|
|
Post by futuretrunks on Jan 22, 2024 4:34:41 GMT
How do you account for his career? Two Oscar wins, the second utterly ridiculous, and can scarcely do a good turn in another movie. Does it really boil down to his weird line readings convincing people he was some great interpreter of dialogue?
|
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Jan 22, 2024 7:32:39 GMT
The acting in Carnage is great by all 4 thesps.....although that was a play and I would like to have seen the 2 male lead parts played by Wiliam Shatner and Patrick Stewart ........ made myself laugh.......  |
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Jan 22, 2024 12:25:11 GMT
I mean, he was undeniable the first time, and only a few years later he happened to have the stars perfectly align by having a (great) leading performance competing against performances with briefer screentime, all delivered by prior winners. Waltz's closest competitor that year, Tommy Lee Jones, seemed actively grouchy and skipped a few key functions, whereas Waltz was working the circuit charming everyone.
Honestly, I think he's had a pretty good career post-Basterds, and while I do think he's been easily typecast as charming, devilish sorts, he's one of the best at it. He's had a few duds but mostly, I've liked him in most of the things I've seen him in.
|
|
Nikan
Based
Posts: 3,173 
Likes: 1,573
|
Post by Nikan on Jan 22, 2024 12:55:18 GMT
I mean, he was undeniable the first time, and only a few years later he happened to have the stars perfectly align by having a (great) leading performance competing against performances with briefer screentime, all delivered by prior winners. Waltz's closest competitor that year, Tommy Lee Jones, seemed actively grouchy and skipped a few key functions, whereas Waltz was working the circuit charming everyone. Honestly, I think he's had a pretty good career post- Basterds, and while I do think he's been easily typecast as charming, devilish sorts, he's one of the best at it. He's had a few duds but mostly, I've liked him in most of the things I've seen him in. What are your (and the board's) thoughts on his directional output Georgetown? and I really wish we'd got this in another timeline... |
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Jan 22, 2024 13:05:02 GMT
I mean, he was undeniable the first time, and only a few years later he happened to have the stars perfectly align by having a (great) leading performance competing against performances with briefer screentime, all delivered by prior winners. Waltz's closest competitor that year, Tommy Lee Jones, seemed actively grouchy and skipped a few key functions, whereas Waltz was working the circuit charming everyone. Honestly, I think he's had a pretty good career post- Basterds, and while I do think he's been easily typecast as charming, devilish sorts, he's one of the best at it. He's had a few duds but mostly, I've liked him in most of the things I've seen him in. What are your (and the board's) thoughts on his directional output Georgetown? and I really wish we'd got this in another timeline... I didn't see Georgetown so I can't speak on it. Djesus Uncrossed should've netted him a third Oscar. |
|
|
|
Post by finniussnrub on Jan 22, 2024 13:13:59 GMT
He's pretty much had the same fate as every continental European actor who has had any major career in Hollywood, which is being typecast as the villain the majority of the time, regardless of their actual talent. I mean look Mads Mikkelsen, who gives such a variety of dynamic performances in Denmark but is forced to play variations of Snidely Whiplash in the US. Waltz has frankly done a bit better than some, but Hollywood sadly lacks imagination.
Side Note: He's underrated in The Zero Theorem, which is one of the examples where he actually was able to not play a lesser variation of Hans Landa.
|
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Jan 22, 2024 13:24:55 GMT
I mean, he was undeniable the first time, and only a few years later he happened to have the stars perfectly align by having a (great) leading performance competing against performances with briefer screentime, all delivered by prior winners. Waltz's closest competitor that year, Tommy Lee Jones, seemed actively grouchy and skipped a few key functions, whereas Waltz was working the circuit charming everyone. Honestly, I think he's had a pretty good career post- Basterds, and while I do think he's been easily typecast as charming, devilish sorts, he's one of the best at it. He's had a few duds but mostly, I've liked him in most of the things I've seen him in. I think it just feels egregious that he was nominated and won for Django, when that should have been Samuel L Jackson's Oscar, hands down. And even DiCaprio would have been a stronger win. And they were in his movie. It was a good performance, but it's one of the most unnecessary Oscar wins ever, especially since he already had one. He's a perfectly ok, somewhat typed character actor, but I don't think he's shown himself to be one of elite film actors outside of his Tarantino films. I do think the Academy will nominate him again the second he gives a performance worth nominating, because they won't want to concede that maybe he wasn't at the level to be giving two Oscars to, so a 3rd nod will make them feel better about making him a two-timer. So he'll get chances to deliver something Oscar calibre again. He may have to call up Quentin though. |
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Jan 22, 2024 13:30:01 GMT
I mean, he was undeniable the first time, and only a few years later he happened to have the stars perfectly align by having a (great) leading performance competing against performances with briefer screentime, all delivered by prior winners. Waltz's closest competitor that year, Tommy Lee Jones, seemed actively grouchy and skipped a few key functions, whereas Waltz was working the circuit charming everyone. Honestly, I think he's had a pretty good career post- Basterds, and while I do think he's been easily typecast as charming, devilish sorts, he's one of the best at it. He's had a few duds but mostly, I've liked him in most of the things I've seen him in. I think it just feels egregious that he was nominated and won for Django, when that should have been Samuel L Jackson's Oscar, hands down. And even DiCaprio would have been a stronger win. It was a good performance, but it's one of the most unnecessary Oscar wins ever, especially since he already had one. I don't think he's shown himself to be an elite film actor outside of his Tarantino films. I do think the Academy will nominate him again the second he gives a performance worth nominating, because they won't want to concede that maybe he wasn't at the level to be giving two Oscars to. So he'll get chances to deliver something Oscar calibre again. He may have to call up Quentin though. I mean, I think it's egregious only in that he was a leading performance in that movie and he won in Supporting, but he and the similarly leading Philip Seymour Hoffman were far ahead of the other nominees that year that it's not even a discussion. Yes, I would've loved to see Jackson win an Oscar for that role, but I do think Waltz was the film's MVP, but he also had the advantage of a huge amount of screentime and the choicest dialogue and best scenes. Jackson salvages the film when it goes off the rails, but I still think Waltz clears him overall. Still, in a perfect world they wouldn't have been competing for the same slot (and Jackson and the similarly great Don Johnson are both much better than DiCaprio). I think Waltz has shown he is a great actor (and I think there is a great deal of range between his two Oscar-winning roles that I bridle at anyone saying he won for the same role twice), but the trouble is that he pigeonholed himself right out of the gate. You cast Waltz to play a charming Euro baddie, or a charming Euro elitist. No one's really casting him in roles outside of that, but I do think he'd be capable enough in just about any sort of role. He's closer to a Maximilian Schell or a Peter Ustinov type, someone who would've thrived majorly in the '50s and '60s in a certain mode. In short, get this man a heist movie. |
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Jan 22, 2024 13:40:27 GMT
I think it just feels egregious that he was nominated and won for Django, when that should have been Samuel L Jackson's Oscar, hands down. And even DiCaprio would have been a stronger win. It was a good performance, but it's one of the most unnecessary Oscar wins ever, especially since he already had one. I don't think he's shown himself to be an elite film actor outside of his Tarantino films. I do think the Academy will nominate him again the second he gives a performance worth nominating, because they won't want to concede that maybe he wasn't at the level to be giving two Oscars to. So he'll get chances to deliver something Oscar calibre again. He may have to call up Quentin though. I mean, I think it's egregious only in that he was a leading performance in that movie and he won in Supporting, but he and the similarly leading Philip Seymour Hoffman were far ahead of the other nominees that year that it's not even a discussion. Yes, I would've loved to see Jackson win an Oscar for that role, but I do think Waltz was the film's MVP, but he also had the advantage of a huge amount of screentime and the choicest dialogue and best scenes. Jackson salvages the film when it goes off the rails, but I still think Waltz clears him overall. Still, in a perfect world they wouldn't have been competing for the same slot (and Jackson and the similarly great Don Johnson are both much better than DiCaprio). I think Waltz has shown he is a great actor (and I think there is a great deal of range between his two Oscar-winning roles that I bridle at anyone saying he won for the same role twice), but the trouble is that he pigeonholed himself right out of the gate. You cast Waltz to play a charming Euro baddie, or a charming Euro elitist. No one's really casting him in roles outside of that, but I do think he'd be capable enough in just about any sort of role. He's closer to a Maximilian Schell or a Peter Ustinov type, someone who would've thrived majorly in the '50s and '60s in a certain mode. In short, get this man a heist movie. Nah, gotta disagree ( on the MVP bit). Waltz was not the film's MVP. He was fine. Did his job. Didn't need an award for it. Jackson was way better, way more memorable and far more iconic. So was DiCaprio.Look at the pop culture footprint of Django. Outside of some shots of Foxx looking cool and whipping some dude in his Blue musketeer suit, most of the memorable images, quotes, iconography and memes centre around Jackson and DiCaprio. Waltz is a footnote in comparison. Because they are way more memorable than him. |
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Jan 22, 2024 14:21:15 GMT
I'm always amused by Django on MAR - not that people can't like who they like - but rather recontetualizing what happened with that (overrated) movie: I wouldn't call Don Johnson "great" myself, and SLJ won 2 (quite minor) precursors NAACP and Black Reel so he wasn't getting in anyway.......SLJ is also that "best part of the worst part of the movie (ie the 3rd act)" - that is awfully tough to get a nod for ....he could have got a nod.......he could have won.......but the arc of the movie would have to be different for that to happen I reckon -.........and a Globe and Bafta went a long way back in those days ......I am pretty sure you can actually feel TLJ's heart break in two at the BAFTA announcement  |
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Jan 22, 2024 14:26:41 GMT
I mean, I think it's egregious only in that he was a leading performance in that movie and he won in Supporting, but he and the similarly leading Philip Seymour Hoffman were far ahead of the other nominees that year that it's not even a discussion. Yes, I would've loved to see Jackson win an Oscar for that role, but I do think Waltz was the film's MVP, but he also had the advantage of a huge amount of screentime and the choicest dialogue and best scenes. Jackson salvages the film when it goes off the rails, but I still think Waltz clears him overall. Still, in a perfect world they wouldn't have been competing for the same slot (and Jackson and the similarly great Don Johnson are both much better than DiCaprio). I think Waltz has shown he is a great actor (and I think there is a great deal of range between his two Oscar-winning roles that I bridle at anyone saying he won for the same role twice), but the trouble is that he pigeonholed himself right out of the gate. You cast Waltz to play a charming Euro baddie, or a charming Euro elitist. No one's really casting him in roles outside of that, but I do think he'd be capable enough in just about any sort of role. He's closer to a Maximilian Schell or a Peter Ustinov type, someone who would've thrived majorly in the '50s and '60s in a certain mode. In short, get this man a heist movie. Nah, gotta disagree ( on the MVP bit). Waltz was not the film's MVP. He was fine. Did his job. Didn't need an award for it. Jackson was way better, way more memorable and far more iconic. So was DiCaprio.Look at the pop culture footprint of Django. Outside of some shots of Foxx looking cool and whipping some dude in his Blue musketeer suit, most of the memorable images, quotes, iconography and memes centre around Jackson and DiCaprio. Waltz is a footnote in comparison. Because they are way more memorable than him. Pop culture footprint meets fuck-all to me on what constitutes the best performance of a film. Also, there's plenty of Schultz memes out there. |
|
|
|
Post by Pittsnogle_Goggins on Jan 22, 2024 15:32:44 GMT
As someone who thought that SLJ gave the best performance in Django Unchained, I think that’s a pretty minority perspective. But still think Supporting Actor should have gone to Leo over Waltz at a minimum.
|
|
Pasquale
Full Member
Posts: 539
Likes: 227
|
Post by Pasquale on Jan 22, 2024 17:05:39 GMT
pupdurcs Jackson in The Hateful Eight or Django Unchained?
|
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Jan 22, 2024 20:57:57 GMT
pupdurcs Jackson in The Hateful Eight or Django Unchained? |
|
|
|
Post by therealcomicman117 on Jan 22, 2024 21:15:46 GMT
The problem with Waltz is that while he's a fine actor, he's also a performer who because of his heavy accent needs to be directed well in English language performances. It makes sense that he'd be cast as villains, because well you know Evil Foreign vibes and all, but one I think filmmakers forget about him, is that he can be really funny too. Say what you will about Downsizing for example, but I thought he was a hoot in that film. Let him off the leash too much though, and you get the sequence where he burns down the house in Big Eyes.
I also find his English language career fascinating, because his first English project was a UK mini-series called The Gravy Train in 1990, and he tried breaking into America to no avail. Tarantino basically rediscovered him for Inglourious Basterds.
|
|
