I haven't seen Blue Jasmine, but I'll look out for it 
Things that piss you off Page 1,309
I've heard good things about Blue Jasmine, but unfortunately the cinema near me stopped showing it on Tuesday.
Quote: Ben @ October 13 2013, 1:28 PM BSTDidn't Brando invent the modern style of acting or is that conventional wisdom?
Brando was pure ham, as were most of the method actors, and theri legacy lives on unfortunately. It's true though that traditional stage actors, notably Olivier and Burton were also woeful on screen (Ralph Richardson curiously was a notable exception to that rule.)
On the whole Ipre seventies acting was pretty good. In the Brit films there is a bit too much stiff upper lip, particularly in the forties and fifties, and a lot of the stars had quite a narrow range, but so long as they stayed within that range they demonstrated an impressive understanding of the medium, even the real one trick ponies like Wayne and Eastwood. There there was also a wealth of character actors for the supporting parts.
Most modern film actors seem a bit shit by comparison. How pure hocks of gammon like DeNiro, Depp, Roth or Oldman can be considered great actors is beyond my understanding.
Quote: Harridan @ October 13 2013, 2:39 PM BSTI haven't seen Blue Jasmine, but I'll look out for it
if it is Woody Allen I wouldn't bother. Midnight in Paris was just embarrassing.
Tim Roth isn't hammy in all his films.
And Johnny Depp did dozens of understated roles over the 15 or so years before he started being a pirate.
Because I like to step outside of conventional wisdom, when it comes to 'old films' I like the work of a chap called Orson Welles. He made some alright shit.
John Wayne had some great roles, yes he was a ham and a hypocrite but the shootist is genuinely moving.
What are we all polo neck wearing pseuds?
I love the films of the 80s the era of cheezy, charming, funny, awful cinematic atrocities. This whole discussion is so weird, John Travolta is a big lump of cheese in Pulp Fiction but it's still a wonderful film.
Yeh I like some serious films, but This Island Earth, Earth Girls are Easy, 16 candles are all great fun.
C'mon lighten up and as for Olivier he was an awesomely terrible Nazi in Marathon Man.
Interesting film that as the ultimate chance to see method vs none method on the same screen at the same time.
Quote: Tursiops @ October 13 2013, 6:54 PM BSTBrando was pure ham, as were most of the method actors, and theri legacy lives on unfortunately. It's true though that traditional stage actors, notably Olivier and Burton were also woeful on screen (Ralph Richardson curiously was a notable exception to that rule.)
On the whole Ipre seventies acting was pretty good. In the Brit films there is a bit too much stiff upper lip, particularly in the forties and fifties, and a lot of the stars had quite a narrow range, but so long as they stayed within that range they demonstrated an impressive understanding of the medium, even the real one trick ponies like Wayne and Eastwood. There there was also a wealth of character actors for the supporting parts.
Most modern film actors seem a bit shit by comparison. How pure hocks of gammon like DeNiro, Depp, Roth or Oldman can be considered great actors is beyond my understanding.
if it is Woody Allen I wouldn't bother. Midnight in Paris was just embarrassing.
I loved Midnight in Paris! And Depp's performance in The Libertine is the best and truest bit of acting I think I've ever seen. I think we have completely opposite tastes!
What is the scale of good acting?
Quote: Lee @ October 13 2013, 7:31 PM BSTWhat is the scale of good acting?
Daniel Day Lewis would get five Cotter's out of five.
Quote: Tim Azure @ October 13 2013, 8:02 PM BSTIs a Cotter the equivalent of a michaelgreen?
Quote: Harridan @ October 13 2013, 7:24 PM BSTI loved Midnight in Paris!
It is certainly a film that divides opinion, the friends I saw it with thought it was marvellous, so I had to vent my ire on imdb (my tirade was considered useful by 20 out of 25 people.)
But then I am of the school of thought that Woody has not made a decent film since Bananas; a bit like with Saville it came as a relief when he was outed as a sleezeball and I could feel justified in the growing intensity of my disliking for him.
And Depp's performance in The Libertine is the best and truest bit of acting I think I've ever seen.
I know I have seen The Libertine but I can't remember much about it; sorry. Even in Sleepy Hollow a film I genuinely like, Depp is mannered without the mannerisms becoming a convincing facet of the character; you are constantly aware of the fact that he is acting.
Quote: Tursiops @ October 13 2013, 8:41 PM BSTIt is certainly a film that divides opinion, the friends I saw it with thought it was marvellous, so I had to vent my ire on imdb (my tirade was considered useful by 20 out of 25 people.)
But then I am of the school of thought that Woody has not made a decent film since Bananas; a bit like with Saville it came as a relief when he was outed as a sleezeball and I could feel justified in the growing intensity of my disliking for him.
I know I have seen The Libertine but I can't remember much about it; sorry. Even in Sleepy Hollow a film I genuinely like, Depp is mannered without the mannerisms becoming a convincing facet of the character; you are constantly aware of the fact that he is acting.
MiP was definitely very self-indulgent and a bit sappy and solipsistic, but I'm a sucker for literary jokes.
I think Depp is a good actor who keeps taking silly roles where he plays eccentric weirdos without much depth. In The Libertine he really pushed his limits, particularly in this scene (spoilers): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nu8fjKtRnGo
I liked Midnight in Paris. It felt like a classic Woody Allen film.
There's a good, big two part doc about Woody Allen. I watched it on Netflix recently. Yes I did indeed.