I'm a fan of John Cusack, but I don't see him as an Edgar Allan Poe character. RDJ would fit better in the darker role.
Thoughts?
cuballsak wuz horrible. they shudve cast depp
I live, I love, I slay, and I'm content
What an idiotic comment. Cusack was excellent in the role, and fit the film perfectly. If the filmmakers had cast Depp, it would have been a different movie, and not the one they wanted to make. If you want a movie about EAP with Depp as the lead, by all means write up a proposal and see if you can sell it to a film company.
I suspect you watched the film - if you actually bothered to watch it before complaining here about its Depp-lessness - desperately wanting it to be something other than what it obviously was, from both the adverts and all the trailers. If only a Johnny Depp movie would satisfy you, why not just wait until Dark Shadows in a couple of weeks?
"Cum simioli e culo meo volent."
[deleted]
"desperately wanting it to be something other than what it obviously was,"
Well, that's not a fair thing to say at all. I think when most people go into movies, they are wanting it to be a worthwile experience, at the least. The movie ended up being only partially enjoyable, but mostly subpar.
And I actually do think (without changing a line of dialogue, or camera angle, or an edit) that Johnny Depp would have been a more enjoyable Edgar Allan Poe, and I liked John Cusack just fine in the movie. The movie still wouldn't have been that great, but I do think that Depp would have been a better Poe.
I will NEVER say anyone else would be better than John Cusack. However, God rest his soul, I could definitely see Heath Ledger carry this role just as well.
shareHe could probably play the dead sailor in the dress pretty well, but anything else is a stretch.
---
Scientologists love Narnia, there's plenty of closet space.
i wuz gonna defend myself but lookz like somebody alredy did 4 me.
time 2 face da factz:
fact: cuballsak is not leadin man material. name 1 film he leadz and wuz actually a grate movie insted of b material?
fact: he'll never be considered 4 oscarz. not dat they r important, but it does show signz of grateness if u catch da academy's attention. im not really sure depp will win either but 2 be honest he did some orig work wid potc, a movie dat most ppl wuz expectin 2 bomb
fact: hez just not good lookin enuf or have any screen presence. i think u need 2 have 1 or another. hes kinda like dat guy in prince of persia - not quite dat grate lookin and zero screen presence. dont get me wrong, u dont need 2 be purdy 2 headline a movie - nicholson, ddl, kevin spacey, ed norton - these r not good-lookin ppl but r very captivatin 2 watch...basically a-listaz
fact: cuballsak is never an a-lista and never will be
I live, I love, I slay, and I'm content
John Cusack is, like most of his characters, an unconventional hero. Wary of fame and repelled by formulaic Hollywood fare, the Chicago-born actor has built a successful career playing underdogs and odd men out--all the while avoiding the media spotlight.
shareiow, a b-lista
I live, I love, I slay, and I'm content
you realize that your spelling and grammar make it impossible to respect your thoughts? even if you were making a worthwhile argument it would be failed by your writing. grow up.
shareso adultz dont txt?
Werd 2 ur mudda, bruddafvcka
Maybe the poor people who still have flip phones and non-qwerty keyboard phones write like that, but most people willing to post that much are probably using a computer; it's more of a hassle typing like that than just regular spelling lol.
You're doing it intentionally though, therefore, nobody can respect anything you say because it in fact seems childish. Ergo, you're trolling.
i apologize 4 bein poor n usin a flip fone. and who usez ergo? losah!
Werd 2 ur mudda, bruddafvcka
You called loser, ergo, you're a loser, you insecure bastard.
As for "who usez ergo": merely those who choose to. You can't judge a person's entire character by it (though it does point towards pseudointellectuality... oops).
---
Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn
nah, it merely hintz on faux intellect and utter pretentiousness
Werd 2 ur mudda, bruddafvcka
THIS IS WHAT I JUST SAID WHAT THE HELL
---
Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn
pt begz 2 be iterated 2 get it across
Werd 2 ur mudda, bruddafvcka
pt begz 2 be iterated 2 get it acrossSorry, this one was indecipherable. share
"The point begs to be iterated (repeated) in order to get it across."
Personally speaking, I think it was his cover for misunderstanding what the guy said.
Strip away the phony tinsel of Hollywood and you find the real tinsel underneath.
No, it merely hints at faux-intellect and utter pretentiousness.share
I apologize for being poor and using a flip phone. Plus, who uses the word, "ergo"? Loser!share
So adults don't text?share
Enjoy the gig at McDonald’s. Or prison.
shareIn other words, a B lister.share
I believe your insistence on referring to Mr. Cusack as "cuballsak" speaks for itself - you watched the movie (again, if you DID watch the movie) with the idea that if John Cusack was the lead, it must suck, because in your OPINION, Cusack sucks.
Cusack may not have had a lot of big roles recently, but his older work was pretty good. He has always tended to pick quirkier stuff. I liked his lead roles in the 80's teen comedies like Savage Steve Holland's "Better Off Dead" and "One Crazy Summer"; he's good as the male lead in "The Grifters"; does effective low-key leads in romantic comedies like "High Fidelity" and "Serendipity"; and "Gross Point Blank" was a lot of fun.
Being considered (or not) for an Oscar is certainly not an indication of the quality of one's work. 99.99% of all actors will never get even a nomination to the annual Hollywood circle-jerk, and will never miss it. They'll just go on doing quality work regardless of what awards they may or may not get.
The insistence on having "pretty" people in lead roles is such an Americanism. I appreciate the filmmakers' decision to cast someone with a physical resemblance to Poe, and not cater to the segment of the movie-going public who judge performance by physical beauty. Your assessment of Cusack's screen presence is your opinion, and others may have a different assessment. Clearly, the filmmakers thought he had enough stage presence for the lead role, and since they had the skill and the backing to actually get the film through to distribution, I'm inclined to give their opinion more credence than yours.
All that being said, you are entitled to your opinion, but you should never mistake opinion for fact, and never be surprised when others disagree with your opinions.
"Cum simioli e culo meo volent."
da low rt score spkz 4 itself.
I live, I love, I slay, and I'm content
I don't know what it was in April (I'd guess higher than now), but how is 6.4 low? That's clear above average. I take it you're one of those who thinks he knows movies, yet has never, ever seen a really bad one. You should check out some 1, 2, 3 and 4/10 movies; you'll appreciate the good ones -- even if they aren't GREAT ones -- a lot more. I recommend Godfrey Ho's movies. Any of them.
---
Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn
B-lister IS a FACT!
---
Scientologists love Narnia, there's plenty of closet space.
Seriously? How can anyone take your opinion with serious meaning with your pathetically childish version of typing your words.
Grow up. Learn to use grammer correctly and for *beep* sake- SPELL your words.
I mean, you spend MORE time and effort typing *beep* out like that to "appear trendy and cool" then you would if you just typed like you were not a jackass. Do you actually talk like that in person?
No one could read your mess of a *beep* opinion and take it seriously, or even care. Too bad IMDB does not require people to have a certain IQ before having the ability to post *beep* Do you actually feel clever and intelligent continually reusing the term "Cuballsak"? Because spelling out SACK correctly was such a trouble for you.
Please get an education and self respect or just drown yourself. This is ridiculous.
To the Original Poster- I agree completely! Robert Downy jr would have been an excellent choice to represent Poe. I believe he would have been able to do it with more realistic mannerisms in regards to Poe. Sherlock Holmes is not, nor will ever be Gothic. Not sure why that one poster assumed that.
Why in the hell are you writing in street slang? You sound like a tool! You're not even *beep* consistent, sometimes you toss in a "D" for a "th"...and sometimes you just go for the full on "TH," slang be damned.
By the way, what's the deal with "wuz"??? I get the concept of abbreviations (the letter "R" is quicker to type than the word "are," which plays well for people with inch long ... attention spans), I GET THAT, but surely you must have noticed that "wuz" and "was" have EXACTLY the same amount of letters? On top of that, the three letters "w"-"a"-"s" are right next to each other on your damned keyboard! You couldn't wish for an easier *beep* word to type!
Uhm....how about Identity? That movie was fantastic and he was the lead.....
share with the fact I flunked grammar
"It was only heavy petting with a brief moment of penetration"
I was going to defend myself, but it looks like somebody already did it for me.share
Time to face the facts:
Fact: Cusack is not leading man material. Name one film he leads and was actually a great movie, instead of B material.
Fact: He'll never be considered for an Oscar. Not that they are important, but it does show signs of greatness if you catch the Academy's attention. I'm not really sure Depp will win either, but to be honest, he did some original work with Pirates of the Caribbean, a movie that most people were expecting to bomb.
Fact: He's just not good looking enough, nor does he have any screen presence. I think you need to have one or the other. He's kind of like that guy in Prince of Persia; not quite great looking, and zero screen presence. Don't get me wrong, you don't need to be pretty to headline a movie. For example; Jack Nicholson, Daniel Day Lewis, Kevin Spacey, Edward Norton, these are not good looking people, but they are very captivating to watch. Basically A listers.
Fact: Cusack is never an A lister, and never will be.
I loved Cusack in it.
It's jUsT LiKe cAbO
[deleted]
Cusack was horrible. They should have cast Depp.share
I have yet to see this one -- though I'm NOT a fan of Cusack at the least. RDJ sounds like someone who could pull off a better Poe though. I'd be exciting for that film.
This, well... I'm going to give it a shot because it's Poe.
-Nave
No, Downey is horrible.
shareI respectfully do not agree. RDJ does not need to be typecast in roles like this, and Cusack played a reserved, dignified Poe. When he did have outbursts, they were not over acted either. RDJ will have projects fit for him, but this had to have been a challenge for Mr. Cusack, and I feel he did it very well. I'm not a big fan of his, but this seems to be a role that was very well directed and he did not over act.
shareI love RDJ but no. Cusack was well cast. Have you ever seen a picture of Poe? Cusack is a much better look then RDJ for him. Also, RDJ has too much swagger for Poe.
shareDowney would have turned Poe, the literary giant who CREATED The Short Story form into the kind of wiseass asshole that Robert Downey always plays. He lacks both the self-restraint and intelligence (of a certain type; he is not stupid, but he is egotistical and self-impressed) to play a convincing Edgar Allen Poe.
share[deleted]
No. Much as I love RDJ's work, this role called for something a bit more restrained from its lead than the over-the-top performances RDJ usually delivers. I think Cusack was perfect.
"Cum simioli e culo meo volent."
Dont get me wrong, im a huge fan of Robert Downey Jr, but Cusack was perfection for this role, i honestly cant imagine anyone playing it better, so no. I dont think Downey would of have been better at all, not even a little bit. John Cusack did great, better than i expected
shareI thought that Cusack was weak in the role. Where is Johnny Depp when we really need him? Edward Norton might also have been good.
shareI respectfully disagree. I think that Depp, or RDJ, would have been dead wrong for this role - they certainly would have made this an entirely different movie. I believe that casting Cusack was the filmmakers' choice to get the movie they wanted to make. Norton probably could have done as well, but I enjoyed seeing Cusack out of his normal rom-com milieu and I think he did a good job in the role.
Amusingly, when I first saw an advert for this, I only caught it out of the corner of my eye, and I thought it WAS Norton. When I realized John Cusack had the lead, I wasn't sure of how it would turn out, but I was quite pleased with the film overall... except those end credits, which seemed to belong to a different movie.
"Cum simioli e culo meo volent."