Who do YOU think is the WORST of these OVERPAID ACTORS?

Tom Cruise, easily. His various facial tics infuriate me when I see him in a film. I find him unbearable. I have never seen Jennifer Lopez act, maybe she's worse, I don't know. If Angelina Jolie had made the list, it would have been a real difficult choice between her and Cruise.

Actually I've never seen Jennifer Garner either, in fact I don't even know who she is.

Nicole Kidman is fucking useless but I think Jim Carrey will never be good again -- probably the biggest delta

J Lo

jennifer garner's career has been mostly tv stuff, she doesn't belong on that list

everyone on this list has a few good-to-great things on their record that explain their fame except for jennifer garner

This is tough... I think it really depends on what they appear in. Especially Carrey and Farrell, who are both good value for money in the right movie, but in the wrong movie, they're dreadful. Lopez is probably the most overpaid in relation to actual acting ability, just edging out Garner (who isn't as visible in the UK). Cruise went to woodwork class instead of acting school, but he's another case of "right actor right movie" - he was good in "Minority Report", but that's a story where the lead character doesn't move while stuff happens to him. Are we just talking about these people's acting, or are we also considering how bad they are IRL? (eg, TC and $ci3nt0l0gy)

Nicole Kidman
Cameron Diaz
Jim Carrey
Nicolas Cage
Drew Barrymore
Will Ferrell
Cate Blanchett
Jennifer Lopez
Jennifer Garner

All get a pass cuz they've been in things I liked and were at least passable, if not good (and in a couple cases great)

so Cruise wins cuz he is always horrible

I'm going purely on Cruise's acting. He'd probably win any IRL awfulness test as well for me though. I really can't stand anything about him.

I've never seen any of her films, but this is reason enough to vote for Jennifer Garner:

nicole kidman before she wrecked her face was really good but now i can't even tell if her acting is good or not, and she makes pretty bad choices imo.

Are we just talking about these people's acting, or are we also considering how bad they are IRL?

I was thinking more--who's the worst person to put in your (expensive) movie, if you want to turn a profit? But whatever.

kidman's very robotic but she's been put to decent use a couple times so I couldn't rightly call her the WORST. Cruise has never been good in anything.

wow i can't tell how bad that movie is going to be because the preview is mostly incomprehensible. shouldn't there be a v/o on those shits?

xp kidman is kind of lol mostly sad bcz she's pretty great in the shitty movies she's in. a few scenes of stepford wives were like wow

Jon's right about Carrey being finished I think but maybe that's not as bad as being Nic Cage whose name to me now basically means "this is some wretched shit right here starring a dude who can't act with a face like an easter egg".

This list doesn't really make any sense to me. Most of them are on the tail end of their careers after being around for over a decade, and they've all at least had hit movies in the past. Will Farrell being on that list is especially ridiculous, he's like a money machine. Jennifer Garner is actually a pretty decent actress (from her work on "Alias") and I doubt she's getting paid in the same range as most of the others in this list.

Sure, many of them haven't had a good or successful movie in ages, but boo-hoo actors make money they don't deserve, thanks Forbes, I needed to know that.

why is cate blanchett on that list? she's great. voted lopez.

Hey, the methodology might be flawed (it only takes into account their last three movies), but there is a methodology. It's strictly a dollars out/dollars in proposition.

I think I've seen Cage be pretty decent in the past in films other than "Raising Arizona" but it's got to be what, fifteen years? Maybe more.

the bees, the bees

ahhh the bees

Cage had a string of great roles early on ("I've got the TEETH, I've got the HAIR" = hilarity) but he totally blew it in a sad way.

And now he's playing someone named "Bangkok Dangerous".

I was thinking more--who's the worst person to put in your (expensive) movie, if you want to turn a profit?

Then it's definitely Garner. People might object to Cruise's, er, interests, but given the right film they'll still go and see him. Meanwhile, knowing that Garner is in a movie will actively put many people off.

Garner was superb in Juno.

yeah I was about to rate her lowest along with Cruise until I remembered she was in that and was pretty good

I find nothing sad about Nick Cage's post-Oscar career at all. I think he's found his true calling as an actor.

http://www.threethehardway.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/02/ghostrider.jpg

Cage won an Oscar?

Yeah, Con Air did pretty well that year.

cage still does good or at least interesting stuff on occasion (eg adaptation)

i voted for drew barrymore, can't stand her

i dunno she seems so harmless to me. i have nothing against her.

cameron diaz kind of sucks.

cate blanchett does not belong here. i love her.

more like cate BLANDchett

cruise has been pretty good in several movies... now the movies themselves might have been a lot of WTF. Hell, he was a blast in Tropic Thunder, even if they maybe did overdo it a little on the whole all rich, all powerful freakshow.

oh yeah, Diaz is the one I'd pick off this list, def.

I *heart* Garner. Seriously. In my mind, she is a force for good. I blame her entirely for B.Affleck's rise to respectibility, a la Hollywoodland and Gone Baby Gone.

Cameron Diaz, however, didn't even show us her tits in There's Something About Mary, so she's worthless.

Drew Barrymore makes me angry when she shows up in a movie, so her.

Despite the fact that he's been up for any crappy action movie script on offer for well over a decade, Cage was Sailor in 'Wild at Heart", and no-one can ever take that away from him.

People might object to Cruise's, er, interests, but given the right film they'll still go and see him.

Uh, this proposition has not really been tested recently. The only movies he's starred in since the Oprah Couch-Jumping Incident are:

War of the Worlds, which people were going to go see no matter what
Mission Impossible 3, which, ditto
Lions for Lambs, which people avoided like the fucking plague

And those first two were well in the can before the REALLY crazy $cient0l0gy stuff appeared on the web. Aside from his appearance in Tropic Thunder, he's done nothing. Valkyrie has been pushed back twice, three times now? So this remains to be seen.

Meanwhile, knowing that Garner is in a movie will actively put many people off.

I have never heard a single person express this opinion. Heck, her first starring role, in 13 Going On 30, the movie made nearly $60 million on a budget of $37 million.

I think the people who have expressed that opinion saw Daredevil and/or Elektra.

^^^ yes

(I mean, "yes I did")

And Cruise is my second choice for worst. When I said "the right film" earlier, I was thinking of stuff like "Days Of Thunder" and "Minority Report", where Cruise doesn't have to act, because his character does nothing while all the big performances are served up by the cast around him. Even "Top Gun" is like that, although Cruise's is a bit more active in that movie.

Anyone who saw Electra surely went to see it solely for Jennifer Garner clad in tightness. And are in no position to criticize her for being bad in it.

Never enjoyed anything Will Ferrell was in. Thus, him.

tossup between kidman (cannot stand to watch her on screen) and cage (dull dull dull). went for kidman.

the idea that Cruise is worse than Diaz, Ferrell or Barrymore is idiocy. you could argue he's better than all but Blanchett.

oh please do

I mean I actively hate pretty much every movie Cruise has been in (possible exception = Legend, and not because of anything Cruise does in it). I cannot say the same for those others, who at least have the sense to pick better scripts, even if only for small roles.

your not liking the dude or his characters doesn't make him a bad actor, nor does a limited range

There is no fucking way Tom Cruise is better than Nicole Kidman.

if you're in a bunch of shitty movies actively making them shittier with your limited acting chops = you are a shitty actor

Voted for Cruise but I wish I had a do-over to vote for Carrey.

I freely admit that many of Tom Cruise's "shitty" movies have been awesome, but I still hate him. He's not the worst actor on this list, though (JENNIFER LOPEZ, PPL).

yeah, Kidman's definitely a better actress.. better at being boring as shit most of the time

although i have enjoyed a number of his films, and hence did not vote for him, it's almost always in spite of his appearances in them. he IS a bad actor and i also hte him.

Not only do I like "Out of Sight," I think J-Lo was good in "Out of Sight".

Kidman is almost never boring in a movie, wtf

I mean yes, sometimes she is in movies that are about as fun to watch as a bag full of sick ("The Hours") but she's never boring; are you confusing her with Julianne Moore?

xp: Dude, I liked "The Cell"! I still think that, of this list, J-Lo is EASILY the worst actor.

no, moore might be skin-crawling, but she isn't asleep

yeah wondering if i shouldn't have gone J L0. I can't say that I've seen her in much though. I think i saw and didn't hate Out of Sight(?) She looks quite shit in the innumerable chick flick trailers i've endured over the years.

hey xxpost

unless you find yourself with little choice but to watch "Maid in Manhattan" on a three day journey train between Chicago and San Francisco, J-Lo is not offensively terrible.

And "Out of Sight" is great.

cruise is good in lots of movies

And "Out of Sight" is great.

― ShNick (Upt0eleven), Friday, September 12, 2008 6:20 PM (23 seconds ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

yes

yeah I was ready to drop JLo at the bottom too but she is good in Out of Sight. Don't care if I never see her act in anything else though.

I cannot imagine any scenario in which I would actively consider watching a film due to the presence of Jennifer Lopez. So, her.

(I liked Out of Sight, but it did nothing to convince me that I ever wanted to see J-Lo in anything ever again)

what's with the Julianne Moore hate? She's better than at least 2/3rds of this list

The original question is weird. If it's "which one of these will likely never star in a movie that will gross enough to justify his/her exorbitant salary?" then it's obviously Nicole Kidman. Her star's waned since the Oscar; and she's too frosty to carry a $100 million hit anymore.

if you're a corny indie fuxxor, xp

hey, millions of xposts there while I was reading the rest of the thread. And then I just ended up turning into Shakey Mo.

xpost again ... or not, because I hate Julianne Moore. I cannot recall ever not wanting to give her a good slap across her dull-as-fuck face any time I've ever encountered her ruining a film for me.

As Ailsa suggests, whatever you think of Julianne Moore, most offensive is when certain actors show up in films that SHOULD be very watchable but purely due to their presence in them, aren't. Jennifer Lopez keeps herself to crappy films that are going to be crap whether she's in them or not and since we know this, we don't see them.

i get hating tom cruise irl but hes in classic movies and is perfect for those roles. risky business, minority report, mission impossible

eyes wide shut, rain man, top gun

even war of the worlds was far better than i expected it to be.

hahaha Rain Man?!?!??

you can ride my tail any time iceman

moore gets pass for maude lebowski. i'm admittedly out of touch, but i really haven't sen a whole hell of a lot with her except Boogie Nights, Short Cuts, Magnolia, maybe a couple of others..

you can ride my tail any time, rain man

sure, you corny indie fuxor, xxp

Eyes Wide Shut is also awful btw. I was not able to sit through Minority Report. Never bothered with any of the MI movies. Risky Business is fairly crap as far as 80s teen sex comedies go - which is sad cuz its a genre that's pretty hard to fail at. (I would say even Losin It is marginally better)

x-post

maude lebowski is a giant hole of suck in an otherwise passable movie

eyes wide shut stands head and shoulders over any other movie featuring any character on this list

more like ever right? what's the biggest hit kidman carried - that ghost flick a few years back? diaz would be a close runner up there, big hits w/ the right costars but never a true a-lister. garner was pitched as one but isn't ever going to make the leap (it should be noted that alias wasn't even that big a hit on tv really). lopez and barrymore were able to fill those bullock roles w/ some b.o. success. ferrell almost definitely peaked a little while back but doesn't belong on that list. cruise and carrey i could easily see having another big fucking blockbuster, cage is reliable for what he is. the attempt to turn cate blanchett into a big movie star days are over right? she's basically a very attractive, talented character actress now right? someone you cast for what they'll bring to the movie more than what they'll bring to attendance right?

xpost

anyone who doesn't get maude lebowski in that movie probably isn't getting the movie

*gasp*

xx-post Maude was the tits

and i'll take e.t. and eternal sunshine (among others) over eyes wide shut easy

Maude Lebowski is hilaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaarious wtf

que ridiculo

yeah, eternal sunshine is teetering on the edge of that giant hole of suck

you are insane

j-lo is second best after cruise, btw

okay now you're just trolling

to be fair j-lo does remind him of that one maid of his he wants to fuck

no, i'm just not a corny indie fuxor. but i might be wrong about that one - i care more about moonstruck (even tho cher and others really carry that) than out of sight+maid in manhattan.

haha, xp

anyone who knows anything about me knows that i am 100% anti-maid, balls

god i think you have to be head over heels in love w/ some giuliani wetdream of ny to stomach moonstruck or maid in manhattan

sorry i forgot - 'servant'

how much time you spent in ny balls?

big hits w/ the right costars but never a true a-lister.

I thought this said "big tits," which made more sense.

cameron diaz has big tits?

this thread is like a gabbneb v shakey mo rong-off

ytmnd

it's never occurred to me before, but if you come up in coastal CA, you basically have nowhere to be sentimental about, because you're all new and on the frontier and shit, and if you come up in the South and are on the left, place-sentimentality is something you're supposed to feel guilty about, amirite? that's why it was the southerners here who were so up in arms about how racist amelie was, innit?

cap'n-save-a-banlieue

X^D

frankly i have enjoyed many movies involving the actors on this list

Guys, it's Friday night. Go get laid.

i think you were looking for this one, deej

forgot about the firm

forgot about the Mann film.

whereas if you're a post-giuliani nyer a reactionary sentimental vision of a multicultural city like say paris or ny being turned into a whites-only neutered disneyland for rich ppl is something you're supposed to embrace or at best ignore otherwise you might begin to think about who or what exactly yr privilege is built on and then you might (theoretically) feel guilty right? indeed this line of thinking - how great would cities be if they were like the suburbs? - might lead one to eventually start thinking how great would skinflix be if they were sexless and family first and next thing yknow you're endorsing eyes wide shut on the internet.

luv the idea that say and what or pleasant plains or me or name yr ilx southerner aren't totally about some place sentimentality though. god knows ethan never reps the south.

this line of thinking - how great would cities be if they were like the suburbs?

anyone who thinks this is what those movies are expressing has never lived in one of those cities and doesn't understand them

repping a team from the south is not repping the place

nor is repping the culture

anyone who thinks repping a team or the culture isn't repping the south sure as fuck doesn't understand it. plz to tell us about how you saw a nascar 'match' once though.

you still don't understand my point, which is about sentimentality about 'place'

if you want to have a nascar dick-off, be my guest

and considering you couldn't even figure out a stoner movie like lebowski i'm hardly shocked slightly more esoteric sitcome fare like moonstruck or amelie might sail over yr head. maybe one of yr partners has a daughter at radcliffe that's an english major and she can explain it to you (among other things right wink wink nudge nudge wait til the gents at the club hear about this).

i think i can figure lebowski out just fine, even if i generally hate the coen bros, but pls to explain what it's about and what you think i think it's about

one of my partners? lol

if i could read yuppie minds i'd go to bars in buckhead thx

btw i'm a pre-giuliani nyer thx

as is the movie moonstruck, genius

I watched part of Elektra on TV this weekend, and so I am voting Jennifer Garner without even a teensy bit of remorse.

On advise of counsel, I respectfully refuse to answer the question on the grounds that to do so may tend to incriminate me.

WILL FERRELL

this is a great thread

and you are a great poster

Life is Great!

stars hearts clovers rainbows and balloons!

what's the biggest hit kidman carried - that ghost flick a few years back?

Surely Moulin Rouge, no?

Nope: Batman Forever.

Nicole Kidman surely.

I haven't seen Garner in Elektra, but she's been great in everything else I've seen her in. Her Sydney Bristow is one of the great TV characters in recent memory.

Will Ferrel and Jim Carrey are great in comedic roles, but haven't been able to be entirely successful as leading men in dramatic roles. Jennifer Lopez is not a great actress, by any measure.

This list is specious, imo. It's just based on recent box office failures. In any other year, it would be 10 different actors.

Cate Blanchett
* Was dece but fairly standard in Hamlet. Has been similar or less whleming in everything I've seen except Coffee and Cigarettes, which was great, but I'm impressed with how she's going about the dayjob at the moment so thumbs up.

Tom Cruise
* Really terrible in lots of stuff and seemingly incredibly creepy in real-life brain, but too great in Risky Business, Magnolia and Tropic Thunder to rank below some of these others.

Jennifer Lopez
* Good in Out Of Sight, haven't seen anything else.

Jennifer Garner
* Good in Juno, seemed pretty weak in bits of Alias I caught, but certainly doesn't seem to have ideas above her station - romcom and body-swap roles are about what she should be doing so nuff respect.

Cameron Diaz
* another one who doesn't over-reach. Also, good in Being John Malkovich and very good in The Sweetest Thing, and often a pleasure to watch smiling in other stuff.

Jim Carrey
* has done a looot of stuff that's way beyond his reach, both in serious bullshit like the one where he pretended to be a dead war hero or something, and in shit comedy where he thinks mugging will make up for everything else lacking. Has also done good serious bullshit like Eternal Sunshine and lots of great broad mugging comedy, so it balances out.

Will Ferrell
* Strong contender. Can be hilaire in moments but appears to have almost no idea at all how to pitch a performance to the audience or camera, rather than the people on set. Definitely not a good "actor".

Nicolas Cage
* So, so much terrible work in the last [insert chosen timeframe here] but did so much fantastic work in [insert chosen timeframe with earlier start date here] that who gives a fuck. Would still be fantastic if he was doing hammy bullshit with full self-awareness, rather than being ludicrously sensitive about being a serious actor. I'll watch the insane opening ten-minute shot of Snake Eyes if I ever come across it on TV.

Drew Barrymore
* Good as Gertie, sweet enough in romcoms to make Adam Sandler tolerable. Not great, but not bringing too much shame on her head (NB have not seen her in much. May have had a terrible 90s.).

Nicole Kidman
* BMX Bandits, Flirting: A+. Anything else: may as well be mannequin on castors.

if i had to finance movies for all these people, i guess i'd drop jim carrey first because i have no idea who jim carrey's audience is anymore. or i do, but it's people who go to will ferrell movies now. but i've liked all of them in at least a few things, except for jennifer garner who i don't think i've seen in anything. (ok it says she was in catch me if you can, but i have no memory of her.)

Nicholas Cage has done at least three very good performances this decade: Adaptation and The Weather Man were both great and Matchstick Men was surprisingly good too. His performance in The Weather Man was one of his best, though Michael Caine was even better in that one. I've missed most of his genre movies though, so I don't know how bad/good he's in those.

Commercially, all of them except for Nicole Kidman and Jennifer Lopez are worth every penny.

If it's personality, I suspect Kidman to win this. Cruise might but I think he'll still end up second cause he's just "scientologically" crazy so people might forgive his crazy ass couch jumping. Kidman just seems a total raging bitch from what I have read.

Re acting: maybe Kidman as well cause she only had a couple of really great films and the rest was just utter shite. She's also slipping into botox hell which means you won't be able to differentiate between her happy and angry face, an essential thing in acting.

Second up in the acting department is Diaz. But she's quite clever: she usually makes sure she isn't the lead in the movie, which means that if the film flops, she can hide behind that.

I think Cruise has too many decent or good performances (Risky Business, Interview with a Vampire, Legend, Magnolia, Collateral, etc.) for me to vote him. I even liked him in Eyes Wide Shut, I think he's quite good at performing a character who's a passive victim of circumstances (see also Risky Business), even if this might be due to his limited acting skills. Then again, there are quite a few respected actors who had a rather limited palette but were good at picking the roles that fitted them, so I don't think it's necessarily a flaw. I've only seen one movie by Garner and Lopez (Juno and Out of Sight), and they were both fine in them, so I can't judge them based on that alone. I think I have to go for Cameron Diaz. Even though she seems like a more sympathetic person than Cruise or Kidman in real life, I can't really think of any performance by her which would've really stood out, which isn't the case with most of the others on the list.

I am genuinely interested to see who wins this poll.

a first btw

velko's video is so good it needs a re-post

masrock (1 day ago) Show Hide
0 Poor comment Good comment
Marked as spam
Reply | Spam

He Jason Bourne'd that old bitch into the wall LOLOLOLOLOL

the wicker man looks hella awesome

Nicholas Cage = older version of Jake Gyllenhal (sp).

Wicker Man was the funniest film I've ever seen.

10 out of 10 LOL would punch middle aged woman in the face again

swelling with pride here, caek

Nicolas Cage doesn't deserve any money whatsoever

Lopez is the worst by i kinda hate Garner's acting more

This is a very interesting list in that, taken as a group, I can't help but focus on these actors and actresses' weak points. Cameron Diaz and Drew Barrymore's pedestrian dowdiness; Nicole Kidman's lack of empathy; Cage's overacting; Cate Blanchett's (the best of the bunch) mannerisms; Carrey's contortions and recent declamatory incursions. And so on.
It's ironic that Cage and Nicole Kidman (both Oscar winners) are likely to "win" this poll.

Kidman is great. at least till 2006

balls, you tried to get out of explaining what lebowski's about and why maude is so great by talking about buckhead (lol), but one has nothing to do with the other. so?

what's the biggest hit kidman carried - that ghost flick a few years back?

Surely Moulin Rouge, no?

― Phil D. (Pancakes Hackman), Friday, September 12, 2008 9:28 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

Nope: Batman Forever.

― Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Friday, September 12, 2008 9:34 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark

CARRIED. The movie wasn't called "Dr. Chase Meridian Forever." She was billed fourth "Moulin Rouge" she was billed name-above-the-title first.

Oh my gosh, who beat her to the top 3 billing in Moulin Rouge? I hope one of them was John Leguizamo (who was BY FAR the best part of that movie).

Sorry, should be: The movie wasn't called "Dr. Chase Meridian Forever." She was billed fourth. In "Moulin Rouge," she was billed name-above-the-title first.

It's between Diaz or Cage here. Diaz is bad in a mostly harmless way though and Cage did Deadfall so he gets my vote.
You all remember Deadfall, right?

Nicholas Cage.

frankly i think nicolas cage isn't paid enough. his terribleness does not offend me.

i don't know what's up with that but i think it's because i read he had a pet octopus once

Also, I would endure ten Captain Corelli's Mandolins to get another Wicker Man.

ok, that's just contrarian hyperbole but still.

lol

Thinking about it, I quite liked Mission Impossible III, but all the stuff I liked was everything around Cruise, but not necessarily him.

Automatic thread bump. This poll is closing tomorrow.

Will Ferrell is the worst actor of our generation. He has my vote.

Automatic thread bump. This poll's results are now in.

cameron diaz robbed