Charlie Sheen
-
tracy-johnson-1 — 10 years ago(September 03, 2015 08:15 AM)
I think Charlie Sheen was a good choice really, he was fine in the scenes, I think if anything, it's the voice overs that let him down but I always think voice overs in films are rubbish. A voice-only performance is so much more difficult to pull off than one where an actor can use all of the weapons in their arsenal.
In the trivia section, several actors are picked out as having been options for the character of Chris. I think Johnny Depp would've been fine, John Cusack could easily have done a good job (but was probably a bit too young at that point) but Keanu Reeves?? Now THAT voice over WOULD have been tortuous. Nothing against Mr. Reeves, he's done some great films and I certainly wouldn't wish him out of the film industry or anything but I have to say I'm glad he turned this role down! -
Robbmonster — 10 years ago(September 28, 2015 08:42 AM)
I think Sheen's performance was perfectly acceptable. Oliver Stone - no dummy - knew the character of Chris Taylor represented the audience, and Sheen was the window in. Sheen's slightly wooden style and 'what the heck am I doing here' demeanour very much suited the role and the intention the role served.
Sheen's reactions should mirror the audience's. When Taylor is confused, chances are the audience is as well. When Taylor wants to strike out at Barnes over Elias' death, the audience probably thinks that isn't too bad of an idea.
Taylor's naivete should also match the audience. Remember that we now live in the information age, and Platoon is almost 30 years old. Back in 1986, people were still largely unaware of what REALLY happened in Vietnam, the brutality and wastefulness of the war. Apocalypse Now showed it a little, but was a bit too absurd and surreal. The Deer Hunter also showed some, but that film was concerned with other things. Platoon was the first 'Vietnam' film to try as best it could 'how things really were'.
So as Sheen was blundering along looking dumbstruck and outmatched by all around him, so was Sheen - having the lead role in what was essentially his film debut - and, in 1986, so was the audience.
Never defend crap with 'It's just a movie'
http://www.youtube.com/user/BigGreenProds -
woowoo-6 — 10 years ago(November 22, 2015 11:42 AM)
I thought Sheen did an excellent job. He
was
supposed to play the young naive NFG (New 'effing Guy) and he played it to the T. The median age of 'nam soldier at the time was 19, and Sheen certainly looked it and acted like it. Most of your 'older' experienced men were usually about 22 years of age at the company and platoon levels. (Grandpas were 30 - and were really not seen that much in the field). Frankly, the Dafoe and Berenger actors were a bit too old for their parts. Also, Sheen's job was to be the storyteller, we the audience are supposed to see what was happening in 'nam through his innocent eyes. -
sugadaddy — 9 years ago(May 20, 2016 02:28 AM)
Charlie Sheen had a certain charm when he was younger. Some actors/actresses can get by on that. For instance, i don't think Jimmie Stewart is the greatest actor ever, but he had a certain something.
The UN is a place where governments opposed to free speech demand to be heard! -
Woodyanders — 3 weeks ago(March 07, 2026 09:41 PM)
I thought Charlie Sheen was solid in this film. Granted, guys like Berenger and Dafoe give much stronger performances, but Sheen all the same was perfectly suited to play the naive greenhorn rich kid character that he was cast to portray.
You've seen Guy Standeven in something because the man was in everything. -
ToiletMug — 3 weeks ago(March 07, 2026 09:53 PM)
Nepotism.
His father and brother overact too.
But, alas: I loved watching my hilariously disabled dad falling down some ridiculously steep steps in his rickety wheelchair — his stupid head thrashing from side to side, making stupid retard noises, as he plunges to his doom. Heeee heeeeeee!