|
|
Post by pupdurcs on May 24, 2023 20:42:47 GMT
![]() Moving along from the discourse of whether John Wayne is or isn't a great actor (No, he isn't. The end  ), I have to say that even though I disagree with a lot of this list, the top 3 is pretty special, and it's difficult to deny any of them their spots. Like stephen , I also tend to ding DeNiro for his last 3 decades (and he usually features lower in my personal rankings because of that), but you still can't deny how important he's been to the history of cinema and the evolution of screen acting. Streep is a sui generis of a talent. Not always my personal favorite, but her talent and consistency is undeniable. And of course, GOAT Denzel, whom my thoughts on are well known. ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
|
|
Post by urbanpatrician on May 24, 2023 21:05:30 GMT
Wayne is better than Hathaway any way you slice it.
I'm not a Wayne fan at all btw.
|
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on May 24, 2023 21:11:44 GMT
Also gives credit to an actor like Gary Oldman as well, who doesn't get to work with alot of the great auteurs all the time. Alot of the great actors don't get to work with a Scorsese or a Spielberg. Especially with DiCaprio hogging Scorsese in the 21st century. It happens. Its more about what the individual actor has shown he/she could do with the roles/material they get and the skills they can show. This definitely cannot be understated. It's a notch in DiCaprio's belt that he gets these top directors, but that doesn't automatically make him a better actor; it just makes him a more in-demand one. It's easy to correlate the two for sure, but sometimes a filmmaker just attaches themselves to an actor and a lucrative partnership blossoms. (See: Ford/Wayne.) But someone like Oldman, the consummate character actor, doesn't really have that because he chases the parts, not the directors, and he also will take just about any role to continue working due to needing the cash. He can't afford to be as selective as Day-Lewis or DiCaprio, which I would argue has diluted his brand somewhat -- Gary Oldman films just aren't "events" like they should be. It doesn't make him a lesser actor, though, and I certainly think that in terms of influence he might be one of the most influential actors to younger generations alive, and that might make up for some of the dreck he's had to appear in. To be fair to Gary Oldman, his films can't really be "events" because he's rarely playing the lead in films. The fact that he is held in the esteem he is in the industry, despite mostly playing supporting roles, speaks pretty well for him. But it's tough to compare him to guys who always have leading man privilege like Day-Lewis or DiCaprio. On the rare occasions he's given a "prestige" leading movie role to carry, it usually results in Oscar recognition ( Mank, Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy, Darkest Hour) |
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on May 24, 2023 21:16:11 GMT
Wayne is better than Hathaway any way you slice it. I'm not a Wayne fan at all btw. He really isn't. And I'm not a big fan of Hathaway either. But she's a genuinely talented performer in that over-eager, musical theatre kid kind of way. She just doesn't know how to pick a script to save her life. I feel sorry for her in that sense. Skillset wise, she's more comparable to someone like Andrew Garfield than Wayne. But it's a weird comparison either way. |
|
|
|
Post by stephen on May 24, 2023 21:18:27 GMT
This definitely cannot be understated. It's a notch in DiCaprio's belt that he gets these top directors, but that doesn't automatically make him a better actor; it just makes him a more in-demand one. It's easy to correlate the two for sure, but sometimes a filmmaker just attaches themselves to an actor and a lucrative partnership blossoms. (See: Ford/Wayne.) But someone like Oldman, the consummate character actor, doesn't really have that because he chases the parts, not the directors, and he also will take just about any role to continue working due to needing the cash. He can't afford to be as selective as Day-Lewis or DiCaprio, which I would argue has diluted his brand somewhat -- Gary Oldman films just aren't "events" like they should be. It doesn't make him a lesser actor, though, and I certainly think that in terms of influence he might be one of the most influential actors to younger generations alive, and that might make up for some of the dreck he's had to appear in. To be fair to Gary Oldman, his films can't really be "events" because he's rarely playing the lead in films. The fact that he has is held in the esteem he is in the industry, despite mostly playing supporting roles, speaks pretty well for him. But it's tough to compare him to guys who always have leading man privilege like Day-Lewis or DiCaprio. On the rare occasions he's given a "prestige" leading movie role to carry, it usually results in Oscar recognition ( Mank, Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy, Darkest Hour)But I have often said that Oldman's chameleonic ability has worked against him massively: there's nothing really identifiable about the man himself that gives him that sort of leading man privilege. He and Daniel Day-Lewis started out more or less at the same time, and in fact Oldman had an acclaimed leading role before Day-Lewis did ( Sid and Nancy in 1986), but Day-Lewis recognized and capitalized on his ability to be selective and to build up that leading man cache. Denzel did something similar after Malcolm X, but Oldman started taking all sorts of roles where he was playing these heavily made-up characters or deliberately obscuring his features or taking minor supporting roles (sometimes uncredited!), whereas DDL and Washington always had some element of recognizability in their roles. Oldman obviously had bills to pay and literally couldn't afford to be as selective, but I think that's worked against him in the long run. He does get Oscar attention when he goes lead lately, but that's largely because the man went unsung for so long and became an elder statesman of sorts, and a lot of people who grew up idolizing him were suddenly voting members of the Academy. |
|
|
|
Post by stephen on May 24, 2023 21:19:27 GMT
Wayne is better than Hathaway any way you slice it. I'm not a Wayne fan at all btw. He really isn't. And I'm not a big fan of Hathaway either. But she's a genuinely talented performer in that over-eager, musical theatre kid kind of way. She just doesn't know how to pick a script to save her life. I feel sorry for her in that sense. Skillset wise, she's more comparable to someone like Andrew Garfield than Wayne. But it's a weird comparison either way. Imagine John Wayne singing "I Dreamed a Dream." |
|
|
|
Post by urbanpatrician on May 24, 2023 21:23:14 GMT
Wayne is better than Hathaway any way you slice it. I'm not a Wayne fan at all btw. He really isn't. And I'm not a big fan of Hathaway either. But she's a genuinely talented performer in that over-eager, musical theatre kid kind of way. She just doesn't know how to pick a script to save her life. But it's a weird comparison either way. Just comparing entities on either lists. I think the worst entities on cinema archives (Cruise, Pitt, Grant, Wayne) are better than the worst from this list (Hathaway, Davis, Spencer), but........ eh........oh well |
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on May 24, 2023 21:52:23 GMT
He really isn't. And I'm not a big fan of Hathaway either. But she's a genuinely talented performer in that over-eager, musical theatre kid kind of way. She just doesn't know how to pick a script to save her life. But it's a weird comparison either way. Just comparing entities on either lists. I think the worst entities on cinema archives (Cruise, Pitt, Grant, Wayne) are better than the worst from this list (Hathaway, Davis, Spencer), but........ eh........oh well
All of the ones on The Cinema Archives are explained at least - in great detail - at least the top 34 are defensible as deserving to be "on this list" even if the rating #'s are wtf-ish.........plus it's one of the few that values comedy, world cinema, all eras, different types of actors, styles and looks at the totality of a career. .......I kind of love that list - or the idea of the list anyway - even though I know some of my personal faves can't make it on that one (Depardieu, Finney, etc). When people ask me who I think is a better actor between X and Y - I use the same rationale at least as Cinema Archives......the Movieweb list is just a bunch of names to me you could come up with 20 others ......... 1 -De Niro
2 -Stewart
3 -Brando
4 -Mifune
5 -Pacino
6 -Nicholson
7 -DDL
B -Bogart
9 -Grant
10-Chaplin
11-Mastroianni
12-Leung
13-Wayne
14-Fonda
15-Pitt
16-DiCaprio
17-Newman
18-Hackman
19-Eastwood
20-Dustin Hoffman
21-Holden
22-Mitchum
23-Von Sydow
24-Jannings
25-Delon
26-Belmondo
27-Buster Keaton
28-PSH
29-Kinski
30-Pesci
31-Lancaster
32-Clift
33-Joaquin Phoenix
34-Trintignant |
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on May 24, 2023 22:06:51 GMT
Just seems that the person who runs that Cinema Archives site places alot more emphasis on how many "archivable" films you've been in and which directors you worked with more than an actors' accolades/awards, greatest performances, range of roles, versatility/skills shown, etc. I mean no offense to Ethan Hawke who I like alot as an actor but him over Denzel Washington and Tom Hanks is insane. Since we're on the subject of lists, I always liked this one of the 100 Greatest Modern Actors (No Golden Age actors, so no Brando). I may quibble with some of the rankings in the top 10 but this list takes more into account the individual actor and what he's capable of and not who he was lucky/fortunate enough to get to work with. "Rankings were made taking into account overall ability and range, strength of the roles taken, longevity, influence, and awards won. Listed alongside are each actor’s best works, also loosely ranked according to how each exemplifies their talents. Actors must have appeared in at least one 21st century feature film for consideration as “modern.”definitivedose.com/100-greatest-modern-actors/ Yeah, quibbles about rankings aside, this is a much better list than the Cinema Archives one. Ranking mediocre, barely talented actors like Wayne so highly just because they made a lot of movies with great directors is a major flaw in that particular Matrix . |
|
|
|
Post by therealcomicman117 on May 25, 2023 0:10:21 GMT
Honestly, it's a fine list. Most of the names I expected to be there, so I have little complaints, ha.
|
|
|
|
Post by countjohn on May 25, 2023 1:15:03 GMT
Yeah this is a pretty big oof, no Pacino, DDL, or Jack, especially with some of the people they included. Keanu Reeves isn't even a regular good actor, let alone better than any of them. Saying pretty much anyone off the top ten here is on the same level as those guys is a bit ridiculous even if I like them. For positives I like Portman and Scarlett slipping into the back, cool that Octavia Spencer is so high, and that's a realistic placement for Leo when a lot of people would insist that he should be top 5 on a list like this since it's post 60's. Honestly, I think I said as much when the New York Times played advocate for Reeves on their list a few years back, but he's pretty much the modern Clint Eastwood/John Wayne. Like with those guys, some people are always going to insist that they aren't great/good actors or are one-dimensional etc etc. But as with Eastwood and Wayne (who do often get on Greatest Actors lists over technically more skilled contemporaries like Frederic March or George C Scott), Reeves has reached such an iconic status with such a laconic acting style and undeniable screen presence, that others will insist he's a uniquely great movie actor that does things technically more skilled actors can't (I mean, Scorsese and DiCaprio wanted to cast him for The Devil In The White City, so his respect level as an actor has definitely jumped up a few notches in recent years). I'm somewhere in the middle on him. He may be the best action actor in Hollywood and he's gotten much better over the years and doesn't really throw in dud performances like he did earlier in his career. He can do a lot without much dialogue. I wouldn't rush out to watch him in a Broadway play, but I do think he's uniquely suited to film. He's going to keep ending up on more of these type of lists and always be a controversial choice. But again, if he's now equivalent to Wayne and Eastwood, that's to be expected. Well I wouldn't put Eastwood or Wayne anywhere near a greatest actors of all time list either, but at least they're good at what they do and Eastwood does have some good dramatic performances later in his career with Unforgiven and to a lesser extent things like Million Dollar Baby, Gran Torino, or The Mule. I just don't even think Reeves is good as an action hero, just always seems like a cardboard cutout to me. Someone like Cruise would have been much better in that spot since he's a hundred times the action hero Reeves is and has some good dramatic work. Even somebody like The Rock is way ahead of Reeves to me specifically in terms of that kind of acting, always charismatic and funny although he doesn't have any classic films like The Matrix or Speed which is probably what makes the difference. Since Pacinoyes brought her up Ullmann is another huge omission here too on a similar tier to Pacino/DDL/Jack, unless we're going to assume this is explicitly an English language list the way we're assuming it's post 60's. |
|
|
|
Post by urbanpatrician on May 25, 2023 4:13:36 GMT
Just comparing entities on either lists. I think the worst entities on cinema archives (Cruise, Pitt, Grant, Wayne) are better than the worst from this list (Hathaway, Davis, Spencer), but........ eh........oh well
All of the ones on The Cinema Archives are explained at least - in great detail - at least the top 34 are defensible as deserving to be "on this list" even if the rating #'s are wtf-ish.........plus it's one of the few that values comedy, world cinema, all eras, different types of actors, styles and looks at the totality of a career. .......I kind of love that list - or the idea of the list anyway - even though I know some of my personal faves can't make it on that one (Depardieu, Finney, etc). When people ask me who I think is a better actor between X and Y - I use the same rationale at least as Cinema Archives......the Movieweb list is just a bunch of names to me you could come up with 20 others ......... 1 -De Niro
2 -Stewart
3 -Brando
4 -Mifune
5 -Pacino
6 -Nicholson
7 -DDL
B -Bogart
9 -Grant
10-Chaplin
11-Mastroianni
12-Leung
13-Wayne
14-Fonda
15-Pitt
16-DiCaprio
17-Newman
18-Hackman
19-Eastwood
20-Dustin Hoffman
21-Holden
22-Mitchum
23-Von Sydow
24-Jannings
25-Delon
26-Belmondo
27-Buster Keaton
28-PSH
29-Kinski
30-Pesci
31-Lancaster
32-Clift
33-Joaquin Phoenix
34-TrintignantThis isn't a bad list, but I don't think I ever viewed Delon or Belmondo as great actors. There are kinda here based on the directors they worked with. If you strip that component from them, they seem like the French Chow Yun Fat to me, but moreso Belmondo. Delon is probably more comparable to [insert hot actor] . Not that being Chow Yun Fat is a bad thing of course, because i'm a huge Chow fan. Wayne and Grant are here because of the classic Hollywood component of an average film list. They're not great actors, as it has been pointed out many times before. Pitt and Cruise have been here a long time, but they're not top 35 material. They're the Lebron James effect. Guys who've been around so long, people start seeing them be in every kind movie there is, so that alone obviously makes them appear weighty. Sorry, guy above ^ who rips Keanu to prop up Cruise. I think Keanu is the better actor than Tom Cruise. But, I definitely agree that actors should be separated from the classics they are in. Jessica Lange don't make usual lists like this, but most people who know what they're talking about knows she was the class of the 80s. Susan Hayward has no classic movies to her name, but if you flash back to 1955, there were people who liked her more than Audrey Hepburn. I bet the average cinema goers in the 50s who don't care for girly girl movies actually prefers Hayward to Hepburn. Nowadays you won't find any one unless they were around in the 50s who prefers Hayward over Hepburn. Well, except me I guess. So I do agree there has to be that component to making these kinds of lists that takes into account era by era instead of just aggregating the classics. Tho, most of the names that cinema archives provides are good names. They definitely account for variety, which is necessary so no one gets left out, imo which general lists tend to do. Guys like Leung and Murray who dominates a specific aspect gets some love, and even Ethan Hawke because I can really say he's good in his aspect. |
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on May 25, 2023 7:22:35 GMT
All of the ones on The Cinema Archives are explained at least - in great detail - at least the top 34 are defensible as deserving to be "on this list" even if the rating #'s are wtf-ish.........plus it's one of the few that values comedy, world cinema, all eras, different types of actors, styles and looks at the totality of a career. .......I kind of love that list - or the idea of the list anyway - even though I know some of my personal faves can't make it on that one (Depardieu, Finney, etc). When people ask me who I think is a better actor between X and Y - I use the same rationale at least as Cinema Archives......the Movieweb list is just a bunch of names to me you could come up with 20 others ......... 1 -De Niro
2 -Stewart
3 -Brando
4 -Mifune
5 -Pacino
6 -Nicholson
7 -DDL
B -Bogart
9 -Grant
10-Chaplin
11-Mastroianni
12-Leung
13-Wayne
14-Fonda
15-Pitt
16-DiCaprio
17-Newman
18-Hackman
19-Eastwood
20-Dustin Hoffman
21-Holden
22-Mitchum
23-Von Sydow
24-Jannings
25-Delon
26-Belmondo
27-Buster Keaton
28-PSH
29-Kinski
30-Pesci
31-Lancaster
32-Clift
33-Joaquin Phoenix
34-TrintignantThis isn't a bad list, but I don't think I ever viewed Delon or Belmondo as great actors. There are kinda here based on the directors they worked with. If you strip that component from them, they seem like the French Chow Yun Fat to me, but moreso Belmondo. Delon is probably more comparable to [insert hot actor] . Not that being Chow Yun Fat is a bad thing of course, because i'm a huge Chow fan. Wayne and Grant are here because of the classic Hollywood component of an average film list. They're not great actors, as it has been pointed out many times before. Pitt and Cruise have been here a long time, but they're not top 35 material. They're the Lebron James effect. Guys who've been around so long, people start seeing them be in every kind movie there is, so that alone obviously makes them appear weighty. Sorry, guy above ^ who rips Keanu to prop up Cruise. I think Keanu is the better actor than Tom Cruise.
But, I definitely agree that actors should be separated from the classics they are in. Jessica Lange don't make usual lists like this, but most people who know what they're talking about knows she was the class of the 80s. Susan Hayward has no classic movies to her name, but if you flash back to 1955, there were people who liked her more than Audrey Hepburn. I bet the average cinema goers in the 50s who don't care for girly girl movies actually prefers Hayward to Hepburn. Nowadays you won't find any one unless they were around in the 50s who prefers Hayward over Hepburn. Well, except me I guess. So I do agree there has to be that component to making these kinds of lists that takes into account era by era instead of just aggregating the classics. Tho, most of the names that cinema archives provides are good names. They definitely account for variety, which is necessary so no one gets left out, imo which general lists tend to do. Guys like Leung and Murray who dominates a specific aspect gets some love, and even Ethan Hawke because I can really say he's good in his aspect. Interesting takes - your last paragraph is on point - ^ - but for me classics are a bigger part of it .......i always say this: "the greatest actors are in the greatest scenes in the greatest movies often for the greatest directors"........are there great actors without great filmographies? Of course - like Lange and for me Finney .........but at the highest level.........I don't really think so ........the "best" actors are sought out by the best around them ........ the idea that an actor is "better than their movies" is like being a big fish in a small pond to me. Generally the rankings of actors - for lists like this - comes down to 3 things anyway: * Who did it first? (The Olivier / Brando - or whomever argument) * Who at their best - did it the best? (This is usually only like a top 5-7 performances or so - the De Niro / DDL / Nicholson - or whomever argument) * Who did it "the most" (Gave the most "special" performances - the Pacino or whomever argument....someone with a long career.....) It's the 2nd one that people generally latch on to because most people only identify wth the peaks really...... |
|
|
|
Post by fiosnasiob on May 31, 2023 8:09:25 GMT
Yeah, it's just another random "Greatest Actors" list from a movie website, and frankly I don't even agree with most of it, but the top 7 isn't completely awful . I wouldn't read much into it at all, just like most website lists. But it's only just published last month, so might as well give it some idle chatter. Sounds like this list is only really including actors/actresses from the post 1970's era, as the article makes a clear delineation between the "Golden Age" and "our time". So Brando, Olivier, Newman, Hepburn or anyone markedly pre-70's or "Golden Age" were not going to be ranked. Saying that, there are some huge omissions even with that caveat. No Pacino, Day-Lewis, Nicholson, Hopkins, Oldman or even my girl Nicole Kidman. Guess it shows how subjective these lists can be. I'll give this one a tiny bit of credit for giving Sigourney Weaver her due though, as she's oddly overlooked in these kind of lists. Anyway, here's the top 25: movieweb.com/greatest-actors-of-our-time25 Bryan Cranston
24 Natalie Portman
23 Scarlett Johansson
22 Charlize Theron
21 Keanu Reeves
20 Johnny Depp
19 Sigourney Weaver
18 Helena Bonham Carter
17 Christian Bale
16 Anne Hathaway
15 Leonardo DiCaprio
14 Morgan Freeman
13 Samuel L Jackson
12 Kate Winslet
11 Octavia Spencer
10 Tom Hanks
9 Julianne Moore
8 George Clooney
7 Joaquin Phoenix
6 Cate Blanchett
5 Marion Cotlliard
4 Viola Davis
3 Robert DeNiro
2 Meryl Streep
1 Denzel Washington
King & Queen topping the list as it should, a lot of names we would expect and some more surprising ones, always liked Helena Bonham Carter, probably even more during the pre-Burton era (The Wings of the Dove, Margaret's Museum, Fight Club, A Dark Adapted Eye...), also good to see the Old Sam here, he has done a lot of cr*p and have given some uninspired performances but at the end of the day, you can easily make a list of 15 performances that would stand against most of the greatest actors of his generation and of course, he's one of the most iconic and recognizable name/faces in cinema's history. Only one supporting oscar nomination is not enough for this legend.  |
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on May 31, 2023 21:14:41 GMT
Yeah, it's just another random "Greatest Actors" list from a movie website, and frankly I don't even agree with most of it, but the top 7 isn't completely awful . I wouldn't read much into it at all, just like most website lists. But it's only just published last month, so might as well give it some idle chatter. Sounds like this list is only really including actors/actresses from the post 1970's era, as the article makes a clear delineation between the "Golden Age" and "our time". So Brando, Olivier, Newman, Hepburn or anyone markedly pre-70's or "Golden Age" were not going to be ranked. Saying that, there are some huge omissions even with that caveat. No Pacino, Day-Lewis, Nicholson, Hopkins, Oldman or even my girl Nicole Kidman. Guess it shows how subjective these lists can be. I'll give this one a tiny bit of credit for giving Sigourney Weaver her due though, as she's oddly overlooked in these kind of lists. Anyway, here's the top 25: movieweb.com/greatest-actors-of-our-time25 Bryan Cranston
24 Natalie Portman
23 Scarlett Johansson
22 Charlize Theron
21 Keanu Reeves
20 Johnny Depp
19 Sigourney Weaver
18 Helena Bonham Carter
17 Christian Bale
16 Anne Hathaway
15 Leonardo DiCaprio
14 Morgan Freeman
13 Samuel L Jackson
12 Kate Winslet
11 Octavia Spencer
10 Tom Hanks
9 Julianne Moore
8 George Clooney
7 Joaquin Phoenix
6 Cate Blanchett
5 Marion Cotlliard
4 Viola Davis
3 Robert DeNiro
2 Meryl Streep
1 Denzel Washington
King & Queen topping the list as it should, a lot of names we would expect and some more surprising ones, always liked Helena Bonham Carter, probably even more during the pre-Burton era (The Wings of the Dove, Margaret's Museum, Fight Club, A Dark Adapted Eye...), also good to see the Old Sam here, he has done a lot of cr*p and have given some uninspired performances but at the end of the day, you can easily make a list of 15 performances that would stand against most of the greatest actors of his generation and of course, he's one of the most iconic and recognizable name/faces in cinema's history. Only one supporting oscar nomination is not enough for this legend. Yeah, Washington and Streep are a worthy top 2. Bonham Carter is underrated (and yes, she did some incredible work in her younger days, particularly during her pre- Burton era as you say. And agreed about Jackson. He deserves way more than one supporting actor oscar nomination. |
|
), I have to say that even though I disagree with a lot of this list, the top 3 is pretty special, and it's difficult to deny any of them their spots. Like stephen , I also tend to ding DeNiro for his last 3 decades (and he usually features lower in my personal rankings because of that), but you still can't deny how important he's been to the history of cinema and the evolution of screen acting. Streep is a sui generis of a talent. Not always my personal favorite, but her talent and consistency is undeniable. And of course, GOAT Denzel, whom my thoughts on are well known.
