Marlon Brando is called the greatest actor of all time (who I personally believe to be)....
Al Pacino is called the greatest actor of all time...
Robert De Niro is called the greatest actor of all time -- and the best from his generation. Once called a genius, YES, believe it, M'boy. His best performances are still held is such high honor -- never will he'll only be known as solid, no matter how you feel about him, even after the man is dead, his best work in terms of acting will forever be influential just like Brando's.
--
Gene Hackman is called the greatest actor of all time...
Your boy Day-Lewis is called the best thing god ever put on the film screen...
Jack Nicholson is called the greatest of all time...
James Stewart is called the greatest of all...
Laurence Olivier has been called the greatest...
So, which one is your pick? Unless, you don't hold one individual above all others, which is something I try not to do... but De Niro belongs in there, pal. But in the end, these are opinions, just like yours, and I find yours laughable; implying or literally saying De Niro will only be a solid actor who had the fortune of starring in many great and highly acclaimed films.
Anyway, first let me say, De Niro's scene stealing role in this film remains one of the most original performances to have ever been put on screen. He went from doing a highly impressive role in Bang The Drum Slowly, where by only giving a single smile, was a very effectual way to feel more emotion for him; that is something most actors are not capable of doing in an entire performance... to this, Mean Streets. And that, my friend, was magnificent range.
And you say De Niro never had the nuance and subtle to accomplish something like There Will Be Blood? I have these words for you: Godfather Part 2. It's one of the screen's greatest subtle performances, and I, am not alone on that. And speaking of Day-Lewis "the god of all acting"... even though this might sound stupid to some, when I saw him in Gangs Of New York, I thought that was something De Niro could've easily pull off. Not just that, but the performance almost reminded me of De Niro. Sure, call it idiotic. But even Lewis back in his younger days was very fond of De Niro.
You want De Niro as likable, lovable, and kissing woman with pure passion? Falling In Love; the romantic scenes in The Deer Hunter; and Novencento.
At the end you'll have the same sentiments about this brilliant actor, but as far as I'm concerned, the range he displayed in Bang The Drum Slowly, Mean Streets, Godfather Part 2, Taxi Driver, The Last Tycoon, The Deer Hunter, Raging Bull, The King Of Comedy, Angel Heart, Brazil, Midnight Run, Goodfellas, Awakenings, Cape Fear, Jackie Brown, and even these roles that seem laughable and not worth mentioning: Frankenstein, The Adventures Of Rocky & Bullwinkle, and Analyze This, are all examples of an actor who has touched anything and everything in film acting. The diversity, versatility, emotional range, body language, and overall the way he executed these roles perfectly, are what makes this man one of the greatest in all of film, and the best from his generation. Yeah, bogus to you? Yeah, well, I've heard people call Brando s__t as an actor, so your opinion doesn't really matter about how you feel De Niro is way inferior to the true "greats." Well, that means I shouldn't have bother to reply, right? Ha ha. He is one of the greats...
In Taxi Driver -- I don't think an actor ever brought such intensity, when, for the most part, he was silent throughout the the film. The way he maliciously leers at people, or even when he was by himself; looking or talking to himself in the mirror, was an "actor" speaking without uttering a single word. De Niro has done this plenty of times, and when an actor can do this without saying anything, is an actor of sheer brilliance. When Travis Bickle came to the screen... De Niro who? We were actually watching a real person named Travis Bickle on the verge of going psychotic. Till this day, I've never seen a performance like that -- and sure as hell not before. I could go on and on about his other brilliant performances and, for one thing, Day Lewis, could never do what Bobby D did. Day-Lewis could have "played" Jake Lamotta, but not BECOME him. And I seriously doubt he has the ability to do Travis Bickle in all aspects. Never, could he convincingly and naturally be capable of doing half of De Niro's astounding work.
De Niro will always be much, much more than just a solid actor with only a few exceptional performances; his influence pumps through Daniel Day-Lewis' blood, Sean Penn's, DiCaprio's, Ed Norton's, and for future generations to come. Heck, I may not be a fan of most of these actors, but aren't they the most respected talents from their generation? Their main number one has always been De Niro... It's not like this proves anything, but they see De Niro's true genius.
I mean, seriously? Some people actually believe Jeff Bridges is better? I don't know if I should laugh or shake my head in disbelief. In anything, Bridges is the one who's a solid actor with a few great performances. Even HIS best wouldn't equal to any of De Niro's best. Out of all the performances De Niro was nominated for an Oscar and didn't win... they eclipse Bridge's Oscar winning role. Hell, MOST of De Niro's roles. I know this sounds like choosing favorites, but Bridges is the least good actor from his generation compare to the rest; De Niro owns him. No offense, I like the dude, but he is not one of the greats for me. You see, opinions? Just like yours, but still... I truly feel Bridges is barely beyond average, and his best films are in back of the line of De Niro's mediocre films.
Most actors "play" or use expressions to give the illusion that they are their characters... but I don't think anyone has ever dwell inside their characters' mind, and had a better understanding of their emotions than De Niro did. Have a laugh, but De Niro is one of a kind -- undoubtedly one of the greatest.
One last thing, unless you can appreciate films like Sleepers, Jackie Brown, Ronin, or the The Score (very nuanced), you'll see that he delivered good to great performances in these films. And the most recent -- What Just Happened, Everybody's Fine & Stone - very good performances regardless of the films quality. And, looks like his upcoming work with David O. Russell might bring his next great film. Oh, and if he does get to work with Sean Penn and Martin Scorsese, then he'll bring his A game again, no doubt.
Wait, one final thing. It's funny you said he was the LEAST convincing in Mad Dog & Glory, because from all the films I've seen him in -- and the unworthy constant criticism he gets from people of always playing himself... that was the CLOSEST he ever came to playing himself, ha ha. Just shows you how this man truly becomes someone else. It doesn't matter what you feel, because I don't think anybody has had such a long and diverse career as he has. His bad films in no way will diminish his status -- his best work, is all over the place. His acting and the best films he starred in... are truly remarkable... Work of a true master in his craft.
"Sorry my English is bad, but I grew up in the Bronx, with my friend Paulie cakes. Then I moved to California, brah."
reply
share
The_White_Hotel
13 years ago
If Day Lewis is "my boy" because I mentioned him in response to another post (yours) that also mentions him, then what does that make De Niro to you? You see here we hit upon another problem with De Niro when it comes to the "best ever" debate, namely rabid fanboyism the type of which you don't really get with other actors. Why this hyperbole for De Niro? Well, I think it's because he's cool, and he is, no doubt, whether entering a bar with a girl on each arm to the opening chords of Jumping Jack Flash, traversing the rooftops as a super hero plumber who will fix your boiler even if you haven't filled out the right form, or sitting statuesque, barely moving a muscle, smoking a cigarette with a little twitch of the eyebrow as the camera zooms in and Sunshine of Your Love plays in the background. De Niro is ice cool at times like these, and cool carries so much cache. Too much.
We actually don't disagree that much. I absolutely think De Niro is a great actor, I absolutely think he has turned in some incredible performances (as I made clear in my last post) and I even agree with you that Day Lewis's performance in Gangs owes a lot to De Niro and reminds me of him throughout. I certainly wouldn't call that idiotic, as you suggest I might, you seem to be mistaking me for someone else.
If you're going to have a debate about the best actors in cinema, De Niro deserves a mention. But I don't consider him the greatest. When you find other people's reasoned opinions "laughable" you diminish your own because you reveal the weakness in it, the franticness, the loss of control that inspires you to write out a 13 paragraph rebuttal to a casual ten line post on an anonymous movie forum. De Niro would never lose his control over a performance like that, and for me that is one of the things that limits him. He is cool, we've covered that, he is calculated, he is too much in control to let slip his attachment to a character the way that Nicholson, say, lets his grip on MacMurphy slip and you believe he and not just his character, really does want to strangle Nurse Ratched. Something about De Niro that I have long thought is that he doesn't have a personality. He is someone for whom there is no "me" at the centre, no innate self. He, in many ways, is the perfect vehicle for becoming someone else, as that someone else does not have to overcome what is there already to reveal itself to us. But can a person like that identify with the emotions he is being asked to replicate on-screen? Does it even matter when he is so blisteringly powerful? De Niro's talent, his genius, reminds me of those asian world-scrabble champions who have memorised every playable word in the English language, but understand few of their meanings.
Comparing De Niro's method to naturalistic actors is comparing apples and oranges, or, as someone once memorably put it to me, ice and fire. Jeff Bridges (again, you mention him, so why not use him as an example) is exactly the type of naturalistic performer that De Niro could never be. when Bridges is at his best he finds the character within himself and it is he who drives it. He does not displace himself to become another character, just like Nicholson, like Hopkins, like Bob Mitchum or Paul Scofield or George C Scott, he adapts himself into the character he plays and the character into himself. De Niro is not capable of this. He must become the character, but he has no inner Dude, no latent Bad Blake, no frustrated Jack Baker within his soul. It is a different approach, and I am not saying a greater or lesser one, but it limits his effectiveness, limits his talent, for me at least. There are some actors who do not have a role I imagine they could not play. There are some roles I cannot imagine De Niro playing. The art in acting, for me, is not in the replication of another, no matter how precisely you are able to achieve this, it is in bringing to the role something of your self, your own joy and anguish and triumph and disappointment. When it comes down to it, I prefer the fire that De Niro palpably does not have raging inside of him to his polished, clinical ice.
"Reality is the new fiction they say, truth is truer these days, truth is man-made"
reply
share
franzkabuki
13 years ago
I very much agree with what you say, Flanders as, for starters, it sure would indeed be mighty odd for someone - anyone - to claim De Niro isn´t one of the greatest actors of all time. But all the same, despite all his method fueled virtuosity and considerable diversity, there is one thing that the likes of Pacino or Nicholson or Day Lewis or Brando do have yet he doesn´t - a natural magnetism, a sense that whenever he steps in from the door, the room suddenly lights up. Also unlike Pacino or Nicholson, he´s not a natural entertainer, which means that when he´s saddled with a role that is not very interesting or when he just can´t - or doesn´t care to - get into the character properly, he just disappears on screen (interestingly, there´s direct evidence for the latter with both of the aforementioned actors - in the dull, utterly forgettable The Last Tycoon he has a brief scene with Nicholson who´s essentially doing a cameo and the good old Jack The Lad outshines him completely, with having actually less to work with in terms of character (Nicholson even gets to have crack at De Niro´s jaw for the latter´s phoning in his performance). And in that much-much-much maligned Righteous Kill, it is Pacino with his energetic, compellingly playful turn that makes the experience less painful... meanwhile, De Niro doesn´t seem to register at all; he´s just some boring old guy. To be fair though, he´s better than Pacino in Heat as he has a firm grasp on Neil and it also happens to be one of those few instances when Pacino goes so far with his tendency to randomly yell some words or sentences REAL LOUD, that it´s irritating instead of entertaining). All the aforementioned 4 actors naturally command attention regardless what they´re doing while De Niro does not have such natural charisma... which is why the interviews with him, for example, tend to be fairly uninteresting.
"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan
reply
share
DracTarashV
13 years ago
Franzkabuki, I respectfully disagree. Whenever he walks into a scene (especially in Mean Streets) he lights up the room most definitely; he's all I can look at. Marlon Brando unquestionably has that natural magnetism - his presence is felt whenever he is not in a scene - I don't think any actor can match him in that area... but I feel the same way about De Niro as well. Sure I guess we all see it differently - but this is the reason why De Niro really struck me as a great actor, he does posses this natural magnetism - his presence is left in the room off screen in several of his films. His acting makes me believe the characters he is portraying really are him - he never attempts to out-act anyone. But that's the thing, one of the reasons De Niro was probably unsatisfied with his performance in "The Untouchables", was because he felt he overdid it - overacting is something he tends to avoid. I mention that because three of those actors you mentioned, have had many moments throughout their careers, where you can see they are trying to purposely out do their co-stars... so that natural magnetism fades away. An example is Daniel Day Lewis in TWBB... it is a fantastic performance indeed, but he had the whole film all by himself - his acting in several scenes looked like, well... acting. I may be wrong here... but I never get the impression De Niro tries to act... and if a character interests him or not, well he's always entertaining to watch. In his comedy roles, I get the feeling he is a natural entertainer - not close to Nicholson, but he never looks disinterested in those roles. Natural charisma? Okay, I'll admit he doesn't appear to have it, but the acting in his best work, never ceases to make me believe he nails every trait his character is supposed to have. Whether the character he plays is volatile or not, De Niro never leaves a room and goes unnoticed.
reply
share
franzkabuki
13 years ago
"Especially in Mean Streets".
That I give you. But it´s also one of his earliest as well as most eccentric performances - the older he´s got the more boring he´s got and I reckon his last great performance goes back 14 years, to Louis Gara in Jackie Brown. And generally speaking, he´s never really been one to elevate poor material the way Pacino has on numerous occasions (he´s the only reason sh-t like Scent Of A Woman or Devil´s Advocates... or Righteous Kill is even remotely watchable).
"De Niro was probably unsatisfied with his performance in The Untouchables because he felt he overdid it".
Yes, a poor choice by DePalma to have him play Capone if he wanted him to be some kinda caricature - an overacting De Niro is considerably less fun than an overacting Pacino or Nicholson. De Niro was much more entertaining in his other 1987 film, Angel Heart - I found his understated way of playing his character very amusing.
"His acting in several scenes looked like, well... acting".
Not to me it didn´t; I think Plainview is every bit as great as Bickle or La Motta. And who do suggest Day Lewis was self consciously competing with? The previously rather unknown Paul Dano? Come on, it would have to be a much bigger challenge in terms of star power than that, I´m sure.
"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan
reply
share
helter_skelter10-268-287724
13 years ago
franzkabucki,if ure not a fan of de niro,dont try to justify ure dislikness;the rule is simple if u dont like him just say it,u said that de niro is not that great entairtainer,i disagree with u in this,the men is funny as hell and creepy as hell,watch king of comedy or cape fear,and about nicholson or pacino im sorry to tell u that but they arn't in the same league as bobby d they play themselves evry time nicholson with his slower talk evrytime and pacino with his yellin since scarface,and i never seen pacino undeacting and being so well as de niro because u said overacting pacino is better than overacting de niro.another thing is outacting is not acting,acting is more like painting u should draw the emotions very well in ure imagination to put the right charachter in the screen and this is waht de niro do,the charachter is like that so it sould be like that, travis bickle is silent and awakwerd so he is,jack lamot is paranoid and raging so we dont need to add stupid things,bcause we dealing with movies not theatre,for example the charachter in cape fear (max cady),de niro didn't out acted nick nolter or mitchum to show that he is a great actor,it's only because the charachter is suposed to be psycho and over the top.and u said de niro doesn't have a natural charisma maybe in real life because he is very shy,but ine the screen oh boy if u dont see that ure blind,goodfelaas and casino are the biggest example of the intensity,even de niro said that acting is simplicity because in reallife we try to hide our feeling not show them,so we dont need to outacting or overacting to show our feelings,the simple things are the greatest things and this is why de niro is one of the greatest,and if u said he is not natural well i disagree with u alson in that,because the men who act with his face and eyes he is the most natural,not to mention that raging bull changes the way of acting,like brando did with street car named desire,even bruce willis was wondering about how de niro keep it fresh and clean?well we should ask the master bob.(sorry for my english im morocan; i hope u understand this stupid english lol, just an opinion)
reply
share
The_White_Hotel
13 years ago
Thank you De Niro fanboy #10-268-287724, for your valuable contribution to the world of De Niro fanboyism. We'll file it away with everyone else who is so ridiculously certain about their subjective opinion that they've probably never considered any other.
"Reality is the new fiction they say, truth is truer these days, truth is man-made"
reply
share
DracTarashV
13 years ago
And what are you suppose to be? A Jeff Bridges or Jack Nicholson fanboy? These boards are meant for giving our own subjective opinions -- but just because someone is so sure and certain about their own, that means no one else should reply and give reasons as to why they disagree with them? Grow up. I, can accept the fact that there's MANY people like yourself who are opposed to De Niro's legendary status and being called "one of cinema's greatest," your opinion won't be changed, and that's fine. But, if I want to reply to someone who could care less about my say, then who's going to stop me? you? SHOULD I stop and not give my reasons no more, even if they're so certain about their feelings towards an actor? No... I won't. And if that makes someone a fanboy, then have fun being a fanboy when someone attacks your favorite actors. I mean, De Niro gets more heat on these boards more than any of his peers, so what the hell is so wrong about DISAGREEING with someone and having a different opinion to theirs? That makes someone a "fanboy"? hmm... Well, I hope you can grow up, mature a little, and stop visiting these boards just to criticize someone's opinion about their favorite actor. YOU certainly contribute, don't you? Coming around here to call someone a fanboy.
reply
share
The_White_Hotel
13 years ago
I'm not "opposed" to De Niro's legendary status, and I do believe that De Niro is a great actor. I've already made clear in this thread that I like De Niro and I think he's turned in some wonderful performances. This is what's typical, though, about having this conversation with a De Niro fanatic. Because I don't say "he's the best ever no doubt, let me tell you, he's got such range, he's so great, he's better than Brando and Olivier and Cary Grant combined, he shoots people and he's really really cool" then you think I must be saying I don't like him and that he's bad. I haven't said anything even remotely close to that.
I just don't believe that he's the greatest actor of all time and I think that many of the people who do believe that are being blinded by his cool cultural capital, and I think that it's a bit of a shame that that's the level of debate. If he hadn't played loads of "cool" gangster types like Johnny Boy here, Jimmy Burke, San 'ace' Rothstein etc, and if you couldn't do a De Niro impression simply by looking in a mirror and saying "you talkin' to me?" whilst pretending to whip a pistol out of your sleeve, then a lot of the people who claim they think De Niro is the greatest actor of all time would be considerably less interested in him and would be all over some other icon of cool. And they might say "ahh, but I like him in King of Comedy as well, so there" but would they have bothered to see King of Comedy if it didn't have Travis Bickle in it? We don't know, but I'm inclined to think, in quite a lot of cases, probably not.
No offence to the guy above me, I'm sure he's a lovely bloke, but he's hardly got a well-rounded argument for his opinion that Nicholoson and Pacino "aren't in the same league as bobby d" (another fanboy giveaway is the use of an affectionate nickname for someone that you have never met). I haven't made any claims like that, and you attack me, but I notice you let that one slide, presumably because you agree. But look at the guy's first sentence "if ure not a fan of de niro,dont try to justify ure dislikness;the rule is simple if u dont like him just say it". Exactly what you would expect from someone who is not thinking critically. You don't agree with me that he's the bestest ever ever ever so therefore you must think he's bad. It's lazy, black and white thinking. The idolisation of De Niro virtually always gets in the way of a genuine consideration of his acting prowess.
"Reality is the new fiction they say, truth is truer these days, truth is man-made"
reply
share
helter_skelter10-268-287724
13 years ago
geezzzz,hhhhhhhhhh it's just an opinion men lol,im not a fanboy,u dont even know me to call me like that,calmdown,it's a subjectivity,we are not supposed to think if we appreciate someone,because it's a matter of feelings,it's like someone who likes apple he dont know why he likes it,i like de niro i dont why i like him,sometimes the complexity of ideas comes from a simplycity of feelings,and if ure a huge fan of someone it doesn't mean ure a fanboy,it's just u appreciate him,and his art,so we dont need this laguage,and another thing im not a big fan of his latest comedies,it's not like his early comedis like hi mom or king of comedy or midnghit run,even mean streets there is a simple explosion of humour without trying lol,btw guys i have a question for u can someone tell why de niro stop doing theatre? like his pal pacino?since (one night stands of a noisy passenger)and (cuba and his teady bear)the men stop showing up from off broadway and broadway,why in ure opinions because he dont like theatre like brando or something else(btw i respect al pacino for preserving this art) i didn't offend him in the other comment it's just a subjectif thing like i said.
i hope evrybody understand and happy new year.
reply
share
franzkabuki
13 years ago
The manic, unbridled hysteria that largely defines Helter Skelter´s first post, does kind of seem to suggest a well-developed fanboyistic streak. And I´m not sure there is any point in attempting to seriously debate someone who is apparently happy enough to battle the strawmen of his own creation, anyway (how can anyone, based on my posts, conceivably conclude that "I don´t like De Niro"? I didn´t even imply he´s generally a lesser actor than Pacino or Nicholson as I thought it obvious that personal charm & showmanship aren´t exactly the qualities that settle the matter. And if I was criticizing De Niro exclusively here, well, that´s for the simple reason that the thread is about ´him´ and ´his´ merits, not anybody else´s).
"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan
reply
share
Knuturo
11 years ago
Great answer stupid_flanders. I agree with almost everything you said. Personally, I don't believe in any of these "best actor of all time" debates. I equally admire Daniel Day-Lewis and Robert De Niro just as I like Jack Nicholson, Al Pacino, Marlon Brando, Laurence Olivier, Morgan Freeman, Anthony Hopkins and all the other great actors of cinema. I think it's just a matter of each individual's perception and opinion.
Let's just have a look at some of the two actors' greatest performances on screen:
Robert De Niro:
Taxi Driver (Travis Bickle), Raging Bull (Jake LaMotta), The Godfather Part 2 (young Vito Corleone), The Deer Hunter (Michael), Cape Fear (Max Cady).
Daniel Day-Lewis:
There Will Be Blood (Daniel Plainview), My Left Foot (Christie Brown), Gangs Of New York (Bill The Butcher), Lincoln (Abraham Lincoln), In The Name of the Father (Garry Conlon).
It's just insane to pair them up against each other. I love them both.
What I love about Day-Lewis is how he is able to completely immerse himself into each character he's playing and simply become someone else. I'm not watching Daniel Day-Lewis in There Will Be Blood, I'm watching Daniel Plainview.
The same goes for De Niro. I'm not watching Robert De Niro in Taxi Driver, I'm watching Travis Bickle.
I think Day-Lewis is better then De Niro witch accents though. He has done Irish, New York, American and British (even a debatable Italian one) while De Niro has only done Southern American accent and spoken Sicilian dialect (in Godfather 2).
What I like most about De Niro is his credibility. I've never seen him turn in a bad performance. I always buy into the characters he's playing. That's just my opinion. I think he has a great convincing quality as an actor and charisma too. You mentioned that he has no personality in real life which enables him to become other characters. That's exactly the quality I like in De Niro. He doesn't have to be interesting in real life. He's an actor and his characters are interesting and exciting. To me that's enough.
I just wish people would stop comparing apples to oranges. It's a matter of taste. I personally like both.
reply
share