Page 502 of 676 FirstFirst ... 2402452492500501502503504512552602 ... LastLast
Results 7,516 to 7,530 of 10127
Like Tree39Likes

Thread: The Official Movie Discussion Thread

  1. #7516
    Global Moderator Teja.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    z
    Posts
    6,340
    SRK in his Baazigar days was a bloody good actor, tbf.

  2. #7517
    State Vice-Captain sirdj's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Sydney(currently)
    Posts
    1,398
    Quote Originally Posted by Teja. View Post
    SRK in his Baazigar days was a bloody good actor, tbf.

  3. #7518
    State Vice-Captain sirdj's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Sydney(currently)
    Posts
    1,398
    Quote Originally Posted by Anil View Post
    sure...did i say shahrukh was a great actor? however naseeruddin shah is, om puri is, sanjeev kumar was, shabana azmi is, smita patil was, mohanlal used to be, so did kamal haasan....etc etc...
    Kamal Hasan IMO has done more crap movies than good. Point in case being Chachi 420.

    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...
    I did not assert that you said that he was great. I merely said that he is not special in either of those movies.

    in my opinion the acting was not very natural in those days and compared to some of the modern greats
    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 a crap rap song.

    i would consider gary cooper's efforts as pretty average, two academy awards notwithstanding
    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??

    but i still maintain comparing him to raaj kumar is ridiculous
    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?

    far from conveying intensity or masculinity, all he did was convey a sad lack of histrionic abilities
    Histrionics is not considered a masculine attribute, therefore a lack of it is masculine.

    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 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.

    precisely...not sure where you got the idea that i was talking up shahrukh khan...
    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.

  4. #7519
    Hall of Fame Member Marcuss's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Above you
    Posts
    15,526
    Kick Ass, thought it was v.good


  5. #7520
    Cricket Web: All-Time Legend Top_Cat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Adelaide, South Australia
    Posts
    23,117
    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.
    The Colourphonics

    Bandcamp
    Twitderp

  6. #7521
    Cricketer Of The Year Anil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Tattooine
    Posts
    9,802
    Quote Originally Posted by sirdj View Post
    Kamal Hasan IMO has done more crap movies than good. Point in case being Chachi 420.
    probably...although nayakan, sipikkul muthu, kuruthi punal, chanakyan, sagara sangamam, pushpak, mundram pirai and to a certain extent pathinaru vayathinile make up for a lot of that...

    Quote Originally Posted by sirdj View Post
    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 didn't say special either, i said he was good....especially compared to his over-the-top performances in a lot of other movies...

    Quote Originally Posted by sirdj View Post
    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 a crap rap song.
    well i have to judge for myself based on what i feel is good or bad and that's what i am doing...

    Quote Originally Posted by sirdj View Post
    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??
    first of all i said i considered him pretty average compared to some of the modern greats of acting which does not necessarily make him a bad actor...and i am pretty clear i don't include carrey in any list of modern greats...you are making another non-existent connection with this and i have no wish to drag it forward any further...

    Quote Originally Posted by sirdj View Post
    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?
    not really...you will probably vehemently disagree but i consider brando good but hugely overrated, for me screen presence and charisma are star qualities more than actor qualities...and 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...

    Quote Originally Posted by sirdj View Post
    Histrionics is not considered a masculine attribute, therefore a lack of it is 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...

    Quote Originally Posted by sirdj View Post
    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.
    sure...we can agree to disagree...

    Quote Originally Posted by sirdj View Post
    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.
    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...
    Quote Originally Posted by FRAZ View Post
    very very close friend of mine is an Arab Christian and he speaks Arabic too and the visible hidden filth shows the mentality which may never change .....
    Quote Originally Posted by FRAZ View Post
    AAooouchh !!!!!
    I still remember that zipper accident of mine when I was in kindergarten ..... (Thing is OK I repeat thing is OK now )!!!

  7. #7522
    Cricketer Of The Year Anil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Tattooine
    Posts
    9,802
    Quote Originally Posted by Teja. View Post
    SRK in his Baazigar days was a bloody good actor, tbf.
    not really...

  8. #7523
    RTDAS pasag's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Looking for milksteak
    Posts
    31,678
    Saw Akira, quality.
    Rest In Peace Craigos
    2003-2012

  9. #7524
    Global Moderator Teja.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    z
    Posts
    6,340
    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.)

  10. #7525
    Global Moderator Teja.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    z
    Posts
    6,340
    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.

  11. #7526
    State Vice-Captain sirdj's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Sydney(currently)
    Posts
    1,398
    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.

  12. #7527
    State Vice-Captain sirdj's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Sydney(currently)
    Posts
    1,398
    Quote Originally Posted by Anil View Post
    not really...you will probably vehemently disagree but i consider brando good but hugely overrated
    I disagree absolutely. Brando is widely considered as one of the finest actors of all time
    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.

    for me screen presence and charisma are star qualities more than actor qualities
    But they aren't mutually exclusive qualities.

    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
    why not?

    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
    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 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...
    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.

  13. #7528
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Nowhere
    Posts
    4,793
    Quote Originally Posted by Teja. View Post
    SRK in his Baazigar days was a bloody good actor, tbf.

  14. #7529
    RTDAS pasag's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Looking for milksteak
    Posts
    31,678
    Quote Originally Posted by Teja. View Post
    NbN being one of the best I've seen.
    Yeah, great flick.

  15. #7530
    Cricket Web: All-Time Legend Mister Wright's Avatar
    Burger Time Champion!
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    24,359
    Saw Robin Hood. Thought it was fantastic.
    Cricketweb Colts Captain



    Quote Originally Posted by Richard
    Hayden > Lehmann
    I'm a member of Club Kerry

    I'm Green

    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 *********!



Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 14 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 14 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Official NFL 2006 Season Thread
    By Fusion in forum General Sports Forum
    Replies: 199
    Last Post: 16-02-2007, 01:16 PM
  2. Official Tri-Nations thread
    By ohtani's jacket in forum General Sports Forum
    Replies: 70
    Last Post: 03-09-2006, 04:27 AM
  3. Official Formula One Thread - Season 2006
    By nikhil1772 in forum General Sports Forum
    Replies: 36
    Last Post: 29-05-2006, 11:27 AM
  4. CW Movie discussion thread
    By Pratters in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 41
    Last Post: 19-12-2005, 05:13 AM
  5. Replies: 43
    Last Post: 24-05-2005, 08:20 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •