The House Next Door

In respect to your comments about DiCaprio: Yee-ouch!

Anyway, one thing more about Ulrich. He was supposed to have a much bigger part, apparently, in As Good As It Gets but his scenes were trimmed at the last minute. I found that fascinating at the time because he was being pushed so hard. I was pretty enamored of his work in Scream actually (and Schrader's Touch for that matter) but little else after that seemed to register--he was pretty much eclipsed on screen during Lee's Ride With the Devil by Maguire and Jewel (!), oh, and Johnny Rhys Meyers. That was pretty much the end of his big opportunities (let's try and forget Nobody's Baby with Gary Oldman).

Forget about overrated for a minute. One of my favorite performances of the 90's was by up and coming Johnathon Schaech in Araki's Doom Generation. It was so perfectly calibrated and yet so seemingly intuitive in its approach that it virtually redefined the Dean icon (with a bi twist), something many have tried unsuccessfully to do over the years.

And then there's the lamented case of Loren Dean, who got shot after shot, from Levinson's Billy Bathgate to Wenders' End of Violence to Kasdan's Mumford. Ultimately, I fear he was simply too fundamentally decent for these times.

And finally the Sundance doc in the making life of Jonathan Brandis. I persist in believing he could have had a strong and staying screen presence if he had just, well, stayed.

Schaech has also been good in a lot of other stuff, including THAT THING YOU DO. I thought he would have made a tremendous Superman, but obviously that cape sailed without him.

And actually: Billy Bathgate was Robert Benton.

Oops, you're right. Should've checked that on IMDB I guess.

The Schaech thing does irritate me. He was so interesting and promising and now he's doing 8mm2??!! Oh, and Road House 2!!??

Ouch, you're being a little tough here on Leo, aren't you Matt?

Certainly the Marty movies have not been among his best work, but I thought he was pretty great in CATCH ME IF YOU CAN. And I do have to give him credit for spending his TITANIC clout on interesting projects.

The problem is that, though he's technically very skilled - the damn kid doesn't seem to be aging. The whole second half of THE AVIATOR --while also bogged down in Senate hearings over transatlantic flight patterns, yawn-- was torpedoed by my complete disbelief that I was looking at a middle aged man. (The moustache was particularly silly.)

This whole crop of guys like Walker (who I've seen in at least half a dozen movies and still couldn't pick out of a police lineup), Ulrich and the gang all suffer from the same "little boy" syndrome. (I had similar troubles trying to buy Edward Norton as a New York coke dealer in 25TH HOUR... maybe if they'd changed the script to have him selling weed in prep school.)

Part of the reason I think Colin Farrell-- who has pretty much established himself as box office poison these days-- keeps getting cast by heavyweights like Stone, Malick and Mann is that he's maybe the only "famous" actor in that under 40 set who actually looks like he's led some sort of life offscreen. (And, man, it sure sounds like one hell of a life...)

I must also confess to enjoying "the smarmy syrup" McConaughey pours on his films. No, not much of an actor - but a fun, agreeable presence. When they get around to remaking those SMOKEY & THE BANDIT movies, it'll be the role he was born to play.

Add to that solid list Michael Pitt, whose popularity among highbrow directors has never made a lick of sense to me.

Nathaniel, thanks for acknowledging Loren Dean. He first caught my eye as Joe, the breakup boyfriend who inspired 1000 songs in "Say Anything." (Was the forelock hanging strangely off his forehead a special effect, or some sort of antenna?) And he was also good as an example of genetic perfection in "Gattaca," easily equaling Ethan Hawke's anesthetized cool, no small feat.

Bill C: I agree with you on Michael Pitt except for in "The Dreamers," where he played an American who was sensual and intelligent and smart, but not nearly as sensual and intelligent and smart as he thought. I don't know if that was a great performance or perfect casting. Either way I liked him. That part needed a sexy/shallow/fragile man-boy, and he delivered.

Sean, DiCaprio does deserve to be on White's list, except for "Catch Me if you Can," the only one of his recent performances that ranks with the best of his 90s output. I disagree with MZS about Pitt in "The Dreamers." it wasn't the character that was shallow.

Agreed, the Leo/Marty pairing has been nothing but trouble. I hope they'll each do better work following their inevitable divorce.

I had suggested that Dave include Steven Dorff, but he disagreed with me on his disposability.

You guys may not care for Paul Walker now, but wait till you see him actually try to act, as he does in Wayne Kramer's forthcoming Running Scared. Oi!

Alonso: Dorff often has more intensity than depth. His performances lack detail and nuance. That said, I've liked him BACKBEAT, CITY OF INDUSTRY and CECIL B. DEMENTED. Those were three different but equally engaged performances. I don't think it's a coincidence that they occured in films by three directors who have spent many years and a great deal of energy cultivating distinctive personal styles, and need their actors to complement it.

Some actors do their best work when left to their own devices, but I suspect Dorff is the sort of actor who gets better in direct proportion to how closely he's scrutinized.

Matt: You're right about Dorff. He's another one whose career I've been watching over the years and who I sincerely hoped would take off more than he has. He claims to be glad he was passed over for the Titanic gig but I question that. There's another reason he is special to me. Dorff is at the center of an eight year Holy Grail quest. Back in '93 he was in a movie called An Ambush of Ghosts, directed by Everett Lewis (The Natural History of Parking Lots, Skin and Bone). The film won the cinematography award at Sundance and then fell into a deep, dark void. The only reason I became aware of it was because the soundtrack was done by a favorite band, the British classical synth duo In The Nursery. The more I read about this picture (the only review was a glowing one by Todd Mccarthy in Variety) the more excited I was to see it and it never appeared, not even on video. Anyway, I spent far more time than was reasonable on finding a way to see this thing and eventually managed to attend a screening in 2001 at USC, where both Lewis and DP Judy Irola teach. The film was a true revelation, a kind of American independent Peter Greenaway with all that implies, though thanks to Dorff in particular it was shot through with a profound emotional immediacy which is beyond Greenaway (closer to Jarman). It's a haunting movie which deals with the trauma of a family losing a son; a familiar idea perhaps but exceptionally heightened in presentation, exhausting and perverse--truly one of the great films of the 90's (featuring a cast that included Genevieve Bujold, Anne Heche and Bruce Davison); it's also a showcase for Dorff's finest work. I did manage to interview Lewis and write a piece about the movie for the magazine I was working for at that time but nothing much came of it. I was actually just contacted by an associate of Lewis who wants to post the piece online as even now attempts are still being made to get it seen. Lewis's other work, though strong, is no indicator of the heights he reached here. Hopefully someday Ambush will achieve some measure of a release so I won't be accused of unwarranted hyperbole.

Oh, and why the lack of love for Michael Pitt everyone? I thought he was terrific in the Bertolucci and also incredibly good in Last Days. Why does everyone think that's some kind of no brainer performance? It's remarkably textured and nuanced, delicate to the point of being diaphanous. All around, it's no easy task to play a cipher without it becoming an exercise in self conscious posturing and Pitt is so deep into character (in this case the character of pure existence) that he eludes such pitfalls. Personally I think he'd be an ideal candidate to work with Malick.

Nathaniel:

Does the magazine you wrote that piece for still exist? If so, or if not, is there any way to read the piece?

Nathaniel: Oh, and why the lack of love for Michael Pitt everyone? I thought he was terrific in the Bertolucci and also incredibly good in Last Days.

Amen, brother!

Some friends like to kid me about my LAST DAYS obsession - as those who've known me way too long ain't exactly surpised I adore a movie about some guy stumbling around the house, wasted, muttering incoherently to himself -- but that doesn't take away from the incredible presence Pitt brings to the performance.

I'm still stunned by the aching vulnerablility and seething anger he brings to the fore, and when you stop to consider how rarely we get an audible line reading, or even a clear look at his face -- it begins to feel something like a miracle.

I also adored Pitt's work in THE DREAMERS -- he's almost cringe-inducingly open and sincere during the film's early segments, but watch how he scales back the physicality as that awful cloud of disillusionment slowly seems to swallow him whole.

So yeah, kudos to Michael Pitt... or, as my late friend and mentor David Brudnoy always referred to him: "The One With The Mouth."

If Pitt and Gosling keep up the good work, MURDER BY NUMBERS might someday be looked upon as the next generation's RACING WITH THE MOON.

It's entirely possible that Pitt's work on "Dawson's Creek" forever clouded, nay, tainted my perception of him. I liked Last Days as a whole, but I still saw a high-school student affecting Kurt Cobain for Halloween. If Pitt works in The Dreamers (which I agree he does, to an extent), I think it's because he knows he can't out-pretentious Bertolucci, and because, circumstantially-speaking, the character is kind of a mirror image of Pitt himself.

As for Dorff, I think Matt has hit the nail on the head. He's better than I'd remembered in Blood and Wine, and one would hope he'd bring his A game when working with Nicholson/Rafelson.

Okay, I withdraw Pitt's name from the Dave White list. I just happened to catch part of "Bully" on cable last night. I don't believe much in that movie, but I believe everything Pitt says and does in it. He's a true presence in a largely false production.

Let us not forget that Mr. Pitt was also the great Tommy Gnosis in Hedwig and the Angry Inch. Having played Gnosis, Kurt Cobain and the lead in The Dreamers, dude has already achieved icon status as far as I'm concerned. And he could swap lives with Leo DiCaprio without anyone noticing.

part of the problem with Pitt, to me, (and i realize this is very subjective, and somewhat discriminating), but i can't even so much as look at him without cringing and thinking "awkward, wannabe arty, scenester, has-been-devoted-to-goth-at-one-point-in-his-life, teen". I almost never read anything but faked up, white middle-class, lost, temper tantrum in his performances. He may be able to play that role well, but it's often a really annoying role...

anyway, he's one of the new actors that i really just have a personal aversion to, and i realize it's a subjective thing, just thought i'd voice my opinion.

Urban Legend would have us believe that Leo once had to choose between two movies: TITANIC or BOOGIE NIGHTS (the Dirk Diggler character). Of course we know the film he chose, and I suspect BN would have been less of a film had Leo accepted – granted, Marky Mark never would have leapt to mind had I been the casting director, which is why I’m not a casting director. Wahlberg, oddly, hasn’t done anything that good since (well, maybe HUCKABEES).

I’ve digressed. Where I was going with this is the Leo often moans about the way things have gone down and claims he’d have had an entirely different career had he chosen BN instead of TIT.

But what about Kate Winslet? Was she not the other star of that career-defining beast? It doesn’t seem to have kept her from pursuing brave roles in interesting movies. Hell, her follow-up to the boat flick was HIDEOUS KINKY. In fact, Kate’s a wonderful example of an A-List actress who plays the game on her own terms, and never appears to choose parts because of the paycheck or the ornate craft services table she hopes to find on the set. I’ve loved her since HEAVENLY CREATURES and she’s dished up great work time and again ever since. She’s got an incredible range and seems to be able to pull off most anything she puts her mind to. TITANIC comes across as a footnote in her career.

This dovetails nicely back into the whole point of Dave White’s article: Whatever happened to actors with personality? I’ve had this ongoing theory for years now and it’s based on Rich Little. Rich Little was this terribly funny guy who made an entire career out of celebrity impersonations. He was good at it and he had loads of material with which to work. His last noteworthy role was as Johnny Carson in HBO’s “The Late Shift” and he’s all but disappeared since.

If Rich Little was still working today, he wouldn’t be working, because he’d have nothing to work with. How would he do Tom Hanks? Or Harrison Ford? Cruise? Depp even? Rich Little could never do an impersonation of Leo because there’s nothing to impersonate. We've only got a handful of larger than life actors still working and they’re all leftovers from a different time: Nicholson, Ahhnuld, Stallone, Deniro, and Pacino, and they’ve all been done to death anyway. Hollywood doesn’t look for larger than life actors because everybody is too busy trying to duplicate on screen the people who live next door.

Again I must digress. Is it too much to ask for a Scorsese/Deniro reunion?!?!?! Or was Deniro wearing the fake tit in FOCKERS the final straw?

I liked Michael Pitt quite a bit in Hedwig and The Dreamers, but I agree with Jeffrey Wells's observation that Pitt needs to play roles where it looks like he's blown his nose and dried his hair before the camera starts rolling.

And amen to the Rich Little thing.

Sean: I agree about Colin Farrell being one of the few recently minted leading men who seems to have lived a bit despite his youth. But like Dorff, I have yet to see evidence that he can rescue or even improve a bad or uninteresting film. He was terrific in movies that asked a lot of him -- TIGERLAND, MINORITY REPORT, A HOME AT THE END OF THE WORLD and the British series BALLYKISSANGEL. And I adored him in THE NEW WORLD; he was so open and wounded, so not vain. I can't remember the last time I saw a blatantly macho leading man let himself play such a hurt, hurting character.

Ruediger: I take your point about Winslet. She's the real story to come out of TITANIC, a reliably superb actress who works in pretty much any role. She can be intense or daffy, period-accurate or utterly contemporary. If you put Meryl Streep and Diane Keaton together, you get her.

Leo does indeed suck and is ruining Scorsese's movies. Of course, even without Leo, Gangs was still a mess. The issue there is the script. The Aviator was total crap because it ignored the truth about why Howard Hughes lost it: syphilis. He was a big man whore and paid the price. There's a great, tragic story to be told about Hughes. Marty didn't come anywhere close.

Michael Pitt's face is too babyish. It's just not masculine enough and he's not believable in leading actor roles because of the babyness. Leo was great in "Catch Me If You Can" because he was playing a kid.

If anyone in Hollywood had a brain, Hugh Jackman would have had much better roles since his breakout in XMen. I think Jackman, Josh Holloway the actor playing Sawyer on Lost and this young actor named Jensen Ackles on the WB tv show Supernatural all have incredible potential. Yeah, I know the WB is awful, but Jensen can actually act and he's got leading man looks. Jensen's only 27, but he looks 10 years older than 31 year old DiCaprio.

Lindsey: Right on about Hugh Jackman. He's both an agreeable presence in the world and a really amazing actor, capable of being as big or small, as serious or frivolous as the role requires. I was effusive in my praise for him in "Kate and Leopold," a movie nobody saw. That's not a masterpiece, but it's a good little romantic comedy, and it's worth seeing, or seeing again, just for Jackman's performance, his career best so far. My NYPress review of KATE AND LEOPOLD is in the paper's archives if anybody wants to take a look.

Matt: I have my fingers crossed hoping that The Fountain will be fantastic and he'll finally receive the recognition he's due. Hugh's Golden Globes nomination for Kate and Leopold was, I think, recognition that he'd done a fantastic job in an otherwise awful movie.

If you get a chance, please check out Ackles and Holloway. They're both fantastic and will be huge if they get the roles they need. Ackles doesn't have much resume-wise. Other than some of his season 2 Dark Angel episodes, I'd suggest checking out the tv show Supernatural. The show's pretty far from great, but he gives such an assured performance and manages to elevate the material.

I watched the first couple of episodes of SUPERNATURAL but haven't checked in on it again. I'll give it another look.

Now I'm worried I've talked him up too much! I'm not saying he's Olivier but I think he has the chops to grow into being great.

Don't sweat it. If hyperbole was a crime I'd be swinging from a gallows pole.

Paul Walker keeps getting thrust into these roles that are so far beyond him is akin to Marky Mark v2.0.

And the studios keep cramming Jessica Alba down our throats in much the same way. Okay, sure, she's extreme eye-candy, but its all flash and no substance.

The studios are catering to the same ADHD Gen-Y crowd who consider the likes of Beyonce, 50 Cent, or Eminem to be musicians.

Jeez, I'm feeling old...

I don't think it's fair to liken Paul Walker to Eminem, Beyonce and 50 Cent, not just because I happen to like the first two, but also because there's a big difference between all three of them and Walker: they have personalities, or carefully constructed, vivid personas, and as far as I can tell, he doesn't.

I think he looks and sounds like a young Kevin Costner, minus the truculent edge and hints of intellectual pretension that make Costner interesting.

Wow, I thought I was the only one who felt this way about DiCaprio. I really want the old Leo back.

The last time I sensed scant traces of the old Leo was in 2002's Catch Me If You Can. And even that performance paled considerably in comparison to his previous turns in Gilbert Grape, This Boy's Life, R&J (horrible film though), Marvin's Room, and Titanic.

btw, was it just me, or was Leo's furrowed eyebrows and forehead doing much of the acting in The Aviator?

Where is BRAD PITT's name??? He is a brutal actor, just reads the lines like reading a menu, and no one mentions this? Sean Penn --- most overrated in hollywood! Didn't for one minute buy his performance in "I Am Sam", paled in comparison to Leo D in What's Eating Gilbert Grape. I remember watching "grape" thinking, "How did they get that autistic ki to read all his lines so well?" Though, I agree his acting has declined since Titanic.

As for Ulrich, the real reason for my post, he actually is quite a talented actor, and every director/costar who has worked with him remarks about his ability. He actually studied under another talented actor, William H. Macy in New York. Check out his performance in the Miracles tv series, especially the episode, "You are My Sunshine". If you aren't impressed, we can agree to disagree?

Ulrich is actually a good actor who has been cursed with being handed B-list material. He manages to shine when given A quality scripts (which are rare as they always go to Clooney and Pitt even though they are BRUTAL actors). As far as his scenes being cut in As Good As It Gets, the director said that the movie was 3 hours long and he had to decide which story to cut and he didn't think the the homosexual relationship between Kinnear and Ulrich's characters would garner box office $$$$ and at the end of the day, that is all that the studios care about. So, they cut the rique stuff out and that was Ulrich's storyline unfortunately. REmember, this was way before Brokeback mountain and mainstream movie goers were not ready for this at the time. Nicholson even mentioned Skeet in his Oscar speech, I think.

I think DiCaprio is talented but as with most actors, has shining moments and dull moments. As he has aged, his boyish looks detract from the distinguished roles he is portraying.

Matt McConoughey is a waste of space. On screen and off. From the neck down, worth a second look -- but he is talentless and not as attractive as the tabloids keep begging us to believe.

Where is Tom Cruise in this discussion? He is a one-dimensional actor who is always being handed A-list scripts because of his name -- very annoying.

Johnny Depp is good at the quirky roles like Ed Scissorhands, Wonka etc, but in dramatic roles where he is portraying a 'real' character, I find his performances okay. Sometimes a little blah.