Jump to content

Watched any new movies? *Please use spoiler tags*

Rajiv

By Rajiv
in Chit Chat

 Share

Recommended Posts

Yoda-esque Newbie

Yoda-esque

Posted
Posted
Most of his characters are better than his movies. Good movies then- There Will be Blood Gangs of New York (C.Diaz, DiCaprio- Scorsese) Last of the Mohicans My Left Foot & Crucible (Biopoic) Good characters in Nine and Crucible. In the Name of The Father has a totally different DDL. Boxer, Age Of Innocence are other decent ones. Top character execution in all movies.
Some resume that... There Will Be Blood is simply one of my favorite films
maniac Grand Master

maniac

Posted
Posted

TBH Lincoln personally to me was very boring movie....I am sure for Civil War enthusiasts or people interested in American History would have appreciated it a lot more.....I went into a the movie excpecting it to be more like a Gandhi or Chaplin style of Biopic. Iam sure it was well made and authentic but just not my type for me to appreciate it...Also without taking anything away from DDL, Liam Neeson who was the original choice to play Lincoln looks more like the orignal Lincoln than DDL On DDL though,Saw There will be Blood and Gangs of New York and he was really good.

Detonator Newbie

Detonator

Posted
Posted

Actors like philip seymour hoffman and christopher waltz are much better performers than him. Daniel Day lewis is a great actor. But I can see only DDL 'acting' not the character he is playing. DDL is also monotonic.

SLICKR392 Newbie

SLICKR392

Posted
Posted
Actors like philip seymour hoffman and christopher waltz are much better performers than him. Daniel Day lewis is a great actor. But I can see only DDL 'acting' not the character he is playing. DDL is also monotonic.
That is so false. The main reason DDL is so good is because of the versatility of his characters. From My Left Foot to In The Name Of The Father, I don't see how could one say that. Monotonic is another very harsh word, personal opinion but still. Another one is Crucible and Nine, Gangs Of New York and Age of Innocence. Daniel Plainview and Christy Brown!! God! Monotonous is such a false word to use for DDL. And Neeson wasn't the first choice of Spieldberg, it was DDL, who turned it down before accepting the role later on. Reason Neeson turned it down was it wasn't easy to be play Lincoln whereas DDL lived as Lincoln and Gordon D pretty much explains how weird it was being around with him who wasn't the actor himself. How could someone such as that be termed as monotonous? I can very well see Waltz in every character he plays, and it goes for every actor, that's their actor's magic. An actor without their actor's magic is no actor.
SLICKR392 Newbie

SLICKR392

Posted
Posted
TBH Lincoln personally to me was very boring movie....I am sure for Civil War enthusiasts or people interested in American History would have appreciated it a lot more.....I went into a the movie excpecting it to be more like a Gandhi or Chaplin style of Biopic. Iam sure it was well made and authentic but just not my type for me to appreciate it...Also without taking anything away from DDL, Liam Neeson who was the original choice to play Lincoln looks more like the orignal Lincoln than DDL On DDL though,Saw There will be Blood and Gangs of New York and he was really good.
I only liked that ending court scene of Lincoln. Overall movies wasn't that great for me. DDL as usual was brilliant. That scene where he slams the table was superb.
Sachin=GOD Newbie

Sachin=GOD

Posted
Posted
TBH Lincoln personally to me was very boring movie....I am sure for Civil War enthusiasts or people interested in American History would have appreciated it a lot more.....I went into a the movie excpecting it to be more like a Gandhi or Chaplin style of Biopic. Iam sure it was well made and authentic but just not my type for me to appreciate it...Also without taking anything away from DDL, Liam Neeson who was the original choice to play Lincoln looks more like the orignal Lincoln than DDL On DDL though,Saw There will be Blood and Gangs of New York and he was really good.
Yes, the movies was rather boring and could have been better. Especially considering that it was based on such an incredible book (Team of Rivals). But it was still worth it just for DDL's acting, IMO it was DDL's best acting so far. He completely got into the character of Lincoln and played the part very, very convincingly.
Actors like philip seymour hoffman and christopher waltz are much better performers than him. Daniel Day lewis is a great actor. But I can see only DDL 'acting' not the character he is playing. DDL is also monotonic.
Quite the opposite - in his case it is ALWAYS the characters that are clearly visible. Thats my opinion though..
SLICKR392 Newbie

SLICKR392

Posted
Posted
Yes, the movies was rather boring and could have been better. Especially considering that it was based on such an incredible book (Team of Rivals). But it was still worth it just for DDL's acting, IMO it was DDL's best acting so far. He completely got into the character of Lincoln and played the part very, very convincingly. Quite the opposite - in his case it is ALWAYS the characters that are clearly visible. Thats my opinion though..
Yeah, pretty much the opposite. I too din't enjoy Lincoln much. Watched it for the sake of Spieldberg and DDL.
Mariyam Grand Master

Mariyam

Posted
Posted
Saw Ram aur Shyam after watching interviews of many Indian actors as they all praised Dilip Kumar. TBH he was pretty ordinary' date=' I only saw the movie as I wanted to see what was so exceptional about him but didnt find anything. I think he acted better in budha roles.[/quote'] I've always found Dilip Kumar to be massively over-rated. I'm not saying that he's a bad actor, but he's not as good as people in their 50s and 60s make him out to be. Very limited actor, who depended a lot on histrionics than subtlety while essaying roles. The only movie I liked of his was Naya Daur. That had been re-released in colour a few years back. Watch it if you get the chance.
Detonator Newbie

Detonator

Posted
Posted
That is so false. The main reason DDL is so good is because of the versatility of his characters. From My Left Foot to In The Name Of The Father, I don't see how could one say that. Monotonic is another very harsh word, personal opinion but still. Another one is Crucible and Nine, Gangs Of New York and Age of Innocence. Daniel Plainview and Christy Brown!! God! Monotonous is such a false word to use for DDL. And Neeson wasn't the first choice of Spieldberg, it was DDL, who turned it down before accepting the role later on. Reason Neeson turned it down was it wasn't easy to be play Lincoln whereas DDL lived as Lincoln and Gordon D pretty much explains how weird it was being around with him who wasn't the actor himself. How could someone such as that be termed as monotonous? I can very well see Waltz in every character he plays, and it goes for every actor, that's their actor's magic. An actor without their withtor's magic is no actor.
Just my opinion dood. He has got some awesome skill, versatile, etc.,. but his method is so insane that he could bring up almost every human emotion. problem is he over blows it. The roles he took are pretty diverse, but the method is monotonic. I fail to see him performing differently as his character develops. showing character development is what truly connects with the audience. the purists and the academy can all gush on watching his acting, but one cannot connect with the character easily. His unreal acting is making it unreal, which is why most of his movies are not so enjoyable. One movie i enjoyed is there will be blood, but that's due to coen brothers.
gaurav92 Newbie

gaurav92

Posted
Posted

Saw Mary Kom. Disappointing movie. It could have been so much better, they converted this biopic into a cliched bollywood movie filled with melodrama and fake emotions. 5/10

SLICKR392 Newbie

SLICKR392

Posted
Posted
Thank you. Wonderful, wonderful read. Great human being. His methods on-stage are so unique. Not having a fourth wall and including the audience to be a part of your scene is just almost impossible. I get nervous thinking what my reaction would/should be if I meet eye to eye with someone. May be with experience you can, but its still seems very far-fetched.
Over the years, there have been rumblings about Pacino’s overacting. He can certainly roar; he can pound the furniture; he can go big with the facial expressions; he has made some dud movies. But the drama, for Pacino, is almost always inherent in the character he’s hoping to convey. His portrayal of the blind Lieutenant Colonel Frank Slade in “Scent of a Woman†(1992), for instance, was considered hammy by some, but, in Pacino’s thinking, the character was a lunatic—a suicidal, narcissistic man who drew attention to himself through his affectation of swagger—and he played him that way. “I paint the way I see it, and some of the colors are a little broader and a little bolder than others,†he said, adding, “Sometimes you take it to the limit, sometimes you may go a little overboard, but that’s all part of a vision. I say, go with the glow. If an effort is being made to produce something that has appetite and passion and isn’t done just to get the golden cup, it isn’t a ****ing waste. Yes, there are flaws, but in them are things you’ll remember.â€
Perfectly said. Although I rate DDL as THE best actor out there, I'll always opt to watch Al Pacino over him or anyone. The characters are so intense and its something to watch. Every character might have the same recipe but a different spark to it.
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...