MovieChat Forums > Derailed (2005) Discussion > A 6.5 rating? Surely you can't be seriou...

A 6.5 rating? Surely you can't be serious!

posted 13 years ago by C.S.Wood
17 replies | jump to latest

I was having a discussion with some acquaintances about bad actors, and long story short Jennifer Aniston's performance in this trash came to mind. The entire movie hinges on her acting, but because she's so awful it brings the entire movie down (not to mention that lame ending).

So I figured I'd look it up and find out it has a 6.5. Where are the ratings police when you need them? No way in hell is this anything about a 2.5. And it's awfully miscast. Clive own is taller and bigger than Cassel, yet gets his ass kicked by him multiple times. And Cassel hammed it up way too much. It worked in Mesrine, but here it just sucks. Melissa George was completely wasted. Xzibit was a stereotype.

And Aniston? Dear God is she awful in this. She's so stiff and emotionless. She puts in so little effort. And why should she? She's been phoning in her "performances" for at least 10 years now and it hasn't hurt her yet.

Don't try to cash in love, that check will always bounce.

[–] SataiDelen 12 years ago

And you're surprised by her (Aniston's) bad acting? I don't think I've EVER seen her in something that she HASN'T been horrible in. That's the problem with Hollywood these days. They go for surface (looks) rather than substance. It really should be required that if you want to act, you either have to go to a School for the Performing Arts, or go to London to be classically trained as a Thesbian/Shakespearian actor/actress. Is it really any wonder that British actors and older American actors (Sally Field, Olympia Dukaukas, Meryl Streep, etc.) are superior to the trash that is turned out in America/Hollywood these days? It's getting depressing to watch a lot of the movies that comes out these days from Hollywood.

[–] C.S.Wood 12 years ago

That's the problem with Hollywood these days. They go for surface (looks) rather than substance. It really should be required that if you want to act, you either have to go to a School for the Performing Arts, or go to London to be classically trained as a Thesbian/Shakespearian actor/actress.

If only.

But there are plenty of bad actors that are good in the right roles. Schwarzenegger was never anywhere near a good actor, but put a machine gun in his hand and he was an action star (Channing Tatum seems to be taking up that honor, unfortunately).

As for Aniston, not only is she a terrible actress, but her looks were never anything special either. Not to be mean, but she never looked like much to me. Same for Cameron Diaz post The Mask.

My feeling is if the actor/star can put butts in seats, it makes sense to keep casting them. But when these people play in bomb after bomb (Aniston, Colin Farrell, Ryan Reynolds, etc) then there's no excuse.

Don't try to cash in love, that check will always bounce.

[–] aloep 12 years ago

Clive own is taller and bigger than Cassel, yet gets his ass kicked by him multiple times.

This was the most pathetically stupid thing in the entire movie. Cassel is really scrawny and weak looking. Maybe if he stood from a distance away and held a gun he would have been more believable, but instead he throws himself in the face of Owen multiple times, unarmed! On the few occasions that Owen attempts to take him on, he always fails miserably. It was almost hilarious, but also annoying at the same time. There is zero chance that someone of Clive Owen's size couldn't overpower Cassel.

[–] aaronevil 11 years ago

I think Jennifer Aniston is among the best actresses in Hollywood. In fact she's my favorite. And I gave this movie a 7.

And now for the rude asinine reply in

3

2

1

go!

[–] C.S.Wood 11 years ago

You're entitled to that opinion. I just happen to strongly disagree with it. Really strongly.

Don't try to cash in love, that check will always bounce.

[–] aaronevil 11 years ago

And I extremely disagree with your opinion. I was unaware of all the Aniston hate until I read threads for this movie. It's as baffling as all the Affleck hate. To me it all seems like it's just the popular thing to do is hate on these actors. It feels like follow the leader, in which each person involved in those webs feels that they are a leader and that their angry opinions about these actors(not the only ones) makes them feel somehow superior.

I don't get it. But, I'm glad I don't have to spew my distaste for someone to give my life meaning.

[–] C.S.Wood 11 years ago

To me it all seems like it's just the popular thing to do is hate on these actors. It feels like follow the leader, in which each person involved in those webs feels that they are a leader and that their angry opinions about these actors(not the only ones) makes them feel somehow superior.

Or, some of us think these actors are bad at what they do and aren't deserving of their fame and success.

I've actually had this discussion on IMDb plenty of times. There are lots of popular actors I like or think are pretty good. Aniston is not one of these actors. I personally feel she phones in a lot of her performances or over exaggerates (depending on the role) and has been sold to us as a sexy person when she's never ever been sexy.

She seems to have coasted on her Friends success longer than her fellow cast members and has never been a consistent box office draw. Compare her to someone like Melissa McCarthy who clearly has talent and isn't just coasting on her looks or past success.

I just find her to be an extremely dull actress who never takes on any challenging roles, and even when she sort of steps out of her comfort zone she always comes off as stiff and unenthusiastic.

Don't try to cash in love, that check will always bounce.

[–] maro8283 11 years ago

I enjoyed this movie & also gave it a 7/10
I just didn't think about the plot holes & went along with the story.
Defiantly didn't see the final twist & came away feeling good.

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] TruthPredator 11 years ago

"Clive own is taller and bigger than Cassel, yet gets his ass kicked by him multiple times."

I'm sure you noticed that despite Clive being taller, and slightly bigger, his character comes across as some pretty boy college educated guy that doesn't know the street, while Cassell's character probably knows his way in and out of a prison, as well as the street....Being simply bigger in know way means you are tougher.

[–] C.S.Wood 11 years ago

I'm sure you noticed that despite Clive being taller, and slightly bigger, his character comes across as some pretty boy college educated guy that doesn't know the street, while Cassell's character probably knows his way in and out of a prison, as well as the street....Being simply bigger in know way means you are tougher.

Sure, but there's a reason why you don't see a guy like Michael Cera beating up a guy like Russell Crowe in movies. If they wanted to make the bad guy look more intimidating they should have cast a bigger actor, or someone of similar size, or cast a shorter actor as the hero. And if I recall he doesn't even try to fight back, does it? He just took the hits, am I right? How can I respect a character that won't even try to fight back?

I had a similar problem in a recent movie called Snitch with The Rock, who was also playing the kind of punk character you described and was getting beat up by guys much smaller than him. It just looks silly. What next? Show Jason Statham getting his teeth kicked in by Paul Rudd?

Yes, I understand a smaller person can beat a larger person, but these are movies and looks are everything and here it just looked stupid.

Don't try to cash in love, that check will always bounce.

[–] TruthPredator 11 years ago

Fair enough.

[–] Synthia7 11 years ago

If they wanted to make the bad guy look more intimidating they should have cast a bigger actor, or someone of similar size, ....

If the creators of this movie cast a big, tough guy it would destroy one of the major themes in this film.

Those who claim it's stupid that Clive Owen's character is intimidated by one of lesser stature are really the stupid ones because a crucial thematic point went way over their heads.

Don't you think it occurred to the moviemakers that the villain was rather lightweight physically? Think people.

[–] C.S.Wood 11 years ago

If the creators of this movie cast a big, tough guy it would destroy one of the major themes in this film.

Those who claim it's stupid that Clive Owen's character is intimidated by one of lesser stature are really the stupid ones because a crucial thematic point went way over their heads.

Don't you think it occurred to the moviemakers that the villain was rather lightweight physically? Think people.

Oh, of course. Silly me. It was of course the filmmaker's intention to cast a shorter guy as the villain just like it was the filmmakers intention to cast a 5.7 actor as Jack Reacher. The fact Tom Cruise wanted to play that role had nothing to do with it whatsoever.

Both Owen and Cassel were still rising stars when this would have gone into production. It makes more sense that Cassel was cast first, then Owen was cast later, in which case they would've had to just go with the height discrepancy.

And keep in mind you are defending filmmakers that thought casting Xzibit was a good idea. XZIBIT. Let that little fact keep you awake at night.

I'm also reminded of another film with The Rock called Snitch where he plays the same basic role as Owen in this film and there are scenes where he is getting beat up even though he is, well, The Rock. You could still tell he had tons of muscle under his clothes yet he was getting his but kicked by much smaller dudes. It just doesn't look good on camera regardless of the filmmaker's intentions.

Don't try to cash in love, that check will always bounce.

[–] Synthia7 11 years ago

C.S.Wood said:

Oh, of course. Silly me. It was of course the filmmaker's intention to cast a shorter guy as the villain just like it was the filmmakers intention to cast a 5.7 actor as Jack Reacher. The fact Tom Cruise wanted to play that role had nothing to do with it whatsoever.

Both Owen and Cassel were still rising stars when this would have gone into production. It makes more sense that Cassel was cast first, then Owen was cast later, in which case they would've had to just go with the height discrepancy.

And keep in mind you are defending filmmakers that thought casting Xzibit was a good idea. XZIBIT. Let that little fact keep you awake at night.

I'm also reminded of another film with The Rock called Snitch where he plays the same basic role as Owen in this film and there are scenes where he is getting beat up even though he is, well, The Rock. You could still tell he had tons of muscle under his clothes yet he was getting his but kicked by much smaller dudes. It just doesn't look good on camera regardless of the filmmaker's intentions.

Yes, silly you. Because your whole post is a non-sequitur. I said there was a thematic reason for the physical irony -- and your retort discussed everything BUT theme.

I happen to have seen Snitch with The Rock (who was my reason for renting it) and it was a terrible movie because his strength and power were muted. The Rock was certainly miscast but that WAS NOT due to theme and therefore is not comparable to this movie AT ALL.

Here is a repost of what I said in another thread regarding theme:
SynthiaRose said:

It's irony. LaRouche shouldn't really scare Chuck. But Chuck is a COWARD. That is what the movie is about. The whole movie traces how Chuck evolves from a spineless, passive coward to a person who can take control of the chaos in his life.

When his friend Winston mentions that his gun is not loaded, but that you have to project strength... this is the theme of the story and also a nod to what LaRouche is doing. No, LaRouche isn't big or muscular, i.e.... he isn't a loaded gun. But he does project power and strength .... so, the illusion that Chuck can't beat LaRouche thrives because of that.

LaRouche believes and acts on his own self-myth while Chuck acts on his (as a powerless person at the mercy of his boss, his stressful home life, LaRouche and basically everyone).

[–] C.S.Wood 11 years ago

Yes, silly you. Because your whole post is a non-sequitur. I said there was a thematic reason for the physical irony -- and your retort discussed everything BUT theme.

You are not understanding a word I am saying. The "theme" as you perceive it is made inconsequential by the fact that the audience can't buy into the film because the visual juxtaposition of the hero and the villain is so miss-matched. You simply can not set your hero up as a weakling yet have him appear to be much bigger/taller than his nemesis.

This is about bad casting. I like Clive Owen but he was BADLY miscast here. He just does not come off as a convincing weakling. It would be like casting Bruce Willis or Mel Gibson in that same role, it wouldn't work. And don't get me started on Jennifer Aniston, whose acting torpedoes the entire film.

I happen to have seen Snitch with The Rock (who was my reason for renting it) and it was a terrible movie because his strength and power were muted. The Rock was certainly miscast but that WAS NOT due to theme and therefore is not comparable to this movie AT ALL.

Because it doesn't fit your argument? Which is why you ignored my Jack Reacher reference. The character is supposed to be a really tall guy and they cast Tom Cruise because he's Tom Cruise. This has nothing at all to do with the film's theme, it's about casting. If Tom Cruise were interested in Owens' role he would have gotten it and an effort would have been made to make them appear to be at least the same height, not have Cruise look 4 inches taller than Cassel.

But this is all just a wasted argument since the film has so much bigger problems than the height difference. It's a terrible movie through and through and isn't worth the time we've spent discussing it here.

Don't try to cash in love, that check will always bounce.

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]