Has Edward Norton Peaked?

You will not find a bigger Ed Norton fan than myself. I think he is quite possibly the greatest actor of all time.

The only problem is that all of his top 3 or 5 roles were more than 5 years ago. He hasn't been nominated for an Oscar in almost ten years.

Is it a matter of him not getting great roles, or has he reached the pinnacle of success and can't go any further? I think it's that he hasn't gotten enough roles for him to shine, but I'm not positive.
What do you guys think?

I voted "No," but was admittedly a bit confused about how to interpret the question. I don't think he can get much better, because he's consistently fantastic in almost every role he takes on. So, in that sense, you could say he's peaked. But I don't think he's really slipping, either; I think it's more the natural ebb and flow of the quality of the films he's in. So in that sense, I'd say he hasn't peaked, if only because it vaguely implies an impending drop-off.

I voted no, as I liked the recent stuff I saw him in, and I think he showed more restraint than his previous efforts in stuff like The Illusionist...

__________________

Daniel Day Lewis blows him out of the water.

__________________
http://www.last.fm/user/diezelpower/

I think you mean "Daniel Day Lewis blows"

Ed Norton can tap into any character and he makes you believe it. That's why he's great.

I do like Norton but I don't think he is that great an actor. I think he does well with the good roles like in Fight Club, Primal Fear, American History X. But I think if he is given a bad role, he will not have a good performance. So what makes me think someone is the best actor, they need to give good performances in every role they are given. For instance, Anthony Hopkins.

I voted he is consistently good but who knows what he may do in the future

__________________
Health is the greatest gift, contentment the greatest wealth, faithfulness the best relationship.
Buddha

Yeah, I'm sure no other actor has managed to do that....Why am I even answering?

Ah yes, and that's why you neg rep people for opinions.

He is absolutely a great actor, but I don't know if he is greatest of all time.

__________________
"Aim high, it costs no more to shoot at eagles then it does to shoot at skunks"

I'm not sure what this means, or your comment, I didn't touch the stuff in this thread....:-/

To my mind, he's the most overrated talent of this generation. His iconic roles (in American History X and Fight Club) are virtually identical, and his other turns have been competent, but hardly brilliant. He shines in roles that demand physical intensity and a touch of emotional vulnerability, but he's hardly among the greats of his generation (where he is often placed).

As my girlfriend just put it:

"Edward Norton - Bruce Willis for emo kids!"

I don't even think he's as good as Bruce Willis. At least Willis can say he did something a little new (injecting comic irony into the Hollywood Action Hero).

I don't see how you can call his roles in AHX and Fight Club "virtually identical" though. In "History" he was supposed to be, as you say, intense and a little bit vulnerable. The similar thing is that both characters are compromised by self doubt, but the dramatic demands are completely different.

I thought he did an okay job of turning off the intensity and stepping out of the spotlight. Played a credibly sardonic everyman/Caspar Milquetoast. The problems with that movie weren't his, they were the annoyingly self-contradicting romanticism, and I don't think that came from the actors.

I don't think I've been impressed with any others of Norton's performances.

He's awesome. Who said yes?

__________________

I think Hopkins relies too heavily on his typecast which is something that would probably smell musty, in a good way, like your favorite grand parent's house.

Well yeah he is typecast and I can't imagine him playing a comedic role. Maybe dark humour... When a movie sucks with him in it, I still think Hopkins did a good performance....The Human Stain for one.

Anyway, this is a thread about Edward Norton, so I digress.

I think Ed Norton is top notch. His characterizations are very detailed and his delivery is always straight from the guts, but also intelligent. I do not think he has peaked. I think there will be more good roles for him and that he'll be lauded again.

And as far as him doing well in bad films, y'all seem to have mercifully blocked "Death to Smoochy" from your minds.

__________________
Review: Cabin in the Woods 8/10

Is this a movie I should see, or, avoid

Death to Smoochy is a solid dark comedy, Nebbs. It's not great, but Norton's a riot in it.

My stepdad's not mean, he's just adjusting.