Discuss: How Many Chances Do You Give An Actor?
Filed under: Sci-Fi & Fantasy, New Releases, Remakes and Sequels
But there is a time I would have gone to see it solely for its leading man, Brendan Fraser. I used to really like him. I don't think his poster ever decorated my wall, but one of his numerous photographic appearances in People's "Sexiest Man" issues probably did. But now I just feel annoyed by him and his films. I feel like Fraser is one constant comeback -- he makes a few big movies, and a few small ones which garner him critical acclaim. Then he vanishes into obscurity, only to come roaring back with a blockbuster, his return heralded with "Fraser! I wondered what happened to that guy!" It feels like this is the third comeback round of Fraser's career, only this time, it seems absent of the buzz that followed him after the first The Mummy.
I feel particularly betrayed by his latest absence, one that occurred right as his career was looking to be something remarkable. I loved Gods and Monsters and The Quiet American, and was eager to see what he would do next. He seemed to have an eye for solid scripts, and a quiet dramatic presence that suggested awards and acclaim in his future. But he followed those up with the forgettable Looney Tunes: Back In Action, which I forgave because he'd just become a father, and was in a kiddie frame of mind. And then he vanished. I remember something about his wanting to spend time with his new and expanding family, which I thought was sweet, but then he never came back.
Arguably, he's never completely vanished, but he did very little of note since 2003, and what he did wasn't very good. While every actor goes through rough patches and bad projects, it really feels that Fraser hasn't exactly made the most of his career. I know how hot and cold the industry blows, but he must have had some good offers after The Quiet American. And if he didn't, he had enough critical clout to fight for some, didn't he? Instead, he's back in studio bombast like Journey to the Center of the Earth and The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor. (I mean no offense to anyone who had enjoyed watching them, I'm glad if you did! There's too little fun in this world, I'm not going to knock where anyone finds it.) Maybe Fraser has decided this is what he likes doing, and he isn't interested in soul-searching dramas. If it is, I wish him good luck. But if it's not (and I can't quite believe that, not when he's popping up in films like Crash and The Air I Breathe) and he's hoping that this gets him up on the A-List again, I wonder if it will work. Is his critical and popular goodwill spent? And if so, is it gone forever? I know I'm no longer curious what he will do next -- except to wonder if he could pull a Michael Caine, and do no wrong in his grayer years. Don't get me wrong, if tomorrow Fraser did a searing and brilliant Macbeth, I would be first in line. But I no longer have any faith that he will. I would sooner expect him to make a fourth and fifth Mummy.
But I can't explain why Fraser is suddenly out of my good moviegoer graces. He seems like a genuinely nice person, and I feel bad saying any of this. I fully expect I'll be flamed by his undoubtedly large fan base, but I'll hand the floor over to you anyway. Do you have a breaking point when it comes to an actor or actress, a point where you weep for what might have been, and no longer hope for what could be? Where the merest mention of their name associated with a project half dooms it for you? (Of course, here I should clarify that I don't see movies purely based on who is in them -- but when it comes to judging a potential film, I can't ignore who has been cast.) Tell me all in the comments below.
Related Headlines
Reader Comments
(Page 1)3. While I can't argue with your personal opinion (I share it) and while you're probably in line with most critics and cinephiles, I think there is no question whether his comeback has been a success or not with the masses. He is starring in two of the top 5 movies this weekend and came within spitting distance of dethroning The Dark Knight. By no means are box office numbers a measure of quality but they prove he is still popular.
There are two actors whose past works I yearn for. Billy Murray and Tom Hanks. They've both left their true comedy roots behind them in exchange for critical acclaim with Hanks also wanting to do some blockbusters. I don't mind them doing that but I'd like to see them do good old fashioned comedy every now and then.
Posted at 1:01PM on Aug 4th 2008 by roshow
4. Two I can think of off the top of my head: Reese Witherspoon and Jennifer Lopez. Once they got enormously popular, they both stopped doing movies I had any interest in seeing. "Freeway" and "Election" lead to "Sweet Home Alabama"? Or "Out of Sight" and "The Cell" lead to . . . every piece of garbage rom-com Lopez has done since?
Posted at 1:07PM on Aug 4th 2008 by Mark Rooster
5. Hey everyone has to atleast be greatful for Brendan. I mean its been far too long since his last appearance in the movie world. Hell ya'll may not appreciate him in the Mummy 3 but I thought it was awesome. Sure it was fast paced and quick but still it was pretty great for this movie.
Wayne the guy can act ok. Don't get upset cause your not some hot shot in the movie business making movie like an actor and getting chiks and cars to expand your fame like most actors do. we are just normal people living in our normal world full of things going on every day of the year.
Posted at 1:19PM on Aug 4th 2008 by XTehBluePenguinX
6. "Soul-searching drama"? "Crash"? For real? How about soul-crushing pap? That seems to be a better encapsulation of that trite piece of mindless Oscar bait.
Posted at 1:37PM on Aug 4th 2008 by Dante
7. I never said I liked Crash -- I hated it. But maybe it's Fraser's idea of a soul searching drama...
Posted at 3:16PM on Aug 4th 2008 by Elisabeth
8. Fair enough. In the context it sounded as if you were behind it. (Glad to find out someone else out there didn't drink that "Crash"-Aid.)
Posted at 11:17PM on Aug 4th 2008 by Dante
9. I wonder if this article would still be here if the film wasn't getting so much bad press?
"Jump on" and "bandwagon" springs to mind, along with..
negativity, negativity etc
Posted at 1:49PM on Aug 4th 2008 by dam
10. Yes, it would be. At the news there was going to be a Mummy 3, I thought "That's it! I'm not bothering with Fraser anymore if this is all he'll do."
And Journey to the Center of the Earth had decent press, people (including Cinematical writers) dug it.
Critical thought (not that this was all that deep and insightful of me) DOES spring from independent opinion, and not the desire to jump on the bandwagon of negativity.
Posted at 3:16PM on Aug 4th 2008 by Elisabeth
11. I had this experience not for an actor but for a franchise. I grew up in a Star Wars home. I started at a young age watching the tapes of the original episodes III-V on Betamax that my parents had recorded off of HBO. I knew about the Force before I knew the alphabet. Growing up I bought or was given just about anything with a Star Wars logo on it. Bedsheets, toys, underwear, video games, you name it. Then I finally was able to get the Star Wars triology on VHS! I was in heaven! Then a little while later a new and improved trilogy was released on VHS... the THX letterbox edition of the original trilogy. So I bought that too, afterall it was totally worth it to have the improved surround sound on my old mono television. Plus the tie fighters didn't have little dark boxes around them anymore, genius! Well wouldn't you know it after a couple more years there were the "Special Edition" trilogies! And along with them I got to wait in long lines to see them in the theater, then shell out a bit more money for the "Special Edition" triology on VHS. Well that was great and all but not but a couple of years went by and I found myself without a working VHS player and DVD was all the rage so of course I bought the Special Edition trilogy on DVD. I bought the books (the Thrawn Trilogy rocked!), the video games (X-Wing, Tie Fighter, X-Wing VS Tie Fighter...), the toys (and this time I kept the original packaging so I could sell them on e-bay decades from now for millions of dollars....just like everybody else), and everything else you could imagine.
Well wouldn't you know it Lucas decided to make the first three episodes! I couldn't wait to see Episode I. Well I went, I saw, and it was.... well I WANTED it to be good. I tried to convince myself that it was the best Star Wars yet. Sure that Jar-Jar guy was obnoxious, and Anakin couldn't act worth a crap. Sure the Trade Federation robots were idiots, and the dialogue was sophmoric. Nevermind all that, the special effects were super-cool! I went home with a painted on smile, not ready to admit the truth to myself. I clutched tightly to the love I had for Star Wars, refusing to see the truth. Like one-handed Luke with newfound knowledge of this parentage I cried "That's not possible!" A few more years passed and Episode II came out. I thought, well at least Anakin should be cooler now that he's not a whiny child with horrible acting. Then he ended up just being a whiny MAN with horrible acting. Yoda went from old anamatronic wise man, to mini-saber wielding monkey-boy, and Saruman somehow showed up doing the EXACT same thing he did to Middle Earth. Like Han being released from carbonite, I awakened. The light hurt my eyes, but I could finally SEE. This franchise is a bloated pile of CRAP. I realised that while the original movies were good, they weren't sacred. And can I PLEASE get the ORIGINAL NON-special edition movies on DVD? I see now that for every "Empire Strikes Back" there is a "Star Wars Christmas Special" and for every "Tie Fighter" video game there are a dozen "Super Bombad Racings." Lucas makes a couple of movies that are pure gold then puts the name on CRAP and people like me will just buy it because of the logo on the front and will blind themselves to the rip-off it has become.
Now there is another Star Wars movie coming to theaters and this time its animated. So lets see, we get the Star Wars dialogue and storyline (which has either been ripped off or STUNK) without the amazing special effects (the only reason I even remotely enjoyed Episodes I-III). Let me tell you one thing, I'll not be giving Lucas my money for THAT sure-hit. Then we have the upcoming television series. It was first said to be 100 hours in length, but now that may be 400 or more and may include spinoff shows. No doubt there WILL be more episodes and spin-offs as long as they're money to be made. Yes, there was some greatness in the original Star Wars movies, and even some of the merchandising has been good. There have been good books, games, toys and more. But 90% of the stuff with Star Wars pasted to the side of it has been crap. I'm sure that even some of the products yet to come will be good, but you can be sure that I will not waste my money on anything until its proven to be among the 10% of actually decent products. If you don't believe me then I hope you read this article again in 10 years after you've watched "The Phantom Menace: Special Edition" in the theaters.
Posted at 2:37PM on Aug 4th 2008 by Eric
12. Sometimes I think people are a little too hard on romantic comedies and family films, e.g., "So and so used to be great and now they only do family films/romantic comedies!" They aren't necessarily the kiss of death! As long as they're well made, that is.
Not that I care for films like "Looney Tunes Back in Action." :-) I didn't think that one was well made. But I just wanted to make that point. Some of the greatest films ever made, the ones on all the top 100 lists and so forth, are romantic comedies and family films.
As for actors, if I really like them, I'll follow them almost anywhere. Almost.
Posted at 2:41PM on Aug 4th 2008 by Gina
13. As far as I'm concerned, he could have retired after With Honors. Or as I like to call it, "Brendan's Peak:" Not to be confused with "Dante's Peak." I haven't enjoyed much of his work since then.
Posted at 3:20PM on Aug 4th 2008 by Scott
14. Elizabeth, I find it funny that you wonder why Fraser has fallen out of audiences favor when no one is really questioning it but you -- and by you questioning it -- puts it out there like a match to a flame -- which makes no sense to me since it appears that you do like him -- so why trash him in such a way?
It's not as if Journey to the center of the earth (which is going strong and still at 75 million) and Mummy 3 (which opened at 42 million) are bombs. So it puzzles me why you make such a blog. Why does their have to be such negativity over at cinematical?
Posted at 4:09PM on Aug 4th 2008 by james
15. I never said anyone was really questioning it but me -- I freely admitted it was my own opinion, and was tossing it out there to see if anyone felt the same. And I do feel his shot at a serious career is probably gone now, and I would imagine there's many a casting director who feels the same. If you were casting "The Quiet American" or "Gods and Monsters" now, would you think of choosing him? Not likely. You'd probably pick Josh Brolin or Ryan Gosling nowadays.
I said he seemed like a nice guy and that I felt bad criticizing him -- but his career no longer interests me. I see films largely based on more factors than their leading man, though, which is why if he did Macbeth tomorrow, I'd see it. BUT, he's no longer someone that, when perusing film news or films to see, I'll think "Oh wow, Brendan Fraser! I bet that will be good."
I threw it all out there not to be negative, but to generate discussion -- as someone noted, they feel the same about Nicolas Cage. I was curious if people felt the same about Fraser, or if there were other actors and actresses they had written off. If no one agrees with me, that's cool. I can handle that. At least we talked about movies. That's what we're here for...not to slag on someone or something just to do it.
Today, we're negative, tomorrow we'll post a story about Iron Man 2 and we'll be called corporate shills for our positivity. We can't win... :P
Posted at 4:42PM on Aug 4th 2008 by Elisabeth
16. It's actually simpler than all that. He's almost completely bald on top and his hairline has seriously receded, and he's most likely needed some off-screen time to see how much he can accomplish with hair transplants. He clearly hasn't achieved a McConaughey or Affleck level of transplant success but at least he's stabilized his hairline. Can you blame him for being guarded about his public appearances and trying to avoid being known as another actor in a wig?
Posted at 7:46PM on Aug 4th 2008 by Max
17. I don't blame actors single-handily for poor films, even poorly acted films. I tend to blame the casting caller, the producer and the director, because if these people can't see that an actor isn't conveying the right mood, quality or whatever might be off, they have poor taste or lack of cajones to tell actor he/she isn't good enough for the scene.
I also blame the writing, but I think the director is the stop gap for poor writing, he/she needs to have the ability to decipher whether a line or two is worth potentially ruining a film.
Its really all about quality control, and in filmmaking there's far too many stop gaps to solely blame the actor.
Even Brendan Fraser has his own stop gap (his agent, his friends & family that aren't afraid to tell him what's poor taste and could be done so much better if...
So I'll go see a Brenden Fraser film, hoping that someone actually helps him along the way. With Honers was a great film, he was very compelling in it, perhaps it was the onscreen chemistry with Pesci that helped. He might need a screen partner that has similar presence that Pesci had that can offset his own acting deficiencies. Brendan just needs a real stop gap to help him out.
Posted at 9:36PM on Aug 4th 2008 by Cray
18. We saw the new mummy movie last night and it would seem that each succeeding Mummy movie is destined to be worse than the previous one, This third movie in the series fails on so many levels it is difficult to know where to begin in an analysis of it's problems. The dialog is beyond banal, something that a three-year old writer could have done better. I'm surprised that the actors themselves did not refuse to speak some of the ridiculous lines. The visual elements are there as usual but were entirely predictable showing no visible advances that may have been developed in the interim between Mummy 2 and Mummy 3. Where in the world did they find this Luke Ford? The man cannot act, has no charisma and is certainly NOT the best looking leading man that could have been found. On which director's or producer's couch did he win this part? His love scenes are embarrassing as are the scenes he has with his cinematic father, Brendan Fraser. Then there is Fraser who seems to have forgotten how to act entirely. Since so many of the actors seem to have phoned in their lines, I can only assume the director must be at fault for the lack of any attempt at acting in this movie. As for the story, best to forget it entirely. After one less than breathtaking obligatory chase scene after another, jarring scene changes from archeological digs to Shanghai night clubs and a trek up to the Himalyan mountains where the young Chinese woman, name forgettable, called on the huge white Tibetan Yeti to help her and her friends, the movie lost us entirely.
Posted at 1:33PM on Aug 13th 2008 by Don George
19. Hate it.........
Seeing another Evelyn O'Connell in the film makes it WORST!!!!!!!!!
I really want to see RACHEL WEISZ to pair up with Brendan Fraser,.,
Can anyone have Rachel Weisz back in the Mummy Series???
Posted at 8:18AM on Sep 17th 2008 by Sapphire
20. Rachel Weisz!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Rachel Weisz!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Rachel Weisz!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Rachel Weisz!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Rachel Weisz!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Rachel Weisz!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Rachel Weisz!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Rachel Weisz!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Rachel Weisz!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Rachel Weisz!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Rachel Weisz!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Rachel Weisz!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Rachel Weisz!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Rachel Weisz!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Rachel Weisz!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Rachel Weisz!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted at 8:35AM on Sep 17th 2008 by Sapphire
1. Don't dismiss Looney Tunes: Back in Action, Elisabeth. Joe Dante finally got to work with the WB characters after paying them homage in so, so many films, and more importantly did some great updates on the material of his hero, Chuck Jones.
If anything, it is indeed Fraser that could be blamed for the weak points of the movie. Or maybe Larry Doyle's script wasn't that exciting. But forgettgable, the movie isn't. You have to at least have enjoyed and remember Steve Martin's best comedic performance in years.
Posted at 8:26AM on Aug 4th 2008 by Christopher Campbell