LOL this is harsh

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iz2Fa1d1fRc&t=9

Varun Dhawan called "garbage"

Aamir Khan plays "safe"

Ranveer Singh "eccentricity in the name of acting"

Do watch guys

Originally posted by: mintyblue

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iz2Fa1d1fRc&t=9

Varun Dhawan called "garbage"

Aamir Khan plays "safe"

Ranveer Singh "eccentricity in the name of acting"

Do watch guys

Did you miss where he showed Kareena right after garbage was mentioned as well?

Alec Baldwin's breakdown of acting in Hollywood over eras is facile and simplistic. Spencer Tracy in the 1930s, Montgomery Cliff in the 40s and 50s, Brando and Vivien Leigh in the 1950s etc were doing what Pacino, Streep etc were doing in the 70s. Not that there also wasn't a ton of great theater derived stylized acting in the 30s and 40s. Which pocket would Baldwin place Peter O'Toole maybe the greatest actor of the 20th century with his greatest role in 1962? Also for someone who depended a lot on his looks in the 80s and 90s snarking about actors now having to be in shape is hypocritical just because he hasn't been in shape for 2 decades. It isn't an either or proposition especially when certain roles demand it.

There are lot of good points made in this but also A LOT of convenient picking and choosing scenes and clips to slam or dismiss actors they don't like or consider great actors and elevate those they do. DDL and Kate Winslet vein popping and shaking theatrics are shown as being the character but for SRK, HR etc they're considered acting short cuts and all without giving any actual true context of the scene, role or the film.

Aarmir Khan is considered to play it safe and ergo is just good yet we see a long clip of Harrison Ford giving acting advice on what it means to be an actor when he's played it safe (and for the money) for 40 years except for a couple of films (which didn't make money so he stopped). While he's played a couple of iconic roles over the years he's never been considered a great actor (some times not even good), let alone a daring one. DeNiro is then no longer a great actor because his film choices for the last 30 plus years have been anything but daring.

The slam on playing morally good roles is a slam on Aamir but not Tom Hanks? Playing darker shades of the moral spectrum does not make one a better actor. Playing grey or dark is usually easier and more fun for an actor. It's often harder to play morally good characters and make them alive and interesting for the audience.

The best part of this was the section on listening. That is as said the key to being a good let alone great actor. The clips they showed from Kapoor and Sons was a good choice to highlight this.

Originally posted by: Talis

Did you miss where he showed Kareena right after garbage was mentioned as well?

Alec Baldwin's breakdown of acting in Hollywood over eras is facile and simplistic. Spencer Tracy in the 1930s, Montgomery Cliff in the 40s and 50s, Brando and Vivien Leigh in the 1950s etc were doing what Pacino, Streep etc were doing in the 70s. Not that there also wasn't a ton of great theater derived stylized acting in the 30s and 40s. Which pocket would Baldwin place Peter O'Toole maybe the greatest actor of the 20th century with his greatest role in 1962? Also for someone who depended a lot on his looks in the 80s and 90s snarking about actors now having to be in shape is hypocritical just because he hasn't been in shape for 2 decades. It isn't an either or proposition especially when certain roles demand it.

There are lot of good points made in this but also A LOT of convenient picking and choosing scenes and clips to slam or dismiss actors they don't like or consider great actors and elevate those they do. DDL and Kate Winslet vein popping and shaking theatrics are shown as being the character but for SRK, HR etc they're considered acting short cuts and all without giving any actual true context of the scene, role or the film.

Aarmir Khan is considered to play it safe and ergo is just good yet we see a long clip of Harrison Ford giving acting advice on what it means to be an actor when he's played it safe (and for the money) for 40 years except for a couple of films (which didn't make money so he stopped). While he's played a couple of iconic roles over the years he's never been considered a great actor (some times not even good), let alone a daring one. DeNiro is then no longer a great actor because his film choices for the last 30 plus years have been anything but daring.

The slam on playing morally good roles is a slam on Aamir but not Tom Hanks? Playing darker shades of the moral spectrum does not make one a better actor. Playing grey or dark is usually easier and more fun for an actor. It's often harder to play morally good characters and make them alive and interesting for the audience.

The best part of this was the section on listening. That is as said the key to being a good let alone great actor. The clips they showed from Kapoor and Sons was a good choice to highlight this.

Yes, I agree they were a bit too harsh on mainstream actors and Bollywood actors.

I liked the portion on listening as well. Very interesting.

Its not harsh but a load of bull crap. If the guy was serious about making a acting video to pick on the Bollywood, he could’ve used anecdotes given by the Bollywood’s very own actors . But he needed the safedi ki chamkaan to pick on the Bollywood- like as if these Hollywood actors are the ultimate gold standard of acting!

Next!

Good video which would get hated by most for bashing their favorites.😆

Originally posted by: Harley_Quinn

Good video which would get hated by most for bashing their favorites.😆

People in this forum this acting loudly is great acting. Lol... and apparently Kareena and Aamjr are great actors. Both are below average. Ranbir plays the same characters.