Jason143
Junior Member
@glaceon
Posts: 1,242
Likes: 610
|
Post by Jason143 on May 12, 2021 20:27:08 GMT
Both actors rarely play villainous figures as they are usually cast as posterboy heroes. But which role of these 2 is better
Tom Cruise as Vincent in Collateral
Leo Di Caprio as Calvin Candy in Django
I would give a slight edge to Cruise. His assassin character is more believable and real.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mulder and Scully on May 12, 2021 20:32:29 GMT
Cruise was better. He was ruthless and actually looked intimidating.
DiCaprio just felt like a spoiled brat who just inherited his fortune. Samuel L. Jackson's Stephen was the one was calling all the shots. He was real villain of the movie.
|
|
|
|
Post by jcush on May 12, 2021 20:36:05 GMT
DiCaprio plays the better character and gives the better performance. I like Cruise a lot in Collateral too though.
|
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on May 12, 2021 20:37:47 GMT
 The spoiled brat type he is playing is why I think he is better. He plays a sadistic rich boy racist perfectly. Samuel L. Jackson called the shots because DiCaprio trusts him. The fact that he is extremely loyal to Candy and freaks out when he is killed makes Calvin Candy even scarier. DiCaprio also perfectly hits the moments of dark humor. Samuel L. Jackson is only in charge of the other slaves because Calvin allows him to be in charge, because he knows he has him under his thumb and that Stephen would die for him. Tom Cruise is very good too, but neither his performance nor the character writing are as interesting or thrilling to watch as DiCaprio in Django Unchained. It isn't even close for me.
|
|
|
|
Post by brandomarlon2003 on May 12, 2021 20:41:10 GMT
Cruise.
|
|
Downey
Junior Member
@hunter
Posts: 2,329
Likes: 497
|
Post by Downey on May 12, 2021 20:45:31 GMT
Tom Cruise gets the job done much like Cavill in the latest Mission Impossible sequel when they go evil they fully buy into that character. Leo does a lot screen self love I don't find that particularly interesting.
|
|
|
|
Post by mstreepsucks on May 12, 2021 20:46:16 GMT
tom
|
|
|
|
Post by FridayOnElmStreet on May 12, 2021 21:07:54 GMT
Calvin Candy
|
|
|
|
Post by ghostintheshell on May 12, 2021 21:14:42 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Marv on May 12, 2021 21:15:40 GMT
I prefer Candy. He was more hateable. Cruise can do intimidating but I never seem to hate his villains.
|
|
Jason143
Junior Member
@glaceon
Posts: 1,242
Likes: 610
|
Post by Jason143 on May 12, 2021 21:46:03 GMT
Tom Cruise is very good too, but neither his performance nor the character writing are as interesting or thrilling to watch as DiCaprio in Django Unchained. It isn't even close for me. I disagree. Vincent is written in a way that he doesn't come off as a straight up mustache twirling villain. Throughout the movie we are given subtle hints through his dialogue, visual imagery and facial expressions that Vincent, appearing to be completely detached from reality, there still exists some humanity in him deep down but he knows he has gone past the point of no return. There is a compelling character depth to him that imo doesnt exist with Calvin. What you see is what you get. A racist, bloodsport hungry slavedriver. Di Caprio plays it to a tee, but I feel Cruise nails the mysterious element to Vincent to make him a better villain. |
|
|
|
Post by Popeye Doyle on May 12, 2021 21:49:42 GMT
Is it coincidence Jamie Foxx is in both?
|
|
Jason143
Junior Member
@glaceon
Posts: 1,242
Likes: 610
|
Post by Jason143 on May 12, 2021 21:51:34 GMT
Is it coincidence Jamie Foxx is in both? Haha I only just realized. And in both he is kinda playing the same type of character. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 12, 2021 23:44:16 GMT
Samuel L. Jackson called the shots because DiCaprio trusts him. The fact that he is extremely loyal to Candy and freaks out when he is killed makes Calvin Candy even scarier. DiCaprio also perfectly hits the moments of dark humor. Samuel L. Jackson is only in charge of the other slaves because Calvin allows him to be in charge, because he knows he has him under his thumb and that Stephen would die for him. That sounds like something Candy would tell himself. But the scene between them when Stephen reveals the heroes' plot makes it clear who is the one under the thumb. There's a reason the final showdown is with Stephen. |
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on May 13, 2021 0:03:32 GMT
Samuel L. Jackson called the shots because DiCaprio trusts him. The fact that he is extremely loyal to Candy and freaks out when he is killed makes Calvin Candy even scarier. DiCaprio also perfectly hits the moments of dark humor. Samuel L. Jackson is only in charge of the other slaves because Calvin allows him to be in charge, because he knows he has him under his thumb and that Stephen would die for him. That sounds like something Candy would tell himself. But the scene between them when Stephen reveals the heroes' plot makes it clear who is the one under the thumb. There's a reason the final showdown is with Stephen. You'll need to explain, because that isn't the way I see it. What am I missing? Stephen is smarter than Candy, but what does Stephen do throughout the movie that shows he has the upper hand? He is still a slave that is bowing to the slave-master. Candy could have him killed on the spot at any moment. He is forced to degrade himself more than once in the movie and while he is smarter he knows what would happen if he stepped out of line. His disturbing loyalty to his master is why Candy has the upper hand. Look at the way he freaks out when Candy says that Django gets to stay in the big house. He has no say at that moment and he knows it. He was paying closer attention to the situation later because of his hatred of Django, because Django is in a position that he will never be in. Stephen is a pathetic excuse of a person. He could have let his master get played, but he doesn't and it ends up backfiring on him. He loves Candy and that abusive relationship is what makes him the one who is controlled. The reason the final showdown is with Stephen is because he is a slave and Django is a former slave.
|
|
|
|
Post by twothousandonemark on May 13, 2021 0:11:59 GMT
It's Vincent for me. He was John Wick before John Wick.
I think Candy was helped immensely by the mysterious tension build up. Had he been in the first half hour, I'm not sure as potent.
|
|
|
|
Post by millar70 on May 13, 2021 0:17:41 GMT
They both gave excellent performances, but I'm going with DiCaprio.
Truthfully, my favorite Tom Cruise villain was Lex Grossman. 😁
|
|
|
|
Post by ant-mac on May 13, 2021 0:21:17 GMT
Tom Cruise as Vincent.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 13, 2021 1:15:59 GMT
That sounds like something Candy would tell himself. But the scene between them when Stephen reveals the heroes' plot makes it clear who is the one under the thumb. There's a reason the final showdown is with Stephen. You'll need to explain, because that isn't the way I see it. What am I missing? Stephen is smarter than Candy, but what does Stephen do throughout the movie that shows he has the upper hand? He is still a slave that is bowing to the slave-master. Candy could have him killed on the spot at any moment. He is forced to degrade himself more than once in the movie and while he is smarter he knows what would happen if he stepped out of line. Stephen wouldn't be killed by Candy because he wouldn't leave himself in that position. Candy IS Stephen's hand, and he's played it to a position of power and control. What makes Candy his inferior is Candy's inability to see that. Candy is convinced of the brain superiority of himself and the white race, and Stephen "degrades himself" by leaning into that as manipulation. Who's the slave and who's the master is happenstance they were born into.
|
|
|
|
Post by Winter_King on May 13, 2021 11:28:38 GMT
Tom Cruise as Lestat  |
|
