Francis Ford Coppola, are you drunk?
 

Director Francis Ford Coppola has unaccountably castigated three of Hollywood's top stars, whom he has directed in the past, accusing Al Pacino, Robert De Niro, and Jack Nicholson of "living off the fat of the land" and doing little that is challenging or ambitious. In an interview with GQ magazine, Coppola noted that "Pacino is very rich, maybe because he never spends any money. ... [De Niro] created an empire and is wealthy and powerful. ... [Nicholson] is always wired in with the big guys and the big bosses of the studios." Coppola added, "You know, even in those days after The Godfather, I didn't feel that those actors were ready to say, 'Let's do something else really ambitious." Commenting on Coppola's remarks, the New York Daily News's "Rush and Molloy" column observed, "Some might ask Coppola how he has challenged himself lately. He admits he has been focused on his vineyard and on his resorts in Belize and Guatemala." And L.A. Weekly columnist Nikki Finke remarked, "Is there anything more hypocritical than a judgmental Francis Ford Coppola?"







=========


Why, oh why, would you lash out at 3 of the 4 best actors of our generation?

Actor #4 = Keanu Reeves

He's right.

There's only so much you can do when you get old though

He's also a hypocrite, which dulls the sharpness of his words.

Oh, don't get me wrong Coppola has no room to talk, but his criticism is spot on.

They should all be making movies starring Robin Williams as a fifth grader and financing their talentless relatives' careers.

You... your good you! Your very good you!

I was hoping this thread would continue with photos of the missing member of the Top 4 and having them all be comedic guess. For example a picutre of Keanu from Bill and Ted would have worked well.

Why wouldn't you just post that exact pic and get the ball rolling in a little more subtle manner? After you just laid out the roadmap to humour so blatantly it takes the fun right out of it.

Obviously all three have been so demoralized by the bang-on impersonations that Frank Caliendo does of them that they don't have the will to go on.

Who is drunk? Seriously when was this written 1985?

I do not consider any of these 3 actors Top Stars in 2007.

Top stars, not even close, but definatly the best actors.

Best resumes, sure, but best actors at this point? Most of the time, they're playing caricatures of themselves, and even when they do a good movie like Nicholson and The Departed, they are far from the best actor. No one can argue with their resumes from the 70's and 80's, but if you were forced to sit in aroom and watch all of their movies from the last 10 years it would be a minor version of torture.

I've always felt Pacino was a bit overrated compared to the other two, anyways. He was pretty bad in Ocean's 13, especially in a one on one scene with Clooney who acted him off the screen without even trying. Pacino's relied on overacting most of his career. De Niro and Nicholson have also relied on this a bit, but have more range and can play more subtle characters. That being said, neither of them are close to the top today. Nicholson's hammy performance actually detracted from The Departed if anything.

Ya I'm not sure those 3 are even close to the top actors right now, I can think of 10+ guys right off the top of my head that I think are better actors.

Pacino was once good...his early work is superb. Somehow though, he got caught up in over acting...("The Godfather" "Dog Day Afternoon" Serpico" are fantastic). I suppose that happens when you get an Oscar for such a turd of a movie. Pacino anymore reminds me of someone with bowel irritation, but he can do good stuff recent as well (some parts of "Heat", "Carlito's Way" wasn't too bad either, he was okay in "Insomnia")

De Niro can act when he wants to...("Raging Bull" "Taxi Driver" "Heat") He can pull it off, but I guess he does get criticized when he goes out of the gritty range and does something for a buck ("Meet the Parents" "Analyze This").

Now Jack...well. Oddly, I was watching "Badder Santa" and as I was watching it, I was thinking to myself Billy Bob ain't bad, but a young Jack Nicholson would eat this part alive (I checked Wikipedia and he had been considered for the part but couldn't accept due to conflicts; odder still Bill Murray was considered as well for the part - I thought it wouldn't work well with him). Jack can still act though and even bad movies he tends to shine though (Ever seen "Wolf" what a horrible schlock of a film, but he's good)...his over acting can eek out, especially with that Chesire cat grin ("Witches of Eastwick" "Batman") but he can do some good stuff too ("The Pledge" - I have not seen "About Schmidt"). Of course, we're talking about a guy who did some great films "Five Easy Pieces", "One Flew over the Cuckoo's Nest, and if you ever get the time, see the "Last Detail" perhaps Jack's finest hour and most unrecognized performance).

However, while the guys have gotten older and perhaps stale, one thing to consider is that these guys are in a business that has changed...things like "Easy Rider" don't come along often and Jack was in at the front of the 60/70's counterculture scene (which is why he's so well connected - check out "The Kid Stays in the Picture"). Al and Robert were East Coasters, when the tough gritty drams come oozing out of NYC. "Taxi Driver" could not be made today, nor would there be an interest in it today.

Not to say Hollywood can't make good pictures or take chances (Doesn't De Niro have a film company?). Pacino likes the stage (check out "Finding Richard" which is Al going gaga over the great bard, it's really good in that you can see stagecraft with the likes of Pacino, Kevin Spacey, and some great actors and of course sprinkled in there is Winoa Rider, where you see the crap that tends to ruin film). Nicholson is still a mover and shaker in Hollywood. But I think that when these guys were doing it, it was still part art form/ part business...nowadays it's all about the business.

I ramble...but these guys are relevant and paid their dues. The next group has to step up, guys like Ed Norton, Christian Bale, Matt Damon (yeesh), George Clooney (who is in a really great movie that no one is watching "Michael Clayton").

Until I saw Frank Caliendo's impersonations of them all, I didn't realize how fat they'd all got.

In the the last 10 years Nicholson has starred in 6 films. Three are good to great (The Departed, About Schmidt, As Good As It Gets), two (unseen by me)got generally favorable reviews (The Pledge, Something's Gotta Give), and only one got largely negtive reviews (Anger Management).

If you take the time to look through their filmography, I don't think you'll find much evidence of a trend. It's just that nobody remembers the mediocre movies from 30 years ago.

Also, if you take issue with Pacino, De Niro, or Nicholson being named among "Hollywood's top stars" you either have unusual definition of "star" or an unusual definition of "top". Or maybe "Hollywood".

Maybe instead of top stars, it should be influential stars....

I do not believe that anyone of the 3 actors listed is a Top Star today. When they are succesfull they all find themselves in supporting roles nowdays. They are no longer the star of the movie, but simply co-stars.

You want to see an actor of their generation Dominate a starring roll? Go check out The World's Fastest Indian starring Anthony Hopkins. Hopkins blew my socks off with his role in that movie.

Don't you think that could have something to do with the fact that they are in their mid-to-late 60s?

I find it kind of like arguing that Mick Jagger shouldn't be referred to as a "top rock star" because the Stones albums haven't sold enough lately. At any rate, this is sort of a silly semantic argument.

mid-to-late 60s
1) Clint Eastwood
2) Anthony Hopkins
3) Robert Duvall


I will take these 3 codgers any day of the week over your 3 overated guys. Hopkins showed his stuff in Indian, Clint will need you to roll back the clock to put him in his 60s, but damn did he still have it in his mid to late 60s, and Duvall can just dominate a roll if given enough screen time.

I'm curious as to what Coppola or those critical would exactly prefer these guys to do or have done?


I mean what are these ground breaking things they have shirked?

These three are still in the top tier when you talk salary-per-picture, and money is what drives Hollywood. They are also among the most respected actors of their generation.

I think Coppola's criticism is fair, despite what one may think of the source, although I think it applies less to DeNiro. It is not entirely their faults. Once you reach a certain age, folks aren't looking to get you for every picture. You used to be able to pick and choose at your leisure from the mountains of scripts that came in. In your 60's, they just want you when they have a role that fits the style for which you are famous.

DeNiro has done a wider array of stuff because of his production company. But he hasn't done anything recently that would seem worthy of his talents.

Our generation? Maybe if we were born in the '40s.

Glad I wasn't drinking milk when I got to this one.