"While Hardy is undeniably commanding as Reggie, in the more difficult role of Ronnie, he is only intermittently effective. Too often Hardy’s performance falls into broad “crazy eyes” villainy, with a voice that recalls a slightly more distinct Bane. "
----
"In those roles, Tom Hardy is great at least 50% of the time. As Reggie, he’s really solid, a convincing hardman with big dreams and a well-controlled streak of violence. There are hints that he suffers some of the same mental unrest as his brother, especially in the final act, and a ruthlessness that his well-cut suits do nothing to camouflage.
But it’s a delicately balanced performance overall. As Ronnie, however, he employs so many tics that you’re unsure whether he’s engaging in character or caricature. Too often he defaults to a bulging-eyed expression that is unsettling when employed at close range, but downright distracting while other characters are talking."
----
Sounds about right from my experiences of Hardy - good in a rough/tough guy role, but lacks nuances for something more rounded - more Daniel Craig then Brando!
Daniel Craig wishes he had the range of Tom Hardy. You think Craig could've given a performance anywhere near as great as Hardy did in Locke? I love Daniel Craig as Bond but that's about it as far as his 'career' goes. Since he took on Bond in 2006 he hasn't been able to do much else aside from Bond movies. He's in the same typecast boat as Robert Downey Jr. Tom Hardy despite playing huge roles like Mad Max and Bane is getting dozens of different types of roles. He's arguably the most in demand actor right now along with Fassbender.
well I already said I have seen them , so you're essentially calling me a liar .>:(
being an actor is a job , Caine is smart enough to do the Hollywood stuff and get a big paycheck , he can then lend support to low budget British films like Educating Rita , Mona Lisa , Harry Brown etc. that's why he's had a near 60 year career in the biz .
this is the same for pretty much any actor who wants to have a long career . and Hardy will do the same , he's already made Hollywood dross like This Means War .
The difference is that when Hardy does 'dross' like This Means War (and let's face it, this is his ONLY weak movie he's done since Bronson) Hardy is still at least very good. When Michael Caine phones it it, he is god AWFUL lol! Caine isn't 'smart'. You can take huge paycheck roles and still retain your artistic integrity. Again just look at Hardy with his 2 Nolan movies as well as the most critically acclaimed blockbuster this year in Mad Max: Fury Road. When Caine was awful, everyone would know
I love Daniel Craig as Bond but that's about it as far as his 'career' goes. Since he took on Bond in 2006 he hasn't been able to do much else aside from Bond movies.
Bond has always tended to command the output of whoever's playing the role, probably due to the commitment involved. But Craig still managed seven other features (Defiance, TGWTDT etc) between Casino Royal and Skyfall.
Daniel Craig wishes he had the range of Tom Hardy. You think Craig could've given a performance anywhere near as great as Hardy did in Locke? I love Daniel Craig as Bond but that's about it as far as his 'career' goes. Since he took on Bond in 2006 he hasn't been able to do much else aside from Bond movies. He's in the same typecast boat as Robert Downey Jr. Tom Hardy despite playing huge roles like Mad Max and Bane is getting dozens of different types of roles. He's arguably the most in demand actor right now along with Fassbender.
The difference is that when Hardy does 'dross' like This Means War (and let's face it, this is his ONLY weak movie he's done since Bronson) Hardy is still at least very good. When Michael Caine phones it it, he is god AWFUL lol! Caine isn't 'smart'. You can take huge paycheck roles and still retain your artistic integrity. Again just look at Hardy with his 2 Nolan movies as well as the most critically acclaimed blockbuster this year in Mad Max: Fury Road. When Caine was awful, everyone would know
he still hasn't done anything as good as Alfie or Get Carter .
Baine was a bit crap , he never really got a handle on it , and he was the weak link in Mad Max , thankfully Charlize Theron carried the film .
as for "artistic integrity" - here's his "artistic integrity"
Bond has always tended to command the output of whoever's playing the role, probably due to the commitment involved. But Craig still managed seven other features (Defiance, TGWTDT etc) between Casino Royal and Skyfall.
Did Caine ever really phone it in though? I've seen him in some right old tosh (Shiner, The Hand) but I've never seen him sleepwalk through it.
btw - Inside Out is the most acclaimed blockbuster of the year. And with $374m ww, MM:FR is very much at the lower end of the blockbuster scale.
Of course Bond actors never have had the most diverse of filmographies but then again they've never been the greatest actors anyway (Craig included, even though I love his Bond). There have been a number of actors who've played iconic action/superhero characters yet they still manage to have a diverse career. Tom Hardy, Hugh Jackman and Christian Bale for example have played iconic superhero/villains but they always manage to do different types of roles, sometimes in between their tentpole projects. It takes a special 'comittment' to play Bond? Moreso than having to bulk up to play a certain action character but then having to shred their weight to play an entirely different character? Hugh Jackman has done a diverse amount of movies like Prisoners and Les Miserables between Wolverine roles. Craig is always craggely faced Craig even when he 'tries' like in TGWTDT. In fact he was awful in Cowboys and Aliens.
Caine's often phoned it in (Bullseye, The Magus) and of course at other times he's been straight up stinking up the screen.
As for Inside Out, it's a much easier sell to make with the iconic Pixar studio behind you than for an R Rated action movie. It's also far easier to please critics with animations also, especially fro the studio that supposedly can do no wrong that is Pixar. Frozen and Brave were pretty poor movies (OK the former is purely Disney but whatever...) and they got a pathetic pass from critics. Animations are always flavour of the month amongst critics until the next one comes along. Mad Max: Fury Road was unique. It didn't get the same box office returns as Inside Out for extremely obvious reasons yet it'll be the movie that defines summer 2015 in the long run and not IO. Fury Road is simply the best action movie of the decade so far whereas Inside Out is just another appreciated Pixar movie until something like Toy Story 4 comes along and gobbles it up. Ratatouille was acclaimed and no one remembers that now lol.
Bane was awesome. Only the second most iconic superhero villain behind Ledger's Joker. Hardy became the character and had to act with just his eyes whilst having a etal thing on its face and he was incredible. His sheer presence, the weght he put on was incredible. How anyone can say he was 'crap' is beyond me. Charlize Theron didn't 'carry' Mad Max. In fact no actor did. The main star was the one long chase from beginning to end. Charlize Theron wasn't that impressive, she just had the biggest character arc of the cast but that doesn't make her performance good. Tom Hardy did far more with his limited character than Theron did. Heck even Nicholas Hoult was more impressive than here lol
Bane was awesome. Only the second most iconic superhero villain behind Ledger's Joker. Hardy became the character and had to act with just his eyes whilst having a etal thing on its face and he was incredible. His sheer presence, the weght he put on was incredible. How anyone can say he was 'crap' is beyond me. Charlize Theron didn't 'carry' Mad Max. In fact no actor did. The main star was the one long chase from beginning to end. Charlize Theron wasn't that impressive, she just had the biggest character arc of the cast but that doesn't make her performance good. Tom Hardy did far more with his limited character than Theron did. Heck even Nicholas Hoult was more impressive than here lol
And what's wrong with that ad?
:Dthat Kleenex came in handy for wiping up his "artistic integrity" .
like I told you - he's an actor and he'll do dross for the money .
Baine wasn't very good , he just looked like he'd wandered in from some wrestling match , and did he ever decide on what accent he was doing ?
Bane was terrible but it wasn't Hardy's decision to just play him all shouty.
That accent though....jeeezus.
Ben, I'm worried you may be a bit obsessed with Hardy. There's defending a guy then there's acting like he's your agent or best mate or like I said earlier, your lover.
There have been a number of actors who've played iconic action/superhero characters yet they still manage to have a diverse career. Tom Hardy, Hugh Jackman and Christian Bale for example have played iconic superhero/villains but they always manage to do different types of roles,
Hardy has played one comic book villain so i'm not sure why you're comparing him with the other two.
Bane was awesome. Only the second most iconic superhero villain behind Ledger's Joker. Hardy became the character and had to act with just his eyes whilst having a etal thing on its face and he was incredible. His sheer presence, the weght he put on was incredible. How anyone can say he was 'crap' is beyond me.
His performance was laughable. From the first moment he spoke it was like it was a spoof performance.
Pretty much everyone I know who saw it thought the same. I've read more bad reviews/comments than good of his performance.
No, I was referring to the limitation on outside options a recurring character may make on an actor - the clash of schedules, opportunties etc. Hugh Jackman himself may have found this out to start with - he could manage only four full features between the first three X--men films. But it's a moot point as anyone in the same position is also on their own course, as it were.
The rest of your post I had no problem with. I disagreed with mostly all of it, but as it's purely subjective with nothing factual at stake, it's not a problem. Feel free to carry on with your rather amusing Hardy love.
Ben, I'm worried you may be a bit obsessed with Hardy. There's defending a guy then there's acting like he's your agent or best mate or like I said earlier, your lover.
Nah, he's just one of my favorite actors along with Michael Fassbender and Leonardo DiCaprio. Hardy is easily the best British actor working today.
No, I was referring to the limitation on outside options a recurring character may make on an actor - the clash of schedules, opportunties etc. Hugh Jackman himself may have found this out to start with - he could manage only four full features between the first three X--men films. But it's a moot point as anyone in the same position is also on their own course, as it were.
The rest of your post I had no problem with. I disagreed with mostly all of it, but as it's purely subjective with nothing factual at stake, it's not a problem. Feel free to carry on with your rather amusing Hardy love.
But it's almost 10 years since Casino Royale and Craig still hasn't found his stride. Heck he never had much of a career to begin with. His only shining light before 2006 was Layer Cake which got him the Bond role. Craig is a one note actor unlike Hugh Jackman who's managed to do brilliant work (often truly great like The Prestige, Prisoners and Les Miserable) in between Wolverine roles.
But it's almost 10 years since Casino Royale and Craig still hasn't found his stride. Heck he never had much of a career to begin with. His only shining light before 2006 was Layer Cake which got him the Bond role. Craig is a one note actor unlike Hugh Jackman who's managed to do brilliant work (often truly great like The Prestige, Prisoners and Les Miserable) in between Wolverine roles.
You have a very selective memory. He made his name in the mid 90s with Our Friends in the North. Then had roles in Elizabeth, Lara Croft, Road to Perdition and Sylvia before Layer Cake (obviously with other roles inbetween).
It's not a very good way to make an argument to say that someone you like has done nothing bad but someone you don't like has only done complete dross - even in world famous roles i.e. Bond.
You have a very selective memory. He made his name in the mid 90s with Our Friends in the North. Then had roles in Elizabeth, Lara Croft, Road to Perdition and Sylvia before Layer Cake (obviously with other roles inbetween).
It's not a very good way to make an argument to say that someone you like has done nothing bad but someone you don't like has only done complete dross - even in world famous roles i.e. Bond.
Can't you read? I've already said SEVERAL TIMES that I'm a huge fan of Daniel Craig as Bond. He's by a freaking mile my favourite Bond actor ever. But that doesn't mean he has range or versatility. Daniel Craig's 'career' outside Bond consists of mainly forgettable bit part roles. Even if you take out Bane and Mad Max from Hardy's career, he still has given performances miles ahead of anything Craig has given. Daniel Craig wishes he could give a performance as half as good as Bronson, Warrior, Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy, Lawless, Inception etc, etc. Even Layer Cake which is Craig's only somewhat 'remarkable' role outside Bond doesn't come anywhere near as close to what Hardy's done.
Comments
Daniel Craig wishes he had the range of Tom Hardy. You think Craig could've given a performance anywhere near as great as Hardy did in Locke? I love Daniel Craig as Bond but that's about it as far as his 'career' goes. Since he took on Bond in 2006 he hasn't been able to do much else aside from Bond movies. He's in the same typecast boat as Robert Downey Jr. Tom Hardy despite playing huge roles like Mad Max and Bane is getting dozens of different types of roles. He's arguably the most in demand actor right now along with Fassbender.
The difference is that when Hardy does 'dross' like This Means War (and let's face it, this is his ONLY weak movie he's done since Bronson) Hardy is still at least very good. When Michael Caine phones it it, he is god AWFUL lol! Caine isn't 'smart'. You can take huge paycheck roles and still retain your artistic integrity. Again just look at Hardy with his 2 Nolan movies as well as the most critically acclaimed blockbuster this year in Mad Max: Fury Road. When Caine was awful, everyone would know
Did Caine ever really phone it in though? I've seen him in some right old tosh (Shiner, The Hand) but I've never seen him sleepwalk through it.
btw - Inside Out is the most acclaimed blockbuster of the year. And with $374m ww, MM:FR is very much at the lower end of the blockbuster scale.
he still hasn't done anything as good as Alfie or Get Carter .
Baine was a bit crap , he never really got a handle on it , and he was the weak link in Mad Max , thankfully Charlize Theron carried the film .
as for "artistic integrity" - here's his "artistic integrity"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SYhIb28Fo8U
.
Caine has always been self conscious of the camera. Hardy isn't.
Of course Bond actors never have had the most diverse of filmographies but then again they've never been the greatest actors anyway (Craig included, even though I love his Bond). There have been a number of actors who've played iconic action/superhero characters yet they still manage to have a diverse career. Tom Hardy, Hugh Jackman and Christian Bale for example have played iconic superhero/villains but they always manage to do different types of roles, sometimes in between their tentpole projects. It takes a special 'comittment' to play Bond? Moreso than having to bulk up to play a certain action character but then having to shred their weight to play an entirely different character? Hugh Jackman has done a diverse amount of movies like Prisoners and Les Miserables between Wolverine roles. Craig is always craggely faced Craig even when he 'tries' like in TGWTDT. In fact he was awful in Cowboys and Aliens.
Caine's often phoned it in (Bullseye, The Magus) and of course at other times he's been straight up stinking up the screen.
As for Inside Out, it's a much easier sell to make with the iconic Pixar studio behind you than for an R Rated action movie. It's also far easier to please critics with animations also, especially fro the studio that supposedly can do no wrong that is Pixar. Frozen and Brave were pretty poor movies (OK the former is purely Disney but whatever...) and they got a pathetic pass from critics. Animations are always flavour of the month amongst critics until the next one comes along. Mad Max: Fury Road was unique. It didn't get the same box office returns as Inside Out for extremely obvious reasons yet it'll be the movie that defines summer 2015 in the long run and not IO. Fury Road is simply the best action movie of the decade so far whereas Inside Out is just another appreciated Pixar movie until something like Toy Story 4 comes along and gobbles it up. Ratatouille was acclaimed and no one remembers that now lol.
Bane was awesome. Only the second most iconic superhero villain behind Ledger's Joker. Hardy became the character and had to act with just his eyes whilst having a etal thing on its face and he was incredible. His sheer presence, the weght he put on was incredible. How anyone can say he was 'crap' is beyond me. Charlize Theron didn't 'carry' Mad Max. In fact no actor did. The main star was the one long chase from beginning to end. Charlize Theron wasn't that impressive, she just had the biggest character arc of the cast but that doesn't make her performance good. Tom Hardy did far more with his limited character than Theron did. Heck even Nicholas Hoult was more impressive than here lol
And what's wrong with that ad?
:Dthat Kleenex came in handy for wiping up his "artistic integrity" .
like I told you - he's an actor and he'll do dross for the money .
Baine wasn't very good , he just looked like he'd wandered in from some wrestling match , and did he ever decide on what accent he was doing ?
That accent though....jeeezus.
Ben, I'm worried you may be a bit obsessed with Hardy. There's defending a guy then there's acting like he's your agent or best mate or like I said earlier, your lover.
Looked terrible, sounded terrible
His performance was laughable. From the first moment he spoke it was like it was a spoof performance.
Pretty much everyone I know who saw it thought the same. I've read more bad reviews/comments than good of his performance.
The rest of your post I had no problem with. I disagreed with mostly all of it, but as it's purely subjective with nothing factual at stake, it's not a problem. Feel free to carry on with your rather amusing Hardy love.
The only 'dross' you've been able to mention is This Means War and even there he was charismatic as hell.
Nah, he's just one of my favorite actors along with Michael Fassbender and Leonardo DiCaprio. Hardy is easily the best British actor working today.
But it's almost 10 years since Casino Royale and Craig still hasn't found his stride. Heck he never had much of a career to begin with. His only shining light before 2006 was Layer Cake which got him the Bond role. Craig is a one note actor unlike Hugh Jackman who's managed to do brilliant work (often truly great like The Prestige, Prisoners and Les Miserable) in between Wolverine roles.
It's not a very good way to make an argument to say that someone you like has done nothing bad but someone you don't like has only done complete dross - even in world famous roles i.e. Bond.
Can't you read? I've already said SEVERAL TIMES that I'm a huge fan of Daniel Craig as Bond. He's by a freaking mile my favourite Bond actor ever. But that doesn't mean he has range or versatility. Daniel Craig's 'career' outside Bond consists of mainly forgettable bit part roles. Even if you take out Bane and Mad Max from Hardy's career, he still has given performances miles ahead of anything Craig has given. Daniel Craig wishes he could give a performance as half as good as Bronson, Warrior, Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy, Lawless, Inception etc, etc. Even Layer Cake which is Craig's only somewhat 'remarkable' role outside Bond doesn't come anywhere near as close to what Hardy's done.