|
Post by pacinoyes on Jul 31, 2022 17:35:33 GMT
Sean Penn is another one - he has some prestige pics - Milk, Mystic River, Dead Man Walking he's in Tree of Life but not in a good way he's "in" Licorice Pizza but again, not in a big way......... Thin Red Line but again he's just "in" it, it isn't his pic........ He has some pop culture imprint movies - Fast Times......., Carlito's Way ........but not a lot for a two time BA winner......and when he hit the skids post-Milk he peppered his filmography with nothing movies too which makes his filmography look awfully uneven...... If his filmography was better people would be a lot more charitable to his career decline actually.....
|
|
flasuss
Badass
Posts: 1,830
Likes: 1,615
|
Post by flasuss on Jul 31, 2022 17:58:08 GMT
Sean Penn's filmography until 2008 is pretty good, really. Afterwards it falls off a cliff, looks like he stopped caring.
|
|
|
Post by urbanpatrician on Jul 31, 2022 18:45:09 GMT
Sean Penn is another one - he has some prestige pics - Milk, Mystic River, Dead Man Walking he's in Tree of Life but not in a good way he's "in" Licorice Pizza but again, not in a big way......... Thin Red Line but again he's just "in" it, it isn't his pic........ He has some pop culture imprint movies - Fast Times......., Carlito's Way ........but not a lot for a two time BA winner......and when he hit the skids post-Milk he peppered his filmography with nothing movies too which makes his filmography look awfully uneven...... If his filmography was better people would be a lot more charitable to his career decline actually..... Good call with Penn. I feel like among his peers in that historic 1999 Best Actor lineup (Norton, Washington, Spacey, and Crowe)........ Penn is most likely to be forgotten. Norton is in Fight Club and American History X, somewhat relevant movies for teenagers/Gen Yers. Spacey has Se7en, L.A. Confidential, The Usual Suspects, and American Beauty. Crowe has The Insider and Gladiator. Washington is never going to be forgotten because of his Streep like longevity. Penn doesn't really have any classics. Besides a few movies he was just in and didn't do much, future audiences who didn't live through the 90s and 00s aren't going to be inclined to watch his movies. You have Carlito's Way and The Game, but those are neither the most major Pacino movies, and that's not the most major Fincher movie, so I'm not sure most people are gonna see those. He's like the Jessica Lange among the group of Pfeiffer, Close, Streep, and Spacek.
|
|
SZilla
Badass
Posts: 1,464
Likes: 996
|
Post by SZilla on Jul 31, 2022 19:01:09 GMT
Mickey Rourke maybe? He's an excellent actor who's personal demons got in the way of his career a bit, but even then I don't know if he's in any stone cold classics. Sin City maybe? Perhaps Angel Heart or The Wrestler? He feels like he's in a lot of cult classics or deep cuts.
|
|
|
Post by hugobolso on Aug 1, 2022 18:45:38 GMT
Al Pacino. I love him. He always wanted to do Shakespeare on films. But he was never choosen. He had to wait until a former italian soft porn star from the giallo and decemaroneroiticus movies Edwige Fenech, to produce his dream come true in Merchant of Venice. Unfortunately the rest of the cast wasn't as bright. Also the director wasn't as good.- Robert De Niro Denzel Washington Bette Davis (since the 60s) Faye Dunnaway
|
|
|
Post by urbanpatrician on Aug 3, 2022 8:29:00 GMT
Has anyone realized that for someone as big as Johnny Depp, you can argue he has 0 classics to his name?
The closest I can think of is Dead Man, but it's probably too underseen to qualify. Jarmusch is a 2nd degree name in the film world, not a first degree name like Fellini or Bergman.
You can argue Ed Wood, but that movie gets overshadowed by Pulp Fiction, The Shawshank Redemption, Three Colors: Red and some of the more namedropped classics. And even Forrest Gump, The Lion King, and Leon while I don't see those as serious film buff movies have the popularity to overtake Ed Wood.
Sleepy Hollow is a classic of popular literature, but the movie doesn't really have the reputation of the book and the production design is what's mostly singled out.
Donnie Brasco sometimes people forget he's even there - with it being a top Pacino performance it's strictly a Pacino movie.
And Pirates of the Caribbean is obviously the movie that made his career, but it seems more popular with the 00s cinephiles than with later decades cinephiles, and most of those people who liked it aren't really cinephiles. It's not gonna fade away, but I don't think most people will even see it as The Princess Bride. The Princess Bride is just a classic of the fantasy genre, Pirates of the Caribbean mostly just feels like a pretty average blockbuster.
Again, not a bad filmography...... I think Depp's filmography is more or less equal to Denzel's. Denzel has Glory, Training Day, Malcolm X, American Gangster, and Man on Fire. None of those are The Godfather, but they're not woefully underseen like a great majority of the filmography of people like Lange or Page or Dennis.
This is just me.... but in 1999..... the only two movies from the 1999 Best Actor lineup I even heard of was The Hurricane and American Beauty. Those were the only ones that made substantial television time. The Insider isn't talked about much by the mainstream.... it's film buffs that prop up that movie. The Straight Story gets some vague images shown on TV with Farnsworth staring longingly into the open, but most people watches its 2 minutes on TV and forgets it instantly. And Sweet and Lowdown is completely irrelevant to most people, except a few people who follow movies enough to be interested in the less talked about releases.
|
|
|
Post by stabcaesar on Aug 3, 2022 9:41:36 GMT
Has anyone realized that for someone as big as Johnny Depp, you can argue he has 0 classics to his name? Any sleazy, disgusting, talentless drug addict/domestic abuser who can't remember any line on set because he's constantly high out of his mind probably wouldn't be very sought after by talented directors who make classics.
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Aug 3, 2022 11:31:05 GMT
Some of the names popping up here are just weird. I'm not even a big fan of Sean Penn, but before his career kinda went into an almost irreversible decline post-Milk, he had one of the most respected filmographies in the business.Same for Johnny Depp. He has a lot of well liked/loved films. Some of his films with Tim Burton alone will always have some sort of following (Edward Scissorhands, Ed Wood etc)
If Penn has an issue being remembered, it's because he only really made films for critics and the arthouse crowd, and they can be fickle (one minute they love everything you do, next minute you are George Clooney getting hammered for everything he directs). He never made any serious attempts to win over audiences (till it was too late with flops like Gangster Squad and The Gunman, so he was always at the mercy of critical favor. When critics turned on Penn, his career was more or less on life support.
Not having a Godfather or Citizen Kane level "classic" does not mean your filmography cannot be considered good or strong. The likes of Depp, Penn and Denzel all have good filmographies overall (though Depp and Penn have had much steeper career declines)
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Aug 3, 2022 12:12:18 GMT
Depp is like Norton to me - same amount of individual Oscar nods, Norton is IN a BP winner though - for a time both were talked about as best actor of their era - and pacinoyes would even say for a time Depp was the most creative and imaginative Hollywood actor going.
But again he's missing metrics outside of his "popularity" - like Norton, Penn, Cage, Close, Washington, Page, Lange: BAFTA BP nods, Golden Globes BP nods, AFI top 100, the IMDB top 250, the TSPDT list - and that's a top 1000 - top 1000 (!), Sight & Sound Poll......in addition to Oscar BP lists etc
At a certain point all those big lists argue these are the movies you need to see - and very few involve those actors - like maybe 1 film each or so from the TSPDT list - even though all have great work. It's like I said earlier - it isn't that you're missing Citizen Kane......it's you're missing The Third Man and Touch of Evil too....it's more about missing the ones in the middle - "top 10s for the years they worked" ......
Depp has very few - Dead Man certainly has a big cult........Edward Scissorhands ....but not a lot
|
|
|
Post by urbanpatrician on Aug 3, 2022 16:24:33 GMT
Some of the names popping up here are just weird. I'm not even a big fan of Sean Penn, but before his career kinda went into an almost irreversible decline post- Milk, he had one of the most respected filmographies in the business.Same for Johnny Depp. He has a lot of well liked/loved films. Some of his films with Tim Burton alone will always have some sort of following ( Edward Scissorhands, Ed Wood etc) If Penn has an issue being remembered, it's because he only really made films for critics and the arthouse crowd, and they can be fickle (one minute they love everything you do, next minute you are George Clooney getting hammered for everything he directs). He never made any serious attempts to win over audiences (till it was too late with flops like Gangster Squad and The Gunman, so he was always at the mercy of critical favor. When critics turned on Penn, his career was more or less on life support. Not having a Godfather or Citizen Kane level "classic" does not mean your filmography cannot be considered good or strong. The likes of Depp, Penn and Denzel all have good filmographies overall (though Depp and Penn have had much steeper career declines) Most people are just saying Penn, Denzel, and Depp have filmographies that you would expect to be better given their esteem in the industry. They assume it would be better as proportionate to their overall acclaim. No one's claiming their filmographies are completely bad. But as you say, Denzel is not like Lange. Denzel's movies are actually seen. Classics he may have or not. I'm seriously just counting the overall classics an actor has. You can argue Depp, Penn, and Washington doesn't really have any classics. But there are other factors relevant to being remembered than just the amount of classics you have. In my opinion, Penn isn't going to be forgotten. Most likely to be forgotten in comparison to his direct peers? Maybe, but still not forgotten. Mystic River is seen by lots of people, even if it isn't a first degree classic. Milk is somewhat less talked about, but it's not quite a movie made just for Oscars that has no other value. Dean Man Walking in the 90s was popular. Capital punishment issue was brought to light heavily, and the kind of the tragic memoir written by the sister.
|
|
|
Post by hugobolso on Aug 3, 2022 17:28:16 GMT
Still the best cactor with the most awful filmography is and by faaar Klaus Kinski. His ego ruined most of his films, including Nosferatu in Venice.-
I surprise none mentionated.
Also from the living actors, what about Tony Hopkins filmography. Yep in the past years he made a great comback, and choose his roles wisely. But from the 90s and all the first decade of the new millenium, he was involve in many proyects just for the money!!!
And there were awful (Wolfman, Alexander, The sequels of The Silence of the lambs, Bad Company, The Grinch as Narrator, Hitchcock, Mission Impossible 2, Meet Joe Black, Legends of The Fall, The Innocent) etc.-
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Aug 3, 2022 17:30:49 GMT
Richard Burton out of old Hollywood is another - Burton was the generational heir to Olivier - Olivier back then simply was The GOAT - there was no argument like you engage in on MAR you wackjobs - and for a certain period was routinely called the world's best actor himself. Burton was in BP's but some of them people don't think deserved to be BP's ( The Robe, Cleopatra, Anne of The Thousand Days) Burton is in classics Woolf / Becket that also had BP nods but he never had the work ethic of Olivier to transcend his career and have it equal his personal acclaim. Burton is an actor who quite easily could have had a lot more nominations (he had 7) if he had a different kind of discipline. He's greater than his filmography and his filmography holds him down in how highly he's held - although, again he's great of course. He's also one of the main ones held back by comedy across his filmography - he could be funny, but doesn't have it as a strand in his filmography that's clearly visible - like Duvall / Washington / DDL (arguably) / Ullman / Clift / Brando (arguably) / Hopkins etc.
|
|
SZilla
Badass
Posts: 1,464
Likes: 996
|
Post by SZilla on Aug 3, 2022 17:46:28 GMT
I'm not the biggest Depp fan here but he definitely has some "classics." A Nightmare on Elm Street is in the National Film Registry and is one of the best of the slasher films, Edward Scissorhands has been on TSPDT's Top 1000 and Depp's character is iconic, and yes Pirates of the Caribbean: Curse of the Black Pearl is a modern classic in its own right too. Iconic theme song - check, iconic character - check. It'll probably be remembered as one of the best adventure films of the 2000s.
|
|
|
Post by hugobolso on Aug 3, 2022 17:47:51 GMT
Richard Burton out of old Hollywood is another - Burton was the generational heir to Olivier - Olivier back then simply was The GOAT - there was no argument like you engage in on MAR you wackjobs - and for a certain period was routinely called the world's best actor himself. Burton was in BP's but some of them people don't think they deserved to be BP's ( The Robe, Cleopatra, Anne of The Thousand Days) Burton is in classics Woolf / Becket that also had BP nods but he never had the work ethic of Olivier to transcend his career and have it equal his personal acclaim. Burton is an actor who quite easily could have had a lot more nominations (he had 7) if he had a different kind of discipline. He's greater than his filmography and his filmography holds him down in how highly he's held - although, again he's great of course. He's also one of the main ones held back by comedy across his filmography - he could be funny, but doesn't have it as a strand in his filmography that's clearly visible - like Duvall / Washington / DDL (arguably) / Ullman / Clift / Brando (arguably) / Hopkins etc. American people loves the 70s cinema, in fact most of people loves. And I have to admit that there were great films for certain stars like Dustin, the Roberts or Alfredo.- But was a terrible decade for most of actors specially for old Classic Hollywood, most get retired, or work in horrible eurotrash films. Richard Burton, was too young for survive the decade, but too old to make an impact. But isn't only Burton choice, is that the films industry that make him famous in decadence, and he try to do new things, but unfortunately failed. like for example Bluebeard. We can forgive him of doing that, because were at least was a risky intent.- Worst luck had Tony Curtis who made Aaron Spelling miniseries or softporn flicks like Casanova and company. OK. Curtis was never in the same Richard Burton level.- But still the seventies in films sucks!!!
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Aug 3, 2022 17:59:22 GMT
I'm not the biggest Depp fan here but he definitely has some "classics." A Nightmare on Elm Street is in the National Film Registry and is one of the best of the slasher films, .......Johnny Depp is in A Nightmare on Elm Street (and dies great in it) but his contribution to a classic - and that movie is certainly that - is neglible to what actually makes it a classic. I mean technically you're right, but also it's right to say he doesn't have a lot of classics due to him........it's the Jesse Plemons Thing - he's in a ton of BP nominees......... but not a ton that were BP nominees because of Jesse Plemons really etc.....
|
|
|
Post by urbanpatrician on Aug 3, 2022 18:16:50 GMT
Yeah, I like the explanation of the 70s destroying all the classic Hollywood actors. You can name maybe 2 or 3 old Hollywood actors that managed to survive the 70s. Marlon Brando, who in all honesty, was an idol to all the New Hollywood directors. Robert Altman might've even cast him, but Coppola obviously got him the right role. Olivier survived the 70s somewhat, but his followers base was huge (probably huger than Burton's), and he funded and directed projects himself. It seems like once those classic epics declined, so did Burton's career. O'Toole managed to carve a pretty good career in the 70s and 80s as well, but maybe he was seen as a fine British thespian rather than an Old Hollywood actor. He's not the type that goes down as his projects do. He can always give a great performance even in a movie nobody saw. You can also say Burt Lancaster and Charlton Heston, but they took advantage of those adventure/swashbuckling/genre/action films that were on the rise. Which Burton didn't do much of.... he just stuck to the epics and Shakespeare stuff. Or maybe all the movies he chose just ended up being bad. And as pacinoyes says, with Nightmare on Elm Street........... I see Craven, a young Langenkamp, and Freddy Krueger not Johnny Depp.
|
|
|
Post by hugobolso on Aug 3, 2022 18:44:53 GMT
Yeah, I like the explanation of the 70s destroying all the classic Hollywood actors. You can name maybe 2 or 3 old Hollywood actors that managed to survive the 70s. Marlon Brando, who in all honesty, was an idol to all the New Hollywood directors. Robert Altman might've even cast him, but Coppola obviously got him the right role. Olivier survived the 70s somewhat, but his followers base was huge (probably huger than Burton's), and he funded and directed projects himself. It seems like once those classic epics declined, so did Burton's career. O'Toole managed to carve a pretty good career in the 70s and 80s as well, but maybe he was seen as a fine British thespian rather than an Old Hollywood actor. He's not the type that goes down as his projects do. He can always give a great performance even in a movie nobody saw. You can also say Burt Lancaster and Charlton Heston, but they took advantage of those adventure/swashbuckling/genre/action films that were on the rise. Which Burton didn't do much of.... he just stuck to the epics and Shakespeare stuff. Or maybe all the movies he chose just ended up being bad. And as pacinoyes says, with Nightmare on Elm Street........... I see Craven, a young Langenkamp, and Freddy Krueger not Johnny Depp. And even Brando and Olivier, their 70s career were mixed, and I'm indulgent. The same of Peter O'Toole. Most of the actors of classic Hollywood and even O'Toole whose stardom starts in the 60s ended their careers doing biblical films.-
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Aug 3, 2022 19:33:08 GMT
Yeah, I like the explanation of the 70s destroying all the classic Hollywood actors. You can name maybe 2 or 3 old Hollywood actors that managed to survive the 70s. Marlon Brando, who in all honesty, was an idol to all the New Hollywood directors. Robert Altman might've even cast him, but Coppola obviously got him the right role. I've said this before - but Brando got so incredibly lucky it's unreal.........because not only did all the 70s kids idolize him - he had no obstacles in his way - he no longer had Clift, Dean, Bogart, Douglas, Holden, Steiger or even Lancaster as real American rivals to him by then. We talk about this in the Tennis threads (it's ok, nobody ever reads 'em) - but the greatest tennis players beat the people in their generation and subsequent to it ......and Brando is the linchpin between 2 generations like that: He acts opposite the new generation of actors who idolized him and he's as good as them in 72 / 73.......even later opposite Nicholson in 76 or his Emmy role opposite James Earl Jones in 79 he at least holds his own........and in Last Tango especially it's "like" he's a new actor not like he's Stanley Kowalski or Terry Molloy - he curses! .........he fncks, repeatedly!.......up against walls!......... and he finds creative uses for butter........ William Holden has The Wild Bunch and it's a classic but you could always picture him in that role......it's the fact that Brando got to emerge twice with his reputation and without it - that's so major to his myth, filmography and stature ........it's also why he stopped and sort of lost his way later too............because every great actor needs a great rival to challenge him........or else things / they go off the rails..........
|
|
SZilla
Badass
Posts: 1,464
Likes: 996
|
Post by SZilla on Aug 3, 2022 20:25:31 GMT
I'm not the biggest Depp fan here but he definitely has some "classics." A Nightmare on Elm Street is in the National Film Registry and is one of the best of the slasher films, .......Johnny Depp is in A Nightmare on Elm Street (and dies great in it) but his contribution to a classic - and that movie is certainly that - is neglible to what actually makes it a classic. I mean technically you're right, but also it's right to say he doesn't have a lot of classics due to him........it's the Jesse Plemons Thing - he's in a ton of BP nominees......... but not a ton that were BP nominees because of Jesse Plemons really etc..... Hey now, Depp getting sucked into the bed is maybe the best death scene in the movie but to be fair, that didn't need to be Depp, so I see where you're coming from. Same can be said for his involvement with Platoon too, I suppose. Still, the other two I mentioned are in large part due to him, and I'd add Fear and Loathing as a cult classic (and in large part due to him and Del Toro) as well. But with that definition, I think a better one would be Matt Damon, who's in some bonafide classics like Saving Private Ryan or The Departed (he's an extra in Field of Dreams) but he's not an actor that jumps off to me as irreplaceable in those roles. He is absolutely essential to Good Will Hunting though. But after that? I don't know. He's in a lot of movies I like and he's good in them but I don't know if I'd call them a classic.
|
|
|
Post by urbanpatrician on Aug 3, 2022 21:31:37 GMT
Yeah, I like the explanation of the 70s destroying all the classic Hollywood actors. You can name maybe 2 or 3 old Hollywood actors that managed to survive the 70s. Marlon Brando, who in all honesty, was an idol to all the New Hollywood directors. Robert Altman might've even cast him, but Coppola obviously got him the right role. I've said this before - but Brando got so incredibly lucky it's unreal.........because not only did all the 70s kids idolize him - he had no obstacles in his way - he no longer had Clift, Dean, Bogart, Douglas, Holden, Steiger or even Lancaster as real American rivals to him by then. We talk about this in the Tennis threads (it's ok, nobody ever reads 'em) - but the greatest tennis players beat the people in their generation and subsequent to it ......and Brando is the linchpin between 2 generations like that: He acts opposite the new generation of actors who idolized him and he's as good as them in 72 / 73.......even later opposite Nicholson in 76 or his Emmy role opposite James Earl Jones in 79 he at least holds his own........and in Last Tango especially it's "like" he's a new actor not like he's Stanley Kowalski or Terry Molloy - he curses! .........he fncks, repeatedly!.......up against walls!......... and he finds creative uses for butter........ William Holden has The Wild Bunch and it's a classic but you could always picture him in that role......it's the fact that Brando got to emerge twice with his reputation and without it - that's so major to his myth, filmography and stature ........it's also why he stopped and sort of lost his way later too............because every great actor needs a great rival to challenge him........or else things / they go off the rails.......... I think a large part of Brando's legacy rested on the fact that he was annointed early. In 1951, him and Clift were in many ways like the 30 years old version of Streep and Lange in 1982. Both annointed early, both seen as direct peers, one eventually became bigger than the other. When Brando was being praised for a medium transcending performance in A Streetcar Named Desire, that type of initial praise just latched onto him all through the 60s. He was annointed early in his career. Brando's acting style just doesn't work on classic Hollywood films, all of his flops from On the Waterfront till The Godfather says all. He was considered the first modern actor, and true to form.... the next time his style actually worked was in The Godfather. Based on those two initial perceptions is exactly why he eventually garnered the reputation he did. To put simply, Brando belonged in the 70s. He's a 70s actor. Of course he can battle with Pacino and DeNiro. That's his DNA. But he was definitely lucky as hell The Godfather came along. Coppola really did save him. I mean, The Godfather becoming so big, the fact that there were not many available actors around that could've played Vito, and as you say.... the decline of Old Hollywood actors made Brando's 2nd rise possible. But ultimately, I think Hollywood was ready to make him a Top 5 actor from the start. He captivated lots of people from 1951-1954, the industry was gonna find some way for him to succeed. Definitely lucky The Godfather came along. His career was dying, but I think lots of actors encounter some type of luck along the way. But 100% the reason Coppola wanted Brando and no one else for The Godfather is because Coppola was part of the cinephile group who idolized Brando in the 50s and 60s. That type of unique distinction was garnered a rare selection of actors, and for instance.... I don't think William Holden was ever seen as distinct despite being a solid, respected actor in the business who gets first billing on pretty much all his projects.
|
|
|
Post by Pavan on Aug 4, 2022 13:54:09 GMT
Christian Bale.
Often pitted against the likes of DiCaprio but his filmography is nowhere to Leo.
|
|
|
Post by The_Cake_of_Roth on Aug 4, 2022 19:50:30 GMT
Christian Bale. Often pitted against the likes of DiCaprio but his filmography is nowhere to Leo. I think Bale's filmography is pretty solid... more than that actually. I haven't seen everything he's in, but of the ones I've watched, these are the ones I'd give a thumbs up to. I'd say about 10 of them range from very good to great: Empire of the Sun American Psycho The Machinist The New World Batman Begins TDK TDKR The Prestige Rescue Dawn 3:10 to Yuma I'm Not There Public Enemies The Fighter The Big Short Ford v Ferrari This might be an unpopular opinion, but I actually prefer his filmography to Leo, who doesn't even have 10 movies I can say I "like." And he only has around 5 movies I'd call either very good or great - Catch Me if You Can, The Aviator, The Departed, Inception, and Wolf of Wall St. Some of his big ones I don't particularly care for (Titanic, Django, The Revenant, OUATIH).
|
|
|
Post by Mattsby on Aug 4, 2022 22:39:27 GMT
Still the best cactor with the most awful filmography is and by faaar Klaus Kinski. His ego ruined most of his films, including Nosferatu in Venice.- There's many awful movies but....... he's in a lot of great ones too? He's in like a dozen krimi films that predate the giallo, he's in a lot of top notch spaghetti Westerns (The Great Silence, For a Few Dollars More, A Bullet for the General, The Ruthless Four), he's in Doctor Zhivago (!!!), and five great Herzog's, one of the most notorious actor-director pairings ever. Some of those cheap horrors have some cult following too. What this brings up for me...... How much does the bad work blemish a filmography? Can we forget 'em and hold up the good films and say "well, look at these!" If a lot of bad movies define a bad filmography, then Eric Roberts might be this thread's godhead. Or it's preference. I've said before I much, much prefer a filmography that looks like Donald Pleasence's than DDL's. Tldr: I think we can forgive any number of bad movies if there's a lot of standout, quality work too.
|
|
|
Post by The_Cake_of_Roth on Aug 4, 2022 23:02:51 GMT
Still the best cactor with the most awful filmography is and by faaar Klaus Kinski. His ego ruined most of his films, including Nosferatu in Venice.- There's many awful movies but....... he's in a lot of great ones too? He's in like a dozen krimi films that predate the giallo, he's in a lot of top notch spaghetti Westerns (The Great Silence, For a Few Dollars More, A Bullet for the General, The Ruthless Four), he's in Doctor Zhivago (!!!), and five great Herzog's, one of the most notorious actor-director pairings ever. Some of those cheap horrors have some cult following too. It's a very small part, but I also loved seeing him in A Time to Love and a Time to Die, which I watched recently (Sirk's best film imo).
|
|
|
Post by futuretrunks on Aug 5, 2022 3:28:23 GMT
Bale has a good filmography, it's just very bipolar. His taste is wonky, so it seems like he just chooses shit at random. It's definitely not as good as Leo's though. Leo doesn't do movies like The Promise or Flowers of War. You can't omit that stuff.
|
|