In Reply to: Meth? Worked around junkies for a long time and just posted by tinear on October 4, 2007 at 13:26:34:
I have not yet seen "Hollywoodland". I did believe all the critical praise Affleck received for that, though. Maybe I'll take a look now. Still, those bio-pics are not my favorites. We already know the stories; they really must excel in broader respects to be worth the time for me.
I want to like Affleck but he's been such a stinker in some things I've put him on my blah-blah list. I'm still open but won't go to great effort for him.
I put him in a category with a number of others - Depp, Damon, DeCaprio, etc. - who will probably grow in craft to one day match their fame.
Re Schwartzman, I really didn't like "Rushmore" all that much but did appreciate his performance. I was genuinely impressed and surprised with his performance in "Spun" and decided to pay attention to him for awhile. I'm not that deep in knowledge or abiding interest of him.
There are performers who interest me beyond a single or even multiple roles, for instance Chris Walken or Jeff Bridges, to name a couple, regardless of their excellence or lack thereof in a given instance.
BTW, Wes Anderson is no great shakes for me. either.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Honestly.... - afilado 14:07:47 10/04/07 (3)
- "Hollywoodland" isn't really a biopic in that we didn't really know - tinear 17:55:40 10/04/07 (2)
- So.... - afilado 19:02:56 10/04/07 (1)
- Well, if you've got the time, see "Hollywoodland." - tinear 04:47:07 10/05/07 (0)