[quote]harris447 wrote:
The book is far, far better than the movie.
The problem with the movie is they took the violence out of my violence movie.
[/quote]
Exactly, very little of the violence was actually ever on screen. The implied violence was well done though.
I liked American Psycho and I was amazed when I saw him in the Machinist (Pretty good movie to boot). Some female actresses get praised when they put on 10 lbs to get a little chubby, this man lost about 50.
American Psycho was hysterical! Bizarre, yet awesome.
According to the DVD Special features, the director told him to get “as big as possible.” So he did. He bulked up to 225-230 or something like that, and then they told him he was too fat and he had to lose weight.
That might explain why he is not as lean in Batman as he was in American Psycho. Although you can tell that certain scenes of Batman, he is considerably leaner than others. For example, the picture above where he’s training ontop of those wood posts, he looks fairly soft (but big). A scene later in the movie where he’s getting out of bed, he is smaller but obviously leaner.
[quote]Leafblighter wrote:
…they told him he was too fat and he had to lose weight…[/quote]
I was just about to post about that, and it wasn’t that he was too fat, he was too “big”. So I’m guessing he had even more muscle mass as well and his sheer size was what they called “bear-like”.
haha
He is an amazing actor and seems like an all round cool dude, especially considering the roles he’s accepted thus far in his career.
Equilibrium was underrated!! 
[quote]Leafblighter wrote:
According to the DVD Special features, the director told him to get “as big as possible.” So he did. He bulked up to 225-230 or something like that, and then they told him he was too fat and he had to lose weight.
That might explain why he is not as lean in Batman as he was in American Psycho. Although you can tell that certain scenes of Batman, he is considerably leaner than others. For example, the picture above where he’s training ontop of those wood posts, he looks fairly soft (but big). A scene later in the movie where he’s getting out of bed, he is smaller but obviously leaner.[/quote]
I noticed that too. That’s even more impressive. So he starts around 120-130, gains about 100 lbs, then has to lose another 10-15? Crazy dedication there. But hell, it’s not like he did it for free.
How tall is he ?
[quote]lostinthought wrote:
I have no comment on his physique though…[/quote]
And yet you do.
I was kind of under the impression acting was his day job.
I don’t believe he had a trainer or dietician for The Machinist. In fact very few people would have been professionally comfortable letting him lose that much weight. And I’m fairly certain that an apple and a can of tuna fish a day would be their recommended path.
I thought you had no comment on it?
Look again. Yeah it is. I hate spoiled, primadonna Hollywood people as much as the next guy, but damn, would it kill you to give the guy some props? Of course someone working a 9-5 job with a family and such couldn’t accomplish this. But we’re not looking here at what an average person with an average life can do–we’re talking about, in some sense, what the limits of body transformation are given an extremely dedicated, disciplined individual. That his very job is to transform his body is the point, not an excuse to dismiss what he’s accomplished. Although I would venture to say that undergoing these physical transformations within a 7 month span AND filming two major films in that span is actually probably a lot more taxing than what the guy with the “day job” has to go through in that span of time. When you factor in the martial arts training he had to do for Batman, plus the very physical nature of that film, I don’t think you can dismiss what he’s done as merely being a by-product of a guy with all the time and resources in the world at his disposal. 99% of the people in the world in his position wouldn’t be able to do the same thing, which is exactly why he’s the one in the films and the rest of us are not.
Now if you want to go take shots at Keanu Reeves for being both a terrible actor and having it easy because they move him around on wires or use computers to make him all badass, go for it. Bale is a different beast altogether.
Bale is an amazing actor.
American Psycho the movie did capture the humor and irony of the book but only a little bit. Some of the stuff in the book is just so funny it’s unsettling. Bale was PERFECT as Bateman, though.
Bale is one of my favorite actors of this generation. The Machinist was great, I still don’t know how he did such a good job with that role considering he was a toothpick. Batman Begins was probably my favorite movie last year and it should’ve been nominated for a few Oscars, in my opinion.
[quote]Djwlfpack wrote:
Bale is one of my favorite actors of this generation. The Machinist was great, I still don’t know how he did such a good job with that role considering he was a toothpick. Batman Begins was probably my favorite movie last year and it should’ve been nominated for a few Oscars, in my opinion.[/quote]
I agree with that.
[quote]Djwlfpack wrote:
Bale is one of my favorite actors of this generation. The Machinist was great, I still don’t know how he did such a good job with that role considering he was a toothpick. Batman Begins was probably my favorite movie last year and it should’ve been nominated for a few Oscars, in my opinion.[/quote]
Oh, C’MON! Batman Begins was just a comic book movie for kids and geeks! It didn’t have any deep themes or great acting or a coherent and involving story or five or six GREAT performances!
It wasn’t about gay cowboys or racism in Los Angeles or…or…y’know, I can’t even remember the other movies nominated.
I’m with you, but they don’t give Oscars to the most entertaining movies…they give them to the Important ones.
[quote]
Now if you want to go take shots at Keanu Reeves for being both a terrible actor and having it easy because they move him around on wires or use computers to make him all badass, go for it. Bale is a different beast altogether.[/quote]
The problem I have with reeves is that he’s not just a pretty boy actor, but he’s an idiot.
[quote]rg73 wrote:
lostinthought wrote:
I have no comment on his physique though…
And yet you do.
Yeah I do…crazy how I can change like that huh?
Body changes can be done fairly easily when you have no day job like most of us
I was kind of under the impression acting was his day job.
yes acting IS his day job…so what, you’re saying he ACTS from like, 8 to 5 all day? Acting is by no definition a day job.
and trainers, dieticians, etc making sure the change will happen.
I don’t believe he had a trainer or dietician for The Machinist. In fact very few people would have been professionally comfortable letting him lose that much weight. And I’m fairly certain that an apple and a can of tuna fish a day would be their recommended path.
Agreed. Point taken.
I have to admit the physique is good
I thought you had no comment on it?
Amazing how I can change huh?
but not impressive, unbelievable change made or anything.
Look again. Yeah it is. I hate spoiled, primadonna Hollywood people as much as the next guy, but damn, would it kill you to give the guy some props? Of course someone working a 9-5 job with a family and such couldn’t accomplish this. But we’re not looking here at what an average person with an average life can do–we’re talking about, in some sense, what the limits of body transformation are given an extremely dedicated, disciplined individual. That his very job is to transform his body is the point, not an excuse to dismiss what he’s accomplished. Although I would venture to say that undergoing these physical transformations within a 7 month span AND filming two major films in that span is actually probably a lot more taxing than what the guy with the “day job” has to go through in that span of time. When you factor in the martial arts training he had to do for Batman, plus the very physical nature of that film, I don’t think you can dismiss what he’s done as merely being a by-product of a guy with all the time and resources in the world at his disposal. 99% of the people in the world in his position wouldn’t be able to do the same thing, which is exactly why he’s the one in the films and the rest of us are not.
I did look again. Yeah, still no blown away.
Now if you want to go take shots at Keanu Reeves for being both a terrible actor and having it easy because they move him around on wires or use computers to make him all badass, go for it. Bale is a different beast altogether.[/quote]
yes, I do agree, Keanu does suck ass. Also not very bright it seems.
Has anyone come across the training program he used during those 7 months?
P.S. to all the haters. Save yourself a post. I dont plan on following his program if someone does post it.
[quote]lostinthought wrote:
yes, I do agree, Keanu does suck ass. Also not very bright it seems. [/quote]
Oh come on! He was PERFECT for his role in “Bill and Ted’s Excellent Adventure!”