I'll keep that in mind next time I watch Troy, Mr & Mrs Smith and Cool World.
I didn't say Pitt was a bad actor (he's been in some amazing movies), but DiCaprio has a much more accomplished body of work. And yes I will call you 'crazy' if you cannot recognise that. It's not about what style is my personal taste, it's a about the difficult roles that have been portrayed over a body of work. Pitt has a much narrower scope in the roles he takes and has some absolute stinkers on his resume. I enjoy most of Pitt's movies but at the end of the day, he's quite limited in his range for the mostpart.
I disagree. Brad Pitt took on 'challenging' roles in 12 Monkeys and Seven Years in Tibet, did a great job at both. I don't see how Pitt's resume makes his range 'limited' anymore than DiCaprio's. I would number Fight Club, Seven, Snatch, Inglourious Basterds, Benjamin Button, True Romance, Jesse James, Moneyball, Tree of Life, Babel among Pitt's great films. And I don't think he has been in any more 'stinkers' than Di Caprio has, that's just bias on your part.
Everyone has bad movies. You could number De Niro's at 20 or 30. Doesn't count towards their acting ability. Di Caprio I could say 'I'll keep that in mind next time I'm watching The Beach, Romeo+Juliet, Titanic, Poison Ivy, The Man in the Iron Mask' it doesn't mean anything. So Di Caprio also has stinkers on his resume.
Silence of the lambs was mentioned earlier in the thread. What differs that from a standard thriller is the acting.
I think a lot of the writing in that film (and the source material itself ze book) is a bit silly
I disagree with that. The writing is fine, that's only your opinion. It did win best screenplay so the only difference is that your opinion thinks the writing is bad while the acting is good, while others might think the opposite.
A successful TV show runner makes mad coin but it is the actors who have the job to engage with the character with the public. So is it any wonder actors get all the glory from the public.
I think television actors and stage actors are different. Tv actors are often the driving part of a series and work very hard over many years to make it great. Often they get involved with the writing and directing as well. With TV the writers and directors usually come and go and the only constants are the showrunners and the actors, and even the showrunners move on while the actors stay. Still, this lends credence to my opinion that film actors are overrated, as tv actors work harder and contribute more to the success of their series while get nowhere near the fame, credit or influence that film actors do.
DiCaprio is a great actor with skill. This also makes him a box office draw card.
Pitt is a average actor and overrated. His good looks simply make him a box office drawcard.
Simply personal opinion. If Pitt is only a 'drawcard' why take roles in films like Benjamin Button and Tree of Life? Tree of Life was loved by critics but mostly hated by audiences and did not draw well at the box office at all.
Brad Pitt has been in just as many, if not more, good films than Di Caprio and has put in many a good performance.
