Rango

[theficionado]

Johnny Depp's career, going into POTC IV, multiple "voice talent" parts and other assorted lackluster roles, is on life support--at least quality wise. Probably doing OK all-the-way-to-the-bank wise.

It's weird that you pick out this movie to criticize him for this, as this role — clearly modeled in some ways on Hunter S. Thompson — seems as though it were tailored exclusively for Depp, known for his portrayal of and friendship with Thompson.

[martryn]

I didn't think Rango was so bad. Voice acting was great. Animation was fantastic. Excellent score. Had Timothy Olyphant playing Clint Eastwood. Sure, not really a kid's film, but it had enough movie references and witty dialogue humor to keep me thoroughly entertained. Johnny Depp should have been in this film. It was his sort of movie. He fit the role. And he did a great job. What's the big deal? Probably his best role since Finding Neverland.

[Stewball]

[You would think. But how many good Hollywood movies were there in all of 2010? From those I have seen, 4 total? Maybe 7-8 if I'm optimistic about the other ones? Most of those had budgets too small to afford Johnny Depp, and in other cases, the role wouldn't have been offered to him, anyways.

He could have sought the "lesser" roles as a lot of quality actors do. How much do you suppose Bill Murray and Robert Duvall got for Get Low. In fact, Murray is an A-lister who exemplifies what I'm talking about doing movies like The Life Aquatic and Lost in Translation.

Furthermore, how is Johnny Boy supposed to figure out whether the movie is going to be any good or not? You think it's so easy?

Pirates of the Caribbean IV--when II & III were pretty pathetic, due in no small part to his contribution, or lack of it.

I thought Inception was an entertainment masterpiece, but the script was completely average.

Read the shooting script. Even at that, you can't understand the interrelated intricacies until you understand the plot.

Ditto for at least half the good pictures nowadays.

What, they were so much better in the 70s? All I can say is I massively disagree. "Good pictures nowadays???"

If you can't tell by the script, what other clues are there?

Precisely.

And there are those who are obviously more discriminating in the roles they take, like Brad Pitt, Leonardo de Caprio and Matt Damon.

A quick glance shows that said trio has starred in a veritable cornucopia of stinkers over the last 6 years, too; "Invictus", "Mr. and Mrs. Smith", "Green Zone", "The Brothers Grimm", "Ocean's Twelve", "Ocean's Thirteen", "Body of Lies", "Blood Diamond".

Yeah, were back to some loser some winners. I think "Invictus", "Mr. and Mrs. Smith", "Body of Lies", "Blood Diamond", were actually pretty good. And then there's Troy, The Assassination of Jessie James, Burn after Reading, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, Inglorious Basterds, THE DEPARTED, The Bourne Ultimatum/Supremacy, Hereafter, True Grit, The Adjustment Bureau, Gangs of NY, Catch Me If You Can, The Aviator, Shutter Island....INCEPTION.

Point is, it's hard to tell how a movie is going to turn out until the editing phase, and actors have far less control over the finished product than you think.

I say again, POTC IV ? How can his bad string be this long based only on chance?

[Pickpocket]

What, they were so much better in the 70s? All I can say is I massively disagree. "Good pictures nowadays???"

dude according to your own rankings you've only seen 56 movies from the 70's so how the hell can you judge? and of those 56 only 1 is a tier 1, compared to 37 in tier 1 from the 00's. youre either dense or massively confused

and JD got payed like 75 million to do pirates 4, can't really criticize him cause that is an insane amount of money to work for maybe 3 months. you would do it, i would do it, get over it

[Stewball]

What, they were so much better in the 70s? All I can say is I massively disagree. "Good pictures nowadays???"

dude according to your own rankings you've only seen 56 movies from the 70's so how the hell can you judge? and of those 56 only 1 is a tier 1, compared to 37 in tier 1 from the 00's. youre either dense or massively confused

and JD got payed like 75 million to do pirates 4, can't really criticize him cause that is an insane amount of money to work for maybe 3 months. you would do it, i would do it, get over it

That's all I've bothered to rank from the 70's; and well, $75 million, you know what they say, everybody's got their price--and this is just the latest in a long string of sell-outs. Thanks for chimin' in though. Nice to see you're still out there stalkin' and lurkin' in the shadows, keepin' people straight about what's really good. And gee, look's like you've only seen the original Pirates.

Doesn't look like you've spent much time looking at his later stuff, Pirates II or III, Sweeney Todd, Public Enemies or The Tourist. Why is that again?

[ShogunRua]

[You would think. But how many good Hollywood movies were there in all of 2010? From those I have seen, 4 total? Maybe 7-8 if I'm optimistic about the other ones? Most of those had budgets too small to afford Johnny Depp, and in other cases, the role wouldn't have been offered to him, anyways.

He could have sought the "lesser" roles as a lot of quality actors do. How much do you suppose Bill Murray and Robert Duvall got for Get Low. In fact, Murray is an A-lister who exemplifies what I'm talking about doing movies like The Life Aquatic and Lost in Translation.

Bad examples to use with me, as I haven't seen "Get Low" or "Life Aquatic", and thought "Lost in Translation" was awful, racist, boring garbage, the worst film Murray has ever made in his career.

Also, Depp and Murray are not even remotely in the same category of film star; Depp's asking price to do a picture is at least 2-3 times higher than Murray. He would be losing out on a lot more salary than Murray would by doing smaller, personal projects.

Asking a guy to give up tens of millions of dollars to make movies that might be good sounds awfully unreasonable, now doesn't it?

Pirates of the Caribbean IV--when II & III were pretty pathetic, due in no small part to his contribution, or lack of it.

So he should turn down $20+ million to make a different film with a moderately higher percentage chance of being good?

Dude, even legendary directors, who have vastly more control over the quality of the final product, aren't that principled!

Read the shooting script. Even at that, you can't understand the interrelated intricacies until you understand the plot.

Oh, give me a break. The dialogue was average, the premise was a more simplistic rip-off of "Paprika" (which Nolan has admitted to being deeply influenced by), and the thing that made the film great was Nolan's legendary eye for pacing and excitement, and brilliant use of visuals. Ergo, not the script.

What, they were so much better in the 70s? All I can say is I massively disagree. "Good pictures nowadays???"

Yes, films were way better in the 70s, but that was not my point. My point was that nowadays, more films rely on the model of being exciting, mass entertainment, a la 70's pictures like "Star Wars" and "Jaws", and not deep, mature pictures like "Network", "The Taxi Driver", etc.

[i]Troy,

Troy? That movie was not only garbage, it's a wonderful example of a crappy role Brad Pitt did just for the money! It's the exact opposite of what you're arguing.

Look, even the greatest directors ever (including my personal all-time favorite, Sidney Lumet, and the "ultimate auteur", Orson Welles) have done projects for the money, (tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars) while having tremendous control over the final product.

But you expect ACTORS to forgo tens of millions of dollars while having much less control over the final product?

I don't. It's not the way the world works.

[Pickpocket]

Doesn't look like you've spent much time looking at his later stuff, Pirates II or III, Sweeney Todd, Public Enemies or The Tourist. Why is that again?

I've seen 2/5 of those, lol. And all can be explained. Pirates 2 and 3 for money, sweeney todd for tim burton, public enemies for michael mann, tourist money. why cant you grasp this very elementary concept

[cagedwisdom]

First off, I really liked Rango.

Why are you blaming an actor for the quality of the film? I'm not saying actors aren't artists, but I sure think a man like Johnny Depp, who spent the 90s honing his artistic sensibilities and performing in some spectacular arthouse films, doesn't feel like he needs to prove himself as an artist any more. I think he chooses the films he does for two reasons: One is money. The other is because he enjoys the job. He enjoys working with Burton, so he says yes to every role Burton offers him. It's not his responsibility that the films are good. He does his acting job, under the direction of Burton, and that's that. We know he can act. If he's just goofing around and it's annoying you, guess what, he probably just wanted to goof around. And he just got 75 million dollars for it. Actually, I can see why that might annoy you. Meanwhile excuse me while I go get some popcorn.

I don't think Depp cares that critics didn't like Pirates 2 & 3. He knows kids like them, specifically his kids.

In 2007, his daughter recovered from a serious illness, an E. coli infection that began to cause her kidneys to shut down and resulted in an extended hospital stay.[37] To thank Great Ormond Street Hospital, Depp visited the hospital in November 2007 dressed in his Captain Jack Sparrow outfit and spent 4 hours reading stories to the children. He later donated £1 million (about $2 million) to the hospital in early 2008

Damnit, what an asshole. At least do the kids a favor and turn up as Edward Scissorhands or any other character that doesn't suck you inconsiderate prick.

But how many good Hollywood movies were there in all of 2010? From those I have seen, 4 total? Maybe 7-8 if I'm optimistic about the other ones?

The answer according to my rankings is 13. That's counting just tiers 10 and 9, and not counting Get Low which I'm not sure is a Hollywood film. Extend it down to tier 7 and the answer is 24 if I don't count Harry Potter and Winter's Bone. So maybe I've become too Hollywood-friendly to even take part in this discussion.

[Stewball]

He would be losing out on a lot more salary than Murray would by doing smaller, personal projects.

So you're saying the only motivation for doing a movie is money? Meaning or art doesn't figure into it. The point of his being a bigger star is that he can pick and choose easier between movies. Look at the trailer for POTC IV, its embarrassing. Look at the other two A listers I pointed out and I'm sure you can think of others.

Asking a guy to give up tens of millions of dollars to make movies that might be good sounds awfully unreasonable, now doesn't it?

Why he does stuff is his business. But why I respect him, and his shallow measure for self-respect deals with more than money.

So he should turn down $20+ million to make a different film with a moderately higher percentage chance of being good?

"Turn down $20 million"? How about doing something a whole lot better for $18 mil, or better yet become pro-active and create or encourage a movie worth doing for $20 mil +. He is (or was) one of the few people who could do that.

Dude, even legendary directors, who have vastly more control over the quality of the final product, aren't that principled!

Bullshit. Kubrick, his Academy doormat replacement, Nolan, Eastwood, The Coens, and my favorites to show you don't have to be big to be genuine, Walter Hill and Craig Brewer.

Oh, give me a break. The dialogue was average, the premise was a more simplistic rip-off of "Paprika" (which Nolan has admitted to being deeply influenced by), and the thing that made the film great was Nolan's legendary eye for pacing and excitement, and brilliant use of visuals. Ergo, not the script.

How can you criticize a movie I believe you've admitted you don't even care to understand.

What, they were so much better in the 70s? All I can say is I massively disagree. "Good pictures nowadays???"

Yes, films were way better in the 70s, but that was not my point. My point was that nowadays, more films rely on the model of being exciting, mass entertainment, a la 70's pictures like "Star Wars" and "Jaws", and not deep, mature pictures like "Network", "The Taxi Driver", etc.

Yes there are more mind numbed blockbusters now but there are also as many more deep, mature pictures now as well. Inception was both, and the only reason you don't think it was a think peace is because you didn't care to think about it. Taxi Driver wasn't that deep at all, for me. But that's the point, most of what's deep and mature are subjective matters of opinion.

And all can be explained. Pirates 2 and 3 for money, sweeney todd for tim burton, public enemies for michael mann, tourist money. why cant you grasp this very elementary concept

My point exactly. He's spending the celebrity capital he'd built up and for what, amounts of money many here would call obscene, when all I'm saying is why not quality too. He has the talent and the power.

The answer according to my rankings is 13. That's counting just tiers 10 and 9, and not counting Get Low which I'm not sure is a Hollywood film. Extend it down to tier 7 and the answer is 24 if I don't count Harry Potter and Winter's Bone. So maybe I've become too Hollywood-friendly to even take part in this discussion.

Excellent movies are hard enough to come by, so I'll take them where I can find them, be they from Hollywood or Independents. What's really inexplicable is that the opinions represented here go against the Critiker bias towards art, thought-provoking, mature, deep films.

Why are you blaming an actor for the quality of the film?

I'm not, and Rango isn't totally crappy. I'm questioning his long string of crap, or less than deep, movies he's chosen to do.

[Anomaly]

So you're saying the only motivation for doing a movie is money? Meaning or art doesn't figure into it. The point of his being a bigger star is that he can pick and choose easier between movies. Look at the trailer for POTC IV, its embarrassing. Look at the other two A listers I pointed out and I'm sure you can think of others.
[...]
"Turn down $20 million"? How about doing something a whole lot better for $18 mil, or better yet become pro-active and create or encourage a movie worth doing for $20 mil +. He is (or was) one of the few people who could do that.
[...]
My point exactly. He's spending the celebrity capital he'd built up and for what, amounts of money many here would call obscene, when all I'm saying is why not quality too. He has the talent and the power.

Why turn down good money? You seem to not really understand that Hollywood is a business. You think they care about the quality of what they put out? As long as it gets asses in seats, most people working there don't care. And the people who do care about quality have to bend to the will of producers and test screenings and other people who don't care more often than not. Yes, Depp could care, but as a rich person he'd rather get richer. Maybe he still does have a passion for the medium, but it seems like he's just doing it for the paychecks like almost everyone else. The point of being a bigger star is getting more money per project.