Anonymous wrote:I so wish Heath Ledger was still alive. He was phenomenal.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Gary Oldman.

Leo is fine but not as diverse.

Gary Oldman is amazing. He had one or maybe two scenes in Oppenheimer playing Harry Truman and he was so good. You forget it's him.

British actors are in a league of their own. Leo is similar to Brad Pitt and George Clooney--limited range.

I kept thinking of British actors:
Anthony Hopkins
Kenneth Branagh
Benedict Cumberbatch
David Tennant
Ben Kingsley

On the American side:
Dustin Hoffman!!! (I can’t believe he hasn’t been listed)
Meryl Streep
Tom Hanks
Jodie Foster
Morgan Freeman

This is a great list! I agree that Brad Pitt, Leo and George Clooney are pretty faces with limited talent.

Pitt isn’t the best of the bunch but don’t agree he doesn’t have range. Burn After, 12 Monkeys, Fight Club to name a few are all very different characters.

+1
Benjamin Button, Snatch, Seven Years in Tibet - I personally think Brad Pitt is a great actor.

Pitt is so good in thr baseball movie. He really is very talented but I feel like because he’s such a pretty boy people sort of write him off.

I also think Leo is very talented. Titanic is terrible and unfortunate that is what people think of first. Aviator, revenant, catch me if you can and the weird one about dreams — he’s great in all those.

Agree also Gary Oldham.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Gary Oldman.

Leo is fine but not as diverse.

Gary Oldman is amazing. He had one or maybe two scenes in Oppenheimer playing Harry Truman and he was so good. You forget it's him.

British actors are in a league of their own. Leo is similar to Brad Pitt and George Clooney--limited range.

I kept thinking of British actors:
Anthony Hopkins
Kenneth Branagh
Benedict Cumberbatch
David Tennant
Ben Kingsley

On the American side:
Dustin Hoffman!!! (I can’t believe he hasn’t been listed)
Meryl Streep
Tom Hanks
Jodie Foster
Morgan Freeman

This is a great list! I agree that Brad Pitt, Leo and George Clooney are pretty faces with limited talent.

Pitt isn’t the best of the bunch but don’t agree he doesn’t have range. Burn After, 12 Monkeys, Fight Club to name a few are all very different characters.

+1
Benjamin Button, Snatch, Seven Years in Tibet - I personally think Brad Pitt is a great actor.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m not sure if Leo is a good actor or is just really good at choosing roles, but the combo is always good.

This. I don't think he has the range of other actors and I don't always feel completely convinced. However, he does a very good job of choosing both roles and directors (made easier by the fact that almost anyone will work with him and he has his pick of roles) and tends to pick roles that play to his strengths in the kind of understated, naturalistic acting he does. For him, it's all in the nuance. Like in One Battle After Another, his character is a version of a character he's played before, but the nuance is that he's spent the last couple decades smoking a lot of weed. And he does a really good job in weaving this into the role and milking it for both drama and humor. But it's not virtuosic. I'm not, like, transported.

The broadest he's ever gone is that plantation owner in Django Unchained, and while it's a memorable performance, it's not his best work. He does much better sticking within a narrower range, but then really exploring the subtleties within that range.

His career has thrived for so long for a reason. It pains people to admit he’s a good actor and it’s not just that he picks roles and directors. A weaker actor would deliver more flops.

Thank you for saying this. For some reason, there is some unspoken bias against him (he should have won the Oscar for The Wolf of Wall Street): I dunno if it’s because he’s so cagey about his private life, that he was kind of a pretty boy in the nineties, or Titanic - which is a great movie, by the way - or what.

It’s knee jerk contrarianism. He’s popular and mainstream and makes good movies so contrarians need to go against the grain. It’s like hating a band you used to love once they become popular. It’s not that they have an especially refined taste in movies they just need to be different.

Hear me out. It’s also that he’s just not that good. Very much a one-trick pony.

You must not be familiar with many if his movies bc that’s just not true.

That’s just, like, your opinion, man.

(Spoken by a far better living American actor than Leo…)

What exactly is his one trick?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m not sure if Leo is a good actor or is just really good at choosing roles, but the combo is always good.

This. I don't think he has the range of other actors and I don't always feel completely convinced. However, he does a very good job of choosing both roles and directors (made easier by the fact that almost anyone will work with him and he has his pick of roles) and tends to pick roles that play to his strengths in the kind of understated, naturalistic acting he does. For him, it's all in the nuance. Like in One Battle After Another, his character is a version of a character he's played before, but the nuance is that he's spent the last couple decades smoking a lot of weed. And he does a really good job in weaving this into the role and milking it for both drama and humor. But it's not virtuosic. I'm not, like, transported.

The broadest he's ever gone is that plantation owner in Django Unchained, and while it's a memorable performance, it's not his best work. He does much better sticking within a narrower range, but then really exploring the subtleties within that range.

His career has thrived for so long for a reason. It pains people to admit he’s a good actor and it’s not just that he picks roles and directors. A weaker actor would deliver more flops.

Thank you for saying this. For some reason, there is some unspoken bias against him (he should have won the Oscar for The Wolf of Wall Street): I dunno if it’s because he’s so cagey about his private life, that he was kind of a pretty boy in the nineties, or Titanic - which is a great movie, by the way - or what.

It’s knee jerk contrarianism. He’s popular and mainstream and makes good movies so contrarians need to go against the grain. It’s like hating a band you used to love once they become popular. It’s not that they have an especially refined taste in movies they just need to be different.

Hear me out. It’s also that he’s just not that good. Very much a one-trick pony.

You must not be familiar with many if his movies bc that’s just not true.

That’s just, like, your opinion, man.

(Spoken by a far better living American actor than Leo…)

Anonymous wrote:and it’s not even close.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:George is very one-note, but he’s very good at that note (Michael Clayton comes to mind).

Similarly, Denzel is always Denzeling, but it’s mesmerizing to watch.

+1
He even Denzeled in Gladiator!

PP here. He really did. It was like Alonzo from Training Day time traveled to Ancient Rome

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m not sure if Leo is a good actor or is just really good at choosing roles, but the combo is always good.

This. I don't think he has the range of other actors and I don't always feel completely convinced. However, he does a very good job of choosing both roles and directors (made easier by the fact that almost anyone will work with him and he has his pick of roles) and tends to pick roles that play to his strengths in the kind of understated, naturalistic acting he does. For him, it's all in the nuance. Like in One Battle After Another, his character is a version of a character he's played before, but the nuance is that he's spent the last couple decades smoking a lot of weed. And he does a really good job in weaving this into the role and milking it for both drama and humor. But it's not virtuosic. I'm not, like, transported.

The broadest he's ever gone is that plantation owner in Django Unchained, and while it's a memorable performance, it's not his best work. He does much better sticking within a narrower range, but then really exploring the subtleties within that range.

His career has thrived for so long for a reason. It pains people to admit he’s a good actor and it’s not just that he picks roles and directors. A weaker actor would deliver more flops.

Thank you for saying this. For some reason, there is some unspoken bias against him (he should have won the Oscar for The Wolf of Wall Street): I dunno if it’s because he’s so cagey about his private life, that he was kind of a pretty boy in the nineties, or Titanic - which is a great movie, by the way - or what.

It’s knee jerk contrarianism. He’s popular and mainstream and makes good movies so contrarians need to go against the grain. It’s like hating a band you used to love once they become popular. It’s not that they have an especially refined taste in movies they just need to be different.

Hear me out. It’s also that he’s just not that good. Very much a one-trick pony.

You must not be familiar with many if his movies bc that’s just not true.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:George is very one-note, but he’s very good at that note (Michael Clayton comes to mind).

Similarly, Denzel is always Denzeling, but it’s mesmerizing to watch.

+1
He even Denzeled in Gladiator!