is the talent of hollywood A listers hugely overrated

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

Tea 1000 wrote: »

I think he's terrible.

He's certainly gone downhill. A weird thing seems to happen to actors after a while, it's like they stop acting and are just playing themselves in all their films. I don't know if they get very lazy or it's just we become so well acquainted with them it becomes difficult to separate the actor from the character.

12 Years a Slave is a good example of this. There were quite a few people in that I was familiar with but I was completely lost in their characters and the world of the film and then BAM! Brad Pitt is sitting on the porch talking to Solomon. I knew he was in it and what part he was playing but it was still very much like watching Brad Pitt wander onto the set of a film and get in the way.

don ramo

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

and then BAM! Brad Pitt is sitting on the porch talking to Solomon. I knew he was in it and what part he was playing but it was still very much like watching Brad Pitt wander onto the set of a film and get in the way.

i think thats more a case pitt was hired specifically for that part, cause it plays to his strengths, it is a problem for some actors that their persona is hired rather than their acting, which is fine, george clooney has made a career out of playing the everyman, noting wrong with it,

but pitt is still a fine actor when he wants to be, but seeing as he has a wife and 9 kids i dont think hes much bothered experimenting with his acting much anymore, and he doesnt really have to in my opinion, hes has a pretty decent output the last few years, fury, world war z and moneyball were all fine films,

the man will always be an A lister, when you look as some of the muck say rebert diniro has put out the last decade or so, he still draws a crowd, people never let go really, people like pitt and will smith and mel gibson, will dip in and out of quality, but they will always sell films, just purely on name alone,

johnny_ultimate

There's only a few films where I feel he has put in a truly exemplary performance - he's mostly reliable and rock solid, though - but I'd happily defend Pitt as one of the A-listers who has made many brave and interesting choices. He's collaborated with the likes of Terence Malick, the Coens (he's ****ing fantastic in Burn After Reading), Andrew Dominik, David Fincher, Ridley Scott, Quentin Tarantino, Steve McQueen and more. In several of those cases - especially 12 Years, Assassination of Jesse James and Tree of Life, three of the most artistically triumphant semi-mainstream films of the last ten years - I'd have no question his name attached helped bump up the budget and smooth the passage into production despite them being reasonably risky investments. His producer credits on those and many other films are also noteworthy, and I've always gotten the impression he's at least a little more proactive in helping get the films made, not just showing up at a meeting and earning an executive producer credit.

Fair play to him I'd say, undoubtedly an A-lister who has used his influence and reputation for good many a time.

Sad Professor

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

He's certainly gone downhill. A weird thing seems to happen to actors after a while, it's like they stop acting and are just playing themselves in all their films. I don't know if they get very lazy or it's just we become so well acquainted with them it becomes difficult to separate the actor from the character.

don ramo wrote: »

i think thats more a case pitt was hired specifically for that part, cause it plays to his strengths, it is a problem for some actors that their persona is hired rather than their acting, which is fine, george clooney has made a career out of playing the everyman, noting wrong with it,

Not all actors are character actors nor should they be. Lead actors are leads because they have a consistent persona that audiences recognise and are drawn to across multiple roles. It’s not a problem nor is it laziness on the part of the actor. Playing themselves or some version of themselves is their job. Some of them are better than it than others.

When directors repeat themselves, we praise them and call them auteurs. But actors like Pitt and (especially) Cruise are auteurs in their own right. They have total control over what roles they choose and can even produce films for themselves to star in.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

Sad Professor wrote: »

When directors repeat themselves, we praise them and call them auteurs. But actors like Pitt and (especially) Cruise are auteurs in their own right. They have total control over what roles they choose and can even produce films for themselves to star in.

I don't praise directors who repeat themselves. I f**king hate Tarantino and others like him who have a very basic skill set and basically make the same film over and over.

johnny_ultimate

Robbed of a Best Supporting Actor statue, frankly.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zRkGptYVbUY

Mickeroo

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

I don't praise directors who repeat themselves. I f**king hate Tarantino and others like him who have a very basic skill set and basically make the same film over and over.

I think that's a fairly reductive way of describing it, sure the likes of Tanrantino or Wes Anderson's films all bear similarities in style and often theme (I refute the point that they're "the same film" though) but at the same time nobody else makes films like theirs. I think both directors would be more than capable of making something less distinct, but why would they want to?

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

Mickeroo wrote: »

I think that's a fairly reductive way of describing it, sure the likes of Tanrantino or Wes Anderson's films all bear similarities in style and often theme (I refute the point that they're "the same film" though) but at the same time nobody else makes films like theirs. I think both directors would be more than capable of making something less distinct, but why would they want to?

You could argue that most directors have their own styles that make their films recognisable as their films. I don have a problem with that. I have a problem with watching a film and feeling like I'm not getting anything new from it. I'm no expert so I could be wrong but is there any progression in Tarantino's work. You could watch his films in any order and other than actors looking younger or older there's no way of telling which is an early work or which is his most recent.

Look at someone like Steve Mc Queen. A lot of similarities in his films but you can see the progression from Hunger through Shame through 12 Years. Things he tries in Hunger that don't quite work are better in Shame and are perfected in 12 Years.

It's all personal opinion and individual tastes but I'm not really a fan of Tarantino, Anderson or even the Coen Brothers because I feel like I know exactly what I'm going to get each time.