egafd.com

See Runaway Jury has this and another fine actor, Gene Hackman featured, BUT are 3rd and 2nd on the bill behind John Cusack. Fucking John Cusack? He's average and doesn't hold a candle to Hoffman or Hackman.
A pity to see Dustin in crap films these days, the last thing he did that WAS excellent was the atorney is 'Sleepers', before that was the tedious Rain Man that WAS good, just not my cup of tea

john cusack was in a good 1 over xmas on bbc 2,but have never seen him in anything else.

Erm, Ace, I think you'll find it's an alphabetical thing with the four leads. If it had been Cate Blanchett, for example, instead of Rachel Weisz then Hackman and Hoffman would have been third and fourth on the bill.

I see that, but it wasn't too long ago that actors of a certain quality had a top billing, regardless of alphabetical order, otherwise has-beens like Alan Alda will get star billing over Pacino et al

I think with an ensemble cast, where no role is a stand-out, they tend to go the alphabetical route. Can you think of any other reason why Martin Lawrence got top billing over Will Smith in Bad Boys II?

Oh, and shame about Man Utd today (heheheheheheh!).

I will echo that, and will post something similar about Birmingham tomorrow

The billing in a film is something that many actors/actresses argue
over, and they will often only do a film if they get a certain billing.

There are lots of egos to massage in the film business.

But having said that, the film audience nowadays is teens and
early 20s, so someone like John Cusak may be a better draw
than Hoffman/Hackamn, irrespective of how good an actor they
are.

If you go to the web site
then note the names are left to right Cusack, Hackman, Hoffman,
Weisz, but the photos of the actors are the almost reversed, so
it is Weisz, Hackman, Hoffman, Cusack.

This would not be by chance and will be done this way so that
nobody is seen to be the main 'star'.

I remember Jack Lemmon saying his agent would never let him
take interesting smaller parts in films because it may look as
though his career was going down hill. He had to take 'bad'
films sometimes, as long as he remained the 'star'.

It was only as he got older he took smaller roles in films like JFK.

Guilbert

And look at the performances when he was in an ensemble cast: Glengarry Glenross comes to mind, with a superb cast---Pacino, Lemmon, Ed Harris, Kevin Sacey, Alan Arkin, Alec Baldwin and Jonathan Pryce.

As for JFK, loads of people (including Lemmon) totally convincing in small but important roles. Oh, and anyone who thinks Joe Pesci was way over the top should read the Jim Garrison book that formed the basis for the film. Joe was note perfect as complete nut job David Ferrie.

yeh, the pair a real crap - as was their films

Well ?????. What have you got to say now about Birmingham????