Comments on: Shouting Match: Is Jamie Foxx a Good Actor?

By: Jimmy

Jimmy — Mon, 18 Jan 2010 22:51:07 +0000

Foxx's portrayal of Ray Charles was absolutely OUTSTANDING. Foxx has a sense of rhythm and timing of the greats of the screen. Only a neophyte actor would think otherwise.

By: Dan

Dan — Tue, 28 Apr 2009 21:16:36 +0000

and dont forget Daddy Day Camp

By: Dan

Dan — Tue, 28 Apr 2009 21:16:00 +0000

and dont forget Daddy Day Camp

By: Jackie

Jackie — Mon, 27 Apr 2009 16:55:10 +0000

I'd like to see Jamie take a role seriously. And come at it with raw human emotion. Not with the comedic approach he uses to his roles. I want to feel as though he is the charachter. I want to be seperated from everything he's done. I want to sit in the theater and say Whoa! Keanu Reeves punn intended. When I saw Edward Norton in American History X, I had chills. Edward had to go to a very uncomfortable place to pull off that role. You could see it in his eyes after he stomped on the guys neck. And people walked up to him and congratulated him for going to hell and back in that role, myself included. He made me question was he really racists? Jamie has surrounded himself with really good people. I question how Keanu Reeves continues to get the roles he does? It's what you do with the material given to you. You can work the hell out of a role even though the script is crappy.

By: jack2jack

jack2jack — Mon, 27 Apr 2009 16:55:00 +0000

By: Adam_Since_1986

Adam_Since_1986 — Mon, 27 Apr 2009 14:06:38 +0000

But still better then Ben Affleck. But really we are splitting hairs here because that movie was just bad.

By: Adam_Since_1986

Adam_Since_1986 — Mon, 27 Apr 2009 14:06:00 +0000

But still better then Ben Affleck. But really we are splitting hairs here because that movie was just bad.

By: JLTucker

JLTucker — Mon, 27 Apr 2009 08:13:56 +0000

"Foxx's one Oscar doesn't make up for the years of awful television shows and movies we've been subjected to…"

I hate to say this, but I feel this way about Heath Ledger. In fact, when I made my opinion known at /Film, albeit in a harsher manner, I was instantly deemed and troll and banned from making comments. Ledger's resume is wholly unimpressive. In my opinion he has only had three good roles out of his entire filmography. It is possible had he not died, we may have seen more out of him.

By: Kangaroo Be Stoned

Kangaroo Be Stoned — Mon, 27 Apr 2009 08:13:00 +0000

"Foxx's one Oscar doesn't make up for the years of awful television shows and movies we've been subjected to…"

By: _Christopher_M

_Christopher_M — Mon, 27 Apr 2009 05:15:27 +0000

I don't think he could really pull off a dramatic performance if the person didn't exist or he didn't have access to footage of them…he is a good mimic plain and simple…let's see him play a fictional character and blow us away…

By: _Christopher_M

_Christopher_M — Mon, 27 Apr 2009 05:15:00 +0000

By: Spacetree

Spacetree — Mon, 27 Apr 2009 03:59:50 +0000

Wait, wait… did you just say Mark Wahlberg in Shooter was a good role?! The words "good" and the movie Shooter should never be in the same sentence.

And what's with this "not a good actor, just a good mimic" thing? That makes no sense. So is anyone who's played a biographical role just a good mimic/not a good actor, or does this just pertain to Jamie Foxx? Further, when is it fair to hold average/good acting in crappy movies against an actor? These criteria seem pretty tenuous to me.

By: Spacetree

Spacetree — Mon, 27 Apr 2009 03:59:00 +0000

Wait, wait… did you just say Mark Wahlberg in Shooter was a good role?! The words "good" and the movie Shooter should never be in the same sentence.

By: Jackie

Jackie — Mon, 27 Apr 2009 03:31:53 +0000

Your comment could not be more correct. People were naturally in a reactive mode following his death. Let's face it, anyone who acts along side Mr. Coach Jumper gets the Oscar. In Living Color was ground breaking in many ways. But spouting sonnets does not make him Shakespeare.

By: jack2jack

jack2jack — Mon, 27 Apr 2009 03:31:00 +0000

By: Jackie

Jackie — Mon, 27 Apr 2009 03:02:45 +0000

Now I'd pay $10 to see such a performance.

By: jack2jack

jack2jack — Mon, 27 Apr 2009 03:02:00 +0000

Now I'd pay $10 to see such a performance.

By: _Christopher_M

_Christopher_M — Mon, 27 Apr 2009 00:39:13 +0000

Foxx's one Oscar doesn't make up for the years of awful television shows and movies we've been subjected to….If anyone had seen his television show he's always been able to sing, play piano and do musical impressions…so his performance in Ray was a little more hype than actual talent…Jamie Foxx is a comedian first , singer second and actor last….granted he did well in Collateral which is strong more due to the fact Michael Mann was the director if anything else….

I have more issue with such a limited amount of black lead male actors getting work in Hollywood….I mean having like 10 actors on a short list for projects is kind of stupid…Jamie Foxx really shouldn't be the go to guy for dramatic roles…

By: _Christopher_M

_Christopher_M — Mon, 27 Apr 2009 00:39:00 +0000

By: Jackie

Jackie — Mon, 27 Apr 2009 00:01:37 +0000

Jamie Foxx is not a good actor, he is a good mimic. His gift as an excellent comedian. Jamie has the ability to transform his roles as he does comedic performances. But do not confuse a comedic performance with acting. Jamie will never get roles like I am Legend (Will Smith), The Shooter (Mark Walberg), Man on Fire (Denzel Washington). Lack of roles aside for Black Men. Jamie does well in ensemble pieces and autobiographies. Bait was funny and also featured another comedian Mike Epps and the underrated David Morse. People thought good comedic team not excellent male lead actor. Put Jamie's performance next to Leo's in What's Eating Gilbert Grape and Sean's in I Am Sam. Who turned in superior acting and who was merely mimicing their perfromance?