mark wahlberg was entirely the wrong choice for bob lee swagger. has anyone here ever read the book, "point of impact?" swagger is about 45 to 50 years old, a vietnam vet. a badass sniper, obviously. same basic storyline, just slightly different. nick memphis is in the book, as is most of the baddies.
bob lee swagger is described as a "blue collar rambo."
Originally posted by The Hawk
LOl... How did you connect the two?1. He's a bad actor, period.
And
2. His appearance in The Departed looked stupid.My contention is that he's the same in all his movies and his performances arent that great. Here his performance was merely okay, but at times annoying and he looked like a retard.
I'll make this assumed statement, much like your own; you make your points like a "retard", and no, I have no evidence to back that up whatsoever.
But, and this is the very interesting but, because of my misinformed views, much like your own, I am able to make absurd and outlandish statements with absolutedly no proof, just because I can.
Jog on kiddo.
Originally posted by The Hawk
Geez, how can anybody think that douche is a good actor.
you ever seen boogie nights? jog on, kiddo.
and how are you blaming wahlberg for the screenplay? his character ran around pissed off all the time, what'd you want him to do about it? have a teary oscar moment in the middle?
Originally posted by exanda kane
I'll make this assumed statement, much like your own; you make your points like a "retard", and no, I have no evidence to back that up whatsoever.
But, and this is the very interesting but, because of my misinformed views, much like your own, I am able to make absurd and outlandish statements with absolutedly no proof, just because I can.Jog on kiddo.
Lol.... gimme a break, I cant back up my statements?
Here, my proof for his bad acting are his performances.
and my evidence for his retarded appearance was his retarded appearance.
If you think the look of a character isnt important, then we can stop even discussing movies now. How well do you think Al Pacinos Performance in the Godfather would have been if he had long girly hair. Shit would stick out like sore thumb.
Even Jack Nicholson... dude looked like he was just walking down the street in his normal life. I bet he was even wearing his own clothes..lol
Or do you notice any difference Mark W's performances.. all I see is the same two dimensional character every single time... oh cept for the Departed, he had long hair in that one ane yelled alot.
you ever seen boogie nights? jog on, kiddo.Good example. I changed my mind, he's a great actor, Now.
and how are you blaming wahlberg for the screenplay? his character ran around pissed off all the time, what'd you have a teary oscar moment in the middle?
Everybody's entitled to their opinions, so to each their own.
Im not raggin on anybody or saying Im right and somebody's wrong...
but just to let you understand how it feels to read threads like this...
It would be like seeing a thread about feces and watching everybody write about how good it smells and tastes. Mind bogglin.
Originally posted by The Hawk
Lol.... gimme a break, I cant back up my statements?
Here, my proof for his bad acting are his performances.
and my evidence for his retarded appearance was his retarded appearance.If you think the look of a character isnt important, then we can stop even discussing movies now. How well do you think Al Pacinos Performance in the Godfather would have been if he had long girly hair. Shit would stick out like sore thumb.
Even Jack Nicholson... dude looked like he was just walking down the street in his normal life. I bet he was even wearing his own clothes..lol
Or do you notice any difference Mark W's performances.. all I see is the same two dimensional character every single time... oh cept for the Departed, he had long hair in that one ane yelled alot.
Good example. I changed my mind, he's a great actor, Now.
Im not blaming anything on anybody... his character was shitty and annoying, either he didnt do a good enough job winning me over, or the part sucked. either way it blew. And he looked like a retard...
Everybody's entitled to their opinions, so to each their own.
Im not raggin on anybody or saying Im right and somebody's wrong...but just to let you understand how it feels to read threads like this...
It would be like seeing a thread about feces and watching everybody write about how good it smells and tastes. Mind bogglin.
As I said earlier, you simply have no evidence for your statements, and those you attempted to give there, are not examples of an informed opinion.
Originally posted by exanda kane
As I said earlier, you simply have no evidence for your statements, and those you attempted to give there, are not examples of an informed opinion.
Yeah, you said a lot earlier... a whole lotta nothing.
What do you want me to do, give you examples of his bad performances? Try watching his movies.
do you think he can play parts that other good actors play? Could you imagine him in The Prestige? or The Machinest? lol... the fvck outta here. The guy you see in The Shooter is the same guy you see in the Italian Job and the same guy you see in The Big Hit..lol Only thing that changes is the lines.
Yeah, you said a lot earlier... a whole lotta nothing.
Very cliche. Not very knowing.
What do you want me to do, give you examples of his bad performances? Try watching his movies.
Nice bunch of evidence there. Let's see. We got Boogie Nights, a nice performance, Three Kings, a nice performance again, looked scared as hell while listening to Micheal Jackson, as should be, then we got Planet of the Apes, he was solid, shame about the movie; moving on, we got Perfect Storm, solid, The Italian job, solid, Shooter, solid despite being in the gung ho hero role, and the Departed, entertaining and yet again, reliable.
do you think he can play parts that other good actors play? Could you imagine him in The Prestige? or The Machinest?
Do I think he could play the parts Christian Bale could play?
Why, yes, I could. He wouldn't be as happy with loosing the weight to play Reznick, but that's not to say it isn't out of the question. Whatever your problem is with old Marky Mark, its misinformed; there is a reason why Darren Aronofsky has cast him as lead in his new film.
The guy you see in The Shooter is the same guy you see in the Italian Job and the same guy you see in The Big Hit..lol
Yes, and Al Pacino has made it by, as mentioned, for the last 20 years on his Tony Montana performance (pouts, clenches fists and one tantrum per movie), Will Patton has played the negotiator in virtually every single role he has had, Morgan Freeman has gotten away with proverbial homocide as the wise old Black man living on the fringes of society, Jack Nicholson, Christopher Lee, Dom Monaghan, Sean Connery, Bruce Willis; Jesus, how many times has Samuel L. Jackson played the Jules role for gods sake?
With your logic, by default all these actors above are medicore performers and deserve no respect nor attention at all, which simply ain't the case kid. Think of all the magnificent films that actors of these calibre have been in and realise you gotta have some evidence to depose a actor of Wahlberg's integrity of his little throne.
Now, please stop using acronyms for laughing out loud, get back under your cretin-rock and rethink your outlandish beliefs.
Lol.... I think you just helped prove my point...
The only thing wrong with your analogy is that those characters you named all play the same roles in different movies, while Marky Mark is playing different characters and giving the same 2 dimensional performance in each role... I cant even remember his characters names after Im done watching the movie.
The guy can read lines, good for him... Oscar worthy? lol
And who you callin "kid"? ... get over yourself, mate. Thinking you know alot about movies, doesnt make you a wise old man.
Originally posted by The Hawk
The only thing wrong with your analogy is that those characters you named all play the same roles in different movies, while Marky Mark is playing different characters and giving the same 2 dimensional performance in each role... I cant even remember his characters names after Im done watching the movie.
I don't know whether you have been able to express yourself in words before, but it clearly isn't shown here. Your contradicting yourself at the very beginning, let alone the lack of coherence, the very point your arguing has evolved as you concede your points. If you can't remember his characters names after you've done watching the film, then that's a fault on your behalf.
Kids are point who start writing with the acronym lol. Jog on.
This is so stupid , asking him to provide evidence about the reason why he cant act! its his opinion , thats the evidence. and what was your evidence about why you thought he could act?
We got Boogie Nights, a nice performance, Three Kings, a nice performance again., that's not evidence thats your opinion!
Honestly! now each of your opinions is neither right nor wrong its just what you both think!! god!
One of the best movies I have seen this year,
Very entertaining and generally a good movie.
I don't see why people reviewed it as a bad movie, it isn't going to win any major awards but surely it entertained you to an extend?
Mark Wahlberg is becoming a very known name on the bigscreen nowadays, I think perhaps the roles in Perfect Storm & also Rock Star gave him a good push, but for me it was FOUR BROTHERS which sold him for me. Shit hot!
He is a very good actor in this movie, no doubt, doubt I could see anyone else do the role of the shooter... perhaps Matt Damon but this movie has already got too much resemblence to Bourne.
Discos - overall 9/10
Originally posted by Ignite
This is so stupid , asking him to provide evidence about the reason why he cant act! its his opinion , thats the evidence. and what was your evidence about why you thought he could act? , that's not evidence thats your opinion!Honestly! now each of your opinions is neither right nor wrong its just what you both think!! god!
I mentioned he was solid in that film. That meant that he served his purpose in the film, acting as a support for the lead or as the lead serving the purpose of the narrative; it was a neutral statement, not an opinion. Those films would never have vaguely worked if we hadn't had a character the audience could relate too, and the majority of critical reviews and the box office proves that he works.
The majority of people going along with something doesn't make it right , And if you look at all his "great" movie roles hes usually surrounded by a really good cast that carries the movie, George Clooney , Matt Damon, Leo, Jack, Charlize , and when he does movies as the lead , well you don't really remember those ones , they really aren't any good , and well thats just my opinion on that anyway.
Its votes and opinions that allow people to win and be nominated for Oscar's , and well , he hasn't won one has he?
It's obvious that you think Mark Walhberg is a good actor and so do a lot of other people , but there are also a lot of other people that don't and in the end it is just merely just an opinion , you can provide evidence to support your statement but you can't provide evidence to prove that you are correct.
You've got to take in consideration other peoples opinions , and whether you may or may not agree doesn't mean either parties are right or wrong.
Originally posted by Ignite
The majority of people going along with something doesn't make it right , And if you look at all his "great" movie roles hes usually surrounded by a really good cast that carries the movie, George Clooney , Matt Damon, Leo, Jack, Charlize , and when he does movies as the lead , well you don't really remember those ones , they really aren't any good , and well thats just my opinion on that anyway.Its votes and opinions that allow people to win and be nominated for Oscar's , and well , he hasn't won one has he?
It's obvious that you think Mark Walhberg is a good actor and so do a lot of other people , but there are also a lot of other people that don't and in the end it is just merely just an opinion , you can provide evidence to support your statement but you can't provide evidence to prove that you are correct.
You've got to take in consideration other peoples opinions , and whether you may or may not agree doesn't mean either parties are right or wrong.
As said before, Wahlberg serves his purpose in the film, whether as a lead or support, and this proves he can act. The films he is in prove that he can carry a story because of their critical acclaim and box office take, aside from all promotion and other factors. That is evidence of his success. The opinion comes from how good he is in that role. If you have an opinion that he is bad, then he is not a bad actor, those films worked, he worked for those films, and people enjoyed those films; but that he merely served the story, he did not take it further.
As said earlier, some of the greatest actors of all time tend to play a carbon copy of their most familiar role, so to say Wahlberg is "shitty" because of that is little more than ignorant. Plus, Wahlberg was nominated for an Oscar, and this proves his talent, even if he didn't win. Mr Hawk's comment that the style of Wahlberg's hair in The Departed was what made his perfomance "shitty". He should realise that the actor, and the stylist are different people.
I agree with this opinion, Wahlberg took the performance further than his lines. However, there is also evidence to prove that he worked for this film, in critical acclaim, box office intake (word of mouth) and his Oscar nomination.
Originally posted by manorastroman
that's what made wahlberg stand out for me, departed-wise: he was surrounded by dicaprio, damon, nicholson, sheen, and baldwin, each of whom (with the exception of damon) were in very fine form. and yet wahlberg stood out, and even stole some scenes.