...his acting is so out-of-this-world that everytime he's on screen he hijacks the movie. He did the same thing in Gangs of New York. Although it would seem like he's brilliant, which he is, in hindsight you realize that his brilliance wears the movie as a whole down, if you know what I mean.
"Yeah, well, that's just, like, your opinion, man..."
are you saying his acting is do good, it takes you away from the movie? I guess I can see that. People being wrapped up in just his performance and forgetting the fact everything else is amazing as well
shareCongrats on a stupid opinion that also makes no sense . Fancy putting great actors in your films ..., they may be too good . :/
shareI'm now convinced the IMDB moderators read Vicenzo's post and said "This nitwit takes the cake. Time to shut 'er down, boys."
shareI don't know, man. He's pretty fückìng amazing here. I don't know of any other actor that could've pulled this off.
This film wouldn't be the same without him.
It *is* a Daniel Day-Lewis film, after all.
Of course, that's my opinion and you're entitled to yours, also.
For me, his performance is the best I've ever seen by any male lead.
----
"I've abandoned my child!! I've abandoned my child!! I've abandoned my boy!!"
It's not about his performance. It's about the movie as a whole. Which was hailed as ther 2000's Citizen Kane, an instant classic, and now it's about to fall out of the top 250 where it was once no.18.
How do you explain it?
"Yeah, well, that's just, like, your opinion, man..."
I don't know. I can't explain it.
Different strokes for different folks, I guess. *shrug*
----
"I've abandoned my child!! I've abandoned my child!! I've abandoned my boy!!"
I saw all his film at least twice, and I've been fascinated by Daniel Day Lewis since I saw My Left Foot in the theater. The fasination comes from the second viewing. When you see a DDL movie for the first time I almost always have the same reaction. He's great and the movie is great.
But the second viewing shows the movie for what it really is.
The mechanisms of his performance become apparent and the the movie becomes worse for it. Because every film he stars in becomes his performance.
This is why even though I loved some of his films initially and I still consider some of his performances monumental, at this moment I wouldn't call any of the films he's starred in great.
That's weird, isn't it?
"Yeah, well, that's just, like, your opinion, man..."
Absolutely spot on. I liked it the first time, but found it tedious probably at the time, though I appreciated it, but never thought I'd want to see it again. As my film knowledge grew, I watched it again and was blown away (as a fan of PFA already).
Same with Inherent Vice. That movie is dull and confusing upon first watch, then it all clicks. The performances and cinematography can pull you in and keep you glued to a point though.
Now I could watch those movies or scenes from those movies and be totally transfixed.
Dude... Do you even realize that you contradict yourself??
That just doesn't make sense... "I've been fascinated by" and "his performance ruined the movie" are just two statements that shouldn't be part of the same argument.
This gotta to be one of the dumbest posts I have ever seen.
On another hand, what did I expect from a posts which stated that DDL "ruined a movie"...
Standard troll post.
shareI disagree with your assessment. DDL's character IS the movie. Everyone around him is just part of his character's master manipulation and scheme to win in the end.
shareI really liked this movie as well.
share