Heh, I'm heading there next week too. I suspect it might edge out Boyhood, which isn't my thing, and land somewhere near the Before trilogy, which I actually enjoy. It'll be tough to top Dazed and Confused, but if it captures that Freaks and Geeks charm, they'll have nailed it.
If you love this franchise, check out the doc Never Sleep Again: The Elm Street Legacy http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1510985/ It runs a bit long 😁 but if you're a fan, it's worth it. You could find it on YouTube for a while.
There's actually a link between Nightmare and Evil Dead. In the first ED, Sam Raimi included a torn poster for Wes Craven's cult classic The Hills Have Eyes. It feels like a nod to how Wes Craven staged that scene where Nancy Thompson watches the first ED. Then, in the sequel, Raimi put Freddy's glove in that basement.
I disagree with the first point entirely. In my view, the effects used to be superior because they relied on practical effects. And I’m talking specifically about the great horror films.
Which specific effects are you referring to?
Take the moment Freddy comes out of the wall. They pulled that off for a few bucks, and the result is better than anything modern CGI could produce today. I don't recall the exact mechanics, but I think they used something elastic and filmed it from a specific angle.
Then there's Tina Walsh's death. You have to admit, that was masterfully done. Freddy lifts her out of the bed, but much like her boyfriend Glen Lantz, we don't actually see Freddy—we only see her suspended in mid-air. It's powerful filmmaking. They used some tricks; I believe they built a massive box to look like a room and then filmed everything upside down.
And then we have Depp's famous death scene. Another top-tier sequence. I don't see what's wrong with those effects.
The only weak effect is when Freddy's mask is removed and he looks like a doll, but even then, Wes Craven could get away with it since it was a dream. Dreams are supposed to be surreal and bizarre.
We saw how bad the effects looked in the remake of Scream. Modern CGI simply can't compete with the best practical effects. At least that's my take. When you look at the classic horror hits from the 70s and 80s—the golden age of effects—everything was executed at an incredible level. Just compare the transformation in American Werewolf in London to the transformations in today's big-budget movies using CGI. It's a joke. 😁
Unfortunately, modern horror lacks that kind of impact. Rare cases like the demon in Insidious, where the mask actually feels convincing, are exceptions. Who knows? If we moved guys like John Carpenter, Wes Craven, George A. Romero, or David Cronenberg to the present day while they were still young, maybe they would rely heavily on CGI too. Even Rick Baker might just use computer effects nowadays.
Dazed and Confused is his best work. I’m genuinely looking forward to this one. Boyhood felt fake and left me disappointed, but this can't be like that—especially since Freaks and Geeks is peak 80s coming-of-age stuff.
Just checking out the cast. I don't know if you noticed, but there aren't any huge stars here. It reminds me of Dazed and Confused, where he used mostly unknowns who ended up making it big later (Ben Affleck, Matthew McConaughey, Milla Jovovich, and a few others).
Sure, but if you actually look at his filmography—aside from the New York gang movies—you’ll see he mostly plays characters that feel true to life. In My Left Foot, he captured the essence of who that man really was. Christy Brown was exactly like that. I don't see any exaggeration there. An extreme would be if he played someone completely different from the real person the movie is based on. Same with Abraham Lincoln, at least based on what we know from the historical records.
electricridge6 said:I couldn't be clearer. The heavyweights are Marlon Brando, Al Pacino, Robert De Niro, and Jack Nicholson—not to mention Laurence Olivier, who is arguably the greatest ever. He doesn't belong in that group in my eyes. That's just my take. Maybe I'm wrong to say DDL isn't among the greats, but I'll leave that to the experts.
Btw, someone mentioned Olivier was a role model for DDL. I haven't seen anything suggesting they're linked like that. Anyone got a link or something?
In an interview from at least ten years ago. He talked about Olivier, Brando, and another influence of his, Charles Laughton. I'll try to track it down and post it, but remind me if I forget.
Read this http://reflectionandchoice.org/2013/...for-our-times/ 😉
electricridge6, I think you’re flat-out wrong. Marlon Brando, Jack Nicholson, Robert De Niro, and Al Pacino are so deeply embedded in our collective psyche that we assume no one else reaches that level. You aren't wrong, though—there are really only two others. Laurence Olivier and DDL. Olivier never caused trouble and wasn't like Boogie or James Cagney, acting in massive modern hits, even if those films were great. But ask any acting expert, and they'll tell you Olivier was the gold standard for classic Hollywood. Some even claim he's the greatest of all time. DDL is essentially Olivier's successor; he looked up to him and learned everything from him. Those two belong right alongside Brando, Nicholson, De Niro, and Pacino. That gives us six actors who represent the absolute elite. It doesn't matter who ranks higher among those six, but in my view, they are the finest actors in cinema history. I'd personally throw Max von Sydow into the mix, but that's just me being subjective. As for the top six? That's solid.
electricridge6 said:Just because acting is at its peak right now doesn't make it true. He’s great, sure, but he isn't on the level of Robert De Niro or Al Pacino yet.
He reached that level a long time ago. Daniel Day-Lewis belongs in the same category as Jack Nicholson, Marlon Brando, Al Pacino, Robert De Niro, and Laurence Olivier—who was his mentor and taught him a lot. That’s the elite tier. Period. It’s just that, much like Olivier, he might be the least "interesting" of that group. No scandals, no wild lifestyle. Nothing.
Noah Roberts46 said:Top-tier acting—just watch There Will Be Blood, In the Name of the Father, My Left Foot, The Last of the Mohicans, Gangs of New York, or Age of Innocence. All stellar movies with incredible performances. It’s debatable who has better films; those listed are all great/solid, but we're talking about movies... are we debating the acting or the films themselves?
For me, Edward Norton and Christian Bale are my favorite younger actors, but they aren't in the same league as Daniel Day-Lewis. Not yet, anyway.
I'm also wondering what they're even talking about. 🤷 Don't mix up massive blockbusters with actual cinema. To me, There Will Be Blood is better than any movie starring Leonardo DiCaprio. The Last of the Mohicans was better directed than anything Leo has done. Daniel Day-Lewis is in a league of his own—he's at the absolute peak of the elite. Then you have actors like Edward Norton and the rest. After that, you get solid actors like Leonardo DiCaprio, who only stays relevant because of those blockbusters where you don't actually need to show any emotional range. Give me some real drama. Even in Revolutionary Road, Kate Winslet completely outclassed him.
As my colleague mentioned, Daniel Day-Lewis belongs to that elite circle alongside Marlon Brando, Jack Nicholson, Robert De Niro, Al Pacino, and Laurence Olivier. That's the tier. Edward Norton doesn't quite make the cut, but he's still better than Leonardo DiCaprio.
I'll concede that Jack Nicholson delivered two of his greatest performances by age 37 with *Chinatown* and 38 with *Let*. Leonardo DiCaprio is already 42. Maybe he’ll land a role next year strong enough to cement his legacy forever. Personally, I doubt it, but we'll see. The difference is Nicholson had to grind through B-movies and Roger Corman horrors to get there. That doesn't happen anymore. Nowadays, anyone can make it onto The List if they just show up. Imagine if guys like Jack Nicholson or Al Pacino didn't have to fight through that kind of grit just to earn their spot. Pathetic.
The only caricature among them was De Niro. Al Pacino, and especially Jack Nicholson, went on to deliver incredible performances later (it doesn't get better than The Pledge or About Schmidt). I’d even argue his turn in About Schmidt is one his top five. Sure, their most iconic roles are the mobsters (Pacino, De Niro) or the lunatics (Nicholson), but just because he nailed Radiation, Let, or Batman—those famous, twisted roles—doesn't mean that's all he can do. He's got hits like Chinatown, Carnal Knowledge, a professional reporter role, The Pledge, and About Schmidt.
Leo just doesn't have that. Look at his filmography. Where is his performance that sticks in your mind the way De Niro's in Taxi Driver or Bik does? Or Pacino's in The Godfather or Scarface and Dog Afternoon? Or Nicholson's in Chinatown, Radiation, or Let? They aren't there.
Jack in Titanic is memorable, but he wasn't acting great there; he was just hitting the sweet spot for every girl in America. Gilbert Grape is cited as his best, but is that really on the level of Tony Montana, Michael Corleone, Travis Bickle, Jake LaMotta, Jake Gittis, or Murphy? Honestly, no, because you don't even consider it an all-time great role.
We're drifting off-topic, but the point stands: Leo hasn't produced any all-time career roles like the ones mentioned above in over 25 years. Give me something, damn it. I'm waiting, you know 😁 but nothing comes.
Just because a movie hits doesn't mean it's actually good. Box office numbers and popularity have zero correlation with quality.
Comparing these two actors is a joke. Edward Norton wins, hands down. He’s simply the better actor. Leonardo DiCaprio peaked early with his best roles and stayed there. Now? He's just an average performer with the same blank expression, devoid of emotion. He lacks the charisma an actor of his stature should possess. I'm not saying he needs to be out there like Jack Nicholson or Al Pacino, but give us something. He offers nothing. He's just an average actor backed by massive marketing budgets and relentless PR campaigns.
We need to address the elephant in the room. Why would Kaufman drop all those breadcrumbs just to land on a theory that Lisa is actually a doll? I'm okay with coincidences to a point, but this is getting ridiculous. It feels too calculated. Either he's planting these hints specifically to bait us into making theories, or he's laying them out because she really is a doll.
This is his third Golden Globe. I see he picked them up for Aviator and Wolf. Honestly, with Wolf, it’s pretty obvious those Golden Globes were just consolation prizes. Mark my words, once he fails to win an Oscar, you're going to see his fans absolutely lose their minds. 🤣
Noah Roberts46 said:Absolutely. We’re looking at a race between The Revenant and The Martian for an Oscar—another classic DiCaprio vs Damon showdown. Personally, I think Spotlight is probably the best of the bunch. Either way, let's all root against the crowd behind that tedious The Revenant. ☕
This is just confirmation that he isn't getting the Oscar. It’s pretty obvious now. History shows plenty of times where a Golden Globe is handed out as a consolation prize, only for the Oscar to go to someone else entirely. Sure, some actors sweep both in the same year, but in this case, it looks like they gave Leo the Golden Globe just to keep him happy while the Oscar goes to someone else.
The pressure from Leo's fanbase—both men and women obsessed with him—is just too much. I'm certain the Academy cut a deal to give Leo the Globe as a consolation prize while someone else takes the Oscar.