You don't need to categorize him. His caliber as part of the acting elite is self-evident. Honestly, comparing him to Leonardo DiCaprio is just embarrassing—it's like trying to put Quentin Tarantino and Ingmar Bergman on the same level. It's laughable. You can pick Kubrick or Alfred Hitchcock if you want, but everyone does that. I see lists of top directors where Tarantino is listed first, and while I have nothing against him and his films are fine, it’s still ridiculous. Sometimes you even see Akira Kurosawa left off those lists entirely. It makes you shudder at how arbitrary these rankings are. And mentioning Leonardo DiCaprio in the same breath as Daniel Day-Lewis? Pure nonsense.
Pure talent. Just look at those roles in My Left Foot, Lincoln, and There Will Be Blood. They are all incredibly powerful and distinct, yet they carry that same overwhelming intensity. That is just his level. He doesn't need a massive filmography; one or two masterpieces are enough. You don't just stumble into that kind of range by accident. It isn't a lucky punch. You either reach the summit or you don't. Daniel Day-Lewis is operating at the level of the true greats. Absolute peak.
It’s the same story with directors. A steady output matters for your overall reputation, but it has nothing to do with whether you are actually a genius. You don't just accidentally make a masterpiece. You don't just "accidentally" direct Rosemary's Baby, Psycho, or Ace in the Hole. Whether someone decides to die or retire and never touch a camera again tells us nothing about their actual quality.
Top-tier acting, directing, and everything in between—it doesn't happen by chance. Uwe Boll isn't going to accidentally turn out a Ben Hur.
Norton is solid in most of his films, and I don't mind 25h, but talking this much nonsense about Daniel Day-Lewis? Neither Norton nor Leonardo DiCaprio even come close to him. He’s on a completely different level—the absolute peak of acting. What else does he even need to film in his life?
That’s exactly the point. Christopher Nolan's films aren't empty shells. That is precisely why his work holds up. Sure, something might be flawed, or a certain choice might not sit right with someone, but they always have cinematic soul. They always do.
I'm no technical expert, so I won't pretend to debate the mechanics of filmmaking. I can tell you if a shot, a scene, or a cut works for me or not, but I have zero interest in dissecting the "why" behind every technical choice or arguing over how it could have been done differently. Every director has flaws. Even an icon like Alfred Hitchcock wasn't perfect—just look at the logic in Psycho. We could go on forever like this: one person calls the San Francisco Bay a disaster, while another claims Christopher Nolan is a pure artist.
The opening of The Stranger lacks logic, sure, but the movie is so good you barely even care, or you just rely on a bit of Suspension of disbelief. Does it matter if Bruno could physically make it to Guy's apartment that fast? Honestly, I don't care. That’s just how Nolan builds his worlds. I have no interest in those kinds of debates. Besides, there are plenty of other plot holes and inconsistencies to deal with.
Look, I agree, but Leonardo DiCaprio still has plenty of time left. We'll see what his next move is, but honestly, we shouldn't even be wasting our breath on this right now.
I don't know, these kinds of polls are pointless to me. Claiming that Inception is anywhere near anything made by Michael Bay is an insult. Michael Bay is just terrible; every single one of his movies is awful on every level, not to mention his morals are perpetually bottom-of-the-barrel.
bluenomad2, I have to disagree. Sometimes an actor's charisma carries the role, and other times they just need to inhabit a character. It’s a shame Al Pacino and Jack Nicholson became caricatures of themselves during certain periods, even if they still delivered some brilliant performances.
I'm just waiting for the inevitable Al Pacino monologue. I actually think Insider is one of his better recent roles—it's a powerful film, but that's what you expect from Michael Mann. He dialed back that specific persona a bit there, though it still slips through when they decide not to publish the interview.
Popularity isn't quality. Just because a movie hits big doesn't mean it's actually good. Deadpool was a massive hit, yet I haven't seen it and don't know the first thing about it. Ant-Man was a hit too, but I wouldn't call it high quality. Even Jobs by Boyel was a failure. Personally, I can't stand Aaron Sorkin's style—all that rapid-fire dialogue and constant walking just isn't for me. I'm not a fan of Facebook either, though most would agree those films are far superior to the ones mentioned above.
You can deliver a stellar performance even in a mediocre movie. Acting quality doesn't always correlate with the film itself; a movie can have terrible pacing or technical flaws while the acting remains top-tier. Norton is a great actor, but for some reason, he just irritates me, so I don't watch him much. It's the same deal with DiCaprio—I don't exactly revel in his roles, though I've said before that his best work is still in What's Eating Gilbert Grape.
Revolutionary Road is a decent film, but Kate carries the whole thing. Leo is just Leo, and when he gets angry, he's basically a toddler, lol. He didn't do much for me, but Kate was absolutely perfect and drove the movie forward. Her character and her story were what actually intrigued me; she was the one carrying that entire film.
Grace Sanders24 said:What on earth happened to him? Why is he churning out movies every single year now? Based on this trailer, it looks identical to his last two. It’s the same old formula: a swell musical score, a bunch of A-list actors having miserable sex, and then a rotation of famous faces reaching toward the sky and stretching for absolutely no reason! My expectations just keep dropping. Maybe I won't have to struggle as much as I did during that last one, where I had to fight the urge to kill someone just watching Ben Affleck try so desperately to act serious and in love.☕
A bit too generous, if you ask me. Watching Malick lately requires a level of patience I simply don't possess anymore.
redbear2 said:It’s just pornography masquerading as high art. Cheap, dull, and frankly, a waste of time.
Look, as much as I can't stand Noah, you aren't hitting the mark here. A romantic connection without physical intimacy or sex isn't even a real depiction of a relationship. Movies started introducing this stuff ages ago, and people acted shocked—why? Sex is a massive part of any relationship, whether you call it "pornography" or whatever else. Noah and I don't work, but your argument is still wrong.
To me, True Detective was top-tier. I honestly don't care if someone else did something similar before. Some of you seem convinced that nothing can be original anymore, but I guarantee that any thriller or drama produced today has already touched on similar themes in some previous film. How much innovation can you actually find in investigating crimes in a city? It’s the same old story. What makes this series work is the atmosphere and the acting.
The first one is clearly the best. Someone already pointed out it has a cool soundtrack, plus the atmosphere is unmatched. Honestly, parts 2 and 3 were decent enough, but those last two? Total garbage.
If they’re going to remake Scarface, the lead has to be Mexican. If the cast and crew actually pull their weight, you could end up with a killer movie. A Russian or a Mexican just wouldn't hit the same way as a Mexican character—someone who crosses into the USA illegally, works the plantations, and then climbs the ladder through the drug trade. That’s how you make it work.
Personally, I can't stand remakes of great films. Sometimes it's interesting to see a story retold with different actors or a different director, sure. I actually would have loved a new Scarface—not some carbon copy of the original (which won't happen), but a modern, extreme version of Scarface. Maybe just some crazy guy in the US today? That’s all I’m asking for.
In my opinion, the worst remake ever is The Departed. It's a fine movie, but it simply doesn't hold a candle to the brilliance of the Infernal Affairs trilogy. They just handed it Oscars, but seriously, watch Infernal Affairs and then watch The Departed; there is no way The Departed is better. From the atmosphere to the acting, everything about IA is miles ahead. And remember, IA came out around 2002/03 while The Departed 2006.
I already mentioned in the Oscar thread that I liked the movie; I thought it was quite good. It’s a familiar trope—you know, a tragedy that brings a distant family together. Sure, it was predictable, but it worked for me. I see people complaining on IMDb, claiming the score ruined what they consider an average film, but personally? That soundtrack is exactly what elevated the whole experience for me. No complaints here; I thoroughly enjoyed every minute of it.
The Elephant Man is easily one of my all-time favorites, yet it’s also one of the most grueling films I’ve ever sat through. It leaves me emotionally drained. I couldn't handle watching it again, but it remains one of those rare masterpieces that earns a perfect 10/10 from me.