- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Matthew McConaughey, though a great actor, is the same in every role
Posted on 4/14/14 at 12:00 pm
Posted on 4/14/14 at 12:00 pm
Regardless if he's playing a 1970s stoner has been, an American dragon slaying soldier in Britain, a psycho in Texas Chainsaw Next Generation, a lawyer, a wall street mentor, a pedo chicken wing fetish serial killer, Mud, or a man afflicted with AIDS...he's very much the same character in all of these movies.
He plays MM very well in each movie. When he landed the perfect script (Dallas Buyers) and shed a shocking amount of weight for the role, the MM role suddenly became deserving of the most prestigious acting award.
And let me be clear...he deserved that award.
But make no mistake, he's MM in every role. Sometimes actors play themselves so well that their IRL persona is deserving of an Academy Award because they're so damn interesting to watch on film.
As far as range, he's very much in Costner's league.
He plays MM very well in each movie. When he landed the perfect script (Dallas Buyers) and shed a shocking amount of weight for the role, the MM role suddenly became deserving of the most prestigious acting award.
And let me be clear...he deserved that award.
But make no mistake, he's MM in every role. Sometimes actors play themselves so well that their IRL persona is deserving of an Academy Award because they're so damn interesting to watch on film.
As far as range, he's very much in Costner's league.
This post was edited on 4/14/14 at 12:03 pm
24
Posted on 4/14/14 at 12:01 pm to mizzoukills
FREE CARL LEE!
Posted on 4/14/14 at 12:02 pm to mizzoukills
nuh uh
Posted on 4/14/14 at 12:03 pm to mizzoukills
"Say man, you got a joint?"
Posted on 4/14/14 at 12:03 pm to RonFNSwanson
present your argument that MM is not MM in every role...
Posted on 4/14/14 at 12:05 pm to mizzoukills
quote:
present your argument that MM is not MM in every role...
All I know is that no matter what he has done or will do ... any movie he is in ... I basically think of Wooderson.
Posted on 4/14/14 at 12:05 pm to mizzoukills
So was Bogart.
They have a screen presence that does not allow them to shed themselves for a character in the viewers eyes.
the blame is on the viewer.
They have a screen presence that does not allow them to shed themselves for a character in the viewers eyes.
the blame is on the viewer.
Posted on 4/14/14 at 12:05 pm to mizzoukills
So Rick Peck = Ron Woodruf?
GTFO
GTFO
Posted on 4/14/14 at 12:05 pm to mizzoukills
Lincoln Lawyer
and Failure to Launch, obviously
and Failure to Launch, obviously
This post was edited on 4/14/14 at 12:07 pm
Posted on 4/14/14 at 12:07 pm to mizzoukills
I think there are very few great actors, or at least actors with great range, and people that are considered great actors but have limited range are really just good at knowing their limitations and choosing roles that suit them. And there's nothing wrong with that.
Posted on 4/14/14 at 12:07 pm to navy
quote:
All I know is that no matter what he has done or will do ... any movie he is in ... I basically think of Wooderson.
If he'd had stayed doing more dramatic roles after A Time to Kill instead of doing the romantic comedy route to make his money, I would see him as his character in that movie.
So would everyone else. The man has got some acting chops.
I don't blame him for going the route he did though. It made him a ton of money while he was the big thing among women, and now allows him to do projects he wants, like True Detective.
Posted on 4/14/14 at 12:08 pm to RonFNSwanson
So he was different in Lincoln Lawyer than his other movies?
Great movie, no doubt. But he was classic MM in Lincoln Lawyer.
ETA: I think you're joking...
Great movie, no doubt. But he was classic MM in Lincoln Lawyer.
ETA: I think you're joking...
Posted on 4/14/14 at 12:09 pm to magildachunks
quote:
So was Bogart. They have a screen presence that does not allow them to shed themselves for a character in the viewers eyes.
And there's nothing wrong with that. Like I said in the OP, he plays himself very well! I like watching his movies.
quote:
the blame is on the viewer.
Wrong.
Posted on 4/14/14 at 12:10 pm to TigerinATL
quote:
I think there are very few great actors, or at least actors with great range, and people that are considered great actors but have limited range are really just good at knowing their limitations and choosing roles that suit them. And there's nothing wrong with that.
This is true. What people don't seem to understand about acting is, the ones with the best range are on stage, not screen.
Screen acting is less about range and more about presence.
As great as Gary Oldman is, he cannot command the screen for great periods of time. It's why he isn't the guy you get to be the star. It's why he took a back seat to Jean Reno in Leon.
Posted on 4/14/14 at 12:10 pm to mizzoukills
Posted on 4/14/14 at 12:10 pm to mizzoukills
Used to be true but not anymore.
Posted on 4/14/14 at 12:11 pm to mizzoukills
quote:
present your argument that MM is not MM in every role...
What do I win?
Posted on 4/14/14 at 12:12 pm to mizzoukills
quote:
the blame is on the viewer.
Wrong.
So you want to blame him because you can't disassociate Rust Cohle from Wooderson?
Come on.
Posted on 4/14/14 at 12:14 pm to mizzoukills
True Detective + Wolf of Wall Street + Dallas Buyers Club blended together to make a single narrative:
Posted on 4/14/14 at 12:15 pm to ManBearTiger
A picture is worth 1000 words.
Page 1 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News