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

Tools    





Make a better place
I know there’s no real point in arguing this anymore but it irks me; Leo isn’t a risk taker? What do Django Unchained, Wolf of Wall Street, The Revenant and even that Manson movie he’s making with Tarantino seem like to you?
I'll jump in the argument. These movies guaranteed success way before they were released and so is the new Tarantino Brad Leo movie.

But I think and hope that you are just being sarcastic for mentioning these movies in particular.



Anyway my opinion on Leo is that he's okay to good no more no less, and I think the thread opener has a valid point
__________________
"Beliefs don't change facts. Facts, if you're rational, should change your beliefs" Ricky Gervais



I'll jump in the argument. These movies guaranteed success way before they were released and so is the new Tarantino Brad Leo movie.

But I think and hope that you are just being sarcastic for mentioning these movies in particular.



Anyway my opinion on Leo is that he's okay to good no more no less, and I think the thread opener has a valid point
Thank you....people don’t seem to understand this clear point....until now big budget prestige oscar pictures by auteur directors are exclusively DiCaprio dominated field...there are movies like lord of the rings, but the problem with those movies is they are not dominated by a star...they are seen as ensembles and directorial achievements...I find it hard to believe no one I mean no one is even able to try similar formula and succeed at least once...how hard is it to work with a director and star for 100 million and make a oscar movie that appeals to masses...we came close with exodus gods and kings...which is an oscar movie in December with big budget and Ridley Scott but it **** the bed with the quality of the movie....even Brad Pitt can’t able to muster together a project.



Welcome to the human race...
Not sure how you can start off a post with "people don't seem to understand this clear point" and then proceed to have each new sentence contradict the last one. First, the idea that prestige movies are a "DiCaprio-dominated field" even though he only averages about one or two movies a year. Then you say the problem with movies like Lord of the Rings is that they don't have big stars even though movies can still be critically and commercially even without a DiCaprio-level star (though that usually implies a connection to some major intellectual property like Star Wars or something because the real trick is trying to get people invested into something that's completely - or at least relatively - original). Even Exodus: Gods and Kings is literally based off a Bible story and it still resorted to using Christian Bale - the Oscar-winning star of three Batman movies - to play its lead, so trying to use it as an example of what prestige movies should aspire to just because it doesn't involve DiCaprio himself is misguided in multiple ways.
__________________
I really just want you all angry and confused the whole time.
Iro's Top 100 Movies v3.0



Hellloooo Cindy - Scary Movie (2000)
Some of the comments here are gold. Calling Leo a man baby lmao. Listen it’s true. Haha, sorta. I respect him as an actor because of his performances in the aviator and the departed. I felt for him in both. Agree that he may have been miscast in the revenant. Can’t say I consider him great though yet...for a modern comparison I think Mathew McConaughey is great for his performance in true detective. That to me was brilliant.



Not sure how you can start off a post with "people don't seem to understand this clear point" and then proceed to have each new sentence contradict the last one. First, the idea that prestige movies are a "DiCaprio-dominated field" even though he only averages about one or two movies a year. Then you say the problem with movies like Lord of the Rings is that they don't have big stars even though movies can still be critically and commercially even without a DiCaprio-level star (though that usually implies a connection to some major intellectual property like Star Wars or something because the real trick is trying to get people invested into something that's completely - or at least relatively - original). Even Exodus: Gods and Kings is literally based off a Bible story and it still resorted to using Christian Bale - the Oscar-winning star of three Batman movies - to play its lead, so trying to use it as an example of what prestige movies should aspire to just because it doesn't involve DiCaprio himself is misguided in multiple ways.
You seem to be nitpicking just to make a point. Tell me another actor who made a prestige movie with top director for 100 million plus budget on a non IP and release it in December and or any other time of year and get Oscar nomination in last 10 years ? There is a difference between big budget movies like lord of the rings/gravity/life of pi and something like wolf of Wall Street/revenant because the former movies are gambles with no major star attached to them(Sandra Bullock is bankable in comedic genre and not sci-fi).. where as the latter has certain star power proof they would make money from previous hits of the star. It’s planned already ... an epic made by director of the frighteners or hulk is much more risky than an Oscar movie made by Scorsese or Tarantino or Innaritu as their track record in that aspect is incredibly high.The risk of failure is drastically reduced when you got directors like that at helm. Their track record is impeccable.



You seem to be nitpicking just to make a point. Tell me another actor who made a prestige movie with top director for 100 million plus budget on a non IP and release it in December and or any other time of year and get Oscar nomination in last 10 years ?
And also they have to be left-handed with at least a .300 on-base percentage in day games.



Welcome to the human race...
You seem to be nitpicking just to make a point. Tell me another actor who made a prestige movie with top director for 100 million plus budget on a non IP and release it in December and or any other time of year and get Oscar nomination in last 10 years ?
Matt Damon in The Martian.

There is a difference between big budget movies like lord of the rings/gravity/life of pi and something like wolf of Wall Street/revenant because the former movies are gambles with no major star attached to them(Sandra Bullock is bankable in comedic genre and not sci-fi).. where as the latter has certain star power proof they would make money from previous hits of the star.
Bullock doesn't lose star power by doing a different genre - she had already won an Oscar by that point for a dramatic role anyway so it's not like it mattered (and George Clooney shared top billing anyway). Besides, two of them are based off best-selling books anyway - the title is the seller (and in the latter case, having an Oscar-winning director doesn't hurt either).

It’s planned already ... an epic made by director of the frighteners or hulk is much more risky than an Oscar movie made by Scorsese or Tarantino or Innaritu as their track record in that aspect is incredibly high.The risk of failure is drastically reduced when you got directors like that at helm. Their track record is impeccable.
Ang Lee had literally won an Oscar for directing Brokeback Mountain by that point - calling him "the director of Hulk" is like referring to Spielberg as "the director of Hook". Why are you even arguing with me about risk-taking and its relative merits? I wasn't the one to bring it up and I'm not about to act like taking risks automatically makes an actor/director/whatever better than one that doesn't. Bale gaining weight doesn't automatically improve an obnoxious Scorsese-wannabe dramedy like American Hustle (which was also made by an acclaimed director who had made multiple Oscar-winning films by that point so where's the risk now) nor does "make a comedy with the director of Anchorman" seem especially risky either. The same goes for working with Ridley Scott - dude's made as many bad movies as good ones for 40 years but he's still going - and Christopher "Memento" Nolan. (I'll grant you American Psycho, though.) I'm not even DiCaprio's biggest fan or anything but I'm not about to begrudge him using star power to help get these projects off the ground either nor him turning in consistently solid performances. I will concede that the fanbase gets obnoxious at times - if nothing else, him finally winning an Oscar meant that none of us have to put up with any more "where is his Oscar" memes ever again.



And also they have to be left-handed with at least a .300 on-base percentage in day games.
In all fairness my criteria isn’t a niche...he is an actor...so there is more moving pieces and room there to be repeated by other actors...unlike Tarantino where in other directors can’t repeat his style which would be a copy...he has a checklist and other actors can too.



So your main criticism against DiCaprio basically is that he only seems to (want to) work with the greatest directors of our time?

Pretty much every huge movie star in history who cared about building a lasting filmography used their star power and bankability to make great directors cast them in their films.
__________________
Cobpyth's Movie Log ~ 2019



You can't win an argument just by being right!
Can you explain to me what a man baby is in this context? I dont mean general because I'm married to one so I'm pretty sure I know what one is. And please dont tell me to go and watch Youtubes and read the first 20 comments. I have to be pretty desperate for a cyber punch up for that and at my age, I hung up my shingle for punchups of any kind of bullsht behaviour some time ago.

So back to Leo. Why do you call him a man baby? Maybe he is, maybe he isnt. I dont really care as long as he delivers on screen and for me he does, every single time. I havent seen his OMG OMG OMG teen fandom since The Beatles (Or Titanic, whichever comes first) And I'm not sure what Dwayne has to do with it either but I havent reAD the entire thread yet so go easy on me,

The noisiest people carrying on about Leo seem to be his detractors looking for something that isnt there..



Matt Damon in The Martian.
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.
Bullock doesn't lose star power by doing a different genre - she had already won an Oscar by that point for a dramatic role anyway so it's not like it mattered (and George Clooney shared top billing anyway). Besides, two of them are based off best-selling books anyway - the title is the seller (and in the latter case, having an Oscar-winning director doesn't hurt either).
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.

Ang Lee had literally won an Oscar for directing Brokeback Mountain by that point - calling him "the director of Hulk" is like referring to Spielberg as "the director of Hook". Why are you even arguing with me about risk-taking and its relative merits? I wasn't the one to bring it up and I'm not about to act like taking risks automatically makes an actor/director/whatever better than one that doesn't. Bale gaining weight doesn't automatically improve an obnoxious Scorsese-wannabe dramedy like American Hustle (which was also made by an acclaimed director who had made multiple Oscar-winning films by that point so where's the risk now) nor does "make a comedy with the director of Anchorman" seem especially risky either. The same goes for working with Ridley Scott - dude's made as many bad movies as good ones for 40 years but he's still going - and Christopher "Memento" Nolan. (I'll grant you American Psycho, though.) I'm not even DiCaprio's biggest fan or anything but I'm not about to begrudge him using star power to help get these projects off the ground either nor him turning in consistently solid performances. I will concede that the fanbase gets obnoxious at times - if nothing else, him finally winning an Oscar meant that none of us have to put up with any more "where is his Oscar" memes ever again.
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.

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.



So your main criticism against DiCaprio basically is that he only seems to (want to) work with the greatest directors of our time?

Pretty much every huge movie star in history who cared about building a lasting filmography used their star power and bankability to make great directors cast them in their films.
Nope my main criticism is that the gap between his actual talent and perceived talent is incredibly higher than any actor in the history of Hollywood. His strategy behind his filmography is incredibly transparent. The fact that his movie after revenant is 4 yrs late and it’s with Tarantino shows he is too afraid to make movies with anyone else.Is it coincidence that during this 4 yrs Scorsese is busy making his own passion projects like silence and Irishman and not being schill for DiCaprio ? Not just that even when he is working with top directors he is just playing DiCaprio with different hair style,clothes and settings. All he does is convince a guy in movie theater that he is acting by being in a movie of a director with incredible track record, playing intense role which according to him is shouting and screaming and voila layman will think he is a great actor .



You can't win an argument just by being right!
Was that any good? I must have missed it.



Nope my main criticism is that the gap between his actual talent and perceived talent is incredibly higher than any actor in the history of Hollywood.
The very definition of acting is that your actual talent is equal to your perceived talent, as acting is a talent that can only be "perceived". It's subjective by definition. A lot of (who I perceive to be) great filmmakers and actors have praised Leo's acting. Are they simply being dishonest because they think they may profit from him in the future? Even I am not that cynical. I believe that at least some of my favorite people in the film world (for instance Scorsese, Tarantino and PTA who has also praised him several times) still have at least some artistic integrity.

I think what you're really saying is that you don't respond to his acting in the same way as clearly many other people do. Your whole theory seems to be a product of just that.

One of the few interesting points you're making is that Leo only seems to want to work with great directors as he expects that they can make him look good on screen, no matter how bad he actually is. I think it's true that a good director can even make a bad actor look relatively good, but not in the kind of roles Leo has done. He's done some of the most intense work any actor has done in the last few years. In my opinion, with relative success.

We can agree to disagree that Leo is a good or great actor, but I don't think your "theory" makes a lot of sense and it certainly doesn't "prove" that Leo is not a good actor, which is basically the point you seem to be trying to make here.

You need to understand what you're really saying here and what it implies. You're saying that everyone is being deceived (his fans or people who appreciate his acting) or is lying (in the case of Scorsese, Tarantino, etc.) and you are one of the only people who's talking the truth. Under those circumstances, introspection is always a good first reflex.



You can't win an argument just by being right!
scorsese doesnt work with bad actors..correct..but he worked with ray liotta..who went on from goodfellas being nothing..so he may not work with bad actors but he does work with decent actors and not great..my critique is that he is getting undeserving attention..i am okay with him getting a rock level of attention or tom cruise but the attention he gets in terms of box office when he makes non commercial movies is tricking people into thinking he is a great actor but he really is a mediocre actor that can land great roles due to his financial value at box office.

How exactly does any of that impact on your life? Lets get serious for 5 minutes because quite frankly, it makes absolutely no sense you would be taking his goals and script acceptances to heart other than you are a shill for someone else, maybe? Or you just want a cyber punch up?



The very definition of acting is that your actual talent is equal to your perceived talent, as acting is a talent that can only be "perceived". It's subjective by definition. A lot of (who I perceive to be) great filmmakers and actors have praised Leo's acting. Are they simply being dishonest because they think they may profit from him in the future? Even I am not that cynical. I believe that at least some of my favorite people in the film world (for instance Scorsese, Tarantino and PTA who has also praised him several times) still have at least some artistic integrity.
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. 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...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...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....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..



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.