Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 28, 2019 3:34:56 GMT
Average
|
|
|
|
Post by Marv on Apr 28, 2019 3:40:23 GMT
Good to very good. I’ll never call him the best bust he can be memorable even in small roles.
|
|
|
|
Post by them1ghtyhumph on Apr 28, 2019 3:58:13 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by them1ghtyhumph on Apr 28, 2019 4:02:52 GMT
Okay. Pitt sucks. Now give the names of the actors that make that part work. That is a hypothetical question that can't be answered but I will do my best. Gabriel Byrne. Yes. G Byrne would been Oscar material in that role. Byrne was bad enough in his own role.
|
|
|
|
Post by mslo79 on Apr 28, 2019 4:09:53 GMT
His overall presence is better than most in acting and probably better than most names to in my opinion. so while he might not have as much range as other names, overall he's still solid, or solid enough. hell, you don't get to be a name that many like for nothing.
but like I always say... a persons filmography ultimately makes or breaks that person as even if your a solid actor or not, you got to land in movies that stick with people as the decades pass. without pulling that off, you will ultimately be forgotten with enough time. in this regard I feel Brad Pitt is respectable as in he should be remembered for a while at the very least. but who knows how things will be in say 100 years time but I think someone like Tom Cruise is a pretty good test of this as if he's not all that known among audiences in say 50-100+ years, then I think just about everyone will be forgotten with enough time.
another thing... some seem to give 'range' a lot of credit and while it can be nice you need to have general charisma paired with it as if I got to choose between natural charisma or range, I am going with the natural charisma in general. NOTE: I realize that those two ain't always separated as people can have both and all but if I had to choose between someone who's got solid charisma and a okay range than someone who's got strong range but lacks in charisma, ill take the one with charisma every single time overall.
|
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Apr 28, 2019 4:12:50 GMT
That is a hypothetical question that can't be answered but I will do my best. Gabriel Byrne. Yes. G Byrne would been Oscar material in that role. Byrne was bad enough in his own role. I disagree. He has an equally poorly written role, but gives a far better performance imo.
|
|
|
|
Post by them1ghtyhumph on Apr 28, 2019 4:21:34 GMT
Yes. G Byrne would been Oscar material in that role. Byrne was bad enough in his own role. I disagree. He has an equally poorly written role, but gives a far better performance imo. The Gabriel Byrne Appreciation Society expresses its gratitude.
|
|
|
|
Post by poelzig on Apr 28, 2019 4:43:00 GMT
I disagree. I think many actors could have given at least a serviceable performance. I am not saying he is mediocre in the movie. I am saying he is flat out awful in it. Okay. Pitt sucks. Now give the names of the actors that make that part work. Spike Spiegel would have been awesome in Pitt's role.
|
|
|
|
Post by moviebuffbrad on Apr 28, 2019 7:10:08 GMT
Check out Cutting Class. But yeah, he's good. Cool World too. He is awful in Cool World. Haven't had the pleasure. |
|
|
|
Post by someguy on Apr 28, 2019 11:14:10 GMT
I'd say about a 7 or 8. He's had many good performances and a handful of great ones. Also, probably one of the top 10 filmographies of his generation.
|
|
|
|
Post by jillresurrected on Apr 30, 2019 10:43:24 GMT
Solid. A lot better than other big name actors / actresses who won awards for their "acting".
Who could outdo him in "Burn After Reading"?
|
|
