Just how overrated is Dicaprio ? and his parallels with Chris Nolan

Tools    





But is that performance bad because he's "shouty"?

Regardless, the relevant point here is in the post before that video. It's fine that you have this opinion, but it feels like you're trying to give it a veneer of objectivity, when the only difference between the roles you call "shouty" and the ones you think are brilliant are just whether they worked for you on some hazy, unquantifiable level.



But he doesn’t do that for every movie... his prime role in godfather doesn’t have screamy shouty performance...
If you think The Godfather was Marlon Brando's prime acting role, then you're not nearly as astute to nuanced acting as you claim to be. Brando gave a much more heartfelt and introspective performance in On the Waterfront.



If your definition of intense is being angry and shouty all the time then of course he did those in wolf of wall street (full on shouty) and revenant( full on grunting urgggg..) . Intense performances are Related to screen presence like marlon Brando not screams shouty . A scream shouty performance will convince layman multiplex audience that his performance is intense. But not actors.
I think Yoda already took great care of this part.

Speaking of Scorsese,Tarantino,PTA praising him...ask yourself do they have incentive in praising him...Scorsese was about to go into gutter after bringing out the dead as his previous few films weren’t doing so great and DiCaprio helped him fund gangs of new York at 100 million. Whose movie is gangs of New York? After that it’s been favors..DiCaprio wanted Scorsese to direct aviator and wolf of Wall Street...Scorsese passion projects were Hugo,silence etc...it’s like lifeline to Scorsese career...
De Niro had recommended Leo to Scorsese since 1993. Could De Niro know that Leo would become a huge movie star four years later? The beginning of Scorsese and DiCaprio's relationship is actually pretty well documented. It has roots in the early '90s. Or are you saying those are all lies just to keep up appearances?

I'm not saying their partnership isn't partly built on mutual interests, but you're making it sound like Scorsese is DiCaprio's puppet. That's not how it works. I guarantee you that Scorsese wouldn't work with DiCaprio if he hated his acting. He would be a terrible director if he did.

Tarantino wanted 100 million for Django you think Jamie Fox as lead will get you that? Of course not...so he had to cast a top star... Christopher waltz or John travolta or Samuel l Jackson are the actors Tarantino wanted for roles...not Brad Pitt or DiCaprio..they are the budget guys....Kurt Russell was supposed to play DiCaprio role but he exited..I wonder why..
Kurt Russell was never going to play Calvin Candie. He was going to play a kind of sidekick character to him that was ultimately removed.
Many people think that Leo's performance as Candie was one of the best parts of the movie, by the way.

PTA was not explicitly praising him..he praised him in the context of boogie nights...and also what world are you in...you think they say anything openly to media what they think? Badmouthing gets out outcasted in Hollywood...these filmmakers have incentives in hiring these actors ...budgets are tied to who gets cast in the movies..
Nope. He has regularly said that he thinks Leo's performance in What's Eating Gilbert Grape is one of the best performances of all time and that he's absolutely sure that he will work with DiCaprio one day. Does PTA strike you as the kind of guy who'd work with an actor he doesn't like just for the money?


You're obviously a very smart person who's able to string things together in order to build a good theory, but it seems like you're misinterpreting or unconsciously fabricating facts that seem to be proving your point. A classic case of 'confirmation bias'. Be aware of it! Dare to question your own beliefs.
__________________
Cobpyth's Movie Log ~ 2019



But is that performance bad because he's "shouty"?
It isn't, by the way. It's a great performance. Yet the clip demonstrates what you said here perfectly:

It's realllllly easy to just call acting angry or shouty if you don't like it for some reason. Someone could be similarly reductive about performances you liked, but that's really just an example of how subjective and idiosyncratic this stuff is. What's the objective difference between a great, powerful, explosive performance, and a "shouty" one? Just whether it "worked" for you, really.



...You're obviously a very smart person who's able to string things together in order to build a good theory, but it seems like you're misinterpreting or unconsciously fabricating facts that seem to be proving your point. A classic case of 'confirmation bias'...
I remember we had another member who did that 'confirmation bias' too, Des or whatever name(s), he went by.



That elusive hide-and-seek cow is at it again
Ok. To add something serious: while I hated him in Basketball Diaries, I remember thinking "that kid in Gilbert Grape" was brilliant. I'm not surprised at all by his accomplishments as an actor.



you seem to think everything is so transparent in trades....do u really think a role replaced due to budget concerns is gonna come out like that? Of course Kurt Russell will be playing a imaginary side kick...as for De Niro referring DiCaprio...that’s a long time it took Scorsese to use the guy referred by De Niro...what a decade between this boys life and gangs of new York? You think he would have been cast in a 100 million dollar production without titanic star power pedigree? Your same pta also said that magnolia is also his best movie he will ever make .but then a few years later when asked by a reporter he said “isn’t that how you market a new movie?”..moreover why hasn’t he cast him in any of the roles if he think he is so great? Even you are a smart guy..but for better or worse you are an auteur worshipper and you follow the age old theory of success = greatness ...suit yourself...there are people who put artists in boxes and treat auteurs like auteurs and god forbid a comedic director turns serious they try to poke holes in the movie and relegate him to a comedic director trying to be serious.



Welcome to the human race...
It’s a risky project which turned out be a surprise success.Ridley Scott isn’t on the same level as Tarantino or Scorsese or innaritu in appealing to oscars as you said he made lot of ****e. Its more an action movie .I will put it in the same basket as mcu movies.Studio knew audience were hungry for space movies after gravity and interstellar and made this movie.Not because Matt Damon could carry a movie.
Hey, it met your specifications, don't go shifting the goalposts on me now. It was a sci-fi movie from the guy who made Alien and Blade Runner and who had already directed a Best Picture winner in Gladiator that also starred an A-list star with his own set of considerable credentials (plus the whole "audience loves space movies" that you mentioned), so how much of a "risk" was it?

Say that to Adam Sandler who can’t even get a release for his dramatic movies or look at flop of punch drunk love. Why did man on the moon by Jim Carrey isn’t a success like Bruce almighty? His fans are in different genre. Blind side is light hearted all American moms are great movie right in Sandra Bullock fan following wheelhouse . Oscar wins don’t make a director auteur.You are missing the term “consistency”.If a director made 20 movies and 3 are bad..then it’s okay.But if he made 5 movies and 2 are bad then his next movie can suck or work with same probability.Best selling books may make money but not wow oscar voters. Hiring Scorsese to do a wall street gangster movie is as close as you could get to making a movie that works or a Tarantino movie written by him.
On the other hand, consider The Truman Show or Eternal Sunshine. Also, how many movies do you think Ang Lee has made anyway? There are similar themes and approaches running through most of his movies from his early Taiwanese stuff through to his international work so I'd say he's more consistent than you seem to give him credit for. Besides, you missed when I referred to DiCaprio as consistent so you've really got to be careful about how you want yourself or other people to use that term.

Comparing ang lee to Spielberg is a joke.Ang lee made only 1 or 2 movies between hulk and life of pie.So it’s not like he made 10 movies that blows away stink from hulk and his Woodstock and billy Lynn movies prove my point. Spielberg 10 films after hook did blow away all the stink from hook.So that analogy doesn’t work.
He also made movies before Hulk that earned him more than enough goodwill for a misfire like Hulk and it's not like the technical side of Billy Lynn didn't make it a risk of its own anyway. Should I have referred to Spielberg as "the director of Crystal Skull" instead? He's been putting out films faster for longer anyway so trying to go strictly by the numbers is kind of pointless.

Bale also worked with David o Russell on fighter at time when he was just out of directors jail. So at that point David o Russell was this guy whom no one wanted to hire and no one believed in him. By the time hustle came around I agree it did feel like Scorsese wannabe at times.But the fact that you so passionately pointed out that it’s a Scorsese rip off proves that Scorsese is this auteur with a style and strong fan base and it in turns proves why DiCaprio wants to work with him. Oscarvoters are fans of Scorsese just like you and so a collaboration with Scorsese gives DiCaprio an easier time in getting his movies into oscar race. Reducing bales performance in hustle to weight gain isn’t doing it any service....it’s a role that demonstrated his range...it’s not weight his performance was awesome in the movie...this harmless appearing sleaze bag played by a guy who did Batman is range. Big short isn’t a comedy like anchorman...it’s a dense movie that’s using comedy to delve into dark subject matter. His role of autistic hedge fund manager could easily have looked like a razzie winning performance like lex Luther in bvs...but since it worked it was nominated for oscar.All 3 fighter,hustle and big short could have bombed with oscar voters easier than any of DiCaprio movies but they worked. Which to me is risk taking.Ridley Scott in the last decade is bad Ridley Scott than good Ridley Scott....so working with him after the counselor on exodus is a joke....all the things are pointing it to be a disaster which it was.
Ah yes, David O. Russell, who once he got out of director's jail went from making quirky comedies to prestige pictures. So risky. If Exodus was really going to be a risky movie it wouldn't have cast famous white people as Egyptians in the first place, so congrats to Bale for helping maintain an absurd, long-lived standard of safe Hollywood filmmaking between unsuccessful Oscar noms. I think it's getting to the point where trying to use Oscar recognition as some sort of gotcha on either side is getting pointless (especially when it comes to distinguishing between nominations and wins) - I might as well ask you if the pretty boy from Titanic doing a movie where he eats raw meat in the freezing snow is demonstrating his range for all the difference it apparently makes to either of us. Besides, I already pointed out how there's nothing inherently worthwhile about the concept of taking risks nor does consistency automatically signify safeness and boredom.
__________________
I really just want you all angry and confused the whole time.
Iro's Top 100 Movies v3.0



Hey, it met your specifications, don't go shifting the goalposts on me now. It was a sci-fi movie from the guy who made Alien and Blade Runner and who had already directed a Best Picture winner in Gladiator that also starred an A-list star with his own set of considerable credentials (plus the whole "audience loves space movies" that you mentioned), so how much of a "risk" was it?
difference between revenant and martian is this - revenant was always aiming for oscar even the production began. They got a director with academy cache and the story was morphed into oscar baity kind with dead wife and indian son(which are all sentimental tropes) and it was released in december. Where as martian is something they were hoping would be a success because of the whole space movie resurgence. They hired ridley who was very inconsistent in his filmmaking track record. So this movie could have easily be another Prometheus.So martian is much more risky than revenant. Space movie resurgence is for greenlighting not for oscar perspective. Its strictly for oscars. Innaritu was gonna make a oscar friendly movie with more certainty than ridley scott any day of the week. Because innaritu is respected as an artist where as ridley scott is a hired gun with no input during screenwriting.

On the other hand, consider The Truman Show or Eternal Sunshine. Also, how many movies do you think Ang Lee has made anyway? There are similar themes and approaches running through most of his movies from his early Taiwanese stuff through to his international work so I'd say he's more consistent than you seem to give him credit for. Besides, you missed when I referred to DiCaprio as consistent so you've really got to be careful about how you want yourself or other people to use that term.
Truman show is still a absurdist comedic movie.Eternal sunshine made 72 million on a 20 million which isnt much of a hit considering they had to spend on marketing etc. If all the movies of jim carrey were making similar money he wouldnt be one of the biggest stars of 90s. Ange lee was always a small director. I dont care about similar themes i care about whay kind of brand name he has at the boxoffice. There are directors who make movies that get oscar nominations and due to those their movie would be hit. Do you think morten tyldum aka the director of imitation game or tom hooper of kings speech is an auteur ? of course not. Even though their movies make 400 million in case of tom hooper twice at the boxoffice they are not auteurs. Auteurs are directors with certain singnature style and enough popularity for people to identify their work as unique and in addition boxoffice appeal.Quentin tarantino is an auteur , even his hateful eight made 150 miilion. I am not sure how dicaprio being consistent contradicts any of my arguments. Spielberg on the hand can sell movies with his own name. People know who he is and will flock to movie theaters to watch his movies or chris nolan.
He also made movies before Hulk that earned him more than enough goodwill for a misfire like Hulk and it's not like the technical side of Billy Lynn didn't make it a risk of its own anyway. Should I have referred to Spielberg as "the director of Crystal Skull" instead? He's been putting out films faster for longer anyway so trying to go strictly by the numbers is kind of pointless.
Refer to my previous previous points. No one cared about billy lynn or hulk when they flopped. No one was expecting an ang lee movie. But people were expecting a Spielberg directed indiana jones movie.You are mistaking a decent director with auteur. Innaritu is more consistent and an auteur than ang lee. Say what you want but spielberg is much much more consistent and a brand than ang lee.

Ah yes, David O. Russell, who once he got out of director's jail went from making quirky comedies to prestige pictures. So risky.
I had to highlight this point because this clearly proves my point. If you are relegating david o russell movies to quirky comedies then you should re-evalute how you watch movies or just come to terms with the fact that you are a multiplex audience who just views movies as entertainment.Nothing wrong with that but just get that straight. Because i noticed there has been a backlash against american hustle when it came out.People said it was overrated but the same people worshipped wolf of wallstreet. There is a thing called story telling.The difference between something like the big short or american hustle and revenant or wolf of wallstreet is that the later movies are compromised by their financial goals. They have to appeal to multiplex 10-35 yr old males who like macho movies.So all the rough edges are smoothed.Wolf of wallstreet was marketed as a cautionary tale of capitalism but i saw posters of Jordan belfort in dorm rooms.People were worshipping the character. Where did they go wrong ? they didnt portray a well rounded story. They touched it on the surface and 10-35 yr olds will gravitate towards lawbreaking and overly partying character and its good for producers as long as the movie made money.This is equivalent to mcdonalds. The big short is much more complicated story to tell.That what i call challenging film making. Direction of the big short is 10 times better than that of wolf of wallstreet. Because it was much more ambitious undertaking. Telling the story of financial crash by going deep into it is a much more complicated undertaking than telling the story about drugs and debauchery when you got 150 million. But multiplex audience dont care.As long they get the adrenaline rush from the movie they will think its better than anything. Same with american hustle. The way he deals with characters and storylines is much more complicated than the gimmick of shooting in natural lighting and single takes. Its great directorial achievement but story wise its nothing. Dicaprio's team knows that..They know what stories to pick that would appeal to 10-35 yr old multiplex male fanboy audience so that they would get box office and at the same time get oscar recognition. You would be foolish to think he takes projects that are risky. Prestige pictures with top auteurs is a recipe for oscar gold.
If Exodus was really going to be a risky movie it wouldn't have cast famous white people as Egyptians in the first place, so congrats to Bale for helping maintain an absurd, long-lived standard of safe Hollywood filmmaking between unsuccessful Oscar noms. I think it's getting to the point where trying to use Oscar recognition as some sort of gotcha on either side is getting pointless (especially when it comes to distinguishing between nominations and wins) - I might as well ask you if the pretty boy from Titanic doing a movie where he eats raw meat in the freezing snow is demonstrating his range for all the difference it apparently makes to either of us. Besides, I already pointed out how there's nothing inherently worthwhile about the concept of taking risks nor does consistency automatically signify safeness and boredom.
[/quote]
Exodus was risky in terms of the finished product and not how it got made. Think about it this way. A script comes to christian bale which says a bible movie with ridley scott who just made the couselor and his last three movies are body of lies,robinhood and Prometheus.All were critically/fan-wise not well received. And this is a movie that shows god as little boy and when was the last time a bible movie was a success ? All this things point to the film being a failure and it was a failure. That to me is a risk. Jumping from playing an overweight conman to playing Moses..i don't know if there is bigger jump than that. It all boils down to subverting expectations. You don't expect him to play a overweight conman or a cracked up drug addict or moses. As for pretty boy eating bison liver..thats not acting thats eating bison liver. And how are you going to explain this "Dicaprio is a vegan and when he ate bison liver he spit it out and that reaction was in the movie. But in the time period the movie was set..his character would not be so grossed out by the bison liver..in 1890s people used to eat meat..so what is acting and what is clever oscar campaign ?"...if he really was a great actor as you say..should he be grossed out by bison liver if he is character ? The essence of who dicaprio is and who christian bale is are summed up by titanic and machinist...life isnt always fair to anyone but i would rather appreciate an actor who overcame challenges in the career to prove who he is than a guy who was handed 100 million budgets in silver platter just because he struck gold with titanic. Idols are supposed to be real and should display characteristics of resilience and dedication and self motivation. Its easy to take the winners side. From out side everyone will side with dicaprio.."ooh look at him he is putting out a movie in december and its right away getting oscar nominations and all is well"...but to me its not so black and white...i will gravitate towards why hostiles struggled to get a distribution and why was it snubbed oscar nominations even though it dealt with its themes much more personally than revenant. Few times dicaprio veered into working with directors who has not so good track record , it backfired...j.edgar,great gatsby or body of lies...risk taking is essential for artists...a century from now people will remember dicaprio like they remember charlton heston.oog that guy is good but he is the same character in every movie..but they will remember christian bale like marlon brando...he has a lot of range. hey there is nothing in siding with winner ...i would rather side with self made winner than a corporation chosen winner.



Welcome to the human race...
Truman show is still a absurdist comedic movie.Eternal sunshine made 72 million on a 20 million which isnt much of a hit considering they had to spend on marketing etc. If all the movies of jim carrey were making similar money he wouldnt be one of the biggest stars of 90s. Ange lee was always a small director. I dont care about similar themes i care about whay kind of brand name he has at the boxoffice. There are directors who make movies that get oscar nominations and due to those their movie would be hit. Do you think morten tyldum aka the director of imitation game or tom hooper of kings speech is an auteur ? of course not. Even though their movies make 400 million in case of tom hooper twice at the boxoffice they are not auteurs. Auteurs are directors with certain singnature style and enough popularity for people to identify their work as unique and in addition boxoffice appeal.Quentin tarantino is an auteur , even his hateful eight made 150 miilion. I am not sure how dicaprio being consistent contradicts any of my arguments. Spielberg on the hand can sell movies with his own name. People know who he is and will flock to movie theaters to watch his movies or chris nolan.
If you care more about brand names at the box office than about similar themes, then how much do you really care about auteurs in the first place? Box office has nothing to do with a director's qualification as an auteur. This is especially ironic considering how you condescendingly told off Cobpyth for apparently thinking that success automatically equalled greatness.

Also, Truman Show was a mix of comedy and drama, much like Man in the Moon was. It just so happened to have more mass appeal. So what.

Refer to my previous previous points. No one cared about billy lynn or hulk when they flopped. No one was expecting an ang lee movie. But people were expecting a Spielberg directed indiana jones movie.You are mistaking a decent director with auteur. Innaritu is more consistent and an auteur than ang lee. Say what you want but spielberg is much much more consistent and a brand than ang lee.
You make a lot of points inside these walls of text so excuse me if I'm having trouble responding to whichever ones you're talking about here - also, again with the trying to no-true-Scotsman the idea of the auteur.

I had to highlight this point because this clearly proves my point. If you are relegating david o russell movies to quirky comedies then you should re-evalute how you watch movies or just come to terms with the fact that you are a multiplex audience who just views movies as entertainment.Nothing wrong with that but just get that straight.
You're right, he went from making quirky comedies to making quirky comedies that got Oscar nominations. Besides, good luck calling me a "multiplex audience" as if I wasn't the one who brought up Ang Lee's non-Hollywood films in his defence against someone who just called him "the director of Hulk".

Because i noticed there has been a backlash against american hustle when it came out.People said it was overrated but the same people worshipped wolf of wallstreet. There is a thing called story telling.The difference between something like the big short or american hustle and revenant or wolf of wallstreet is that the later movies are compromised by their financial goals. They have to appeal to multiplex 10-35 yr old males who like macho movies.So all the rough edges are smoothed.Wolf of wallstreet was marketed as a cautionary tale of capitalism but i saw posters of Jordan belfort in dorm rooms.People were worshipping the character. Where did they go wrong ? they didnt portray a well rounded story. They touched it on the surface and 10-35 yr olds will gravitate towards lawbreaking and overly partying character and its good for producers as long as the movie made money.This is equivalent to mcdonalds. The big short is much more complicated story to tell.That what i call challenging film making. Direction of the big short is 10 times better than that of wolf of wallstreet. Because it was much more ambitious undertaking. Telling the story of financial crash by going deep into it is a much more complicated undertaking than telling the story about drugs and debauchery when you got 150 million. But multiplex audience dont care.As long they get the adrenaline rush from the movie they will think its better than anything. Same with american hustle. The way he deals with characters and storylines is much more complicated than the gimmick of shooting in natural lighting and single takes. Its great directorial achievement but story wise its nothing. Dicaprio's team knows that..They know what stories to pick that would appeal to 10-35 yr old multiplex male fanboy audience so that they would get box office and at the same time get oscar recognition. You would be foolish to think he takes projects that are risky. Prestige pictures with top auteurs is a recipe for oscar gold.
Whatever, I don't particularly like any of these films anyway. In any case, I wrote this review of The Big Short that should tell you what I thought of it.

Exodus was risky in terms of the finished product and not how it got made. Think about it this way. A script comes to christian bale which says a bible movie with ridley scott who just made the couselor and his last three movies are body of lies,robinhood and Prometheus.All were critically/fan-wise not well received. And this is a movie that shows god as little boy and when was the last time a bible movie was a success ? All this things point to the film being a failure and it was a failure. That to me is a risk. Jumping from playing an overweight conman to playing Moses..i don't know if there is bigger jump than that. It all boils down to subverting expectations. You don't expect him to play a overweight conman or a cracked up drug addict or moses.
The jump from a smooth-talking stockbroker to a grizzled fur-trapper?

As for pretty boy eating bison liver..thats not acting thats eating bison liver. And how are you going to explain this "Dicaprio is a vegan and when he ate bison liver he spit it out and that reaction was in the movie. But in the time period the movie was set..his character would not be so grossed out by the bison liver..in 1890s people used to eat meat..so what is acting and what is clever oscar campaign ?"...if he really was a great actor as you say..should he be grossed out by bison liver if he is character ?
You never know. It is eating raw meat, after all - I can imagine that even a character like that wouldn't get used to eating it (especially if they're only doing it out of complete desperation).

The essence of who dicaprio is and who christian bale is are summed up by titanic and machinist...life isnt always fair to anyone but i would rather appreciate an actor who overcame challenges in the career to prove who he is than a guy who was handed 100 million budgets in silver platter just because he struck gold with titanic Idols are supposed to be real and should display characteristics of resilience and dedication and self motivation. Its easy to take the winners side. From out side everyone will side with dicaprio.."ooh look at him he is putting out a movie in december and its right away getting oscar nominations and all is well"...but to me its not so black and white...i will gravitate towards why hostiles struggled to get a distribution and why was it snubbed oscar nominations even though it dealt with its themes much more personally than revenant. Few times dicaprio veered into working with directors who has not so good track record , it backfired...j.edgar,great gatsby or body of lies...risk taking is essential for artists...a century from now people will remember dicaprio like they remember charlton heston.oog that guy is good but he is the same character in every movie..but they will remember christian bale like marlon brando...he has a lot of range. hey there is nothing in siding with winner ...i would rather side with self made winner than a corporation chosen winner.
Bale starred in an actual Spielberg movie when he was a kid, but sure, he's the self-made guy who came up from nothing.



You make a lot of points inside these walls of text so excuse me if I'm having trouble responding to whichever ones you're talking about here - also, again with the trying to no-true-Scotsman the idea of the auteur.
i think my point is clear...if you are making a movie with goal of making money then mcu superhero movie or star wars is the safest choice.if your goal is to make a movie that is bound to be nominated for oscar then pick a director with almost 100% track record in that area and also pick one who can make masculine movies aka scorsese,innaritu etc...both are surefire in their own arena..

You're right, he went from making quirky comedies to making quirky comedies that got Oscar nominations. Besides, good luck calling me a "multiplex audience" as if I wasn't the one who brought up Ang Lee's non-Hollywood films in his defence against someone who just called him "the director of Hulk".
there is nothing wrong with being a multiplex audience. I used ang lee's hollywood career to point out why he is not an auteur. You dont see screenings of broke back mountain with sold out shows playing now, but you do see those for scorsese or tarantino...those sold out crowds are gonna turn up to their movies. All these contribute to hype for a movie.
Whatever, I don't particularly like any of these films anyway. In any case, I wrote this review of The Big Short that should tell you what I thought of it.
Its ambition is praise worthy. They were cleverly poking fun at fans of wolf of wall street with Margot Robbie cameo. By using her they were telling to crowds.."you people paid attention to Margot Robbie in a cautionary tale about capitalism" its a critique on multiplex audience who are more attracted to shiny stuff than under lying theme that was buried by Scorsese and screenwriter.

The jump from a smooth-talking stockbroker to a grizzled fur-trapper?
dont you feel like its just name sake...oh here is leo as fur trapper because he has long hair beard and fur coat..he even couldnt do an accent.Whole movie he was looking constipated and sad.grizzled fur trapper should be leaner meaner and muscular..did you look at him when getting into horse ? its just him with soft body

You never know. It is eating raw meat, after all - I can imagine that even a character like that wouldn't get used to eating it (especially if they're only doing it out of complete desperation).
why didnt he heat the meat when there is fire right over there.

Bale starred in an actual Spielberg movie when he was a kid, but sure, he's the self-made guy who came up from nothing.
Bale had to take lot of challenges through out his career...he wasnt offered scripts from tarantino or top agents or top studios...he is almost same age as dicaprio and his face is more model like than dicaprio..so he will always be behind dicaprio on the actors priority list for projects...so he had to prove by taking supporting roles..that to me is more inspirational than dicaprio whose movies are ear marked for oscars right from the script level.
Simple example of how he elevates the material is in fighter and big short..if you look at the script they are just normal lines...but the way he pauses and looks and delivers them is all on his talent as opposed to dicaprio who just looks down and up and screams in between in django unchained. Anyways to each his own...but i wont deny the desire to be on the side of someone who always wins.



Why are you so bothered by DiCaprio? You're spending a lot of time and energy trying to devalue him. You even attacked him as a person when you refer to him as a man baby. So I don't believe this rant is about his acting abilities, I think you have a personal grudge against him. I asked you this before and you evaded the question, claiming your reasoning was based on his acting, but it's clear to me you have a strong dislike of his person...So I will ask again, what is your problem with DiCaprio the person?



Why are you so bothered by DiCaprio? You're spending a lot of time and energy trying to devalue him. You even attacked him as a person when you refer to him as a man baby. So I don't believe this rant is about his acting abilities, I think you have a personal grudge against him. I asked you this before and you evaded the question, claiming your reasoning was based on his acting, but it's clear to me you have a strong dislike of his person...So I will ask again, what is your problem with DiCaprio the person?
i dont care about his private life...i can see he is being pushed by studios as this greatest actor..just like studios tried to push taylor kitch or sam worthingston or colin farrell or jude law are a box office moviestars..all those entertainment websites praising him over and over again is just a studio machine trying to make him a living legend because it benefits them. The difference between him and the others i mentioned above is that they didnt have a titanic. As i said earlier he is lucky enough to be a better actor than his contemporaries in the 90s like brad pitt/matt damon/ben affleck/johnny depp..rest of great actors in 90s are either old or not moviestars.Had christian bale made the dark knight trilogy in 90s..some of dicaprios starpower would be shared by bale and so does his roles..its just that bale broke out late in his career....critical acclaimed performance and box office is what bale was missing until mid 2000s. You think all those articles about how hard it was to shoot revenant was reporters writing out of their own interest ? of course not..they are being paid or incentivised by Dicparios team to single him out and high light him..same thing happened with wolf of wallstreet..where all his performances are listed and articles star popping out about his oscar chances...people just want to feel happy by getting on the bandwagon of his success...but he to me is the golden boy of studios...he is protected by studios and publicized wisely to create this illusion of great actor. Why dont he let the movie speak for itself ..why should he jam down everyones throats how hard it was to revenant if not for oscars and btw we dont have classes today..thats a plus



This guy has never done a bad film, he s a wonderful actor



You can't win an argument just by being right!
i dont care about his private life...i can see he is being pushed by studios as this greatest actor..just like studios tried to push taylor kitch or sam worthingston or colin farrell or jude law are a box office moviestars..all those entertainment websites praising him over and over again is just a studio machine trying to make him a living legend because it benefits them. The difference between him and the others i mentioned above is that they didnt have a titanic. As i said earlier he is lucky enough to be a better actor than his contemporaries in the 90s like brad pitt/matt damon/ben affleck/johnny depp..rest of great actors in 90s are either old or not moviestars.Had christian bale made the dark knight trilogy in 90s..some of dicaprios starpower would be shared by bale and so does his roles..its just that bale broke out late in his career....critical acclaimed performance and box office is what bale was missing until mid 2000s. You think all those articles about how hard it was to shoot revenant was reporters writing out of their own interest ? of course not..they are being paid or incentivised by Dicparios team to single him out and high light him..same thing happened with wolf of wallstreet..where all his performances are listed and articles star popping out about his oscar chances...people just want to feel happy by getting on the bandwagon of his success...but he to me is the golden boy of studios...he is protected by studios and publicized wisely to create this illusion of great actor. Why dont he let the movie speak for itself ..why should he jam down everyones throats how hard it was to revenant if not for oscars and btw we dont have classes today..thats a plus
When was Sam Worthington pushed as a golden boy? He's not a very good actor. Maybe you mean Chris Hemsworth? Worthington has gone quiet since he got married, I thought?



This might just do nobody any good.
Have you forgotten about the Worthington Golden Age lasting between late 2009 to mid 2010?