SRK in his Baazigar days was a bloody good actor, tbf.
SRK in his Baazigar days was a bloody good actor, tbf.
I did not assert that you said that he was great. I merely said that he is not special in either of those movies.i liked both movies and i thought carrey was good in both of them...did i say at any point that he was great? you need to stop looking for the non-existent hyperbole...
What constitutes very good acting is not exactly measurable and keeps shifting from generation to generation. As is with music. So you can't compare actors from those days to modern actors for the same reason that you cant compare a Waltz with ain my opinion the acting was not very natural in those days and compared to some of the modern greats
Well we have your opinion and then we have the academy's opinion who chose him instead of Orson Welles(in Citizen Kane no less), Cary Grant, Marlon Brando, Kirk Douglas and Alec Guiness. He won in two separate decades, before and after WW2. If beating those guys is just "pretty average" by you, then I wonder how Jim Carey who IMO is not even fit to lick their boots is considered good by you??i would consider gary cooper's efforts as pretty average, two academy awards notwithstanding
Why?? When Naseer employs method acting, would it be ridiculous to compare him with Brando? Then why should it be ridiculous to compare another instance of an Indian actor employing a style from Hollywood?but i still maintain comparing him to raaj kumar is ridiculous
Histrionics is not considered a masculine attribute, therefore a lack of it is masculine.far from conveying intensity or masculinity, all he did was convey a sad lack of histrionic abilities
I disagree with your positioning of Dilip Kumar in your list of great actors and wish to state that you are comparing two different styles of acting.dilip kumar(who i would also consider one step below some of the later greats of indian cinema) and sanjeev kumar proved that good actors can show their range and versatility even in those times...
i was not asserting that you were talking up Shahrukh Khan, I was saying that Bollywood allows an idiot like him to ham his way to wealth, Raaj Kumar's Jaani dialogues by comparison IMO are much more tolerable so why should he object to being typecast so.precisely...not sure where you got the idea that i was talking up shahrukh khan...
Kick Ass, thought it was v.good
Robocop. This is the movie God would make about himself.... if he existed.... and was a cop. Smite the unbelievers, Murphy.
The black dude in the camo's was just hilarious too.
Last edited by Top_Cat; 20-05-2010 at 10:41 PM.
Saw Akira, quality.
Rest In Peace Craigos
SRK did not 'ham' himself to wealth, The audience liked his star presence,acting, ability to emote and everything about him. When I say 'people' , I mean the average Indian, not a highly educated one with exposure to hollywood. He may not have as much acting skill per se as a Dilip Kumar or an Azmi, but acting ability in itself does not makes one a successful entertainer. If he could really earn his money without great acting ability, it is because people were entertained by him. It is perfectly alright to hold an opinion that he is a terrible actor, but not to say he does not deserve the fame and adulation he gets due to his movies.(I personally loved Dil se, Baazigar, Chak De India, all that said OSO was the worst movie I have seen in my life.)
Saw North by Northwest, The Farmer's Wife, The Trouble With Harry and the Man Who Knew Too Much in one go yesterday! I'm in love with Hitchcock now. I loved the first and last, NbN being one of the best I've seen, the second and third were pretty good too but had their flaws.
IMO SRK hams it........but there is no harm in that as long as it brings home the bacon
I don't deny that he is successful but I guess when we live in times where we have a cult of celebrity and idiots like Paris Hilton and Co. are successful too. If the mango people like a ham actor then so be it. Who am I to deny their fun. If they want to give him tons of fake awards, then by all means do so. If they wish to worship at his alter, pls do so by all means.
But the trouble begins when they start taking umbrage at crappy bollywood movies with ham actors flunking at international awards.
Last edited by sirdj; 22-05-2010 at 10:14 PM.
and not by me, by other great actors like Al Pacino, Robert DeNiro, Dustin Hoffman, Jack Nicholson, Sean Penn, Edward Norton.
He holds 2 academy awards 3 decades apart. In fact Brando was so good that he cast a huge shadow over his contemporaries. Paul Newman, James Dean, Steve McQueen & Jack Nicholson publicly acknowledged that they modeled their acting on him. I am surprised that you find him overrated when he is widely considered the best actor along with Laurence Olivier.
But they aren't mutually exclusive qualities.for me screen presence and charisma are star qualities more than actor qualities
why not?naseer is a great actor and i don't see much issue with comparing him to international actors...doesn't mean the same yardstick should apply to raaj kumar and gary cooper
Your usage of histrionics was as an adjective and not as a noun or a verb. When the word is used to mean acting, it implies that it is through the use of displaying emotions. A display of emotions as such is considered to be feminine and therefore a lack of display masculine.i used that word in its literal sense...simply put it pertains to acting, period...you seem to be implying it means overly emotional or melodramatic acting if i am right? well that's clearly not what i meant here
how does being typecast which is related to the way audience prefer to see him depicted and a response to his economic needs related to his ability to act? Pacino is typecast, Samuel L.Jackson is typecast, even Morgan Freeman is typecast.i was not disputing anyone's right to be typecast or not to act, i am saying it doesn't make him anything close to great, in fact just the opposite...
Saw Robin Hood. Thought it was fantastic.
Cricketweb Colts Captain
I'm a member of Club KerryOriginally Posted by Richard
The color of immortality, nature and envy - you are truly a unique person. While clearly the color of nature, you also symbolize rebirth, fertility and hope in the world. On the other side of the spectrum, a natural aptitude to money with green coming to signify money and possibly even *********!
There are currently 16 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 16 guests)