Phil 5,118 Posted July 12, 2014 Share Posted July 12, 2014 (edited) Walberg in Four Brothers. Loved that performance, loved that movie. Edited July 12, 2014 by ssda911 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.sniffuM 1,741 Posted July 12, 2014 Share Posted July 12, 2014 I think Mark Wahlberg denied Devise a handshake in a mall once. Spangle, NotAVHLM-GM and Squinty 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kesler 1,514 Posted July 12, 2014 Share Posted July 12, 2014 I think Mark Wahlberg denied Devise a handshake in a mall once. LOLOLOL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spangle 49 Posted July 12, 2014 Share Posted July 12, 2014 Wahlberg gives me good vibrations Devise clearly does not get these vibrations. NotAVHLM-GM 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devise 4,475 Posted July 13, 2014 Author Share Posted July 13, 2014 Saw Dawn of the Planet of the Apes last night. I really enjoyed it. They put a lot of attention into developing the monkey characters, had a good set up and justification (for the most part) for what was happening. I can kind of see a direction the series is headed as well. I do think this series kind of surprised me by how good it was though. The first one was pretty good and I expected it to be just nonsense, and this one was really good when I wasn't really expecting much tbh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Svoboda_3 Posted July 13, 2014 Share Posted July 13, 2014 Well, Devise lives a miserable life Wahlberg is a good actor for the most part. I liked him in Four Brothers, Invincible and Ted. I haven't seen Pain and Gain yet. Also saw Tammy the other weekend. It was alright. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandro 251 Posted July 13, 2014 Share Posted July 13, 2014 Well, Devise lives a miserable life Wahlberg is a good actor for the most part. I liked him in Four Brothers, Invincible and Ted. I haven't seen Pain and Gain yet. Also saw Tammy the other weekend. It was alright. I watched Pain & Gain with a friend. If you shut your brain off it can be an entertaining movie, but as usual the presence of Michael Bay fucks all sorts of stuff up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kesler 1,514 Posted July 13, 2014 Share Posted July 13, 2014 I really enjoyed the last planet of the apes with Franco in it so I cant wait to see this new one. And I watched 22 Street Jump and the new X men. Street jump was funny as shit but was just like the first one except they went to college and X men was really good except the ending was kind of shitty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devise 4,475 Posted July 13, 2014 Author Share Posted July 13, 2014 Well, Devise lives a miserable life Wahlberg is a good actor for the most part. I liked him in Four Brothers, Invincible and Ted. I haven't seen Pain and Gain yet. Also saw Tammy the other weekend. It was alright. I just have a higher standard. I do not believe in shutting my brain off for a movie generally. If all a movie is doing is popcorn entertainment nonsense, then it better be GOOD popcorn entertainment nonsense. In most cases I have found that in order to achieve that movies have to not take themselves seriously. In the case of Whalberg, people saying he is a good actor and then referencing only relatively recent things make me kind of chuckle. My issues with Whalberg stem less about him being in a good movie, and more about his general skills as an actor. He is a type casted actor like Vin Diesel used to be. I don't think the Rock is a good actor either, he's a big dude who looks like he can hold a gun. So what? To me a good actor is one who shows progression in their skills. Who shows that they aren't just doing it for the money. Who shows that one day they want to be on that stage winning Best Actor Oscars. Sure Whalberg has been in his fair share of bad films too, Shooter, The Happening, Max Payne, Contraband, Lone Survivor. If I had seen all of his body of work I could list more. But those movies aren't just bad because they are bad he is also bad in them. Morgan Freeman has been in his fair share of bad movies but he is almost always a good actor in those movies. Whalberg does this for the money just like director Micheal Bay does. They have zero interest in actual caring about the quality of their work. It's the typical "oh someone doesn't like what I do? Screw em I don't care." Whalberg has zero desire to be a better actor, and it shows in his work. I can't respect that, sorry. To me the reason some of his performances work better is because some of the characters he plays are better suited to his limited acting abilities. It's why directors who know what they are doing, like Martin Scorsese don't cast Whalberg in leading roles, and know exactly the type of role he should be playing. Although to give Whalberg credit, there is no difference in him than half of the other "leading men" in Hollywood who are type cast to roles that fit their limited acting abilities. Spangle 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Svoboda_3 Posted July 13, 2014 Share Posted July 13, 2014 Way too much thought being put into this. You should just try and enjoy things. Going into everything having the highest of standards would drive a person crazy eventually. It is what it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.sniffuM 1,741 Posted July 13, 2014 Share Posted July 13, 2014 22 Street Jump Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike 708 Posted July 13, 2014 Share Posted July 13, 2014 While I think Devise is overly critical he is on the right path. I like marky mark but hes not exactly a great actor to be honest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.sniffuM 1,741 Posted July 13, 2014 Share Posted July 13, 2014 Well obviously I'm not saying that Wahlberg is Daniel Day Lewis, I'm just saying that just because he isn't the best actor doesn't mean he isn't good in anything. I think Jason Statham's an awful actor but that doesn't mean he was bad in Snatch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spangle 49 Posted July 13, 2014 Share Posted July 13, 2014 I just have a higher standard. I do not believe in shutting my brain off for a movie generally. If all a movie is doing is popcorn entertainment nonsense, then it better be GOOD popcorn entertainment nonsense. In most cases I have found that in order to achieve that movies have to not take themselves seriously. In the case of Whalberg, people saying he is a good actor and then referencing only relatively recent things make me kind of chuckle. My issues with Whalberg stem less about him being in a good movie, and more about his general skills as an actor. He is a type casted actor like Vin Diesel used to be. I don't think the Rock is a good actor either, he's a big dude who looks like he can hold a gun. So what? To me a good actor is one who shows progression in their skills. Who shows that they aren't just doing it for the money. Who shows that one day they want to be on that stage winning Best Actor Oscars. Sure Whalberg has been in his fair share of bad films too, Shooter, The Happening, Max Payne, Contraband, Lone Survivor. If I had seen all of his body of work I could list more. But those movies aren't just bad because they are bad he is also bad in them. Morgan Freeman has been in his fair share of bad movies but he is almost always a good actor in those movies. Whalberg does this for the money just like director Micheal Bay does. They have zero interest in actual caring about the quality of their work. It's the typical "oh someone doesn't like what I do? Screw em I don't care." Whalberg has zero desire to be a better actor, and it shows in his work. I can't respect that, sorry. To me the reason some of his performances work better is because some of the characters he plays are better suited to his limited acting abilities. It's why directors who know what they are doing, like Martin Scorsese don't cast Whalberg in leading roles, and know exactly the type of role he should be playing. Although to give Whalberg credit, there is no difference in him than half of the other "leading men" in Hollywood who are type cast to roles that fit their limited acting abilities. For the most part I agree, in particular about "turning your brain off". It's not that I don't want to, but sometimes I simply cannot. That is not to say I don't sometimes enjoy those types of films, but it's a struggle to do so at times. As for Wahlberg, he certainly is not a good actor, but as I said before, when put in the right spot with a good director, he can show that he is not all bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kesler 1,514 Posted July 13, 2014 Share Posted July 13, 2014 I just have a higher standard. I do not believe in shutting my brain off for a movie generally. If all a movie is doing is popcorn entertainment nonsense, then it better be GOOD popcorn entertainment nonsense. In most cases I have found that in order to achieve that movies have to not take themselves seriously. In the case of Whalberg, people saying he is a good actor and then referencing only relatively recent things make me kind of chuckle. My issues with Whalberg stem less about him being in a good movie, and more about his general skills as an actor. He is a type casted actor like Vin Diesel used to be. I don't think the Rock is a good actor either, he's a big dude who looks like he can hold a gun. So what? To me a good actor is one who shows progression in their skills. Who shows that they aren't just doing it for the money. Who shows that one day they want to be on that stage winning Best Actor Oscars. Sure Whalberg has been in his fair share of bad films too, Shooter, The Happening, Max Payne, Contraband, Lone Survivor. If I had seen all of his body of work I could list more. But those movies aren't just bad because they are bad he is also bad in them. Morgan Freeman has been in his fair share of bad movies but he is almost always a good actor in those movies. Whalberg does this for the money just like director Micheal Bay does. They have zero interest in actual caring about the quality of their work. It's the typical "oh someone doesn't like what I do? Screw em I don't care." Whalberg has zero desire to be a better actor, and it shows in his work. I can't respect that, sorry. To me the reason some of his performances work better is because some of the characters he plays are better suited to his limited acting abilities. It's why directors who know what they are doing, like Martin Scorsese don't cast Whalberg in leading roles, and know exactly the type of role he should be playing. Although to give Whalberg credit, there is no difference in him than half of the other "leading men" in Hollywood who are type cast to roles that fit their limited acting abilities. HEV U SEEN THE WALHBURGERS??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kesler 1,514 Posted July 13, 2014 Share Posted July 13, 2014 Yeah I call it that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Squinty 116 Posted July 14, 2014 Share Posted July 14, 2014 (edited) well shit, look at this wahlberg debate now Edited July 14, 2014 by Squinty Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BOOM 8,723 Posted July 14, 2014 Share Posted July 14, 2014 He's an actor too? We are still in the "Funky Bunch" stage down here but am now looking forward to getting his films in our theaters. NotAVHLM-GM 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tyler 885 Posted July 14, 2014 Share Posted July 14, 2014 Walberg in Four Brothers. Loved that performance, loved that movie. loved this movie too 3000 the goat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tyler 885 Posted July 14, 2014 Share Posted July 14, 2014 He's an actor too? We are still in the "Funky Bunch" stage down here but am now looking forward to getting his films in our theaters. til australlia is just like eastern europe always in the 90's Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BOOM 8,723 Posted July 15, 2014 Share Posted July 15, 2014 You know it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devise 4,475 Posted July 20, 2014 Author Share Posted July 20, 2014 No idea how something as ambitious as Boyhood hasn't ended up on my radar until now. A movie that literally was filmed in 12 years, capturing the life of a child at age 6 till he was 18. It uses the same actors, and was filmed roughly a month out of a year at a time over those 12 years. Stuff like this is why I love movies/films so much. Sheer creative ambition. To me just an example of what always drives this industry. The human mind. All the tools in filmmaking, all the CGI and the tech are nothing without the minds that turn them into something ambitious and glorious. I can't wait to check this movie out though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advantage 2,891 Posted July 20, 2014 Share Posted July 20, 2014 Can we just say...Mark Wahlberg is the John Cena of the non-wrestling world of acting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tyler 885 Posted July 20, 2014 Share Posted July 20, 2014 Can we just say...Mark Wahlberg is the John Cena of the non-wrestling world of acting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Munk 1,298 Posted July 21, 2014 Share Posted July 21, 2014 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PuYA6qX_n8o Tyler 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.ed69a7260a477fcf4feead7a0e4b7506.png)
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now