Jack Nicholson.

Soldato
Joined
21 Oct 2002
Posts
21,453
My Brother and I have just had this mad conversation about how much better certian films would be, if the lead roles had been played by different actors. After much making of bad impressions, and giggling, we eventually came to the conclusion that there has been no film made that doesnt already star Jack Nicholson that wouldnt be improved if one of the lead actors was replaced by Jack Nicholson (http://us.imdb.com/name/nm0000197/)


So the question is, yes or no?

Sat here and and waiting for match of the day, it felt like the right time to pose the question to the OCUK faithfull.

To help your decision, in your best Jack Nicholson impression:


"I fart in your general direction. Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries."

"I'm your worst ******* nightmare, man. I'm a ****** with a badge."

.......... and so on.

See what i mean?
Tranposing Jack for Han out of "Enter the Dragon" works best for me.
 
Last edited:
Associate
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
253
I think you guys are underestimating the power and impact a film like that had back in the day when it was released.

Vietnam was a lot fresher in people's minds and we hadn't been as bombarded and saturated by loud, exploding, graphically charged and visually expensive movies as we have now.

It was groundbreaking in it's day and another reason why it's potency might appear less to you is because it's spawned a genre and movie style that you have now become accustomed to - however back then it was unique.

Personally I still feel it has a lot of raw power and energy with some brilliant acting and masterful direction. Oh well roll on the intellectually charged and message delivering masterpieces of our current cinema a la films like xmen 3 :p
 
Man of Honour
Joined
17 Oct 2002
Posts
95,522
Location
I'm back baby!
evil.jelly said:
I think you guys are underestimating the power and impact a film like that had back in the day when it was released.
Doesn't really matter though. Might've been a good film back then, it aint now.

evil.jelly said:
Vietnam was a lot fresher in people's minds and we hadn't been as bombarded and saturated by loud, exploding, graphically charged and visually expensive movies as we have now.
So its only good because of the action and explosions?

evil.jelly said:
Personally I still feel it has a lot of raw power and energy with some brilliant acting and masterful direction. Oh well roll on the intellectually charged and message delivering masterpieces of our current cinema a la films like xmen 3 :p
Hang on a minute, there seems to be a mixed message in your post. Either modern-day films ensure Apocalypse Now pales into insignificance through brilliance or modern-day films aren't as good and maybe Apocalypse Now would be OK, surely?

Anyway, it is the weirdness and tangents the film goes off at that made me dislike it, as well as the hype. Its more hyped than Scarface (another shocking film).
 
Associate
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
253
Gilly said:
Doesn't really matter though. Might've been a good film back then, it aint now.

We will have to agree to disagree - I enjoyed the movie when i watched the redux version last year.

Gilly said:
So its only good because of the action and explosions?
No I was saying that the abundance of such things in modern day movies helps to undermine the dialogue and suspense that were used in older movies in lieu of such over the top special fx.

Gilly said:
Hang on a minute, there seems to be a mixed message in your post. Either modern-day films ensure Apocalypse Now pales into insignificance through brilliance or modern-day films aren't as good and maybe Apocalypse Now would be OK, surely?

I love modern-day films too - my point was more that expensive visual effects and over-the-top mindless action - especially in war type films - helps to undermine the need for apocalypse style films. Obviously there are plenty of thought provoking flicks out there too - but they aren't usually the box office smashes like Xmen3 (which i'm looking forward to btw).

Gilly said:
Anyway, it is the weirdness and tangents the film goes off at that made me dislike it, as well as the hype. Its more hyped than Scarface (another shocking film).

Unfortunately if you come to a movie 20 years later which was successful in it's day obviously there will be hype surrorunding it. The reason why it has the hype is because of the reasons i previously stated - and the reason you find the hype disproportionate to the film I feel I've also covered in this post :)
 
Soldato
OP
Joined
21 Oct 2002
Posts
21,453
See? The whole premise of the thread is proved true.

If Jack had been in Apocalypse Now it would have been FAR better.

"The............Horror..........."
 
Back
Top Bottom