You're a little too harsh about the others. PLENTY of actors have not been seen as "good" until they worked for the right director or had a good script. Comeon, Lecter, I expect better from you.

No. Just no. Jesse Bradford is not a good actor in this or any other film or even universe and realm of reality. Adam Beach? Ryan Phillippe?? Paul freakin' Walker???

And Jarhead "screamed" awards and Jamie Foxx was a more powerful player in Hollywood than George Clooney, huh?

It's great how hindsight tells some people who the great ones are, just like some people can read the future and determine what performances will happen without even seeing a frame of film.

Huh? I don't think anyone predicted awards for Foxx either. I'm pretty sure he did a better job, though, than those hacks above. You know, for some actors, I don't need to see anymore frames to know how bland they are. Orlando Bloom is another one of this kind. For some reason, working with Ridley Scott and Cameron Crowe didn't exactly bring the good actor out of him either.

And if Phillippe or Beach or any of the others get nominated what are you going to say then?

That Eastwood and Haggis sucked off a lot of folks in the Academy

See, that Bloom comment is just hanging on to bashing for the sake of bashing, because he was actually pretty decent in Elizabethtown. Bloom's performance wasn't the problem. Haven't seen Kingdom of Heaven.

Phillipe was good in Crash. Eastwood is somebody I trust more than you when determining who can act and who can't, and I don't mean that as an insult. I trust him more than myself, too.

No, I have seen Elizabethtown and don't tell me whether I bash him for the sake of bashing or not because I'd know it better. He pretty much ruined the film to me. Yes, it had other problems, but with a competent lead, it could have restored some of the potential.

Yeah, that sounds about your level.

Obviously both of them got to you as well : )

Ok, Lecter, it's clear that you know who can act and who can't act more than Clint Eastwood, who has acted with and directed people like Gene Hackman, Meryl Streep, Morgan Freeman, Sean Penn, Tim Robbins, Hilary Swank, and himself to Oscar nominations, and in most cases, wins.

My mistake for putting my faith in the wrong guy, as you are clearly the authority here. Happy now?

Apparently I know who can act better than Cameron Crowe and Ridley Scott, so, heck, why not!

I think Bradford could have potential, he's never been bad, he's never done anything really all that memorable, he could go either way. Phillippe is one of those actors who I never recall much after seeing, his performances neither impress or unimpress me, and Walker just sucks, but Eastwood is directing so even though I am not big on haggis and thecast sounds iffy I like Eastwood and the premise and Beach is good, so I am reserving judgement.

I want Flags to be good, and bad/medicore actors have given good performances when given a script that played to their skills. So while I think Walker is the defintion of suck, maybe he's right for this role *prays*

Bradford was one of the worst things about Bring It On and he was very bland in Swimfan and Clockstoppers.

I didn't see the later, as for the former two he was jsut there in both, he wasn;t bad but he didn;t impressme, so I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. his performance hsa never made me dislike a movie, but its never added anything to it. FoF is his chance to show he wants to be an actor, and not another teen movie start that disappears after a few years.

Kirsten dunst and gabrielle were so good in Bring It On, and he had the most useless and unwritten chracter its nto surprising he was juts here, and well Swimfan wasn;t very good but at least Erka Christensen got to play the bad perosn role, which is at least gives her something to do. This is Bradford first role he has more to do then be cute.

I basically have no expectations for him at all, whereas Paul Walker makes me very nervous, I've found his performances suck the life force out of any film I have seen him.

It's all a matter of taste and faith though. You and Lecter disagree because you've swallowed the belief pill and he (and I) haven't. These actors, I can't stand either, and personally I don't even think Million Dollar Baby or Mystic River was flawlessly casted or performed. There were a lot of acting notes in both films that didn't sit right with me (fewer in MDB because the three primaries were so good). I can't even say I enjoyed Bacon in Mystic River. And I won't get into the other films directed by Eastwood, which I feel are far more inconsistent.

Flags, as a tech heavy epic... more tech heavy than basically any of his other films, wouldn't necessarily need acting nominations to get nominated, and if it was I could see it doing it without acting nominations.


Might I add that these people were far from bad or mediocre or unknown actors when they worked with Eastwood. In all fairness, this isn't a great comparison with the cast of Flags. Watanabe in the other film, sure.

Whether (IMO) Clint Eastwood can "turn shit into gold" is another question that nobody here can answer, but we can surely guess.

Andaroo = Debbie Downer

Do you like anything? It just seems like you have a terribly bleak perspective lately.

I'm only really looking forward to the Iwo Jima movie, to the Children of Men, The Fountain, Marie Antoinette, ummm... a few more. No shot for any of them in my opinion. I'm starting to look forward to the Little Children and the Queen movie.

None of the Oscar aiming movies look good this year to me. Dreamgirls, Flags, Shepherd, Departed, Good German... they all look so generic and ... just blah.

I don't deny that they have a good shot, especially Dreamgirls IMO, but beyond the technicalities of the "Oscar game" none of them excite me in the least.

I saw a movie last night... Kekexili: Mountain Patrol that was utterly fantastic. A deep moving true-life Moby Dick story with beautiful cinematography. Not perfect, but pretty great.

Well, hopefully you'll enjoy more than the few you look forward to. It's might be hard to enjoy them if you've already made your mind up, though, so just try to be open to one of them surprising you and being better than expected. Sorry that you're not up for what's on the horizon this season.

I think that lots of stuff looks very promising. I'm hoping for the best. I definitely don't want to see another year like last year, where so many promising films came up short.

That's my big fear too... that I won't be able to enjoy anything. Usually I'm pretty good at turning it off and walking into a film and finding enjoyment of it (if possible)... sometimes I have to clear my mind like what happened with Passion of the Christ, to see it as without bias as possible... I'm afraid, I won't try anything until DVD this year because I'm so burned out on these types of movies.

I am afraid that I won't give Flags a fair shot because I hate the actors so much (you knew of my hatred for Phillipee for a few years now I think... since Gosford Park, so it's nothing new because of Eastwood).

I'm more jazed about the Iwo Jima movie then Flags, but I am trying not to let my hatred Paul Walker and my less then stellar thoughts of Haggis effect my thinking of the film.

I would expect Mav to be more jazzed thent he rest of us, given that he is a biger fan of Hagigis thenmyself or Andaroo, so that right there helps alot.

I am keeping an open mind on Flags, but if Paul Walker doesn;t up his game or spend most of the movie doing nothing then chances are I won't be please.

I find thta if I see less movies i enjoy movies more, I am alot pickeir then I was before, and so I find myself less disappointed, b/c I had gotten to the point were i liked nothing.

You do know that Walker only has a small role, don't you? He's not the star of the movie and his part isn't even on the same level as supporting players like Jamie Bell. The way some of you people are going on about this you'd think Walker was the star of the bloody thing.