|
Post by HELENA MARIA on Mar 20, 2018 13:43:51 GMT
Better performance ?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 20, 2018 13:46:25 GMT
Casey by far
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Mar 20, 2018 13:49:43 GMT
Washington by far.
|
|
|
Post by thomasjerome on Mar 20, 2018 14:32:43 GMT
Affleck by far
|
|
|
Post by mhynson27 on Mar 20, 2018 14:38:10 GMT
Ben Affleck's brother by far.
|
|
|
Post by Martin Stett on Mar 20, 2018 14:38:44 GMT
Affleck is my man... but Manchester may be his weakest performance. Washington was the best of the nominees.
|
|
|
Post by JangoB on Mar 20, 2018 14:40:37 GMT
Denzel by not that far. Affleck's also great.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 20, 2018 14:47:16 GMT
As good as Washington was I've got to go with Affleck.
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Mar 20, 2018 14:55:48 GMT
Washington by the power of infinity. How on earth a performance as "ok" as Affleck's got hyped like it was some DeNiro in Raging Bull level achievement will forever remain a mystery. Affleck was/is an actor with limited range acting like a moody depressed teenager that perfectly accentuates exactly that limited range. I can immediately think of a dozen actors who could have been directed to that performance, and maybe better. Yes, it was a sad story, and fine, give the guy a nomination, but critics went insane on that performance. Washington's been robbed a couple of times, but this one felt almost as bad as Malcolm X.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Mar 20, 2018 14:58:33 GMT
Washington by the power of infinity. How on earth a performance as "ok" as Affleck's got hyped like it was some DeNiro in Raging Bull level achievement will forever remain a mystery. Affleck was/is actor with limited range acting like a moody depressed teenager that perfectly accentuates exactly that limited range. Yes, it was a sad story, and fine, give the guy a nomination, but critics went insane on that performance. Washington's been robbed a couple of times, but this one felt almost as bad as Malcolm X.When do you feel he has been robbed, out of curiosity? I can see the argument for Malcolm X (I myself opt for Downey, Jr. and Eastwood, but really, any of the other four guys would've been sublime winners), but I can't really see another year save for Fences where I thought that Washington lost out to a truly lesser work to the point that it can be called a robbery.
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Mar 20, 2018 15:08:18 GMT
Washington by the power of infinity. How on earth a performance as "ok" as Affleck's got hyped like it was some DeNiro in Raging Bull level achievement will forever remain a mystery. Affleck was/is actor with limited range acting like a moody depressed teenager that perfectly accentuates exactly that limited range. Yes, it was a sad story, and fine, give the guy a nomination, but critics went insane on that performance. Washington's been robbed a couple of times, but this one felt almost as bad as Malcolm X.When do you feel he has been robbed, out of curiosity? I can see the argument for Malcolm X (I myself opt for Downey, Jr. and Eastwood, but really, any of the other four guys would've been sublime winners), but I can't really see another year save for Fences where I thought that Washington lost out to a truly lesser work to the point that it can be called a robbery. I thought Steve Biko in Cry Freedom was one of his most transformative performances, and he really should have won supporting actor for that (I'm sure his loss there, helped him win supporting actor with Glory 2 years later). I get it. It was his first nomination and he was new to the game. Odds were not with him. He lost out to Sean Connery for The Untouchables, as an Irish Cop with a Scottish accent. Love Connery, great movie star. But that was a career capper win. Didn't matter who had the technically strongest performance that year, which was Washington, imho. It was Connery's time to win. But that's how the Oscars often works.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Mar 20, 2018 15:11:27 GMT
When do you feel he has been robbed, out of curiosity? I can see the argument for Malcolm X (I myself opt for Downey, Jr. and Eastwood, but really, any of the other four guys would've been sublime winners), but I can't really see another year save for Fences where I thought that Washington lost out to a truly lesser work to the point that it can be called a robbery. I thought Steve Biko in Cry Freedom was one of his most transformative performances, and he really should have won supporting actor for that (I'm sure his loss there, helped him win supporting actor with Glory 2 years later). I get it. It was his first nomination and he was new to the game. Odds were not with him. He lost out to Sean Connery for The Untouchables, as an Irish Cop with a Scottish accent. Love Connery, great movie star. But that was a career capper win. Didn't matter who had the technically strongest performance that year, which was Washington, imho. I personally would pick Morgan Freeman in Street Smart that year out of the nominees, but yeah, Washington's very strong in that film and until fairly recently, it was my favorite nominated Denzel performance (in the last few years, I revisited Malcolm X and he grew substantially there, and I'm quite big on his last two nominations). And yeah, Connery's win doesn't age well at all; I would personally be delighted if they had swapped wins and Washington won in '87 and Connery in '89 for Last Crusade. Of course, if we're talking who was really robbed in 1987, Peter O'Toole getting snubbed of a nomination for The Last Emperor is one of the most baffling things ever. Perfect time for a "career-capper", as you call it, and he was actually quite good with what he was given, and it would make sense, given the film's overall juggernaut sweep.
|
|
|
Post by Tommen_Saperstein on Mar 20, 2018 15:44:51 GMT
Washington was very good, Affleck was legendary
|
|
|
Post by HELENA MARIA on Mar 20, 2018 15:55:30 GMT
I thought Steve Biko in Cry Freedom was one of his most transformative performances, and he really should have won supporting actor for that (I'm sure his loss there, helped him win supporting actor with Glory 2 years later). I get it. It was his first nomination and he was new to the game. Odds were not with him. He lost out to Sean Connery for The Untouchables, as an Irish Cop with a Scottish accent. Love Connery, great movie star. But that was a career capper win. Didn't matter who had the technically strongest performance that year, which was Washington, imho. I personally would pick Morgan Freeman in Street Smart that year out of the nominees, but yeah, Washington's very strong in that film and until fairly recently, it was my favorite nominated Denzel performance (in the last few years, I revisited Malcolm X and he grew substantially there, and I'm quite big on his last two nominations). And yeah, Connery's win doesn't age well at all; I would personally be delighted if they had swapped wins and Washington won in '87 and Connery in '89 for Last Crusade. Of course, if we're talking who was really robbed in 1987, Peter O'Toole getting snubbed of a nomination for The Last Emperor is one of the most baffling things ever. Perfect time for a "career-capper", as you call it, and he was actually quite good with what he was given, and it would make sense, given the film's overall juggernaut sweep.
|
|
|
Post by FrancescoAbides on Mar 20, 2018 16:10:08 GMT
Affleck. Damn if you don't feel that aura of depression above him, it's great work. I'm not a big fan of the film, but he was great playing a depressed and sad Casey Affleck.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Mar 20, 2018 16:37:25 GMT
Both were great, Affleck is greater. His performance is roundly misunderstood by people thinking he's playing a guy "dead on the inside" or some BS like that when instead it's the opposite - he's achingly and specifically alive in the most horrifying of ways - everything reminds him of that event, and everything is an attempt to process it or blunt its impact.
If I was ranking the best performances of this whole decade Affleck would be 5th, Washington 6th........behind in no order Bardem (Biutiful), DDL (Phantom Thread), Phoenix and PSH (The Master).....they are that close.
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Mar 20, 2018 16:46:47 GMT
I feel like if this poll was on Twitter or any other social media, Washington would have about 97% of the vote. And not just because SJW's dislike Affleck either. Always found it curious how IMDB oscar buzz (and by extension this forum) were always so completely out of step with how almost the rest of the world and his peers felt about Washington and his work. I always expect him to lose polls here, but so many other places, he destroys everyone.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Mar 20, 2018 16:51:16 GMT
I feel like if this poll was on Twitter or any other social media, Washington would have about 97% of the vote. And not just because SJW's dislike Affleck either. Always found it curious how IMDB oscar buzz (and by extension this forum) were always so completely out of step with how almost the rest of the world and his peers felt about Washington and his work. I always expect him to lose polls here, but so many other places, he destroys everyone. We really can't use Twitter as a reliable metric, though. Washington's a far more popular actor in general than Affleck, who most people still know as Ben's baby brother (and who probably judge him as a creeper, so they would feel better voting for Denzel in general). I find polls like those to be a bit disingenuous in that regard; I much prefer it when people give their reasonings behind their choices and can do so without the character-limit barrier or, God forbid, a meme. As for Washington and how he's viewed on forums such as this, I think what he has to struggle to overcome is that he generally doesn't do films people like outside of him. Roman J. Israel, Esq. is a huge case in point; so many people didn't even bother to see it after it got roundly panned, and people thought that Washington's nomination was a case of Fences afterglow and general love for the man. Those that did bother to actually watch it actually liked him a fair amount. But you won't find many defenders of the actual movie. That's kind of par for the course with Denzel, and we've talked about that in the past: he'll get love, but if it were anyone else in that movie, it wouldn't even be a blip on the radar.
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Mar 20, 2018 17:20:50 GMT
I feel like if this poll was on Twitter or any other social media, Washington would have about 97% of the vote. And not just because SJW's dislike Affleck either. Always found it curious how IMDB oscar buzz (and by extension this forum) were always so completely out of step with how almost the rest of the world and his peers felt about Washington and his work. I always expect him to lose polls here, but so many other places, he destroys everyone. We really can't use Twitter as a reliable metric, though. Washington's a far more popular actor in general than Affleck, who most people still know as Ben's baby brother (and who probably judge him as a creeper, so they would feel better voting for Denzel in general). I find polls like those to be a bit disingenuous in that regard; I much prefer it when people give their reasonings behind their choices and can do so without the character-limit barrier or, God forbid, a meme. As for Washington and how he's viewed on forums such as this, I think what he has to struggle to overcome is that he generally doesn't do films people like outside of him. Roman J. Israel, Esq. is a huge case in point; so many people didn't even bother to see it after it got roundly panned, and people thought that Washington's nomination was a case of Fences afterglow and general love for the man. Those that did bother to actually watch it actually liked him a fair amount. But you won't find many defenders of the actual movie. That's kind of par for the course with Denzel, and we've talked about that in the past: he'll get love, but if it were anyone else in that movie, it wouldn't even be a blip on the radar. I wouldn't call polls here a reliable metric either. They are fun and I partake, but it's ultimately just a circle jerk of a minority subset of fans with similar tastes and biases. Washington is popular, but he's never been the most popular, if you know what I mean. He's never had peak level box office power like Hanks, Dicaprio, Depp etc. His popularity explains some of how he wins these things, but not all. I think in the "real world" as it were, he's considered by the majority to be the greatest (male) actor, and it's probably been that way for a long time. I think even I, as a massive supporter, used to underrate his filmography. But the more I look on it, I think it's kind of amazing. It's endlessly watchable, and works on several different thematic levels. Denzel really is his own auteur. I compare him to George Clooney (a lesser actor, but almost as charasmatic a movie star) who built up a filmography that was oversaturated with it's own sense of importance (to it's detriment. I feel like Clooney is the more prolific edition of Warren Beatty, and his relevance will fade with the passage of time). And even when he's doing "fun" stuff, it often feels condescending (like the Oceans Movies, where Clooney is clearly thinking, "I'm doing this nonsense for the rubes in Idaho, so I can make The Good German). Denzel never, ever condescended to his audience or acted like the "fun" stuff was beneath him. Which is why something like Inside Man to me, is far superior to any of the Oceans films, despite ostensibly being the same "type" of picture.
|
|
|
Post by wallsofjericho on Mar 20, 2018 17:28:39 GMT
Denzel. His performance has held up much better for me.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Mar 20, 2018 17:44:35 GMT
We really can't use Twitter as a reliable metric, though. Washington's a far more popular actor in general than Affleck, who most people still know as Ben's baby brother (and who probably judge him as a creeper, so they would feel better voting for Denzel in general). I find polls like those to be a bit disingenuous in that regard; I much prefer it when people give their reasonings behind their choices and can do so without the character-limit barrier or, God forbid, a meme. As for Washington and how he's viewed on forums such as this, I think what he has to struggle to overcome is that he generally doesn't do films people like outside of him. Roman J. Israel, Esq. is a huge case in point; so many people didn't even bother to see it after it got roundly panned, and people thought that Washington's nomination was a case of Fences afterglow and general love for the man. Those that did bother to actually watch it actually liked him a fair amount. But you won't find many defenders of the actual movie. That's kind of par for the course with Denzel, and we've talked about that in the past: he'll get love, but if it were anyone else in that movie, it wouldn't even be a blip on the radar. I wouldn't call polls here a reliable metric either. They are fun and I partake, but it's ultimately just a circle jerk of a minority subset of fans with similar tastes and biases. Washington is popular, but he's never been the most popular, if you know what I mean. He's never had peak level box office power like Hanks, Dicaprio, Depp etc. His popularity explains some of how he wins these things, but not all. I think in the "real world" as it were, he's considered by the majority to be the greatest (male) actor, and it's probably been that way for a long time. I think even I, as a massive supporter, used to underrate his filmography. But the more I look on it, I think it's kind of amazing. It's endlessly watchable, and works on several different thematic levels. Denzel really is his own auteur. I compare him to George Clooney (a lesser actor, but almost as charasmatic a movie star) who built up a filmography that was oversaturated with it's own sense of importance (to it's detriment. I feel like Clooney is the more prolific edition of Warren Beatty, and his relevance will fade with the passage of time). And even when he's doing "fun" stuff, it often feels condescending (like the Oceans Movies, where Clooney is clearly thinking, "I'm doing this nonsense for the rubes in Idaho, so I can make The Good German). Denzel never, ever condescended to his audience or acted like the "fun" stuff was beneath him. Which is why something like Inside Man to me, is far superior to any of the Oceans films, despite ostensibly being the same "type" of picture. Well, I don't think that any poll is going to be a wholly reliable metric for anything other than what a certain subset of people who have access to it have to say. They can be fun to take part in, I agree, but they really don't matter much because it is entirely subjective. I would argue that Washington is very much one of the "most popular" actors out there. Hanks and DiCaprio probably have the edge on him overall, because unlike Washington, they actually have strong filmographies filled with classics and box-office successes. Washington does strong business on his own name (and I'd argue in terms of consistency, he's second only to DiCaprio in that regard, and those guys are a dying breed), but they generally target a certain demographic of moviegoer. Someone who might see Bridge of Spies or The Revenant may not be as keen to see The Equalizer, let's say. Washington rarely makes "awards bait"; if he gets nominated, it's largely because he gave a performance in a film that might otherwise not have gotten recognized at all because they liked him. No way Training Day gets in with its original castings of Gary Sinise (who would've been great to see), Tom Sizemore and Samuel L. Jackson. But because Washington is an extremely popular actor with beaucoup respect in and out of the industry, it became a contender. I don't hold the same regard for his overall filmography that you do. I think in terms of the way he's been able to maintain profile over the years and consistently crank out a variety of genres and not really have any flops is extraordinary; even Hanks hasn't been able to do that. But I don't see a whole lot of his movies becoming pop-culture mainstays once he's gone, especially when compared to his sheer output and longevity in the business. Malcolm X will endure, I'm sure. Training Day, probably, as it was one of the first "crooked-cop" stories to capitalize on the societal reaction to things like Rodney King and Rampart. Glory will probably be a high-school history class staple. Fences will be seen as one of the rare plays to successfully transition to film. But beyond that, what else? I know you swear by Man on Fire, but I don't see it rising to become a modern classic. I think that when people evaluate Washington himself, those works will obviously be there, and people will be able to discover them, but I don't see a whole lot of Denzel Washington movies making the grade when, say, AFI does their updated Top 100. But with that said, that doesn't make his filmography a bad one; he makes the movies he wants and people obviously like them enough to keep returning to the theaters to see them. Clooney's interesting. I think that he bought into his own hype and kind of squandered it of late. He's turned in some magnificent performances; I can't believe that the same guy who was in O Brother, Where Art Thou? was in The American; those two performances alone should put him in the conversation for one of the working greats (to say nothing of other strong works he's turned in over the years). The Beatty comparison's a good one, although I never liked Warren. I agree there is a sense of pompous self-importance with Clooney that kind of radiates from him (it even reached memetic levels when South Park skewered him for his Oscar speech), whereas Washington doesn't have that. People go to see Denzel because they relate to him, he doesn't feel like he's part of the Hollywood elite, and he doesn't make "message movies" the way that Clooney does. With that said, Clooney's catalogue hits much higher heights than Washington's, but I don't really hold that against Denzel. It's just the one thing about his career that sets him back: the lack of equal opportunity in receiving parts.
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Mar 20, 2018 18:51:14 GMT
I wouldn't call polls here a reliable metric either. They are fun and I partake, but it's ultimately just a circle jerk of a minority subset of fans with similar tastes and biases. Washington is popular, but he's never been the most popular, if you know what I mean. He's never had peak level box office power like Hanks, Dicaprio, Depp etc. His popularity explains some of how he wins these things, but not all. I think in the "real world" as it were, he's considered by the majority to be the greatest (male) actor, and it's probably been that way for a long time. I think even I, as a massive supporter, used to underrate his filmography. But the more I look on it, I think it's kind of amazing. It's endlessly watchable, and works on several different thematic levels. Denzel really is his own auteur. I compare him to George Clooney (a lesser actor, but almost as charasmatic a movie star) who built up a filmography that was oversaturated with it's own sense of importance (to it's detriment. I feel like Clooney is the more prolific edition of Warren Beatty, and his relevance will fade with the passage of time). And even when he's doing "fun" stuff, it often feels condescending (like the Oceans Movies, where Clooney is clearly thinking, "I'm doing this nonsense for the rubes in Idaho, so I can make The Good German). Denzel never, ever condescended to his audience or acted like the "fun" stuff was beneath him. Which is why something like Inside Man to me, is far superior to any of the Oceans films, despite ostensibly being the same "type" of picture. Well, I don't think that any poll is going to be a wholly reliable metric for anything other than what a certain subset of people who have access to it have to say. They can be fun to take part in, I agree, but they really don't matter much because it is entirely subjective. I would argue that Washington is very much one of the "most popular" actors out there. Hanks and DiCaprio probably have the edge on him overall, because unlike Washington, they actually have strong filmographies filled with classics and box-office successes. Washington does strong business on his own name (and I'd argue in terms of consistency, he's second only to DiCaprio in that regard, and those guys are a dying breed), but they generally target a certain demographic of moviegoer. Someone who might see Bridge of Spies or The Revenant may not be as keen to see The Equalizer, let's say. Washington rarely makes "awards bait"; if he gets nominated, it's largely because he gave a performance in a film that might otherwise not have gotten recognized at all because they liked him. No way Training Day gets in with its original castings of Gary Sinise (who would've been great to see), Tom Sizemore and Samuel L. Jackson. But because Washington is an extremely popular actor with beaucoup respect in and out of the industry, it became a contender. I don't hold the same regard for his overall filmography that you do. I think in terms of the way he's been able to maintain profile over the years and consistently crank out a variety of genres and not really have any flops is extraordinary; even Hanks hasn't been able to do that. But I don't see a whole lot of his movies becoming pop-culture mainstays once he's gone, especially when compared to his sheer output and longevity in the business. Malcolm X will endure, I'm sure. Training Day, probably, as it was one of the first "crooked-cop" stories to capitalize on the societal reaction to things like Rodney King and Rampart. Glory will probably be a high-school history class staple. Fences will be seen as one of the rare plays to successfully transition to film. But beyond that, what else? I know you swear by Man on Fire, but I don't see it rising to become a modern classic. I think that when people evaluate Washington himself, those works will obviously be there, and people will be able to discover them, but I don't see a whole lot of Denzel Washington movies making the grade when, say, AFI does their updated Top 100. But with that said, that doesn't make his filmography a bad one; he makes the movies he wants and people obviously like them enough to keep returning to the theaters to see them. Clooney's interesting. I think that he bought into his own hype and kind of squandered it of late. He's turned in some magnificent performances; I can't believe that the same guy who was in O Brother, Where Art Thou? was in The American; those two performances alone should put him in the conversation for one of the working greats (to say nothing of other strong works he's turned in over the years). The Beatty comparison's a good one, although I never liked Warren. I agree there is a sense of pompous self-importance with Clooney that kind of radiates from him (it even reached memetic levels when South Park skewered him for his Oscar speech), whereas Washington doesn't have that. People go to see Denzel because they relate to him, he doesn't feel like he's part of the Hollywood elite, and he doesn't make "message movies" the way that Clooney does. With that said, Clooney's catalogue hits much higher heights than Washington's, but I don't really hold that against Denzel. It's just the one thing about his career that sets him back: the lack of equal opportunity in receiving parts. I think one of the things going on here is that you fundementally underestimate the ongoing resonance Washington's films have with general audiences, and several sub-audiences. You don't become what Washington is if people just like you but think your films are decent, but nothing special. Forget what would-be cinephiles on forums like this think, or even critics or the AFI. The disconnect is still there. There are many people out there who legit think Remember The Titans is one of the greatest films ever made (I'm not one of 'em.LOL!), and grabs them on an emotional level and they watch it at least once a year (the same crowd who swear by Hoosiers and Practical Magic). So called cinephiles might laugh at that, but it's true. There are so many of those type of films in Washington's filmography that still have a pop culture resonance today to the great unwashed. Maybe outside your sphere, but significantly with a lot. And yes, Man On Fire is defintely one of those. You ask athletes who their favorite actor is, much of the time you'll hear them say "Denzel". Whether it's European soccer players or American basketballers. To athletes, things like He Got Game resonate the same way Schindler's List might to a film critic. The NBA actually held a celebration to celebrate He Got Game's 15 year anniversary, and Michael Jordan released a new pair of Air Jordan "He Got Game" sneakers for it. How many films 15 years after they were made get that type of celebration? bleacherreport.com/articles/1567457-breaking-down-new-air-jordan-13-he-got-game-shoesThat's the secret of Denzel's filmography, and it's lasting pop culture appeal. He has a lot of films that maintain ongoing pop culture relevance with different sub-groups in society. An athlete will have a different beloved Denzel fllm to a housewife. And a cinephile might be shocked that any of those films still have a dedicated following. Christians still love Book Of Eli. The Preachers Wife is a much played christmas favorite for a lot of people, particularly women who are into that type of sappy romantic thing. These films don't need to make the AFI top 100 to still have relevance decades later, as they will always have their followings
|
|
|
Post by Kirk-Picard on Mar 20, 2018 19:27:36 GMT
Affleck gives the top 5 performance of the decade so definitely him
|
|
|
Post by ibbi on Mar 20, 2018 20:57:07 GMT
I don't think there is anything in Denzel's performance as good as that scene where Affleck sits in the police station and recounts what happened, but there's also nothing as laughably bad as where he goes all Sling Blade while house hunting with his brother and nephew. Denzel's performance is pretty much without fault, and I'd go with it between the two of them quite easily overall.
|
|
|
Post by jimmalone on Mar 25, 2018 13:55:49 GMT
Both are very strong performances. I give the slight edge to Washington, who also is my win that year.
|
|