Jump to content
 
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

George Clooney - yes or no


Recommended Posts

I saw a few threads about people that are actors in the modern time to see if people think they are worthy of classic movie lovers to be a modern classic actor

George Clooney, hes been in some good movies, some wild rides

Oceans 11, 12, 13 , From Dusk to Dawn, one of the 1990 Batman movies (ok this was a dud)

He also does things for humanity, charity etc, seems like a good person...

What the word for George Clooney ? Yes or no

Link to post
Share on other sites

An interesting question, and one I think I'd like to link to the recent death of Richard Widmark.

 

Widmark has always been one of my favorite actors, but his career was overshadowed by many, of not most, of his contemporaries, actors who came up, and/or made their biggest mark, from the mid-1940s to the early 1950s, such as Gregory Peck, Kirk Douglas, William Holden (who actually broke in in 1939), Charlton Heston and Burt Lancaster, all of whom competed with each other and Widmark to some extent, both for available roles, and the attention of the moviegoing public.

 

Unlike the others, Widmark never got a career-defining role (Peck, Atticus Finch; Douglas, Vincent van Gogh, Spartacus; Holden, Joe Gillis, Sefton; Heston, Moses, Ben-Hur; Lancaster, Elmer Gantry), and so we don't have a clear picture of a preferred screen persona (Widmark's most memorable part was, in fact, his first: Tommy Udo in KISS OF DEATH, but it seems clear that he was never particularly fond of the idea that he'd be remembered chiefly for pushing an old lady in a wheelchair down a flight of stairs while gleefully cackling at his own infamy).

 

I think it's safe to say that Clooney has never even come close to playing a career-defining role -- something more and more rare these days -- and we won't be able to take his measure as an actor and screen presence until, and unless, he does.

Link to post
Share on other sites

First, let me say that it pains me to see Geoge Clooney's name on a TCM thread. So sue (or ignore) me.

The answer is yes.

I'm not sure how you define "modern classic actor" anymore than how you'd define "modern classic writer." But I think you can recognize stars, separate from whatever's currently playing in the tabloids, stars who will last and be remembered.

CineSage, this reminds me of my thoughts this morning watching the Brando documentary, when they showed many previous male film stars. (Most of those you mentioned were covered. I don't think Widmark was). I'm not sure I agree with some of those "defining roles," I may have chosen others, but I think Clooney definitely had one. Soderbergh's Out of Sight (1998). And I believe most of what he's done since has developed from that role, one way or another.

Another one I feel will be remembered, taking the long view, like it or not, is Tom Selleck. But ignoring Magnum, I can think of no defining movies that he's done. I believe people will think of a total of an actor's career, tv work included, in the long run. Maybe one of the tv Western movies he's done, I haven't seen them.

I take that back. I would say Selleck's defining role was in "Did You See the Sunrise?" (1982) from the Magnum P.I. series. It was a pivotal moment for Selleck, for the character, and for the show. Since it was two hours worth (with commercials), I imagine it was released in theaters overseas as a movie.

No, they sure don't make stars like they used to, but yes, they do still make stars.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"Out Of Sight" was a good film, I believe Clooney's best. But, I think his defining role is the "Ocean" series. I like a lot of his stuff...."Syriana", "Good Night and Good Luck", even his recent hit, the courtroom one. He has been typecast, though.

Link to post
Share on other sites

1,000 % NO. When he accepted his oscar a few years ago, his speech was so arrogant i wanted to puke. Now that he's a big deal (make me barf) there seems to be no end to his endless lectures to us peons about how he is so much more in touch with the human spirit and struggle than we or anyone else is. GC is a typical overpaid hwood **** who has lost touch with the everyday folks who struggle in the real world. His overly-superior attitude and immense sense of entitlement make him persona non grata with me and that goes for most of the self-indulgent cretins in hwood today.

Link to post
Share on other sites

CineSage, this reminds me of my thoughts this morning watching the Brando documentary, when they showed many previous male film stars. (Most of those you mentioned were covered. I don't think Widmark was). I'm not sure I agree with some of those "defining roles," I may have chosen others, but I think Clooney definitely had one. Soderbergh's Out of Sight (1998). And I believe most of what he's done since has developed from that role, one way or another.

Another one I feel will be remembered, taking the long view, like it or not, is Tom Selleck. But ignoring Magnum, I can think of no defining movies that he's done. I believe people will think of a total of an actor's career, tv work included, in the long run. Maybe one of the tv Western movies he's done, I haven't seen them.

 

A career-definining role isn't determined just by the quality of the part but, unfortunately, by how many people initially paid money to see the actor play it. I'm afraid that, by that standard, OUT OF SIGHT really was out of sight and out of mind -- a film hardly anybody saw.

 

 

I take that back. I would say Selleck's defining role was in "Did You See the Sunrise?" (1982) from the Magnum P.I. series. It was a pivotal moment for Selleck, for the character, and for the show. Since it was two hours worth (with commercials), I imagine it was released in theaters overseas as a movie.

No, they sure don't make stars like they used to, but yes, they do still make stars.

 

Selleck is always an amiable, good-looking guy, a decent actor but one with a personality that's something short of magnetic, to put it mildly. I, personally, have a fondness for QUIGLEY DOWN UNDER (a rather thinly-veiled re-telling of the story of Tom Horn, whom Steve McQueen played in a 1980 feature film, and David Carrdine in a 1979 TV movie, with the locale moved to Australia from the U.S. Southwest), but Selleck always was a TV actor, with all the pejoratives that term connotes. By that standard, Clooney is also is "TV actor"; even in this day and age, in which actors frequently move from one medium to the other, it implies a certain lack of stature and gravitas, if not talent and accomplishment.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, I'd bump Clooney ahead of Selleck. He has made a series of flicks that have sold.

Great films? I dunno. I thought "Syriana" had bite. A great film? I don't think so.

Than again, this is coming from a guy who thinks "There Will Be Blood" has greatness potential.

Link to post
Share on other sites

God bless ya, Mr.6666. Thats an opinion that usually earns me an IGNORE tag. Which a couple of people have gone "great lengths" to let me know I "earned it".

Tippy toe around this subject. Not real popular around here.

To some on this site, television is still that "newfangled contraption" that has destroyed movies, among other things. Although, on a much deeper level, I can't say they're wrong.

Then again, I'm not for returning to "kerosene heat" either.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have been a fan of George Clooney's since his days in television. There are episodes of *ER* that are outstanding because of him. He honed his craft on the small screen, like Eastwood and others, no harm in that.

 

He is a good actor and one in that rare position to get movies green-lit. For every *Oceans* type film he does, he helps green-light or bank-roll films like *Syrianna* , *Good Night* and *Michael Clayton*.

 

He is old-style in that he can he come across as Gable or Grant in a role.

 

I think he helps bridge that gap between old school and new all the while making the blockbusters so that he can help fund or green-light the smaller projects he really believes in and helps get made.

 

They may not all be hits but at least he is willing to take risks.

 

And that says something in this day and age of Hollywood.

Link to post
Share on other sites

CineSage, we were coming at "career defining role" from different angles and now that I see that I understand your choices. I think that we're also coming at something else from different angles.

A certain amount of elitism is understandable when it comes to television. Now that Clooney's doing well, I don't see him returning to tv anytime soon. For today's stars, I think that's even more true than it was 20-40 years ago. They will go to television to make personal projects, or something more suitable at a longer length than the normal, i.e. a miniseries. But I don't think the biggest box office draws even do that.

I hope TripleHHH will bear with this a bit longer, because I know it's off topic.

When you go into a videostore to rent a movie these days, there is no distinction as to what's been theatrically released and what has been made for tv. (We, of course, usually know). Say someone twenty years from now, if not now, wants to review the career of Katherine Hepburn. When looking at things she did later in life, do you think they'll distinguish? Say a Frank Sinatra fan who likes his later detective movies, all produced by Sinatra's company, do you think they'll pick the tv one out of the bunch? Would they even have a clue? I don't mean to belabor Selleck , especially since I only know most of his films (both kinds) only by reputation, but I'd think of him as an over-the-hill television actor if it wasn't for those westerns and the current ones he's doing based on the Robert B. Parker character. As it is, I think the guy will have staying power.

There are other tv points to be made, but this isn't the place for it. Maybe another thread sometime. And I hate what I see as the influence of television on movies. Give me classic films any day.

lzcutter's take on Clooney is spot on.

Now I'm sure if TripleHHH thought other actors would be brought into the discussion, he was thinking of people like DiCaprio or Maguire, Brad Pitt or Sean Penn...

Link to post
Share on other sites

No HHH was just thinking of George Clooney

Off topic, there are lots of crappy made direct to DVD movies out there these days, usually horror and science fiction.

The scifi channel plays them from time to time. Lionsgate usually releases them (meanwhile the classic movies they own the rights to sit on their shelves, the only thing the released in the classic world this year is Tobor the great, SIGH)

Link to post
Share on other sites

yeah but tom selleck is not a great actor I would rate george clooney better than tom selleck but let's face they are just handsome and that is why they are where they are lucky gene pool

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes - George Clooney has made good film choices....even the "Oceans." films he made to finance his other projects "Good Night and Good Luck", "Syriana" and "Michael Clayton". He is certainly a "classic" actor. There are moments in "O Brother, Where Art Thou" where he reminds me of Clark Gable....he said in a interview that he felt he could have done better in that film, but I thought he was very funny!

 

I like him because he doesn't seem to take himself seriously.....he's having a good time....but he also definitely has the talent!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not a huge fan of Clooney and think he's very overrated. I don't really see him as anything more than adequate in his roles. I don't know if he's a good person, especially today when finding out that Chuck Heston has passed away, the memory of Clooney publicly making fun of Heston's ailment still lingers. That's just not classic star stuff. It doesn't seem that many people see him as a good actor seeing how his Ocean movies are the only ones that make money, whereas most of his recent movies failed to even make their costs back. That shows people were most likely showing up to see Damon and Pitt instead of Clooney in the Ocean flicks. If people liked him, then they'd see his movies. His new movie that opened this weekend only made 4.5 million, while the film cost 60 million to make. With a track record like this I wouldn't be surprised if Clooney goes back to TV, because Hollywood will only tolerate such financial disasters for so long.

Link to post
Share on other sites

TripleHHH,,,

 

very interesting....lol...Goerge Clooney huh? hmmmm well in tTODAYS actors i say yes...give him a break..now back in the day who knows..but today yes..i mean lets be real he has it ALL...First he is absolutly gorgoues..sooo looks he wins hands down..acting...well i think hes ok..i mean hes got that certain SPARK..Charm..sexiness that TODAYS actors have, that they .have to have to make it honestly and i think as hes gotten older hes gotten even more charming...and as u said TripleHHH u are very correct he is a very giveing person..very charitable...and going back to his acting ive seen alot worse...i just loved him in the remake of OCEANS 11 ...(the first one)...i thought he was GREAT!.... So for todays standards id give it to him.....lol...in my dreeams... did i say that...lol....heehee .... one more thing as far as his so called arrogance..so what i say...l.i mean lets be real...in todays "stardom" u are going to be arrogant...look today they make WAY more money then back in the day...its easier to be a star today..i mean the standards certainly are not so high....lol...so of course hes going to be arrogant...still hes got it all..u cant deny that...u may not like it..but as i always saaaaaaay....it is what it is!

 

ty TripleHHH

 

AvaG :-)

 

AvaG

Link to post
Share on other sites

" *First, let me say that it pains me to see Geoge Clooney's name on a TCM thread* "

 

lol, yes I wrote that. Now, having discovered and enjoyed the *The Big Lebowski* thread over in the Films and Filmmakers forum, I say, hey, talk about whatever you want to talk about and it won't bother me the least little bit. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I like George Clooney as an actor. He was great in his earlier stuff - like ER...and I have enjoyed all of his films that I've seen - The '*Oceans*' films. *Solaris, Syriana, The Perfect Storm, O' Brother Where Art Thou?*, and a few others.

 

As for his films not making money...well, it's pretty hard for a film to make money in the short run these days, unless it is a) a major blockbuster special effects extravaganza like LOTR, The Pirates of the Caribbean, Spiderman, Star Wars, The Matrix, etc; or B) has several major stars in it from which to draw fan support.

 

Alot of people rarely go to the theatre anymore unless it is to see the big budget CGI and special effects extravaganzas that look cool on the big screen. But a run-of-the-mill drama - even a good one? Alot of people (myself included) just wait for the DVD to come out.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
© 2021 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
×
×
  • Create New...