New Movie The Revenant?

[Snakebite]

Must be a "kinder, gentler" Hugh Glass.

I still like Tom Selleck and Sam Elliot. A few of the "manly" actors left who can pull it off. Robert Duvall is another good one. All three of them could pull off a good mountain man type movie.

Kim Darby and Glen Campbell?? :barf:

 

[Nifeman]

You're right they would be good, but, Hugh Glass was only 36. An "old" man for that time, but, Selleck or Elliot would be too old to portray him accurately. Not sure if any of the forum "critics" saw Shutter Island with Dicaprio, but, he was pretty good in that and he's good method actor, and the name of the game in Hollywood is to win Awards and make money. I've heard that it is supposed to be more historically accurate than Man in the Wilderness with Richard Harris... Just my .02 cents Bud

 

[wayne terry]

:hatsoff: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

 

[Nifeman]

But Bridges just stunk as Rooster.

Those were might big boots to fill but I thought Bridges did an acceptable job.
besides we all know that "The Cowboys"
was Wayne's greatest performance.

What about the Shootist??? He was actually dying of Cancer in that and portrayed his character well...

 

[necchi]

Dicaprio will always be Gilbert Grape to me.

 

[Sean Gadhar]

"The Cowboys"
was Wayne's greatest performance.

:shocked2: :slap:

Stagecoach

Hondo

The Quiet Man

The Searchers

Were all better. :stir:

 

[omarick1948]

Still two of my favorite "Duke" movies! :thumbsup:

 

[colmoultrie]

What about his "Singing Sandy" films? :grin: :stir:

 

[coloradoclyde]

But Bridges just stunk as Rooster.

Those were might big boots to fill but I thought Bridges did an acceptable job.
besides we all know that "The Cowboys"
was Wayne's greatest performance.

What about the Shootist??? He was actually dying of Cancer in that and portrayed his character well...

Ron Howard! need I say more?
and actually dying isn't a portrayal .....its dying.

 

[Oudoceus]

The sad part is that whoever the star is we're all destined to see the movie no matter who the star is, simply due to the subject matter. Our addiction must be fed no matter how poor the quality of the drug available. :haha:

 

[Rick Boylan]

I often search for videos on youtube that are related to our addiction. There are so many I often sit up late at night to watch them (on weekends when I don't have to get up early for work the next day).

Hollyweird movies are far and few between on the flintlock/Capslock era. Heck, even good westerns have really decreased in number these days.

 

[tenngun]

:hatsoff:

 

[laufer]

The sad part is that whoever the star is we're all destined to see the movie no matter who the star is, simply due to the subject matter. Our addiction must be fed no matter how poor the quality of the drug available. :haha:

:thumbsup: :hatsoff:
even if it was angelina jolie as joe meek, i would go and see the new movie about mountain men at least once.

 

[Treestalker]

How about going to see the movie then judging the actor's performance and the director's talent regardless of who it is? That way you just might get a pleasant surprise, and if you don't, just chalk it up to the industry going south. After all, wouldn't it be fun to see Leonardo getting chewed up by a bear? And after all, we know the true story and who the real hero was, and even the silver screen cannot erase the fact that Hugh Glass was one of the toughest men and finest humans that ever lived! Treestalker.

 

[Preacher Jeremy]

I'm willing to give the movie a fair shake, and plan on letting the movie speak for it's self, though I do wish they would have casted someone else. Who knows, every now and then, a movie is so good, it transcends its poor actors. Think of Tom Cruz in "Far and Away" or "The Last Samurai" both excellent films (IMO) but Tom can't act his way out of a box, or "Dances with Wolves", great movie even though Kevin Costner doesn't rank high on the excellent actors scale, and personally I loved "Gangs of New York", in spite of Leonardo's poor performance.

 

[pab1]

How about going to see the movie then judging the actor's performance and the director's talent regardless of who it is?

I do try, but its difficult for me to be impartial about actors who think their fame somehow qualifies them to ram their political views down the publics throats. The fact that they are famous for pretending to be someone they are not, does not make their opinion any more valid than anyone else. Most con-men and felons also share that talent. :haha:

 

[Nifeman]

How about going to see the movie then judging the actor's performance and the director's talent regardless of who it is?

I do try, but its difficult for me to be impartial about actors who think their fame somehow qualifies them to ram their political views down the publics throats. The fact that they are famous for pretending to be someone they are not, does not make their opinion any more valid than anyone else. Most con-men and felons also share that talent. :haha:

Well, then it should be up to the individual to distinguish between fact and :bull: ... don't ya think??

 

[pab1]

Well, then it should be up to the individual to distinguish between fact and :bull: ... don't ya think??

Uhh yeah...kinda missing my point.

 

[Nifeman]

" The fact that they are famous for pretending to be someone they are not, does not make their opinion any more valid than anyone else. Most con-men and felons also share that talent."

Don't think so... He's been doing this for years, and and he's donated millions for research and good causes. I've always called that Philantropy. I don't think think con-men and felons do that. As far as pretending to be someone he's not, they call that acting, like Elliot, Duvall and the others.... :v

 

[PaulN/KS]

Bruce Willis for Del Que :rotf:

Good choice. He's got the right hair for the part where he's buried in the sand ... :wink: