MovieChat Forums > Jon Favreau Discussion > Worst actor or director?

Worst actor or director?

posted 5 years ago by Heisenberg (6730)
18 replies | jump to latest

I don't know why this guy grinds me the wrong way.
He seems like a decent enough fella. But I cannot tolerate his mediocrity.
He seems like he's a scoundrel who sneaked into the business, with very little talent but with some good connection and a huge amount of luck.
He's not funny. He looks like shit. His acting is abysmal.

He is an ok writer, if movies like Swingers can be considered good writing...
As a director he is just a corporate slave with very little talent (again).
He directed a bunch of shitty movies with below average directing qualities, including that godawful borefest that is Ironman. But he used hard rock oldies in the soundtrack so he's a genius!
He's barely ok with indie looking pics like Made or Chef (that cost more than 10 real indy pictures combined), meaning he can handle some light bickering or some mild humour. Nothing really moving, emotional, nor exciting: some flat action but nothing interesting, don't worry. That's his directing.

So, this famous fat fart, I can't decide myself: is he a worst actor or director?

[–] kukuxu (5409) 5 years ago

Mediocrity???

He fucking created the Marvel formula that has been repeated again and again in Marvel movies. He was the first one to create a successful remake of the classic Disney movies. And he's the only one in the new Disney Star Wars that has created something which has been widely approved. How is that mediocre?

[–] thenewnexus (1911) 5 years ago

Most of the MCU Movies are average or terrible. Faverau is good when hes given freedom its clear hes held back when making Marvel movies,look at the Russos they made Extraction on Netflix its actually way better than any of the marvel movies they worked on even Winter Solider(Which is arguably the best mcu movie)

[–] Heisenberg (6730) 5 years ago

I see zero creativity in anything you just described, zero talent and zero art.

He takes zero risks, has zero vision and zero balls.

He has some ability for being not too offensive, not too awful, maybe not as bad as others.
Just enough to do his little corporate homework and make everybody at the box office happy.

That's mediocrity in its essence. At "mediocre" the dictionary should put his picture.

BTW, "marvel formula"? WTF are you talking about? That's as safe, boring, plain and phoned in as superhero movies have ever come. Tim Burton looks like Orson Welles compared.

[–] Otter (24464) 2 years ago

"He fucking created the Marvel formula that has been repeated again and again in Marvel movies. "

I REALLY wants to know if he's been getting royalties for that.

[–] johnmiller (3889) 2 years ago

It is a formula. And just as exciting. Watching 2 to 3 hours of computer effects just isn't that exciting.

[–] Kowalski (75523) 2 years ago

THAT STATEMENT IS FAIRLY FALSE...AND MILLIONS OF PEOPLE ENJOY THE MOVIES AND FIND THEM EXCITING. NOEMOJI

[–] mikethemartian (6708) 2 years ago

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=06xEPdTQSw8

[–] BeaSouth (3282) 2 years ago

https://youtu.be/LVji4cuekCw

[–] FilmBuff (7234) 2 years ago

Wow, could not disagree more. He's great as an actor, but even better as a director. I consider him the most underrated director working today.

[–] Heisenberg (6730) 2 years ago

What do you find underrated about him?
Which side of his "style" deserves more attention from critics or audiences?

[–] FilmBuff (7234) 2 years ago

He's our modern-day Spielberg, yet the general public is barely aware he exists.

[–] Heisenberg (6730) 2 years ago

That is a big fucking laugh.
I am not a big fan of Spielberg, but he should not be mentioned in the same sentence as this derivative hack.
One is inventive, original, has a style, a vision and themes. And made many history making films.
The other just knows what sells and goes for it.
Fuck, Michael Bay is a better and truer artist than this hack, and I cannot think of any bigger insult.

[–] FilmBuff (7234) 2 years ago

You obviously dislike him. I think of Favreau and Spielberg as being very similar. They both create entertaining, interesting films that please audiences, but aren't your typically dumbed down blockbuster fare. They create stories that resonate with audiences, and they do so in ways that perfectly toe the line between the familiar and the new, as they build immersive worlds onscreen into which audiences can lose themselves.

[–] Heisenberg (6730) 2 years ago

Yes, true.
But that goes for almost anybody else too.
I understand where you're coming from with your appreciation for this hack: compared to the soulless, stupid shit that comes out nowadays he is ok.
But that's why I called him mediocre: he barely passes the grade, he does his little homework to be better than, I don't know, Jurassic Park 6, and calls it a victory. Come on...he has a very limited vision of movies, filmmaking and art in general, he's the Quiznos of cinema, making cheap fast food but thinking he's fancy only because he's not as crappy as your average McD.
Spielberg compared to him is, well, Spielberg:-), he doesn't just do his well crafted little story, he wants to amaze the audience and give them an experience that nobody has given them before.
But unfortunately for this hack, that is way beyond his shortcomings: Spielberg holds a camera, creates a sequence, builds his action and prepares his shot with a style that sweats out of his movies. The exact same way the lack of style exumes from every frame this hack shoots with his "let's see, how do you properly do this? Let me consult the "How to Direct a Movie" guide" vision.

Anyway, I guess you consider him a worst actor than director.

[–] kukuxu (5409) 2 years ago

He's our modern-day Spielberg

That's too much of a stretch. Spielberg is probably the greatest pop-corn director in history. There's no director right now that can compare to him during the 80s. Indeed, there's very few ones that could compare to him in that style. You have Hitchcock, of course, and maybe Michael Curtiz, or Howard Hawks, or DW Griffith, I don't know.

That said, if I had to pick a couple of directors in the pop-corn genre right now, it would be Nolan and Favreau.

[–] FilmBuff (7234) 2 years ago

Hitchcock, Griffith and Hawks are more in line with Nolan, at least by my reckoning. Curtiz I do see as in the same vein as Spielberg and Favreau.

[–] kukuxu (5409) 2 years ago

I agree. I'd label these two groups as the emotional vs the intellectual ones.

[–] Kowalski (75523) 2 years ago

POSTS LIKE THIS REMIND US ALL WHAT A GREAT BIG TWIT YOU ARE. NOEMOJI