Movies: Last Movie You Watched and Rate It | Part#: Some High Number +2

[ORRFForever]

So my brief defense of Leo is that, though there are a few exceptions, he's an actor that often does the same sorta ****. He loves to play the hero but with generic shades of grey or edginess, but nothing complex or interesting enough to actually be compelling. He's fine but generic. He's good at it but there's a rare role of his where I don't think other actors couldn't reasonably approximate what he does.

One of my favorite parlor games is positing that there isn't a Leo performance that Matt Damon couldn't do close or better. Conversely can you imagine Leo in The Informant or Dogma or even The Martian? Leo has always been talented but he's more limited than fanboys want to ever concede.

The thing about Hollywood that appealed to me is Leo's mostly pathetic. Sad, needy, drunk, flailing and funny. This isn't his typical lane. Maybe I am overrating him here but he rarely seems to either 1) have a sense of humor or 2) have any sense of humor about himself. He's OH SO SERIOUS more often than not. (Wolf, Catch Me, to a lesser extent Django excluded). But even in those cases it's rare that he's the character that isn't in command or THINKS he's in command. That's why Rick is an interesting and effective departure for me. He's a poser who knows he's a poser. He is the dumbest, most oblivious character in the movie and he knows it. DiCaprio has rarely played such a type. As corny as the precocious kid lecture is, there is a rare winking laugh there (at least for me) in that Leo has been, to some degree, that exact type of actor.

Oscar worthy? Wouldn't go that far. But better in ways he's rarely been willing to pursue.

Triumph of concept and casting or one of performance? I credit both.

Though Matt Damon could have done this too.

DiCaprio is a good actor, but I don't feel he has much charisma. I looked thru his filmology, and I can't find one movie that I "love" - and it wasn't close.

I also find, against strong actors, he's outmatched - Brad Pitt was much better in Hollywood, Tom Hardy was much better in The Revenant and Inception, Matt Damon was better in The Departed, D.D.Lewis was better in Gangs Of New York.

Again, a good actor who is handsome, but I never watch his movies thinking, "I wish I was him".

I also never think, "I have to see that movie because LDC is in it" - having said that, I'm a straight guy so... his sex appeal may be lost on me.

 

[Pranzo Oltranzista]

One of my favorite parlor games is positing that there isn't a Leo performance that Matt Damon couldn't do close or better. Conversely can you imagine Leo in The Informant or Dogma or even The Martian? Leo has always been talented but he's more limited than fanboys want to ever concede.

I didn't think of myself as a fanboy, don't really care much for the guy, but I find it absolutely hilarious to imagine a young Matt Damon in What's Eating Gilbert Grape or in Basketball Diaries.

Well, I must admit I think Matt Damon is a damn poor actor, and that I can't imagine him in most of DiCaprio's roles (haven't seen all of them, but things like Wolf of Wall Street or Django, nah... and really couldn't see them switch roles in The Departed either, where Damon is the weakest link IMO).

 

[ORRFForever]

I didn't think of myself as a fanboy, don't really care much for the guy, but I find it absolutely hilarious to imagine a young Matt Damon in What's Eating Gilbert Grape or in Basketball Diaries.

Well, I must admit I think Matt Damon is a damn poor actor, and that I can't imagine him in most of DiCaprio's roles (haven't seen all of them, but things like Wolf of Wall Street or Django, nah... and really couldn't see them switch roles in The Departed either, where Damon is the weakest link IMO).

Re : "I must admit I think Matt Damon is a damn poor actor"

Really?

I disagree with all of your post.

 

[Jussi]

I didn't think of myself as a fanboy, don't really care much for the guy, but I find it absolutely hilarious to imagine a young Matt Damon in What's Eating Gilbert Grape or in Basketball Diaries.

Well, I must admit I think Matt Damon is a damn poor actor, and that I can't imagine him in most of DiCaprio's roles (haven't seen all of them, but things like Wolf of Wall Street or Django, nah... and really couldn't see them switch roles in The Departed either, where Damon is the weakest link IMO).

Hi, Jimmy Kimmel!

 

[ORRFForever]

I have tried, and failed, to see Midsommar twice.

First time, it was too busy and there were a bunch of talkers around me, so I left.

Second time, the first hour's visuals played tricks on my eyes and triggered a migraine - I had to leave.

I LOVED the first hour and I'm waiting for Midsommar to come on line so I can watch it from start to finish.

 

[Spring in Fialta]

I just got out of Tarantino's new film. I think it's the best thing he's done since Kill Bill. The ending was fantastic. It could have been tastelessly bumbled - especially by him - but I think he handled the tragedy with a lot of grace. Very bittersweet.

 

[ORRFForever]

I just got out of Tarantino's new film. I think it's the best thing he's done since Kill Bill. The ending was fantastic. It could have been tastelessly bumbled - especially by him - but I think he handled the tragedy with a lot of grace. Very bittersweet.

Wow. There is nothing close to a consensus on this movie.

 

[Spring in Fialta]

So my brief defense of Leo is that, though there are a few exceptions, he's an actor that often does the same sorta ****. He loves to play the hero but with generic shades of grey or edginess, but nothing complex or interesting enough to actually be compelling. He's fine but generic. He's good at it but there's a rare role of his where I don't think other actors couldn't reasonably approximate what he does.

One of my favorite parlor games is positing that there isn't a Leo performance that Matt Damon couldn't do close or better. Conversely can you imagine Leo in The Informant or Dogma or even The Martian? Leo has always been talented but he's more limited than fanboys want to ever concede.

The thing about Hollywood that appealed to me is Leo's mostly pathetic. Sad, needy, drunk, flailing and funny. This isn't his typical lane. Maybe I am overrating him here but he rarely seems to either 1) have a sense of humor or 2) have any sense of humor about himself. He's OH SO SERIOUS more often than not. (Wolf, Catch Me, to a lesser extent Django excluded). But even in those cases it's rare that he's the character that isn't in command or THINKS he's in command. That's why Rick is an interesting and effective departure for me. He's a poser who knows he's a poser. He is the dumbest, most oblivious character in the movie and he knows it. DiCaprio has rarely played such a type. As corny as the precocious kid lecture is, there is a rare winking laugh there (at least for me) in that Leo has been, to some degree, that exact type of actor.

Oscar worthy? Wouldn't go that far. But better in ways he's rarely been willing to pursue.

Triumph of concept and casting or one of performance? I credit both.

Though Matt Damon could have done this too.

You nailed it. I thought DiCaprio was great. He has such a scampish vibe in general that I think the role was perfect for him.

 

[ProstheticConscience]

My daughter and her boyfriend came over for dinner and to hang out tonight. They rate Tarantino's new movie as "better than his bad ones but not as good as his good ones".

Never been a huge fan of either Damon or DiCaprio, but they both have their charms. Hard to imagine anyone chewing the scenery as much as Leo did in Wolf of Wall Street. And dammit, Damon was charming in The Informant! Also, he can actually be a credible action movie star.

 

[Live in the Now]

I just got out of Tarantino's new film. I think it's the best thing he's done since Kill Bill. The ending was fantastic. It could have been tastelessly bumbled - especially by him - but I think he handled the tragedy with a lot of grace. Very bittersweet.

I’m in this boat as well. Pitt’s character was excellent, and there was no footage of him in the trailer past the ranch scene. I was getting bothered that he might eat it.

That the film doesn’t have much of a plot also works to its benefit. I did get distracted during Pacino’s scene, while I did get what he was saying I felt like I missed some of it. These people were having a lovers spat in the first row and argued loudly for two minutes before leaving. I mean, seriously? That was so ridiculous I could hardly believe it.

I LOVED the first hour and I'm waiting for Midsommar to come on line so I can watch it from start to finish.

The visuals would/will mess with you worse.

It gets better, I really felt strongly in the positive when the lights came on, but I thought the ending was not my favorite thing. I’ll leave it at that.

 

[KallioWeHardlyKnewYe]

I didn't think of myself as a fanboy, don't really care much for the guy, but I find it absolutely hilarious to imagine a young Matt Damon in What's Eating Gilbert Grape or in Basketball Diaries.

Well, I must admit I think Matt Damon is a damn poor actor, and that I can't imagine him in most of DiCaprio's roles (haven't seen all of them, but things like Wolf of Wall Street or Django, nah... and really couldn't see them switch roles in The Departed either, where Damon is the weakest link IMO).

I'll grant you Gilbert Grape and, honestly, any young Leo role -- This Boy's Life, Titantic, Romeo & Juliet even Growing Pains. Can't see Damon in those. But I'll see that and raise The Talented Mr. Ripley, the Oceans movies, the Bourne movies, Margaret, his multi-episode arc on 30 Rock. Looking at their respective filmographies, I can see Damon in about 90% of the Leo roles (not necessarily better, mind you, but I don't think significantly worse) but can only see Leo in about 50% of Damon roles.

If you'll allow me a sports metaphor on this website, perhaps maybe a better way to state my view is that I think Damon is a more versatile, well-rounded actor. Leo's a scorer, a great one. Damon can score, maybe not at Leo's clip, but he can score, while also being able to pass, play D, etc. Everyone talks about Leo (he was so DUE for that Oscar, man! and he ate that raw liver to get it!!!) but Damon doesn't have nearly the hype and I see them as being pretty fair measuring sticks against each other. Possibly only interesting to me.

 

[Pranzo Oltranzista]

I'll grant you Gilbert Grape and, honestly, any young Leo role -- This Boy's Life, Titantic, Romeo & Juliet even Growing Pains. Can't see Damon in those. But I'll see that and raise The Talented Mr. Ripley, the Oceans movies, the Bourne movies, Margaret, his multi-episode arc on 30 Rock. Looking at their respective filmographies, I can see Damon in about 90% of the Leo roles (not necessarily better, mind you, but I don't think significantly worse) but can only see Leo in about 50% of Damon roles.

If you'll allow me a sports metaphor on this website, perhaps maybe a better way to state my view is that I think Damon is a more versatile, well-rounded actor. Leo's a scorer, a great one. Damon can score, maybe not at Leo's clip, but he can score, while also being able to pass, play D, etc. Everyone talks about Leo (he was so DUE for that Oscar, man! and he ate that raw liver to get it!!!) but Damon doesn't have nearly the hype and I see them as being pretty fair measuring sticks against each other. Possibly only interesting to me.

I'll give you that DiCaprio would have been ridiculous in the Bourne movies. But then again, Peter Sellers wouldn't have been much credible in Commando. Other than that, I disagree, DiCaprio would have been better in the Oceans films and in Ripley IMO. But hey, we'll never know, and again, I really dislike Damon so I'm not the most objective of judges.

To go by your hockey parallel, I'd say what we have here is closer to a Kordic/Bure situation (young Leo felt like a Pavel, but getting older ended a lot closer to Valeri).

 

[KallioWeHardlyKnewYe]

I'll give you that DiCaprio would have been ridiculous in the Bourne movies. But then again, Peter Sellers wouldn't have been much credible in Commando. Other than that, I disagree, DiCaprio would have been better in the Oceans films and in Ripley IMO. But hey, we'll never know, and again, I really dislike Damon so I'm not the most objective of judges.

To go by your hockey parallel, I'd say what we have here is closer to a Kordic/Bure situation (young Leo felt like a Pavel, but getting older ended a lot closer to Valeri).

This would be my counter argument to him in the Ocean’s films -- Leo isn’t an ensemble guy and for the most part isn’t willing to take a back seat to other actors either in size of role or in the function of the role in the movie. Django is his only real true supporting role, but even there his character looms as the big bad and is fed ample scenery to chew. Moreso, as I noted in my initial Leo post, he is always the character who either is in control or at least believes he’s in control. Damon in the Ocean’s movies is the relative novice — he’s almost a kid along for the ride with the big boys. Leo would never subordinate himself for something like that. Maybe he can do it, but there is no track record to point to.

But this all circles back to why I liked his performance in Hollywood so much. He’s definitely still the lead in the movie but he’s playing a guy who has had the sad realization he’s been relegated in his own life.

 

[sr edler]

The Talented Mr. Ripley

This reminds me a little while ago I was watching The Talented Mr. Ripley boat scene on YT and it felt like almost half of the comments in the comment section pointed out (the obvious) that Matt Damon was just playing himself. He's getting painfully out-played by both Jude Law and Philip Seymour Hoffman in that film though, on the other hand he's not alone getting out-played by those two actors.

I liked DiCaprio as Howard Hughes in The Aviator.

 

[ORRFForever]

The visuals would/will mess with you worse.

It gets better, I really felt strongly in the positive when the lights came on, but I thought the ending was not my favorite thing. I’ll leave it at that.

My eyes are NOT my strong suit. It doesn't take much to make a mess of my vision for a couple hours (sometimes with a migraine to boot) and Midsommar had those things in spades.

The early scenes were so literally dark, it thru me off. After that, the camera tricks pushed my eyes over the edge. Too bad, because I was REALLY enjoying myself when I had to leave.

 

[Pilky01]

Teen Titans Go To the Movies

Good dumb fun. Lots of funny references to the world of comic books and movies.

 

[kihei]

I didn't like DiCaprio in Once upon a Time...in America. I felt like I could see the wheels going around as though he wasn't altogether comfortable with his interpretation, a problem that I sure didn't have with Pitt. I seem to be in such a minority on this one though, maybe I missed something. Anyway that performance didn't work for me as well as it did for most people, that's for sure.

I think the Damon/DiCaprio comparison is pretty convincing, despite the odd fact that when I think of actorly actors, DiCaprio's name pops up a lot more in my consciousness than Damon's. Still clearly Damon has more range. There are a lot of actors who stay in a comfort zone for one reason or another, Clint Eastwood for obvious reasons, Tom Hanks for weirder reasons like not wanting to play bad guys. I guess Leonardo is one of those guys, or maybe that's all he's offered because he does it so well.

 

[Osprey]

Jackie Brown (1997) - 4/10 (Didn't like it)

With all of the Tarantino talk, it occurred to me that this was the last remaining film of his that I hadn't seen yet (besides the current one). Full disclosure: I'm not a Tarantino fan. He consistently produces films that I find to be watchable and OK, but I can't say that I've ever "liked" one of his films, not even Pulp Fiction, which I realize puts me in the extreme minority. Anyways, nothing changed with 'Jackie', except that I was even less engaged than usual. It felt like a rehash of Pulp Fiction, but with less of a story. For some reason, Tarantino insists on stretching most of his films out to over 2.5 hours whether its justified or not. Here, it wasn't. This film probably should've been at least 45 minutes shorter to match the leanness of the story, and, if it had been, maybe I would've been a bit more engaged. I also didn't like the titular character, who seemed rather bland and uninteresting, especially next to the other characters and the stars playing them. Finally, despite the excessive language and characters suddenly killing other characters, it didn't feel nearly as edgy or shocking as it felt like it was trying to be. Unlike some of Tarantino's other films, I guess that this is one that you really have to be a fan of his to appreciate. Of all of his films, this is probably my least favorite (yes, behind Death Proof, which I found at least a little entertaining, even though it's a lot stupider).

I didn't like DiCaprio in Once upon a Time...in America.

You foreigners, always mistaking Hollywood for America .

 

[KallioWeHardlyKnewYe]

Jackie Brown (1997) - 4/10 (Didn't like it)

With all of the Tarantino talk, it occurred to me that this was the last remaining film of his that I hadn't seen yet (besides the current one). Full disclosure: I'm not a Tarantino fan. He consistently produces films that I find to be watchable and OK, but I can't say that I've ever "liked" one of his films, not even Pulp Fiction, which I realize puts me in the extreme minority. Anyways, nothing changed with 'Jackie', except that I was even less engaged than usual. It felt like a rehash of Pulp Fiction, but with less of a story. For some reason, Tarantino insists on stretching most of his films out to over 2.5 hours whether its justified or not. Here, it wasn't. This film probably should've been at least 45 minutes shorter to match the leanness of the story, and, if it had been, maybe I would've been a bit more engaged. I also didn't like the titular character, who seemed rather bland and uninteresting, especially next to the other characters and the stars playing them. Finally, despite the excessive language and characters turning on and suddenly killing other characters, it didn't feel nearly as edgy or shocking as it felt like it was trying to be. Unlike some of Tarantino's other films, I guess that this is one that you really have to be a fan of his to appreciate. Of all of his films, this is probably my least favorite (yes, behind Death Proof, which I found at least a little entertaining, even though it's a lot stupider).

I am still a huge fan of this one and those feelings have only grown over time as it becomes clear this is the real outlier in his filmography. Though he wrote the script, it was based on a novel he loved by a writer he loved and he shows a clear fealty to that. He adds his own flare for sure (including flipping Jackie's race) but the Leonard novel tethers him in a way that he's never been otherwise. Despite being just his third film (we're now up to 9) it still stands out as easily his most patient and mature (Hollywood might be next on that list ...). Jackie and Max might be his most human, least cartoony characters he's depicted. I think a lot of what I like comes from the grounding that the novel gives him. It makes we want to see him tackle another adaptation of some sort, something where there's a counter-balance that could potentially reign him in a little from his worst instincts (lord knows it isn't his editor -- I feel you on those movie lengths...).

 

[KapG]

Alita: Battle Angel

8/10

Thoroughly enjoyed it.

 

[ORRFForever]

I am still a huge fan of this one and those feelings have only grown over time as it becomes clear this is the real outlier in his filmography. Though he wrote the script, it was based on a novel he loved by a writer he loved and he shows a clear fealty to that. He adds his own flare for sure (including flipping Jackie's race) but the Leonard novel tethers him in a way that he's never been otherwise. Despite being just his third film (we're now up to 9) it still stands out as easily his most patient and mature (Hollywood might be next on that list ...). Jackie and Max might be his most human, least cartoony characters he's depicted. I think a lot of what I like comes from the grounding that the novel gives him. It makes we want to see him tackle another adaptation of some sort, something where there's a counter-balance that could potentially reign him in a little from his worst instincts (lord knows it isn't his editor -- I feel you on those movie lengths...).

Really well said and I agree.

 

[Osprey]

I am still a huge fan of this one and those feelings have only grown over time as it becomes clear this is the real outlier in his filmography. Though he wrote the script, it was based on a novel he loved by a writer he loved and he shows a clear fealty to that. He adds his own flare for sure (including flipping Jackie's race) but the Leonard novel tethers him in a way that he's never been otherwise. Despite being just his third film (we're now up to 9) it still stands out as easily his most patient and mature (Hollywood might be next on that list ...). Jackie and Max might be his most human, least cartoony characters he's depicted. I think a lot of what I like comes from the grounding that the novel gives him. It makes we want to see him tackle another adaptation of some sort, something where there's a counter-balance that could potentially reign him in a little from his worst instincts (lord knows it isn't his editor -- I feel you on those movie lengths...).

I see what you're saying about Jackie Brown being more "patient" and "mature" than Tarantino's other films and Jackie and Max being his "most human, least cartoony characters he's depicted," and can even agree with you to a degree on all of that, but such praise sounds relative. If his other films are more impatient and immature and their characters more cartoony, is it really a cause for praise that they weren't as much this one time? I can understand why that might make it one of your favorites of his, so, if that's all that you're saying, never mind, but I wonder if the film gets more credit than it deserves for standing out from Tarantino's other films when it's not really a standout film, otherwise. It seems like something similar may going on with Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, where opinions vary depending on whether you're judging it as a Tarantino film or just a film. It is hard to disassociate Tarantino from any of his films.

 

[Pranzo Oltranzista]

Still clearly Damon has more range.

Couldn't disagree more. DiCaprio has some range. Damon has no range, I wouldn't believe him playing a guy tying his shoes. I agree with Senior, he mostly plays Damon - be it Damon the wizz kid or Damon on mars, I don't feel any character work. I guess that's just me.

 

[kihei]

This would be my counter argument to him in the Ocean’s films -- Leo isn’t an ensemble guy and for the most part isn’t willing to take a back seat to other actors either in size of role or in the function of the role in the movie. Django is his only real true supporting role, but even there his character looms as the big bad and is fed ample scenery to chew. Moreso, as I noted in my initial Leo post, he is always the character who either is in control or at least believes he’s in control. Damon in the Ocean’s movies is the relative novice — he’s almost a kid along for the ride with the big boys. Leo would never subordinate himself for something like that. Maybe he can do it, but there is no track record to point to.

But this all circles back to why I liked his performance in Hollywood so much. He’s definitely still the lead in the movie but he’s playing a guy who has had the sad realization he’s been relegated in his own life.

I'm looking forward to see what you make of Damon on the Movie of the Week page when you review The Good Shepherd. Watched it last night, and I kept invidiously comparing him to another actor who would have been great in the role in his day--Robert De Niro, the man in the director's chair. De Niro would have found endless nuances to play with beyond that mirthless expression that Damon sustains throughout the entire movie. I found it hard to watch that performance and think "this guy is a great actor."

 

[Trap Jesus]

I think this was the first time I've actually been impressed with a DiCaprio performance. I've always considered him a solid actor that has amazing selection for the projects he gets involved in, and undoubtedly a huge "movie star" but I thought this role fit his strengths as an actor perfectly.