Yep, I said it. I really enjoyed One Battle After Another yesterday, but Leo’s not the one that made the film so effective (on that note, Sean Penn needs some serious awards attention). Leo’s in a lot of great films, but he’s generally not the guy that’s behind the greatness. That’s usually the other actors doing the heavy lifting. Sorry not sorry, Leo stans.
And this a sidenote to the whole ‘I’m not dating girls over 25’ shindig. ಠ_ಠ That’s creepy in itself, but it’s not why I’m throwin’ shade on Leo. He’s fine as an actor. Fine. But I don’t think he’s much more than that, and I don’t think he’s deserved all the big roles he’s got. I’m pretty sure Juaquin Phoenix made a friendly dig at that when he received the Best Actor award for Joker at the Oscars, but yeah, it’s kind of true. You get those roles with actors where you’re thinking: goddamn, you’re so good in this role that I actually can’t think of any actor who could play it. And with Leo, you rarely get that feeling. ¯\(°_o)/¯
Take one of my all-time favourite films Inception, for example. I’ve watched it many, many times since its original release back in 2010 (15 years ago, yikes ☉_☉ ). Leo gets the head role, obviously. But he’s not the guy that makes me come back to the film over and over again. It’s the bit players. It’s Tom Hardy and Joseph Gordon-Levitt giving that light comedy relief. It’s Cillian Murphy giving that moving turn as a son who just wants to be recognised by his father. ( ͡° ʖ̯ ͡°) It’s the mind-bending visuals and kickass soundtrack. Sure, Hans Zimmer regretted bringing those much copied braams into the cinematic world, but they were absolutely amazing at the time of release. And the ending. The ending. Damn. (•_•) And Leo’s fine. He’s not terrible or anything. He’s just not the lynchpin in the overall narrative. I guess he is in the wider financial scheme of things, because you need a big name to get a big audience.
And he’s pretty good in One Battle After Another, too. He gives a solid performance as a frequently high revolutionary dude trying to protect his daughter. The point is, he’s rarely ‘great’ in the sense of being the film’s absolute highlight. In this case, that gong probably goes to Benicio Del Toro’s sensei. Del Toro’s always had a warm comedic place in my heart since his deftly delivered ‘Hand me the keys cocksucker’ Usual Suspects line, but he pulls off a more subtle comic role in this joint as Leo’s pal and confidant. ( ͡ᵔ ͜ʖ ͡ᵔ ) But again, playing devil’s advocate, I can see why Leo’s important in the wider scheme of things. As Mark Kermode pointed out in his review, the whole production is pretty expensive, and Leo’s an almost guaranteed way of ensuring that the film’s going to bring all that dollar back. And the film’s been quite successful so far. Go figure. ~(˘▾˘~)
There are certain genres that I’m not going to like, regardless of Leo’s involvement. So Titanic didn’t hit me emotionally, and that’s not his fault. But there’s others where he’s just not that good as the leading man. Gangs of New York? Meh. Daniel Day-Lewis stole the show there, even if the overall film wasn’t brilliant. The Departed? Yawn. Too long, too boring. Once Leo got on board the Scorsese train, he seemed untouchable. The Departed wasn’t a scratch on original film Infernal Affairs, but it still got critical acclaim with that Best Picture win. He has occasional wins with joints like Catch Me If You Can, but they’re few and far between. In terms of films where Leo comes out as the strongest acting performance, well, that’s pretty rare. The Great Gatsby was overrated and – super unpopular opinion incoming – The Wolf of Wall Street was hella overrated. (▀̿Ĺ̯▀̿ ̿) Killers of the Flower Moon? Again, very overrated. But, y’know, Once Upon a Time in Hollywood? Pretty Good. He puts in strong performances from time to time, it’s just rare when you get those ‘nobody else could play that character’ moments with this guy. (¬_¬)