We have updated our Privacy Notice, you can read the updated document here
Mods please check the Moderators Group for an important update on Mod tools. If you do not have access to the group, please PM Niamh. Thanks!

Marvel's Black Widow

1356789

Comments

  • #2


    I'd pretty comfortably say Scarlett Johansson has the most great roles under her belt of any of the 'main' Marvel heroes, putting aside supporting actors and the like. Ruffalo has a pretty respectable filmography so he'd be the main competitor, and Cumberbatch is a talented chap who just hasn't been in that many good films (The Imitation Game is a perfect example - strong performance in a weak film). Olsen and Larson have some great performances under their belt, albeit only a few each. But in terms of volume of really strong performances across a pretty wide variety of films? Johansson seems like a pretty clear winner on a quick count, and arguably the one worst-served by the MCU films so far despite that.

    Robert Downey Jr has been in the game a long time and before he went down the Marvel route he had a lot of good roles under his belt, both TV and film. If we're talking recently then I'd say she definitely has had the better roles but overall career-wise it could be closer than you think. A similar argument could be made for Don Cheadle and Gwyneth Paltrow, depending on if you want to count her or not. Let's not forget Josh Brolin also.


  • #2


    p to the e wrote: »
    Well there's a bold statement. I don't think Johansson is even the best actress in the MCU (Tilda Swinton, Brie Larson, Natalie Portman) never mind her male counterparts.

    I didn't say she was the best. I meant she's had more outstanding performances in films outside the MCU. Particularly Lost in Translation.

    You're right about Tilda Swinton. Unbelievable actress whos had some great roles.

    Nathalie Portman is a good one. I forgot about her. She's had a very similar career to Johansen. Her Star Wars and Thor roles are real low points though.

    Redford is in with a shout, but not Michael Douglas.


  • #2


    p to the e wrote: »
    Robert Downey Jr has been in the game a long time and before he went down the Marvel route he had a lot of good roles under his belt, both TV and film. If we're talking recently then I'd say she definitely has had the better roles but overall career-wise it could be closer than you think. A similar argument could be made for Don Cheadle and Gwyneth Paltrow, depending on if you want to count her or not. Let's not forget Josh Brolin also.

    Robert Downey Jr has spent 30 years being Robert Downey Jr in films. Don Cheadle has had an ok career playing minor parts. Gwyneth Paltrow eclipses both of those, but not Johansen.

    Brolin was great in one film


  • #2


    Well, if we're including actors who've only appeared in one of the MCU movies, then Cate Blanchett has to be up there.


  • #2


    Ben Kingsley has them all best. He was in Thunderbirds


  • #2


    I'm starting to think it's easier to name actors who weren't in an MCU film.


  • #2


    Rockbeast2 wrote: »
    I just started working my way back on the male side and stopped very quickly:

    Robert Redford
    Anthony Hopkins
    Michael Douglas
    Samuel L. Jackson
    Tommy Lee Jones
    Ben Kingsley
    Jeff Bridges
    William Hurt
    ...
    None of them play lead roles in the MCU??

    Tommy Lee Jones going about 20 years barely a notable performance Rolling Thunder perhaps? until JFK, of course his career took off particularly with the Fugitive but amazing to think 4 years after the Client Johanssen was already then on the radar with the Horse Whisperer opposite Robert Redford funnily enough.

    Unlike Tommy Lee Jones William Hurts early career is where he shines most but I think you must be confusing him with British actor John Hurt to consider his body of work stronger than Johanssens tbh.

    When it comes to the actors who play characters in MCU with their own stand alone movies with this upcoming flick gotta agree with Johnny Ultimate none of the rest come close whatsoever.


  • #2


    Mr Crispy wrote: »
    Well, if we're including actors who've only appeared in one of the MCU movies, then Cate Blanchett has to be up there.

    Kurt Russell,Rebecca Hall and Forest Whitaker are some others also with one to their name.


  • #2


    Kurt Russell,Rebecca Hall and Forest Whitaker are some others also with one to their name.

    Scarlett was in more great films in 2003 than Kurt Russell was in his whole career!

    Seriously, read through her IMDb. It’s unreal.


  • #2


    Surprised there’s even any debate over it TBH :) I mean Johansson is now into her third decade of acclaimed performances and she’s only 35! For every forgettable blockbuster (and she’s had a few!) there’s an offbeat choice or award-winning effort. Would struggle to mention any other “movie star” with a performance as audacious as Under the Skin on their CV - let alone one who had such a role at the height of their fame. And I’m not sure anyone else has managed TWO good performances in Woody Allen films since some time in the early 80s :pac: Superb actress, and long may her blockbuster work be matched with indie curveballs and oddities.


  • #2


    Would struggle to mention any other “movie star” with a performance as audacious as Under the Skin on their CV
    Re-watched this on Sunday and it was an impressive step for her to do. Financially, it wouldn't have been worth her time so she obviously saw it as a way to flex her acting muscles on what's quite an art house film with minimal dialogue.


  • #2


    I wouldn't claim Scarlett Johansson is anything other than a very good actress but I wouldn't agree she's the best in the MCU, not by a long shot.

    Having said that, she is better than a lot of the "main" characters with far more depth and range. In general I mean, not within the MCU.


  • #2


    Surprised there’s even any debate over it TBH :) I mean Johansson is now into her third decade of acclaimed performances and she’s only 35! For every forgettable blockbuster (and she’s had a few!) there’s an offbeat choice or award-winning effort. Would struggle to mention any other “movie star” with a performance as audacious as Under the Skin on their CV - let alone one who had such a role at the height of their fame. And I’m not sure anyone else has managed TWO good performances in Woody Allen films since some time in the early 80s :pac: Superb actress, and long may her blockbuster work be matched with indie curveballs and oddities.

    That film blew me away and scared the crap out me in equal measure. And some people didn't rate it but I really liked "Ghost in the Shell".

    What about Ed Norton? Are we pitting him against ScarJo in this celebrity death-match?

    I get what you're saying. She's a fantastic actress who has been in this game since childhood and still managed to survive. And yes her character was mismanaged from the very beginning. They wanted a curvy sexpot in there but didn't know exactly what to do with her apart from that. I just don't think she's completely unchallenged in the best acting chops in the MCU.


  • #2


    ixoy wrote: »
    Re-watched this on Sunday and it was an impressive step for her to do. Financially, it wouldn't have been worth her time so she obviously saw it as a way to flex her acting muscles on what's quite an art house film with minimal dialogue.

    Under the Skin is my cinematic blindspot, or that joke everyone else in the room seems to find hilarious except me, as I sit thinking "I don't get it".

    Cos, like, I don't get it. Nor would I consider myself illiterate in the ways of cinema. A hauntingly beautiful piece to look at for sure, but beyond the superficial found it a tedious slog of navel-gazing better suited to a short film than a full length feature. Those stretches of Scarlett Johannson pottering around Glasgow in a Ford van just felt like a moodier version of those hidden camera shows; maybe it's just cos I have pottered around the slummier versions of Glasgow, I don't find anything remarkably transcendent about the Hollywood actor in a wig chatting to "real" locals.

    Honestly, the book it was based on sounded much more interesting, as the overblown, crazed satire of consumerism that IIRC it was meant to be. Instead ... I dunno, definitely one of the few movie hills I might just die on. Not going to use the word that sounds like "rover-bated", but yeah. It eludes me 'cos I didn't find 90 minutes of "emotional vacant creature wanders around being lonely, with occasional abstract murder" that engaging.


  • #2


    Surprised there’s even any debate over it TBH :) I mean Johansson is now into her third decade of acclaimed performances and she’s only 35! For every forgettable blockbuster (and she’s had a few!) there’s an offbeat choice or award-winning effort. Would struggle to mention any other “movie star” with a performance as audacious as Under the Skin on their CV - let alone one who had such a role at the height of their fame. And I’m not sure anyone else has managed TWO good performances in Woody Allen films since some time in the early 80s :pac: Superb actress, and long may her blockbuster work be matched with indie curveballs and oddities.

    Her performance in Jojo Rabbit was brilliant too. How many other actors/actresses has the versatility to appear in Lost in Translation, Jojo Rabbit, Isle of Dogs, The Girl with the Pearl Earring and Marvel films?

    She’s a movie star one minute and a brilliant indie actress another. I actually think she’s underrated because she’s so beautiful.

    As an interesting aside. She was at a table opposite mine for dinner one time. Dressed in a tracksuit and I was stunned at how beautiful she is in real life. I tried my best to pretend she wasn’t there, but it was tough to do.


  • #2


    Brian? wrote: »
    As an interesting aside. She was at a table opposite mine for dinner one time. Dressed in a tracksuit and I was stunned at how beautiful she is in real life. I tried my best to pretend she wasn’t there, but it was tough to do.

    MontyPythonsLifeOfBrian-tcH8M097-subtitled.jpg


  • #2


    pixelburp wrote: »
    Under the Skin is my cinematic blindspot, or that joke everyone else in the room seems to find hilarious except me, as I sit thinking "I don't get it".

    Cos, like, I don't get it. Nor would I consider myself illiterate in the ways of cinema. A hauntingly beautiful piece to look at for sure, but beyond the superficial found it a tedious slog of navel-gazing better suited to a short film than a full length feature. Those stretches of Scarlett Johannson pottering around Glasgow in a Ford van just felt like a moodier version of those hidden camera shows; maybe it's just cos I have pottered around the slummier versions of Glasgow, I don't find anything remarkably transcendent about the Hollywood actor in a wig chatting to "real" locals.
    Hah I think I agree. It was interesting for sure. A weird movie I'm glad I watched. But mainly remarkable just to see such an A list actor in it.


  • #2


    Brian? wrote: »
    Scarlett was in more great films in 2003 than Kurt Russell was in his whole career!

    Seriously, read through her IMDb. It’s unreal.

    Wasn't making a case for Kurt up against Scarlett or anything just hadn't seen him mentioned yet.

    But had a gander anyway ;) 2 strong flicks in 2003 but very different films than Kurts best stuff tbf like The Thing,Bone Tomahawk etc.


  • #2


    Not surprised to see Bradley Cooper hasn't been mentioned yet, I often forget myself that he's in the MCU.

    To the the thread slightly back on topic, we now also have Rachel Weisz as well.


  • #2


    I'd pretty comfortably say Scarlett Johansson has the most great roles under her belt of any of the 'main' Marvel heroes, putting aside supporting actors and the like. Ruffalo has a pretty respectable filmography so he'd be the main competitor, and Cumberbatch is a talented chap who just hasn't been in that many good films (The Imitation Game is a perfect example - strong performance in a weak film). Olsen and Larson have some great performances under their belt, albeit only a few each. But in terms of volume of really strong performances across a pretty wide variety of films? Johansson seems like a pretty clear winner on a quick count, and arguably the one worst-served by the MCU films so far despite that.
    I actually think Olsen is sort of unfortunate to have ended up in the MCU so early in her career. She's superb in her smaller roles.


  • #2


    Brian? wrote: »
    I didn't say she was the best. I meant she's had more outstanding performances in films outside the MCU.

    Saying shes much better than anyone else is very much saying shes the best.
    Brian? wrote: »
    She's a much better actor than anyone else I can think of in the MCU. .


  • #2


    Saying shes much better than anyone else is very much saying shes the best.

    Fair enough. I misspoke. I meant she had a much better career, she’s had better roles than anyone else.

    She is definitely a better actor than most.


  • #2


    I'd say she's got the most big time roles and performances out of any of the main cast, although I'd say Ruffalo is the best actor there, and RDJ and Renner actually have as many Oscar noms.

    When you go through the supporting characters and villains though, she doesn't come close imo. There's lots of extremely talented actors and actresses there who've been around years (aforementioned Douglas, Blanchett, Del Toro, Hopkins etc) or younger ones like Cooper, Hiddleston, and Michael B Jordan who have been very impressive in films over the last 10 years, and Norton is technically part of the MCU as it is, so he blows most away both on talent and big time performances.


  • #2


    titan18 wrote: »
    I'd say she's got the most big time roles and performances out of any of the main cast, although I'd say Ruffalo is the best actor there, and RDJ and Renner actually have as many Oscar noms.

    When you go through the supporting characters and villains though, she doesn't come close imo. There's lots of extremely talented actors and actresses there who've been around years (aforementioned Douglas, Blanchett, Del Toro, Hopkins etc) or younger ones like Cooper, Hiddleston, and Michael B Jordan who have been very impressive in films over the last 10 years, and Norton is technically part of the MCU as it is, so he blows most away both on talent and big time performances.

    I would put Scarlett Johansen on a par with Norton and Blanchett in terms of talent and above all of the rest you mention.

    Cooper, Huddleston and Jordan are nowhere in the same league.

    Hopkins wins though, I'll give you that.


  • #2


    Brian? wrote: »
    ... As an interesting aside. She was at a table opposite mine for dinner one time. Dressed in a tracksuit and I was stunned at how beautiful she is in real life. I tried my best to pretend she wasn’t there, but it was tough to do.

    I am not a pervert by any means... but (always a but lol) I would get a nice long good stare as she walked away :pac:


    To be fair I wouldn't be the only one. Check out John Favreau's eyes.

    h6Q1aC5.gif


  • #2


    That's just him being supportive since she was showing off her walk so he had to look in order to give feedback if needed.

    At least that'd be my cover story


  • #2


    Rewatched “Under the Skin” last night. Scarlett is unbelievably good in it.


  • #2


    Brian? wrote: »
    Rewatched “Under the Skin” last night. Scarlett is unbelievably good in it.

    I watched up until the family on the beach, far too bleak and slow for me.


  • #2


    FunLover18 wrote: »
    I watched up until the family on the beach, far too bleak and slow for me.

    That scene was tough to watch, my wife was watching from behind her hands.

    I love slow films mostly. I think it really suits Johansen's style to be in a much slower paced film.


  • #2


    Brian? wrote: »
    That scene was tough to watch, my wife was watching from behind her hands.

    I love slow films mostly. I think it really suits Johansen's style to be in a much slower paced film.

    I don't mind slow as long as the story is engaging, this was just a bit too arty for me. I don't mean that in a condescending way, from what I saw it was well made, it's just not for me.


Society & Culture