Cpt Kirks 2pay wrote:so sorry wrote:papalazeru wrote:He's a bit of a bad 'luvvy'. He seems to have claimed fame from 'half acting' rather than someone like River Phoenix, who was pure brilliance. River was like a Kurt Cobain who peaked far to early and left room for idiots like Di Caprio.
You can't judge one actor's whole career over a decade + versus another actor's short-lived one.
River Phoenix never got the chance to accept suckier roles etc (see: Joichim Phoenix).
I dunno. In his shorter span, Phoenix still crammed more emotion, sympathy and down right sensitivity and prospect than Pitt has done in his time thus far.
Sometimes with an actor you can just tell straight away, or if not, within a certain amount of movies. Phoenix proved himself many movies in, such as Running on Empty even, Sidney Lumet or no Sidney Lumet. Brad Pitt after all this time, I'm still on the fence at best. Again, that old saying quality vs quantity, but more importantly, this is all about acting, and so much of that is instinct and feeling. I got more positive vibes from Phoenix that I ever did about Pitt in the same time span.
On the real heavy dramatic scenes, Phoenix was always a natural to me, Pitt was always forced.
HollywoodBabylon wrote:Cpt Kirks 2pay wrote:so sorry wrote:papalazeru wrote:He's a bit of a bad 'luvvy'. He seems to have claimed fame from 'half acting' rather than someone like River Phoenix, who was pure brilliance. River was like a Kurt Cobain who peaked far to early and left room for idiots like Di Caprio.
You can't judge one actor's whole career over a decade + versus another actor's short-lived one.
River Phoenix never got the chance to accept suckier roles etc (see: Joichim Phoenix).
I dunno. In his shorter span, Phoenix still crammed more emotion, sympathy and down right sensitivity and prospect than Pitt has done in his time thus far.
Sometimes with an actor you can just tell straight away, or if not, within a certain amount of movies. Phoenix proved himself many movies in, such as Running on Empty even, Sidney Lumet or no Sidney Lumet. Brad Pitt after all this time, I'm still on the fence at best. Again, that old saying quality vs quantity, but more importantly, this is all about acting, and so much of that is instinct and feeling. I got more positive vibes from Phoenix that I ever did about Pitt in the same time span.
On the real heavy dramatic scenes, Phoenix was always a natural to me, Pitt was always forced.
Yes, it would've been interesting to see how Phoenix's career would've panned out had he lived. I've only seen him in about 4 films or so and he was pretty affecting in all of them especially Stand By Me and most definitely in My Own Private Idaho. He seems to me to be the precursor to actors like De Caprio and the like - but not Pitt, who maybe is from the Tom Cruise school of acting. That's not a put down but rather there doesn't seem a naturalised talent there. Like Cruise, you can see Pitt's technique at work as he acts on screen; it doesn't seem wholly convincing to me or truthful. It's not that he's bad or even inadequate (infact, both him and Cruise have pulled out some half decent performances); it's just that they're both not instinctive performers in my book. They seem to try too hard at times and it shows.
That said, Pitt's choice of roles are at least a sign of a super-A-list star who's willing to stretch his talent are far as he's able. Which is not a bad thing, I guess.
Cpt Kirks 2pay wrote:Remember that story or rumour that was going about that Brad was approached to replace Tom in the next Mission Impossible movie? Think about it. Who would you really prefer to see carrying that movie?
minstrel wrote:Cpt Kirks 2pay wrote:Then all the Squirrel's of Central Park - SHAAALL DIIIIIIEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!!!
And be turned into your 2pays?
Cpt Kirks 2pay wrote:What's an iHOP?
MacCready wrote:Cpt Kirks 2pay wrote:Then all the Squirrel's of Central Park - SHAAALL DIIIIIIEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Christ, you sounded just like Brian Cox when you said that......
Cpt Kirks 2pay wrote:MacCready wrote:Cpt Kirks 2pay wrote:Then all the Squirrel's of Central Park - SHAAALL DIIIIIIEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Christ, you sounded just like Brian Cox when you said that......
Er.. yeah! Part of the intention. BUT - funnily enough, not part of the intention was to link back to another Brad Pitt movie, Troy! Wow! See what I did there?
Brad Pitt is a Tit, Richard Gere is a.....????
Maui wrote:Did anyone see that movie 'Cutting Class'? This wasn't one of Pitt's finer moments.
However, all actors have to have their crappy movies - like Clooney in 'The Attack of the Killer Tomatoes'.
Ribbons wrote:Watching Brad Pitt slowly age is a depressing reminder of my own mortality.
Peven wrote:so I'm watching "Ad Astra" for about the 6th or 7th time this morning, it is an underappreciated film, imo. it isn't perfect, has its flaws, but it is a great example example of film as existential art. of course, Brad Pitt is a big part of why it is so good. he seems to gravitate toward playing characters who are good at heart but flawed and know it and seeking redemption in some way, not in desperation but with purpose, and he does it very well. the only time I can recall him playing a straight up BAD guy was "Kalifornia", all the way back in the beginning of his career in the early 90's. dude is a great actor who isn't appreciated enough for it because he is so pretty.
Ribbons wrote:Peven wrote:so I'm watching "Ad Astra" for about the 6th or 7th time this morning, it is an underappreciated film, imo. it isn't perfect, has its flaws, but it is a great example example of film as existential art. of course, Brad Pitt is a big part of why it is so good. he seems to gravitate toward playing characters who are good at heart but flawed and know it and seeking redemption in some way, not in desperation but with purpose, and he does it very well. the only time I can recall him playing a straight up BAD guy was "Kalifornia", all the way back in the beginning of his career in the early 90's. dude is a great actor who isn't appreciated enough for it because he is so pretty.
He was a pretty bad dude in 12 Monkeys as well (albeit a legitimately crazy one), which is one of my favorite performances of his.
so sorry wrote:Ribbons wrote:Peven wrote:so I'm watching "Ad Astra" for about the 6th or 7th time this morning, it is an underappreciated film, imo. it isn't perfect, has its flaws, but it is a great example example of film as existential art. of course, Brad Pitt is a big part of why it is so good. he seems to gravitate toward playing characters who are good at heart but flawed and know it and seeking redemption in some way, not in desperation but with purpose, and he does it very well. the only time I can recall him playing a straight up BAD guy was "Kalifornia", all the way back in the beginning of his career in the early 90's. dude is a great actor who isn't appreciated enough for it because he is so pretty.
He was a pretty bad dude in 12 Monkeys as well (albeit a legitimately crazy one), which is one of my favorite performances of his.
Not a great guy in Fight Club either (albeit a figment of someone else’s imagination).
Peven wrote:any Tom Hanks movie you can think, take out Hanks and replace him with Brad Pitt and it becomes a better movie...with the exception of "volunteers".
Ribbons wrote:Peven wrote:any Tom Hanks movie you can think, take out Hanks and replace him with Brad Pitt and it becomes a better movie...with the exception of "volunteers".
A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood?
Ribbons wrote:Peven wrote:any Tom Hanks movie you can think, take out Hanks and replace him with Brad Pitt and it becomes a better movie...with the exception of "volunteers".
A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood?
Peven wrote:any Tom Hanks movie you can think, take out Hanks and replace him with Brad Pitt and it becomes a better movie...with the exception of "volunteers".
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests