Olivier wasn't always well served by his movie appearances, similarly Ralph Richardson and John Gielgud.
Why people were impressed by DDL in There Will Be Blood is a mystery: he just impersonated John Huston for what seemed like 10 hours.
I just don't get it. I'd like to think I have good taste. I love the old actors. James Stewart, James Cagney, Humphrey Bogart, James Mason, Spencer Tracy, etc, etc, but I think Al and Robert suck.
Never been impressed with any of their performances.
Pacino was an amazing actor. His turns in Godfather (parts one and two), Dog Day Afternoon and Serpico are top notch. Then he discovered Scarface and shouting. Never as good again.
I don't find ed norton very convincing. I'm not sure if he is rated anyway.
Most of the 'greats' coast now. Look at De Niro in Stardust, awful. In their heyday though, wow.
I think De Niro was supposed to be awful in Stardust. He did it well.
Its difficult to seperate great from famous sometimes. Daniel Day Lewis just sounds like Mr Burns in the clips I've seen of Lincoln.
Unless Burns was based on him ?
I don't know if Russell Crowe is famous or great, but I don't consider him great.
Pacino was an amazing actor. His turns in Godfather (parts one and two), Dog Day Afternoon and Serpico are top notch. Then he discovered Scarface and shouting. Never as good again.
Well, I agree The Godfather was a good movie, but that was also to do with the script, the director and the other actors. Not just Pacino.
I can't even name one good De Nero movie. Maybe Raging Bull, but meh...I could take it or leave it.
I think De Niro was supposed to be awful in Stardust. He did it well.
Its difficult to seperate great from famous sometimes. Daniel Day Lewis just sounds like Mr Burns in the clips I've seen of Lincoln.
Unless Burns was based on him ?
I don't know if Russell Crowe is famous or great, but I don't consider him great.
Pacino was an amazing actor. His turns in Godfather (parts one and two), Dog Day Afternoon and Serpico are top notch. Then he discovered Scarface and shouting. Never as good again.
Well said. I usually refer him as 'Shouty Al'.
It pains me to nominate this one: John Mills. He was lovely and all, but there wasn't much variety to his performances. When I think of him, I think of his usual three screen performances: a) anxious, eager and naive, b) reserved and taciturn, and c) righteous, stiff-lipped and splenetic. Once in a while, he would combine all as one to spice it up, but that's about it. Granted, he pulled off a memorable performance now and then, but it happened once every ten years, it seems.
Jack Nicholson - THERE! I SAID IT! I still don't understand how could he get more accolades than Gene Hackman. Perhaps it's more fair to see Nicholson as a film star and Hackman as an actor?
Apologies in advance to those who disagree with those nominations.
George Clooney - I never understand all the fuss, either for his looks or his acting - he leaves me cold, and yet I'm a hot blooded female of the hetero persuasion.
Never been a big fan of Anthony Hopkins. Always thought he'd a tendency to overact.
That's the one for me. Can't do an accent to save his life and drifts between 3 or 4 with every role he does. Yes, his Hannibal Lecter is iconic and it suited him perfectly, but he's been coasting on that role for the last 20+ years and hasn't done anything of note since.
I was going to contribute to your thread and then I saw your post. Goodbye.
But you have contributed. Not a lot, admittedly, but its still a contribution.
For me - and this one is heavily divisive anyway - I'd say Nicholas Cage. I expect there will be quite a few who'd say he's not highly regarded anyway, but there are a lot of people who say "oh, he just picks bad projects but he's a really good actor when in the right film." Sorry, don't see it. He's like a block of wood in everything.
Comments
My reaction:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SKm5xQyD2vE
Most of the 'greats' coast now. Look at De Niro in Stardust, awful. In their heyday though, wow.
Why people were impressed by DDL in There Will Be Blood is a mystery: he just impersonated John Huston for what seemed like 10 hours.
I just don't get it. I'd like to think I have good taste. I love the old actors. James Stewart, James Cagney, Humphrey Bogart, James Mason, Spencer Tracy, etc, etc, but I think Al and Robert suck.
Never been impressed with any of their performances.
I think De Niro was supposed to be awful in Stardust. He did it well.
Its difficult to seperate great from famous sometimes. Daniel Day Lewis just sounds like Mr Burns in the clips I've seen of Lincoln.
Unless Burns was based on him ?
I don't know if Russell Crowe is famous or great, but I don't consider him great.
Well, I agree The Godfather was a good movie, but that was also to do with the script, the director and the other actors. Not just Pacino.
I can't even name one good De Nero movie. Maybe Raging Bull, but meh...I could take it or leave it.
I don't think so...
Goodfellas? Taxi Driver? King Of Comedy? All good performances.
I agree, Colin Firth and Nick Clegg, separated at birth. Both dull.
The only thing time he's ever really impressed me was in 'Conspiracy'. I think he had little choice but to act his socks off in that film though.
Yep as well as Once upon a time in America. This boys life. Also The Deer hunter. De Niro one of my all time favourite actors.
Agreed. For me the best actors don't draw attention to their acting. Tommy Lee Jones was much better than Daniel Day Lewis in Lincoln imo.
The worst performance from Laurence Olivier for me was his Othello.
To be fair, he was really a stage actor at a time when they were very "actorly".
I still rate them as two of the best though and enjoy watching their movies.
Well said. I usually refer him as 'Shouty Al'.
It pains me to nominate this one: John Mills. He was lovely and all, but there wasn't much variety to his performances. When I think of him, I think of his usual three screen performances: a) anxious, eager and naive, b) reserved and taciturn, and c) righteous, stiff-lipped and splenetic. Once in a while, he would combine all as one to spice it up, but that's about it. Granted, he pulled off a memorable performance now and then, but it happened once every ten years, it seems.
Jack Nicholson - THERE! I SAID IT! I still don't understand how could he get more accolades than Gene Hackman. Perhaps it's more fair to see Nicholson as a film star and Hackman as an actor?
Apologies in advance to those who disagree with those nominations.
That's the one for me. Can't do an accent to save his life and drifts between 3 or 4 with every role he does. Yes, his Hannibal Lecter is iconic and it suited him perfectly, but he's been coasting on that role for the last 20+ years and hasn't done anything of note since.
I was going to contribute to your thread and then I saw your post. Goodbye.
But you have contributed. Not a lot, admittedly, but its still a contribution.
For me - and this one is heavily divisive anyway - I'd say Nicholas Cage. I expect there will be quite a few who'd say he's not highly regarded anyway, but there are a lot of people who say "oh, he just picks bad projects but he's a really good actor when in the right film." Sorry, don't see it. He's like a block of wood in everything.