CheckEmoji Community · the emoji forum
🏠 Home 🆕 What's new ❓ Unanswered 🔥 Popular 📡 RSS Members 👥 0 online
log in · register
Home › Culture & Entertainment › Movies › Why did Robert De Niro stop acting so much?

Why did Robert De Niro stop acting so much?

Started by Michael Booth11 · · 👁 8 views · 43 replies

📡 Subscribe to replies

Participants Michael Booth11Timothy Cox2vividwalker7copperdriver15driftingowl27Edward Robinson6redowl90Betty Bennett10Michelle Howard2Jessica Nguyen85Mark Nelson17Nancy Smith4Andrew Anderson6Larry Fox5Aanalogrider15Jessica King95Keith Wright78
redowl90 redowl90 Regular
287 messages
joined Aug 2005
#21 ·
driftingowl27 said:

The point (redowl90, if that’s not clear enough, feel free to ask 😉), is that it's incredibly easy to sell people snake oil. People end up gravitating toward the same favorite movies and the same actors; when you bundle all that together with an excellent technician behind the camera, it's almost guaranteed to be labeled a masterpiece! (just my take on the dramatic irony 🙂 )

Some new Aki Kaurismäki fan who still hangs out at the Film Archive is basically the queen of this kind of nonsense...🙏

There’s another side to that coin (as Robert De Niro might say in that tense scene with Al Pacino in Heat), which is this: there are people (like Blue Eyes, Mickey Legend, and so on) who refuse to acknowledge anything other than Kaurismäki, Luis Buñuel, François Truffaut, Bunuel, Andrei Tarkovsky, Pedro Almodóvar, Fritz Lang, or Rainer Werner Fassbinder. They essentially claim, "Everything else is garbage; these guys are GODS!" Look, I get it, I really do—but that just means you're all chasing the exact same films and the exact same directors... You see what I mean?

Personally, I think Heat is an excellent film in terms of direction and screenplay. Someone mentioned that the character relationships are too thin, but I don't agree. Every single character gets at least one scene where they appear with their wife or girlfriend (think back to that dinner scene with Robert De Niro and his crew and their families)... If Alfred Hitchcock wanted to fully develop every single character's relationship, he would have needed seven hours instead of 160 minutes...

And Mickey, tell me, why on earth was the movie boring to you? I could wrap my head around most of your other points, but I truly don't get this part... 😉

By the way, if you want to know who my favorite actors are, just ask... I promise you neither Robert De Niro nor Al Pacino are even in my top five... 😉
driftingowl27 driftingowl27 Active Member
89 messages
joined Dec 2002
#22 ·
redowl90 once said:We all know those people—you know exactly who I mean—the types like Blue Eyes or Mickey Legend who basically refuse to acknowledge anyone exists unless they’re directing masterpieces. For them, if it isn't Aki Kaurismäki, Luis Buñuel, François Truffaut, Andrei Tarkovsky, Pedro Almodóvar, Fritz Lang, or Rainer Werner Fassbinder, then it's just not real cinema. Period.

I mean, sure, you could survive without any of them. You’d make it. But let's be real—without guys like Pavlovic, Ken Loach, Mike Leigh, Akira Kurosawa, or Moodysson? Yeah, life would get a whole lot harder. 😉

redowl90 says...
Look, Mickey, for God's sake, tell me—why on earth was that movie so incredibly boring?

Because let's be real—it’s not like the movie is personally reaching out to me or anything. I mean, figuratively speaking, redowl90. 😉 Give me something actually worth my time, then. I mean, sitting through nearly three hours of this? Please. Honestly, I think I’d have a much better time just watching a Julia Roberts rom-com where she runs around being frantic and showing off a little more skin for 174 minutes straight. At least that wouldn't be such a slog. 😢 🙂

redowl90 said:And hey, look, if you actually want to know who my top actors are, just ask... but I’m telling you right now, neither Robert De Niro nor Al Pacino even make my top five. 😉


All those "beloved" classics are fucking overrated, honestly. It’s just that too many people refuse to open their eyes—or their brains—to anything that doesn't fit their narrow little worldview. They're stuck in these rigid ways of thinking and can't handle a different principle or approach if it actually challenged them. 😉
redowl90 redowl90 Regular
287 messages
joined Aug 2005
#23 ·
driftingowl27 said:Honestly, I think it’d be more entertaining to just watch Julia Roberts running around half-naked for 174 minutes...

Well, this would certainly be a more interesting watch regardless... 🙂
Mark Nelson17 Mark Nelson17 Member
34 messages
joined Aug 2003
#24 ·
Regarding the thin character dynamics, what bothers me most is the relationship between Al Pacino and Robert De Niro. They simply don't work together as a high-level cop facing off against a high-level criminal. I fail to see the point behind Al Pacino's overacting in this film, which feels like a desperate attempt to prove his individual brilliance and intellect.
The way Robert De Niro is introduced to that woman—who is far too young for him—is equally clichéd. She meets him nervously, and predictably, they end up in bed that very same night. It’s all very fine, I suppose, but it doesn't fit the tone of a film like this; it’s a trope we have seen countless times before, and it feels incredibly hollow.
The scene where Rambo engages in a verbal spat on the street just as heavy police forces close in is the worst part. Characters get caught in the crossfire, wounded or exposed, and somehow a few manage to slip away through some convenient plot device, solely to set the stage for the grand showdown between Robert De Niro and Al Pacino.
I cannot bring myself to agree that the screenplay is excellent; quite the opposite. In certain sections, it leans heavily on typical action movie tropes. It feels forced, as if things are happening between the leads merely because they *have* to happen, just so everyone can say, "Wow, Al Pacino and Robert De Niro together!"
To be fair, the film does have its merits. Up until the meeting between Robert De Niro and Al Pacino, the tension was palpable and engaging, but it falls far short of being a masterpiece like Casino, for example.
redowl90 redowl90 Regular
287 messages
joined Aug 2005
#25 ·
Mark Nelson17 said:
To be honest, the movie has plenty of strong points. The tension leading up to the De Niro – Al Pacino face-off was engaging, but it’s still nowhere near the level of something like Casino.

Man, I have to admit, that last sentence really caught me off guard, mostly because Casino is a phenomenal movie to me. This might shock some people, but I actually think it holds up better than Goodfellas—mostly thanks to Sharon Stone, who gave the performance of her life before her career took a sharp turn downward. Then there’s those brilliant few minutes near the end where De Niro and Joe Pesci narrate what happened to the supporting cast while "House of the Rising Sun" plays softly in the background. Not to mention any scene featuring James Woods, or the moment De Niro and Stone argue as the car starts rolling downhill, or just the sheer character of Nicky Santoro played by Joe Pesci...

We could spend all day debating that famous street fight in Los Angeles, but we won't get anywhere since you hated it and I thought it was one of the most intense things I've ever seen. Honestly, you're probably the first person I know who has voiced such a negative opinion about that scene. I get the argument that it feels a bit naive and that half those guys would likely have been killed in real life, but I think Michael Mann included it just to ramp up the tension rather than for its actual importance to the plot (though Val Kilmer getting wounded does help him escape the city at the end). It seems he did it for exactly the reason you pointed out: just so everyone could walk away saying, "Wow, did you see that scene??"
Mark Nelson17 Mark Nelson17 Member
34 messages
joined Aug 2003
#26 ·
redowl90, let's throw some bias into the mix just so it doesn't look like I'm one of those people calling this movie trash. I’ve only seen it once, and I didn't just watch it because of glowing reviews—I went in based on recommendations from friends whose taste in quality cinema I generally trust. That means my expectations were sky-high, which probably prevents me from being truly objective. If I were to sit down and watch it a second time without all that pre-existing hype or constantly thinking about the cast list, I suspect I might actually enjoy it more.
The harsh criticisms regarding the street shootout mostly centered on script inconsistencies and sheer stupidity. However, that doesn't mean the scene itself wasn't expertly directed, framed, and filled with tension.
I just can't stomach the fact that they managed to escape after a shootout like that, completely exposed and surrounded by the police. On top of that, they're dragging a wounded man along. It's as if they just happened to stumble into an area with minimal police presence, shoot one guy, and suddenly they've slipped away in broad daylight like they were just robbing a corner store.
To make a long story short—and since I don't want to repeat myself—this film relies too heavily on the kind of naive tropes you see in typical action movies. Since this film pretends to be something more profound, those clichés really ruin the experience for me.
As for Casino and Goodfellas, both are absolute masterpieces in my eyes, though I find Casino a bit more engaging and would choose to rewatch it over the other. When I saw Goodfellas for the first time, it genuinely took my breath away. Yet, for some reason I can't quite put my finger on, I don't feel the urge to revisit it as many times as I do Casino.
redowl90 redowl90 Regular
287 messages
joined Aug 2005
#27 ·
Mark Nelson17 said:I don't know why, but I just didn't feel the urge to rewatch it endlessly like I do with Casino.

Yeah, I felt the exact same way about that one... 😉

As for Heat—it’s a big mistake (okay, maybe not a mistake, just a bit negative) to listen to all those critics hyping the movie up to the heavens before you actually see it. There's a real chance you'll just end up disappointed.

That's how it went for me with Lars von Trier and Breaking the Wave.
Nancy Smith4 Nancy Smith4 Newcomer
3 messages
joined Jun 2003
#28 ·
I read somewhere that Robert De Niro is basically acting like a high-end escort. The man simply doesn't know how to say "no" to certain directors. He’s taken far too many mediocre projects on his shoulders. Honestly, plenty of people in Hollywood should be thanking him for carrying those films. That said, he remains a powerhouse actor and a true authority in his craft.
Andrew Anderson6 Andrew Anderson6 Active Member
90 messages
joined Dec 2002
#29 ·
redowl90 said:So, Keanu Reeves is in "The Devil's Advocate" instead of Russell Crowe—or did I just mess up again (standard procedure for me)? 🙂

Mikilegendocare said:You got it wrong, as usual... though you did take one for the team there, so I'll give you that. 🙂

It's actually Keanu Reeves and Al Pacino in "The Devil's Advocate" (unless he decided to go brunette on us recently 😁 )

Don't even get me started on Robert De Niro—leave the LEGEND alone 😠

Robert De Niro 👍 👍 👍
Larry Fox5 Larry Fox5 Regular
348 messages
joined Sep 2003
#30 ·
You can say whatever you want and play pretend with your "expert" reviews—most critics just trash movies to make themselves look smart—but Heat is definitely a solid movie. It’s not quite a masterpiece like Casino or The Godfather, but it’s certainly not a dud like Jackie Brown either. The pacing is tight and the action is actually engaging. Plus, the characters are great—Val Kilmer actually gives a better performance here. It’s got a cool vibe and avoids those stupid American clichés where criminals are always some kind of misunderstood bad boys.

The ending was a bit messy, I guess, but the movie is totally fine.

Kudos to anyone who thinks Ronin is a good film. I’d love to hear them explain what they even liked about it...
A Anonymous Veteran
3.6K messages
joined May 2005
#31 ·
Mikilegendocare said:Then there's the other side of the coin: most actors eventually build up this massive emotional toolkit over the years. It gets to the point where they don't even have to try anymore; they just pull from that same reservoir of emotions or play different versions of the exact same thing, sometimes even pushing it way too far ("Analyze this").

Exactly. In the last few movies I've watched, Robert De Niro always has the same facial expressions, the same mannerisms, and the same acting style. It’s become repetitive and honestly pretty unappealing, no matter how hard he tries to act like someone else.
analogrider15 analogrider15 Newcomer
9 messages
joined Jun 2003
#32 ·
I suspect De Niro realizes that the golden age of Hollywood cinema has gone straight to hell. These days, coherent scripts are practically extinct. Even when someone actually manages to stumble upon a decent idea, the industry immediately rushes to churn out sequels (like some derivative version of The Matrix) or tie-ins for some mindless PC game. Everything is just comic book adaptations or various pieces of garbage produced with astronomical budgets and even higher returns. Producers are raking in billions overnight. Everyone is chasing the almighty dollar, so why shouldn't he? Given how many kids he’s fathered with those Black women, he’s certainly got enough on his plate to keep him busy.
Furthermore, it seems he has reached that stage of life where he simply doesn't care about leaving a lasting legacy anymore. With these recent films, it feels like he's almost mocking the very concept of serious acting and the powerhouse performances from his early career, such as Travis Bickle in Taxi Driver.
Honestly, I wouldn't be shocked if I saw him showing up in Harry Potter.
😎
redowl90 redowl90 Regular
287 messages
joined Aug 2005
#33 ·
Larry Fox5 said:(just to play it safe like most critics who lean on biased or mindless takes) Heat is definitely a solid movie. It might not reach the heights of Casino or The Godfather, but it’s certainly not as bad as Jackie Brown.)

Wait, what makes Jackie Brown a bad movie?
Jessica King95 Jessica King95 Member
12 messages
joined Jun 2003
#34 ·
I’m going to skip the immediate debate over Heat and try to dig into what exactly De Niro is hiding there. Look, I’m not a huge fan of his recent work either, but we really need to keep a few things in perspective:

1. The man has simply aged. That era when he was wild, driven, and possessed this burning desire to bend the world to his will is long gone. Back then, he found himself in the best possible company with Scorsese and knocked out a massive run of films together. I actually think Renton and Sick Boy touched on this exact issue during that scene with the air rifle in Trainspotting. As people get older, they just get more tired; that fighting spirit starts to fade. He isn't fully immersing himself in his roles anymore. He’s content just soaking up the accolades. Honestly, it’s just a natural part of growing old. Some might argue there are actors who haven't gone through a phase like this, but if you ask me, it applies to most of them—Jack Nicholson is probably my best example.

2. Then there’s the criticism regarding his acting in recent years. Even if we assume his performances aren't quite hitting the mark lately, the bigger issue is that the movies themselves are often lackluster to begin with. We're talking about uninspired themes, cookie-cutter productions, and mediocre directing. The scripts just aren't there. Why does he take these roles? Probably just pure laziness. But even if he isn't "acting bad," I wouldn't say he's performing poorly; I'd say he's performing appropriately for the material, without trying to turn something mediocre into something great. I mean, how could he?

3. So, can he make a comeback? It’s tough. His legendary run gave him a level of charisma that is hard to maintain at his age. I truly wish he would—and I’ll mention him again here—find projects that are actually interesting and resonate with where he is in life now (I’m thinking along the lines of As Good as It Gets or About Schmidt).

4. Or... maybe he played us all from the start? What if he isn't even an actor? What if he’s just some Italian mobster who started out on the streets of New York? Maybe he did a little boxing, fled to Vietnam to dodge a prison sentence, came back, became a big boss, and spent his whole life "acting" in movies just for kicks. Maybe Analyze This is finally his way of opening up and telling us how hard it actually was for him.🙂

The guy grew old, plain and simple. It’s not like it’s his fault. We’re all heading in that direction. He’s accomplished his legacy, but what about the rest of us?
Larry Fox5 Larry Fox5 Regular
348 messages
joined Sep 2003
#35 ·
redowl90 said:Hold up, what makes Jackie Brown such a bad movie?


I don't know—it just sucks to me. Honestly, Quentin Tarantino's worst work... maybe because I expected too much, or maybe just because I don't know... but when you watch a movie three times and still can't find anything you actually like? When De Niro gives this mediocre performance in a script that barely gives him five lines of dialogue...
Maybe I was just riding high after those 2 Supercool hits, "Reservoir Dogs" and "Pulp Fiction."

Personal take: Worst Tarantino flick, totally missed the mark

three cactus: 👎 👎 👎
redowl90 redowl90 Regular
287 messages
joined Aug 2005
#36 ·
Larry Fox5 said:When De Niro gives a mediocre performance in a movie where the script only gives him five lines to work with.

See, I actually think that's one of De Niro's best roles from the nineties, and easily the best Tarantino film out there...

That look on his face when Jackson shoots him in the gut inside that van is just unforgettable... 🙂
redowl90 redowl90 Regular
287 messages
joined Aug 2005
#37 ·
Larry Fox5 said:Props to anyone who thinks Ronin is a good movie. I'd actually love to hear what specifically clicked for them.

The opening sequence is pure genius... You have no idea what's happening, yet the action just flows... That's exactly my kind of thing...

Plenty of high-speed car chases, which I'm also a fan of...

That moment when the skater dies, right when everything feels like she's actually going to make it...

The ending, where we realize De Niro isn't quite the Ronin he thought he was...

The soundtrack...

Anything else? 😉

Don't get me wrong, it's not some untouchable masterpiece... But if you compare it to other action flicks from that year, Ronin is easily at the top of the list...
Mark Nelson17 Mark Nelson17 Member
34 messages
joined Aug 2003
#38 ·
Larry Fox5 said:You all can say whatever you want and act like mindless critics—trying to push your own agendas just like most reviewers who rely on malicious or ignorant takes—but Heat is undeniably a good movie.

I am not sure if this applies to me, but looking at my comments, the only negative reaction I received was from someone claiming the film is garbage, which means I am hitting a nerve. To my mind, Heat is absolutely not garbage; in fact, I would go so far as to agree it is a masterpiece rather than trash. The heavy adjectives and nouns I used when describing specific scenes refer to whether Heat is truly a great film or not; I believe its quality sits far above your average or even merely "solid" flicks.

However, I genuinely do not understand how you weren't bothered by Pacino's drunken, over-the-top acting, or the simplistic way they dragged the wounded man away, even after that intense shootout in broad daylight. Then there is that blatantly forced conversation and the final scene between our dear protagonists. It feels as though the script is coerced toward the lead actors, forcing the story into certain beats regardless of the circumstances—which is a common trope in action movies. Honestly, one could probably swallow those flaws if there were enough chemistry among the leads, but with Pacino performing like that (while De Niro is actually quite good in the film), it just doesn't work for me.

Some people here have pointed out the excellent screenplay, the sharp dialogue, and the high-tension scenes they've ever seen, and there is no way I am going to disagree with them on that. Even so, if I see this film on TV, I certainly won't be changing the channel; now that I know what to expect, I will fully enjoy it despite its flaws.

Now, regarding the parenthetical remark in the quote (which is actually why I decided to chime in): if it was my intention to show off with my criticism of this film, it could only have been on a subconscious level. I enjoy studying both good and bad films in detail (good ones to see why they work, bad ones to see why they fail), but I am primarily a lover of American cinema and don't consider myself some sort of high-brow film snob. Besides, for Heat, I cited specific issues that bother me, without resorting to (I hope) heavy philosophy or pseudo-artistic pretension.
Mark Nelson17 Mark Nelson17 Member
34 messages
joined Aug 2003
#39 ·
To circle back to the topic for a moment, both critics and cinephiles tend to label De Niro as a "good actor" at the very least. It’s as if he’s perpetually surrounded by this aura of critical prestige in almost every film he touches. Essentially, people act as if De Niro is untouchable.

That whole "untouchable" sentiment surrounding him is actually something that has bothered me quite often. In his absolute masterpieces—think >, >, >, or >—I find myself caught in this mental split. One eye is watching De Niro as the actual character, while the other is thinking, "Oh, that’s De Niro, so obviously this performance is flawless," which forces me to constantly convince myself that what I’m seeing is exceptional. The first film where I truly accepted him as a character, without being distracted by the fact that I was watching an icon, was >, and that is exactly what I look for in cinema. In that film, his acting felt natural and softer; I could actually identify with the character rather than just observing a raw, technically perfect, but distant performance like the one in >. So, regardless of the universal acclaim given to those other classics, for me personally, his best work is found right there in >.
Keith Wright78 Keith Wright78 Newcomer
4 messages
joined Nov 2008
#40 ·
It seems like most of the talk here revolves around Heat, so I'll just say that, for me, the movie was pretty mediocre. Neither Robert De Niro nor Al Pacino 😁 felt right in their roles... they just didn't seem to fit. It feels like the whole thing was forced just to get them on screen together, but the formula was off.
The movie IS a bit of a slog.

You must log in or register to reply here.

Log in Register

🔗 Similar threads