Johnny Depp

[jester710]

[ QUOTE ]
i think the performance is a perfect example of why the movie was so terrible. Depp's choices, while certainly different, were a major distraction from the rest of the film. a good director needs to realize this and prevent him from going too far into his own orbit. i think Depp's performace was detrimental to the film as a whole. for the life of me i can't understand this whole "he saved the movie" thing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Also pryor, this is exactly what I mean when I say he overshadows some of his films. Yes, he's stealing scenes, but in so doing he's drawing attention to himself and away from the film. It's a testament to his great talent, certainly, but I don't think it's something an actor should aspire to do.

[mrbaseball]

I think he's very good and plays the eccentric weirdo roles exceptionally well. That said I must confess I dislike almost every movie he has done with a few exceptions. I really liked Donnie Brasco, Ed Wood and Blow. As for the rest (and I've seen most of them) none would ever warrant a second look from me. I can't say it's because of him just that I didn't find the themes or stories very interesting or entertaining.

The other day in my office we were talking about summer movies and I said I didn't like "Pirates of the Caribean" and another guy told me I'm the only person he ever heard from that disliked it. Thinking about it now I probably would have disliked it even more had it not been for Depp as I thought he was irreplaceable in that role. But even so I didn't like the movie much at all.

[ChipWrecked]

I almost always enjoy his work. I first noticed him as the kid interpreter in Platoon, even that tiny part he brought off well. He became Doc Thompson in Fear and Loathing. Finding Neverland was a rare movie that I actually stayed awake on a flight to watch.

As a person, due to his holier-than-thou expat 'America Sucks' attitude, I think he's a piece of [censored].

[Hey_Porter]

[ QUOTE ]


i think the performance is a perfect example of why the movie was so terrible. Depp's choices, while certainly different, were a major distraction from the rest of the film. a good director needs to realize this and prevent him from going too far into his own orbit. i think Depp's performace was detrimental to the film as a whole. for the life of me i can't understand this whole "he saved the movie" thing.

[/ QUOTE ]

I feel like I'm reading IMDB reviews, which always ends up irking me. I never understand why people analyze films in this way when they were obviously made for pure fun and enjoyment. If Johnny Depp's role accomplished that, who cares if it took away from the rest of the film? What deep message was there that I should have taken away from the film that I did not because Depp was freaking hilarious?

[troymclur]

I like Depp if only for the fact that he has a sense of humility, which is such a rarity in a field of work that naturally attracts attention whores. Most people dog on him being the same character because they've only seen a handful of his movies. Watch Blow, Dead Man, Benny and Joon and Ed Wood, then tell me he plays teh same guy.

Besides, most great actors carry many similar traits between thier movies and are praised for it. Walken, Pacino, Deniro, Brando, etc. all have that thing that they bring to each role. Basically, I respect Depp because he appears to be conscious of his every movement and sound that emminates from his body and attempts to steer that with what his character means to him. If you've ever seen the real Hunter S Thompson, then watched Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, you'd greatly appreciate the time and attention Depp put into that role, as he does with many others.

Oh, and the reason Depp is said to have saved Pirates, is because without him it would have been a typical action adventure, indistinguishable from the legions of others who succeed in mediocrity but never quite etch out something for themselves. Pirates was really a one man show, so i have no problem with Depp holding the spotlight.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
I feel like I'm reading IMDB reviews, which always ends up irking me. I never understand why people analyze films in this way when they were obviously made for pure fun and enjoyment. If Johnny Depp's role accomplished that, who cares if it took away from the rest of the film? What deep message was there that I should have taken away from the film that I did not because Depp was freaking hilarious?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sure even the directors of "just for fun" films must carefully analyze every shot and every angle. Critical thinking and even a critical attitude are important for directors. I think some of the people posting on this forum are attending film school hoping to become directors someday in their own right. Or maybe critics, etc.

And there are those of us who find it very interesting. I enjoy film, and even though I'll never base my life on the subject I enjoy hearing what experts and others familiar with the technique have to say about it.

[odellthurman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

-While I enjoyed his performance in Pirates and felt it was the only thing that made the movie watchable, I agree with those who say it wasn't deserving of an Oscar nomination.

[/ QUOTE ]

i think the performance is a perfect example of why the movie was so terrible. Depp's choices, while certainly different, were a major distraction from the rest of the film. a good director needs to realize this and prevent him from going too far into his own orbit. i think Depp's performace was detrimental to the film as a whole. for the life of me i can't understand this whole "he saved the movie" thing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Pryor - Pirates of the Caribbean isn't a "film". It's a movie. A fun movie. I can understand not liking it as much as some other person, and I can certainly understand disputing the Oscar nomination. But calling it "terrible"? That's just crazy talk.

[pryor15]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

-While I enjoyed his performance in Pirates and felt it was the only thing that made the movie watchable, I agree with those who say it wasn't deserving of an Oscar nomination.

[/ QUOTE ]

i think the performance is a perfect example of why the movie was so terrible. Depp's choices, while certainly different, were a major distraction from the rest of the film. a good director needs to realize this and prevent him from going too far into his own orbit. i think Depp's performace was detrimental to the film as a whole. for the life of me i can't understand this whole "he saved the movie" thing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Pryor - Pirates of the Caribbean isn't a "film". It's a movie. A fun movie. I can understand not liking it as much as some other person, and I can certainly understand disputing the Oscar nomination. But calling it "terrible"? That's just crazy talk.

[/ QUOTE ]

just because it has no ambitions doesn't give it a free pass.

entertaining or not, it's still an absolute mess cinematically, and that makes it a terrible movie. so what if it's a mindless summer blockbuster? it's still has a responsibility to be well-made.

anyway, you really can't make the argument that it's "just entertainment" if it got an Oscar nom for acting. you don't see them turning it down, do you?

[odellthurman]

[ QUOTE ]
entertaining or not, it's still an absolute mess cinematically, and that makes it a terrible movie. so what if it's a mindless summer blockbuster? it's still has a responsibility to be well-made.

[/ QUOTE ]

What do you mean by all of this?

[pryor15]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
entertaining or not, it's still an absolute mess cinematically, and that makes it a terrible movie. so what if it's a mindless summer blockbuster? it's still has a responsibility to be well-made.

[/ QUOTE ]

What do you mean by all of this?

[/ QUOTE ]

i mean that Pirates was poorly written, poorly directed, poorly edited, and poorly acted. i suspect the script girl didn't do such a great job either. it's all over the place.

(keep in mind i haven't seen it since it was in theatres)

it is, by no rational definition, a good movie. entertaining? maybe. hell, elimidate is entertaining. but a major motion picture, regardless of it's intentions, still has a responsibility to the paying audience to be as good as it can be, that is to do it's absolute best to be a quality piece of entertainment. it wasn't.