I can’t believe what I’m hearing! Especially from Bobby. “That’s a lonely you’re on”?
Well, I don’t care if I become as lonely as a castaway on some island. I honestly think that he’s able to nail the personalities he’s given. I think he was terrific at Bill & Ted. He’s meant to be goofy, to be semi-deranged or even plain out stupid. If that’s the character’s personality, then he nailed it in ease. My only issue is that he can be as stiff as Nicholas Cage at times. Otherwise, he was great in Speed, The Matrix, My Own Private Idaho & even BILL & TED! (I admit, he was abysmal in The Day The Earth Stood Still).
Deckard, I don’t mind if you can let everyone read it again. I’m standing by what I said & if this is so shocking to everyone, I might make a new post entitled: Keanu Reeves: Why Does Everybody Hate Him?
If you’re referring to The Matrix, I’m sure Keanu was Neo. So… I don’t really know what you mean…
John, you don’t need to take it personal. If you do create such a thread, I will gladly indulge.
But I would also agree with you and say that Bill and Ted is Keanu Reeves best role. He’s perfectly suited for it and no one else could’ve done better. Beyond that though, there’s no ignoring his inability to channel emotion. Why does everybody hate him? Because he doesn’t know the meaning of the word “emote.”
And for the record I don’t “hate” Reeves, I’m sure he’s a wonderful man, but he’s an actor that is suited to only a handful of roles (practically anything that doesn’t require emotion – stoners, robots).
No no no. I’m not taking it personally at all. I thought you saw the sarcasm behind what i said. Maybe it’s how I worded it.
Just for the record, I think he knows the meaning of the word ‘emote’. When he wants to potray anger, disgust, fear, excitement, he can do all of this in Speed. & he’s done it in other roles.
But now you’ve got me interested in a new thread…. Keanu & Nicholas Cage especially…. Would like to see what others think.
For me, I’ve never really been bothered by Keanu’s acting abilities (or lack thereof). He always seems to choose roles in films that are commercially-centered and therefore doesn’t draw too much attention to his mode of acting. A Scanner Darkly, Matrix series, Speed, Day the Earth Stood Still … Point Break – remember that little gem, they all are action-oriented films and don’t require someone like say, Max Von Sydow. So, for that reason, Reeves never really irked me because he serves his purpose, nevertheless he does have his flaws. Now if he can just work on the choice of films he appears in, maybe we’ll be getting somewhere.
But yeah, I’d be interested in some debate on a Cage thread as well. Cage is a little higher on the acting ladder, but his most recent choices I challenge anyone to defend: National Treasure series, Wicker Man, Bangkok Dangerous, Ghost Rider, Gone in 60 Seconds, Next, World Trade Center, I mean the list goes on and on. I’d say that Matchstick Men was his last okay role, Adaptation being his last great one. He was once on my list (around 2002) as one of the greatest living actors under 40, but now I just like to think of that time period and try to forget the recent stuff … Bad Lieutenant is going to be a beauty by the way.
I never thought of Keanu as a particularly good actor, are we really discussing his performance in Bill & Ted’s? As for The Matrix, I think the movie overshadowed any kind of performance he was going for and ultimately anyone who played that role would instantly be popular. I just re-watched Speed and thought his performance was once again decent (god I didnt remember that movie being so corny!). The best performance Ive seen him in was in Devil’s Advocate-he played as wide a range of emotions as Ive ever seen him do (lets not talk about the accent though..) Hes a decent actor, Ive nothing against him, but I sort of agree more with Deckard, as he doesnt show me too great of a range of emotions (facial expressions, reactions, and such).
As for Nicolas Cage, although he has been cast in the most ridiculous and critically panned (and rightfully so) blockbuster flicks of this decade, I believe him to be a far superior actor than Keanu.
In other words its hard for me to ever really relate to Keanu, whereas Cage comes off as a more naturalistic/relatable and believable character in his movies. In my opinion of course.
Okay, I understand what you two are trying to say. This has really interested me so I will start a new thread of it in a few days. Guess I’ve been diverting too much from what this thread’s topic actually is but… very interesting thoughts… Thanks for them.
No. Its not overrated. Its the best sequel ever made. I say its superior to the first.
And to whoever said “Its no DARK KNIGHT”, do you realize how many Godfather scenes TDK rips off:
The courtroom scenes where the goons claim to know nothing,
Bruce Wayne losing his love to an explosion he inadvertently caused,
the montage of Two-face’s systematic assassinations in the 3rd act is clearly modeled after the murders at the end of part one.
All of those unoriginal scenes are cheesy and poorly scripted/executed.
John, I largely agree with you that Godfather II is overrated. I think it’s an excellent movie with great performances, cinematography, etc., and I love the story of young Vito as contrasted with Michael. But Michael’s story lacks dynamics and most of the characters lack sympathy. We already know that Michael’s morality has fallen because we’ve seen the first film, and the second film does nothing to raise the stakes and further invest me emotionally in his story (or any of his supporting characters).
I’ll go one further (and here I think I’m alone on the planet): I think Godfather III is a better movie than II. I really don’t see why III is so reviled. No, Sofia’s performance is not on par with those around her, but besides that, what’s not to like? There’s a much stronger sense of Michael’s struggling to right his past wrongs and yet save the family dynasty, every character is compelling, and nearly everyone is sympathetic in some way (even the villains). The performances are fantastic, the design is gorgeous, and the tragic drama completely draws me in in a way that II’s chilly story fails to do.
(And John, I also agree with you that Keanu is over-criticized. I especially like him in My Own Private Idaho, Much Ado About Nothing and — much to my surprise — in Little Buddha).
just what the hell are we talking about here. The Godfather is the best film of all time but
The Godfather II is The Godfather multiple ten times, it expands the story and the characters that much.
not to forget that Al Pacino gives a spectacular and best performance in history.
The Godfather II is one of the wonders of cinema.
Would you like some salt on your hyperbole?
that’s what I think about the movie ya gom
Well, Micky, I would sugest that Godfather II is The Godfather multiplied two, maybe three times; ten times is, like, waaaaaaay too much, dude. And Pacino was better in Dog Day Afternoon (totally different film, I’d agree). I haven’t been called a “gom” in ages (makes me all go all misty-eyed).
suggest all ya like, you’re called worse names I’m sure.
Well, I loved it. The original showed the family after the Don had created an empire. How they dealt with family, the struggle to stay on top of the crime hierarchy. I thought part II showed how Michael could never be the Godfather and how the only way he could hold it together was to employ more violence and distrust everyone. But more than anything I love this movie because of how Coppola integrated both stories, the son having to sink lower and lower into the evil of his business and how the young don is forced into it by the nature of the world he lives in and by the fact of who he is. How with ruthless precision the don is able to rid his neighborhood of a terrorst cowardly thug and win over the population with his sense of justice. Never sugarcoating the fact that these guys were murderers and criminals. The sense of family is everything in the Don’s story the sense of corporate greed is what befuddles Michael in that his struggle is no longer over the family, but to maintain his power at all costs.
I have to say, I like both films roughly in equal measure. But Godfather II needs the first film – it is not a standalone masterpiece (which the first film is, I reckon). Even if The Godfather may – just “may”, mind – insist on itself…
2 > 1
I agree that it needs the first film as exposition. But I disagree with some people in that I think Michael’s story in Part 2 is engaging and my favorite subplot in either film. I think his descent into evil is what really underlines Michael as the one of the greatest tragic characters ever. I’m also really moved by Fredo’s storyline in II. Found him way more interesting than Sonny.
I also think the time periods covered in Part 2 are wonderful. The Early 20th century when New York was birthing the Mafia and the early 60s when the mafia was losing all of its tradition and becoming the sleazy, shadowy industry it is now. I think thats what Part 2 is all about. How this family (the Corleones), the bigger family it belongs to (the Mob) and America fall apart over three generations.