No more movie stars?

Follow @empiremagazine

Forum Home

Register for Free!

Log In

Moderator Tickets

FAQ

Users Online

No more movie stars?

Logged in as: Guest

Printable Version

All Forums >> [Film Forums] >> Movie Musings >> No more movie stars?

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

No more movie stars? - 8/12/2012 9:37:22 PM

Powka

Posts: 132
Joined: 2/12/2008

Honestly, I haven't seen a movie star being born in a decade now. There are very few who come close, but probably still have a long way to go, if there is one. Michael Fassbender and Christopher Waltz come to mind, but nobody else.

Anyone has any names to name of great actors, with the movie star quality, that came to the big screen in the late 00's, early 10's? Real film stars, not famous for being on a TV show every week.

It feels as if that time is gone now, forever. The last real movie stars are Brad Pitt, Johnny Depp... actors, who were pretty faces, but also great actors! I'm not even talking about people like Pacino, DeNiro, Nicholson, etc., who's every work is so valuable, because you never know which of their films will be their last. Damn, I sure wish all these people would've lived forever. And then especially actors like Grant, Tracy, Gable, Lemmon, who are gone forever now, and there's nobody to take their place in the 2000's.

I'm getting a bit tired of all these pretty faces, and teenagers putting Pattinsons and Stewarts on a pedestal. Gimme "Spencer Tracy" please!!

I think these _great_ actors are doing all the work somewhere in New York or London, in theaters. Some might be doing some indies. But nobody is getting enough attention, because the public decided that Andrew Garfield will be the next "movie star" and there is no more space for real great actors, the normal, regular types. Andrew Garfield (or any other actor of the type) might be a decent actor, he sure can cry all the time, but he will never be a "movie star". He's just famous for being in every blockbuster all year round. Hollywood is just pushing all these new faces down our throats.

Any names come to mind of a potentially great actors, who are also getting enough work and might one day be the next Brad Pitt or Jack Nicholson? I think Tom Hardy is trying very hard to establish himself as one - he's got this Christian Bale going on in him with his chameleon work, he might have some potential to be very good in the future.

_____________________________

Well suck me sideways!

Post #: 1

RE: No more movie stars? - 8/12/2012 9:39:10 PM

elab49

Posts: 51635
Joined: 1/10/2005

I'd guess a lot of people are going to say Ryan Gosling to this one?

_____________________________

Lips Together and Blow - blogtasticness and Glasgow Film Festival GFF13!

Films watched 2012

Annual Poll 2012 Countdown Started.

(in reply to Powka)

Post #: 2

RE: No more movie stars? - 8/12/2012 9:43:13 PM

Powka

Posts: 132
Joined: 2/12/2008

quote:

ORIGINAL: elab49

I'd guess a lot of people are going to say Ryan Gosling to this one?�

I'd agree with Ryan Gosling. Yeah, one of the few ones of this decade, same as Fassbender.

_____________________________

Well suck me sideways!

(in reply to elab49)

Post #: 3

RE: No more movie stars? - 8/12/2012 9:50:34 PM

OPEN YOUR EYES

Posts: 3473
Joined: 5/2/2012
From: Living on Lynch's quiff

Anne Hathaway

_____________________________

?eeffoc emos ekil uoy dluow

(in reply to Powka)

Post #: 4

RE: No more movie stars? - 8/12/2012 10:09:27 PM

UTB

Posts: 8983
Joined: 30/9/2005

Things cost more than they used to.

(in reply to OPEN YOUR EYES)

Post #: 5

RE: No more movie stars? - 8/12/2012 10:18:53 PM

OPEN YOUR EYES

Posts: 3473
Joined: 5/2/2012
From: Living on Lynch's quiff

quote:

there is no more space for real great actors

If they're good enough,determined and put themselves up to a audience then they will get the breaks needed.
There is still,and ones that are coming through,people who will become great actors.

Yes there are actors who look pretty,both male and female,who you could easily say were chosen for certain roles because of that.
Hollywood as you say in certain terms is a business,but it has always been a business.
You mention someone like Brad Pitt who was very much a pin-up star in his youth,same goes for DiCaprio, and now look at them they could easily be labelled great actors.I think Andrew Garfield and Robert Patinson easily have the potential to become great actors,as do others.

Edit: Benedict Cumberbatch is another one.
Y'know when you think about it there is alot of talent out there presently.

< Message edited by OPEN YOUR EYES -- 8/12/2012 10:24:05 PM >

_____________________________

?eeffoc emos ekil uoy dluow

(in reply to UTB)

Post #: 6

RE: No more movie stars? - 8/12/2012 10:26:17 PM

Hood_Man

Posts: 11281
Joined: 30/9/2005

As long as they look distinctive and are at least convincing in the roles they play, I'm happy.

(in reply to OPEN YOUR EYES)

Post #: 7

RE: No more movie stars? - 8/12/2012 10:40:50 PM

Whistler

Posts: 2279
Joined: 22/11/2006

This just seems a bit pessimistic to me. I think there's plenty of room for great actors today, and who's to say the likes of Garfield or Pattinson won't be revered as great movie stars in a few years time? (I personally already think Andrew Garfield is an excellent actor). It's unfair to put them up against the Pacinos, DeNiros and Depps of the world because essentially they're just starting out.

< Message edited by Whistler -- 8/12/2012 10:42:46 PM >

_____________________________

"And my straw reaches acrooooooss the room, and starts to drink your milkshake. I...drink...your...milkshake!"

Read my film reviews at Frame by Frame
Fast & Furious 6, Mud & more

(in reply to OPEN YOUR EYES)

Post #: 8

RE: No more movie stars? - 8/12/2012 11:31:54 PM

Powka

Posts: 132
Joined: 2/12/2008

quote:

ORIGINAL: Whistler

This just seems a bit pessimistic to me. I think there's plenty of room for great actors today, and who's to say the likes of Garfield or Pattinson won't be revered as great movie stars in a few years time? (I personally already think Andrew Garfield is an excellent actor). It's unfair to put them up against the Pacinos, DeNiros and Depps of the world because essentially they're just starting out.

Wasn't Pacino starting out in The Godfather?

It's not about "starting out", it's about the talent and the attitude.

One of the mentioned here, Ryan Gosling, still don't come even close enough to the level of acting you would've seen from the guys from the Golden Age and a few decades past that. Gosling is so praised for Drive, when he actually didn't do much in there (and no, he did NOT deserve an Oscar for that, there's nothing Oscar-worthy in there). I kind of like him, but he's not "a movie star", nor is he a great actor, at least yet. He's good, he's decent, one of the few. Anne Hathaway is good enough too, definitely one of the best female actors of her generation.

Brad Pitt was a pretty boy only in Thelma and Louise, and after that, as soon as he started getting Supporting/Lead roles, he began demonstrating his skills. He's a character actor trapped in a lead man's body; he's amazing, and should never be compared to the ones like Pattinson or other pretty boys.

Andrew Garfield? Oh please. He can hold his own, yes, but no way in hell is he a great actor. He's alright; he's better than that werewolf from Twilight.

Of course it's hard to tell what will happen in the future - maybe we'll get another Marlon Brando, but at the moment, that is what we are talking about. We're not comparing actors born today with actors who act today. We're comparing actors "born" today with the actors "born" three decades ago, five decades ago, etc.

_____________________________

Well suck me sideways!

(in reply to Whistler)

Post #: 9

RE: No more movie stars? - 9/12/2012 1:11:11 AM

Sutty

Posts: 3541
Joined: 6/6/2006
From: the front row

Christian Bale (been around for a long time and still a fascinating screen presence)

Tom Hardy (A monolithic actor with a huge talent. The next BIG thing?)

Liam Hemsworth (Doing pretty good!)

Ben wishaw

Henry Cavill

Mark Wahlberg (More than capable of holding his own against anyone, and has shown to be a great comedic actor too)

_____________________________

"Lord, make me your instrument of peace. Where there is hatred, let me bring love.
Where there is darkness, light."

"When you're pushed, killin's as easy as breathin'"

(in reply to Powka)

Post #: 10

RE: No more movie stars? - 9/12/2012 1:12:35 AM

DancingClown

Posts: 3589
Joined: 8/1/2006
From: The Lot

Rupert Grint.

_____________________________

Astronomic Tune Boy

'The town knew darkness, and darkness was enough.'

"Storm just bleeewwww me away..."

(in reply to Sutty)

Post #: 11

RE: No more movie stars? - 9/12/2012 1:21:41 AM

Darth Marenghi

Posts: 2948
Joined: 10/10/2010
From: Manchester

I think the nature of "celebrity" has changed so much in the last decade or so that the kind of old-school glamour of movie stars doesn't really exist anymore, for me it's probably just Cruise, Pitt and Depp nowadays that still have that. Everyone else is just an actor.

_____________________________

Invisible Text for SPOILERS: "color=#F1F1F1" Spoiler text "/color" , then change the quotation marks to square brackets.

(in reply to DancingClown)

Post #: 12

RE: No more movie stars? - 9/12/2012 1:25:23 AM

Sutty

Posts: 3541
Joined: 6/6/2006
From: the front row

But if you were to ask Cruise and Depp etc, they would say they were an actor first, and a celeb a distant second. Celebrity is a by product of their success and ability as actors, worked on for years. Nowadays, any dumb bright light craving charisma vacuum talentless buffoon can become a "celebrity". Celebrity is seen as a dirty word now for people who want to become famous, as opposed to becoming famous for actually being good at something.

_____________________________

"Lord, make me your instrument of peace. Where there is hatred, let me bring love.
Where there is darkness, light."

"When you're pushed, killin's as easy as breathin'"

(in reply to Darth Marenghi)

Post #: 13

RE: No more movie stars? - 9/12/2012 1:28:28 AM

elab49

Posts: 51635
Joined: 1/10/2005

quote:

ORIGINAL: Powka

quote:

ORIGINAL: Whistler

This just seems a bit pessimistic to me. I think there's plenty of room for great actors today, and who's to say the likes of Garfield or Pattinson won't be revered as great movie stars in a few years time? (I personally already think Andrew Garfield is an excellent actor). It's unfair to put them up against the Pacinos, DeNiros and Depps of the world because essentially they're just starting out.

One of the mentioned here, Ryan Gosling, still don't come even close enough to the level of acting you would've seen from the guys from the Golden Age and a few decades past that. Gosling is so praised for Drive, when he actually didn't do much in there (and no, he did NOT deserve an Oscar for that, there's nothing Oscar-worthy in there). I kind of like him, but he's not "a movie star", nor is he a great actor, at least yet. He's good, he's decent, one of the few. Anne Hathaway is good enough too, definitely one of the best female actors of her generation.

Andrew Garfield? Oh please. He can hold his own, yes, but no way in hell is he a great actor. He's alright; he's better than that werewolf from Twilight.

It's odd you rate Hathaway, who's not stretched herself that much but did do pretty well in Rachel Getting Married, and not the other two. Perhaps it's the roles you've seen? If you've just seen SPiderman then maybe the praise for Garfield doesn't make sense. If you watch, say, Boy A, then it would.

I'm not a major fan of Drive either. But performances in films like Lars and Half Nelson, Blue Valentine, demonstrate some serious acting chops. Drive just put it into star overdrive.

And please god never another Brando

_____________________________

Lips Together and Blow - blogtasticness and Glasgow Film Festival GFF13!

Films watched 2012

Annual Poll 2012 Countdown Started.

(in reply to Powka)

Post #: 14

RE: No more movie stars? - 9/12/2012 1:34:12 AM

Harry Tuttle

Posts: 7531
Joined: 12/11/2005
From: Sometime in the future.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Powka

quote:

ORIGINAL: Whistler

This just seems a bit pessimistic to me. I think there's plenty of room for great actors today, and who's to say the likes of Garfield or Pattinson won't be revered as great movie stars in a few years time? (I personally already think Andrew Garfield is an excellent actor). It's unfair to put them up against the Pacinos, DeNiros and Depps of the world because essentially they're just starting out.

Wasn't Pacino starting out in The Godfather?

It's not about "starting out", it's about the talent and the attitude.

One of the mentioned here, Ryan Gosling, still don't come even close enough to the level of acting you would've seen from the guys from the Golden Age and a few decades past that. Gosling is so praised for Drive, when he actually didn't do much in there (and no, he did NOT deserve an Oscar for that, there's nothing Oscar-worthy in there). I kind of like him, but he's not "a movie star", nor is he a great actor, at least yet. He's good, he's decent, one of the few. Anne Hathaway is good enough too, definitely one of the best female actors of her generation.

Blue Valentine and Half Nelson suggest otherwise. I've not seen them but I've also heard good things about his turns in The Notebook and The Ides of March. As for female actors I'd put Michelle Williams and Carey Mulligan ahead of Anne Hathaway, certainly in the acting stakes (although not by much, Hathaway's a very talented actor from what little I've seen of her). Also Emma Stone is pretty damned talented.

quote:

Brad Pitt was a pretty boy only in Thelma and Louise, and after that, as soon as he started getting Supporting/Lead roles, he began demonstrating his skills. He's a character actor trapped in a lead man's body; he's amazing, and should never be compared to the ones like Pattinson or other pretty boys.

Andrew Garfield? Oh please. He can hold his own, yes, but no way in hell is he a great actor. He's alright; he's better than that werewolf from Twilight.

Boy A and Never Let Me Go suggest otherwise. I also thought he was very good in Social Network. It's a shame he's going to be bogged down doing Spider-Man films now really because I think he's shown himself to be a better character actor than a leading man up to now.

With the likes of Christian Bale already established and the likes of Tom Hardy, Michael Fassbender and Benedict Cumberbatch making a name for themselves I think there are plenty of emerging stars in film personally.

< Message edited by Harry Tuttle -- 9/12/2012 1:38:55 AM >

_____________________________

Acting...Naturaaal

Your knowledge of scientific biological transmogrification is only outmatched by your zest for kung-fu treachery!

Blood Island. So called because it's the exact shape of some blood

(in reply to Powka)

Post #: 15

RE: No more movie stars? - 9/12/2012 1:38:59 AM

Powka

Posts: 132
Joined: 2/12/2008

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sutty

Christian Bale (been around for a long time and still a fascinating screen presence)

Tom Hardy (A monolithic actor with a huge talent. The next BIG thing?)

Liam Hemsworth (Doing pretty good!)

Ben wishaw

Henry Cavill

Mark Wahlberg (More than capable of holding his own against anyone, and has shown to be a great comedic actor too)

Christian Bale, Mark Wahlberg - They don't belong here, as they've been on the screen for longer than a decade.
Liam Hemsworth - Are you kidding me?
Ben Whishaw - Haven't seen much of him, so I will leave him for others to judge.
Henry Cavill - Again, are you kidding me?..

I think you need to watch something like Glengarry Glen Ross (1992) to see what good acting is, but you were right on the money with your second post: "But if you were to ask Cruise and Depp etc, they would say they were an actor first, and a celeb a distant second. Celebrity is a by product of their success and ability as actors, worked on for years. Nowadays, any dumb bright light craving charisma vacuum talentless buffoon can become a "celebrity". Celebrity is seen as a dirty word now for people who want to become famous, as opposed to becoming famous for actually being good at something. " Absolutely!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Darth Marenghi

I think the nature of "celebrity" has changed so much in the last decade or so that the kind of old-school glamour of movie stars doesn't really exist anymore

THIS.

_____________________________

Well suck me sideways!

(in reply to elab49)

Post #: 16

RE: No more movie stars? - 9/12/2012 1:50:13 AM

Powka

Posts: 132
Joined: 2/12/2008

quote:

ORIGINAL: elab49
It's odd you rate Hathaway, who's not stretched herself that much but did do pretty well in Rachel Getting Married, and not the other two. Perhaps it's the roles you've seen? If you've just seen SPiderman then maybe the praise for Garfield doesn't make sense. If you watch, say, Boy A, then it would.

I'm not a major fan of Drive either. But performances in films like Lars and Half Nelson, Blue Valentine, demonstrate some serious acting chops. Drive just put it into star overdrive.

I've seen almost everything Garfield been in. He's okay, not great.

That's why I said Gosling is one of the few decent ones to come out in the last decade.

I just wanted to point out that Drive is hugely overrated by the general public. Silent actors with no dialogue did more than Gosling did in that one. It's the movie itself that was good, not Ryan.

quote:

ORIGINAL: elab49
And please god never another Brando

Say what again?!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Harry Tuttle

As for female actors I'd put Michelle Williams and Carey Mulligan ahead of Anne Hathaway, certainly in the acting stakes (although not by much, Hathaway's a very talented actor from what little I've seen of her). Also Emma Stone is pretty damned talented.

Oh yes, Carey Mulligan - definitely! I totally forgot her, she's one of the good ones for sure.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Harry Tuttle

Boy A and Never Let Me Go suggest otherwise. I also thought he was very good in Social Network. It's a shame he's going to be bogged down doing Spider-Man films now really because I think he's shown himself to be a better character actor than a leading man up to now.

It does NOT suggest otherwise. To you, maybe. Watch some films with decent acting, and pay attention to the ACTING only (not the film as a whole), maybe you'll change your mind.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Harry Tuttle

With the likes of Christian Bale already established and the likes of Tom Hardy, Michael Fassbender and�Benedict Cumberbatch making a name for themselves I think there are plenty of emerging stars in film personally.

Again, Bale is off the list here. He's been acting for years - he's up there with the great ones.

Tom Hardy is still trying to find himself, Michael Fassbender already been mentioned - he's amazing. Plenty? That looks like a very few to me.

< Message edited by Powka -- 9/12/2012 1:51:15 AM >

_____________________________

Well suck me sideways!

(in reply to Harry Tuttle)

Post #: 17

RE: No more movie stars? - 9/12/2012 1:53:29 AM

elab49

Posts: 51635
Joined: 1/10/2005

Can I ask what specifically in Boy A didn't impress you?

_____________________________

Lips Together and Blow - blogtasticness and Glasgow Film Festival GFF13!

Films watched 2012

Annual Poll 2012 Countdown Started.

(in reply to Powka)

Post #: 18

RE: No more movie stars? - 9/12/2012 2:02:08 AM

Powka

Posts: 132
Joined: 2/12/2008

quote:

ORIGINAL: elab49

Can I ask what specifically in Boy A didn't impress you?

I'm not saying it wasn't good, it's definitely his best. And he was the best part of the film. I just don't think it was THAT amazing, as people keep saying it is. If not for the other stuff he has done, I would've thought of him a bit differently. Also, people give Garfield more praise for Boy A than he should get because of his BAFTA TV (not BAFTA Film, mind you) award. And as I see it, he won just because the competition was too weak.

I repeat: he's decent, he's good, but he's not great.

< Message edited by Powka -- 9/12/2012 2:03:40 AM >

_____________________________

Well suck me sideways!

(in reply to elab49)

Post #: 19

RE: No more movie stars? - 9/12/2012 2:09:19 AM

Harry Tuttle

Posts: 7531
Joined: 12/11/2005
From: Sometime in the future.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Powka

quote:

ORIGINAL: Harry Tuttle

As for female actors I'd put Michelle Williams and Carey Mulligan ahead of Anne Hathaway, certainly in the acting stakes (although not by much, Hathaway's a very talented actor from what little I've seen of her). Also Emma Stone is pretty damned talented.

Oh yes, Carey Mulligan - definitely! I totally forgot her, she's one of the good ones for sure.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Harry Tuttle

Boy A and Never Let Me Go suggest otherwise. I also thought he was very good in Social Network. It's a shame he's going to be bogged down doing Spider-Man films now really because I think he's shown himself to be a better character actor than a leading man up to now.

It does NOT suggest otherwise. To you, maybe. Watch some films with decent acting, and pay attention to the ACTING only (not the film as a whole), maybe you'll change your mind.

I've seen plenty thank you and I think Garfield is a very good actor. In my opinion Garfield's performance was better than anything I've seen from, say, Al Pacino in over a decade (since Insomnia). You are not the arbiter of opinion so stop being so patronising.

quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: Harry Tuttle

With the likes of Christian Bale already established and the likes of Tom Hardy, Michael Fassbender and Benedict Cumberbatch making a name for themselves I think there are plenty of emerging stars in film personally.

Again, Bale is off the list here. He's been acting for years - he's up there with the great ones.

Tom Hardy is still trying to find himself, Michael Fassbender already been mentioned - he's amazing. Plenty? That looks like a very few to me.

That was off the top of my head.

_____________________________

Acting...Naturaaal

Your knowledge of scientific biological transmogrification is only outmatched by your zest for kung-fu treachery!

Blood Island. So called because it's the exact shape of some blood

(in reply to Powka)

Post #: 20

RE: No more movie stars? - 9/12/2012 2:10:08 AM

elab49

Posts: 51635
Joined: 1/10/2005

You seem to be suggesting Tv acting is somehow lesser, not something I agree with I'm afraid. And it did receive a US theatrical release.

Not to mention he beat Tom Hardy in arguably his own best performance and Anthony Sher - one of our greatest actors.

But I wondered wbich scenes didn't convince for you, where Garfield didn't demonstrate a higher quality. The final bit eg - did that not impress?

_____________________________

Lips Together and Blow - blogtasticness and Glasgow Film Festival GFF13!

Films watched 2012

Annual Poll 2012 Countdown Started.

(in reply to Powka)

Post #: 21

RE: No more movie stars? - 9/12/2012 2:23:38 AM

Powka

Posts: 132
Joined: 2/12/2008

quote:

ORIGINAL: elab49

You seem to be suggesting Tv acting is somehow lesser, not something I agree with I'm afraid. And it did receive a US theatrical release.

Not to mention he beat Tom Hardy in arguably his own best performance and Anthony Sher - one of our greatest actors.

But I wondered wbich scenes didn't convince for you, where Garfield didn't demonstrate a higher quality. The final bit eg - did that not impress?

quote:

nd An

Generally, TV IS lesser than Film. And it's not up for debate, it's common notion. However, I wouldn't consider Boy A to be in that category, as you said yourself, it's a TV movie that got a US theatrical release. But the award is less meaningful, than BAFTA Film, yes. Same as Emmy is less meaningful than an Oscar.

I personally think Hardy was better in Bronson and Lawless. And why is Anthony Sher "one of our greatest actors"?

He's awesome, but I wouldn't give him that kind of a title.

< Message edited by Powka -- 9/12/2012 2:25:30 AM >

_____________________________

Well suck me sideways!

(in reply to elab49)

Post #: 22

RE: No more movie stars? - 9/12/2012 2:28:36 AM

Powka

Posts: 132
Joined: 2/12/2008

quote:

ORIGINAL: Harry Tuttle

I've seen plenty thank you and I think Garfield is a�very good�actor. In my opinion Garfield's performance was better than anything I've seen from, say, Al Pacino in over a decade (since Insomnia). You are not the arbiter of opinion so stop being so patronising.

But is Garfield's performance better than stuff from Pacino's first decade? That is the question of this topic.

And pardon me if you get the feel of me being patronizing. It's hard to express my thoughts on a discussion forum and make them seem non-patronizing, but just passionate.

I do apologize.

< Message edited by Powka -- 9/12/2012 3:51:48 AM >

_____________________________

Well suck me sideways!

(in reply to Harry Tuttle)

Post #: 23

RE: No more movie stars? - 9/12/2012 11:13:32 PM

doubtlesswonder

Posts: 2331
Joined: 21/10/2005
From: Yorkshire

quote:

ORIGINAL: Powka

quote:

ORIGINAL: Harry Tuttle

Boy A and Never Let Me Go suggest otherwise. I also thought he was very good in Social Network. It's a shame he's going to be bogged down doing Spider-Man films now really because I think he's shown himself to be a better character actor than a leading man up to now.

It does NOT suggest otherwise. To you, maybe. Watch some films with decent acting, and pay attention to the ACTING only (not the film as a whole), maybe you'll change your mind.

If you don't mind me asking, why is that you seem to think that your opinion is worth more than everyone else's? Harry clearly thinks that Garfield's acting in Boy A and Never Let Me Go was good acting, but the way you respond seems like you're telling him he's wrong because you don't agree. Just because you think differently about it, doesn't mean that your opinion is the right one. That's why it's called an opinion and not fact.

_____________________________

quote:

homersimpson_esq
"Will someone please get this motherfuckin' horcrux outta this motherfuckin' snake."

quote:

homersimpson_esq
"See Mr Grey.
See Mr Grey abuse women.
Run women, run."

(in reply to Powka)

Post #: 24

RE: No more movie stars? - 10/12/2012 12:35:34 AM

Darth Marenghi

Posts: 2948
Joined: 10/10/2010
From: Manchester

quote:

ORIGINAL: Powka

And why is Anthony Sher "one of our greatest actors"? He's awesome, but I wouldn't give him that kind of a title.

A little thing called Richard III, Powks.

He's up there with McKellen, Jacobi, Stewart etc quite easily.

_____________________________

Invisible Text for SPOILERS: "color=#F1F1F1" Spoiler text "/color" , then change the quotation marks to square brackets.

(in reply to Powka)

Post #: 25

RE: No more movie stars? - 10/12/2012 1:02:29 AM

Sutty

Posts: 3541
Joined: 6/6/2006
From: the front row

quote:

ORIGINAL: Powka

quote:

ORIGINAL: Harry Tuttle

I've seen plenty thank you and I think Garfield is a very good actor. In my opinion Garfield's performance was better than anything I've seen from, say, Al Pacino in over a decade (since Insomnia). You are not the arbiter of opinion so stop being so patronising.

But is Garfield's performance better than stuff from Pacino's first decade? That is the question of this topic.

And pardon me if you get the feel of me being patronizing. It's hard to express my thoughts on a discussion forum and make them seem non-patronizing, but just passionate. I do apologize.

Tom Hardy has had a massive and impressive out put in the last decade.

The Take, Bronson, Inception, Warrior, Tinker Tailer Soldier Spy...

His ability to take on other personas and his willingness to change his physique is fantastic. I'd say he is certainly a contender...

_____________________________

"Lord, make me your instrument of peace. Where there is hatred, let me bring love.
Where there is darkness, light."

"When you're pushed, killin's as easy as breathin'"

(in reply to Powka)

Post #: 26

RE: No more movie stars? - 10/12/2012 8:41:12 AM

Powka

Posts: 132
Joined: 2/12/2008

quote:

ORIGINAL: doubtlesswonder

If you don't mind me asking, why is that you seem to think that your opinion is worth more than everyone else's? Harry clearly thinks that Garfield's acting in Boy A and Never Let Me Go was good acting, but the way you respond seems like you're telling him he's wrong because you don't agree. Just because you think differently about it, doesn't mean that your opinion is the right one. That's why it's called an opinion and not fact.

I don't mind you asking.

Doesn't everybody usually think that their opinion is worth more than everyone else at least a little bit? Isn't this part of human nature, this ego thing? I'm just being more passionate about my response than others as acting is something that I care most about, and I don't mind others saying what they are saying, because that is what develops into a discussion, and that is what this forum is all about. Though some people are a little too soft and take everything so personally, that they carry on everything into other threads and whine, and cry about it; probably even go share this with their grandmothers about how some asshole Powka said that their opinion is not good enough.

It's just the way I discuss topics that I'm passionate about, and when I know that I do know something about it. Acting is one of the few. I agree, it does sound a little patronizing, but you know - these are the forums, you don't really have to take everything so close to the heart.

Kudos to Garfield for hiding his accent, I totally believed he was American and stuff. He's awesome, but I still don't label him as great, as that puts him into a whole other perspective.

_____________________________

Well suck me sideways!

(in reply to doubtlesswonder)

Post #: 27

RE: No more movie stars? - 10/12/2012 8:44:35 AM

Powka

Posts: 132
Joined: 2/12/2008

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sutty

Tom Hardy has had a massive and impressive out put in the last decade.

The Take, Bronson, Inception, Warrior, Tinker Tailer Soldier Spy...

His ability to take on other personas and his willingness to change his physique is fantastic. I'd say he is certainly a contender...

I agree. And I am big Hardy's fan, btw.

What I'm saying is that he is still looking for his approach, and he might have found it after I've seen Lawless - he was awesome in that one - but it's still debatable.

He was shit in the Warrior. He obviously tried something, but that didn't work. At all.

_____________________________

Well suck me sideways!

(in reply to Sutty)

Post #: 28

RE: No more movie stars? - 10/12/2012 8:54:48 AM

Powka

Posts: 132
Joined: 2/12/2008

quote:

ORIGINAL: Darth Marenghi

A little thing called Richard III, Powks. He's up there with McKellen, Jacobi, Stewart etc quite easily.

Wasn't that a stage production? And aren't we talking about TV award here?

_____________________________

Well suck me sideways!

(in reply to Darth Marenghi)

Post #: 29

RE: No more movie stars? - 10/12/2012 9:21:51 AM

Dannybohy

Posts: 952
Joined: 7/1/2009

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sutty

Christian Bale (been around for a long time and still a fascinating screen presence)

Tom Hardy (A monolithic actor with a huge talent. The next BIG thing?)

Liam Hemsworth (Doing pretty good!)

Ben wishaw

Henry Cavill

Mark Wahlberg (More than capable of holding his own against anyone, and has shown to be a great comedic actor too)