Eric Cartman: “Who the hell cast Tom Hanks in this? Tom Hanks can’t act his way out of a nutsack.”
[quote]PGA200X wrote:
Eric Cartman: “Who the hell cast Tom Hanks in this? Tom Hanks can’t act his way out of a nutsack.”[/quote]
I’ll second that!
(But who is Eric Cartman)?
Nobody mentioned ALEC BALDWIN? His politics can be a bit…sketchy, but his body of work is outstanding, and I can’t recall a bad performance from him. He elevates every project he’s in.
Among those mentioned:
-Bruce Willis, for many of the same reasons as Baldwin.
-Tom Hanks
- Gary Oldman
-Steve Buschemi
-Brad Pitt(A MUCH better supporting actor than leading man. He just can’t carry a whole picture very well. Maybe he chokes when the expectations are too high) - Johnny Depp
- Don Cheadle
- Sometimes Val Kilmer
- Daniel Day Lewis for sure
- Ray Liotta
- James Gandolfinni (the greatest actor/character marriage EVER).
Most overrated:
-EDIT Ed, not Ken, Norton - He was great out of the gate(Fight Club, American History X, Primal Fear). But, where’s he been lately? He seems to have gotten lazy after American History X, much like the Pacino of the past twenty years.
Worst:
-Keannu Reaves - Even though I like most of his movies. Kinda of a wierd paradox, hmmm.
-Nick Cage
-ADAM FUCKING SANDLER - His funny movies are funny in spite of him. His serious movies absolutely suck. The worst actor of his generation, and one of the most overrated.
Mojo
[quote]Damici wrote:
Limo Driver wrote:
I don’t believe I saw anyone mention Tom Hanks. Shame on all of you. Tom Hanks, Sean Penn, Daniel Day Lewis, Denzel, Nic Cage, Ed Norton, Kevin Spacey, Donald Sutherland, Russell Crowe, Duvall, Kingsley, and more are my list toppers for the past 20 years.
Also, Tom Hanks just plays Tom Hanks. I’ll give a slight nod to his performance in Forrest Gump, but other than that? He plays Tom Hanks.[/quote]
That’s kinda laughable. Every great actor has his poor performances, his lackluster effort, and Tom Hanks is no stranger, but he still is an amazing actor. His presence on screen can be truly magnificent. In most of his roles, he brings an honesty that most actors do not have, playing each scene as if he were that person. Perhaps you’re getting that impression from how his voice changes little, among other things, but that method of criticism can basically tear down the best of actors. Well uh, all I really have left to say is he brings a lot of humanity to his roles, I have never seen him overact a seen, and the subtleties of his performances are really appreciable by an experienced movie viewer.
[quote]AZMojo wrote:
Nobody mentioned ALEC BALDWIN? His politics can be a bit…sketchy, but his body of work is outstanding, and I can’t recall a bad performance from him. He elevates every project he’s in.
Among those mentioned:
-Bruce Willis, for many of the same reasons as Baldwin.
-Tom Hanks
-Steve Buschemi
-Brad Pitt(A MUCH better supporting actor than leading man. He just can’t carry a whole picture very well. Maybe he chokes when the expectations are too high)
- Johnny Depp
- Don Cheadle
- Sometimes Val Kilmer
- Daniel Day Lewis for sure
- Ray Liotta
- James Gandolfinni (the greatest actor/character marriage EVER).
Most overrated:
-Ken Norton - He was great out of the gate(Fight Club, American History X, Primal Fear). But, where’s he been lately? He seems to have gotten lazy after American History X, much like the Pacino of the past twenty years.
Worst:
-Keannu Reaves - Even though I like most of his movies. Kinda of a wierd paradox, hmmm.
-Nick Cage
-ADAM FUCKING SANDLER - His funny movies are funny in spite of him. His serious movies absolutely suck. The worst actor of his generation, and one of the most overrated.
Mojo
[/quote]
Bruce Willis? He couldn’t act his way out of a paper bag. I like that you mentioned Buscemi. I neglected him and he’s one of the greatest actors alive. Depp is also amazing. Good call. The rest of your best portion is pretty agreeable. I’m prone to disagree on “Ken” Norton. Ed is a very good actor, pretty much every performance by him is thorough, and when given a good movie to work within, he’s a force to be reckoned with. As far as worst, Keanu is awful, but nothing compared to Paul Walker. That guy sucks. Lots of really bad actors make a ton of money, it’s rather disturbing. Adam Sandler is not a truly fair call. He’s tons better than someone like Paul Walker. He might not be super-talented, but he usually plays the character pretty well despite the slapstick and whatnot, and also his performance in Punch Drunk Love is by no means bad. Not at all. Not to say he’s a very good actor, but listing him among the worst is really dumb. Also, Tim Roth is a great actor of the last 20 years. He’s really good. And Liam Neeson. And many others but those are two who I forgot.
[quote]Damici wrote:
PGA200X wrote:
Eric Cartman: “Who the hell cast Tom Hanks in this? Tom Hanks can’t act his way out of a nutsack.”
I’ll second that!
(But who is Eric Cartman)?
[/quote]
: 0
South Park? Wow, you need to at least know what’s going on in pop culture before you say a two time Academy Award winning actor is bad. Are you going to say your opinion is better than the entire Academy’s, as well as basically every film critic across the globe? Hanks is great.
[quote]majicka wrote:
Really glad that someone mentioned Philip Seymour Hoffman. I’d say that he has to be in my opinion the greatest actor that I’ve seen in a movie. His range of characters is amazing: in every film he is a different person. That’s what actings about!
Try watching ‘Happiness’ (darkest film you’ll ever see; ‘The Talented Mr Ripley’ (only a small role), or ‘Magnolia’. Haven’t seen ‘Capote’ yet.[/quote]
He’s talented but hasn’t had many opportunities to truly shine. Capote is chilling; he isn’t even acting any more, he’s chanelling him. I look forward to seeing more from him in the future, but based on his output as of now I wouldn’t put him as one of the best movie actors ever. Over time…
[quote]Mod Laurie wrote:
KneeBar wrote:
SIDE NOTE: Greatest Movie scene ever??
True Romance → Chritopher Walken & Dennis Hopper Trailer scene.
I LOVE that scene! I also think they’re both great actors.[/quote]
It’s a cool scene and they are both great actors.
The mention of True Romance reminded me of Gary Oldman, another great actor of the past 20 years, and Hopper too of course.
Yes, Jack Nicholson in other movies for one. But I love Jack, he has the most interesting acting style pretty much ever IMO. Very skilled.
[quote]KneeBar wrote:
OK…I am going to push the time limit ever so slightly.
Marlon Brando: possibly the greatest actor (if one can define the greatest in such a subjective market).
Gary Oldman: and I can’t belive it took so long for him to get a mention. Certianly the best charector actor out there, with Paul Giamatti snipping at his heals.
Ed Norton: Given 10 more years I think he will prove himself to be the best of our generation.
[/quote]
You, sir, know what the fuck you’re talking about.
[quote]Damici wrote:
PGA200X wrote:
Damici wrote:
Russell Crowe (might be an asshole, but
He’s terribly overrated. He’s as monotone as it gets almost Keanu monotone. Let me know when he has a facial expression other than “constapated.”
Um . . . perhaps you haven’t seen Gladiator. Watch the scene where he’s psyching his men up to go into battle and talking about ending up in the fields of Elysium. Oh, and perhaps you should take a glance at A Beautiful Mind. There’s nothing monotone about his performance there, and it’s an amazing stretch from anything else he’s done. As a matter of fact, I think it won him Best Actor.[/quote]
Yeah he’s damn good. I’d say A Beautiful Mind is his finest performance though. It’s pretty damn amazing. He’s great in Master And Commander as well, he has the presence of a a great actor even when not very active in the movies. Like a young DeNiro.
That’s… wow… Norton was too young, Duvall too old, and thus they couldn’t play the part. So Hanks would do the job just fine. It wouldn’t truly be a good role for Norton, the character is more purposeful, more reserved, and has a smaller emotional spectrum to draw from. He has to convey caring and authority. Norton might overact. He’d still be damn good, but Hanks played the part as best as could be hoped for really. Duvall would be good in any role really. He’s a fine actor. But perhaps you just prefer some actors’ styles to that of Hanks, because he has no technical shortcoming.
[quote]Damici wrote:
I define great actors as those who can really stretch, and not just play the “same person” over and over again, even if they play that same person well. Hence my ruling out people like Hanks and Ford.[/quote]
I suppose that your stance cannot be helped, but Nicholson for one plays so many of his roles with that same dry tone of humour. It seems he really plays himself a lot. He insults a lot, etc. But that could just be typecasting, which pretty much every actor is a victim of. But you can’t praise Nicholson and then knock someone else with no more flaws. I will agree on Ford. Ford has some fine performances, such as that one when he has a stroke, and he’s good at what he does, but he ain’t no fucking chameleon, that’s for sure. Kinda like Stallone, Stallone has Copland and Rocky, but pretty much everything else is 100% typecast and often just shitty action movies. There’s glimmers here and there but he’s not a truly great actor.
[quote]Limo Driver wrote:
Damici wrote:
Limo Driver wrote:
I don’t believe I saw anyone mention Tom Hanks. Shame on all of you. Tom Hanks, Sean Penn, Daniel Day Lewis, Denzel, Nic Cage, Ed Norton, Kevin Spacey, Donald Sutherland, Russell Crowe, Duvall, Kingsley, and more are my list toppers for the past 20 years.
Also, Tom Hanks just plays Tom Hanks. I’ll give a slight nod to his performance in Forrest Gump, but other than that? He plays Tom Hanks.
That’s kinda laughable. Every great actor has his poor performances, his lackluster effort, and Tom Hanks is no stranger, but he still is an amazing actor. His presence on screen can be truly magnificent. In most of his roles, he brings an honesty that most actors do not have, playing each scene as if he were that person. Perhaps you’re getting that impression from how his voice changes little, among other things, but that method of criticism can basically tear down the best of actors. Well uh, all I really have left to say is he brings a lot of humanity to his roles, I have never seen him overact a seen, and the subtleties of his performances are really appreciable by an experienced movie viewer.
[/quote]
Dude, chill the hell out a bit. I didn’t know that you were more of an “experienced movie viewer” than I. Perhaps now I need to bow to you! 
Look, these are subjective, so suffice it to say that we should agree to disagree. I’m not saying Hanks is a BAD actor. He’s good. I just don’t think he’s at all a standout. “Amazing?” No. To me, he plays each scene as if he were . . . Tom Hanks. He is given great movies to work with, unfortunately. But 8 out of 10 of his roles, if not more, are just the same everyday, straight-laced, pious guy with that annoying, nasally voice . . . . I just can’t put him remotely in the same galaxy as a Duvall or a DeNiro (ignoring DeNiro’s shittier movies – I’m talking about his capabilities).
But that’s just me. Not an “experienced movie viewer.”
[quote]PGA200X wrote:
More Honorable Mentions:
Kevin Spacey
Bill Murray
River Phoenix (Died before his prime too!)
Tim Robbins
Billy Bob Thornton
More Underrated Mentions:
Marlon Waynes (Watch, Requiem for a Dream)
Will Smith (Showed his diversity in Ali)[/quote]
I like your taste. I haven’t seen Wayans be worth his weight in piss though. Smith did well in Ali but he’s pretty shitty otherwise. But I like the River Phoenix, he was a very good actor. So is his bro.
[quote]Limo Driver wrote:
AZMojo wrote:
Bruce Willis? He couldn’t act his way out of a paper bag. I like that you mentioned Buscemi. I neglected him and he’s one of the greatest actors alive. Depp is also amazing. Good call. The rest of your best portion is pretty agreeable. I’m prone to disagree on “Ken” Norton. Ed is a very good actor, pretty much every performance by him is thorough, and when given a good movie to work within, he’s a force to be reckoned with. As far as worst, Keanu is awful, but nothing compared to Paul Walker. That guy sucks. Lots of really bad actors make a ton of money, it’s rather disturbing. Adam Sandler is not a truly fair call. He’s tons better than someone like Paul Walker. He might not be super-talented, but he usually plays the character pretty well despite the slapstick and whatnot, and also his performance in Punch Drunk Love is by no means bad. Not at all. Not to say he’s a very good actor, but listing him among the worst is really dumb. Also, Tim Roth is a great actor of the last 20 years. He’s really good. And Liam Neeson. And many others but those are two who I forgot. [/quote]
My bad on the “Ken” Norton thing. I’ve been a boxing fan forever, so it’s kind of automatic. I do agree that he’s a good actor, just not as good as everybody seems to think. A great actor shouldn’t have to depend on the quality of a movie or role to give a great performance. The others on my list are great, even in shitty movies(Although Bruce Willis has been pretty shitty in shitty movies. Okay you’ve convinced me, I take him off my list.)
Let’s agree to disagree on Sandler. I thought his performance in Punch Drunk Love was terrible, moping is not acting.
I do agree with you about Paul Walker, but I was trying to avoid the typical hollywood pretty boys that everybody knows can’t act. Those guys are kind of a given.
For similar reasons, I didn’t include the likes of Johhny Knoxville.
Ed Norton in Primal Fear was a truly great performance.
Gary Oldman, I had seen True Romance four times before I actually noticed he was in that.
I like Denzel Washington, but I would love to see him do more bad guys, I thought he did a great job in Training Day.
Nic Cage may not be the best, but his performance in Leaving Las Vegas made me want to never drink again ( I got over it).
For pure comedy, John Cleese is one of the greats.
[quote]Limo Driver wrote:
Damici wrote:
I define great actors as those who can really stretch, and not just play the “same person” over and over again, even if they play that same person well. Hence my ruling out people like Hanks and Ford.
I suppose that your stance cannot be helped, but Nicholson for one plays so many of his roles with that same dry tone of humour. It seems he really plays himself a lot. He insults a lot, etc. But that could just be typecasting, which pretty much every actor is a victim of. But you can’t praise Nicholson and then knock someone else with no more flaws. I will agree on Ford. Ford has some fine performances, such as that one when he has a stroke, and he’s good at what he does, but he ain’t no fucking chameleon, that’s for sure. Kinda like Stallone, Stallone has Copland and Rocky, but pretty much everything else is 100% typecast and often just shitty action movies. There’s glimmers here and there but he’s not a truly great actor.[/quote]
I will grant you some agreement on your point about Nicholson, and that’s one of the reasons I hesitated, actually, to list him as one of the best ever, but I guess I cut myself some slack and let myself stray a bit from my own definition of a great actor (i.e. one who can really stretch) just because, though many of his roles are somewhat similar (dry, wry, sharp-witted, etc.), Nicholson is just SOOOO riveting and absolutely COMMANDS the screen, to a degree that Hanks couldn’t dream of. Like I said, though, that does admittedly stray from my own definition . . . .
I also forget to mention, as a great up-and-comer, Jamie Foxx! Fucking A, even if you ignore his performance in Ray (which you shouldn’t), seeing Collateral just reminded me of what a talent he is. He shared almost every scene with arguably the biggest movie star in the world and yet he absolutely OWNED that film.
[quote]Damici wrote:
Limo Driver wrote:
Damici wrote:
Limo Driver wrote:
I don’t believe I saw anyone mention Tom Hanks. Shame on all of you. Tom Hanks, Sean Penn, Daniel Day Lewis, Denzel, Nic Cage, Ed Norton, Kevin Spacey, Donald Sutherland, Russell Crowe, Duvall, Kingsley, and more are my list toppers for the past 20 years.
Also, Tom Hanks just plays Tom Hanks. I’ll give a slight nod to his performance in Forrest Gump, but other than that? He plays Tom Hanks.
That’s kinda laughable. Every great actor has his poor performances, his lackluster effort, and Tom Hanks is no stranger, but he still is an amazing actor. His presence on screen can be truly magnificent. In most of his roles, he brings an honesty that most actors do not have, playing each scene as if he were that person. Perhaps you’re getting that impression from how his voice changes little, among other things, but that method of criticism can basically tear down the best of actors. Well uh, all I really have left to say is he brings a lot of humanity to his roles, I have never seen him overact a seen, and the subtleties of his performances are really appreciable by an experienced movie viewer.
Dude, chill the hell out a bit. I didn’t know that you were more of an “experienced movie viewer” than I. Perhaps now I need to bow to you!
Look, these are subjective, so suffice it to say that we should agree to disagree. I’m not saying Hanks is a BAD actor. He’s good. I just don’t think he’s at all a standout. “Amazing?” No. To me, he plays each scene as if he were . . . Tom Hanks. He is given great movies to work with, unfortunately. But 8 out of 10 of his roles, if not more, are just the same everyday, straight-laced, pious guy with that annoying, nasally voice . . . . I just can’t put him remotely in the same galaxy as a Duvall or a DeNiro (ignoring DeNiro’s shittier movies – I’m talking about his capabilities).
But that’s just me. Not an “experienced movie viewer.” :)[/quote]
I’m chill. Just a little bored. Obviously there’s no changing your mind. So I guess I give up. And yeah, I am a pretty experienced movie viewer. I thought that was a better way to put it than “iVe sEeN TUNZ uv movees lolz!1!”. And I have yet to meet anyone who also has and really gives a shit about them who says Tom Hanks is not a great actor. Not serious movie-goers. But I guess there’s a first time for everything…
[quote]Limo Driver wrote:
Damici wrote:
Limo Driver wrote:
Damici wrote:
Limo Driver wrote:
I don’t believe I saw anyone mention Tom Hanks. Shame on all of you. Tom Hanks, Sean Penn, Daniel Day Lewis, Denzel, Nic Cage, Ed Norton, Kevin Spacey, Donald Sutherland, Russell Crowe, Duvall, Kingsley, and more are my list toppers for the past 20 years.
Also, Tom Hanks just plays Tom Hanks. I’ll give a slight nod to his performance in Forrest Gump, but other than that? He plays Tom Hanks.
That’s kinda laughable. Every great actor has his poor performances, his lackluster effort, and Tom Hanks is no stranger, but he still is an amazing actor. His presence on screen can be truly magnificent. In most of his roles, he brings an honesty that most actors do not have, playing each scene as if he were that person. Perhaps you’re getting that impression from how his voice changes little, among other things, but that method of criticism can basically tear down the best of actors. Well uh, all I really have left to say is he brings a lot of humanity to his roles, I have never seen him overact a seen, and the subtleties of his performances are really appreciable by an experienced movie viewer.
Dude, chill the hell out a bit. I didn’t know that you were more of an “experienced movie viewer” than I. Perhaps now I need to bow to you!
Look, these are subjective, so suffice it to say that we should agree to disagree. I’m not saying Hanks is a BAD actor. He’s good. I just don’t think he’s at all a standout. “Amazing?” No. To me, he plays each scene as if he were . . . Tom Hanks. He is given great movies to work with, unfortunately. But 8 out of 10 of his roles, if not more, are just the same everyday, straight-laced, pious guy with that annoying, nasally voice . . . . I just can’t put him remotely in the same galaxy as a Duvall or a DeNiro (ignoring DeNiro’s shittier movies – I’m talking about his capabilities).
But that’s just me. Not an “experienced movie viewer.”
I’m chill. Just a little bored. Obviously there’s no changing your mind. So I guess I give up. And yeah, I am a pretty experienced movie viewer. I thought that was a better way to put it than “iVe sEeN TUNZ uv movees lolz!1!”. And I have yet to meet anyone who also has and really gives a shit about them who says Tom Hanks is not a great actor. Not serious movie-goers. But I guess there’s a first time for everything…[/quote]
I just gots to be me!