R.I.P. Dennis Hopper

  • Thread starter Thread starter WinterBorn
  • Start date Start date
WinterBorn said:
Blue Velvet is a great film. Speed is a good movie.

IMO, there is no comparison. Blue Velvet weirded me out when I first saw it.
Click to expand...
Speed was a mediocre formula action movie, but Hopper out did himself in his role as the mad bomber. His role in Blue Velvet was also outstanding. And that is the mark of the truly great actor: the ability to play take on widely disparate roles and make each of them unique and believable. Sad in his passing. The batch of current lead actors don't have anything near what Hopper had.
 
Onceler said:
I always thought he was kind of a one-note actor, actually. You never really forgot that he was Dennis Hopper.
Click to expand...
How many Dennis Hopper movies have you seen?

You never forget that a role is played by Dustin Hoffman, either. But Hoffman, too, is a superb actor capable of widely diverse roles. Every actor will put some of themselves in every role they do. But the great actor still makes each character (or type of character) believable and unique. Tootsie was completely separate character from Ted Kramer - yet both were also undeniable Dustin Hoffman.

Likewise, Hopper's characters were both uniquely Hopper, but also unique individual characters appropriate to the story. Since Frank Booth and Howard Payne were both, essentially, crazy, murderous villains, there was a lot more similarity between the characters than between other characters he played. But Hopper brought to life many other characters, from straight laced military officer to independent-thinking son of a controlling rich father, to ultra-traditional hard-working middle class depression era farmer, to rebel biker, and many more. All of them were full-on Dennis Hopper, who himself was probably closest to his Easy Rider character than anything. But all were also unique, believable characters fully integrated with the intent of the script.
 
I've seen quite a few of his movies. I'm not trying to diss him, but he just didn't have that much range; he got a lot out of his "crazy eyes," and characters like the one he played in Easy Rider were pretty close to who he was anyway.

He was great in Hoosiers, and he did have a handful of roles like that throughout his career. But I wouldn't say he had that much range, and the characterzation that current actors don't have anything near what he had seems a little off...
 
Onceler said:
I've seen quite a few of his movies. I'm not trying to diss him, but he just didn't have that much range; he got a lot out of his "crazy eyes," and characters like the one he played in Easy Rider were pretty close to who he was anyway.

He was great in Hoosiers, and he did have a handful of roles like that throughout his career. But I wouldn't say he had that much range, and the characterzation that current actors don't have anything near what he had seems a little off...
Click to expand...
Yea, the problem when an actor does a particular role type exceptionally well (ie: crazy villain) is then the industry tends to stick them there. ("hey we need a carzy villain again - let's see if Hopper is available!")

But, the other types of roles Hopper played, like Shooter in Hoosiers, and Jordan Benedict III in Giant do show diversity of ability. I thought he was hilarious in Flashback, too, which required a completely different use of his "crazy eyes". Though relatively few in number, it still speaks well for his overall abilities as an actor - he was one of the better, IMO.
 
He was an astute character when it came to art investments, I heard tell that he bought one of the Andy Warhol Campbell Soup prints for a few dollars, it is now worth around $10 million.
 
Socrtease said:
Another great minor role of Hopper's was that of Christian Slater's dad in True Romance. He has a final scene in that movie with Christopher Walken that is great. Also not many people saw it, but his latest role in Crash which is on Starz.
Click to expand...

I didn't know he had a part in Crash??
 
tom prendergast said:
He was an astute character when it came to art investments, I heard tell that he bought one of the Andy Warhol Campbell Soup prints for a few dollars, it is now worth around $10 million.
Click to expand...

yeah... he bought it in the late 60's for about $75. Not a bad return... :)

oh... and for the record... Speed sucked. I like Hopper, but that movie was friggin awful.
 
Superfreak said:
yeah... he bought it in the late 60's for about $75. Not a bad return... :)

oh... and for the record... Speed sucked. I like Hopper, but that movie was friggin awful.
Click to expand...

Oh, please; for that genre, it was great. You're one of about 3 people who didn't like it...
 
Onceler said:
Oh, please; for that genre, it was great. You're one of about 3 people who didn't like it...
Click to expand...

I think that is the difference. Speed was a fun movie. It was predictable as hell, but still fun.

Whereas Blue Velvet was a movie that struck a nerve.
 
way to shit on his grave, shooter was a big change from his villan charecter and he was oscar nominated for it.
2nd best sports movie ever.
 
Superfreak said:
yeah... he bought it in the late 60's for about $75. Not a bad return... :)

oh... and for the record... Speed sucked. I like Hopper, but that movie was friggin awful.
Click to expand...

Speed is a dire film with just about every Hollywood cliche in it. I can't believe that it gets 7.2 on IMDB.
 
I also remember the television commercials where he played the crazy referee. He was hilarious in those. And the Crash he was in was a series that was/is still on Starz.
 
Onceler said:
Oh, please; for that genre, it was great. You're one of about 3 people who didn't like it...
Click to expand...

what genre is it exactly?

By no measure was that movie 'great'.... even if you put it in relative terms to a specific 'genre'.

The acting was horrid by the two leads (keanu and bullock), the plot was boring and predictable.
 
Superfreak said:
what genre is it exactly?

By no measure was that movie 'great'.... even if you put it in relative terms to a specific 'genre'.

The acting was horrid by the two leads (keanu and bullock), the plot was boring and predictable.
Click to expand...

Lighten up. That was not an "actors" movie. It was a popcorn movie, and as a popcorn movie, it succeeded in a big way.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top