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

Actors/Actresses Who IRRITATE You!


Recommended Posts

> {quote:title=finance wrote:}{quote}

> So you're wishing Doris a happy 89th birthday by saying she's irritating?t

 

I didn't read that thread. :)

 

I have no ill will towards her, I just don't care for her acting, or the sorts of parts she plays, and find them irritating. But, to still be around at 89 is an accomplishment, irritating or otherwise.

 

My maternal grandmother's maiden name was Doris Day. She was born in 1901, and died at 89. But, that has nothing to do with my feelings for her namesake. My GM used to kid that Doris Day was named after her.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Katharine Hepburn is my all-time favorite. Oh yes, I've read the comments, but they don't sway me. Even Bette Davis, on a few occasions, expressed her admiration for the acting of Miss Hepburn.

Ironically, Bette Davis, to me, was "over the top" in some of her roles. And she was Bette Davis in too many.

But I nevertheless enjoyed most of her work, despite the excesses.

I know that Katharine Hepburn tried a gender-bending role, (directed by George Cukor) but it damaged her career, so that she had to leave Hollywood for a period.

I especially admired her work in "Long Day's Journey Into Night".

And she was memorable, to me, in "Suddenly, Last Summer"; esp. in her final scene.

Well, since everyone has someone, or more, who irritates them, I'll add my very unpopular choices, which I know will not sway anyone. But they're mine:

 

Meryl Streep. I didn't buy her nun, in "Doubt", (I went to parochial school), And in so many of her films, she's ACTING! ACTING! ACTING!

I also hate the too many, to me, accents.

But the academy loves her, and she has the most nominations of any acrtor. And she has first choice of many meaty parts.

 

John Wayne. He seemed to be the caricature of a real man.

 

Barbra Streisand. Too many close-ups.

 

Ginger Rogers. Love her dancing, however.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not irritated by movies easily. It takes something on the order of the terrible overuse of "Jeanie With the Light Brown Hair" in Barbary Coast to set me off...

 

No one from the old guard really stands out as irritating for me but I will say that the cast of Tobacco Road, with the exception of Gene Tierney who is at least easy on the eyes, is excruciating (especially the son.) In this case that's most definitely John Ford's fault - Fordian humor taken to the deepest pits of hell.

 

As for today, I have nothing but contempt for Russel Brand. He's not funny, he never was funny, he never will be funny, please stop showing Hop commercials on TV 24/7, and please stop putting him in every other new movie.

 

And Jennifer Aniston and Gerard Butler earned a special place in hell for The Bounty Hunter.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Katherine Hepburn = MAN! Watch "Stage Door" all the women are feminine, Hepburn walks, moves and talks like a MAN!

 

Bette Davis= mean and scary. NO sex appeal whatsoever.

 

Yes, Jamesjazzguitar, I agree, Julia Roberts is "America's Sweetheart" only to women, NOT attractive in the least, add Sarah Jesica Parker and Jennifer Aniston to the list.

 

Just to keep it gender-friendly:

 

John Wayne = caricature, can't believe him in anything.

Link to post
Share on other sites

THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU!!!!!!!!!! I hate Sarah Jessica Parker she can't act is really annoying and looks like a horse.I HATE twilight profoundly and Robert Patterson (who is the guy you where thinking of from twilight is not attractive looking at all so I don't get why everyone now a days is obsessed with him and that crappy twilight saga that I despise and hate..I disagree about Greer Garson she is great actress how can you not like her?But when it comes to Van Johnson I agree with you 100% he is so boring to watch he does the same thing in every movie he stands there and does nothing and shows one expression over a million times and thats it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't really mind Sarah Jessica Parker. Don't get me wrong, I'm not particularly a fan, either; I've only ever seen one episode of "Sex and the City". I'm benignly indifferent to her.

 

One thing I respect her for, however: when she first started out, she was advised and encouraged to get a "nose job", and one can see why. However, she refused, saying this was the way she looked and she was not going to get cosmetic surgery to change it. This was at a time when the whole cosmetic surgery thing had taken off to an almost frightening degree, and women of all ages, shapes. sizes, and appearances were getting one thing or another "corrected". As though there's only one certain way a woman ought to look.

 

Sarah Jessica Parker is not "pretty" or traditionally good-looking in any way, as some who have listed her as one who irritates have stated. But she makes the most of her looks, she has her own personal style -and style she has - and I like her for refusing to conform to this prescribed concept of female beauty.

I cannot comment on her acting, as I've never seen her in anything. (I originally said "I've never seen her act", but then I could just see all her detractors saying, "no one has" ! )

Link to post
Share on other sites

The issue over SJP has become a very contentious one at my house. I think she's a talented character actress who has been thrust into this role of cosmetics spokesman and glamourous role model. I think she's too equine in appearance to pull this off. (During my uncharitable moments, I've taken to calling her Secretariat Parker or Sarah Jessica Pacer.) On the other hand, my wife thinks she's terrific; when she saw SJP's picture on the wall at New York's Carnegie Deli, she insisted on posing for a re-enacted photo in the same spot where the SJP photo was taken.

 

Meanwhile, I'm watching *DEVIL'S ADVOCATE* on TV right now and have concluded that Keanu Reaves is probably the worst actor I've ever seen, and yet he has been getting A-list roles handed to him for about 20 years. (Is it possible that he really DID make a deal with the devil?)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Speaking of equine, SJP (whom I like), reminds me of the great British actress Fiona Shaw. Shaw is monumental on stage -- but too "equine" in films. I love the film Mountains of the Moon, but in all that Victorian drag, with her horsy face, Shaw seems ridiculous.

 

I've seen SJP on stage. She may not be in a class of a great classical actress like Shaw, but she's very good. And I like SJP because she isn't perfect. Too many of today's glamour girls are meant to look like people we see every day (as opposed to the leading ladies of the classic films). SJP at least is a bit of a welcome throwback. Maybe sort of a Jean Arthur character.

Link to post
Share on other sites

> {quote:title=Swithin wrote:}{quote}

> Speaking of equine, SJP (whom I like), reminds me of the great British actress Fiona Shaw. Shaw is monumental on stage -- but too "equine" in films. I love the film Mountains of the Moon, but in all that Victorian drag, with her horsy face, Shaw seems ridiculous.

>

> I've seen SJP on stage. She may not be in a class of a great classical actress like Shaw, but she's very good. And I like SJP because she isn't perfect. Too many of today's glamour girls are meant to look like people we see every day (as opposed to the leading ladies of the classic films). SJP at least is a bit of a welcome throwback. Maybe sort of a Jean Arthur character.

 

Come to think of it, there are quite a few "horsey" faced ladies in cinema. If they have style and screen presence , they can pull it off. After all, America is a land of horse fans.

 

The French have an expression, "jolie laide", meaning literally, "pretty/ugly" (NOT as in "she's pretty (quite) ugly" but as in an oxymoron, both "pretty " and "ugly" at the same time. They recognize more than North Americans do that there is more than one way for a woman to look sexy and attractive, they don't subscribe to a cooke-cutter approach to looks.

 

Some examples: Sarah Jessica Parker (yes !), Angelica Huston, Maria Callas, Jeane Moreau

 

Edited by: misswonderly on Apr 6, 2011 12:13 PM

 

Edited by: misswonderly on Apr 6, 2011 12:18 PM

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this discussion is very interesting. We have dozens of young Hollywood "stars" who all look manufactured and pre-fabricated. They all come out with the same nose, the same lips, the same breasts and I can't even tell most of em apart. Now, I am not a big Sarah Jessica Parker fan. I can take her in very small doses. But, thank God, she doesn't look like everybody else. I'm glad she said no to the advice to change her looks. (Don't forget what happened to Jennifer Grey. Great, now she's a 'traditionally' attractive woman, but , damn If I can pick her out in a crowd). I for one am very grateful that they didn't have all the surgical 'technology' 60 years ago they do now. One shudders to imagine Bette Davis with perfect teeth, a Playboy bunny rack and big pouty lips.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't watch enough current movies to have an opinion about actors in them. However, with classic films, there are a few that I will usually give their films a pass even if I have seen a few films with these people in them--I just don't actively seek them out.

 

Men--Humphrey Bogart & Walter Matthau

 

Women--Ginger Rogers, Carole Lombard & Natalie Wood and to a lesser degree Judy Holliday & Leslie Caron

Link to post
Share on other sites

June Allyson, Margaret Sullivan, Shelly Winters . . . they come to mind first.

 

Men? Tim Holt in Madre is in hopelessly over his head with Bogart and Huston, otherwise, he's . . . okay.

 

The new guys . . . Jim Carrie and Robin Williams get vey quickly on my nerves.

Link to post
Share on other sites

> {quote:title=finance wrote:}{quote}

> I disagree about Sullavan, especially in THE SHOP AROUND THE CORNER. Best comic performance by an actress, EVER!

 

And also a bit horsey looking. I have a picture of her all dolled up and glamorous and it just doesn't work. She looks like an unattractive drag queen. She's one actress who needs her smile. I hope she did that photo shoot becasue the studio made her and not because she wanted to. Good commedic actress, but definitely not glamorous. Some actresses just don't. Too wholesome or ordinary looking.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I like Margaret Sullivan. It's true she was not "glamourous" but not all female movie stars should be or are expected to be. She was neither beautiful nor ugly, just an ordinary-looking young woman who by means of her personality and acting style made us believe she was prettier than she actually was. She certainly wasn't "horsey-looking". In fact she had rather small features. She had a lovely voice, and was very good at playing sympathetic characters who were struggling with a problem, either of their own making (*Shop Around the Corner*) or of a much more serious nature (as in *The Mortal Storm*.)

Link to post
Share on other sites

You know, I find it really interesting that this thread topic has so effectively captured the imaginations of posters here in a way that very few do. It's now 14 pages long and counting, and has engaged the attention and participation of more people than most threads do.

 

People must be attracted by the opportunity to vent - it's always enjoyable to express your views on someone you don't like, especially if it seems like almost everybody else does like them. That's why I was gratified to see that I'm not the only one annoyed by Katharine Hepburn, for instance.

 

There seem to be three different thought processes going on here:

1- actors - or actually, mostly actress - who are considered not good-looking enough to be in the movies

2- actors who people think can't act

3- actors who, by something that can't always be defined, irritate the viewer. Maybe it's that they seem pretentious, maybe it's a grating voice, maybe it's heavy eyebrows, could be a comedien who doesn't make you laugh, could be overly-dramatic emoting -the list is endless.

 

I just think it's interesting that the first two items play just as big a role in whether someone likes them or not as the last.

(One example: Someone cited Tim Holt because he's not as strong a presence in *The Treasure of the Sierra Madre* as is Humphrey Bogart. Does this mean he's a poor actor? Does this mean he's irritating? )

 

Edited by: misswonderly on Apr 8, 2011 11:19 AM

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...