MovieChat Forums > Rules Don't Apply (2016) Discussion > Beatty hasn't been relevant for almost 2...

Beatty hasn't been relevant for almost 27 years...


Dick Tracy was the last time anyone paid attention to him. I've read about him and he seems like an egomaniacal control freak. Glad his latest movie flopped.

reply

Bulworth got some acting and writing nominations from various groups, so I changed your thread title to reflect that 

reply

Bulworth was a horribly movie that got nominations because Warren Beattty was the friend of Jack Nicholson, Dennis Hopper, and all the 1960-70s Hollywood bad boys. Tat his his claim to fame. His best film was splendor in the grass, in 1960.

reply

I agree with benGsboat

reply

If folks would have shown up for Rules, they'd have found it relevant to these times. It certainly means more than Bad Moms that folks flocked to.

reply

the fact that crappy movie Bad Moms can do 50 times more than a 90 year old Warren Beatty, who is trying to be relevant by making a movie every 20 years, says a lot about 90 year old dried up turds.

reply

"It certainly means more than Bad Moms that folks flocked to".

The only problem with your analysis is that Bad Moms is better than almost half of Beatty's movies during his sixty year career, including (a) Town & Country (2001); (b) Love Affair (1994); (c) Ishtar (1987); (d) the Fortune (1975); (e) the Only game in Town (1970); and the six bombs that Beatty made between Splendor and Bonnie, i.e., The Roman Spring; All Fall Down; Lilith; Mickey One; Promise Her Anything; and Kaleidoscope.

It is absolutely incredible that a guy who is so bad an actor, with so many bombs and so few hits, could keep getting people to fund his movies. By way of comparison, Tony Curtis had tons of hits, but his career basically as a lead actor basically ended in 1968.

reply

Have you seen Madonna's Truth or Dare documentary? Beatty looked so uncomfortable and out of place it was embarrassing to watch. That was the period when he dated/screwed her for a bit.

reply

I will give you Roman Springs but everything else is better than Bad Moms.

He is a great actor who has a screen persona (as many actors before him did, Cary Grant for instance). Every character he plays is a cad or wide eyed optimist. He also melded his personal interests and ideals into film the way Tony Curtis was never able to...every project was a personal project and connected to the others in some way, much more than today's actor for hire.

History will be very kind to his filmography in the decades to come I imagine.

reply

Thanks to the other guy that reminded me of the catalog of crap movies and bombs that Warren Beatty was a part of. I think he was in Reds too, and even though it was critically acclaimed, nobody saw it except for the Hollywood Mafia that Beatty is a part of.

Back in the 1950s, Frank Sinatra ran the Rat Pack.

Later, around the end of the 1960s, Jack Nicholson, Dennis Hopper, Peter Fonda, Warren Beatty, and others were the hip rich actors who were screwing every woman in Hollywood, and getting nominated for every piece of crap film they made.

Warren Beatty was their Sammy Davis, and he did flop after flop, bomb after bomb, and yet everything that was written about him made it sound like he was Laurence Olivier.

The truth is that he always looked and acted like a dumb bimbo.

reply

Your knowledge of Warren Beatty is superficial and wrong. (Which is probably the case of everything in your shallow life.) Warren Beatty has had his share of good bad and indifferent movies, as have most actors if they have been around long enough. Whatever 'bad' films he has made, his reputation in the history of Hollywood is secure because of Bonnie & Clyde that changed the way that audiences perceived movies. (This is quite well-known but a block head such as yourself probably doesn't get it.) Shampoo, a few years after B&C also stands as one of the sharpest satires of the last quarter of the 20th century. With Reds, made after Shampoo, Beatty got the Best Director Oscar. Clearly the man knows how to make movies, and if you were someone who knew how to watch movies, you would understand that. Until you learn how, it is best you stay off this board, and go back to the tea Party where you belong. (Go and sin no more.)

reply

Why resort to name calling and personal insults? The guy simply offered his opinion on Beatty's career. You could have made the same point without the "shallow life" and "block head" comments.

reply

I think he was in Reds too, and even though it was critically acclaimed, nobody saw it except for the Hollywood Mafia that Beatty is a part of.


I am not sure whether you consider Ronald Reagan part of the "Hollywood Mafia," but he viewed Reds at the White House with Beatty.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/01/magazine/01wwln_q4.html?ex=1317355200&en=e77f4eba98ee2c09&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

http://www.ew.com/article/2016/11/11/warren-beatty-ronald-reagan-friendship-reds

reply

I disagree with your statement that all of his movies except Roman Springs are "better than Bad Moms". In fact, when Ishtar was released in 1987 it was considered up until that point the biggest bomb in movie history. Unfortunately, Ishtar was subsequently surpassed by (guess what) Town & Country (2001), which then became the biggest bomb in movie history. I think that Town & Country made about $6 million on a budget over $100 million. In fact, Ishtar and Town & Country are such infamous bombs, that people tend to completely over look Love Affair (1994), another huge bomb which made $18 million on a $60 million budget. The common thread in most of Beatty's movies is that they run wildly over budget and take forever to make. Town & Country was a rom-com. It should have cost no more than $30 million; instead it cost over $100 million. Ishtar was basically a comedy, it should have also been low budget. Love Affair was a dramedy which should also have been low budget; instead it cost $60 million in 1994 dollars. And remember, those are just production budgets. They do not count marketing budgets. Moreover, you can not simply ignore these budgets. Bad Moms was a low budget raunchy movie which made a lot of money.

Your statement that Warren "is a great actor" is absolutely ridiculous. He is the worst famous actor in history other than Elliot Gould or Keanu. His every performance is a variation on his shy, stuttering, clueless "dumb blonde" role. I can not think of one memorable scene that he has ever performed in 60 years.
Daniel Day Lewis and Anthony Hopkins are great actors. Do you see Warren playing any of the Lewis roles?? But instead of debating this, give me some sort of context. Tell me who you think other great actors are, or better yet tell me who you think some bad actors are. Just name me one famous actor other than GOuld or Keanu who is a worse actor than Warren.

History will not be kind to Warren. The internet, IMDB and videos has exposed his lack of production over the last 60 years.

Lastly, and to show you that I am fair, I will concede that Warren can be effective at some elements of producing, since he always seems to get top talent for his movies and gets money out of either the studios or investors. One of the investors in Rules Don't Apply is Terry Semel, who I believe ran Warners and funded Love Affair. So even though Love Affair was huge bomb, Warren was able to get more money out of Semel again for this project. That is impressive.




reply

box office is no mark of quality; besides Ishtar is being discovered and rediscovered these days: http://www.newyorker.com/culture/richard-brody/elaine-may-talks-about-ishtar

Doubt there will be any talk of Moms in thirty years.

Beatty also has a number of iconic scenes: McCabe's death, when Bonnie meets Clyde, the train scene in Reds to name a very few.

Day Lewis is different in that he is not a movie star. He could stop acting tomorrow and few would ask where he went after a few years. Beatty was gone for 15 years, picked up several awards had books written about him asking when will he make another one.

What you call dumb most critics saw as quirky intelligence.

I appreciate hyperbolic talk in favor of someone, as the movies need there fans, but downgrading an actor who very obviously did much more than you let one does not sit well. I suspect even actors you consider great would praise Beatty

reply

Relevance is a strange concept.
Mr Beatty garnered a lot of press for his return to the screen, got a lot of play when he questioned running for president in 2000 too, won AFI, Kennedy Honors, Golden Globe and honorary Oscar since 2000.

I think he has been relevant for a very long time, same way Woody Allen has. He may hit or miss but if people knew he went away for good, he'd be greatly missed.

reply