When a movie's crap, it really needs all the help it can get to give people reasons to watch it. In terms of the general opinion, crap movies are already pretty much doomed as soon as the reviews come flying from the typewriters of the meanest sons-of-bitches in the literary world: the movie critics. Crap movies can do themselves favours, at least, by hiring reliable actors to class proceedings up a bit. Take Child 44, as a recent example - critics on the whole didn't like the film, but almost all the haters at least conceded that the presence of quality actors like Tom Hardy and Gary Oldman rendered it much more watchable than if they hadn't featured at all. When a film generally stinks to high heaven, great actors can help to make things bearable, maybe even enjoyable for the time they're on screen. It would seem like cutting such an actor out of a film that's already basically crap would be a fool's choice to make. And yet, it has been the case throughout cinema history that crap movies have been made even crapper through the decision to jettison a great actor altogether. Whether it's because of a need to keep down the running time, because the director felt the character didn't work in the final cut, or because the actor actually made a request to be removed, the outcome is the same; the movie in question suddenly looks a lot worse.
Lover of film, writer of words, pretentious beyond belief. Thinks Scorsese and Kubrick are the kings of cinema, but PT Anderson and David Fincher are the dashing young princes. Follow Brogan on twitter if you can take shameless self-promotion: @BroganMorris1
