I enjoyed reading that article--thank you, TIS!

He's still a great actor. It's the roles he chooses that are giving him a bad name--but I think we all know that. Same thing with Pacino. They're not reinventing themselves like the other aging actors around them--instead, Pacino rants and raves in his usual over-the-top manner while De Niro relies on sighs and shrugs and lowering his jaw into a gaping exasperated look, a la in so many scenes of Analyze This.

Both are becoming mundane and redundant--but it isn't the acting; De Niro's acting has never changed, from the young hothead of Johnny Boy in Mean Streets to the older hothead in Midnight Run.

It's the roles that are offering less and less for him to do. And indeed, when you go from such-and-such pounds to an impressive increase in weight, and put yourself under similar such torture month-in, month-out (as John Baxter focuses on briefler in his biography), it takes it out of you. De Niro no longer has the determination or eagerness to put in the effort for which he became famous in the acting industry. Dustin Hoffman, on the other hand, seems to still be able to choose good films--look at this year's I Heart Huckabees, for example.

As for De Niro, though, his acting has hardly changed; just his choice in the roles. Can somebody really expect the intensity shown as Travis Bickle to be seen as Fearless Leader in Rocky and Bullwinkle? Different films, different audiences, different class, and a different requirement of acting.

Alas, his film career is over, as far as I am concerned, at least until he returns to directing or starring in more serious roles.

Mick