good actor in both of the Jumanji movies. But he definitely is getting poisoned to death by his own ego at this point. We'll see if he can pull his head out of his ass and regain his likability.
I think there's a big difference between playing approximately the same role if you're Jack Nicholson or Al Pacino or even Will Smith, and if you're Dwayne Johnson, though. Those first three can really nuance relatively similar characters, and are able to go outside their comfort zone and remain convincing. Johnson... not so much.
Copland shows you're correct re: Stallone, and forever makes some of his other choices disappointing. I remember thinking "Wow, Stallone can act?! I thought Rocky was a happy accident!" when I saw that. Oh and Demolition Man too, showed a more interesting and fun Stallone. But then he was just in so many bad action movies, many of which he produced or even financed.
(EDIT - I was this years old when I realized Demolition Man was probably a joke on Cro-Magnon Man or Neanderthal Man or the like.)
I agree with this, but I gotta say, his acting in Black Adam was the only good thing in that movie.
Gary Oldman.It's also a weird thing - at some level, fans don't want actors like Johnson or Schwarzenegger to be "chameleons." They want that predictability, but they also like it when they sometimes break out of the box or do something different. It's a fine balancing act.
Honestly, I think the only actor I can really think of whose entire "brand" is being a chameleon is Meryl Streep.
And yet Johnson having too much control, as a producer, is ultimately what seems to have killed that movie.I agree with this, but I gotta say, his acting in Black Adam was the only good thing in that movie.