Actors who are always in good films

Tools    





Tom Hardy
Christian Bale
Leonardo Di Caprio
Johnny Depp
Robert Downey Jnr



PJ_Movies's Avatar
Registered User
There was a time when I thought leonardo dicaprio had a contract clause that stated "Mr dicaprio can not participate in a movie that sucks"



Sorry Harmonica.......I got to stay here.
I know that I could always count on John Geilgud, John Houseman, Anthony Hopkins, and a few others. But sometimes watching big names like Harrison Ford, Mel Gibson, etc. it seems like they just phone it in.
__________________
Under-the-radar Movie Awesomeness.
http://earlsmoviepicks.blogspot.com/



That contradicts almost his entire career
Really? The Aviator sucks? Gangs of New York sucks? Inception too? Shutter Island also sucks? What's Eating Gilbert Grape is a POS too I guess.

You need to adjust your definition of suck.



Really? The Aviator sucks? Gangs of New York sucks? Inception too? Shutter Island also sucks? What's Eating Gilbert Grape is a POS too I guess.

You need to adjust your definition of suck.
I didn't say sucks, the other guy did. But, since you're being specific, out of what you said I thought The Aviator, Inception, and Whats Eating Gilbert Grape were pretty much nothing worth seeing. I liked Gangs of New York well enough though. I need not adjust anything, you need to pick someone with a better career to defend.



If you want to achieve greatness, stop asking for permission
I thought The Aviator, Inception, and What's Eating Gilbert Grape were pretty much nothing worth seeing.
Let me preface this by saying that I respect everyone's right to their own humble opinion.


Now that I've got that out of the way...


ARE YOU SERIOUS?!?!?
__________________
"If we choose, we can live in a world of comforting illusion."
- Christopher Nolan



I didn't say sucks, the other guy did. But, since you're being specific, out of what you said I thought The Aviator, Inception, and Whats Eating Gilbert Grape were pretty much nothing worth seeing. I liked Gangs of New York well enough though. I need not adjust anything, you need to pick someone with a better career to defend.
You're right. I need to pick someone whose films have been critically acclaimed... Oh wait.

From Metacritic:

Inception: 74 %
Shutter Island: 63 %
Revolutionary Road: 69 %
Blood Diamond: 64 %
The Departed: 86 %
The Aviator: 77 %
Catch Me If You Can: 76 %
Gangs of New York: 72 %

Yeah, I definitely need to pick someone with a better career over the past 10 years.



It just goes to show that critics would disagree with your assessment that the films in which DiCaprio stars, suck. But you're right, critics don't know anything. Wintertriangles knows best, as always.

Have fun talking to yourself.



Kevin spacey
__________________
But I, being poor, have only my dreams; I have spread my dreams under your feet, Tread softly because you tread on my dreams. W.B. Yeats



It just goes to show that critics would disagree with your assessment that the films in which DiCaprio stars, suck. But you're right, critics don't know anything. Wintertriangles knows best, as always.

Have fun talking to yourself.
Apparently there are only ultimatums in existence. You're being silly.



Apparently there are only ultimatums in existence. You're being silly.
What do you think about consensus opinion if you don't care for ultimatums? If a majority agree, then is the minorty missing something?

Besides, critics are trained to watch films with a critical eye. Their opinion is somehow invalid, despite this?
__________________



Not invalid, but certainly not the best reliability. They're trained, exactly, to look at things from the perspective of a computer checklist; if you read most critic reviews they have no personality at all.

Consensus is worse, you never know who participates in them.



I don't look for personality in a critic. I look for objectivity. I started a thread about objectivity in the general forum, I don't remember how you felt, but I like to look at films as objectively as I can. I can look at Jason X and say "It's terrible, but I like it". That's what I want from a critic, not personality.

Consensus on the other hand makes me re-evaluate things. For example, most film geeks that i know like the film Jackie Brown. I don't care for it at all, I think it's Tarantino's worst film and I don't even think it feels like a Tarantino film. Mostly this is because it's adapted from E. Leonard's book, but that's not the point. However, I look at it as either it's something that I'm just not getting or it's something that is not of my personal taste. Obviously there's something there worth observing, but it's just not my thing. I can't say it's a bad film, on the contrary it's as well crafted as most of Taratino's films, but something about it bothers me.

Is it possible that DiCaprio is your "Jackie Brown"?



EDIT: Ah, I found it!

Of course films can be bad. I would hope as a critically thinking group progresses, opinions become less of a fallback. Opinions exist naturally but they're no excuse for horrible art.
Is DiCaprio really horrible art? So harsh...



I don't look for personality in a critic. I look for objectivity. I started a thread about objectivity in the general forum, I don't remember how you felt, but I like to look at films as objectively as I can. I can look at Jason X and say "It's terrible, but I like it". That's what I want from a critic, not personality.
What I mean by personality is something more than "my school taught me to observe this, and if this and this happen, then I'm gonna say this" + "adjective, adjectively melodramatic-noun". I don't see more than that very often.

Consensus on the other hand makes me re-evaluate things. For example, most film geeks that i know like the film Jackie Brown. I don't care for it at all, I think it's Tarantino's worst film and I don't even think it feels like a Tarantino film. Mostly this is because it's adapted from E. Leonard's book, but that's not the point. However, I look at it as either it's something that I'm just not getting or it's something that is not of my personal taste. Obviously there's something there worth observing, but it's just not my thing. I can't say it's a bad film, on the contrary it's as well crafted as most of Taratino's films, but something about it bothers me.

Is it possible that DiCaprio is your "Jackie Brown"?
Nah, I like Jackie Brown because of the performances, especially De Niro - who I'm not necessarily a big fan of anyway - but I can see why it would be less interesting, the book is a lot better I think. I'm pretty sure a lot of what bothered you about it was the blending of blaxsploitation and "sophisticated" crime, which sounds kinda dumb on paper. DiCaprio isn't necessarily at fault here though, you've misunderstood, the films he is in are generally nothing special. As far as my quote you found, I'm not sure how it directly applies to this conversation, unless you want me to convince everyone that The Aviator and Inception are useless films, one of which I've tried to do, The Aviator I like even less but more people are adamantly praising of it.



I only brought up the quote because I couldn't remember if you were on the side of objectivity or not.

I kind of wondered if you thought any of DiCaprio's films were well made, good films, but you just didn't care for them.



I kind of wondered if you thought any of DiCaprio's films were well made, good films, but you just didn't care for them.
Ummm Gilbert Grape falls into that. And I think Gangs is good but the rest I could make an argument against as just being at best average if not literally bad.