mchekhov wrote:I feel like revisiting this performance soon

Same here. Brilliant piece of work.

Allstar wrote:

mchekhov wrote:I feel like revisiting this performance soon

Same here. Brilliant piece of work.

Not really. Overacting. Leo was basically saying through his performance "I'm Leo and I act like Edgar... Look how good I am". Except for the fact he wasn't. Glad talli revises his performance. It is faaaaaar from being the performance he said he was like 3 months ago.

RIFA wrote:

Allstar wrote:
Same here. Brilliant piece of work.

Not really. Overacting. Leo was basically saying through his performance "I'm Leo and I act like Edgar... Look how good I am

In your opinion which is in the minority.

That's true but that doesn't mean I'm not right. People tend to love DiCaprio in everything he does because he's a charming actor and if he dares to do something that's a little bit out of his pattern, they will simply say ridiculous stuff about him.

It's kinda the same way it is with Morgan Freeman. People always say... what a great performance, what a great actor, when he always play the same character in the same manor.

I don't think Leo was great in it. He was good, but I wasn't buying into the prosthetics or his character's arc, much as I found the latter segments of The Reader far less convincing than Winslet's genius work in the beginning. That said, I wouldn't generalize an opinion on Leo from this performance alone, or his other indifferent ones (which includes Gangs of New York). I find it hard to believe that someone could watch The Basketball Diaries, Blood Diamond, Revolutionary Road, Catch Me If You Can, and The Departed and then claim that Leo is the same in everything. He may not have Gary Oldman's freakish technical range (Drexl Spivey, Sid Vicious, and George Smiley is just and outclasses every actor in the game, not just Leo), but these characters - once you start watching the films - have nothing in common, and are absolutely persuasive. Some actors like the superb Russell Crowe are very capable of creating performances out of meagre textual scaffolding (I call those actors "overreaders"), while others like DiCaprio are a little more handicapped to function best with a solid character on the page through which to project his unparalleled emotional intensity, as in Revolutionary Road.

Oh, and Eastwood is a massively overrated director (I don't even like Unforgiven much, and thought it had stalled a bit around the time Eastwood was getting beaten in the saloon), and I think Dustin Lance Black's work on Milk and J. Edgar mediocre.

Sometimes I feel that I'm the only one that liked this. Leo's performance was great.

/sorryforbump

Leo was excellent.

But the film sucked.

Why exactly did the film suck?

RyanRises wrote:Why exactly did the film suck?

I think it was mentioned before but it just seemed like they tried to cover too much material and didn't do it justice.