Kevin's Watch

Nah, not a single DDL film I thought was worthwhile.

I think it's all but impossible to pick a single person. There's just too many good people out there.

Cruise is not committed to his roles? Is that a serious remark? The dude is a legendary workaholic when it comes to immersing himself in his roles and making all the details seem natural.

Rutger Hauer's best role was Blind Fury.

Mirren is great, as is Streep. I like Maggie Smith as well. Hopkins and DeNiro too.

--A

Doc Hexnihilo wrote:Cruise is not committed to his roles? Is that a serious remark? The dude is a legendary workaholic when it comes to immersing himself in his roles and making all the details seem natural.

He is top notch when it comes to putting himself on the line for stunts. But for me, the last time I really felt like he was hitting some strides in his acting was "Born on the fourth of July". The Character undergoes an incredible transformation in that movie. Cruise was really good in that. But since then, I see him playing very similar (action movie) roles, that he excels in but also that have limited bandwidth from an acting standpoint. The only film since then that I felt that he excelled in from an acting standpoint was "Jerry Maquire".

SoulBiter wrote: but also that have limited bandwidth from an acting standpoint.

Hee...limited bandwidth. I like that. I'll probably steal it [but promise to always say "this guy on a site I frequent says..."

A fair number of the suggested people have that, to a greater or lesser degree [everyone does, really...no one could play EVERY character convincingly].
I really have 3 different rough groupings...great actors [high bandwidth, in your terms] I like, those good at a few things, and those I like despite the fact they can really only do one thing.
What's that old quote about music? [I think about AC/DC?] "Yea, all the songs are the same...but it's a GREAT song."

Just for fun [maybe stir things up]...
Though not my favorite [or great, at this point] I think Anne Hathaway better than Jennifer Lawrence [who bores me], and has potential to develop.

Vraith, sorry to disappoint but I agree. She's got one note really, although it can be (or was) a powerful one in the right context. Perhaps she can step it up though. Just look at what McConaughey has done with himself lately.

By the way, I thought Hathaway stole The Dark Knight Rises.

SoulBiter wrote:

Doc Hexnihilo wrote:Cruise is not committed to his roles? Is that a serious remark? The dude is a legendary workaholic when it comes to immersing himself in his roles and making all the details seem natural.

He is top notch when it comes to putting himself on the line for stunts. But for me, the last time I really felt like he was hitting some strides in his acting was "Born on the fourth of July". The Character undergoes an incredible transformation in that movie. Cruise was really good in that. But since then, I see him playing very similar (action movie) roles, that he excels in but also that have limited bandwidth from an acting standpoint. The only film since then that I felt that he excelled in from an acting standpoint was "Jerry Maquire".

Cruise is definitely a movie star that acts rather than an actor that stars in movies, but he rarely makes a bad movie and I think more of that than you might suspect is rooted in his understated authenticity and believability. Yeah, you're always aware that "that's Tom Cruise " but what he's doing on-screen always seems situationally and emotionally credible. And I really liked him in Eyes Wide Shut.

I have a hard time watching Cruise because I think he's bat-shit crazy. But, I've heard good things about "Edge of Tomorrow" and plan on watching that sometime soon.

Tom Cruise is quite compelling to watch. Collateral is by far my favourite. I'll forget it's Tom Cruise playing the bleached hairstyled sociopath - that's how good his persona gets in that film.

Alfred Molina may not be as famous or as prolific as other more handsome and dazzling stars in Hollywood, but his acting talent far exceeds most of them.

Then there's Ron Pearlman, who's now been in almost every top movie since Hellboy. I'm sure it's in his contract. He played the Wardrobe in the Lion and the Witch; Lois Lane's desk-lamp in Superman Returns; a tree in Fangorn in Lord of the Rings; and the list goes on and on and on ...

Vizidor wrote:He played the Wardrobe in the Lion and the Witch; Lois Lane's desk-lamp in Superman Returns ...

And he played both of them more emotively than he did Hannibal Chau in Pacific Rim.

I only think of "City of Lost Children" when I think of him.

--A

Vizidor wrote:Tom Cruise is quite compelling to watch. Collateral is by far my favourite. I'll forget it's Tom Cruise playing the bleached hairstyled sociopath - that's how good his persona gets in that film.

Alfred Molina may not be as famous or as prolific as other more handsome and dazzling stars in Hollywood, but his acting talent far exceeds most of them.

Then there's Ron Pearlman, who's now been in almost every top movie since Hellboy. I'm sure it's in his contract. He played the Wardrobe in the Lion and the Witch; Lois Lane's desk-lamp in Superman Returns; a tree in Fangorn in Lord of the Rings; and the list goes on and on and on ...

I second all of this. Collateral was a really good movie and Mr. Molina doesn't get nearly as much credit as he deserves.

Hollywood needs to make a Fallout movie and when they do Ron Perlman must be in it. I saw the mini-film that he did with Thomas Jane Punisher: Dirty Laundry and it was pretty darned good.

Doc Hexnihilo wrote:By the way, I thought Hathaway stole The Dark Knight Rises.

Funny thing, it's on TV right now. Hathaway was definitely the best part of the movie.

Tom Cruise has a few amazing roles (Jerry Maguire, A Few Good Men) and lots of enjoyable ones, but when you watch him in a movie you're always aware that you're watching Cruise.

Tom Hanks, on the other hand, is able to play completely different roles, and do them well. Of course, if that's your criteria, then DDL takes the cake (Gangs of New York, Nine, There Will Be Blood). He's practically unrecognizable between movies.

For the younger crowd, DiCaprio and Gordon-Leavitt are both impressive, playing a variety of roles in both drama and comedy.

Ultimately, a question like this comes down to what your favorite movies are.

DiCaprio to me is like Tom Cruise 2.0, from the standpoint that he's more movie star than actor but he almost never appears in bad movies. If he's in the movie there are very high percentages that you will be entertained, and he will turn in a solid performance.

Tom Hanks has tremendous dramatic and comedic range, but I consider him a movie star first because of the strong natural sympathy he evokes. You are always aware that you are watching Tom Hanks and you want to root for him. This limits him a bit in antagonist roles.

Of course, if that's your criteria, then DDL takes the cake (Gangs of New York, Nine, There Will Be Blood). He's practically unrecognizable between movies.

Agreed.

Avatar wrote:I only think of "City of Lost Children" when I think of him.

--A

Hilarious. Me too. I love that movie, and I'll always have a soft spot for him because of that movie.

Vincent Donofrio, check his body of work.

and I agree, Deniro stopped acting years ago.

dlbpharmd wrote: Robert de Niro was great in his youth, but what has he done lately? He hasn't really stretched as an actor since Good Fellas, and that was 25 years ago.

Take a look at Being Flynn to see him stretch his stuff.
www.imdb.com/title/tt0455323/?ref_=nm_flmg_act_19

In the female category I want to add Kate Winslet. She has amazing range and often goes unappreciated. Look at her in The Reader. Amazing.

DeNiro has sullied himself by taking too many shit roles [mainly in bad comedies] but when you see him at his most powerfull [as he is in his brief but utterly compelling appearence in American Hustle] you recognise that all the chaff must be forgiven him.

It is sometimes easier to talk about performances rather than actors themselves. Anthony Hopkins [who must be up there] once said rather depreciatingly of acting that it wasn't "brain surgery". All you do is "turn up and do what the director tells you." In this light you have to consider that there is not so much a thing as great actors as actors who have been fortunate enough to be directed greatly. Eli Wallach, whose performance as Tuco in TGTBATU is a masterclass in great acting, famously combined his take on the charachter with that envisaged by Leone to arrive at one of cinemas most memorable charachters - and perhaps here we have it. A great performance is not the product of a single individual so much as a combined mix of input, effort and talent.

I was going to cite Sean Penn for his role in I Am Sam, which I thought he played brilliantly - but then on consideration, to play such an extreme charachter really makes little demand on a skilled and trained actors talents. There's so much scope for 'hamming' it and getting away with it, that it's not really a challange. Take say Phillip Seymore Hoffman [dead I know, but a good example] who could, using a really small repetoir make you like/hate/admire/fear a charachter almost at will. And anyone who has not witnessed the power of Jochaim Phoenix in his chilling and disturbing role alongside Hoffman in the 2012 Film The Master has yet to experience just how unsettling truly great acting can be. Another man who must be worth a mention is Alan Rickman - another actor who can, with a small palate, create a whole range of different charachters to stunning effect.

I'm only aware of Rickman due to Die Hard. I've seen a few other movies of his, and he's been good in them. I understand he was in some of the Harry Potter movies, but I haven't seen them (I'm not 12). Rickman is clearly the best bad guy ever though, as Hans Gruber is a big part of what makes Die Hard one of the best films ever made.