His new movie, Hide & Seek, comes out today - and my local paper bashed DeNiro and compared his work of late to those he did in the 1970's and early 80's. How stellar he was in The Deer Hunter, where he didn't have to say a word to convey his disillusionment with his hero image. His fine work in Raging Bull, etc., etc.

That's fine. Yes, DeNiro performed stunning work in the past, and he will always be remembered fondly for those films. But how can anybody keep going on that level of greatness? Robert DeNiro is an actor, but he is still only a man. He has a lifestyle to support, and he can't stop working. Is he as good an actor as he was in the past? Of course not. Is he still entertaining? Yes, I think so. So what he does comedy now? So what he does slocky horror movies? Should he just crawl off to a hole in the ground and do a J.D. Salinger? Disappear from public view and become a hermit? Continuing to work keeps people young. When you retire, most likely than not you die - from boredom.

Are the Rolling Stones as good now as they were in the 60's & 70's (or even the 80's)? No, they sure aren't. They aren't lighting the world on fire with their new material, but they still tour. They still make money. Will I buy a new Stones album? No. Will you? Maybe - different strokes. Should the Stones give it up? Should DeNiro? Should anybody?

You have a lot of aging superstars still in the spotlight, doing their thing. Is it right to always throw the biggest stones at Robert DeNiro? Its not like he's box office poison - his films still draw in millions.

Nobody is as good as they once were. DeNiro is no exception. Critics should stop making him their scapegoat.

Well, last I checked they like to make Ben Affleck their scapegoat moreso than DeNiro.
FWIW, I don't think they're bashing his acting ability as much as his current choice of films.
Also, I disagree with your Stones statement. I saw them just about two years ago with a bunch of people in their fifties who saw them when they were younger and they said they were just as good now as they were in their hey day. Personally, I am only 28, and think that The Stones were probably the best concert I have ever seen.

Sorry I have to disagree. De Niro is still just as good an actor, he just hasn't had the role to perform in. Its all about choosing roles. There are plenty and I mean plenty of great roles for older males in movies. De Niro isn't looking for an Oscar, he's looking for a project that could be fun. As fans, we are torn, we want to see De Niro do some great work but if the man has no desire to than so be it. Critics can get on his case but that's not gonna change his mind.

I agree that the concerts are good, but their current material is not as good as it was back in the day. That was my point. That nobody can sustain the same level of intensity forever.

What DeNiro really needs to do is work with Martin Scorsese again

I think it's prefect fair criticism to go after DeNiro for the choices he has been making.

I don't think comparing singers to actors is a fair comparison...although I do think Paul McCartney, Elton John and Billy Joel are as good today as they ever were. As for actors - what about Clint Eastwood? Morgan Freeman? Al Pacino? Some actors DO get better (or stay at least as good) with age.

Al Pacino has had horrible choices of roles lately as well... he's in the same boat as DeNiro

The Stones haven't made a good album since Tattoo You. And that was 1981. 24 years ago?!! Get outta here. Waitin' On A Friend is still an amazing tune. DeNiro's not worried about it, so why should we? Hate the Fockers all you want, it's the biggest hit of his career. Nothing but big bucks and brown sugar for Bobby D.

I certainly understand why people want to see DeNiro or Pacino in a great film, but I have to wonder what roles they are getting. Even as famous stars, do they not get the great offers they used to? Or are the good roles paying so much less? Or is it just a string a bad choices? I don't know...

Should he be exempt from getting bad reviews if he picks bad movies to be in? No.

Bobby DeNiro is going to listen to the Rolling Stones song Brown Sugar over and over again?

Maybe when he's banging the black chicks.

De Niro works best with a great script and a great director. The last flicks I really enjoyed him in were the one-two punch of Jackie Brown (1997, dir. Quentin Tarantino) and Ronin (1998, dir. John Frankenheimer).

I've never noticed that DeNiro gets picked on in any amount. I have noticed that a lot of his recent films have garnered less than stellar reviews, but well, most of them were less than stellar.

Well played.

Robert DeNiro and Jaime Foxx in..

Taxi Driver 2

Dammit, I want Queen Latifah workin with Bobby DeNiro on Taxi Driver 2!

DeNiro is one of my favorite actors. However, even I criticize him as of late for his recent choice of films (Godsend, Showtime, 15 Minutes, Rocky and Bullwinkle).

He could be, but that's a bit of an assumption seeing how he hasn't done anything worth note in the past 10 years (worth note being an amazing performance). I'd like to see him in a modern day Raging Bull and see how he fares, who knows, maybe he IS just as good today.

I think critics are too easy on DeNiro. This guy use to have a passion and dedication to the craft of acting. Today he has become a pale shadow of what he once was, taking roles in films way below his talents simply for the paycheck. A sad shame as he use to be my favorite actor.

i think the argument isn't that deniro's talent isn't what it used to be, but rather the choices he has been making lean more towards money-grubbing (godsend, fokkers, showtime, hide and seek, etc.). this is especially problematic after his recent american express commercial- even though it was directed by scorsese, it perfectly encapsulates his new attitude towards his "craft". he used to respect it so much- more than himself even (as shown by the abuse he put on his body). but now? it seems as if he's more interested in the paycheck than anything else.

but this isn't an argument over his talent. look at al pacino. no one will argue that 2000-era pacino is on par with 1970-era pacino; there is no comparison. but despite his "slippage", pacino is still doing interesting things and taking challenging roles (insider, angels in america, merchant of venice, etc.). for pacino, the passion and respect still seems to be there, even if talent-wise he is way past his prime. sure, he still may dabble in a few paycheck-type roles (the recruit?), but he balances that out with more interesting ones (people i know).

but where is deniro's balance? i think that's what everyone is so perplexed about...it's totally fine to "cash it in" every now and then, but if that is the only thing left...well how can you expect people to continue to respect you when you clearly don't respect them (by taking roles in intelligence insulting films) or yourself (by continuing to treat acting as a tool to a paycheck)?

maybe there is something i'm missing. i know he has his tribeca film festival, and maybe now that is his way of paying respect to his craft. i just don't know. but the difference between the deniro of old and the deniro of now is so incredibly jarring that one can't help but notice the difference.

I agree with this as well. I've seen McCartney 3 times in the last 15 years and he does indeed do just as well now as when I first saw him. As for actors I would add Tom Hanks to that list as well.....regardless of whether or not he's getting as many noms these days, his acting is, if anything, better now than when he won his two Oscars. There's no reason for Deniro to not get another Oscar in his lifetime if he wants one, other than his choice in material.....we know he has the chops.

Heres a funny Russell Crowe quote from chud.com

"I don't use my celebrity to make a living. I don't do ads for suits in Spain like George Clooney or cigarettes in Japan like Harrison Ford. And on one level, people go, 'Well, more fault to you, mate, because there's free money to be handed out.' But to me it's kind of sacrilegious — it's a complete contradiction of the [bleep]ing social contract you have with your audience. I mean, Robert De Niro's advertising American Express. Gee whiz, it's not the first time he's disappointed me. It's been happening for a while now."

What's funny is that Russell Crowe said it.

As said above, De Niro is still a great actor. That's not the issue. Even when he's in the most dire of films, he stands out and is always very watchable.

However, his choices of late have been questionnable. There's nothing wrong with doing comedy, horror or whatever, but choose good comedies and good horrors! Analyze That was awful. Godsend was awful. Surely he can see seen that these films are awful from the scripts??!!

Robert De Niro is a great actor. As said before, he is being pounced on because he is picking less than desirable roles.

I have a similar bone when people claim that Jack Nicholson plays himself in all of his roles. I can't tell you how much that pisses me off. And they follow up with, yeah he will never be as good as Pacino or De Niro. Pffft. Please.

I just say to them "tell Jack I said Hello since you know him so well" and then I urge them to watch Hoffa, Five Easy Pieces, Prizzi's Honor, and About Schmidt. Then come back and tell me he plays himself.

An actor doesn't need to do a Meryl Streep and do a different accent for 90% of their roles or a Charlize Theron/De Niro and change their look just to be considered a diverse actor.

De Niro will come back soon. Maybe not as on top as he was in the 70s and early 80s, but the right role is waiting for him. It's his decision to follow up.

I praise Nicholson for not taking every damn role that is offered to him. He's smarter than De Niro and Pacino in that sense.