Has Leo surpassed the greats?

Kiith

Renn wrote: »

F*ck that, Nicholson is one good looking dude. Or was.

Indeed :P

froog

consistently great actor. recent gems: shutter island, inception, gangs of new york.

tricky D

I'll raise you all: Burton, Olivier, Guinness (amongst others)

Sir Gallagher

djimi wrote: »

This thread is a wind up, right?

Go watch any Bogart, Jimmy Stewart, Cary Grant etc movie, then come back and say you still think DiCaprio is the best actor of all time...

I like Leo, hes gone up a lot in my estimations in recent years, but hes not even close to being the best actor around currently, let alone of all time.

I always found actors like these to be a bit wooden or hammy, more so screen idols as opposed to true masters of their craft. I would have said the likes of Newman, Brando and Dean to an extent would have been the real deal back then and taken it to a whole new level.

If Di Caprio had of been plying his trade back in those days i reckon he could have held his own with the heavyweights no problem.

MrSir

Leo is a good actor but I've never gone 'Wow he's brilliant in this'.
Also he's a little boyish looking which he's only really growing out of now so sometimes in his grittier roles I find it harder to take him seriously.

L'prof

L31mr0d wrote: »

DiCaprio suffers from being too handsome imo. He could never pull off a Ratso Rizzo like Hoffman, not without "Monster" levels of makeup.

I definitely think he can play nasty characters if needs be and look the part too.

bnt

It's too soon to call Leo a "great" or not. When you have the likes of Scorsese championing his potential, it does help. It might seem like he's been around forever, but that's because he got famous quite young. He was 19 when he was nominated for an Oscar for What's Eating Gilbert Grape (1993) and is now 35, just a couple of years older than De Niro was when Taxi Driver came out, similar to Pacino in The Godfather. Even Gene Hackman didn't get any kind of attention until he was 37 (Bonnie & Clyde), after years of ordinary TV work, and hit his stride in his 40s. I see no reason to write the book on DiCaprio yet.

Kess73

Sir Gallagher wrote: »

I always found actors like these to be a bit wooden or hammy, more so screen idols as opposed to true masters of their craft. I would have said the likes of Newman, Brando and Dean to an extent would have been the real deal back then and taken it to a whole new level.

If Di Caprio had of been plying his trade back in those days i reckon he could have held his own with the heavyweights no problem.

Oh dissing James Stewart eh? Wooden eh? Sleep with one eye open my friend, with one eye open. :mad::mad::mad:


"You'll be seeing me. You'll be seeing me. Everytime you bed down for the night, you'll look back to the darkness and wonder if I'm there. And some night, I will be. You'll be seeing me!" *




































* May be a Jimmy quote rather than a Kess rant.

mrgardener

djimi wrote: »

This thread is a wind up, right?

Go watch any Bogart, Jimmy Stewart, Cary Grant etc movie, then come back and say you still think DiCaprio is the best actor of all time...

I like Leo, hes gone up a lot in my estimations in recent years, but hes not even close to being the best actor around currently, let alone of all time.

I'll go along with previous posters here....
They were great icons of cinema but I wouldn't rate them as brilliant actors by any means.
Without getting too technical, Leo seems to embrace the craft of acting (aka Day Lewis) vs showing up and reading the script out loud.

fergisimo

Er...I would certainly call Cary Grant a very, very good actor.

jaykhunter

Watched Shutter Island again last night. Di Caprio is fantastic in it. Cued up a few more of his movies. Certainly one of the best actors around at the moment; he picks really great roles as well.

SB-08

Most certainly not. I am a big Leo fan and have no problem accepting an argument for him being the finest actor of his generation .... but of all time? Not even remotely close. Sure he has improved hugely in the past decade and has made some excellent choices - and is definatly one of the few actors who's films are generally always 'must see' but as an actor he has not shown the divercity on the same level as those legends yet, let alone the sheer utter power. You simply cannot comare him with the greats yet - and the De Niro comparison due to the whole Scorsese thing is beyond silly - in terms of filmmaking and acting from the leading actor to compare Gangs, Aviator, Departed and Shutter Island to Mean Streets, Taxi Driver, Raging Bull, Goodfellas, King Of Comedy or Casino and even Cape Fear is laughable in my opinion. Aviator and Gangs had massive potential and were certainly good films but were also a huge let-down and nowhere close to being in the same league - Shutter Island was a very good film but compared to Scorsese's commercial thiller with De Niro (Cape Fear) it doesnt reach the same level of suspence and intensity and De Niro's performance is on a totally different level and totally underrated imo. The Depared was pretty great it has to be said but if you ask me Matt Damon (possibly his biggest competition for 'best actor of his generation' argument along with Bale) outshinned Leo in that film. He has not come close to the best performances from De Niro, Pacino, Brando, Hackman, Hoffman, Nicholson etc - but it would be great if he could one day.

Having said that I really do hope Leo continues on the role he is on - both Shutter Island and especially Inception are probably my two fave mainstream hollywood films of the year so far. He has proven himself and has gained huge respect after changing direction after Titanic and refusing to take the generic predictable roles so fair play to him.

Cactus Colm

I think DioCaprio is handicapped by two things. Having been the star of titanic, and having not played a memorable character since. Certainly he's done a fine job in any film I've seen with him in it. But the roles aren't nearly as meaty as Michael Corleone, Serpico, Jake LaMotta, Popeye Doyle, or RP McMurray.

Hopefully it's only a matter of time before the finds a few roles that will showcase his abilities, and we'll know just how good an actor he is, and if he does deserve to be rated up with the Pacino's and Brando's. Although to find that role he may have to stop working with the likes of Ridley Scott, and Scorsese. Very good movies, but not really exciting.

I'd also throw Sean Penn's name into the list of great actors mentioned in this thread. Great as Harvey Milk.

nyarlothothep

His choice in films is really good, but I think Thomas Hardy is someone who could one day rank among the greats.

nyarlothothep

Kiith wrote: »

Indeed :P

Did Quato move out on his own after Total Recall?

L31mr0d

L'prof wrote: »

I definitely think he can play nasty characters if needs be and look the part too.

I'm not doubting his acting prowess, just that he fits a certain role. He won't get offered the really meaty stuff because he just doesn't have the face for it, and even if he does I don't think it will be as memorable.

Some actors can fill up the screen by merely just being in it, without even uttering a word. A recent example imo would be Viggo Mortensen. DiCaprio just can't compete imo.

But, as others have said. He's still quite young so it may have something to do with it.

][cEMAN**

Nah, these days when I hear about a film and it sounds good, DiCrapio potentially puts me off it.

I went to see Inception - I would say great film except for DiCrapio. There's something about him that just seems the exact same every time I see him. He seems the same character to me every single time. Maybe it's just the same slick back haircut, and the fact that he tries to push the whole 30's-50's suit look in nearly every film he makes...

It's honestly like his hair is his emotional output. If it's slick, he's got it together. If it's disheveled he's shaken and worked up. If it's down either side, he's young, or naive.

Do the clothes make the man, or does the man make the clothes? In this case, DiCrapio is made purely out of what he's put in, rather than him bringing anything substantial to the role. He's a face. Nothing more. Give it a few years, and he'll not even have that.