Not any decent actor can pull off those performances, a great actor is not only believable but provokes strong emotions in you. They make you love or hate them, emphasise with them, etc. He always does that, no matter what type of character he plays he's always both compelling and believable.
Also he was in the Basketball Diaries before he did Titanic, and while I hated that movie, you cannot deny he was brilliant in it. He owns his roles.
Not every actor succeeds in playing the roles they are given either, Mark Wahlberg was the lead in The Fighter and while he did an adequate job it was far from a memorable performance, Christian Bale overshadowed his performance.
Most actors will 'provoke' strong emotions in you. All of the actors in Game of Thrones and the Lord of the Rings do that for me and they definitely aren't considered among the 'greatest actors'. Writing is far more important to loving or hating and empathising with a character. It isn't hard to make an audience hate a character, especially when that character is a complete dick. Di Caprio's prescence as a name is what makes those roles seem big. There are several actors who could have done just as good a job. The reason he was cast in a lot of his films is not because 'only a great actor could pull them off' but rather because he was Scorcese's pet at the time.
And no, Di Caprio has not always been believable for me. I couldn't stand him in the Aviator especially, and I would love to see how many times he shouted out 'Rose' in Titanic.
Mark Wahlberg was fine in The Fighter, he didn't take away from the movie at all. Christian Bale overshadowed him because a) the character of Dicky was a far more disturbed, conflicted character than Micky and b) Christian Bale is better at the physical and vocal side of it. The roles are often what wins actors the awards (not that awards are anything to go by). It's the same as with The Dark Knight for example. Heath Ledger got all the accolades for that role, but the role was a much deeper and more disturbed role than the others in the film. Gary Oldman in my opinion put in a better performance but it was unnoticed because the role wasn't 'out there'. But then again I thought Ledger deserved the accolades as he worked on and adapted the character himself rather than the writers or directors, which should be the true role of an actor.
It's one of the only things I can't stand about the movie business. A movie is a piece of work that can only become brilliant from all it's parts working together. Yet all we ever hear about is the actors. And it's simpy because of business. Celebrities are valuable, so they are paid the big money and get the credit while the other workers are overshadowed, especially the writers, directors and producers who all work just as hard and usually a lot harder than the actors do. A final scene shown in a movie has often been through months of hard work involving the director, writers, actors, design, lighting, editing and special effects yet all we usually hear is 'what great acting'.
And with the comedic actors having limited range, I wouldn't say their range is limited I would say they are typecast.
I don't think Di Caprio is overrated I just said he annoys me in his movies. The same as Anne Hathaway does. Nearly everybody has those actors that piss them off. My old drama teacher couldn't stand Brad Pitt but I've enjoyed every movie he has been in.
He is the definition of a natural actor and tends to bring it for every performance.
What exactly is a natural actor?
I will never understand the love people have for actors. Acting as a profession is overrated. When a child can win the highest award while a veteran who has been through many years of drama schooling and a life in the theatre remains unknown, well...
