Counterpoint: Crispin Glover.

Good counterpoint, but that's different, though. There's horrible movies, and then there's horrible movies; Henry Fonda is talking about doing the well-calculated sort of horrible movies. The ones which focus groups and industry script-generating algorithms suggest are *just* watchable enough to draw in huge crowds of unwashed proles, proles who will drop their money, go home, and then promptly forget about the movie they just saw. It's patronizing, and it's mercenary, and Fonda should feel terrible for what he does to the working class.

Crispin Glover does horrible movies that are just plain horrible, movies which will earn him no big payout and which no one will ever see. That's totally different. That's a kind of Mike Rowe approach to acting - "hell, it's a job, count your blessings and do it". I can respect that.

I'd really like to see some interviews with Bruce Campbell to balance out Henry Fonda's smug decadence. He wrote some books where he examines the problem of good actors doing really shitty movies (Celestia knows he's an expert on that subject), and why he's part of the "Crispin Glover school".

. . . So there are no good movies...?

Perhaps you're a staunch supporter of the documentary genre.

We're talking about a very specific scenario here: good actors doing bad movies. I don't see how, from that, I've given the impression that there are no *good* movies, but my apologies if I have.

Was it because I called 12 Angry Men pretentious? That may have been a bit harsh, and I'm willing to concede that pretentious movies can be good (12AM was certainly good), but I stand by the sentiment. Mr Fonda, at least, considers the film to be an "ego piece", something to give him validation in the form of prestigious awards and clopjobs from critics.

That's my problem. Here, Mr Fonda seems to be implying that he takes roles for one of two reasons: to make himself look like hot shit in the eyes of the filmtelligentsia, or to earn more money than most people will make in their entire lives. Surely we can all agree that this is a pretty douchey approach to a career that's historically been associated with vagrant itinerancy and starvation?

Evilhomer, you're confusing Crispin Glover's good movies with his horrible ones, I think.

He does garbage like Willard and, well, pretty much any other movie he's in that anyone who isn't a fan of his work has heard of (with a couple early exceptions) so that he can fund things like What Is It, which are some of the few really good movies being made today.

Counter-Counter point : Johnny Dep. He is capable of great work ( "Dead Man" and "Fear and Loathing" ) but seems to much prefer utter shite that leaves him rolling in bails of hard currency. Can I even say the guy is a great actor at this point, or has that fact been lost entirely to his pursuit of the next payday?

I would pay good money to see a bunch of older, really prestigious still living actors do an MST3K of Adam Sandler's latest few entries.

I wonder what purchase he made to justify On Deadly Ground?

Music biz too. Shit like Class Actress gets put out thre with one good single on an Alvin's worth of shit. But the single pays for a lot, potentially. But fuck it, piracy. I'm tired. 3 hours sleep in 38 or so hours is balls.