The "intrusions" that defined the film

Alexander the Great - Colin Farrell

A total rogue...

John Peterson3 said:Alexander the Great - Colin Farrell

A total rogue...

Unlike Daredevil, which has already become an absolute timeless classic!

😂

John Peterson3 said:Alexander the Great - Colin Farrell

A total rogue...

...yeah, I'm not following this either... let's be real here—he’s starred in movies way worse than that. I mean, wouldn't it be nice to just remember him for the hits? But reality isn't quite that kind. And even if we flip the script, Colin is definitely not the weakest link in a Stone film, nor is he even the worst actor—in my book, he actually did exactly what the director asked of him, and arguably did it quite well... unlike Angelina, who is just... well, polarizing, to say the least...
...it's no secret that actors make bad movies. It's also no secret that great actors make absolute disasters. I mean, calling Showtime the one "outlier" or stain on De Niro's career is almost laughable when you forget he was in Analyze That, Flawless (which, honestly, might be a bigger stain on the otherwise flawless Hoffman—that could easily be *his* outlier) and a whole string of other flops where his acting wasn't exactly top-tier. And we're talking about a man with a brilliant career built on iconic roles! So why shouldn't Farrell have more than one "outlier" in his relatively short, scattered career? 🙂

edit: taking back what I said about Hoffman—I totally blanked on Along Came Polly 😳

redowl90 said:Unlike Daredevil, which has already become an absolute timeless classic!

😂

I think you have me confused with someone else. In my view, Daredevil is a total disaster.

That's just my take. I respect yours, but this is mine.

@John Peterson3
...I was honestly just looking for some clarity here—why would anyone label Colin Farrell an "intruder" in Alexander, or suggest Alexander is a low point in his career, especially if you're already counting movies like Daredevil among his bad stuff? I didn't quite follow your logic...🙂 Is it because of the genre or something else?

John Peterson3 said:I think you have me confused with someone else. In my view, Daredevil is a total disaster.

That's just my take. I respect yours, but this is mine.

Sure, if we are talking about the theatrical cut. The director's cut is an entirely different beast.

Larry Martin11 said:...yeah, I'm not following this either... let's be real here—he’s starred in movies way worse than that. I mean, wouldn't it be nice to just remember him for the hits? But reality isn't quite that kind. And even if we flip the script, Colin is definitely not the weakest link in a Stone film, nor is he even the worst actor—in my book, he actually did exactly what the director asked of him, and arguably did it quite well... unlike Angelina, who is just... well, polarizing, to say the least...
...it's no secret that actors make bad movies. It's also no secret that great actors make absolute disasters. I mean, calling Showtime the one "outlier" or stain on De Niro's career is almost laughable when you forget he was in Analyze That, Flawless (which, honestly, might be a bigger stain on the otherwise flawless Hoffman—that could easily be *his* outlier) and a whole string of other flops where his acting wasn't exactly top-tier. And we're talking about a man with a brilliant career built on iconic roles! So why shouldn't Farrell have more than one "outlier" in his relatively short, scattered career? 🙂

edit: taking back what I said about Hoffman—I totally blanked on Along Came Polly 😳

What some people see as a blunder, others see as a perfectly natural progression from the usual fare actors like De Niro and Hoffman typically tackle.

De Niro surprised me again playing Captain Shakespeare. Given the roles he’s played up until now—mostly just various tough guys—seeing him putting on makeup in front of a mirror and dancing in a dress in Stardust was quite something 😂.

Hoffman as well. Both belong to that group of actors who are allowed to deviate from their "standard" genres and personas. Any kind of change is welcome; whether it turns out bad or not is another matter.

I don't know, personally speaking, I just didn't think he quite nailed this role. He’s much better suited for something like his part in Recruit alongside Pacina.

John Peterson3 said:I don't know, personally speaking, I just didn't think he quite nailed this role. He’s much better suited for something like his part in Recruit alongside Pacina.

Well, even she deserves a little break now and then. It would be nice if she filmed something that her grandkids could actually enjoy watching together..

Larry Martin11 said:...yeah, I'm not following this either... let's be real here—he’s starred in movies way worse than that. I mean, wouldn't it be nice to just remember him for the hits? But reality isn't quite that kind. And even if we flip the script, Colin is definitely not the weakest link in a Stone film, nor is he even the worst actor—in my book, he actually did exactly what the director asked of him, and arguably did it quite well... unlike Angelina, who is just... well, polarizing, to say the least...
...it's no secret that actors make bad movies. It's also no secret that great actors make absolute disasters. I mean, calling Showtime the one "outlier" or stain on De Niro's career is almost laughable when you forget he was in Analyze That, Flawless (which, honestly, might be a bigger stain on the otherwise flawless Hoffman—that could easily be *his* outlier) and a whole string of other flops where his acting wasn't exactly top-tier. And we're talking about a man with a brilliant career built on iconic roles! So why shouldn't Farrell have more than one "outlier" in his relatively short, scattered career? 🙂

edit: taking back what I said about Hoffman—I totally blanked on Along Came Polly 😳

Hold on just a second—someone stop the world!

Am I reading this right? Are we actually labeling Showtime and Flawless as low points in De Niro's career? That’s blasphemy, for goodness' sake! Pure blasphemy!
I'm sitting here watching Showtime on local TV right now (probably my third time seeing it), and let me tell you, that movie is FUN. Seriously, it's one of the best movies you could pick if you just want to relax and have a good time.

Then there's Flawless, where you have De Niro playing a regular guy who's dealing with some heavy stuff alongside Philip Seymour Hoffman (😍). It's a combination that's hard to mess up, especially with a director involved. Okay, maybe I'm exaggerating about the directing part, but the fact remains: it's probably Schumacher's best work in the last 15 years (aside from A Time to Kill).

David Price5 said:Well, even she deserves a little break now and then. It would be nice if she filmed something that her grandkids could actually enjoy watching together..

Fair enough. I was just stating my opinion, nothing more.

redowl90 said:Hold on just a second—someone stop the world!

Am I reading this right? Are we actually labeling Showtime and Flawless as low points in De Niro's career? That’s blasphemy, for goodness' sake! Pure blasphemy!
I'm sitting here watching Showtime on local TV right now (probably my third time seeing it), and let me tell you, that movie is FUN. Seriously, it's one of the best movies you could pick if you just want to relax and have a good time.

Then there's Flawless, where you have De Niro playing a regular guy who's dealing with some heavy stuff alongside Philip Seymour Hoffman (😍). It's a combination that's hard to mess up, especially with a director involved. Okay, maybe I'm exaggerating about the directing part, but the fact remains: it's probably Schumacher's best work in the last 15 years (aside from A Time to Kill).

What about Tigerland (2000) and Phone Booth (2002)?

redowl90 said:Hold on just a second—someone stop the world!

Am I reading this right? Are we actually labeling Showtime and Flawless as low points in De Niro's career? That’s blasphemy, for goodness' sake! Pure blasphemy!
I'm sitting here watching Showtime on local TV right now (probably my third time seeing it), and let me tell you, that movie is FUN. Seriously, it's one of the best movies you could pick if you just want to relax and have a good time.

Then there's Flawless, where you have De Niro playing a regular guy who's dealing with some heavy stuff alongside Philip Seymour Hoffman (😍). It's a combination that's hard to mess up, especially with a director involved. Okay, maybe I'm exaggerating about the directing part, but the fact remains: it's probably Schumacher's best work in the last 15 years (aside from A Time to Kill).

...don't stop the world quite yet, it hasn't come to that level of catastrophe! 😉 But yeah, for me, both movies were misses—mostly because neither one was actually fun to watch, which meant they both missed the entire point (to be genuinely entertaining, and in one case, even a little bit thought-provoking...) despite having 😍Hoffman
on board. 🙂

Tigerland is a decent enough flick, but Phone Booth 👎

David Price5 said:What about Tigerland (2000) and Phone Booth (2002)?

Honestly, Phone Booth is trash. The only redeeming qualities are Kiefer Sutherland and the fact that he doesn't get caught at the end.

I've always felt Tigerland was overrated.

And just to be clear: Joel Schumacher is a TERRIBLE director. Really. He's the guy who completely ruined Batman. I can't forgive him for that, even if he happens to make the best movie ever conceived.

Larry Martin11 said:...don't stop the world quite yet, it hasn't come to that level of catastrophe! 😉 But yeah, for me, both movies were misses—mostly because neither one was actually fun to watch, which meant they both missed the entire point (to be genuinely entertaining, and in one case, even a little bit thought-provoking...) despite having 😍Hoffman
on board. 🙂

😍
😍
😍
Philip Seymour Hoffman
😍
😍
😍

...well, I think we can all agree on this one 🙂 if you ask me, he’s easily the most powerhouse American actor from that younger—middle to high school age group—generation. > is right behind him, followed by this steady stream of "supporting" actors who are always top-tier (ranging from > and > as the slightly older guys, up to—guilty as charged—>)... but >? He just has this specific kind of genius. He’s truly something else 😍

Larry Martin11 said:...well, I think we can all agree on this one 🙂 if you ask me, he’s easily the most powerhouse American actor from that younger—middle to high school age group—generation. > is right behind him, followed by this steady stream of "supporting" actors who are always top-tier (ranging from > and > as the slightly older guys, up to—guilty as charged—>)... but >? He just has this specific kind of genius. He’s truly something else 😍

Don't forget William H. Macy once you take a closer look at all the actors chosen by the Coen brothers or Paul Thomas Anderson...

David Price5 said:Don't forget William H. Macy once you take a closer look at all the actors chosen by the Coen brothers or Paul Thomas Anderson...

...well... I didn't mention him on purpose (I didn't want to get bogged down in the details, especially since I'm already drifting so far off-topic 🙂). Look, I think Macy is great... really. But honestly? If I start listing people like him, there's no end to it—so I'll just stop right there. 😳 🙂

redowl90 said:It was Band before Aviator.

I guess Band was alright for me... I mean, damn, it really did bring De Niro back to life—so I’ll give him credit for that... but Aviator? I can barely even remember it anymore... honestly, I’d much rather sit through some documentary about Hughes than endure that whole ordeal again... I'm telling you—to my mind, it’s easily the worst Scorsese film I've ever sat through... just felt like this massive attempt at an Oscar grab, trying to reach for that gold statue a bit too aggressively compared to his other stuff 😉