Has EDWARD NORTON failed to live up to his late '90's promise...? (1 Viewer)

[Malcolm R]

I was coming in here to make a similar comment. You want an example of squandered potential, just look at Cuba. First, he wins the Academy Award. Then he makes films like "Snowdogs" and "Boat Trip."

Edward Norton is positively Shakespearian by comparison.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

So you started a thread that criticizes an actor for his film choices - and it turns out you've seen virtually none of them. It's bad enough the HTF now allows users to have names like "Buttmunker" - has it fallen so far that THIS is the kind of ill-considered, half-assed thread we get? :frowning:

 

[Michael Reuben]

Maybe we should table this discussion until you've caught up on your viewing. Right now, you're evaluating Norton's career based on little more than random impressions gained from such things as which DVDs appear in the Kmart bargain bin.

M.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Well, there is nothing else to say to you. I would suggest to others that they do the same until you start viewing some of the Norton films you have questioned.



Crawdaddy

 

[Rakesh.S]

25th hour and Red Dragon were snoozefests

The Score was an old fashioned heist movie which worked for me.
The Illusionist was good, but Norton's accent was slightly distracting.

 

[buttmunker]

I'm a little insulted. Isn't this forum for discussion? I may not have seen those movies on the list, but I have impressions of the films in question. I'm not an idiot - what I haven't seen, I've heard or read about, and I'm familiar with the genres of films like The Score and The Italian Job. I never seen The Bourne Identity, but looking at trailers and knowing the material from reading reviews, I don't have to see it to know the general "gist." Please, before you knock me and my opinions, understand that it doesn't take a rocket scientist to disect some of these films.

That said, I can also tell you that films like The Score don't appeal to me. Sure it has a good ensemble, but it wasn't the type of movie I would want to see, despite who starred in it. I'm not basing my opinions on material I've watched, I'm basing my opinions on other people's opinions and what I'm able to pick up on my own without watching the movie.

My original post stated, essentially, that Edward Norton started out with a bang, doing roles that garnered attention. Other actors, like Robert DeNiro and Al Pacino, did the same thing - but they didn't stop like Norton did, but continued for about 10 years before they decided to do low-key films that were important to them, and not necessarily important to the general public.

Norton, after four powerful years, slowed down relatively sooner than most actors who got big exposure early on. That's what my original post was about. It wasn't about my name.

 

[Jacob McCraw]

I will always watch an Edward Norton film.

I thought that Down in the Valley was great aside from one big continuity error. 25th Hour was fantastic and in my opinion Spike Lee's best since Do the Right Thing.

As others have pointed out, Edward Norton chooses some projects based on who he will be collaborating with. Concerning The Score -I don't think any actor would hear Robert De Niro and Marlon Brando's names and not say "I'LL DO IT!" without worrying about the films content. Same with Red Dragon.

And let's not forget that actors are only as bankable as their last project so if Mr. Norton wants to have the weight to help get a Down in the Valley made he has to do the occasional Red Dragon. Much like John Malkovich made Con Air to finance some of his stage work. You have to play the game sometimes.

I am looking forward to seeing The Painted Veil and I enjoyed The Illusionist quite a bit. I don't think Edward Norton has anything to worry about.

 

[TravisR]

You're right to some degree but you can't say that Edward Norton "sold out for the almighty dollar" and have seen nearly none of the movies that you're accusing him of selling out in.

 

[buttmunker]

I recognized The Score and Red Dragon and The Italian Job as sell-out films because they were obvious big-budget productions. Generally speaking, these type of films require almost no skill. The Vin Diesel/Nic Cage/Tom Cruise big-bang-boom pictures are just "going-through-the-motions," and do not require a large range of acting. You do, however, get paid a lot of money for doing those kind of pictures, and that's why I referred to Norton as such.

 

[Allen Hirsch]

...except if you haven't seen them, there's no way you can legitmately say " he's sold out" JUST b/c it's big-budget. You'd have to see it to determine "he mailed it in for the check", or "he still showcased a range of skills I admire and expect from him", etc.

 

[Michael Reuben]

Oh please. All acting requires skill. If you don't think so, get up in front of a group of strangers and try pretending to be someone else -- and tell a story.

M.

 

[JohnRice]

A studied opinion if ever there were one. I can't help but point out some of the titles I have gotten recently, brand new, for $5.49 or less...

Sense and Sensibility
American Psycho Uncut
Carlito's Way Ultimate Edition
Dazed and Confused


and...

Fast Times at Ridgemont High.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

No, but it's always helpful when the person has SEEN the films he attempts to dissect. It's like you're attacking an author because you didn't like the two-paragraph blurbs you read on Amazon - it makes no sense and doesn't exactly give your argument credibility.

Can't believe we're trying to have a discussion with a guy named "Buttmunker"... :rolleyes

 

[Chuck Mayer]

I have to say I did NOT love Down in the Valley. But I rented it SOLELY on Norton, and I at least was treated to something unique, as well as the typically brilliant Norton performance.

The guy is a treasure, and his merely being connected to a film at least makes me interested in that film.

I think Norton is treading his own path, which he richly deserves.

And I think it says something that Norton can phone it in duing The Italian Job and still act the rest of the decent cast off the screen.

 

[Nathan V]

This thread is a bunch of people who've seen Norton's films saying Norton is great and continues to be great, and one person saying he may have fallen off, even though said person hasn't seen the films in discussion. Something's wrong with this picture. Buttmunker, all of the films listed that you haven't seen are at least interesting, and some of them are great; I'd highly recommend viewing them all before continuing this discussion in any depth. They're worthwhile pictures.

Personally, I can't intelligently discuss or judge a film if I haven't seen it. I avoided Man On Fire in theatres because of the trailer and reviews, which was one of the stupidest things I've done, filmwise. Now it's one of my favorites. Things like that happen all the time. 2001 opened to mixed reviews. Chicago won best picture. Requiem for a Dream made $5 mil. There is no constant relationship between buzz (popular opinion) and quality. Time is a slightly better indicator.

Off topic, We need to go back to the rules of having actual names and small sigs. This forum is too special, too unique and great.

Regards,
Nathan

 

[Pete-D]

Shrugs.

I thought Death To Smoochy was hillarious.

Keeping the Faith is something that I had no interest in, almost had to be forced into watching, but ended up enjoying it a lot.

The Illusionist was a good film also I thought. I enjoyed that much more than The Prestige.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

Agree. No clue why the rule changed to allow the pseudonyms...

 

[TravisR]

I think some of you guys are taking cheap shots. I don't agree with the original post but I don't see how his name fits into the discussion.

 

[JonZ]

"I never seen The Bourne Identity, but looking at trailers and knowing the material from reading reviews, I don't have to see it to know the general "gist."

I had no interest in seeing Bourne Identity from the trailer. I didnt read the books and wasnt familiar with the character. From the trailer I thought it was gong to be another in the long line of bad thrillers. I saw it on cable one night and loved it.

A more recent example,I nearly passed on 300 becuase I was so unimpressed with the trailer.

Heres some DVDs Ive gotten at Walmart off the $9 shelf:
Master & Commander,Better Off Dead,Say Anything,The Truman Show,Fright Night,Rocky,Breaking Away,Dead Again,Animal House,My Big Fat Greek Wedding,A Beautiful Mind....to name just some(The jeans I like are sold there and I always look at the discount DVD section when I go there)

"I have to say I did NOT love Down in the Valley."

I liked it to a point. I think the last 3rd is really poorly done. I was watching it and just not believing what was unfolding onscreen. I thought Norton was very good though and I LOVED the gunwork he did.

 

[Michael Reuben]

Agreed. The OP has a real name that appears on every one of his posts; it's "Mike". I disagree with almost everything Mike has said in this thread, but he can't be accused of posting under a pseudonym.

The reason for the current policy regarding nicknames has been discussed in various places, e.g., here. It's a done deal, and we're not going back. Picking on a poster for a nickname that fully complies with HTF policy does nothing to enhance your own credibility and should, henceforth, be left out of all posts, in this thread and elsewhere.

M.