Does James Franco Have IT ?

[Mitch Henessey]

So I just finished watching 127 Hours, and James Franco really did deliver a marvelous performance. James Franco is one of Hollywood's more noticeable actors. He's been in a couple of high profiled films, and this Summer, he has the lead role in the 2011 Planet Of The Apes reboot. This film will be one of this Summer's bigger blockbusters, and it can be looked at as a big deal for Franco, but I'm wondering, does James Franco have it? Does he have the potential to become a big name actor like Tom Cruise, Denzel Washington, Brad Pitt, or Leonardo DiCaprio? Can he become a box office draw?

Franco does have a nice personality, and he can be charismatic, but I always enjoy his comedy films more, because Franco can be a funny guy. Although, he has shown he can have a serious side. I thought Annapolis was a terrible film, but I did enjoy Franco's performance here. He was this cocky and young punk who wanted to prove something, and I think Franco did a fine job of portraying this character. I also enjoyed him in Spider-Man 2, as he played this angry and bitter man who wanted revenge for his Father's death. And I was really impressed with Franco's performance in 127 Hours. He did a great job of showing some raw emotion, and towards the end of the film, you wanted to feel sorry for this rebel loner.

Franco has shown he does have some range. His range might not be as great as some of Hollywood's other high profiled actors, but Franco isn't just a comedy guy. He can play different characters. So far, 127 Hours is Franco's most praised performance, but I think he does have the potential to wow us again. We probably won't see that performance in Rise Of The Planet Of The Apes, but Franco still has some time, and I hope he can deliver something memorable again.

Thoughts?

 

[a0161613]

I'm certain that as he has begun to show great range in his performances, he is just beginning to find his feet as a lead go-to guy. If he can continue to pick good roles, then I am pretty he will find himself among the great list of names that you mentioned as a thoroughbred, blockbuster-starring leading man. So I think his career is going to get bigger and better from here.

 

[Dave]

As hard as it is for me to say, James Franco just doesn't seem to fit the same mould as people like Matt Damon and Leonardo DiCaprio.

The problem with Franco is that he is seen as a comedy actor. Matt Damon and DiCaprio have never fit the bill as comedic actors and that is why James Franco seems to be taken very lightly as a dramatic actor. That being said, he has shown me, for one, that he has the range to become a wonderfully gifted actor. 127 Hours was one of the best films of last year and it was completely due to his acting skill. I mean, there is nothing else to the movie other than him and he played the part to perfection. When it finished, I sat with a tear in my eye and a satisfied feeling in my gut.

His performances in Spiderman and Pineapple Express have shown me that he is not only one of the most talented actors in Hollywood, he is one of the most versatile actors too. He has played everything from a rich and snobby villain alongside Spiderman, to playing a stoner that is on the run from a drug-dealing maniac and a dirty cop with great results. I really like James Franco and I find it hard to hate him in a role and that is a quality that only he and a certain few other can manage. I guess that is why he is being so successful over the last couple of years.

As far as having it though, I just don't think he will ever be talked about in the same breath as the aforementioned actors. Sad but true.

 

[JGlass]

Keep in mind, Dave, that Franco is significantly younger than both Damon and DiCaprio. He has time to improve himself as an actor and star in more and more high profile roles. Hell, would DiCaprio even be considered a top guy four years ago (when he was Franco's current age)? He had just made The Departed, and that's really what helped put him in the top tier of male actors.

I think Franco has it, but he needs to stop taking roles where he doesn't get to display it. I loved Pineapple Express and Franco showed that he could play goofy stoner with the best of them, but he should have ended his comedy career there. His role in Date Night was dopey, and Your Highness is not getting good reviews.

He needs to take more roles like 127 Hours, Howl, and Milk, roles that show his ability to play extremely deep, thoughtful characters. I think Franco's problem is that he doesn't take acting very seriously, and that's why he's going to be in the upcoming Planet of the Apes movie, he just wants to prove to people that he can play these ridiculous roles, but it doesn't mean that he should.

 

[Mike C.]

Hopefully 127 Hours is what he needed to get somebody to smack him in the face and tell him to start focusing on good projects and not every project he's asked to do. His IMDB page reads like he's the next actor that Chris Rock will make jokes about him being in everything. I think if he started paring down his roles to quality roles he could have it. But he gets wrapped up in stupid things like Your Highness or General Hospital and it detracts from his star power.

I doubt that James Franco will ever be enough to make me see a movie on its own (George Clooney for instance has made me into somebody that will see a movie because he agreed to do it), but after 127 Hours I have no doubt that he is good enough to be one of those people if he gets pickier about his jobs.

 

[Cookie]

I'm a huge fan of James Franco so this is admittedly a little biased. I think he definitely has the it factor that's needed to be a leading man. He's charismatic, attractive, capable, and marches to the beat of his own drum. He's also one of the most interesting guys in the business right now because he constantly keeps everybody guessing (doing a season of General Hospital) and has dabbled into everything from starring in films, to soap operas, to attending school, to directing films, to writing pretentious poetry. Unfortunately that's his downfall as well. By choosing incredibly random projects he's bound to make a misstep and he has at times - I'm looking at you, Your Highness.

His was perfect as Daniel Desario in Freaks and Geeks (how I wish it lasted more than one season) and he did an excellent job portraying James Dean in the made for TV movie that came out in 2001. After Hollywood started to see his potential, they snagged him for Spiderman and that lead to string of shitty films like Tristan + Isolde culminating in the abomination that was Spiderman 3. I remember an interview where he said he was in a position of serious self-loathing during the stretch of bad movies he was in because he felt like he was selling himself short. Things changed after that. I think Pineapple Express revived him and people realized he was a great comedic actor, and since then he has shown he has a lot more range than anyone ever realized. He did excellent work in Milk, Howl and 127 Hours. He's still young and he's already gotten an Oscar nomination - I just hope things keep going onward and upward from here because he really is a unique and talented actor.

As far as box office goes, I don't think he'll ever be on the level where people go to the movies and see a film because James Franco is in it. But that's not indicative of a lot - even Leonardo DiCaprio isn't that big of a box office draw on his name alone.

 

[Cena's Little Helper]

I'm going with no. He has absolutely no box office appeal and, as far as young, serious actors go, Ryan Gosling is ahead of Franco (and Eisenberg for that matter) by miles. Given his starring role on Freaks and Geeks and his choice of film roles in the past five or so years, Franco has an association with the Apatow Crew that he's never going to be able to remove himself from. Unless he comes out with something just as equally powerful as 127 Hours in the next few years, he'll never be able to make a case for himself as a bona fide leading man.

 

[INDYjon22]

I love Franco but he really needs to become more consistent with his movie choices if he wants to become one of the very best. 127 Hours gave a glimpse at how great of an actor Franco really is. His performance in that film was mesmerizing, yet he turned around and did Your Highness. Nothing wrong with doing a comedy but for those of you have seen it I think you can agree with me that Franco really phoned in that performance. He just didn't try at all and it showed. So I think he still has the potential to be a great actor, and he is someone I really like, but he has to get more serious before he moves into the ranks of the very best.

 

[Loveless]

Does IT mean a face I want to slap? Because in that case I'm going to say yes. My dislike stems from how bad he was in all 3 Spiderman films and will turn into blind hatred the moment he's inevitably cast as Jeff Buckley in that upcoming film.

 

[Mac Attack]

I say no. Don't get me wrong he is a really good actor he just doesn't have IT. If you want an actor who has IT then I would go with Johnny Depp. To have it you need the versatility to be able to play any role. The truth is I can't see him being a true superhero character. I think yes he is young and might be able to expand his horizons as an actor however he just isn't there. I think he is perfect for more of the normal person role however any role where he has to be special he isn't all that amazing. Take for example his role in Spiderman. I never thought throughout any of the movies that he was amazing. Now don't get me wrong he has his moments of brilliance but he also has his moments of being okay. I personally enjoy him however he is not at the same calibre as some actors such as Depp and Damon.

 

[jmt225]

James Franco's opportunity to become a huge star was the Oscars, and he absolutely BOMBED. I don't think he'll recover from that, in terms of box office popularity, any time soon.

That said, I don't think he cares, anyway. Franco strikes me as a person who's not in the movie industry to be a box office draw. I'm sure him going to film school as we speak has nothing to do with learning how to draw money... no, it's the art I think he's in-love with, not the fame or money. He's the type of guy who will take roles he finds intriguing and that will challenge him, or roles he thinks he'll have a lot of fun doing. Box office numbers and money period I don't think ever enters his mind when he's deciding whether or not he wants to do a role.

So, yeah... somebody with that kind of mind-set will never be a box office draw. I'm sure if Franco made it his goal to become an A-List actor who draws huge numbers, with his talent there's no doubt he'd be able to accomplish that, but that's not who he seems to be.

 

[Mike C.]

As far as box office goes, I don't think he'll ever be on the level where people go to the movies and see a film because James Franco is in it. But that's not indicative of a lot - even Leonardo DiCaprio isn't that big of a box office draw on his name alone.

I'm not sure that's true. Since 2000 BoxOfficeMojo.com has Leo listed as an actor in 10 movies: The Beach, Gangs of New York, Catch Me If You Can, The Aviator, The Departed, Blood Diamond, Body of Lies, Revolutionary Road, Shutter Island, and Inception. All of the movies made more than $20 million, and all but Revolutionary Road made $39 million plus. Part of this can obviously be attributed to good choices: Working with the right director (Scorcese, Nolan), or working with some also bankable co-stars (Russell Crowe), but there are some real critical clunkers in there like The Beach and Body of Lies that certainly were relying on Leo to deliver cash. Leo was the lead or co-lead in all of those pictures as well.

Put another way: Had Leo been the star of Howl and not James Franco it probably would have grossed more than $617,334.

 

[Cookie]

I'm not sure that's true. Since 2000 BoxOfficeMojo.com has Leo listed as an actor in 10 movies: The Beach, Gangs of New York, Catch Me If You Can, The Aviator, The Departed, Blood Diamond, Body of Lies, Revolutionary Road, Shutter Island, and Inception. All of the movies made more than $20 million, and all but Revolutionary Road made $39 million plus. Part of this can obviously be attributed to good choices: Working with the right director (Scorcese, Nolan), or working with some also bankable co-stars (Russell Crowe), but there are some real critical clunkers in there like The Beach and Body of Lies that certainly were relying on Leo to deliver cash. Leo was the lead or co-lead in all of those pictures as well.

Put another way: Had Leo been the star of Howl and not James Franco it probably would have grossed more than $617,334.

I don't necessarily disagree but there are other factors involved.

Leo may have been the star of all of those films, but I wouldn't say that him being in them is what compelled people to go out and see them. It certainly helps that he's a golden boy and a recognizable face, but all of those movies have the ability to sell themselves and be compelling despite his participation in them. All the Scorsese movies automatically have cred because they're Scorsese and would've been built up and hyped just as much had Leo not been in them. Not saying that they don't benefit from him being in them, but I don't think he specifically is the selling point that gets people out of their house and into the movie theatre. Engaging plots, well-rounded and well-known ensemble casts (Inception) and stories surrounding familiar public figures (The Aviator) are capable of doing that. I think ultimately what I mean is that I don't see him as someone like Will Smith, who people will go out and see no matter what - personally, I don't think people would've flocked to see Hancock if it was Leo in the lead but that's just my opinion and it's obviously hypothetical.

Leo has also been in the game longer - he's more recognizable and people like familiarity. Franco hasn't done that much stuff that that many people have seen besides the Spiderman franchise and he was pitiful in that. One really big project could launch him up the ranks.

 

[JMobile]

and he did an excellent job portraying James Dean in the made for TV movie that came out in 2001. After Hollywood started to see his potential, they snagged him for Spiderman and that lead to string of shitty films like Tristan + Isolde culminating in the abomination that was Spiderman 3.

I agree, the role for James Dean should have given Franco more dramatic roles. But Spiderman has a reputation in picking well talented actors for big or even small roles. Look at Willem Dafoe, he won many awards but worked along side with Franco in Spiderman. Franco is young, and now since Spiderman has been taken a reboot, this means that Franco will start choosing better roles and I believe Franco will be huge in Hollywood.