Do the actors play a big part in which movies you choose to watch?

[V'Lias]

I've run into a few people recently that were planning to go to see a movie just because it had a certain actor in it, and I guess I'm a bit curious how much that normally affects most people's movie decisions! The type of story is generally the reason I choose to watch something, and I've found that, in most cases, being familiar with the actor doesn't really make me enjoy it any better. My biggest break from that general rule would be Buster Keaton and Harold Lloyd comedies, because I know the ones from their silent era will normally be in a style I enjoy!

 

[DonIago]

There are actors where if I know they're in a movie it may pique my interest, but I tend to look at Rotten Tomatoes and/or Wikipedia to get a sense of what critics think of a film before I'll commit to seeing it, unless it's something I have a strong sense I want to see on principle.

 

[Tosk]

Not really with modern actors, but I will seek out older movies of certain actors that I like. (Such as Gene Hackman. Watching his filmography shows that A. He was never bad in anything, and B. That his ability to choose good movies was a total coin toss.)

Though I am more likely to not watch a movie if it has someone I can't stand in it.

 

[Alexander Corrino]

Speaking as someone who loves a certain actor... yeah. If you have THAT ONE ACTOR you adore above everything and everyone else you see his movies regardless of whether you're actually interested in the movie or not. The fact that he's in it COMPELLS you to watch the movie. It doesn't matter if the movie is godawful or not. If THAT ACTOR is in it, you watch it. At least once.

The other side of the coin for me is that it's incredibly difficult to get me to watch a movie that DOESN'T have THE ACTOR in it.

 

[Starkers]

There are some actors I really like and I will try and see their films. I have a pretty broad spectrum of films I watch, so even though my default is horror/thriller/sci-fi I'm not diametrically opposed to romcoms or in fact most genres.

Then there's the flipside. Or Jared Leto as I call it...

Though even he couldn't stop me from watching Blade Runner 2049

 

[Captaindemotion]

Depends. It can certainly sway me if it’s one I might be on the fence about. If a film has Denzel Washington or Tom Hanks, I would usually take the view it’s not going to suck, at the very least.

 

[Set Harth]

Speaking as someone who loves a certain actor... yeah. If you have THAT ONE ACTOR you adore above everything and everyone else you see his movies regardless of whether you're actually interested in the movie or not. The fact that he's in it COMPELLS you to watch the movie. It doesn't matter if the movie is godawful or not. If THAT ACTOR is in it, you watch it. At least once.

The other side of the coin for me is that it's incredibly difficult to get me to watch a movie that DOESN'T have THE ACTOR in it.

Kevin Hart?

 

[the G-man]

It's very rare that I don't enjoy a Clint Eastwood movie.

 

[Owain Taggart]

Sometimes. It just depends on what they're good at doing. Sometimes an actor will make things look effortless and their presence enhances the entire production. On the other hand, I feel that if a script is bad, sometimes stuntcasting is done in an effort to distract from a bad script. I've seen a few examples of this over with Netflix originals where even the actors can't salvage it, and this is even more noticeable when they throw the multiple high-profile actors together and the script still drags.

 

[Captaindemotion]

I always thought Tom Hardy could salvage anything, based on how he made the Venom movies watchable, but I had to revise that opinion after seeing Havoc.

 

[hbquikcomjamesl]

No. Nor the director.

I can't remember the last time I went to a movie based on the actor(s) involved.

I attend concerts based on the featured soloist, e.g., if Perlman, or Galway, or Ma is performing. Or based on a conductor, e.g., I'll go out of my way to see Dudamel, but I'll also go out of my way to avoid Mauceri.

But not movies. Those decisions are based on the subject matter. Consider how enthusiastic I was about Merrily We Roll Along. Because it's one of my top 3 favorite musicals, and with the exception of private proshots of student productions (one of which I worked on), it had never appeared on any screen, big or small. Out of the entire cast, I'd barely heard of Daniel Radcliffe.

 

[Rowdy Roddy McDowall]

They can play a role, certainly.

But (and perhaps this is not just me), when I watch a Steven Seagal ''performance,'' I'm not going for him at all. I'm going for Tommy Lee Jones, Gary Busey, Keith David, John McGinley, Will Patton, Everett McGill, Linda Thorson, Bruce Weitz, William Hope, Jeff Fahey, Joe Morton or Danny Trejo.

I believe that Seagal's supporting players----mostly doomed opponents---were cleverly cast even in comparison to most standard thrillers. Keep in mind that most of the names above, unlike Seagal, did not transition to ''straight-to-video.''

Stars shine very brightly and burn out fast, but character actors are forever.

 

[V'Lias]

It's interesting how big a difference the actors can make! While I certainly have actors I enjoy watching, they don't normally swing the balance that far for me. In some cases being too familiar with them can pull me out of the story, because it's easier to see the actor than the character. (Although that can be issues with the writing/direction too.) I guess it all depends on what people are looking for when they watch something!

 

[auntiehill]

I used to be that person who saw EVERYTHING my favorite actors were in. And I do mean every freakin' thing.

Well, now I'm old and I just don't want to waste my time on something I probably won't like. If the ads make it seem awful or the reviews are terrible, I don't bother.

 

[Owain Taggart]

I will say that sometimes a production can benefit being a little inconspicuous. Sometimes the big draw of an actor can actually be too distracting. I remember when Pope John Paul II had passed away, there were many productions made about his life and reign as Pope, and one of them featured James Cromwell as a Cardinal. I love James Cromwell, but I found him to be too distracting given his high-profile status, and I didn't find he had suited the part. There was another production I remember watching as well that featured a lesser-known actor in the role that I ended up enjoying more because it ended up feeling more immersive and authentic.

 

[Timewalker]

I've run into a few people recently that were planning to go to see a movie just because it had a certain actor in it, and I guess I'm a bit curious how much that normally affects most people's movie decisions! The type of story is generally the reason I choose to watch something, and I've found that, in most cases, being familiar with the actor doesn't really make me enjoy it any better. My biggest break from that general rule would be Buster Keaton and Harold Lloyd comedies, because I know the ones from their silent era will normally be in a style I enjoy!

Derek Jacobi is the only reason I find Gladiator remotely tolerable.

Mind you, I'd watch him reading the phone book. I just finished reading his autobiography, As Luck Would Have It, and it made me nostalgic for my own theatre days (as a backstage worker, not acting). I would have loved to see him actually on stage, and not just on TV.

The main reason I saw the Harry Potter movies during a long weekend marathon on TV is because of Maggie Smith. She played my favorite Downton Abbey character, Dowager Countess Violet. So when I read that she was in Harry Potter, I decided to watch them.

I'll watch anything Brian Blessed is in. I've seen a variety of things John Hurt was in, and sometimes it seems like he really did morph into a thousand-year-old dragon in BBCMerlin.

There are actors where if I know they're in a movie it may pique my interest, but I tend to look at Rotten Tomatoes and/or Wikipedia to get a sense of what critics think of a film before I'll commit to seeing it, unless it's something I have a strong sense I want to see on principle.

I can't fathom basing my choices in movies on someone else's opinion. Especially when they're paid to have opinions. A good movie is one that entertains me or makes me think or have a strong emotional reaction. What other people think of it is irrelevant.

If a film has Denzel Washington or Tom Hanks, I would usually take the view it’s not going to suck, at the very least.

Have you seen Much Ado About Nothing? That's the only movie I've seen Denzel Washington in, and he said in an interview that the reason he did a Shakespeare movie is because he was curious to find out if he could do a good job with it.

He's not up there with the classically trained Shakespearean actors, but he did a good job in this movie.

 

[Captaindemotion]

Have you seen Much Ado About Nothing? That's the only movie I've seen Denzel Washington in, and he said in an interview that the reason he did a Shakespeare movie is because he was curious to find out if he could do a good job with it.

He's not up there with the classically trained Shakespearean actors, but he did a good job in this movie.

I don’t think I have. I’m not really a Shakespeare buff, though did do a few of his plays at school. I know Branagh cast quite a few non-classical actors in that one with varied reviews in response (Michael Keaton, Keanu Reeves etc).

Surprised you’ve never seen *anything* else with DW. Man on Fire? The Equaliser? Malcolm X? Glory? Courage Under Fire? Ricochet? He does a great mix of arthouse films and commercial ones and, for my money, elevates everything he’s in.

 

[Detached Nacelle]

I wont watch a film just because it has a certain actor in it. However I will probably avoid watching a film because it has a certain actor in it.

 

[Cantankerous Old Man]

I'm more drawn to story and character than actor. For example, no actor in "Wicked" attracted me to the film. The story, though, seemed intriguing; and I felt something for almost all the characters. Turns out it was worth my time and money (for me anyway; I cannot speak for others).

 

[Timewalker]

I don’t think I have. I’m not really a Shakespeare buff, though did do a few of his plays at school. I know Branagh cast quite a few non-classical actors in that one with varied reviews in response (Michael Keaton, Keanu Reeves etc).

Surprised you’ve never seen *anything* else with DW. Man on Fire? The Equaliser? Malcolm X? Glory? Courage Under Fire? Ricochet? He does a great mix of arthouse films and commercial ones and, for my money, elevates everything he’s in.

I'm not really into the commercial movies (I came 20 years late to Harry Potter fandom because I was so fed up with the incessant advertising that I flat-out refused to see the movies; it was only because of a movie marathon on the Space Channel, I was bored, and Maggie Smith was in them that I decided to give them a try).

Arthouse movies don't tend to be available here. But fortunately Branagh's Henry V was in the theatre here for 6 days, and in that time I saw it twice. So of course I watched Much Ado About Nothing, and it's such a fun movie.

It's also amusing that it's a Shakespeare movie that includes Gilderoy Lockhart and Sybill Trelawney as barb-trading would-be lovers, and Delores Umbridge participates in breaking up the other couple in the movie (Kenneth Branagh, Emma Thompson, Imelda Staunton).

Here's a clip where Washington's character is introduced:

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

The entire movie is currently available for free on Tubi.