Charlie Sheen

I have to agree. Sheen was pretty awful. Especially compared to Tom Berenger, Willem Defoe, and ALL the supporting cast. EVERYONE far exceeded Sheen's performance. His performance actually brought DOWN the movie!! Also I posted just a minute ago about Berenger's AWESOME performance, and why he never had a single movie that even came close to this performance since this movie. His performance in this film was one of the best I've ever seen, in any movie and with any actor.


A Dog's Life for Me

I can't say I have any issues with Charlie Sheen's acting in Platoon but do you think he was picked due to his father Martin Sheen being the lead in Apocalypse Now? Kind of bookends them and ties the 2 movies together in a way perhaps.

I agree most, if not all, of the other actors in the platoon were better than Sheen, but I wouldn't go so far as to say he was awful. Remember that he had a role that asked for a performance very different from that of the others: The part of a naive greenhorn who gets transformed, first, to someone driven close to insanity (as in the scene where he bosses around a Vietnamese villager), and later someone along the lines of Elias ("good guy" but at the same time a hardened soldier). No other actor had that kind of transformation to bring on the screen, and I think Charlie Sheen did it fine.

OP is probably Johnny Depp, he's jealous and pissed LMAO.

Sheen was excellent.

[deleted]

I think Sheen's performance was perfectly acceptable. Oliver Stone - no dummy - knew the character of Chris Taylor represented the audience, and Sheen was the window in. Sheen's slightly wooden style and 'what the heck am I doing here' demeanour very much suited the role and the intention the role served.

Sheen's reactions should mirror the audience's. When Taylor is confused, chances are the audience is as well. When Taylor wants to strike out at Barnes over Elias' death, the audience probably thinks that isn't too bad of an idea.

Taylor's naivete should also match the audience. Remember that we now live in the information age, and Platoon is almost 30 years old. Back in 1986, people were still largely unaware of what REALLY happened in Vietnam, the brutality and wastefulness of the war. Apocalypse Now showed it a little, but was a bit too absurd and surreal. The Deer Hunter also showed some, but that film was concerned with other things. Platoon was the first 'Vietnam' film to try as best it could 'how things really were'.

So as Sheen was blundering along looking dumbstruck and outmatched by all around him, so was Sheen - having the lead role in what was essentially his film debut - and, in 1986, so was the audience.






Never defend crap with 'It's just a movie'
http://www.youtube.com/user/BigGreenProds

i disagree , sheen was good in this movie

u just see the guy who developed into a comic actor n hot shots and 2 and a half men

i found his voiceover good as well

I thought Sheen did an excellent job. He was supposed to play the young naive NFG (New 'effing Guy) and he played it to the T. The median age of 'nam soldier at the time was 19, and Sheen certainly looked it and acted like it. Most of your 'older' experienced men were usually about 22 years of age at the company and platoon levels. (Grandpas were 30 - and were really not seen that much in the field). Frankly, the Dafoe and Berenger actors were a bit too old for their parts. Also, Sheen's job was to be the storyteller, we the audience are supposed to see what was happening in 'nam through his innocent eyes.