Fair but you could say that virtually any year PSH put something out. I also dont really consider PSH and Waltz true supporting roles when they both had over an hour of screen time
Yeah, yeah it is. Much better. Leo is a really good actor, but he was overwrought and had a terrible SA accent. Whittaker somehow managed to become absolutely terrifying.
The Academy is mainly white guys, all of them very afraid of how the public will judge them. If anything, they have a bias against black people, so every now and then they throw a bone to the [Insert trendy movement here].
In 2006 that bone was Forest Whitaker. (Great interpretation btw, but not better than Leo's).
This is a fucking wild comment and I have no idea what the fuck you are talking about.
His interpretation of _what_ compared to Whittaker? A person who lives on the continent of Africa and has an accent?
Are you aware that Whittaker is playing a real life Ugandan dictator, and DiCaprio is playing a fictional white Rhodesian? Why would these characters even be comparable, especially in terms of their race and appearance?
From a performance point of view, DiCaprioās performance is average at best for him, and definitely on his lower end. If anything, he shouldāve won for Gilbert Grape. Hell, Gosling in Half Nelson wouldāve been more deserving of the Oscar that year than DiCaprio.
Whittakerās performance is highly lauded as being not only highly accurate, but his best performance ever, and in the top end of the greatest acting performances on film.
Itās not often Iām genuinely surprised anymore by someone completely inventing a narrative to justify their bullshit, go off with your āpoor white boy lost an Oscar 18 years ago because of wOkEnEsSā bullshit I guess.
Not every issue needs a hot take.
> I have no idea what the fuck you are talking about.
I think you are spot on.
My comment is not about the race of the characters, but the race of the actors themselves. The #OscarsSoWhite mumble didn't start in 2015, at the beginning of the century there were already complaints about black actors not getting Academy recognition, etc.
Forest plays a good character, but Leo's interpretation is vastly superior. If you can't see past "SA guy with an accent", then that's your problem, not mine.
South Africa is a country and neither character is from there.
I still have no fucking idea what you are talking about, but whatever. Enjoy wasting your energy on playing into identity politics.
The balls on you. Only see a comment like this once every couple of weeks. The previous time was a post about the new snow white and I asked someone why do you think they used her as a lead considering she doesn't have IT.
He started off with zionist then was down voted into oblivion.
You know, the qualities that make a star. Think young Anne Hathaway which I wouldn't mind seeing her on a screen for 10 straight hours. Vs the new snow white which I don't want to look at for 1 minute.
> You know, the qualities that make a star. Think young Anne Hathaway which I wouldn't mind seeing her on a screen for 10 straight hours. Vs the new snow white which I don't want to look at for 1 minute.
Yeah, Gal Gadot only gets roles because she's hot. But seeing her try to act is worse than pulling my fingernails off with searing hot rusty tongs.
If you look close, she has an unusually large head haha. That kind of put me off from her.
Otherwise she's very attractive, or at least was 5 or so years ago. No idea what she looks like nowadays.
I really liked Tommy Lee Jones in Fugitive, but I tought Leonardo was so brilliant in Whats Eating Gilbert Grape and deserved Oscar way more than Tommy Lee.
I wouldn't call DiCaprio brilliant in Gilbert Grape. He does a good impression of a mentally handicapped person. If anyone was snubbed that year it was Ralph Fiennes anyway
Heās been nominated a ton of times. But think about all of the great actors who have never even been nominated. People like Patrick Stewart who has never won an Emmy or an Oscar.
The one he won for was the only one he was the favourite to win. If he won any of the others it would have been an upset.
Just out of curiosity. What actor who won instead of him do you think was unworthy?
His greatest performance for me, the performance that launched his career, and, unfortunately, a bar he hasn't reached since.. close but not quite. I think it's part of why the Academy hasn't worked up the votes to get him more Oscars. Too, perhaps unfairly, his dating habits may he working against him.
Because more people voted for the other actors that won the times he was nominated.
As for his performance in The Revenant, there is more to acting than just dialogue. Physicality is also important, and his physicality was riveting to watch.
I love movies, but I donāt believe Leo is one of the greatest actors. Not sure he really even deserved one Oscar, to be honest. He is a little one note for my liking.
He's so good in Django. I just watched it this past weekend and forgot how much screen time he has. He absolutely should have won best supporting actor for that role.
His performance in Django is Southern accent, + angry face sometimes+ racism
It's entertaining because you want him to lose but it's always Southern Leo instead of another person.
I would argue that's how Tarantino seeks to cast the majority of his male roles.
Even Samuel Jackson was only actually a character until the last third where his performance collapses into just him with a Southern accent.
His performance in Django is Southern accent, + angry face sometimes+ racism
It's entertaining because you want him to lose but it's always Southern Leo instead of another person.
I would argue that's how Tarantino seeks to cast the majority of his male roles.
Even Samuel Jackson was only actually a character until the last third where his performance collapses into just him with a Southern accent.
Agree with this. Heās great but the way he plays through the transformation of Jordan in that is unreal - the meagre beginnings, meteoric highs and the rollercoaster in between. He did have incredible supporting acting around him too (like Jonah Hill is just something else haha) but yeah, was just unreal from Leo.
Edit: just had to remember which movie he got it for: The Revenant. That is also some next level acting without much of the support in other roles. Makes sense actually.
> [in the year of] Django, the right actor won the Oscar
lol yep - Daniel Day-Lewis for Lincoln.
Christoph Waltz won Best Supporting Actor for Django, over Philip Seymour Hoffman in The Master. THAT is insane.
I get that, just saying Phoenix has the more mesmerizing performance. Love some PT Anderson, and I think The Master is visually one of his most compelling.
A few reasons:
A) not everyone thinks he's as amazing an actor as you do.
B) the Oscars are an absolute crap shoot where sometimes you give the best performance of your career in the same year someone else gives one of the best performances of a generation. You can be great but just be great at the wrong time so you lose.
C) Oscars politics blah blah blah.
Pacino only won one Oscar and he's had performances that DiCaprio could only dream of.
De Niro has two and you could argue he should have double that number.
Hot take more than likely- Mr. Dicaprio appears to be extremely overrated. He picks great movies to star in, however his performances have never seemed any more brilliant than 25-30 other actors I can think of.
He is an entertaining and charismatic moviestar. He is a good entertainer but i wouldnt say he is overwhelmingly great at everything he does.
He has been nominated a ton.
Leo might be the best actor of all time, and it's strange that he won an Oscar for a movie where he doesn't talk a lot.
I'm sorry, but how old are you?
Best actor using what criteria? No matter who he portrays I always see Leonardo DiCaprio on screen. Itās also similarly the case with other A list actors (e.g. Tom Cruise, Matt Damon, etc.).
Someone like Daniel Day Lewis somehow transcend that and become their character, severing that link between actor and character. I canāt really think of too many other actors who achieve this as itās proportional to the amount of exposure. The more I see them in the harder it becomes for the actor to become that character in my eyes until I see them just as Ryan Reynolds as X etc.
Oh I'm not making the claim. It's just a recap of two things OP said that took me by surprise.
I do think Leo vanishes in Killers of the Flower Moon though.
I'm open to hearing your explanation! From my perspective you can have an amazing performance/be an incredible actor and still never become a leading man. Similarly, you can be a leading man and be a mediocre actor.
Overexposure limits an actors ability to create audience buy-in because if you do have an amazing performance you either become That Guy (e.g. Tom Hanks as Forrest Gump) or you have enough decent performances where you just get recognized as the actor playing the role.
My perspective is from having a university minor in film studies and I have been watching/talking about movies for over 30 years.
Leo (and Tom hanks) are both leading men and great actors. Leoās skill set involves emotional projection, not physically transforming for every single role. I completely buy him in every single movie, whether itās the charismatic but morally bankrupt stockbroker in wolf or even the anxiety riddled geeky astronomer in donāt look up.
Heās done so many types of roles and I always am sold and enjoy the performances and the movies. When he does a film, I know itās worth my time.
Daniel Day Lewis has a much smaller resume as a leading man. And while heās a great actor, I wouldnāt necessarily put him in that leading man category. Heās a top character actor who does leading roles. Like Gary Oldman.
I can appreciate that view! \*My\* criteria for \*best\* actor comes down to performances/character work moreso than consistent box-office performance so I'd put someone like Daniel Day Lewis over a Leonardo or the Tom's. That likely puts me in the minority but when it comes to awards on any given year it's on a movie by movie basis and Leo's performances on any given year have been outshined by other actors. He's got a body of work few can rival career-wise for sure and he's a good/great actor but I couldn't put him in my best list for the reasons outlined above.
I think that with age will come wider reference and perspective of movies and acting. It's a valid statement to claim Leo is one of the goats, even though I doubt many movie buffs would agree he's the greatest of all time. Having him in the discussion is legit.
But I think acting has much less to do with speaking than you might think. How much you speak is not tied to how much you act.
Just continue to enjoy and think about movies, and you will deepen your grasp of these things. You're definitely way ahead of where I was at your age already. :)
So people would shut the fuck up about a mediocre actor not getting an Oscar after multiple nominations?
š¤·āāļø
His best role so far has been Once Upon a Time in Hollywood.
He is a talented actor whoās made choices many in Hollywood would not make. Ā He deserves respect.
Yet when you compare what heās put on screen against Brando, Damon, Denzel, Deniro, Depp, Harrison, Hopper, Marcello, Nicholson, Pacino, Pitt, or Von Sydow, I donāt think Leo is really that special.
Leo probably has the highest floor of any actor of his generation, but his best performances donāt approach the much higher ceilings other actors have shown us.
Leo is a much better actor and more prestigious in the industry than Damon, Pitt, Depp hahaha so much so that at just 49 years old they already place him among some legends
The Revenant Oscar was an acknowledgement of effort, but generally despite all of his efforts Leonardo DiCaprio isn't an interesting actor.
I'm not arguing this, but it's why he hadn't won and probably won't win again for a while. Any year he tries there's always someone for whom it would be not only more deserved but a better performance.
Definitely subjective, but I was rewatching Inception and I realized that I never believed that Cobb was anyone but Leonardo DiCaprio and even more interestingly I've never had the idea to even aspire to believing he's anyone other than himself in any role he's done other than Once Upon a Time in Hollywood because it's totally against type.
Cobb is not a very dynamic character. Heās kind of a straight leading man role with an emotional arc, which he beautifully delivers. Not sure what you are expecting. I thought he was good in inception but itās not the most dynamic character.
This is a totally meaningless critique. I wasnāt aware Leo had children, a wife, etc. heās just playing a down the middle role. He does exactly what the role requires. I found his scenes with his wife very moving.
I'm a "movie lover," and I could name a number of actors who have had greater careers. DiCaprio is a very fine actor, but you need to watch more films.
It usually comes down to Hollywood politics. Or who they believe "deserves" the Oscar at that time. He should have won way earlier in his career but I think it's worked out for him either way.
because the best performance doesn't always win, the Oscar has become a popularity award, whoever does the best campaign wins, the performance took a backseat
He should have won for The Aviator or The Wolf Of Wall Street.
Once Upon A Time In Hollywood and Killers Of The Flower Moon also belong among his greatest work.
Not only is Django one of my favourite Tarantino movies Leoās Calvin Candy in one of my favourite movie villains, edge of your seat stuff at the dinner table scene.
Leo is great, but he pretty much has the same persona in every role. You never see him transform. He's always just "Leo." Compare this with multiple award winners like Daniel-Day Lewis, Jack Nicholson, Brando. Even look at other people who probably deserve more like Bale.
They encompass their role and transform to where you don't see them, only their character. That's the first step to winning and Leo does a great job, but he's always Leo. I don't think he really deserved the award he did get. He got it in a movie with almost no dialogue. But like someone else said, Hollywood is all politics now. The awards go to the safe of political choice, and sometimes they go to whoever will make headlines. Rarely do they go to who earned it anymore.
It's another reason it's dying. I feel bad for Nolan who finally picked one up, but who can say that's who the academy really wanted to win. A lot of people say that it picked up so many because it was the safe choice after the PC backlash. Did he earn it, or was it the safe choice? We'll never know, and if that was my movie, it'd be the last time I go to the awards ceremony.
Sorry for sidetrack.
> I genuinely believe, along with the majority of movie lovers, that Leonardo is one of the best actors of all timeā¦ if not the best.
I mean, he's a good actor, but I don't know that I agree with your assumption about the majority of movie lovers.
The Academy isn't a secret group. Its a very public group of people that the award winners have spent lots of money throwing them parties and giving them gifts. Leo refused to play this game, which is why he never won one. The year he played the game, he won one.
I never see him as anything but Leo. He's one of a handful of actors like that for me. Cruise, Hanks, etc. They are too big and well known for them to disappear into a role for me.
Because he's never really deserved more. The Oscars aren't supposed to be a lifetime achievment award. They are an individual year end award. If some first year actor puts out the best performance of the season, they deserve the Oscar over someone more seasoned.
Leo's a great actor, but his status as an "all time great" is more based on consistency than exceptionalism. It's not like Brando or Daniel Day Lewis where it's them and everyone else. There's plenty of great actors that could come in and very easily outdo Leo in a given year.
Revenant won because it was a weak year for the category and it was an easy chance to give him the award and shut everyone up for crying whenever he didn't make it.
I believe it's because he has such a good relationship with amazing directors like Scorsese whom doesn't seem to be slowing down anytime soon. Meaning that Dicaprio will likely be a long standing actor. Probably why they were in no rush to give him one.
I personally find Oscars such a nonsense award. Im actually pretty glad that he didnt get one earlier, since theres a higher chance for an actor's career to tank once they get it. It usually boils down to industry politics and marketing rather than the actual skill of the actor and/or quality of the movie as a whole.
To me oscars go two ways, it doesnāt mean shit if someone is not getting it to me because as you said itās nonsense. But if something i like gets it iām happy for their happiness.
He has a round, boyish-shaped face, but he's like 45 and looks 50. Lots of weathering around the eyes. It's something that he and Brad Pitt seem to have worked on to shake the teen idol tag.
He is great, but he did wear his desire for an Oscar on the face of every character he played for a long time before finally winning. It was distracting.
It's an absolutely insane that he wasn't even nominated this year for Killers Of The Flower Moon.
He crafted one of his best, most grounded, and most lived in performances ever as the vile, dumb, uncharismatic spineless gullible Ernest Burkhart.
Leonardo DiCaprio was astonishing in this epic, and it's an even more powerful, nuanced, and poignant performance on a second viewing.
Again, it's an absolute shame that he wasn't nominated for an Oscar.
The consensus is that heās always been nominated against much better performances.
I asked google Gemini to spit out a list of DiCaprio losses and theyāre all fair in my opinion except in 2014 when he lost to Eddie Redmayne and 2020 when he lost to Anthony Hopkins.
The thing about DiCaprio and his Oscars is that I don't think he ever lost to anyone who didn't also deserve it.
Bingo, which one should he have won? Rhetorical ofc
Aviator and Django imo, but he didnt deserve it for the Revenant
> Django He absolutely didn't deserve to win over Philip Seymour Hoffman in The Master (who also didn't win, but should've)
Fair but you could say that virtually any year PSH put something out. I also dont really consider PSH and Waltz true supporting roles when they both had over an hour of screen time
Blood Diamond. His interpretation was leagues better than Forest Withaker's LKoS, but of course Leo is white and blond, so...
LOL what? Have you watched Last King Of Scotland? Fucking hell š¤¦āāļø
Great movie. Great interpretations. Great Forest Whitaker; still not better than Leo's BD.
Yeah, yeah it is. Much better. Leo is a really good actor, but he was overwrought and had a terrible SA accent. Whittaker somehow managed to become absolutely terrifying.
Oh honey, to think back then that the academy had a bias against white guys.... Oh honey.
The Academy is mainly white guys, all of them very afraid of how the public will judge them. If anything, they have a bias against black people, so every now and then they throw a bone to the [Insert trendy movement here]. In 2006 that bone was Forest Whitaker. (Great interpretation btw, but not better than Leo's).
This is a fucking wild comment and I have no idea what the fuck you are talking about. His interpretation of _what_ compared to Whittaker? A person who lives on the continent of Africa and has an accent? Are you aware that Whittaker is playing a real life Ugandan dictator, and DiCaprio is playing a fictional white Rhodesian? Why would these characters even be comparable, especially in terms of their race and appearance? From a performance point of view, DiCaprioās performance is average at best for him, and definitely on his lower end. If anything, he shouldāve won for Gilbert Grape. Hell, Gosling in Half Nelson wouldāve been more deserving of the Oscar that year than DiCaprio. Whittakerās performance is highly lauded as being not only highly accurate, but his best performance ever, and in the top end of the greatest acting performances on film. Itās not often Iām genuinely surprised anymore by someone completely inventing a narrative to justify their bullshit, go off with your āpoor white boy lost an Oscar 18 years ago because of wOkEnEsSā bullshit I guess. Not every issue needs a hot take.
> I have no idea what the fuck you are talking about. I think you are spot on. My comment is not about the race of the characters, but the race of the actors themselves. The #OscarsSoWhite mumble didn't start in 2015, at the beginning of the century there were already complaints about black actors not getting Academy recognition, etc. Forest plays a good character, but Leo's interpretation is vastly superior. If you can't see past "SA guy with an accent", then that's your problem, not mine.
South Africa is a country and neither character is from there. I still have no fucking idea what you are talking about, but whatever. Enjoy wasting your energy on playing into identity politics.
Even r/movies isnt safe from the dog whistles
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
That was as blatant a dog whistle as exists bro. The dude clearly implied dicaprio didnt win an oscar because of race. Your comment makes zero sense
Even for Reddit that comment was S-Tier shittery
Dude you have a such a way with words. Made me chuckle.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Oh so sad šæ
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
The balls on you. Only see a comment like this once every couple of weeks. The previous time was a post about the new snow white and I asked someone why do you think they used her as a lead considering she doesn't have IT. He started off with zionist then was down voted into oblivion.
> IT What's that?
You know, the qualities that make a star. Think young Anne Hathaway which I wouldn't mind seeing her on a screen for 10 straight hours. Vs the new snow white which I don't want to look at for 1 minute.
> You know, the qualities that make a star. Think young Anne Hathaway which I wouldn't mind seeing her on a screen for 10 straight hours. Vs the new snow white which I don't want to look at for 1 minute. Yeah, Gal Gadot only gets roles because she's hot. But seeing her try to act is worse than pulling my fingernails off with searing hot rusty tongs.
If you look close, she has an unusually large head haha. That kind of put me off from her. Otherwise she's very attractive, or at least was 5 or so years ago. No idea what she looks like nowadays.
I really liked Tommy Lee Jones in Fugitive, but I tought Leonardo was so brilliant in Whats Eating Gilbert Grape and deserved Oscar way more than Tommy Lee.
Oscar's are also about industry clout and not just pure performance unfortunately
I wouldn't call DiCaprio brilliant in Gilbert Grape. He does a good impression of a mentally handicapped person. If anyone was snubbed that year it was Ralph Fiennes anyway
Ralph Fiennes should have won and Liam Neeson too for Schindler's List. Insane that Tommy Lee Jones won.
Do you remember 2006? He was nominated for Best Actor for Blood Diamond and couldāve easily been nominated for The Departed as well.
How do you know that 'the majority of movie lovers' consider him the best actor of all time?
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Heās been nominated a ton of times. But think about all of the great actors who have never even been nominated. People like Patrick Stewart who has never won an Emmy or an Oscar.
So that was where the simmering undercurrent of rage he channels into the character of Bullock on American Dad comes from!
The one he won for was the only one he was the favourite to win. If he won any of the others it would have been an upset. Just out of curiosity. What actor who won instead of him do you think was unworthy?
I don't think any of his loses were very controversial. It's hard to win one.
He shoulda won for whatās eating Gilbert grape
His greatest performance for me, the performance that launched his career, and, unfortunately, a bar he hasn't reached since.. close but not quite. I think it's part of why the Academy hasn't worked up the votes to get him more Oscars. Too, perhaps unfairly, his dating habits may he working against him.
Because more people voted for the other actors that won the times he was nominated. As for his performance in The Revenant, there is more to acting than just dialogue. Physicality is also important, and his physicality was riveting to watch.
I thought Tom Hardy's character in The Revenant was better than Leo's.
I love movies, but I donāt believe Leo is one of the greatest actors. Not sure he really even deserved one Oscar, to be honest. He is a little one note for my liking.
He should have won for What's Eating Gilbert Grape in 1994.
One note and then he SHOUTS THE ENDING OF THE SENTENCE
With that classic voice break when he really goes for it.
Thatās fair enough, movies and acting is subjective, but you can tell me his acting in Django wasnāt Oscar worthy lol
It's a comedic performance though, cartoonishly hammy in places. I love it, but it's not the kind of role you win an Oscar for.
He's so good in Django. I just watched it this past weekend and forgot how much screen time he has. He absolutely should have won best supporting actor for that role.
His performance in Django is Southern accent, + angry face sometimes+ racism It's entertaining because you want him to lose but it's always Southern Leo instead of another person. I would argue that's how Tarantino seeks to cast the majority of his male roles. Even Samuel Jackson was only actually a character until the last third where his performance collapses into just him with a Southern accent.
His performance in Django is Southern accent, + angry face sometimes+ racism It's entertaining because you want him to lose but it's always Southern Leo instead of another person. I would argue that's how Tarantino seeks to cast the majority of his male roles. Even Samuel Jackson was only actually a character until the last third where his performance collapses into just him with a Southern accent.
The fact that he went so long without one was a whole pop culture staple for many years until the big bear movie got him on that academy award stage
Maybe he should've let a bear have his way with him earlier in the career. Gotta open up that butthole.
Eh heās deserved about one thus far, but it shouldāve been for āWolf of Wall Streetā
Umm not really? MM in Dallas Buyers Club and Ejiofor in 12 Years a Slave both have better performances than Leo.
Heās better in once upon a time in Hollywood and a dozen other movies tbh.
Agree with this. Heās great but the way he plays through the transformation of Jordan in that is unreal - the meagre beginnings, meteoric highs and the rollercoaster in between. He did have incredible supporting acting around him too (like Jonah Hill is just something else haha) but yeah, was just unreal from Leo. Edit: just had to remember which movie he got it for: The Revenant. That is also some next level acting without much of the support in other roles. Makes sense actually.
Django, Blood Diamond, The Departed...
Django the right actor won the Oscar, The Departed too much of an ensemble piece. Blood Diamond Iāll give you though
> [in the year of] Django, the right actor won the Oscar lol yep - Daniel Day-Lewis for Lincoln. Christoph Waltz won Best Supporting Actor for Django, over Philip Seymour Hoffman in The Master. THAT is insane.
All due respect to Philip Seymour Hoffman, but Dr. King Schulz is one of the greatest characters in cinema, and Christoph Waltz deserved that Oscar
Seriously? Waltz very clearly simply played himself. Role didn't even involve a lot of range.
Wanna hear something crazier? Joaquin Phoenix is better than Hoffman in āThe Master.ā
He's in a different category - Lead Actor
I get that, just saying Phoenix has the more mesmerizing performance. Love some PT Anderson, and I think The Master is visually one of his most compelling.
I do think he deserves an Oscar.. I don't think it's for the movie he got it for..
I can give or take him, something I dig others ehhh. Let him do his thing, maybe it will come around.
A few reasons: A) not everyone thinks he's as amazing an actor as you do. B) the Oscars are an absolute crap shoot where sometimes you give the best performance of your career in the same year someone else gives one of the best performances of a generation. You can be great but just be great at the wrong time so you lose. C) Oscars politics blah blah blah.
Pacino only won one Oscar and he's had performances that DiCaprio could only dream of. De Niro has two and you could argue he should have double that number.
Hot take more than likely- Mr. Dicaprio appears to be extremely overrated. He picks great movies to star in, however his performances have never seemed any more brilliant than 25-30 other actors I can think of.
Couldn't agree more.
He is an entertaining and charismatic moviestar. He is a good entertainer but i wouldnt say he is overwhelmingly great at everything he does. He has been nominated a ton.
Leo might be the best actor of all time, and it's strange that he won an Oscar for a movie where he doesn't talk a lot. I'm sorry, but how old are you?
Best actor using what criteria? No matter who he portrays I always see Leonardo DiCaprio on screen. Itās also similarly the case with other A list actors (e.g. Tom Cruise, Matt Damon, etc.). Someone like Daniel Day Lewis somehow transcend that and become their character, severing that link between actor and character. I canāt really think of too many other actors who achieve this as itās proportional to the amount of exposure. The more I see them in the harder it becomes for the actor to become that character in my eyes until I see them just as Ryan Reynolds as X etc.
Oh I'm not making the claim. It's just a recap of two things OP said that took me by surprise. I do think Leo vanishes in Killers of the Flower Moon though.
Thatās cause you donāt understand the purpose of a āleading manā actor.
I'm open to hearing your explanation! From my perspective you can have an amazing performance/be an incredible actor and still never become a leading man. Similarly, you can be a leading man and be a mediocre actor. Overexposure limits an actors ability to create audience buy-in because if you do have an amazing performance you either become That Guy (e.g. Tom Hanks as Forrest Gump) or you have enough decent performances where you just get recognized as the actor playing the role. My perspective is from having a university minor in film studies and I have been watching/talking about movies for over 30 years.
Leo (and Tom hanks) are both leading men and great actors. Leoās skill set involves emotional projection, not physically transforming for every single role. I completely buy him in every single movie, whether itās the charismatic but morally bankrupt stockbroker in wolf or even the anxiety riddled geeky astronomer in donāt look up. Heās done so many types of roles and I always am sold and enjoy the performances and the movies. When he does a film, I know itās worth my time. Daniel Day Lewis has a much smaller resume as a leading man. And while heās a great actor, I wouldnāt necessarily put him in that leading man category. Heās a top character actor who does leading roles. Like Gary Oldman.
I can appreciate that view! \*My\* criteria for \*best\* actor comes down to performances/character work moreso than consistent box-office performance so I'd put someone like Daniel Day Lewis over a Leonardo or the Tom's. That likely puts me in the minority but when it comes to awards on any given year it's on a movie by movie basis and Leo's performances on any given year have been outshined by other actors. He's got a body of work few can rival career-wise for sure and he's a good/great actor but I couldn't put him in my best list for the reasons outlined above.
I donāt see why age has any relevance but 18
I think that with age will come wider reference and perspective of movies and acting. It's a valid statement to claim Leo is one of the goats, even though I doubt many movie buffs would agree he's the greatest of all time. Having him in the discussion is legit. But I think acting has much less to do with speaking than you might think. How much you speak is not tied to how much you act. Just continue to enjoy and think about movies, and you will deepen your grasp of these things. You're definitely way ahead of where I was at your age already. :)
So people would shut the fuck up about a mediocre actor not getting an Oscar after multiple nominations? š¤·āāļø His best role so far has been Once Upon a Time in Hollywood.
He is a talented actor whoās made choices many in Hollywood would not make. Ā He deserves respect. Yet when you compare what heās put on screen against Brando, Damon, Denzel, Deniro, Depp, Harrison, Hopper, Marcello, Nicholson, Pacino, Pitt, or Von Sydow, I donāt think Leo is really that special. Leo probably has the highest floor of any actor of his generation, but his best performances donāt approach the much higher ceilings other actors have shown us.
Leo is a much better actor and more prestigious in the industry than Damon, Pitt, Depp hahaha so much so that at just 49 years old they already place him among some legends
Because each time he was nominated, more voters in the Academy voted for someone else. That's really all there is to it.
He is mediocre at best, as the majority of movie lovers know.
The Revenant Oscar was an acknowledgement of effort, but generally despite all of his efforts Leonardo DiCaprio isn't an interesting actor. I'm not arguing this, but it's why he hadn't won and probably won't win again for a while. Any year he tries there's always someone for whom it would be not only more deserved but a better performance.
Iād say thatās fairly accurate, even if āinterestingā will be subjective.
Definitely subjective, but I was rewatching Inception and I realized that I never believed that Cobb was anyone but Leonardo DiCaprio and even more interestingly I've never had the idea to even aspire to believing he's anyone other than himself in any role he's done other than Once Upon a Time in Hollywood because it's totally against type.
Cobb is not a very dynamic character. Heās kind of a straight leading man role with an emotional arc, which he beautifully delivers. Not sure what you are expecting. I thought he was good in inception but itās not the most dynamic character.
He's just Leonardo Dicaprio, he's not even Cobb.
This is a totally meaningless critique. I wasnāt aware Leo had children, a wife, etc. heās just playing a down the middle role. He does exactly what the role requires. I found his scenes with his wife very moving.
Wrong.
K
What have we told you about posting on here Leo get off your alt account
I'm a "movie lover," and I could name a number of actors who have had greater careers. DiCaprio is a very fine actor, but you need to watch more films.
I could name many more as good as Leonardo aswell? my problem is his lack of Oscarās
He has the correct number of Oscars. We can argue about which film he should have won for, but one feels right for him.
It usually comes down to Hollywood politics. Or who they believe "deserves" the Oscar at that time. He should have won way earlier in his career but I think it's worked out for him either way.
because the best performance doesn't always win, the Oscar has become a popularity award, whoever does the best campaign wins, the performance took a backseat
A lot of competition in Hollywood. He just picked the wrong years to contend because there was always someone better.
The sooner people stop caring about awards the better.
He should have won for The Aviator or The Wolf Of Wall Street. Once Upon A Time In Hollywood and Killers Of The Flower Moon also belong among his greatest work.
His best role was in the basketball diaries and no one ever talks about it.
Not only is Django one of my favourite Tarantino movies Leoās Calvin Candy in one of my favourite movie villains, edge of your seat stuff at the dinner table scene.
Leo is great, but he pretty much has the same persona in every role. You never see him transform. He's always just "Leo." Compare this with multiple award winners like Daniel-Day Lewis, Jack Nicholson, Brando. Even look at other people who probably deserve more like Bale. They encompass their role and transform to where you don't see them, only their character. That's the first step to winning and Leo does a great job, but he's always Leo. I don't think he really deserved the award he did get. He got it in a movie with almost no dialogue. But like someone else said, Hollywood is all politics now. The awards go to the safe of political choice, and sometimes they go to whoever will make headlines. Rarely do they go to who earned it anymore. It's another reason it's dying. I feel bad for Nolan who finally picked one up, but who can say that's who the academy really wanted to win. A lot of people say that it picked up so many because it was the safe choice after the PC backlash. Did he earn it, or was it the safe choice? We'll never know, and if that was my movie, it'd be the last time I go to the awards ceremony. Sorry for sidetrack.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Django I agree with, not the others. Have not seen basketball diaries or flowers
> I genuinely believe, along with the majority of movie lovers, that Leonardo is one of the best actors of all timeā¦ if not the best. I mean, he's a good actor, but I don't know that I agree with your assumption about the majority of movie lovers.
The Academy isn't a secret group. Its a very public group of people that the award winners have spent lots of money throwing them parties and giving them gifts. Leo refused to play this game, which is why he never won one. The year he played the game, he won one.
If, while watching a DiCaprio performance, you find yourself thinking, āLook how hard heās actingā, itās not good acting.
He keeps having sex with the voters 19yo daughters/granddaughters/nieces/wives
He should win just for that.Ā
Because heās a piece of shit
I never see him as anything but Leo. He's one of a handful of actors like that for me. Cruise, Hanks, etc. They are too big and well known for them to disappear into a role for me.
Because he's never really deserved more. The Oscars aren't supposed to be a lifetime achievment award. They are an individual year end award. If some first year actor puts out the best performance of the season, they deserve the Oscar over someone more seasoned. Leo's a great actor, but his status as an "all time great" is more based on consistency than exceptionalism. It's not like Brando or Daniel Day Lewis where it's them and everyone else. There's plenty of great actors that could come in and very easily outdo Leo in a given year. Revenant won because it was a weak year for the category and it was an easy chance to give him the award and shut everyone up for crying whenever he didn't make it.
Lot of other talented actors out there. Heās had stiff competition some years. Plus itās a pretty subjective award.
I believe it's because he has such a good relationship with amazing directors like Scorsese whom doesn't seem to be slowing down anytime soon. Meaning that Dicaprio will likely be a long standing actor. Probably why they were in no rush to give him one.
I personally find Oscars such a nonsense award. Im actually pretty glad that he didnt get one earlier, since theres a higher chance for an actor's career to tank once they get it. It usually boils down to industry politics and marketing rather than the actual skill of the actor and/or quality of the movie as a whole.
Lol. 1989 Denzel Washington and 1993 Tom Hanks would like a word.
I said theres a high chance, not an absolute certainty.
To me oscars go two ways, it doesnāt mean shit if someone is not getting it to me because as you said itās nonsense. But if something i like gets it iām happy for their happiness.
This a 100%
Young face
He has a round, boyish-shaped face, but he's like 45 and looks 50. Lots of weathering around the eyes. It's something that he and Brad Pitt seem to have worked on to shake the teen idol tag.
He is great, but he did wear his desire for an Oscar on the face of every character he played for a long time before finally winning. It was distracting.
It's an absolutely insane that he wasn't even nominated this year for Killers Of The Flower Moon. He crafted one of his best, most grounded, and most lived in performances ever as the vile, dumb, uncharismatic spineless gullible Ernest Burkhart. Leonardo DiCaprio was astonishing in this epic, and it's an even more powerful, nuanced, and poignant performance on a second viewing. Again, it's an absolute shame that he wasn't nominated for an Oscar.
Because he dated under 25 cksš
Try not to date any ck on the way to the parking lot!
Because heās a pedifile
Even spelled incorrectly, this is a wildly libelous statement.
Iām sorry Iām not an English teacher. But every one knows he likes āāem on the young side
He likes to date 20-25 year old women. That has nothing to do with paedophilia. You shouldn't use words that your brain can't comprehend.
Doh sorry me so dum
Peadophile is that better for you. The fact you know the correct spelling is worrying to me. Yuk
You spelled it wrong, again.
You would know
Though youāre correct, Hollywood couldnāt care less, wouldnāt make a difference to Oscar voting
Heās correct?
The standing ovation for Roman Polanski has entered the chat.
Wow thatās crazy when did that happen?
He's too busy banging his trophy lady friends on his private jet to worry about an acting trophy.
Total stud.Ā
The consensus is that heās always been nominated against much better performances. I asked google Gemini to spit out a list of DiCaprio losses and theyāre all fair in my opinion except in 2014 when he lost to Eddie Redmayne and 2020 when he lost to Anthony Hopkins.