The Shrine

See it. Don't ask questions, just go see it.

Oh, I will, even in spite of DiFaggio. Scorcese and Nicholson are enough reason. But it'll wait 'til it's on the satellite

"DiFaggio"? Give me a fucking break. Leonardo DiCaprio is a good actor, and he delivers an impressive performance in this movie.

Saw it last night, good flick. Many many people get shot.

Saw it. Very good movie.

However, for some reason everyone is letting Jack off the hook for not having a Scottish/Boston accent. If I were to let anyone off the hook, it'd be Jack but it's suprising no one is mentioning it (he's still great though).

Kupek wrote:"DiFaggio"? Give me a fucking break. Leonardo DiCaprio is a good actor, and he delivers an impressive performance in this movie.

Like Keanu Reeves and Bruce Willis, he's a very one-dimensional actor who's the same in every flick. He's got a good agent and generally picks good flicks, although he's got a bunch of dogs to his resume, like the others have. Not once has DiFaggio actually delivered a performance that stands out or makes a movie, he just does a good enough job to get by and relies on his supporting cast. Occasionally he looks severly out of place (Quick and the Dead) which just lends credence to the fact that he's not a good actor. He can't save a bad role with a good performance like real good actors can (ie. Nicholson, Depp, Oldman, etc.).

Not that it's a bad thing to make good money with little talent and he has been in a lot of movies I like a lot (ie. Romeo and Juliet and Titanic). But he's not a good actor.

Zeus, have you seen any of these?

-Catch Me if You Can
-The Basketball Diaries
-What's Eating Gilbert Grape
-Gangs of New York
-The Aviator


If you have and you still think he's a bad actor, you're on crack. If some people could just get past his former teen hearthrob status they'd realise that he is actually very talented. Not to say that that's your problem... maybe you're just on the crack.

Zeus wrote: Like Keanu Reeves and Bruce Willis, he's a very one-dimensional actor who's the same in every flick. He's got a good agent and generally picks good flicks, although he's got a bunch of dogs to his resume, like the others have. Not once has DiFaggio actually delivered a performance that stands out or makes a movie, he just does a good enough job to get by and relies on his supporting cast.

Hmm, I somewhat agree with this. I agree that he is definitely overrated. However, I disagree in that I think he's still talented. Let's run through a few of the films Black Lotus mentions:

His best individual perfomance IMO is as Howard Hughes in "The Aviator". Good movie, very good performance.

In both "Gangs of New York" and "The Departed", other actors probably deserve at least equal credit in making those movies what they were. (Actually in GONY, Daniel Day Lewis was far and away the best guy on screen.) Haven't seen Basketball Diaries or What's Eating Gilbert Grape. However, I can believe that he does well in those sight unseen. He was good in Titanic too, but I wouldn't say he "made" the movie.

That said, i think it bears repeating that I think the guy *is* a good actor. Granted I'm not going to see any movies just because he's in it, but he's the real deal.

Zeus wrote:Occasionally he looks severly out of place (Quick and the Dead) which just lends credence to the fact that he's not a good actor. He can't save a bad role with a good performance like real good actors can (ie. Nicholson, Depp, Oldman, etc.).

I agree with that. But it's a tad unfair to be comparing him to the Nicholsons, eh? You can't be comparing actors in their 20s to Jack!

Zeus wrote: Not that it's a bad thing to make good money with little talent and he has been in a lot of movies I like a lot (ie. Romeo and Juliet and Titanic). But he's not a good actor.

I think your opinion is a negative backlash against all the ridiculous publicity he gets. You can't honestly believe he really and truly sucks, can you? Well, I guess you can, but you have to come up with a reason better than "he's not as good as Jack Nicholson". What other actor under 30 do you think is better than him?

I haven't seen Gangs of New York. On that list the only one I saw was Basketball Diaries and I didn't like that movie. I felt Dicaprio's acting extremely unconvincing and in a word, bad. It might not have been his fault though.

In the Departed though, he did a really good job. I saw the movie last night and quite enjoyed it =)

Saw Blood Diamond last night. Not a bad movie but opinion of DiFaggio hasn't changed. Just once I want to see him give a better-than-expected performance in a film to show me that he has more talent than simply his eye for a good script/movie to carry his mediocre acting ability.

Like I said before, it's not necessarily a bad thing, but just don't call the guy a good actor. Being in good movies does not in any way shape or form make you a good actor it just means that you can choose films well. Look at Keanu or Willis, same thing.

Leo's a good actor, Zeus...get behind the lens once or twice if you don't believe me...

Nev wrote:Leo's a good actor, Zeus...get behind the lens once or twice if you don't believe me...

Even though Zues may not be able to act at all, he may be good at identifying a bad actor... meh.

That being said, i do like Leo as an actor. I thought he did an awesome job in The Departed. The psychiatrist scenes did it for me in addition to when he was 1on1 with Jack in the bar when they were talking about rats how Leo could do his job.

Other movies i like HIM in that i thought were just ok movies are Man in the Iron Mask and Gangs of New York.

I don't agree. The actual performance skills required to act convincingly are more extensive than you might think unless you know something about that craft, at least in my opinion.

I've acted before (about a year of lessons with two performances, and I did a play in college as well), but your experience may vary.

He has enough talent to be a good enough plug in a role but not enough to show that he can make a role shine or carry a mediocre movie with such a good job. The guy's been in some of my favourite movies (remember, I'm the one who thinks that Titanic is one of the best movies of all time; and I loved Romeo and Juliet) but I have never once even noticed his performance as anything there other than just being there, filling in a role.

For instance, in Blood Diamond, the entire difference over, say, Titanic (or any other role he's done) in terms of his performace was to add a poor South African accent (didn't sound anything like the South African girls I worked with for two years) and occasional saying. Really, he could have been any character from any role he's done in the past + accent. That was basically it.

At the end of the day, I didn't like the movie too much, but it wasn't because of him, I just thought the movie was OK. It's the same for Titanic or Romeo and Juliet. I didn't like the movie 'cause of him but rather the other performances (and everything else to do with them). He doesn't really affect my decision too much one way or the other.

The same goes for Keanu and Willis. They've been in some of my fav movies (Matrix, all three Die Hards, Speed) but have proven they simply fill a void adequately rather than do a great or poor job. Like DiFaggio, their real talent is choosing roles, not playing them. Nothing wrong with that IMO

It's guys like Asston Kutcher who can't even do that and ruin what would potentially have been a great film (Butterfly Effect) dragging it down to simple mediocrity that get my wrath.

Do you really find it funny to change these names to Asston and DiFaggio? I think it just makes you look stupid.

Sephy wrote:Do you really find it funny to change these names to Asston and DiFaggio? I think it just makes you look stupid.

Funny? No, not at all. I'm an accountant, not a comedian. It's what I think of their talent, that's all.

Stupid is as stupid does :-)

Sephy wrote:Do you really find it funny to change these names to Asston and DiFaggio? I think it just makes you look stupid.

Well, "Asston" is a new one for me and it made me laugh. So what does that say about me?

Wait, don't answer that!

Zeus wrote: It's guys like Asston Kutcher who can't even do that and ruin what would potentially have been a great film (Butterfly Effect) dragging it down to simple mediocrity that get my wrath.

Hey, he was awesome in "Dude, Where's My Car?". He could have a great career doing crap like that (people like me would pay good money to see it) instead of trying to be "serious". Hopefully he'll be teaming up with Will Ferrell in "Blades of Glory 2".

Ishamael wrote:

Zeus wrote: It's guys like Asston Kutcher who can't even do that and ruin what would potentially have been a great film (Butterfly Effect) dragging it down to simple mediocrity that get my wrath.

Hey, he was awesome in "Dude, Where's My Car?". He could have a great career doing crap like that (people like me would pay good money to see it) instead of trying to be "serious". Hopefully he'll be teaming up with Will Ferrell in "Blades of Glory 2".

He's funny? I found him neither funny nor good in 3rd Rock (that was the show he was in, no?)

No, he was in That 60's Show. That show sucked for other reasons. The laugh track was played every 10 seconds and when you started to notice it, it was annoying as fuck.

I believe you are referring to "That 70's Show".

There wasn't a "That 60's Show" as far as I remember, and "That 80's Show" turned out to be an ill-advised enterprise.

Nev wrote:I believe you are referring to "That 70's Show".

There wasn't a "That 60's Show" as far as I remember, and "That 80's Show" turned out to be an ill-advised enterprise.

That's the one. All the mediocre shows get lumped together with me. At my age, your memory goes and you can't distinguish one from the other unless it sticks out in some way (really good or bad :-)