Letters to the Editor
fedorovington
Published Letters: 31 Editor's Choice: 1
-
hey! know what? mozart sucks! (please click on my article) tiger woods sucks, too! (pleased click, I need work)
[Read the article: Too great to be good]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]you have WAY over thought this. lewis has given the best leading performance in the last 25 years. it's really not that easy to BECOME another person on screen....another one of those "I need to get paid so I'll write something 'controversial' by saying the opposite of everyone else" articles like we see so often in salon and slate. booooring....ZZZZZZZZzzzzzz............
-
ha! nice one
[Read the article: Too great to be good]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"Ooooh! A professional actor? Why that makes all the difference. I take he does acting you can't see - does that mean subtle, not particulary interesting or just unlikely to be cast?"
------owned! no kidding..... just a jealous, no name actor. how insanely pretentious is that? you're beneath me because i'm a "professional"....ha! a professional with horrible judgment, i guess
-
oh, really?
[Read the article: Too great to be good]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"It probably means something that wouldn't impress all you suckers who've fallen for Day Lewis's scenery chewing here."
oh, really? then who, pray tell, lives up to your standards? ONLY brando, i suppose....everyone else is a hack, right?
either you're a troll or you have really bad judgment
-
?
[Read the article: Too great to be good]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]yeah,he was definitely showboating....or he just read the script and then acted as best he could.
the rest of that comment is just distraction so what, specifically, lives up to your standards? 'my left foot' was good but this was bad??? give an example of a good performance if this is not one because i can't think of one since "raging bull" or something like that
-
top 10?
[Read the article: Too great to be good]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]this could be a speaking too soon but i think i could place him in the top ten in the last 50 years...it doesn't matter for before 1960 because everyone knows old movies are all the same and so....whatever:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academy_Award_for_Best_Actor#1960s
even if the role is maybe slightly self conscious he still easily overpowers most nominees and winners.
biggest and most powerful roles....i'd have to take deniro- taxi driver, deer hunter; brando-godfather, apoc. now; MAYBE hoffman in rainman or lenny; denzel in X (?).....
seriously, if you look through the list, there's not that many heavyweight roles. i mean, who else could one on one, best actor in a leading role, with this character (in modern, emotionally complex, non-stiffly stifferson roles like GWTWind?)
warren beatty in Reds?? not many at all, to me
-
?
[Read the article: Too great to be good]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]i agree about age of innocence and i'll agree that the movie was kinda boring, but.....Boogie Nights??????? Is that your final answer?
this will piss you off but you've fallen into a very common modern tautology like "Denzel Washington is a great actor." Boogie Nights is for lightweights and it, most certainly, was not an epic. an epic is "Apocalypse Now", "Godfather", "Last Emperor", "Schindler's List", etc. .......uh, not on that list.
sorry, i had to be rude
-
?
[Read the article: Too great to be good]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"Really? Tom Hanks was playing himself and giving the same performance in "Big", "Philadelphia", "Forrest Gump" and "Saving Private Ryan"? I'm not even particularly a fan of Hanks, but that's just a silly suggestion."
"Clooney certainly has done his share of "movie-star" roles where he's just required to twinkle handsomely at the camera, but that's certainly not all he does, as anyone who has seen "Syriana" or "Good Night and Good Luck" can tell you."
i hate to be rude but i think it's pretty well understood that these are mostly gutless, mainstream actors who do very formulaic "good" movies and they're eaten up by baby boomers. not really a lot of substance or variation there and definitely nothing new. there's never a moment in any of there movies that you're unaware you watching tom hanks or george clooney...clooney lost himself a little in "O, Brother...." but that's about it....the rest is for sunday morning Times readers. not art film, just a formula based on what returns they can get with each as the star..... "I need you to get me somebody who can make the returns between $50-60 million."
next time clooney makes a "Syriana" ask yourself "Was that anything really that special, new or different?" not really at all
-
?
[Read the article: Too great to be good]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]it's hard to care about any of what you just said.
we're just pissed because she so casually and pretentiously dismissed a great performance so that's why we're making fun of her. it's pretty fun, actually:)
-
also,
[Read the article: Too great to be good]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]i just reread her michael clayton article and she basically says he's great, so what are you even talking about?
man, I'm STILL thinkin' about that peon comment. well played....QUITE a zing;)
-
double ?
[Read the article: Too great to be good]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]wow, i can really feel the unfounded/misguided condescending attitude coming right through the screen, nice work!
i really don't even know what we're arguing about anymore and also, you got the wring guy because i wasn't even the one who brought up michael clayton (click on my name to review my past letters) i just jumped in because your comment annoyed me.
i wish you had what little courage it takes to actually post with your screen name so i'd know who i'm arguing with. are you the "Anonymous" i've been burning with since the first page or some other anonymous?
i don't even really care about whatever distraction we're on right now but it's fun arguing. i can fill in for the other guy you were arguing with if you want me to
i'd respond to your last post but it's really just an argument about and argument that i'm not even involved in so i'm not sure what my stance would be
actually, i just went back and looked....I believe you're looking for a poster named "adouglas"
what "level of perception" am I on?
-
THANK you
[Read the article: My last word (for now) on sexism]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]thank you for being one of the very few people to point out how INSANELY sexist this country is. i started waging this war amongst my friends a couple of months ago because i couldn't believe how ridiculously afraid people were to be called racist but were totally fine being sexist and making sexist remarks about clinton.
this whole election was totally worthless except to find out how we're far from an egalitarian country.