Michael Madsen

---

Since I've mentioned Michael Madsen in a separate thread, I thought it would be nice to give him an honourable place here, too.
His prformances in "Reservoir Dogs", "Sin City", "Kill Bill", consolidated his title of "great actor". His personal, totally unique way of playing, added salt & pepper to every movie he played in. Also, he is to appear in a almost twenty Hollywood productions during this year's end and 2009. Sadistic, sarcastic, crazy, these are his best weapons. You don't have to believe, if you didn't already, you just have to convince for yourselves.

RE: Michael Madsen

---

:-& 'nough said.

De gustibus i guess.

RE: Michael Madsen

---

I thought he was OK in some movies, and not that stellar in others. A matter of taste indeed.

Starring in ~20 Hollywood productions? I'm guessing secondary roles for the most part, so would that make him a great actor? For some reason I don't see him as a main character in movies.

RE: Michael Madsen

---

A great actor doesn't mean necessarily that he is everyone's favourite. And I also think that some actors best play a certain kind of roles, not any. I doubt Billy Crystal could play a mob's man, or Charlie Sheen a philosopher.. It just wouldn't fit. The tough guy kind of acts suits Madsen and he plays them quite well. Not all great actors, or hard working, or talented really get to win the public as others, less worthy of it. Take Banderas, for example... How much is it talent in public's adoration and how much "sex symbol, macho, allmighty" is ?

RE: Michael Madsen

---

As far as I'm concerned a great actor is precisely one who can play ANY role. There are few actors who can accomplish that and therefore there are very few truly great actors. If we were to discuss here whether one or the other likes or appreciates Madsen's acting performance there would be no room for debate; in Canfield's words (and mine ) that is a matter of taste. But I really don't see Madsen up there with a De Niro, a Hopkins and my personal favorite Johnny Depp. These 3 (there's more, I'm sure, but i just woke up and still sleepy and a bit senile ) can cover a very wide range of roles in a solid, convincing manner and hence, in my opinion, could be dubbed great actors.

RE: Michael Madsen

---

Your're definetely right. Madsen is not to be put in line with the other you mentioned and a lot others, too.. It's just I've seen other lame performances for the same type of roles and Madsen seemed a damn lot better. So I'll just stick to the idea that he tickles only my taste.