Movies you secretly watch

[Sikander]

Originally posted by The Andy-Man


i always thought that, but she dosn't look any ware near as good now or in any other movie

Little Women, Dracula.

[Verto]

This is the sequel to the "Games I secretly play" thread (In "Other Games" section)

That makes sense.

Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat.

BTW, what's wrong with Edward Scissorhands? I thought it was a good movie. And Fifth Element? Do I have such bad taste in film that I don't know when to be ashamed?

[Pekka]

Was she that good in Dracula though? I remember that she had only little on screen time in it?

[Bereta_Eder]

I didn't particularly like her in Dracula... a too restrictive role I think. In Heathers she was pretty good. Very good in Girl, Interrupted. Although I don't think she's a good/real actor. She's the kind of actor of the "just being there". Just being there is enough, that's why we watch her and frankly there's little more she can do. They don't actually, really act. In the same category fall a wide variety of actors. Like Johnny Depp for example or even Harisson Ford. These people have an exceptional charisma and they mainly just project that on screen. They're not actors in the sense that an Al Pacino or a Robert de Niro or an Edwart Norton are. Different things, both appreciated for what they are.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Pekka
Was she that good in Dracula though? I remember that she had only little on screen time in it?

I admit that it may merely have been my anticipation of what was going to happen to her, rather than what actually happened that made me list this film.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by paiktis22
I didn't particularly like her in Dracula... a too restrictive role I think. In Heathers she was pretty good. Very good in Girl, Interrupted. Although I don't think she's a good/real actor. She's the kind of actor of the "just being there". Just being there is enough, that's why we watch her and frankly there's little more she can do. They don't actually, really act. In the same category fall a wide variety of actors. Like Johnny Depp for example or even Harisson Ford. These people have an exceptional charisma and they mainly just project that on screen. They're not actors in the sense that an Al Pacino or a Robert de Niro or an Edwart Norton are. Different things, both appreciated for what they are.

Good distinctions paiktis, and I agree for the most part except for perhaps Johnny Depp. Sure he's been in a lot of films where he's simply been himself, but he has shown some range as well. Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas is probably the best example of this, but also the interpreter in Platoon is a different type of character than his usual self. One good thing about Depp is that whether or not he's all that interesting of an actor, he tends to be in good films.

P.S. Pacino and De Niro are good actors, but they tend to play more or less the same character a lot as well. Of course they have a few Oscars between them to prove that they can act if anyone has any doubts, but my point is that it's very easy to be typecast as a sexy boy (Depp) or a gangster (De Niro and Pacino).

[MrFun]

If I told what movies I secretly watch, they wouldn't be a secret anymore, now would they?

[Sikander]

Originally posted by MrFun
If I told what movies I secretly watch, they wouldn't be a secret anymore, now would they?

You could kill us.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Sikander


You could kill us.

[Bereta_Eder]

Sikander,
Good points. Particularly in the stereotypical of the acting, part. I'd still say though that even if De Niro for example plays a gangster in two different films he'd still have more range and variety in his acting than a Johnny Depp in Sleeping Hollow and The Ninth Gate. He and actors like him have the "chameleon" gift. They can transform themselves and become the part, what acting is all about.
But I agree Depp has been wise in choosing relatively good films, or at least good films for him. Unfortunately I don't remember him in Platoon and haven't watched Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas. But I've never actually seen him act the way Norton can for example. Get under the skin of the character and be him. Maybe he knows he can't and doesn't want to risk it and feels ok where he is or there are some movies of him I have yet to see. Personally I think he's too entrapped on being "him". Most of the time you have to crush the you and then reconstruct yourself in the image of the part, which can be something totally different. Like Norton in Fight Club imo.

[Tuberski]

This is NOT the Winona Ryder appreciation thread!!!!!

ACK!

[Sikander]

Originally posted by paiktis22
Sikander,
Good points. Particularly in the stereotypical of the acting, part. I'd still say though that even if De Niro for example plays a gangster in two different films he'd still have more range and variety in his acting than a Johnny Depp in Sleeping Hollow and The Ninth Gate. He and actors like him have the "chameleon" gift. They can transform themselves and become the part, what acting is all about.
But I agree about Depp has been wise in choosing relatively good films, or at least good films for him. Unfortunately I don't remember him in Platoon and haven't watched Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas. But I've never actually seen him act the way Norton can for example. Get under the skin of the character and be him. Maybe he knows he can't and doesn't want to risk it and feels ok where he is or there are some movies of him I have yet to see. Personally I think he's too entrapped on being "him". Most of the time you have to crush the you and then reconstruct yourself in the image of the part. Like Norton in Fighting Club imo.

Norton is fantastic no question, probably the best to come along in a decade. As much as I have loved De Niro over the years, he hasn't had as much of an effect upon me as Norton has since Taxi Driver or Deer Hunter perhaps.

I used to feel the same way that you feel about Depp, but about Brad Pitt. Then I saw True Romance and Twelve Monkeys and my opinion about Pitt was changed forever. I haven't seen Depp do nearly as much as Brad Pitt has acting wise, but he way yet have it in him. You are right though that his perfromances so far haven't had the same quality that makes Norton so fascinating.

You might enjoy Fear and Loathing, it's really funny (a Terry Gilliam film).

[Bereta_Eder]

Completely agree about Twelve Monkeys and Brad Pitt. This is the one film that just doesn't stick to his general "actor persona". A really great acting for his standards or most standards for that matter. And I'd say this was the just an exception that verifies the general rule for him if it wasn't for Snatch, where even though critics burried his performance I thought it was adequate. Nowhere near 12 Monkeys though. I haven't seen True Romance, I think...
BTW I feel that all those actors, Depp, Pitt even to some lesser extend Reeves or to a greater DiCaprio, they all come from the River Phoenix "school" of "acting/being", somehow.
A propos, for the paradigm of "noacting/being there" I think Ocean 11 (the new version) is a "winner"...!
But I agree with you that Pitt has made some great steps these last years. Even in Fight Club he managed not to be eclipsed my Norton and that's not a small thing. He is not afraid of losing/destroying the "good looking guy" stereotype for the sake of acting more when there's the need. And he can act more.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by paiktis22
Completely agree about Twelve Monkeys and Brad Pitt. This is the one film that just doesn't stick to his general "actor persona". A really great acting for his standards or most standards for that matter. And I'd say this was the just an exception that verifies the general rule for him if it wasn't for Snatch, where even though critics burried his performance I thought it was adequate. Nowhere near 12 Monkeys though. I haven't seen True Romance, I think...
BTW I feel that all those actors, Depp, Pitt even to some lesser extend Reeves or to a greater DiCaprio, they all come from the River Phoenix "school" of "acting/being", somehow.
A propos, for the paradigm of "noacting/being there" I think Ocean 11 (the new version) is a "winner"...!
But I agree with you that Pitt has made some great steps these last years. Even in Fight Club he managed not to be eclipsed my Norton and that's not a small thing. He is not afraid of losing/destroying the "good looking guy" stereotype for the sake of acting more when there's the need. And he can act more.

I would say that he is / has been trying to cultivate his reputation as a serious actor without completely throwing away his reputation as a romantic leading man. For my money he has succeeded. Btw, his role in True Romance is very small, but he stole the show. That is something considering that the movie had a lot of very good actors in it, including:

Dennis Hopper
Val Kilmer
Gary Oldman
Christopher Walken
Samuel L. Jackson
James Gandolfini

I haven't seen Oceans 11, but only because I hate Julia Roberts so much. I liked Snatch a lot though, but the critics didn't. Pitt was good in it even though he didn't manage to say more than a couple of things I could understand.

[Ted Striker]

Chained Heat 2

Best movie ever:

http://us.imdb.com/Title?0106539