MovieChat Forums > John Cusack Discussion > Literally Nic Cage

Literally Nic Cage


Cusack is pretty much interchangeable with Cage these days: bad hair pieces, direct to video mid-budget thrillers, confused shouting in place of acting. It seems like there isn't a script he won't turn down. Is he actually a good actor? It seems like he's rarely cast against type, or perhaps has an extremely limited range, basically acting like Lloyd Dobler when he's supposed to be Edgar Allen Poe.

I feel like if he's going to do all these lousy paycheck movies, then he should follow Cage's lead and ham it up a little more. Nic Cage elevates garbage like Wicker Man and Drive Angry by virtue of acting SO HARD that you can't look away. I fear Cusack is going to drift further into obscurity with barely passable junk like Cell.

reply

I agree that at least Cage does something with his parts even if it is ridiculous. Cusack is clearly just cashing a paycheck. I just watched Arsenal. Bad movie with a fun Cage performance and a pathetic Cusack performance.

reply

Well, I wouldn't judge Cusack or even Cage by those recent films. Cusack is no Philip Seymour Hoffman but he's a decent actor.
I miss John Cusack of Being John Malkovich, High Fidelity, ..

reply

It's true that even though Nick Cage's movies lately are terrible, at least his performances are so over the top ridiculous, you can't fall asleep during it, compared to Cusack's phoned in performances. Perfect example is Arsenal.

reply

I'm referring to their recent movies, particularly Arsenal. Love both actors.

reply

Yeah I agree with you on that.

Nick Cage always had that style and energy to go over the top. He does that in his good films too. He's just damn entertaining.

Cusack doesn't have that.

reply