Okay, I’ll bite.
Nicole Kidman. I never believed in that term “chemistry” until I saw the laughable attempt at romantic engagement between her and Jude Law (Jude Law being a perfectly decent actor in his own right) in Cold Mountain. She almost always leaves me cold. Birth was such a poorly presented movie anyway, her “acting” threw it right into the realm of uncomfortably inept. I think Eyes Wide Shut would have been a much better film if it wasn’t basically about my two least favorite actors ever, right when they were in a relationship with each other.
Kidman has tried desperately to remake herself as an art-house actress, but she just doesn’t have it in her. It’s really annoying because she’s getting into movies that otherwise look like they’d be really interesting.
—PolarisDiB
Jude Law is a bad actor – he always looks smarmy and egocentric. Nicole Kidman can act – her scenes in EWS are examples of powerful acting. She’s also great in TO DIE FOR. Of course, if you have a personal dislike for an actor – as I have for Jude Law, Robin Williams and Whoopi Goldberg – then nothing will convince you he or she is capable of giving a good performance.
Nicholas Cage
There was that brief period a few years back, where people tried to make Orlando Bloom a leading man, and understandably failed. The Pirates movies were supposed to be his thing, but the studio almost immediately pushed him to the side once they understood that Johnny Depp was the only leading man on screen.
Another recent pick would be Shia LaBeouf. I’m still confused as to why Speilberg has decided that this little punk deserves to be, and is capable of becoming, a leading man.
Brad Pitt. i like him, i really do, think he’s a good enough actor, but unless you surround him with lots of talent, or wise-cracks i guess, i don’t think he has what it takes to carry a whole film on his own. i finally realised this when i saw The Assasination of Jesse James…, a film i LOVED, but was glad there was so much more going on because if they had to rely only on his Jesse James then the movie would’ve been a waste.
I think the same can be said for Leonardo DiCaprio.
Pretty much anyone staring in movies now (with a few exceptions).
Clint Eastwood
Eh, the whole “everything now sucks, everything then was great” thing is kinda old. So here’s an older actor who lacked the charm and charisma to carry a film
Julie Andrews.
Robert, if that comment is directed at me, I would like to point out that I do not believe everyone was once great. I feel that there are very few ‘famous’ actors that have the presence or charisma to carry a movie.
Soybean, I couldn’t disagree more. I feel DiCaprio is currently the best actor working, meaning De Niro and a few others are better but not anymore with the choices they make. The fact that DiCaprio wasn’t nominated for Revolutionary Road let alone win for it leaves me flabbergasted.
Anthony Hopkins and robert downey jr, and val kilmer are amazing actors and carry anything they are in
Just restricting myself to two, otherwise I’ll be here all day:
Ben Affleck
Catherine Zeta Jones
@Drew, I don’t think that he is a bad actor. in fact he is one of the actors working today that seems to get better over time, but I have yet to see him carry a film, much the same way Marq described Brad Pitt. I have not seen Revolutionary Road yet. Happy Easter everyone, eat to many deviled eggs.
I, too, must restrict myself:
Will Smith.
I would disagree with almost everyone’s choices here. Most of the actors mentioned have plenty of talent, ability, and charisma to carry their films and roles. Names such as Gregory Peck, Nicole Kidman, Julie Andrews, Clint Eastwood, Leonardo DiCaprio, Jude Law, or Nicholas Cage being considered in such a context justs emphasizes what a subjective exercise this is. All of these are fine talents – whether you personally like them or their role, or not. Let’s move on to something more constructive, folks. Personally, I am a fan of most of the actors named – esp. Nicole Kidman and Jude Law who I think are almost always excellent. They often carry the movie for me.
see, i think Leonardo DiCaprio has more screen presense than most of his contemporaries and his co-stars. for instance, as much as i enjoy films with Matt Damon in them, comparing these actors in The Departed i’d say of the two of them DiCaprio had more presense and talent than Damon did. the Bourne films are fun to watch, but Damon, as well as his character, is stiff, dry, and other than being able to kick everyone’s ass, is kind of a boring person. he comes across that way in alot of the film i see him in. i also really enjoyed The Talented Mr. Ripley, but none of the actors in that film—not even Cate Blanchett, whom i LOVE—carried that movie. i enjoyed that based on the story and the film’s structure and style. Titanic, a film i could live without, is partly watchable because of its two leads—DiCaprio and Kate Winslet. and although his acting isn’t always great—The Gangs of New York, as best example—because he’s got charisma, style, and presense enough to carry the film (along with the help from other fine actors, thank you Daniel Day Lewis for existing) its much more watchable than if a lesser actor—Matt Damon, perhaps—had been in the same role.
Le Feu Follet
My candidates:-
Gregory Peck
Charlotte Rampling
Rutger Hauer