Maybe Machete will be good, but I think most likely the trailer will be the highlight.

Better be some Cheech, is all I've got to say at this point.

Jonah Hill is fucking terrible.

She's probably fucking related to Robert Rodriguez, then it would all make sense.

I'd be more willing to sit through more of DeNiro's MEET THE PARENTS crap.

Salma for the wife.

In the name of Jesus, Allah, Buddah and Bale - pls Lord please?

Then come back and tell me he can't portray emotions in a convincing manner.

The guy is/was a master, at his best he can convey more emotion in a wordless look than most actors can in an entire film.

Pretty sure he also had tears in his eyes when the russian roulette scene reached it's most intense moment and that evil bastard was slapping him saying "Mow! Mow!"

DeNiro can be in any shit he wants. He IS the man Jack Nicholson and Warren Beatty dream of being.

That said, if the shit he chooses is Rodriguez-schmarmy, ultraviolent B-grade goop, I don't have to watch it.

I think some people just have the image of De Niro's over-the-top crying from "Analyze This" stuck in their heads. Then again even that suited the tone of the film, as it was meant to look silly.

The scene I mentioned earlier from "Once Upon A Time In America" is one of the most moving crying scenes I've ever witnessed. You can then contrast that with his freak-out in the jail scene in "Raging Bull". Both on opposite sides of the crying range. One subtle, one over-the-top, both entirely appropriate to the charters he was playing.

Pls someone post proof of De Niro crying.

A photo or vid. Anything.

A screwed up face alone does not count.

The guy's a regular blubbering pussy.

I think that the real question remains, "Will this still be Direct-to-DVD or not?" I don't think that DeNiro, bad taste and all, has gotten down to that level yet. This must be a theatrical release now.

As Scorsese and Pileggi also point out in the commentary, when you look at the family photos of friends on vacation, usually someone in the photo was whacked by someone else in the photo. These guys were always double-crossing each other. Their code of honor was just a sham which they never lived by. Henry Hill himself says that Jimmy didn't like sharing, and the only reason he was safe is because he didn't ask for much of the Luffhansa heist money and because Jimmy was making money from his cocaine connections. Jimmy sure had no problem whacking any of the other guys, including long time friends like Anthony Carbone.

And why did he cry when Tommy got whacked? Because Jimmy could never get made, but Tommy, someone he had long been associated with and worked with, could. It was the closest Jimmy ever was to getting made. Yes Tommy was his friend, but Jimmy cried when he heard Tommy was dead because he felt denied. They had just fucked over his shot at becoming a made man.

"He was in THE GODFATHER PART II? So what? That movie's old. He hasn't raped my eyeballs lately."

I'm not saying it's right - it's just the way it is. Youth League Rules.

Paul "Death Race" Anderson and Corey Haim maybe?

Bale as well. He has definitely gone the way of being a star over being an actor. And nothing wrong with that (please don't kill me Mr. Bale).

Who they'll hand it to is anybody's guess.

Hasn't he been exposed yet?

Charm is not acting.

Look, Marlon Brando did some shit work towards the end of his life, but nobody can take away his legendary roles from the start of his career. Same thing applies to De Niro- he did magnificent, dangerous, courageous work starting out but now he's a fucking characature. The last thing De Niro has done that made me go "Wow" was CAPE FEAR. That was 1991. 18 years ago. Wake up, folks.

If you watch THERE WILL BE BLOOD, Day-Lewis is a fucking master of the craft. The scene by the fire when he talks to his "brother" is such a perfect piece of acting. The guy eats up every scene without being a ham. At his best, Day-Lewis might be one of the best ever.

Congrats.

Hell add in Jack Nicholson who did a bunch of Corman movies before getting discovered by main stream audiences in Easy Rider, Dustin Hoffman with the Graduate, John Voight with Midnight Cowboy, Gene Hackman thanks to his role in Bonnie & Clyde, etc. These guys got famous BECAUSE of their acting and despite their looks. There were guys who were better looking than them, but these guys were the best actors of their generation. Fuck they had to be to overcome the fact that some of them were Hollywood ugly.

Now compare that to the leading men of Generation X. Leo, Depp, Bale, Damon, Norton - all of those guys got discovered and famous by playing in much more mainstream roles. They were cast because they were heart throbs or looked good or were you expect to see an actor who looks like a star. So I really believe that the best actors of this generation aren't necessarily the ones who are the big name stars - they are just the ones who are getting through the door and getting all the parts.

Sure Generation X also has actors like Philip Seymour Hoffman, Paul Giamatti, Billy Bob Thornton, John C. Reilly, etc. But none of those guys are really a big enough name to be the lead in a major Hollywood film (unlike Jack in Chinatown or Hoffman in Little Big Man or Marathon Man) and for every one of those guys nowadays we had a Robert Duvall, John Cazale, Harvey Kietel, Peter Boyle, etc. back in the New Hollywood days.

Besides, other than Damon on your list (excluded "Jump Street" from depp's history), I don't think any one of those guys was cast because they were chiefly a looker. And, remember, damon had to fucking cast himself in his own movie. You can't get more "authentic actor" than that.

Now, I think a bigger factor in the disparity of talent we notice isn't about the glitz, but rather reflective of our society in general. We're a softer bunch of people than 30 years ago. We are air-conditioned, iPhone-using softies. We gotta go to a third world country to find a real hard-ass motherfucker to star in our movies now. We Americans have become pussies in general.

And yes I don't hold it against them that they live in an age were people expect the guys on the screen to be good-looking - it isn't there fault - but I also realize that the guys making it are not necessarily the best actors out there. Or guys who would have been great screen actors are even trying out for parts (maybe they are staying on Broadway or doing theatre?).

But to say there isn't a huge disparity in the quality of work and acting level between a DeNiro, Pacino, Nicholson, Hoffman, Hackman, etc. vs. the Generation X actors is absurd. Depp is his best day has yet to do a performance as powerful as Pacino's first six movies of the 70s - Panic in Needle Park, The Godfather I &II, Scarecrows, Dog Day Afternoon, Serpico, And Depp is constantly mentioned as one of the best actors of Generation X.

Now once again, Depp is a good star. Compared to most handsome actor types he can really act, and he is great at creating these larger than life characters (like Jack Sparrow). But he isn't able to do the nuances and subtle things that the guys back then could do, and I also think that if an ugly actor without the rock star presence of Depp tried to do Cap'n Jack audiences would have rejected him.

There are probably a bunch of really talented actors out there who are not getting there shot because they are not considered "star quality". And that is what made the 70s and that generation great - they got actors first and then these guys went out and became starts, not the other way around.

Hell, I also love Gladiator, 3:10 to Yuma, and I even have a soft spot for A Good Year. Yup, I do.

Cap: First Blood.

They play tons of Eastwood movies, plus classics like the Dirty Dozen, James Cagney movies.

I've become quite hooked recently now that I don't have some movie channels I did before.

I am in fucking awe over the 70s. I try to see revivals of films from that era whenever possible. I saw SERPICO a few years back on the big screen- holy shit was that awesome. And of course, THE EXORCIST was re-released back in 2001. We need more revivials... home theaters are great and all but nothing beats a real movie house.

And, I specifically excluded Depp's "Jump Street" days, which he has inarguably put way behing him along with NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET.

And, you are comparing apples and oranges, and I am not. Pacino in DOG DAY? C'mon. Of COURSE it's not going to be matched! It's a brilliant performance in a very, very, showy role, and that, once done, can never be duplicated.

But, to diminish an entire generation because they pick different sorts of roles, or those showy roles aren't available anymore while we're all making giant robot orgy movies, is absurd.

I disagree that he has ever "disappeared" into any role.

He's a macho type in the tradition of the Bogart-John Wayne-type. But he's not in the Bogart category. He's definately not in the DeNiro category.

But, aren't we being exclusive? Denzel gets no love?

After WWII you had all these guys get into acting you probably never would have thanks to the GI Bill: Jack Palance, Charles Bronson, Charles Durning, Neville Brand, Lee Marvin, etc. These guys had tough lives and you could see it on their faces, and now the theatre doors were finally opening up for guys like that.

Since then there has always been some guys who have gone from the military to acting (Garner, McQueen, Eastwood, Hackman), but as the military has become more of a full time profession less and less people have made the transitions. Which is why now all of our American "tough guys" nowadays seem more like body builders than they do authentic soldiers or cowboy types.

And I like Denzel, a lot. Just watched Training Day again, and I do like him a lot in that role.

Now, I'm not saying we should slap ourselves on the backs like those posers over on Ebert's blog, but there have been some excellent discussions here, of late.

I am most surprised.

HA!

Denzel is great, so yeah he deserves to be in the top 15 or so male actors working today.

Seriously, line up the names of Gen X. actors who are leading men and then line up the New Hollywood Generation of Leading Men and see which is deeper in talent. Sure Gen. X has guys with talent, but not nearly the depth. Hell, even their handsome actor types like Warren Beatty and Redford were actually pretty good actors in that Generation.

And yes it is unfortunate that we make Giant Robot movies nowadays instead of Dog Day and Five Easy Pieces, but when I attack the actors I am also attacking the industry and the audience - maybe they should demand a little more challenging and expect our actors to do more than just point at a blank spot on a green screen.

His performance in Hurricane was awesome, but the movie itself was just a pile of shit (except for the fact they kept breaking out the Bob Dylan song).

The Hunting Party, The French Connection I & II, Prime Cut, Cisco Pike, Scarecrow, Young Frankenstein, The Conversation, Night Moves, Bite the Bullet, A Bridge Too Far, and Superman I & II.

Some of them were good, some of them were bad, a lot of them were great, but all of them were interesting.

Night Moves - brilliant movie (and it has a young Melanie Griffith AND James Woods). It is part of that quartet of Hollywood Revisionism Detective movies that are so awesome: Chinatown, Hickey & Boggs, Night Moves and Klute.

And while you can say he has one of the lesser parts in A Bridge Too Far (fucking one of the best War movies ever made), he was great in it.

Johnny Depp as Ed Wood is not a comparable acheivement to Robert DeNiro as jake Lamotta? And you can't get past edward Scissorhands' gimmick? I'd like to have seen a young Pacino try to pull off a Scissorhands.

My purpose by comparing these actors is not to say one is better or worse or as good or nowhere near. Because that's an abstract to me.

I started the whole listing of contemporary actors in response to the idea that ACTING (as said in Jon Lovitz' voice) was passed from Brando to DeNiro and then lost. Which I just find incorrect.

As much as I like to rag on the taste's of a supposed younger generation, I am a firm believer in the idea that the best stuff of today - be it movies, music, funny books, whatever - compares favorably with the best stuff of any other time. It's just that a various times you have to seek it out, and at other times it's all over the place so you can just reach and grab it.

Now, will you please tell them to stuff that Commissioner Gordon? Let them go ahead and leave him out of the next one.

You did it. You're done. You're better than that.

We all love you, bro. We're here for you.

And once again, I think their are a lot of good actors in todays generation, but they are not getting the parts. Can you find them if you are looking for them? Sure, but that means the are not part of the major names of their generation.

The DeNiro generation put acting and art before looks and image. It is as simple as that. And like I said, I don't fault todays leading men, but they also have to realize that they became stars in a day-and-age when a Gene Hackman or even a Lee Marvin never would have been let in the door. Movies like Dog Day Afternoon, Taxi Driver or The Last Detail would be considered rare art house films - back in the 70s those were the "mainstream" and played at the same theaters that showed the Poseidon Adventure and Towering Inferno.

I'm not knocking a generation of actors, I'm knocking audiences who don't demand much.

But I won't go through the laundry list. I'll just say I think your focus is narrow. Which I do not mean as an insult - just an observation.

Audiences seeking grit and drama are actually flocking to the home video market- buying TV shows that push their drama buttons. The film industry is in flux right now. There will always be independent cinema, but the calendar for blockbusters is getting larger and larger it seems.

And even when guys do get in good shape I can tell if they aren't quite right. Bale as Batman, yes he has a six pack but if he is supposed to be knocking guys out with one punch he needs to add 10-15lbs, He needs to be built like a light heavy-weight in the UFC. The force of a punch is acceleration x mass. If Bale is trying to win by scoring points, he looks fine, but if he is supposed to be knocking guys out, he is still to skinny.

I am a very big stickler for certain details. Other people it might not bother, but it drives me nuts.

But, man, I just couldn't see the love for his performance in TWBB. Fuckin' laughably over the top. I stand firm in my belief that it was Depp's year.

I thought he was alright in TWBB for the most part. Really liked his confession scene. But I didn't think it was anything to really write home about. He never felt like a real guy to me, no matter how many veins and tendons popped out of his neck. That last scene pretty much killed it for me. I mean it was pretty fucking hilarious, but when he was prancing around and shouting and spitting and DRAAAINNNNAGE! DRAAAAAAAAAIIIINNNNAAGE!, man, it really made me wonder why he won an Oscar for it.

Bale would need at least forty more lbs of muscle just to walk around in that thing without assistance.

And batman would need at least an extra four-to-six hours just to put it on.

"Wait right there, Penguin," Bruce Wayne said. "I'm sure Batman will be here to beat you up sometime before dawn."

Bale looks tough, he would probably kick my ass and I am a pretty big guy. But Batman cannot afford to have a chance he might not lose. He leaves a combatant up and he suddenly is facing 2, 3 or 4 guys instead of one. Every time he swings he has to make sure it is a blow that will incapacitate his foe, otherwise he might get overpowered.

I try to imagine Bale taking on Mike Tyson or Brock Lesnar in an alley-way, and I just can't see it. Batman to me has got to be tough enough I can imagine him taking on those kind of guys.

An interesting book is Becoming Batman. This neuroscientist wrote it and in it he goes over what one would have to do to even try and be Batman. It actually is really interesting because the guy who wrote it is crazy enough to try and look at it as realistic as possible. He even figures out how long Batman's career would be before he would finally lose (about five years).

Day-Lewis is doing a very complex role, creating layers upon layers and it's all for the benefit of the movie- elevating the written word to something completely more substantial.

I mentioned THE DEER HUNTER but also HEAT is a prime example. He acts internally, with his mind, and that plays subtly upon his face for us to 'read'.

Redford could do it too. Brad Pitt tries, but only partially succeeds. Day Lewis has it mastered.

Body armor nonsense, excepted and excused.

Read the posts exactly above this one for enlightenment.

Reading that makes me think Bale 'gets it', perhaps thats why he beefed up so dramatically for BATMAN BEGINS (yeah, you'd like him to go further, but becoming a true man mountain just wouldnt be practical).

Reading that also makes me think how laughable Michael Keaton, Val Kilmer, and George Clooney were from a physical standpoint!

And the thing is we haven't even thought about the completely ridiculous shit like cell phone bombs in guys chest. He made us see THAT as 100% believable!

I would also like to see Ace the Bat-Hound.

And, yes, the turns the head argument was used by Schumacher way back when, you guys just refuse to remember it.

P.S. That landing on the top of a car? That's the ONE thing that bothers you? I couldn't get past hijacked school bus backs through wall without damaging bumper and then pulls out into perfectly choreographed line of school bus traffic.

But that's me. I take my Batman too seriously.

Consider the late thirties through forties. Yes, the big name actors: Grant, Flynn, Taylor, Power, were all in the handsome to pretty boy range. But all of them (with Taylor being possible exception) had legit acting chops. Now consider the other major male stars from that era. Tracy, Fonda, Stewart, Wayne. With the notable exception of Wayne, they all had major award winning talent (early on that is). Tracy being the finest actor of his generation. None of those men screamed 'heart throb' but they still were good looking enough and all major stars who could open a movie.

The fifties were dominated by Newman, and Curtis and the one who completely changed the game, Brando. Brando was not classically handsome, but he radiated the type of masculinity and raw power that no actor before or since has had. Lets skip to the seventies. Beatty, Redford, Deniro, Pacino, Hoffman, Nicolson. All had talent. Beatty and Redford are the legit pretty boys but also award winning talent. Deniro and Pacino were considered very good looking, moreso than Fonda/Stewart/Tracy. Hoffman may be the Tracy of his generation. And Nicolson, defies easy categorization. But he was never considered good looking.

The point is we may perceive one thing, but reality shows us something different. the 70's had grittier and more realistic storytelling, but the caliber of talent- to -looks was about the same as all other eras.

You're better than that.

Start bringing the professionality, man.

Looking at 'leading men' from the last two decades - i think there is a subtle shift to looks over talent.

Let's all turn and applaud our new friend.

"Welcome, friend," say we all. "But please leave our toads alone."

It's due to the unsubtle shift in topic for movies from character-driven drama to giant-robot-orgy.

I would put my money on Statham making it to the final (and prob winning), but i'd give Bale a good shot at reaching at least the quarters.

To bring it back 'on topic' I'd also give Danny Trejo pretty decent odds at making it to the later rounds.

He's the dork who finally gets to sit at the popular table in the lunchroom.

STATHAM HOLDING GUNS

Turn your head now, bitch! And cough!

But you knew that already.

But Connery is still king - they only made one like him.

Statham would kick the shit out of Zach Quinto in the first round. And Bale would beat to death Orlando Bloom.

I'm not saying good looks didn't help some of the 70s guys getting cast - it obviously helps the audience like you and it certainly helped Jimmy Caan - but they were not cast originally just because of their looks. Depp, Pitt (admittedly, not a great actor), Damon, Norton, Leo, etc. All of these guys fit the Hollywood "leading man" type of this generation. They are obviously good-looking guys. Pacino and DeNiro might be good-looking, the sure didn't fit the leading mad type before them, and neither did Jack Nicholson or Dustin Hoffman, and sure as hell not Gene Hackman.

And side note, while Tracy and Stewart were not handsome actors when they were stars, they weren't bad looking when they first started out. Just watch Tracy in a one reeler he made called the Hard Guy or him in Dr. Jeckyll and Mr. Hyde and tell me he was ugly. You can see why ingrid Bergman falls for him in Dr. Jeckyll and Mr. Hyde.

Now Edward G. Robinson, he was ugly.

Man, I enjoy myself.

I'm not that bad, really.

Trejo is disqualified because he is supporting actor, not a leading man; the Rock because he isn't an actor, and Vin Diesel for The Pacifier.

"Um, Danny honey - shirt comes off; bag stays on. We've had this discussion before."

That's why women lap up anything to do with Brad or Beckham. By getting famous they done gone made themselves 12/10.

'Lop likes to poke the grizzly.

In short, he gets things done.

James Garner is good, I just hold the others a little higher than him. But ya know what, I take it back! I'm sorry! Garner belongs!

imho Peter Falk as Columbo was perhaps the best week in week out performance by a tv actor.

Mean Streets, Godfather, Dog Day Afternoon, French Connection, Taxi Driver, Nashville, etc. Those types of movies required a different type of actor, someone who required more skills and not as much in looks.

Modern movies, as Subtitles pointed out, are dominated by Giant Robots Fighting, so you need stars who depend more on looks and presence and less on range.

Does that mean that actors in todays movies are not good? No, but it does mean that they don't have to be AS good as the Pacino and Hoffman generation because they are usually not required to carry a movie on their acting talent alone. Megan Fox isn't required to do more than look great and hide her junk, and she does that very well in Trannyformers 2. Diane Keaton, Ellen Burstyn and Sissy Spacek all had a little more work to do in the blockbusters they stared in.

And sure their are guys who are probably just as good as those guys in that generation, but since we make less movies that require a modern day Hackman or Nicholson, we therefore have less actors of that calibre. And sometimes we just put in a bigger name star who just isn't right for the part because he is a draw (Leo in Gangs of New York for example).

Still can't believe RDJ got oscar nom for going blackface. He was out there for that part though. Good on him.

Has Leo, passable and likable as he is, been truly great in anything else? Maybe I missed it.

more thrillingier

anythingier

w ould every movie today be if trailers, commercials and the press weren't such giveaways.

The marketeers don't trust us at all.

There are no surprises in film anymore. Unless it's an indie that you're seeing at an art-house because you read Ebert rave about it. Even he's less cautious about spoiling things.

How's the hangover?

Oh, and get that dick out of your mouth.

And I will nominate Brendan Frasier. Man, GODS AND MONSTERS is great.

I was expecting everybody to yell "Affleck" simultaneously.

Don't worry, tho. I just keep the list, I'm not ever gonna do anything with it.

I think Tim Burton is more of an interior decorator than he is a director of films.

What was it called? HOLLYWOODLAND?

Believe me, word of mouth would've taken over and sold the movie better than any ENTERTAINMENT WEEKLY exclusive.

Plus, some of the best visuals Mr. Hit You Over Your Headberg had managed yet or since which were rendered moot by all the absurdity.

Who is Andy Dick calling a twat?

Good call on both our need to spread the net beyond Hollywood and Jim Carrey.

Well done.

It's actually a good little movie, directed by Jack "The Hidden" Sholder. Anyway, Trejo was a prisoner in the jail Silverman keeps getting thrown into as he goes about the day (over and over) trying to solve the big mystery.

And maybe someday I'll get to make a shitty no-budget movie!

soon.

Side note: If going to prison got Trejo where he is today, should I go to prison too?

May I suggest a title 'CONVICTS IN DA WOOD'.

Cobra, how bout "Wood in da Convicts"? Prolly have to take that to a different kind of festival, tho...

Make a low budget 'cinema verite' flick about a teenage guy in a small town who's blind. Turns out this blind guy is a 'genius' at bowling. He plays against some of the local cool kids and wipes the floor with them. A local girl hooks up with him, inspired by his modesty and talent, a smarmy agent sees potential to make millions out of him, etc etc.

What do you think? It might even be bigger than CONVICTS IN DA WOOD!

Burn Notice IS freakin sweet tho. I only got to see the first season and a half, but I love all the DIY spy shit they clue you into. And, of course, the magnificent Bruce!

Wait, holy shit, you remember me saying that my Pop's in the BHoF? That's actually touching, Cobra. To quote Bill Murray, "It's your PROFESSIONALISM that I respect."

I'm glad i've touched you Ted, but not in a gay way.

"a place of evil it is. In you must go!"

Or, some time around then.

See, I can be PC, too.

And, The Man cowers.

None of us are amateur.

And McG can't do nothin' bout dese pricks.

Have a lovely weekend, all!

Which brings me to my other complaint about Hollywood nowadays. Child actors & nepotism.

You got banned for making a necrophilia joke? Shit, that has been my entire routine all week. That and pedophilia.

Please, no "breasts out for attention girl" this weekend!

But seriously, it's a pretty solid site in its own right.

Watched it a couple of days ago... and spotted him!

HOUSE OF THE WOLF-MAN actually sounds like a real cool project, but I fear it will be squashed by The Man, so as to avoid confusion with the other "tentpole."

I fear for the day where he wins his Best Supporting Actor Oscar and then only takes roles which allow him to be dramatic or be the main actor (I'm looking at you Kevin Spacey and Philip Seymour Hoffman), ending his string of awesome supporting roles.

When it came to my turn I said "I'm not gonna lie, its Spielberg. His films have been the most influential on my life and made me want to be a filmmaker".

Anyway, under no circumstances should one ever use FedEx. I'm under legal censure, so I can't explain why, but trust.

Besides, gimpy, you don't get to define the characteristics of a "true" movie fan.

GREETINGS and HI, MOM he plays a draft dodger who later becomes a trickster character who has a number of adventures while trying to make it in NY (the only "tough guy" he plays in Hi Mom is when he pretends to be a NY cop during the "Be Black, Baby" experimental theatre sequence). In BANG THE DRUM SLOWLY he plays a likable but slow catcher; in BLOODY MAMA he plays the most spoiled member of the Barker Gang; a comic turn as a scared cyclist in THE GANG THAT COULDN'T SHOOT STRAIGHT; the son of a rich Italian landowner in 1900; an ambitious Catholic priest in TRUE CONFESSIONS; and desperate funny man Rupert Pupkin in THE KING OF COMEDY.

Sure he played dangerous or powerful men in TAXI DRIVER, GODFATHER PART II, RAGING BULL, THE DEER HUNTER or even THE KING OF COMEDY, but he never played anything really like the "stereotypical" DeNiro parts until probably the 90s. The same thing with Pacino (SCARECROWS, PANIC IN NEEDLE PARK, DOG DAY AFTERNOON and BOBBY DEERFIELD are all very much unlike any of Pacino's later roles).