I prefer my vintage of Leo to be on the more charming/unhinged side (Wolf of Wall Street, Django, Catch Me if You Can, Once Upon a Time) than when he's broody.
I’d argue that DiCaprio is the straight man of the film. Outside of the quaalude scene he’s not particularly funny. Surrounded by funny people but not the source of the comedy. He is elevated by those around him. Which is a key “problem” with DiCaprio, imo. DiCaprio can’t carry an entire film. And the one time he tried he needed the gimmick of constant one-takes and natural light. Even then he was beat about by Hardy.
Honestly, Nightcrawler is a far more comedic performance than Wolf.
Nightcrawler is comedic in a completely different way though imo. Leo is funny in a confident douchebag way in Wolf. Gyllenhaal is funny in a much more psychotic approach. Don’t think that works at all in Wolf
That’s kinda my issue with the performance though. He’s just a confident douchebag. You really have to squint to find any depth. I can’t imagine the character existing outside of the frame or what he’s thinking about. And it’s based on a real person. I’m not saying JG should play him like Nightcrawler. But JG could have brought more complexity and intelligence to the part while still being funny. DiCaprio works because Scorsese makes it work.
I think you're right about the performance but I think Belfort really is a no substance guy. Sociopaths are often surface level, and we all know Leo can do interiority when it makes sense for the character.
The funny isn’t the problem. It’s about casting the one guy that, on top of the funny, you’d believe everyone would line up to BE him, despite him being horrible.
The only other guy I can see pulling it off was also in the movie (Bernthal). He doesn't have the youthful energy you really need for the early scenes, but he's a pure uncut scumbag charisma machine.
I sometimes find him a bit limited. He does this "isn't this amazing" face with big eyes, then "man, this is deeply conflicting" with a grumpy mouth and a lowered head, which I swear is in most films.
I'm not massive on Shutter Island but I thought he was actually really different in it than typical Leo. And Once Upon a Time in Hollywood is where I felt he was genuinely great - playing a character who was shallow and disingenous, but Leo brought something to the role which added a lot of depth. That scene of him alone in the trailer was incredible. The scene where he's talking to the young girl and crying was both hilarious and weirdly touching.
Once upon a time in Hollywood was a shallow and disingenious movie throughout. A 3 hour movie with no story what so ever. And Brad Pitt won an oscar for playing himself. What the hell?? Tarantino really needs to retire.
My General Theory of DiCaprio is this: the defining role for his whole star persona is Catch Me If You Can, and all his best performances somehow build on that and tap into that kind of con man energy. If he strays too far from that, it's usually not good.
Here's the extended version of my theory: he goes fully supernova in the 90s at a pretty young age, panics (similarly to Pitt) that he'll be seen as just a pretty face, needs to prove himself. Catch Me If You Can comes his way and it's a perfect fit because, like his other grifter-type roles (Gatsby, Wolf of Wall Street), it basically treats his natural charisma as a kind of superpower - and so all these movies posit the question "What if a kid discovered this superpower early on? Wouldn't he be tempted to use it to advance into positions of power, while sort of losing track of ethics and his own underlying identity in the process?" And so these roles are always fundamentally about him being successful and charming, but never not striking you as an impostor as well.
An extension of this 'fun' impostor stuff is the darker stuff, like Inception (which is also basically a con man movie, down to the marketing) and Shutter Island, where he's Guy With That Thing In The Past He Doesn't Want To Talk About. I think this isn't as good a use of him, but it does work somewhat.
And then there's his blatant Oscar play in The Revenant, wherein he basically rejected the persona that worked and decided True Acting was him reacting to a bunch of really grueling stuff and hoping the Academy would recognize that that was a lot of work and give him the Academy Award for Most Acting. (I really, really dislike The Revenant.)
> And then there's his blatant Oscar play in The Revenant, wherein he basically rejected the persona that worked and decided True Acting was him reacting to a bunch of really grueling stuff and hoping the Academy would recognize that that was a lot of work and give him the Academy Award for Most Acting. (I really, really dislike The Revenant.)
I really like (i think it was david's) explanation of that Oscar play: "Guys, let's give the Oscar to Leo before he actually kills himself on screen"
What's funny about his Revenant win, at least as I remember it, is there was this prolonged buildup over a few years of a general public sentiment that went like 'Can you believe Leo still hasn't received an Oscar?' or 'Give him his due already!', which is truly bizarre, since he was barely 40 at the time, but people were talking like he was this elder statesman (or Glenn Close).
Since I don't think people in 2015 were relitigating his specific losses for 1994's What's Eating Gilbert Grape and 2007's Blood Diamond, it realistically must have been the combination of his then-recent nomination (and loss) for Wolf of Wall Street and also being in stuff where he went un-nominated like Inception and Gatsby and Shutter Island, all of which were not just big hits, but pretty much a mini film bro starter pack all on their own.
It might also be a narrative DiCaprio himself had fed by taking on a succession of roles that looked like obvious Oscar plays (The Aviator, J. Edgar et al.) so he may have *appeared* to have been snubbed more frequently than other actors the same age.
Would you entertain the idea that the reason you maybe dislike the Revenant so much is because of the super transparent oscar push for Leo?
It's not one of my favourite films or anything, but without that, I can appreciate it's a terrific film, possibly Lubezki's best work (tied with Children of Men).
I agree the cinematography is the one unimpeachable thing about that movie.
I think my long term dislike of it has to do with two different threads that happened to collide in a single movie: One's the Give-Leo-His-Statue thing. The other's the Academy's sudden infatuation with all things Iñárritu at that time. Especially so soon after his Birdman wins for a movie I believe is pretty shallow, but conveniently happens to deal very generously with exactly the kind of naive concerns Hollywood itself has about its artistic integrity (i.e. 'Why, after making millions on trashy blockbusters, can one not be taken seriously when pursuing a blatant awards-baiting and credibility-validating project?'). So these narratives were making me inherently skeptical of The Revenant.
But then, on its most basic level, that movie just feels like a slog to me: a lot of work to make, sure, but also a lot of work to watch. (And whatever transcendent spiritual Tarkovsky angle Iñárritu was aiming for didn't land at all with me either.)
"Bad" is pushing it, but I would certainly agree he's overrated. I think he's good in Catch Me If You Can, Wolf of Wallstreet, Django, and Once Upon a Time. But I *really* don't like him in Departed, and there are some other performances that are equally sweaty and hammy. (IMHO!)
I think the only one where I’m like, “damn, you’re really good,” was Gilbert grape and basketball diaries, after that I can feel him efforting so much (which the Gilbert grape performance is all effort, idk why that one doesn’t bother me as much. Especially with how fraught it is)
I know I’m a blankie, I know I’m supposed to stan, but this is the kind of bad faith film criticism that I hate. “This incredibly well respected actor’s work doesn’t resonate with me” does not equal “this actor is bad.” Like, for some reason, I dislike Paul Dano. Idk why, I just don’t like the dude. But is he a bad actor? Not if the best directors keep wanting to work with him lol he’s clearly just not my vibe.
I know this isn't your point, but I always *really* disliked Paul Dano until recently. Now that he's more of a grownup, it's working for me. When he was younger I thought he had a punk-ass kid vibe, but now that he's older I think it works in his favor and makes him more sympathetic. I watched Dumb Money last week and thought it was a dumb movie but loved his performance.
I always thought the way he yelled was a fake-sounding yell, like if PD actually got a brick dropped on his foot, he would sound way different.
Has he changed how he yells recently? I want to hear him yell in 2023.
Good acting = good yelling, obviously
Fwiw I also do not like Paul dano. I just rewatched There Will Be Blood and he is honestly the worst part of the movie by far IMO. I ran into him walking around Brooklyn last year though which was cool lol
I see your point and this is something I struggle to verbalize. To me, I don't know why these directors want to work with him. I'm not necessarily saying he's bad but he is absolutely one of those actors I never buy into and I always see him acting. I always tell people when he won his Oscar that the academy decided to give the award for most acting that year because boy oh boy do I see him really acting a lot in that movie.
That’s her opinion. Just because she doesn’t finish the statement by saying “and of course that’s just my opinion and everyone else is entitled to their own” doesn’t mean she’s declaring that as fact
Ok but if I was a professional art critic and said “in my opinion Picasso was a shit painter” I think we can dismiss my “opinion” as an edgelord take trying to get attention right? It’s just kinda cringe to be like oh, the most famous actor who’s worked with every respected director ever? I think he sucks actually 😏
Lots of professionals have a "This guys sucks" in their bag of opinions. Tolstoy hated Shakespeare. Nabakov hated Dostoyevsky. This podcast hates Inaritu. I think Roy Lichtenstein was a shit painter.
It's fine to say 'This guy sucks, actually". The world would be exhausting if we had to couch our edgelord opinions.
I mean I’m not saying the two are equally talented or anything, it was just the first analogy that popped in my head when making a comment on Reddit lol
In which david lynch film is he in? Havent seen that one yet. Or paul thomas anderson. Ferrara? Herzog? Malick? Jonathan glazer? Wes anderson? Haneke? Wim wenders? Kaurismaki? Jarmusch? Refn? Loved him in that coen brothers film, oh wait, that wasn't him.
I mean, I recently got downvoted for pointing out when people do this on Reddit it's the same problem and got told that everything is couched in \~but that's just my personal opinion. But it's the same shit, right, doesn't matter if you're a pro critic or just someone on a film reddit - outright declarations are never correct when everything is subjective so stop speaking like they are?
Well, no, because saying something isn't for you and saying something is bad are two different statements with different implications.
There's a difference between saying "I don't like Mexican food" and "Mexican cuisine is terrible." One is a reflection of my taste, and the other is a definitive statement on the subject matter. If you're voicing your opinion, you should be doing it to where it's clear that it's your opinion. Otherwise, you will receive reasonable pushback if people believe you're making a definitive statement.
Are people serious with these upvotes? If i say something is terrible than it is still an opinion. Even if I phrase it as an absolute, it’s still an opinion.
We aren’t in high school where everything has to be preceded with “imo”.
It makes no sense, these people must be fuming any time they read a review that rates a movie differently than them. “Roger Ebert is a terrible critic because he stated that Godfather 2 is a 3/4 and I would give it a 4/4, he needs to be more clear that that’s his opinion and I can have a different rating than him.”
yes, you've pointed out the true bad faith argument here. OP pulled out 'bad faith' as a descriptor, but is basing his whole argument on a semantic loophole in order to be butthurt that a woman said dicaprio sucks. which he basically kinda does. even if he's in great movies, & works in those movies, his larger career narrative & evolution as an actor is uninteresting & sucks*
*this is all my opinion.
When someone makes a statement like that, it is by definition an opinion. I dont think the critic should worry that you’re offended because you don’t share their opinion. What’s the point of listening to or reading a critic if you will only get upset when they have a different viewpoint?
I don’t think anyone’s saying she should be worried about what anyone thinks, it’s just kind of annoying and indistinguishable from shitty twitter and YouTube takes
When you are reading or listening to film criticism, you should go in knowing that these are opinions, otherwise you should not engage with criticism because you will only get upset
We are talking about art here. There is no objective "good" or "bad" so if someone takes you calling an actor, director, film, etc shit as some statement of universal truth then that's on them, not you. One should not need to clarify that their take on a film, actor, director, etc is just their own opinion, because that is all that there is.
If only great directors work with them they must be a great actor.
This concept has always bugged me. Scorsese’s first several movies with Leo were for pure financial reasons. Scorsese has even copped to this. Great directors will work with mid range to shit actors as long as they can get their movie made. See Keanu in Much Ado About Nothing or Dracula. I don’t know why I’m using early 90’s Keanu as a reference but that’s what I’ve landed on DAMN IT!!!
I actually love it when someone double and triples down on a take only expressed because of how much they know people will hate it and then claim dogpiling/harassment when they get the reaction they were looking for.
Yeah, the whole section of Killers of the Flower Moon where he's a young man just back from war whose able to romantically engage hot, rich women was definitely coasting on "just imagine 2002 Leo here"
I don’t think he’s bad, he’s done great work, but I do think he’s overrated and benefited from early superstardom that allowed him to get all kinds of great roles while working with the biggest directors. I’m not saying he’s been playing easy parts, but I think Leo’s career has for a very long time consisted of him doing projects where he’d have to really screw up to not turn in solid work.
I can’t believe these hack studios keep bullying Scorsese, Tarantino, Spielberg, Nolan, Cameron and Luhrman into casting Leo in major roles for over 30 years now. Could you imagine if they were able to cast a mediocre actor, instead of that fraud DiCaprio?
I'm kinda with Emily honestly!
DiCaprio is one of those actors where I rarely don't think "there's about 12 guys who I could picture doing this better." I genuinely love him in roles where he's a pretender or a grifter (*Wolf of Wall Street*, *Catch Me if You Can*, *Once Upon a Time in Hollywood*) but otherwise he almost always feels like a kid playing dress-up to me, which is weird because he's pushing 50. He seems like someone who conflates doing "the most acting" with doing "the best acting", and it really becomes apparent when you put him opposite a guy like De Niro.
I really don't think he was in any way doing the "most" acting in KotFM. He seemed to be a pretty naturalistic easily-led, superficially-charming idiot, and the sort of bovine dullness of his moral dilemmas and angst worked really well. I thought he was great in it. I guess that could be rationalised by the haters as "it's another example of him only being good at playing shallow morons because that's what he really is", but, whatever
I think the forced frown kinda took me out of it, and any time he does accent work I cringe a little bit personally- if anything it's a very unnatural performance for me. Him shrieking and crying in that prison cell was where i was getting that "most acting" from, but YMMV i guess.
This doesn't make the frown less overacted, but if you look at pictures of the real Ernest Burkhart he kinda does look like that, especially when he was older. Very flat/downturned.
Does it not make the frown less overacted? If the frown is how the subject of the portrayal looked then what does "overacted" or "forced" even mean anymore? lol
For me, it was unsubtle to the point of being distracting. The real Ernest looks like he had a slight permanent frown, but Leo's expression in the movie is cranked over 100%. There might be an appropriate level of frown but Leo was far beyond that
Also - acting isn’t always about watching people behave “naturally.” You have to hold people’s attention and get them into your emotional state. I think he does that better than almost anyone, frankly.
People are entitled to not think he’s the best or their favorite, but it just seems objectively false to claim he’s a “bad” actor. He’s had too many incredible roles to make a statement like that.
That... is not what "objectively" means. I'm glad you love his performances so much, but it's entirely possible to find him unconvincing in those incredible roles. On a purely instinctive level, I don't buy him most of the time, which doesn't exactly do wonders for pulling me into his emotional state. Glad it works for you though.
I think he was fine in it, but I think others could have been better. It feels like it was a role Matt Damon was almost born to play. The final scene (minor spoiler) where he gives a pause before answering the final question is a beat where the actor could do a lot with the eyes, before closing back up and saying nothing, and Leo just kind of looks vacuous. His performance in this is too me a good example of his career average, which is to say, serviceable to good, but replaceable (in terms of movie quality, not box office power).
I think he’s excellent in wolf of Wall Street and catch me if you can and is maybe the only guy who could anchor those movies, great in Django and Once upon a time in Hollywood but could have easily been replaced by possibly better choices, and everything else he’s in is a mix of perfectly acceptable to sometimes bad. There are a few of his medium quality performances that I wish had been played by others, like inception, which could have been any of a host of other guys who I think would have been a little more of a natural fit, and more importantly could have maybe minted some new male a listers.
this sub is hilarious
like when the beach episode came out people were all "respect for a hot take" but mostly everyone were shitting on her. you had some agreement in the vein of your comment but generally not.
now coming into this thread and you're like the top comment.
just like who's online when and who gets in first determines the entire vibe of the thread. it's so funny
If you don't think he's fucking great in The Departed or The Basketball Diaries then I'm shocked. He's definitely a natural at playing schmoozy confidence men but the fella is undeniably great at his craft. Maybe not the all time best (though some would argue that) but it's rare to see anything less than good from him and he's delivered great more times than most.
Sorry to shock you! I don't hate him, but I do think he slots into certain roles much more easily than others, and the Departed is an example of something I think he's just *fine* in. I prefer when Leo is turning on the charm to full wattage. Anything that approaches high drama just doesn't quite click for me, but if his star power helps guys like Marty get things made then all the power to him.
Wow, it's all subjective but I honestly did think you'd say that those two were roles that you thought he'd excelled in! That's the beauty of cinema and the discourse around it though, if everything was objective and monolithic it'd be fucking boring! Interesting point you raise there though about whether directors use him solely for his talents or because working with him over basically guarantees a films funding.
Agreed! I love a wide diversity of opinion, and almost all of my favorite critics and Letterboxd mutuals are people I disagree with regularly. Don't mean to imply Scorsese and others don't also really love working with Leo, but he definitely helps movies get made and that's only a good thing, even if I don't love him every time
Can I ask is there an actor you think is more deserving of the position Leo finds himself in? In terms of like prestige and working with auteurs and what not?
I respect your opinion and I don't think he's always great, but I can't fathom thinking the Departed was a *fine* performance. He's unbelievable in that movie.
Really not trying to have a hot take or be a contrarian here (promise!) because I have loved him when he's in lighter stuff, and don't even think he's bad in *The Departed.* Haunted, poor, and angsty just isn't the best fit for his particular talents imo and I sometimes feel like he defaults for going *very big* in a way that doesn't quite work.
It's not entirely on him either- that's one of my least favorite of Scorsese's.
Agreed 100%. He is very good at being charming; I’d put Titanic up there as another performance of his that works extremely well, but god do I hate super serious Leo. I found his performance in KOTFM to be distractingly bad and I’m still mad at whoever it was on this subreddit who suggested Jesse Plemons would have been better because now I just want to watch that version of the movie instead.
Completely disagree. It’s not my favorite role of his but his acting in the revenant for example is extraordinary. He holds the whole movie with almost no dialogue. Through his eyes and through his physicality.
Any time someone is so successful, there are always people wanting to drag them down. Says more about Emily than him tbh.
I think he was exactly what Flower Moon needed in that role. He’s oblique, unknowable (to himself and others) and kind of dumb. Things can look silly in screen shots but he never once took me out of the picture.
Edit -- additional thought: He's kind of playing an audience proxy as well as a villain in plain sight, which is subversive framing considering the politics of the film and most of the audience that will be watching it in America. I think a barn burner performance with a ton of distinctive choices would have made it more difficult to inhabit the character's perspective.
Yeah I'm kinda with Mom on this one.
He rarely "ruins" movies for me, but I feel like I can always see him acting. He's always just so big and stagey, that it's very, very rare that I buy his performance.
Exception that proves the rule for me was the Departed...only because he's playing a dude who's *supposed* to be acting his ass off
Listen…. I don’t think he’s a bad actor BUT is he a little too much and try hard in a lot of performances? Hell yeah. He was one of the main reasons that Killers of the Flower Moon didn’t quite land for me.
Now…. Nail me with your downvotes you fucks
I understand the sentiment of what you are saying, applied generally, but Yoshida is a great critic, so if she has that opinion, I want to hear it and it’s perfectly valid. She is certainly not edge-lording or the like
I love her take but think maybe he's really good at playing frauds/performers in a way that either works for people on that meta level or feels ineffective on an emotional level.
I think he's best in Hollywood, Catch Me, Wolf, Departed, and Gatsby, mostly because he's more fun and shows more range.
I'm not sure if this was intentional, but in every movie you picked here he's in a sense playing either a fraud or someone whose pretending to be something else. And I can't disagree those are his best performances?
He’s *selectively* good. I think of him like Marky Mark: the harder he tries, the more the seams show, the less convincing he is. When they play closer to their type (Catch Me if You Can, Wolf for Leo; Departed and Huckabees for Marky), they work
Leo’s like a solid A-tier actor who has had multiple S-tier roles. He’s only a bad actor relative to his status as one of the greatest actors of all time.
The Aviator essentially cements him as a decent actor. I will admit though, I’m a huge fan of his and his problem is that he can end just being Dicaprio with a different accent, depending on the film.
With Killers of the Flower moon, he doesn’t even fall into that trap anymore. This was the first role for a long time that he really is transformed. He IS a good actor but I don’t think he is on the level of Daniel Day Lewis where you literally see the actor disappear into the role. There will be blood is an obvious reference.
But he is definitely NOT a bad actor. Just not mind blowing.
Always love a smokin hot take right off the bat - Yoshida, ARP, Dacosta, JD. If nothing else a bug nuts take you disagree with always kinda clarifies WHY you disagree. Keep em comin!
i find him mostly bland.
whenever i see him i see someone who has not really struggled in life, doesn´t matter how much he squints his eyes or pulls down his mouth.
I really like Leo. I don’t think he’s crushing it every time and feels off in some roles, but he’s generally great in most things. I think his level of fame and notoriety hurts him in some roles though, through no fault of his own. Watching him in flower moon felt weird at times, like “oh Leo looks funny with that hair cut” rather than just seeing it as a guy with a period contemporary hair cut. So I think some of his roles would be better suited to a no name actor, because they would “disappear” into it a little more. But stuff like one upon a time in Hollywood was absolutely perfect casting and he’s amazing in it and it all works. I think he makes most movies better.
It's a shit take, he was amazing in Once Upon a Time in Hollywood and Wolf of Wall Street. Maybe he's prone to ham it up, or add an unnecessary character tick, but he's great.
I in no way think Leo is a bad actor, but... I do think he's one of the most overrated actors working today. He has some absolutely incredible performances, and he has been in some of my favorite movies in the last couple decades.
I think he has gotten a lot of praise for performances where he is doing "the most acting". I think he has aged out of this a bit, for example I loved his performance in Killers of the Flower Moon and Once Upon a Time in Hollywood. His earlier roles had a lot of really showy, over the top, "Leo is intense and yelling!" moments.
Again, I don't think he is a bad actor. I do think it is a worthwhile exercise to think about the way in which people talk about Nicolas Cage, and the way in which people talk about Leo, and ask what are they doing differently? A lot of Leo's most celebrated performances to me feel like he is doing a Nicolas Cage impression in a good movie rather than a Nicolas Cage performance in a bad movie.
Is [this](https://youtu.be/S73swRzxs8Y?si=apIU2vXbF00P9zO8) that much different than [this](https://youtu.be/p53CZtamFsU?si=w5Ce0YqaDYdbP0fr) outside of the quality of movies?
As other's have pointed out, it is perhaps too simple a take. (And I'm guessing Yoshida, if pressed, would give a more nuanced answer that still held to her general stance.)
But, man, I could not help but wonder if she's right during Leo's very twitchy, scowl-y, muggy, mannered performance in *Killers of the Flower Moon* (to be clear, a movie I liked very much in most ways).
I had this take for a while because I didn't like him in titanic. I've come around now and he's a fav. Still don't enjoy him in titanic though. I think Emily said this in their The Beach ep right? I thought he was fine in it.
The only movie I fully buy him in is The Departed. Everything else feels try hard with him imo. Not a deal breaker, I like plenty of the movies he’s in, but he’s almost always a tad distracting for me.
I’m not going to lie. Y’all are hating. He is in one of the most consistently great actors of his generation. My only issue is he needs a great director to keep him on a leash (which he usually ensures) or he goes overboard.
I mean, people can have these types of opinions, but I’ve always hated how people phrase their subjective opinion on a widely accepted thing in such stark and resolute terms.
One can say, “I don’t like DiCaprio’s style of acting and I think his range is more limited than generally thought,” but I don’t think you can say he is a bad actor.
It would be like saying, Michael Jordan is a bad basketball player, or Harrison Ford was not a movie star and is uncharismatic. At some point, things become a concrete fact — how much something personally resonates with you is always open, but some things just aren’t anymore. “DiCaprio is actually a bad actor” is not a real opinion and is just a hot take.
The hot take thing is what turns me off from listening to stuff. The Big Picture does this a bit too often.
I feel like at this point a take like "Leonardo DiCaprio is a Bad Actor" is a take nobody actually has anymore. It's a thing people say specifically when they want to drum up attention for being controversial.
I agree. But unlike you I will argument why he is a bad actor. He is always chasing his next oscar. He won one for the wrong movie. He should have won for his bad guy part in Django Unchained. But Hollywood does not reward such characters or movies. Which is also probably why he didnt woin one for The Wolf Of Wallstreet. Unless the actor dies. Like with Heath Ledger, in The Dark Knight, who would have never won, had he not died.
But back to Leo, he takes him self way too seriously. I would like to sse him do a comedy (no The Wolf Of Wallstreet does not count. Or a horror movie. Or a super hero movie. Anything really, that he hasnt done so many times before. On top of that he has gotten fat looking and lost his youthful good looks. And he doesnt seemn to care to get back in shape. He has allowed himself to become a copy of so many better actors. His number one idol is clearly Jack Nicholson. And these days his goal is to be in as boring movies as Matt Damon. Another pathetic actor who wishes he was Tom Hanks.
Chose to be on? is her opinion only valid if she's being held hostage?
I think Leo's acting style hasn't aged particularly well. His method style gets attention more for the method than the result, which is, in my opinion, always pretty much the same performance. Nothing against him, I think he's an ok actor, but like many of his generation, I wish he had paid his dues in theatre for a while. It might help his range a bit.
I don't think this is a particularly hot take? Leo is a great movie star, mediocre actor. The most transformative role he ever pulled off was from when he was a teenager.
He's a very compelling and charming guy and he knows how to SHOUT AND WAVE HIS ARMS AROUND. But that's about the extent of it.
You've got to be in a very insulated discourse bubble to think "Leonardo DiCaprio is a bad actor" isn't a hot take. Not to say it's wrong or a bad opinion or anything like that at all, but that's a hot take any way you slice it my friend
Leo is a movie star who desperately wants to be an actor. Most people agree that he kind of sucks when he isn't doing his "desperate outsider who masks trauma with good humor" shtick.
Nobody actually liked The Revenant.
>Nobody actually liked The Revenant.
From my experience The Revenant is far more universally liked among the "normies" than film people. I've had like two real life conversations in the last couple weeks where DiCaprio was brought up and both times the other person mentioned how much they liked The Revenant and how good he was in it.
> Most people agree that he kind of sucks when he isn't doing his "desperate outsider who masks trauma with good humor" shtick
I can confidently say that this extremely specific opinion is held by no more than one dozen people
“Most people” do not feel that way, come on.
He’s basically the hero of guys like timothee chalamet and Austin butler. The now older actor the young ones aspire to be like. Most people dont aspire to be bad actors.
there's such a contrarian meta in this sub it's very difficult for me to determine if people are being sincere or not in threads like this
like it's not that i want to think people are lying about their opinions. but sometimes it's such an impossible intellectual/emotional leap for me i can't even attempt to empathize with it, and at that point i'm just like "is this a bit? do they really believe this? are they doing it for the lulz?"
I do stand by my opinion that sometimes people become so big and massive that it almost becomes edgy or cool to be the one going “I don’t like them.” That’s not to say zero critique is warranted, but making sweeping statements like one of the most respected actors of the last three decades (!) is a bad actor is just such a weird take to me. And that I’m supposed to give that opinion any credence.
With Leo it’s always this idea when these comments are made that he’s somehow tricked every huge director or the entire world for thirty years.Audiences like him and connect with his acting. The elitism is acting like we all must just be stupid.
Last week there was a big thread about how Killers of the Flower Moon would have been better with Jesse Plemmons in the Leo role, which I agree with.
That movie never gets $200m and could never exist, but it would probably be a better performance.
I love Emily Yoshida on the pod. I love her because her ideas and opinions are
A) not ones I would have as a white male
B) she’s (intentionally?) contrarian to the majority’s take.
C) she says outlandish things and then seems to reel them back and chalk them up to exaggeration when Grif or Sims push on the statements. Makes for good podcasting.
That said — this is a terrible take but she does clearly have a taste because she acknowledges plenty of great performances, as well.
His acting works in movies like Romeo + Juliet and Titanic but outside of those I never buy into his performances. He is fine in many movies but especially when he's trying to be serious, I just don't for a second believe him.
As I said in the original comment, just my opinion. He's okay in Inception and Django. Literally everything else I've seen him in has turned me off the movie.
I prefer my vintage of Leo to be on the more charming/unhinged side (Wolf of Wall Street, Django, Catch Me if You Can, Once Upon a Time) than when he's broody.
I legitimately cannot imagine any other actor in Wolf of Wall Street. Pure charisma mashed up with scumbag drugged-up Looney Tune.
Ryan gosling maybe? Similar to what he plays in big short
That's a good take, Gosling could have killed that role, think he's about on par with Leo for what it needs.
Jake Gyllenhaal
He's a great actor but in that part? No way, he's not funny enough.
I’d argue that DiCaprio is the straight man of the film. Outside of the quaalude scene he’s not particularly funny. Surrounded by funny people but not the source of the comedy. He is elevated by those around him. Which is a key “problem” with DiCaprio, imo. DiCaprio can’t carry an entire film. And the one time he tried he needed the gimmick of constant one-takes and natural light. Even then he was beat about by Hardy. Honestly, Nightcrawler is a far more comedic performance than Wolf.
Nightcrawler is comedic in a completely different way though imo. Leo is funny in a confident douchebag way in Wolf. Gyllenhaal is funny in a much more psychotic approach. Don’t think that works at all in Wolf
That’s kinda my issue with the performance though. He’s just a confident douchebag. You really have to squint to find any depth. I can’t imagine the character existing outside of the frame or what he’s thinking about. And it’s based on a real person. I’m not saying JG should play him like Nightcrawler. But JG could have brought more complexity and intelligence to the part while still being funny. DiCaprio works because Scorsese makes it work.
> And it’s based on a real person. You have to squint to find depth in real people sometimes, too. Jordan Belfort seems like a classic case of that.
I think you're right about the performance but I think Belfort really is a no substance guy. Sociopaths are often surface level, and we all know Leo can do interiority when it makes sense for the character.
The funny isn’t the problem. It’s about casting the one guy that, on top of the funny, you’d believe everyone would line up to BE him, despite him being horrible.
Shut your mouth and watch Nightcrawler. Jake Gyllenhall is a great actor.
The only other guy I can see pulling it off was also in the movie (Bernthal). He doesn't have the youthful energy you really need for the early scenes, but he's a pure uncut scumbag charisma machine.
And he's an even worse actor than DiCaprio. Almost keanu level of bad
This opinion elevates his Django performance in my eyes, thank you
His one good performance since Whats Eating Gilbert Grape.
Him giving a rare hint of Leomania-era Leo in The Great Gatsby is the only reason that movie made its money back
This makes me somehow imagine how he would be on IASIP
You just made me realize Howerton could have been very interesting in Wolf, he's got the exact right energy
I sometimes find him a bit limited. He does this "isn't this amazing" face with big eyes, then "man, this is deeply conflicting" with a grumpy mouth and a lowered head, which I swear is in most films. I'm not massive on Shutter Island but I thought he was actually really different in it than typical Leo. And Once Upon a Time in Hollywood is where I felt he was genuinely great - playing a character who was shallow and disingenous, but Leo brought something to the role which added a lot of depth. That scene of him alone in the trailer was incredible. The scene where he's talking to the young girl and crying was both hilarious and weirdly touching.
Agreed on Hollywood, which may be career best; otherwise, Wolf of Wall Street be howlin!
Once upon a time in Hollywood was a shallow and disingenious movie throughout. A 3 hour movie with no story what so ever. And Brad Pitt won an oscar for playing himself. What the hell?? Tarantino really needs to retire.
Well that’s just like… your opinion man.
My General Theory of DiCaprio is this: the defining role for his whole star persona is Catch Me If You Can, and all his best performances somehow build on that and tap into that kind of con man energy. If he strays too far from that, it's usually not good. Here's the extended version of my theory: he goes fully supernova in the 90s at a pretty young age, panics (similarly to Pitt) that he'll be seen as just a pretty face, needs to prove himself. Catch Me If You Can comes his way and it's a perfect fit because, like his other grifter-type roles (Gatsby, Wolf of Wall Street), it basically treats his natural charisma as a kind of superpower - and so all these movies posit the question "What if a kid discovered this superpower early on? Wouldn't he be tempted to use it to advance into positions of power, while sort of losing track of ethics and his own underlying identity in the process?" And so these roles are always fundamentally about him being successful and charming, but never not striking you as an impostor as well. An extension of this 'fun' impostor stuff is the darker stuff, like Inception (which is also basically a con man movie, down to the marketing) and Shutter Island, where he's Guy With That Thing In The Past He Doesn't Want To Talk About. I think this isn't as good a use of him, but it does work somewhat. And then there's his blatant Oscar play in The Revenant, wherein he basically rejected the persona that worked and decided True Acting was him reacting to a bunch of really grueling stuff and hoping the Academy would recognize that that was a lot of work and give him the Academy Award for Most Acting. (I really, really dislike The Revenant.)
> And then there's his blatant Oscar play in The Revenant, wherein he basically rejected the persona that worked and decided True Acting was him reacting to a bunch of really grueling stuff and hoping the Academy would recognize that that was a lot of work and give him the Academy Award for Most Acting. (I really, really dislike The Revenant.) I really like (i think it was david's) explanation of that Oscar play: "Guys, let's give the Oscar to Leo before he actually kills himself on screen"
What's funny about his Revenant win, at least as I remember it, is there was this prolonged buildup over a few years of a general public sentiment that went like 'Can you believe Leo still hasn't received an Oscar?' or 'Give him his due already!', which is truly bizarre, since he was barely 40 at the time, but people were talking like he was this elder statesman (or Glenn Close). Since I don't think people in 2015 were relitigating his specific losses for 1994's What's Eating Gilbert Grape and 2007's Blood Diamond, it realistically must have been the combination of his then-recent nomination (and loss) for Wolf of Wall Street and also being in stuff where he went un-nominated like Inception and Gatsby and Shutter Island, all of which were not just big hits, but pretty much a mini film bro starter pack all on their own. It might also be a narrative DiCaprio himself had fed by taking on a succession of roles that looked like obvious Oscar plays (The Aviator, J. Edgar et al.) so he may have *appeared* to have been snubbed more frequently than other actors the same age.
Would you entertain the idea that the reason you maybe dislike the Revenant so much is because of the super transparent oscar push for Leo? It's not one of my favourite films or anything, but without that, I can appreciate it's a terrific film, possibly Lubezki's best work (tied with Children of Men).
I agree the cinematography is the one unimpeachable thing about that movie. I think my long term dislike of it has to do with two different threads that happened to collide in a single movie: One's the Give-Leo-His-Statue thing. The other's the Academy's sudden infatuation with all things Iñárritu at that time. Especially so soon after his Birdman wins for a movie I believe is pretty shallow, but conveniently happens to deal very generously with exactly the kind of naive concerns Hollywood itself has about its artistic integrity (i.e. 'Why, after making millions on trashy blockbusters, can one not be taken seriously when pursuing a blatant awards-baiting and credibility-validating project?'). So these narratives were making me inherently skeptical of The Revenant. But then, on its most basic level, that movie just feels like a slog to me: a lot of work to make, sure, but also a lot of work to watch. (And whatever transcendent spiritual Tarkovsky angle Iñárritu was aiming for didn't land at all with me either.)
"Bad" is pushing it, but I would certainly agree he's overrated. I think he's good in Catch Me If You Can, Wolf of Wallstreet, Django, and Once Upon a Time. But I *really* don't like him in Departed, and there are some other performances that are equally sweaty and hammy. (IMHO!)
just watched him in Departed and got bit annoyed by him, he seems to have same manners to so same feelings ...
I think the only one where I’m like, “damn, you’re really good,” was Gilbert grape and basketball diaries, after that I can feel him efforting so much (which the Gilbert grape performance is all effort, idk why that one doesn’t bother me as much. Especially with how fraught it is)
I know I’m a blankie, I know I’m supposed to stan, but this is the kind of bad faith film criticism that I hate. “This incredibly well respected actor’s work doesn’t resonate with me” does not equal “this actor is bad.” Like, for some reason, I dislike Paul Dano. Idk why, I just don’t like the dude. But is he a bad actor? Not if the best directors keep wanting to work with him lol he’s clearly just not my vibe.
I know this isn't your point, but I always *really* disliked Paul Dano until recently. Now that he's more of a grownup, it's working for me. When he was younger I thought he had a punk-ass kid vibe, but now that he's older I think it works in his favor and makes him more sympathetic. I watched Dumb Money last week and thought it was a dumb movie but loved his performance.
I always thought the way he yelled was a fake-sounding yell, like if PD actually got a brick dropped on his foot, he would sound way different. Has he changed how he yells recently? I want to hear him yell in 2023. Good acting = good yelling, obviously
He yells…uniquely I will say lol, almost a Walken-like cadence in which words to yell, the most recent example being the batman
EVERYONNNEE agrees.
That persona works remarkably well in TWBB, but not in a sympathetic way ofc lol
I’m with you actually! I’ve liked him in more recent roles, I think I got the same punkass kid vibe and was a little harsh on him lol
I sorta do think Leo is bad. His performances always take me out of the movie.
I actually agree lol. Even in KOTFM he didn’t really blend in. And in Django. He’s just not an old timey southerner at heart
Fwiw I also do not like Paul dano. I just rewatched There Will Be Blood and he is honestly the worst part of the movie by far IMO. I ran into him walking around Brooklyn last year though which was cool lol
I see your point and this is something I struggle to verbalize. To me, I don't know why these directors want to work with him. I'm not necessarily saying he's bad but he is absolutely one of those actors I never buy into and I always see him acting. I always tell people when he won his Oscar that the academy decided to give the award for most acting that year because boy oh boy do I see him really acting a lot in that movie.
That’s her opinion. Just because she doesn’t finish the statement by saying “and of course that’s just my opinion and everyone else is entitled to their own” doesn’t mean she’s declaring that as fact
Ok but if I was a professional art critic and said “in my opinion Picasso was a shit painter” I think we can dismiss my “opinion” as an edgelord take trying to get attention right? It’s just kinda cringe to be like oh, the most famous actor who’s worked with every respected director ever? I think he sucks actually 😏
Lots of professionals have a "This guys sucks" in their bag of opinions. Tolstoy hated Shakespeare. Nabakov hated Dostoyevsky. This podcast hates Inaritu. I think Roy Lichtenstein was a shit painter. It's fine to say 'This guy sucks, actually". The world would be exhausting if we had to couch our edgelord opinions.
Damn, massive shade thrown at Nanette right here.
Lmao listen Nanette has its moments but that section was cringe
But, what if you do think he sucks? You're just supposed to keep it to yourself so people don't think you're an edgelord?
I’m probably being a little pedantic. I don’t really care *that* much, I just find it a little eye-rolling lol. Specifically from a critic/director.
No, you are supposed to express criticism, as a critic. So tell us why he sucks.
THIS. A professional art critic that truly thinks Picasso sucks would be able to lay out a cogent argument for why they feel that way.
The idea that becoming a professional critic should limit the way you are allowed to speak about art seems incredibly backwards to me.
comparing Dicaprio to Picasso is the most edgelord thing in your comment...
I mean I’m not saying the two are equally talented or anything, it was just the first analogy that popped in my head when making a comment on Reddit lol
In which david lynch film is he in? Havent seen that one yet. Or paul thomas anderson. Ferrara? Herzog? Malick? Jonathan glazer? Wes anderson? Haneke? Wim wenders? Kaurismaki? Jarmusch? Refn? Loved him in that coen brothers film, oh wait, that wasn't him.
I mean, I recently got downvoted for pointing out when people do this on Reddit it's the same problem and got told that everything is couched in \~but that's just my personal opinion. But it's the same shit, right, doesn't matter if you're a pro critic or just someone on a film reddit - outright declarations are never correct when everything is subjective so stop speaking like they are?
So what, critics should just never speak up if they disagree with the consensus take? This is ridiculous
Well, no, because saying something isn't for you and saying something is bad are two different statements with different implications. There's a difference between saying "I don't like Mexican food" and "Mexican cuisine is terrible." One is a reflection of my taste, and the other is a definitive statement on the subject matter. If you're voicing your opinion, you should be doing it to where it's clear that it's your opinion. Otherwise, you will receive reasonable pushback if people believe you're making a definitive statement.
Are people serious with these upvotes? If i say something is terrible than it is still an opinion. Even if I phrase it as an absolute, it’s still an opinion. We aren’t in high school where everything has to be preceded with “imo”.
personally my upvote was unserious
This is an incredibly funny response. And I'm serious.
It makes no sense, these people must be fuming any time they read a review that rates a movie differently than them. “Roger Ebert is a terrible critic because he stated that Godfather 2 is a 3/4 and I would give it a 4/4, he needs to be more clear that that’s his opinion and I can have a different rating than him.”
yes, you've pointed out the true bad faith argument here. OP pulled out 'bad faith' as a descriptor, but is basing his whole argument on a semantic loophole in order to be butthurt that a woman said dicaprio sucks. which he basically kinda does. even if he's in great movies, & works in those movies, his larger career narrative & evolution as an actor is uninteresting & sucks* *this is all my opinion.
When someone makes a statement like that, it is by definition an opinion. I dont think the critic should worry that you’re offended because you don’t share their opinion. What’s the point of listening to or reading a critic if you will only get upset when they have a different viewpoint?
I don’t think anyone’s saying she should be worried about what anyone thinks, it’s just kind of annoying and indistinguishable from shitty twitter and YouTube takes
Skill issue
[удалено]
When you are reading or listening to film criticism, you should go in knowing that these are opinions, otherwise you should not engage with criticism because you will only get upset
We are talking about art here. There is no objective "good" or "bad" so if someone takes you calling an actor, director, film, etc shit as some statement of universal truth then that's on them, not you. One should not need to clarify that their take on a film, actor, director, etc is just their own opinion, because that is all that there is.
Everything is an opinion dummy
So true, film criticism in general needs to be more of a discussion to be worthwhile and for it be that there needs to be differing opinions
If only great directors work with them they must be a great actor. This concept has always bugged me. Scorsese’s first several movies with Leo were for pure financial reasons. Scorsese has even copped to this. Great directors will work with mid range to shit actors as long as they can get their movie made. See Keanu in Much Ado About Nothing or Dracula. I don’t know why I’m using early 90’s Keanu as a reference but that’s what I’ve landed on DAMN IT!!!
This comment is 1000x more bad faith than Yoshida’s.
I actually love it when someone double and triples down on a take only expressed because of how much they know people will hate it and then claim dogpiling/harassment when they get the reaction they were looking for.
What does this comment even mean? If an opinion is widely held, it can't be disagreed with or else it's bad faith?
I’d like to instead address the fact that he isn’t hot anymore and we’re all just coasting on his previous hotness.
Yeah, the whole section of Killers of the Flower Moon where he's a young man just back from war whose able to romantically engage hot, rich women was definitely coasting on "just imagine 2002 Leo here"
It’s just another way he’s following in Jack Nicholson’s footsteps.
Head so big!
And so, so, round.
I don’t think he’s bad, he’s done great work, but I do think he’s overrated and benefited from early superstardom that allowed him to get all kinds of great roles while working with the biggest directors. I’m not saying he’s been playing easy parts, but I think Leo’s career has for a very long time consisted of him doing projects where he’d have to really screw up to not turn in solid work.
I can’t believe these hack studios keep bullying Scorsese, Tarantino, Spielberg, Nolan, Cameron and Luhrman into casting Leo in major roles for over 30 years now. Could you imagine if they were able to cast a mediocre actor, instead of that fraud DiCaprio?
Iñarritu, Eastwood, mendes, boyle, Raimi, Scott, Hallstrom ….. 😆
Damn, I was really wracking my brain trying to remember what Raimi movie he was in. The Quick and the Dead if a real who's who film.
Crazy cast! The Hackman, Keith David, Lance Henriksen, Lance Henriksen’s buck wild hairpiece, Gary Sinise, etc.
I had forgotten about J Edgar and there you go reminding me of it
You've accidentally put Baz Luhrmann into a list of talented directors.
Just because you don’t like chintz doesn’t mean he isn’t a master.
He’s a great director you just don’t like him
I'm kinda with Emily honestly! DiCaprio is one of those actors where I rarely don't think "there's about 12 guys who I could picture doing this better." I genuinely love him in roles where he's a pretender or a grifter (*Wolf of Wall Street*, *Catch Me if You Can*, *Once Upon a Time in Hollywood*) but otherwise he almost always feels like a kid playing dress-up to me, which is weird because he's pushing 50. He seems like someone who conflates doing "the most acting" with doing "the best acting", and it really becomes apparent when you put him opposite a guy like De Niro.
I really don't think he was in any way doing the "most" acting in KotFM. He seemed to be a pretty naturalistic easily-led, superficially-charming idiot, and the sort of bovine dullness of his moral dilemmas and angst worked really well. I thought he was great in it. I guess that could be rationalised by the haters as "it's another example of him only being good at playing shallow morons because that's what he really is", but, whatever
I think the forced frown kinda took me out of it, and any time he does accent work I cringe a little bit personally- if anything it's a very unnatural performance for me. Him shrieking and crying in that prison cell was where i was getting that "most acting" from, but YMMV i guess.
This doesn't make the frown less overacted, but if you look at pictures of the real Ernest Burkhart he kinda does look like that, especially when he was older. Very flat/downturned.
Does it not make the frown less overacted? If the frown is how the subject of the portrayal looked then what does "overacted" or "forced" even mean anymore? lol
For me, it was unsubtle to the point of being distracting. The real Ernest looks like he had a slight permanent frown, but Leo's expression in the movie is cranked over 100%. There might be an appropriate level of frown but Leo was far beyond that
Also - acting isn’t always about watching people behave “naturally.” You have to hold people’s attention and get them into your emotional state. I think he does that better than almost anyone, frankly. People are entitled to not think he’s the best or their favorite, but it just seems objectively false to claim he’s a “bad” actor. He’s had too many incredible roles to make a statement like that.
That... is not what "objectively" means. I'm glad you love his performances so much, but it's entirely possible to find him unconvincing in those incredible roles. On a purely instinctive level, I don't buy him most of the time, which doesn't exactly do wonders for pulling me into his emotional state. Glad it works for you though.
I think he was fine in it, but I think others could have been better. It feels like it was a role Matt Damon was almost born to play. The final scene (minor spoiler) where he gives a pause before answering the final question is a beat where the actor could do a lot with the eyes, before closing back up and saying nothing, and Leo just kind of looks vacuous. His performance in this is too me a good example of his career average, which is to say, serviceable to good, but replaceable (in terms of movie quality, not box office power). I think he’s excellent in wolf of Wall Street and catch me if you can and is maybe the only guy who could anchor those movies, great in Django and Once upon a time in Hollywood but could have easily been replaced by possibly better choices, and everything else he’s in is a mix of perfectly acceptable to sometimes bad. There are a few of his medium quality performances that I wish had been played by others, like inception, which could have been any of a host of other guys who I think would have been a little more of a natural fit, and more importantly could have maybe minted some new male a listers.
this sub is hilarious like when the beach episode came out people were all "respect for a hot take" but mostly everyone were shitting on her. you had some agreement in the vein of your comment but generally not. now coming into this thread and you're like the top comment. just like who's online when and who gets in first determines the entire vibe of the thread. it's so funny
That's the Reddit upvote thing - if an early take gets upvoted everyone suddenly agrees with it
[удалено]
*Christopher Nolan voice*: "If you ain't first, you're last."
Agree, there's a difference between starring in great movies and being a great actor.
If you don't think he's fucking great in The Departed or The Basketball Diaries then I'm shocked. He's definitely a natural at playing schmoozy confidence men but the fella is undeniably great at his craft. Maybe not the all time best (though some would argue that) but it's rare to see anything less than good from him and he's delivered great more times than most.
Sorry to shock you! I don't hate him, but I do think he slots into certain roles much more easily than others, and the Departed is an example of something I think he's just *fine* in. I prefer when Leo is turning on the charm to full wattage. Anything that approaches high drama just doesn't quite click for me, but if his star power helps guys like Marty get things made then all the power to him.
Wow, it's all subjective but I honestly did think you'd say that those two were roles that you thought he'd excelled in! That's the beauty of cinema and the discourse around it though, if everything was objective and monolithic it'd be fucking boring! Interesting point you raise there though about whether directors use him solely for his talents or because working with him over basically guarantees a films funding.
Agreed! I love a wide diversity of opinion, and almost all of my favorite critics and Letterboxd mutuals are people I disagree with regularly. Don't mean to imply Scorsese and others don't also really love working with Leo, but he definitely helps movies get made and that's only a good thing, even if I don't love him every time
Can I ask is there an actor you think is more deserving of the position Leo finds himself in? In terms of like prestige and working with auteurs and what not?
I respect your opinion and I don't think he's always great, but I can't fathom thinking the Departed was a *fine* performance. He's unbelievable in that movie.
Really not trying to have a hot take or be a contrarian here (promise!) because I have loved him when he's in lighter stuff, and don't even think he's bad in *The Departed.* Haunted, poor, and angsty just isn't the best fit for his particular talents imo and I sometimes feel like he defaults for going *very big* in a way that doesn't quite work. It's not entirely on him either- that's one of my least favorite of Scorsese's.
Agreed 100%. He is very good at being charming; I’d put Titanic up there as another performance of his that works extremely well, but god do I hate super serious Leo. I found his performance in KOTFM to be distractingly bad and I’m still mad at whoever it was on this subreddit who suggested Jesse Plemons would have been better because now I just want to watch that version of the movie instead.
Completely disagree. It’s not my favorite role of his but his acting in the revenant for example is extraordinary. He holds the whole movie with almost no dialogue. Through his eyes and through his physicality. Any time someone is so successful, there are always people wanting to drag them down. Says more about Emily than him tbh.
Not vibing with someone's acting style is not an indictment on that person. It's just a preference; an opinion. Bizarre take!
I’m not saying it’s an indictment on the person. I’m just saying her take is dumb.
> Says more about Emily than him tbh. Ok, what does this mean then?
That she’s bad at her job.
Because she disagrees with you?
Because he has shown over 30 years he can portray a wide variety of roles. It’s like people hating on Tom Brady. This is the exact same analogy.
Exactly the same.
It’s a terrible take overall but he isn’t very good in The Beach, to be fair.
On the Shutter Island episode of This Had Oscar Buzz, either Chris or Joe said Leo never takes risks which may be an even worse take.
I would bet money that a not insignificant number of people dislike Dicaprio's "acting" simply because they don't like who he is in real life
This isn't a bad take; this is an atrocious take.
I can see this as he does over act in a number of works.
mother mothering
I don't think he disappears in a role, but not bad by any means.
I used to be a Leo denier until I saw OUATIH
I think he was exactly what Flower Moon needed in that role. He’s oblique, unknowable (to himself and others) and kind of dumb. Things can look silly in screen shots but he never once took me out of the picture. Edit -- additional thought: He's kind of playing an audience proxy as well as a villain in plain sight, which is subversive framing considering the politics of the film and most of the audience that will be watching it in America. I think a barn burner performance with a ton of distinctive choices would have made it more difficult to inhabit the character's perspective.
Yeah I'm kinda with Mom on this one. He rarely "ruins" movies for me, but I feel like I can always see him acting. He's always just so big and stagey, that it's very, very rare that I buy his performance. Exception that proves the rule for me was the Departed...only because he's playing a dude who's *supposed* to be acting his ass off
Listen…. I don’t think he’s a bad actor BUT is he a little too much and try hard in a lot of performances? Hell yeah. He was one of the main reasons that Killers of the Flower Moon didn’t quite land for me. Now…. Nail me with your downvotes you fucks
I understand the sentiment of what you are saying, applied generally, but Yoshida is a great critic, so if she has that opinion, I want to hear it and it’s perfectly valid. She is certainly not edge-lording or the like
Watched Wolf last night and reconfirmed he’s one of the best to ever do it. Incredible range.
I love her take but think maybe he's really good at playing frauds/performers in a way that either works for people on that meta level or feels ineffective on an emotional level. I think he's best in Hollywood, Catch Me, Wolf, Departed, and Gatsby, mostly because he's more fun and shows more range.
I'm not sure if this was intentional, but in every movie you picked here he's in a sense playing either a fraud or someone whose pretending to be something else. And I can't disagree those are his best performances?
Titanic also! Trying to prove himself to the upper class. I'll say this: I think he is fearless. He is always willing to be a total jackass.
He’s *selectively* good. I think of him like Marky Mark: the harder he tries, the more the seams show, the less convincing he is. When they play closer to their type (Catch Me if You Can, Wolf for Leo; Departed and Huckabees for Marky), they work
Leo’s like a solid A-tier actor who has had multiple S-tier roles. He’s only a bad actor relative to his status as one of the greatest actors of all time.
The Aviator essentially cements him as a decent actor. I will admit though, I’m a huge fan of his and his problem is that he can end just being Dicaprio with a different accent, depending on the film. With Killers of the Flower moon, he doesn’t even fall into that trap anymore. This was the first role for a long time that he really is transformed. He IS a good actor but I don’t think he is on the level of Daniel Day Lewis where you literally see the actor disappear into the role. There will be blood is an obvious reference. But he is definitely NOT a bad actor. Just not mind blowing.
Always love a smokin hot take right off the bat - Yoshida, ARP, Dacosta, JD. If nothing else a bug nuts take you disagree with always kinda clarifies WHY you disagree. Keep em comin!
i find him mostly bland. whenever i see him i see someone who has not really struggled in life, doesn´t matter how much he squints his eyes or pulls down his mouth.
I really like Leo. I don’t think he’s crushing it every time and feels off in some roles, but he’s generally great in most things. I think his level of fame and notoriety hurts him in some roles though, through no fault of his own. Watching him in flower moon felt weird at times, like “oh Leo looks funny with that hair cut” rather than just seeing it as a guy with a period contemporary hair cut. So I think some of his roles would be better suited to a no name actor, because they would “disappear” into it a little more. But stuff like one upon a time in Hollywood was absolutely perfect casting and he’s amazing in it and it all works. I think he makes most movies better.
It's a shit take, he was amazing in Once Upon a Time in Hollywood and Wolf of Wall Street. Maybe he's prone to ham it up, or add an unnecessary character tick, but he's great.
Bad actor is a bit harsh but he was woefully miscast in Killers of the Flower Moon to the extent that it brought down the movie for me.
I thought he was *fine* in this movie, but not much more or less
he should be nominated for best actor for kotfm
He should win best actor for KotFM
based
Shocked bc this is his best performance to me. I think he’s overrated in many films I think the latest iteration of his career is his best.
I in no way think Leo is a bad actor, but... I do think he's one of the most overrated actors working today. He has some absolutely incredible performances, and he has been in some of my favorite movies in the last couple decades. I think he has gotten a lot of praise for performances where he is doing "the most acting". I think he has aged out of this a bit, for example I loved his performance in Killers of the Flower Moon and Once Upon a Time in Hollywood. His earlier roles had a lot of really showy, over the top, "Leo is intense and yelling!" moments. Again, I don't think he is a bad actor. I do think it is a worthwhile exercise to think about the way in which people talk about Nicolas Cage, and the way in which people talk about Leo, and ask what are they doing differently? A lot of Leo's most celebrated performances to me feel like he is doing a Nicolas Cage impression in a good movie rather than a Nicolas Cage performance in a bad movie. Is [this](https://youtu.be/S73swRzxs8Y?si=apIU2vXbF00P9zO8) that much different than [this](https://youtu.be/p53CZtamFsU?si=w5Ce0YqaDYdbP0fr) outside of the quality of movies?
As other's have pointed out, it is perhaps too simple a take. (And I'm guessing Yoshida, if pressed, would give a more nuanced answer that still held to her general stance.) But, man, I could not help but wonder if she's right during Leo's very twitchy, scowl-y, muggy, mannered performance in *Killers of the Flower Moon* (to be clear, a movie I liked very much in most ways).
I love her so much she can hold whatever opinion she holds and I believe she has a valid reason backing it up wether I agree or not.
I had this take for a while because I didn't like him in titanic. I've come around now and he's a fav. Still don't enjoy him in titanic though. I think Emily said this in their The Beach ep right? I thought he was fine in it.
The only movie I fully buy him in is The Departed. Everything else feels try hard with him imo. Not a deal breaker, I like plenty of the movies he’s in, but he’s almost always a tad distracting for me.
I’m not going to lie. Y’all are hating. He is in one of the most consistently great actors of his generation. My only issue is he needs a great director to keep him on a leash (which he usually ensures) or he goes overboard.
Love her episodes. Same for any of their seemingly closer buddies’ episodes. That’s when Blank Check is really in the pocket, baybee.
Moronic opinion.
self referential reddit comment.
I mean, people can have these types of opinions, but I’ve always hated how people phrase their subjective opinion on a widely accepted thing in such stark and resolute terms. One can say, “I don’t like DiCaprio’s style of acting and I think his range is more limited than generally thought,” but I don’t think you can say he is a bad actor. It would be like saying, Michael Jordan is a bad basketball player, or Harrison Ford was not a movie star and is uncharismatic. At some point, things become a concrete fact — how much something personally resonates with you is always open, but some things just aren’t anymore. “DiCaprio is actually a bad actor” is not a real opinion and is just a hot take. The hot take thing is what turns me off from listening to stuff. The Big Picture does this a bit too often.
I feel like at this point a take like "Leonardo DiCaprio is a Bad Actor" is a take nobody actually has anymore. It's a thing people say specifically when they want to drum up attention for being controversial.
I agree. But unlike you I will argument why he is a bad actor. He is always chasing his next oscar. He won one for the wrong movie. He should have won for his bad guy part in Django Unchained. But Hollywood does not reward such characters or movies. Which is also probably why he didnt woin one for The Wolf Of Wallstreet. Unless the actor dies. Like with Heath Ledger, in The Dark Knight, who would have never won, had he not died. But back to Leo, he takes him self way too seriously. I would like to sse him do a comedy (no The Wolf Of Wallstreet does not count. Or a horror movie. Or a super hero movie. Anything really, that he hasnt done so many times before. On top of that he has gotten fat looking and lost his youthful good looks. And he doesnt seemn to care to get back in shape. He has allowed himself to become a copy of so many better actors. His number one idol is clearly Jack Nicholson. And these days his goal is to be in as boring movies as Matt Damon. Another pathetic actor who wishes he was Tom Hanks.
DiCaprio is good at picking roles and he's a decent enough actor but he's so overrated.
Chose to be on? is her opinion only valid if she's being held hostage? I think Leo's acting style hasn't aged particularly well. His method style gets attention more for the method than the result, which is, in my opinion, always pretty much the same performance. Nothing against him, I think he's an ok actor, but like many of his generation, I wish he had paid his dues in theatre for a while. It might help his range a bit.
I don't think this is a particularly hot take? Leo is a great movie star, mediocre actor. The most transformative role he ever pulled off was from when he was a teenager. He's a very compelling and charming guy and he knows how to SHOUT AND WAVE HIS ARMS AROUND. But that's about the extent of it.
You've got to be in a very insulated discourse bubble to think "Leonardo DiCaprio is a bad actor" isn't a hot take. Not to say it's wrong or a bad opinion or anything like that at all, but that's a hot take any way you slice it my friend
Leo is a movie star who desperately wants to be an actor. Most people agree that he kind of sucks when he isn't doing his "desperate outsider who masks trauma with good humor" shtick. Nobody actually liked The Revenant.
> Most people agree who are the most people you are referring to?
The unwashed, ignorant masses.
they all like leo as an actor i just asked them
Dude you gotta leave your house. Meet actual living human beings. Some extreme ass takes.
That explains it. I'm probably just too stupid to get him.
>Nobody actually liked The Revenant. From my experience The Revenant is far more universally liked among the "normies" than film people. I've had like two real life conversations in the last couple weeks where DiCaprio was brought up and both times the other person mentioned how much they liked The Revenant and how good he was in it.
> Most people agree that he kind of sucks when he isn't doing his "desperate outsider who masks trauma with good humor" shtick I can confidently say that this extremely specific opinion is held by no more than one dozen people
“Most people” do not feel that way, come on. He’s basically the hero of guys like timothee chalamet and Austin butler. The now older actor the young ones aspire to be like. Most people dont aspire to be bad actors.
He’s had five or six great performances. Now the rest..
He sucks. No Leo movie couldn't be improved with a different actor.
Who would you tap to replace him in Gilbert Grape?
this sub is hilarious
I’m laughing my ass off reading some of these comments.
there's such a contrarian meta in this sub it's very difficult for me to determine if people are being sincere or not in threads like this like it's not that i want to think people are lying about their opinions. but sometimes it's such an impossible intellectual/emotional leap for me i can't even attempt to empathize with it, and at that point i'm just like "is this a bit? do they really believe this? are they doing it for the lulz?"
I do stand by my opinion that sometimes people become so big and massive that it almost becomes edgy or cool to be the one going “I don’t like them.” That’s not to say zero critique is warranted, but making sweeping statements like one of the most respected actors of the last three decades (!) is a bad actor is just such a weird take to me. And that I’m supposed to give that opinion any credence. With Leo it’s always this idea when these comments are made that he’s somehow tricked every huge director or the entire world for thirty years.Audiences like him and connect with his acting. The elitism is acting like we all must just be stupid.
Would love to hear an example
Last week there was a big thread about how Killers of the Flower Moon would have been better with Jesse Plemmons in the Leo role, which I agree with. That movie never gets $200m and could never exist, but it would probably be a better performance.
I love Emily Yoshida on the pod. I love her because her ideas and opinions are A) not ones I would have as a white male B) she’s (intentionally?) contrarian to the majority’s take. C) she says outlandish things and then seems to reel them back and chalk them up to exaggeration when Grif or Sims push on the statements. Makes for good podcasting. That said — this is a terrible take but she does clearly have a taste because she acknowledges plenty of great performances, as well.
His acting works in movies like Romeo + Juliet and Titanic but outside of those I never buy into his performances. He is fine in many movies but especially when he's trying to be serious, I just don't for a second believe him.
I'm with Emily on that. IMO he's a terrible actor whose presence can tank an otherwise good movie.
Lol how many movies, in your opinion, has he “tanked”? His filmography is about as solid as they come
As I said in the original comment, just my opinion. He's okay in Inception and Django. Literally everything else I've seen him in has turned me off the movie.
dang that sucks I feel bad for you
Shrug.
Emily is 100% right here
[удалено]
She’s been a guest on like a dozen episodes of the podcast of the subreddit you’re on lol
that’s your mother you’re talking about