Ethan Hawke

[Amerikuracana]

Leo plays Leo. You have to go back to What is Eating Gilbert Grape for something where he isn't playing himself. Leo is like Nicholson in this regard.

He wasn't the same in 'the aviator' as in 'catch me if you can,' and those would be movies he could have been the same in. He was good in Gangs.

 

[Cela84]

His involvement is usually an indication that movie will be a dull indie affair worth skipping. He has had some great ones, but the guy did Ethan Hawke's Hamlet, and that is probably the worst Shakespearean movie ever made. Yes, I'm including the musical Love's Labour's Lost.

 

[Plissken]

He's an excellent actor, just unassuming so he doesn't get the recognition others do. The Before trilogy is A+ level acting from him and Delpy, they pulled it off so naturally that it doesn't feel like you're watching a movie, and they wrote a lot of that dialogue and there's a lot in it, it'd be a daunting task for other actors to pull off that alone. Most other actors will just look like they are acting if you put them in those movies, including greats listed.

 

[Prefect]

He's an excellent actor, just unassuming so he doesn't get the recognition others do. The Before trilogy is A+ level acting from him and Delpy, they pulled it off so naturally that it doesn't feel like you're watching a movie, and they wrote a lot of that dialogue and there's a lot in it, it'd be a daunting task for other actors to pull off that alone. Most other actors will just look like they are acting if you put them in those movies, including greats listed.

I thought the same in the movie Boyhood. It looked like he was that kind of a dad and not acting. The part that is odd about his admiration of Nick Cage is that he never tries to act like Nick. Maybe, he realizes he can't do that but it is kind of odd to have a role model that you don't try to emulate. The only thing he has in common with Cage is maybe taking roles that look like they might be promising rather than waiting for awesome scripts. Sometime, I wonder if people like that are more in love with storytelling component of a movie than physically acting.

 

[sweede]

Ethan Hawke is obsessed with doing work that is great or helps him towards being great. I never got the impression that he was naturally gifted but his role in Boyhood was the accumulation of a lifetime of sweat and work. That role could have been played badly very easily. There was a lot of naunce in his role and Arquette's. If you ask me what I think about him, I think he is talented and feels the need to work. he doesn't get his pick of role and if he had to choose from doing nothing and a role that might be interesting, he will always work and take the role.

I put him in the same class as DiCaprio but DiCaprio always gets his picks of roles. Thinking about it, I could picture Hawke in every single role DiCaprio took. DiCaprio is like a boy version of Hawke.

I don´t agree with the first part, as some posters have mentioned already, he almost tends to not go after the mega movie stardom. He could have been, if he was nit picking "great" directors and movies as Leo does.

Leo plays Leo. You have to go back to What is Eating Gilbert Grape for something where he isn't playing himself. Leo is like Nicholson in this regard.

Agreed, as much as I will get a flame for this, I think Robert de Niro is the same. He was good when he was in his prime, but he has aged very badly, and he has played himself over and over. I don´t agree Nicholson in the same vein as Leo. The difference between Jack and de Niro is that the former did have some fantastic accomplishment late in his career. About Schmidt (2002) is a good example of rare few actors having a peak all their life. One of my favourites from the old guard is Paul Newman, another great actor, being great until the end. He should have got an oscar for The Verdict (1982) and Nobodys Fool (1994).

8/10

10/10

8/10

He's an excellent actor, just unassuming so he doesn't get the recognition others do. The Before trilogy is A+ level acting from him and Delpy, they pulled it off so naturally that it doesn't feel like you're watching a movie, and they wrote a lot of that dialogue and there's a lot in it, it'd be a daunting task for other actors to pull off that alone. Most other actors will just look like they are acting if you put them in those movies, including greats listed.

Word!

And I agree with all the rest you wrote.

 

[Fluffernutter]

Was better in Boyhood than Patricia Arquette.

 

[Prefect]

I don´t agree with the first part, as some posters have mentioned already, he almost tends to not go after the mega movie stardom. He could have been, if he was nit picking "great" directors and movies as Leo does.



Agreed, as much as I will get a flame for this, I think Robert de Niro is the same. He was good when he was in his prime, but he has aged very badly, and he has played himself over and over. I don´t agree Nicholson in the same vein as Leo. The difference between Jack and de Niro is that the former did have some fantastic accomplishment late in his career. About Schmidt (2002) is a good example of rare few actors having a peak all their life. One of my favourites from the old guard is Paul Newman, another great actor, being great until the end. He should have got an oscar for The Verdict (1982) and Nobodys Fool (1994).

8/10

10/10

8/10



Word!

And I agree with all the rest you wrote.

I know About Schmidt would get brought up and it was a good performance but a lot of attention was given to it due to Jack not playing a Jack character. Singling that one performance would be like pointing out Adam Sandler's performance in Punch Drunk Love as an example of how much range Sandler has and how he doesn't have to play the same character over and over.

 

[sweede]

I know About Schmidt would get brought up and it was a good performance but a lot of attention was given to it due to Jack not playing a Jack character. Singling that one performance would be like pointing out Adam Sandler's performance in Punch Drunk Love as an example of how much range Sandler has and how he doesn't have to play the same character over and over.

Adam Sandler? A parable out of biblical context. It´s the most ridiculous thing I have read in a long time. I could have a better understanding if you could name a guy like Jonny Depp playing Depp, and once in a while he makes some movies that shows he has the acting chops.

There is also some truth behind it when pure comedians wants to make something serious, they tend to be good at drama. And here I´m thinking of Jim Carrey as a much better example than Adam Sandler.

How can you defend your claim that Jack is playing Jack in these movies?

Five easy pieces (1970)

The last detail ( 1973)

Chinatown (1974)

There is a wide and accepted concensus that Jack Nicholson is regarded as one of the very best actors during the 70´s, and that he belongs to the all time greats. Then again, if you don´t personally like his acting, that is your opinion. But, to compare him with Adam Sandler is blasphemy.

 

[Sansnom]

I could not agree more on Gattaca! And I think he is way above the average intelligent actor working in Hollywood. It´s crazy how he can know the lines for scenes that last for up to 30 min in one take! In that regard he really reminds me of DDL.

Its not a personal positive bias I have with the likes of Ethan Hawke or Nic Cage for example. I just think when they are doing great, they sure belong in the top of my list of greatest actors.

Take the rather mediocre movies such as Sinister (2012) and Predestination (2014). Those 2 got interesting because of one actors performance, and that indeed makes him great.

6/10

7/10

Sinister and Predestination medicore?

 

[aldeniro78]

Sometimes I think he's a really good actor and other times I think he borderline sucks.

 

[Iroh]

And he's got a cool name to boot.