ravishingravi Posted May 2, 2014 Share Posted May 2, 2014 ^ Charles Laughton and Montgomery Clift might be the greatest method actors ever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
undisputed chap Posted May 2, 2014 Share Posted May 2, 2014 Is this a thread about hating srk or championing videshi actors, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SLICKR392 Posted May 2, 2014 Share Posted May 2, 2014 ^ Charles Laughton and Montgomery Clift might be the greatest method actors ever. No. During their days method was more prominent in the theatres. Laughton, don't think he is one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sidhoni Posted May 2, 2014 Share Posted May 2, 2014 Because the movie is......meh....nothing special. And I saw it only because everyone was promoting it like the best thing since sliced bread. :facepalm: Nothing. One time watch' date=' but I don't understand all the hype around that movie.[/quote'] Probably you couldn't relate with it? :dontknow: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SLICKR392 Posted May 2, 2014 Share Posted May 2, 2014 Probably you couldn't relate with it? :dontknow: No, I couldn't. I tried healing a kid by saying 'All is Well' but nothing happened. So, nope. Can't relate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coffee_rules Posted May 2, 2014 Share Posted May 2, 2014 It's Stasberg who made an impact with Method, not Brando. I'm not ignoring Brando's contribution, but his on-screen performance. DDL's approach to method is far more rigid that Brando. I don't remember any Brando performance that went ablaze among the audience bar Godfather, Apocalypse Now and A Tango in Paris. His roles in Streetcar Named Desire and On The Waterfront is highly overrated. Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed his roles in the last 2, but it was nothing out of the world as people presume it to be. In Godfather, it was Al Pacino who edged both DeNiro and Brando. He is a stunning actor but very underachieved. DDL, Pacino, DeNiro follow the Stasberg method, Brando too does I think. DDL is just very rigid and takes method too far. That guys is a whole different story compared to others. On the sets of Lincoln, De Levitt was strolling around the set after during the break and he saw DDL sitting with a cup of tea and thought of approaching him to have a chat before he was stopped by one of the crews because DDL was still in the character as Lincoln and would talk/reply to anyone as The President himself, and not DDL. He is a freak! Because he had more screen space. But in the scenes where Al and Brando are both in, Brando owned those scenes. I can never be convinced otherwise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SLICKR392 Posted May 2, 2014 Share Posted May 2, 2014 Because he had more screen space. But in the scenes where Al and Brando are both in' date=' Brando owned those scenes. I can never be convinced otherwise.[/quote'] That's because Micheal was the main character in the Godfather series, not Vito. Brando had enough screen space to judge and compare him to Al Pacino. Was rightly rated as the best out of the 3. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sachin=GOD Posted May 2, 2014 Share Posted May 2, 2014 Because he had more screen space. But in the scenes where Al and Brando are both in' date=' Brando owned those scenes. I can never be convinced otherwise.[/quote'] I don't know much about acting but from what I have seen till date, no performance can match Pacino in Godfather 2. As for Godfather 1, I think Pacino was as good as Brando in their scenes together. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SLICKR392 Posted May 2, 2014 Share Posted May 2, 2014 I don't know much about acting but from what I have seen till date' date=' no performance can match Pacino in Godfather 2. As for Godfather 1, I think Pacino was as good as Brando in their scenes together.[/quote'] Yep. This was easily the best scene from Godfather 1. Unreal stuff!! And Al Pacino pulled this off when his role was hanging by a thread with only a little support form Copulla. ppjyB2MpxBU Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ravishingravi Posted May 3, 2014 Share Posted May 3, 2014 No. During their days method was more prominent in the theatres. Laughton' date=' don't think he is one.[/quote'] No. Clift was rival and contemporary of Brando. And Laughton was a master of method. May not be Stanislavsky. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SLICKR392 Posted May 3, 2014 Share Posted May 3, 2014 No. Clift was rival and contemporary of Brando. And Laughton was a master of method. May not be Stanislavsky. I don't see anywhere where it says Laughton followed method. Obviously he wouldn't be a Stanislavsky. No one would. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roshanrocks Posted May 21, 2014 Share Posted May 21, 2014 Shah Rukh Khan second richest actor in the world Matinee idol Shah Rukh Khan has emerged as the second richest actor in both Hollywood and Bollywood combined list. Wealth-X's Hollywood and Bollywood Rich List released on Wednesday puts comedian Jerry Seinfeld right on top of the rich list. With an estimated net worth of $820 million, the 60-year-old comedian emerged as the wealthiest actor. However, it was Shah Rukh Khan, who was the only Indian actor in the top 10 combined rich list of Bollywood and Hollywood stars. Khan was found to be richer than Hollywood giants like Tom Cruise, Tom Hanks, Clint Eastwood or Adam Sandler. Wealth X said "Khan is estimated to be worth $600 million. Immensely popular around the globe as well as in his home country, India, Khan is also a producer, TV host, co-owner of an Indian cricket club and a philanthropist. He has appeared in more than 50 Bollywood films and is a regular at the annual Cannes Film Festival". Tom Cruise is the third richest actor worth $480 million followed by Johny Depp and Tyler Perry both tied at $ 450 million. Several Academy Award winners are featured on the list, including three-time Oscar winner Jack Nicholson, who has a net worth of $400 million, which puts the 77-year-old actor in 7th spot. Tom Hanks, who won best actor Oscars for Philadelphia and Forrest Gump, is in 8th place with a personal fortune of $390 million. Clint Eastwood, who at 84 is the oldest actor in the Rich List, has an estimated personal fortune of $370 million, making him the 9th wealthiest actor on the list. :omg: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ram Posted May 21, 2014 Share Posted May 21, 2014 $600 mn seems like an over-estimation to me. I would put SRK’s wealth around the $100-$150 mn range. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DomainK Posted May 21, 2014 Share Posted May 21, 2014 Naam roshan kiya bachhe ne. :two_thumbs_up: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ram Posted May 21, 2014 Share Posted May 21, 2014 Believe it or not, the most lucrative investment he’s made so far is not the time he’s spent in Bollywood, but his purchase of the KKR. If global trends are any indicator, the values of marque sports franchizes are exploding in an exponential fashion. The value of IPL franchizes are no exception. Within the next 10 years or so, the value of KKR will thump the consolidated wealth he has accumulated via his acting/endorsements. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Detonator Posted May 21, 2014 Share Posted May 21, 2014 The waitress might be the most wealthiest actor than the rest of them combined. Unlike others she acts as in Indian in public. Hope the secular jihadis here doesnt hunt me down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeautifulGame Posted May 21, 2014 Share Posted May 21, 2014 Where is Rajini in the list :hitler: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackMamba Posted May 21, 2014 Share Posted May 21, 2014 Believe it or not' date=' the most lucrative investment he’s made so far is not the time he’s spent in Bollywood, but his purchase of the KKR. If global trends are any indicator, the values of marque sports franchizes are exploding in an exponential fashion. The value of IPL franchizes are no exception. Within the next 10 years or so, the value of KKR will thump the consolidated wealth he has accumulated via his acting/endorsements.[/quote'] What do you mean by 10 years ? His IPL Investment is his biggest asset -- already. Kolkatta is already worth 500 Mil (if not more) and he himself adds another 100 Mil, so even is he is owning 50% that is worth 300 Mil. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gollum Posted May 21, 2014 Share Posted May 21, 2014 But but India is unfair to Indian Muslims. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ram Posted May 21, 2014 Share Posted May 21, 2014 What do you mean by 10 years ? His IPL Investment is his biggest asset -- already. Kolkatta is already worth 500 Mil (if not more) and he himself adds another 100 Mil, so even is he is owning 50% that is worth 300 Mil. The only way your statement makes sense is we play one of those games where we had a phrase at the end of every sentence and see how funny it sounds. For example - KKR is worth $500mn in my dreams. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts