|
Post by futuretrunks on Oct 31, 2019 21:22:17 GMT
I think of all the post-Denzel American actors, he had the biggest opportunity to be a legitimate competitor to DiCaprio. He can be subtle, explosive, and technically precise. A combination Joaquin has lost, in my eyes since about 2008, and I think will be clearer to other people in the upcoming years when Film Twitter's predictable boredom with DiCaprio owning the industry abates. And despite Norton lacking conventional movie star looks, he still had great presence onscreen when he blew up. His American History X performance is simply unforgettable to me in a way that I don't find anything Bale or Joaquin have done as leading men to measure up with; it resonates more like Denzel in The Hurricane or Training Day. Mismanaged talent, but maybe he'll have a big comeback someday. I somewhat agree but to me he's a lesser actor than Phoenix and PSH who I guess you could compare him too but PSH was older than Phoenix (He'd be 52 now). To me the great problem with Norton is his voice - he can never lose that whiny, tinny voice really - and for me it drives me nuts but some can look past it. He did have a great presence and he also took a lot of roles where his voice was out front - speech patterns or defects (he even does that in Motherless Brooklyn) which in a way works to his advantage since it distracts me from it because it's so upfront which is contradictory/interesting.He is a guy you look at and maybe the first thing you say is there should have been "more" for him but that makes him sound like someone more minor than him, he's a fascinating guy to discuss tbh - even from his selective filmography and limited stage work - he went about things his own way that to be a fan of his had to be frustrating too. I think he did settle into using that voice you're talking about too frequently, but take something like Stone. He's not stuttering or anything, but sounds like a different person for the most part. PSH I love, though more for his incidental performances than stuff he ever got nominated for (though I really like his Capote performance). I think Phoenix's peak acting ability was astonishing, but I think he's regressed (though nobody else seems to share my opinion on this). Look at that AW thread where I believe I'm still the only person to mention Buffalo Soldiers as a very memorable and strong performance, whereas performances that made zero impact on me like Her gets dozens more votes than an iconic villain performance like Commodus. I need to grapple with and articulate fully why something doesn't sit right with me about Joaquin's recent ascendancy.
|
|
|
Post by futuretrunks on Oct 31, 2019 21:25:37 GMT
I think of all the post-Denzel American actors, he had the biggest opportunity to be a legitimate competitor to DiCaprio. I think while we disagree on Phoenix, I agree that Norton could have been more of a complete package than Phoenix. An actor that I seriously think could have competed with DiCaprio for roles and in stature but passed away before his time was Heath Ledger. He had the acclaim, he would have blown up with The Dark Knight, and he was really coming into his own as an actor. He was also beginning to get great offers. He was supposedly in line to play Brolin's part in No Country for Old Men before he dropped out, and I remember reading that Malick wanted him for The Tree of Life. Yeah, Ledger is for me the biggest tragedy in film history in terms of great actors dying before giving us their full bounty, more than Cazale, more than River, more than PSH, more than everyone else I can think of.
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Oct 31, 2019 21:39:23 GMT
I think of all the post-Denzel American actors, he had the biggest opportunity to be a legitimate competitor to DiCaprio. He can be subtle, explosive, and technically precise. A combination Joaquin has lost, in my eyes since about 2008, and I think will be clearer to other people in the upcoming years when Film Twitter's predictable boredom with DiCaprio owning the industry abates. And despite Norton lacking conventional movie star looks, he still had great presence onscreen when he blew up. His American History X performance is simply unforgettable to me in a way that I don't find anything Bale or Joaquin have done as leading men to measure up with; it resonates more like Denzel in The Hurricane or Training Day. Mismanaged talent, but maybe he'll have a big comeback someday. Absolutely. Norton's run from 96-02 was phenomenal. He was "the guy" post-Denzel as you say, and I was convinced he was going to be the actor of his generation by a mile after 25th Hour. And he had that stage background that none of the leading actors around his generation could compete with. Philip Seymour Hoffman matched him for talent, but he was not really a leading man, though he could play in lead roles. But he did mismanage his talent. Too many things to go into now. But the control freakery with projects where he was not the director probably cost him a lot. I think he has a big comeback in him. He's shown in spurts over the years he's still got it when interested, but mostly in ensembles. It would be fascinasting to see him go on the sort of run of projects that Matthew McConaughey got a few years ago. Not sure his heart is in it though.
|
|
|
Post by countjohn on Nov 6, 2019 5:22:21 GMT
I think of all the post-Denzel American actors, he had the biggest opportunity to be a legitimate competitor to DiCaprio. He can be subtle, explosive, and technically precise. A combination Joaquin has lost, in my eyes since about 2008, and I think will be clearer to other people in the upcoming years when Film Twitter's predictable boredom with DiCaprio owning the industry abates. And despite Norton lacking conventional movie star looks, he still had great presence onscreen when he blew up. His American History X performance is simply unforgettable to me in a way that I don't find anything Bale or Joaquin have done as leading men to measure up with; it resonates more like Denzel in The Hurricane or Training Day. Mismanaged talent, but maybe he'll have a big comeback someday. Absolutely. Norton's run from 96-02 was phenomenal. He was "the guy" post-Denzel as you say, and I was convinced he was going to be the actor of his generation by a mile after 25th Hour. And he had that stage background that none of the leading actors around his generation could compete with. Philip Seymour Hoffman matched him for talent, but he was not really a leading man, though he could play in lead roles. But he did mismanage his talent. Too many things to go into now. But the control freakery with projects where he was not the director probably cost him a lot. I think he has a big comeback in him. He's shown in spurts over the years he's still got it when interested, but mostly in ensembles. It would be fascinasting to see him go on the sort of run of projects that Matthew McConaughey got a few years ago. Not sure his heart is in it though. I'd resigned myself to thinking I'd only get to see him in a great role every 5 years (which seems to be his rate now days) but there being a "Nortaissance" like what happened with McConaughey that surges him onto the A list would be amazing. That would be a really unique career arc. Some of the past directors he worked with and didn't alienate having a great part for him would be key to it (Fincher, Spike Lee, Ridley Scott, Inarritu, Wes Anderson).
|
|
|
Post by futuretrunks on Nov 11, 2019 21:03:04 GMT
|
|
|
Post by hugobolso on Nov 15, 2019 16:37:43 GMT
Absolutely. Norton's run from 96-02 was phenomenal. He was "the guy" post-Denzel as you say, and I was convinced he was going to be the actor of his generation by a mile after 25th Hour. And he had that stage background that none of the leading actors around his generation could compete with. Philip Seymour Hoffman matched him for talent, but he was not really a leading man, though he could play in lead roles. But he did mismanage his talent. Too many things to go into now. But the control freakery with projects where he was not the director probably cost him a lot. I think he has a big comeback in him. He's shown in spurts over the years he's still got it when interested, but mostly in ensembles. It would be fascinasting to see him go on the sort of run of projects that Matthew McConaughey got a few years ago. Not sure his heart is in it though. I'd resigned myself to thinking I'd only get to see him in a great role every 5 years (which seems to be his rate now days) but there being a "Nortaissance" like what happened with McConaughey that surges him onto the A list would be amazing. That would be a really unique career arc. Some of the past directors he worked with and didn't alienate having a great part for him would be key to it (Fincher, Spike Lee, Ridley Scott, Inarritu, Wes Anderson). Matthew McConaughey has a great PR. maybe one that works also with his wife Camila Alves. I never seen a Mccounaissance, I think he choose bad proyects for money, and when he have a small hit. The Lincoln Lawyer, his agent and his PR, couldn't be the same guy, start to talk about his Renaissance. After he won an Oscar, he started to stared in awful movies again, who flopped badly at the box office.-
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Aug 18, 2020 5:46:51 GMT
Not a huge fan of this guy - my comments are earlier in this thread - but I do think he is a good actor and he turns 51 today - August 18th - so I thought it might be a good time to bump this thread. Only The French Dispatch upcoming.......a bit surprising at his age. What might be next for him - I know he has a lot of fans on this board.
|
|
|
Post by TerryMontana on Aug 18, 2020 13:16:25 GMT
HBD to the guy. A very aspiring actor in his younger years... And a very talented one overall!
I really hoped he'd have a comeback (kind of) with Motherless Brooklyn but...
|
|
|
Post by jakesully on Aug 21, 2020 23:10:01 GMT
Motherless Brooklyn was an utter train wreck imo (wtf was up with the Tourette's Syndrome shit?!) Seemed kinda exploitive and uncalled for.
Anyways, I've noticed that this dude has rarely played any characters worth rooting for. Don't get me wrong, he's a damn good actor but he seems to play unlikable characters over the years Primal Fear (psychopath) Fight Club (total nutjob lol) American History X (racist hateful bigot) Rounders ( was a total scammer in that one) Birdman (smug prick) 25th Hour (selfish drug dealer) The Italian Job ( evil scumbag)
|
|
Drish
Badass
Posts: 2,017
Likes: 1,752
|
Post by Drish on Aug 21, 2020 23:27:15 GMT
Motherless Brooklyn was an utter train wreck imo (wtf was up with the Tourette's Syndrome shit?!) Seemed kinda exploitive and uncalled for. Anyways, I've noticed that this dude has rarely played any characters worth rooting for. Don't get me wrong, he's a damn good actor but he seems to play unlikable characters over the years Primal Fear (psychopath) Fight Club (total nutjob lol) American History X (racist hateful bigot) Rounders ( was a total scammer in that one) Birdman (smug prick) 25th Hour (selfish drug dealer) The Italian Job ( evil scumbag) Oh but he's so sweet in The Painted Veil 😍
|
|
|
Post by SeanJoyce on Oct 5, 2020 22:39:17 GMT
I think what continues to make Norton fascinating and even, dare I say, relevant despite his drop-off in productivity and the brevity of his filmography is the cultural significance of the work that he produced in his best years. He's on record as stating that the projects that have always most appealed to him have been those that document and reflect the zeitgeist of their times, and it's hard to argue that he didn't make stamps.
Rounders for some reason isn't talked about enough when people assess his filmography, but damned if it didn't predate and anticipate the poker phenomen that was just around the corner. Rounders was adopted as the bible for fans and participants of a "sport" that is still wildly popular today.
Fight Club was one third of a triumvirate of films (Office Space/American Beauty) that satirized white collar disgruntlement and suburban ennui, and its message still reverberates. As Fincher has aged and garnered more critical esteem, Fight Club stands tall as arguably his most daring and subversive masterwork.
25th Hour is probably the definitive testament to post-9/11 rage and uncertainty. I can't say I've always been the biggest Spike fan or that I've seen enough of his films, but his handling of the subject matter was wholly singular and it persists as one of his most mature, personal films.
You add to that a smattering of celebrated work including one (AHX) that has proved to have immense staying power in the past 20+ years and it's not hard to see why Norton still has a sizable contingent of fans. I remember seeing The Grand Budapest Hotel in theaters when a couple younger girls behind me gasped with joy when Norton appeared onscreen...the dude certainly made his mark. Neither Motherless Brooklyn nor his overall career are what they could have been, but I still actively root for the guy to make a resurgence.
|
|
|
Post by jakesully on Oct 5, 2020 23:38:08 GMT
I think what continues to make Norton fascinating and even, dare I say, relevant despite his drop-off in productivity and the brevity of his filmography is the cultural significance of the work that he produced in his best years. He's on record in stating that the projects that have always most appealed to him have been those that document and reflect the zeitgeist of their times, and it's hard to argue that he didn't make stamps. Rounders for some reason isn't talked about enough when people assess his filmography, but damned if it didn't predate and anticipate the poker phenomen that was just around the corner. Rounders was adopted as the bible for fans and participants of a "sport" that is still wildly popular today. Fight Club was one third of a triumvirate of films ( Office Space/ American Beauty) that satirized white collar disgruntlement and suburban ennui, and its message still reverberates. As Fincher has aged and garnered more critical esteem, Fight Club stands tall as arguably his most daring and subversive masterwork. 25th Hour is probably the definitive testament to post-9/11 rage and uncertainty. I can't say I've always been the biggest Spike fan or that I've seen enough of his films, but his handling of the subject matter was wholly singular and it persists as one of his most mature, personal films. You add to that a smattering of celebrated work including one ( AHX) that has proved to have immense staying power in the past 20+ years and it's not hard to see why Norton still has a sizable contingent of fans. I remember seeing The Grand Budapest Hotel in theaters when a couple younger girls behind me gasped with joy when Norton appeared onscreen...the dude certainly made his mark. Neither Motherless Brooklyn nor his overall career are what they could have been, but I still actively root for the guy to make a resurgence. Really good post! I too am actively rooting for a Norton resurgence. Thought he was also great in Birdman and its too bad Alita: Battle Angel isn't getting a sequel (he was set up to be the top villain in the sequel but of course it sorta bombed big time). Oh well.
|
|
|
Post by SeanJoyce on Oct 5, 2020 23:45:19 GMT
Really good post! I too am actively rooting for a Norton resurgence. Thought he was also great in Birdman and its too bad Alita: Battle Angel isn't getting a sequel (he was set up to be the top villain in the sequel but of course it sorta bombed big time). Oh well. Thank you...he's so ideal for/in Birdman...and not insignificant is the fact that he has a BP winner on his resume, something that not every vaunted actor can lay claim to. The scene on top of the building between him and Watts is really special, IMO. With all the PSH references, does anybody remember the days when we'd all speculate what the story/casting would be for the conclusion of the Dark Knight trilogy, and people were salivating at the idea of Norton playing the Riddler with PSH coming onboard as the Penguin? What could have been...
|
|
|
Post by franklin on Oct 6, 2020 11:43:19 GMT
I think what continues to make Norton fascinating and even, dare I say, relevant despite his drop-off in productivity and the brevity of his filmography is the cultural significance of the work that he produced in his best years. He's on record as stating that the projects that have always most appealed to him have been those that document and reflect the zeitgeist of their times, and it's hard to argue that he didn't make stamps. Rounders for some reason isn't talked about enough when people assess his filmography, but damned if it didn't predate and anticipate the poker phenomen that was just around the corner. Rounders was adopted as the bible for fans and participants of a "sport" that is still wildly popular today. Fight Club was one third of a triumvirate of films ( Office Space/ American Beauty) that satirized white collar disgruntlement and suburban ennui, and its message still reverberates. As Fincher has aged and garnered more critical esteem, Fight Club stands tall as arguably his most daring and subversive masterwork. 25th Hour is probably the definitive testament to post-9/11 rage and uncertainty. I can't say I've always been the biggest Spike fan or that I've seen enough of his films, but his handling of the subject matter was wholly singular and it persists as one of his most mature, personal films. You add to that a smattering of celebrated work including one ( AHX) that has proved to have immense staying power in the past 20+ years and it's not hard to see why Norton still has a sizable contingent of fans. I remember seeing The Grand Budapest Hotel in theaters when a couple younger girls behind me gasped with joy when Norton appeared onscreen...the dude certainly made his mark. Neither Motherless Brooklyn nor his overall career are what they could have been, but I still actively root for the guy to make a resurgence. [br American History X, Fight Club, and The 25th Hour belong to his "trilogy of timely and timeless films". That's why he's still a very respected actor despite his decline after the mid 2000s.
|
|
|
Post by SeanJoyce on Oct 6, 2020 13:06:13 GMT
Also American History X. American History X, Fight Club, and The 25th Hour belong to his "trilogy of timely and timeless films". That's why he's still a very respected actor despite his decline after the mid 2000s. Read the whole post...I noted AHX'S "immense staying power" towards the end
|
|