i don't remember gangs of new york, but he was flippin' SOLID in there will be blood. i guess you had a bias towards the actor, but if you thought his serious acting was douche-bag-ey, then i think it was just the way the character was. in which case, you wouldn't like the movie even if it was another actor. i don't see how that character could have been played any better.

as for wall-e, i think it was over-hyped. i saw it, and i fell for the hype, but as i think back on it, i don't think it was that great. i guess i'd have to watch it again to see how it holds up. but i didn't like the whole colony thing too much and i like it much less now. i think i originally liked it because i thought it was a nice way of making fun of america, but that wore off.

Wall-E was great, but I much prefer Up.

yeah I have the personal bias, so seeing him play more or less an intensified version of himself didn't surprise or awe me. usually the "great" performances that earn people attention are eerily close to their personal attributes, hence why they seem to really define the role. Like Julia Roberts in Erin Brokovitch...I mean, in my mind, it is MUCH more impressive to see actors tackle roles that are drastically different than themselves in both personality and demeanor. Daniel Day Lewis seems more or less to keep picking similar type roles over and over. I mean, he pretty much ruined Nine for me. You could argue it is the character and not him as an actor, but man, that movie frustrated the heck out of me.

He often stays in character throughout shooting -- to the extreme -- so if his character is an arsehole, he probably will be too. I don't think he really plays himself, in fact I think his role as Daniel Plainview was one of the biggest transformations I've seen on screen in terms of stepping inside and acting out another character. To say "He is an angry actor, and the character is angry so he is just playing himself" simplifies it way too much, because Daniel Plainview was not Daniel Day Lewis at all. When I showed my friends some clips of him after the movie they were shocked at how different he is (not only in appearance).

He certainly doesn't play it safe with his role choices, staying in a severely disabled position for weeks on end (breaking ribs in the process) for My Left Foot, and living off the land camping, hunting and skinning animals for Last of the Mohicans. Whether he is an arsehole in real life or not, I have huge respect for him as an actor. But I think he appears pretty humble and very intelligent in the very few interviews with him I've seen. I imagine he is just hell to work with on set, staying in (often ugly) characters. At one point he asked the crew to verbally abuse him and throw cold water over him throughout shooting.

I haven't seen Nine yet (I was initially looking forward to it), but I imagine the movie didn't click because it unfortunately doesn't look to be very good. But I won't pre-judge it too much yet.

I'm not going to go into the details about my personal experiences and my friend, but I can assure you that what happened was not the result of him being immersed in the role. meryl streep is a method actress too and yet she doesn't endanger production crew and staff and throw her weight around to cover her tracks when people, already working in underpaid and dangerous environments, get severely injured because of her ignorance. fact of the matter was the incident occurred during pre-production, months before any actors were supposed to be at the location and he just showed up, which was a liability to everyone involved (himself included), and well, when shit hit the fan, he turned tail and left other people to blame. a complete coward and with the ego to boost, makes for dangerous and unsafe working conditions.

Just watched Isao Takahata's 'Only Yesterday'. Must be manly, must be manly...

;_____________________________________________________;

Too bad, my planned trip to watch Avatar tomorrow had to be canceled. Well, I guess I'll have to go next week on Tuesday.
For some news: The extended cut of Avatar could be about 30 minutes longer. They already had some scenes at the beginning on the destroyed earth almost finished but still decided to cut them out. Then some hunting scene with Jake, and more conversations with Quaritch that shed a better light on his character.

really where did this info come from? cool.

edit: also, found this, which is a really cool detailed summary and analysis of the original script Cameron wrote in the 90's (titled Project 880) and the finished version of Avatar. there are a lot of differences, I think I like how he streamlined the movie although if it is true there were establishing earth scenes shot but not used, I think a lot of the article says is a moot point if there is an extended cut. overall the emphasis seems to be less on on the love story and more on the planet itself. there is a lot more explanation and history/science in the original script, but it seems like the heart isn't there in some ways. either way, makes for an interesting (albeit long) read.

Read that too, but I think all this would only distract from the fairy tale like experience you get from the movie as it is now. The Script of Project 880 could a bitter more complex and better, but it's not really complex or good. So trading in a "bad" story for a "mediocre" story and thus destryoing the perfect flow wouldn't have made a lot of sense.

it wouldn't have succeeded IMO because its too long and not emotionally engaging enough. by streamlining the story and focusing on the emotional aspects he has secured box office numbers that will probably allow him, if he chooses, to create a sequel, in which I imagine many of the unused plot points/ideas would resurface.