urbanpatrician
Based
"I just wanna go back, back to 1999. back to hit me baby one more time" - Charli XCX
Posts: 4,711
Likes: 2,291
|
Post by urbanpatrician on Jun 22, 2020 1:19:14 GMT
Denzel Washington Will Smith Leonardo DiCaprio Jennifer Lawrence Angelina Jolie Harrison Ford Tom Cruise Brad Pitt Tom Hanks Johnny Depp Julia Roberts John Wayne Clint Eastwood
1. Firstly, I apologize if you feel like I left off your guy, or you think there's someone else here that deserves to be included. I'm quite sure there are others who do deserve a place on this list, but as of now.... THESE are the only ones who come to mind. If I've forgot them, I can't edit my poll, so just make do with the people who ARE on this list, please. This is based somewhat on the Harris poll, the names I saw on that poll which suggests to me who usually are the ones considered America's actors.
2. Use any METRIC you want. Your personal preference, total body of work, objective measures, any intellectual basis, or you can just use what I'll use which is simply how strongly I feel about each one.
3. I thought of Streep, but because she's gonna blow everyone away here and it's boring to have her dominate easily in this match, she sits this one out.
Here's my ranking:
1. Tom Hanks 2. Clint Eastwood 3. Julia Roberts 4. Jennifer Lawrence 5. Johnny Depp 6. Denzel Washington
7. Will Smith 8. Leonardo DiCaprio 9. Tom Cruise 10. Harrison Ford
11. Brad Pitt (don't care a whole lot about this last 3, but I recognize and respect their contributions to films) 12. John Wayne 13. Angelina Jolie
|
|
|
Post by Martin Stett on Jun 22, 2020 2:14:40 GMT
I'm voting for Ford, although I think his best work has been in supporting roles or leading roles in minor films. The Mosquito Coast, The Conversation, Apocalypse Now, etc.
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Jun 22, 2020 2:51:43 GMT
I'm not sure The Harris Poll reallly represents who is the "biggest star in the world" (I'm sure there is some Bollywood actor or two, who could lay claim to being up there. And the likes of Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson). Though there is obviously crossover and correlation, as those on Harris Poll are almost exclusively among the biggest stars in the world (or have been at some point).
It feels more representive of the stars that matter most to the American People. So I'll base who I'd put in there currently on that.
Some of these stars will have a transient value. Meaning they will be extremely well liked by the American public for a period of time in their career, but it may not translate to long term iconic status with US audiences, and you may never see them on the poll again once the peak of their popularity is over. Jennifer Lawrence feels in that bracket. She was the female star for Americans in the moment in the 2010s, but her value feels temporary. Someone like Sandra Bullock has more staying power (and I'd replace Lawrence with her).
I'd say John Wayne and Clint Eastwood are locks. One has been dead for decades and the other has been long past peak of his stardom, yet they are still fixtures on the poll. There is something essential about them to the American DNA...those westerns have a mythical quality for Americans, and they are the kings of that
Next would be Denzel and Hanks, who win the poll the most regularly in the last two decades, and also seem representitive of different types of ideals that Americans admire. Denzel is the confident alpha that gets shit done, but is also relatable. He's a protector and also an Avenger when he needs to be. Hanks is the likeble everyman that everyone would want as their friend or father. These two guys have every chance of continuing to feature in the poll when they are dead like Wayne or pushing 90 like Eastwood.
Next would be Johnny Depp, who has won it a couple of times when people were bored of voting for Denzel and Hanks. It's harder to say if he will have their likely staying power on the poll though. He doesn't neccesarily represent any classic American ideals, but post-Pirates, he's really been beloved by younger people snd kids for his child friendly Disney stuff, which they will probably grow out of. But for now, he matters as America's Children's Laureate.
Julia Roberts would be next. She's become America's feminine ideal. Attractive, relatable, tough and compassionate. I'd bracket Sandra Bullock on my list next to her for similar reasons.
Brad Pitt would be next. The relatable matinee idol. Seems chill, doesn't come across like the smartest guy in the room, but you'd like to have a beer with the guy and smoke some weed with him.
Next would be Harrison Ford, who used to win the poll multiple times at the height of his career, but still makes comebacks to feature in the poll long after the peak of his movie stardom. He's basically a lesser version of Eastwood and Wayne to Americans. Hasn't really got the westerns, but has that no-nonsense, Man's man vibe that they come with.
Last would be Will Smith, who is a slightly more watered down version of Hanks for Americans. He's goofy, likable, relatable and charming. People want to be his friend.
Cruise wouldn't be there for me. Not now anyway.He used to feature very regularly on the poll back in the day, but the Oprah-couch jumping and his links to Scientology have ruined him for a lot of American audiences. They may still watch his movies, but to half the audience now, he's a weirdo cult leader and not relatable at all. DiCaprio almost never gets voted on the Harris Poll, so I don't think he has any intrinsic qualities or traits as a star that American audiences value deeply. He's just a good actor that makes movies they'll pay to watch, especially when attached to a good concept and filmmaker. So in order of importance and staying power to American audiences(not my favorite), my current list would be:
1 John Wayne 2 Clint Eastwood 3 Denzel Washington 4 Tom Hanks 5 Johnny Depp 6 Julia Roberts 7 Sandra Bullock 8 Brad Pitt 9 Harrison Ford 10 Will Smith
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 22, 2020 3:14:17 GMT
Going by how good (for me this is determined by a mix of how well they reflect the characters they play and what degree of added nuance they bring to the table, how generally compelling they are to watch, and level of genuine range they possess) I generally find them as actors, I'd rank them like this -
Cruise (have always liked him a lot more than most on here) Depp Hanks Washington Pitt DiCaprio Eastwood Ford Wayne Lawrence
Haven't seen enough from the others to judge.
By filmography would be a very different story. Wayne would be #1 or #2.
|
|
|
Post by Tommen_Saperstein on Jun 22, 2020 3:15:46 GMT
not a very exciting list. Denzel is the easy first choice and then I guess Pitt and Hanks.
|
|
urbanpatrician
Based
"I just wanna go back, back to 1999. back to hit me baby one more time" - Charli XCX
Posts: 4,711
Likes: 2,291
|
Post by urbanpatrician on Jun 22, 2020 3:22:41 GMT
Some of these stars will have a transient value. Meaning they will be extremely well liked by the American public for a period of time in their career, but it may not translate to long term iconic status with US audiences, and you may never see them on the poll again once the peak of their popularity is over. Jennifer Lawrence feels in that bracket. She was the female star for Americans in the moment in the 2010s, but her value feels temporary. Someone like Sandra Bullock has more staying power (and I'd replace Lawrence with her). I think Lawrence will make a roaring comeback in the 2020s. She's just in a dry period. She's so young too, plenty of time to dominate Hollywood. After 2015, her steam did fizzle a bit but she's awesome enough to make it back! She'll easily overtake Bullock when it's all said and done. So True! He's the king of the box office for sure, and his fanboys are gonna use that to prop him up until eternity, but people don't realize when you're in so many automatic $$ machines, your ass gets carried to the top! Also, I changed my title to American actors**, because I recognize the confusion there.
|
|
|
Post by therealcomicman117 on Jun 22, 2020 3:38:23 GMT
My personal top 10 would probably be...
1. Tom Hanks 2. Denzel Washington 3. Clint Eastwood 4. Brad Pitt 5. Leonardo DiCaprio 6. Tom Cruise 7. Will Smith 8. Julia Roberts 9. Harrison Ford 10. Angelina Jolie
As for the objective list itself, I agree with John Wayne and Clint Eastwood being at the top, both are still considered highly relevant today, especially for the older boomer audience. Next up would Tom Hanks and Denzel Washington who have managed to stay relevant, and haven't had their careers fade away the same way a Burt Reynolds style mega-star might have. After that would probably be Pitt and Roberts (easily the biggest modern female star), Smith, who has a rough going recently, but has recovered more nicely as of late, Ford, who hasn't done much in the way of non franchise films as of late, but has managed to stay relevant thanks to Star Wars, and then Tom Cruise, and Johnny Depp, both of whom are still considered big stars, but definitely have tested audience's patience way more then once, especially in the later's case.
Jennifer Lawrence I consider too young, and her great run of films probably hasn't even really started, while Jolie seems less and less concerned these days with being a big star, and more concerned being a director, and helping people out, which is an admirable thing to be sure, but probably means her status has diminished somewhat as a major movie star in the eye of the public.
|
|
urbanpatrician
Based
"I just wanna go back, back to 1999. back to hit me baby one more time" - Charli XCX
Posts: 4,711
Likes: 2,291
|
Post by urbanpatrician on Jun 22, 2020 4:13:36 GMT
Here's my synopsis, since everyone is doing it. John Wayne was the original big star. I think his only counterpart is Humphrey Bogart, but I'll be highly in the wrong for thinking Bogart compares to Wayne. Bogart is the better actor, and unlike Wayne - Bogart GOT BETTER and evolved as an actor. He was just some dude with a lisp before 1948, but after that he started cranking out some legitimately great performances. Unfortunately, his death put a stop to that because I felt he easily had another 10 years in him. Also, retrospectively it's easy to look at Bogart today as a one-film guy Casablanca to not very highly cinematically versed people. So, Wayne is definitely king, he's consistently dominated longer and isn't bogged down by that one film as much. Eastwood is like today's version of Wayne. Well actually he's well past his prime now, but there has not been a later version of Wayne or Eastwood. The buck has for now ended with those 2. It's just telling, and proves how hard it is to find a guy like Wayne or Eastwood - it may never happen again. Hanks and Denzel and Smith you can argue is in the same bracket. The difference is Smith started out as a kiddie's hero doing those action kiddie fantasies like Men in Black. For this reason, this stigma remains and he certainly hasn't broken it. Hanks started as an aww shucks boy (not necessarily kiddie tho), but he appeals to the common man, the common 9 to 5 nice Joe in the office. Since then, he's like James Stewart. Started out as an aww shucks boy before finding Hitchcock and Vertigo and then got a 2nd career revival. Hanks is doing much of the same although he has just yet to find a director as talented as Hitchcock to give him that all-encompassing world-class masterpiece like Vertigo. Denzel, however, never started under the vestige of either. He was an adult actor from the start. He appeals to teenagers, but he unlike many on this list doesn't gear towards young children. Ford can be compared to Eastwood and Wayne. Problem is, the genre of his most common affilation (action/adventure) doesn't have the same aura as the westerns which Wayne and Eastwood embody. Cruise, Pitt, DiCaprio are in that next wave of stars, but I agree with pupdurcs that their distinctions are lesser than the others. Depp has created a brand for himself. Good on him. I feel like he's comparable to Jolie in a sense, both have dominated the mainstream all by themselves at times. Pitt, Cruise, and DiCaprio get lots of help from people more talented than them. Giving them films that make it seem like it was their doing, but in reality they have a much smaller part in it. So for this reason, Depp and Jolie stands out. Though they need to get off their asses a bit because it feels like laziness or lack of spark right now. Julia Roberts is America's girl. Sandra Bullock doesn't compare to her, which is why I left her off. Bullock is a Roberts mini-me, the copycat version of Roberts who always lived in her shadow, and not nearly as good. Lawrence is actually closer to Roberts than Bullock is but she's so young yet seems like she's just getting started in taking Roberts' place as the next America's Sweetheart. Can she do it? I think she can!!!
|
|
|
Post by TerryMontana on Jun 22, 2020 5:10:46 GMT
Leo Pitt Smith Hanx
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Jun 22, 2020 8:06:24 GMT
I guess I'll just rank them by preference: Clint Eastwood - he's a legend for 60 years and has higher movies than any of these on my GOAT list (Unforgiven, Good The Bad & The Ugly). I seriously question the manliness of how he isn't everyone's #1. Check your balls at the door and that goes for the ladies too. Leonardo DiCaprio/Tom Hanks/Denzel Washington - more or less equal which is why that poll is a messssssssssssss. These are all top ~15 actors or close to that...... DiCaprio won me over in the 2010s I can't say sh it against him right now........ Hanks is a lesser actor than 'Zel imo but has other things in his favor (movies overall for one) these guys are their generations DePac destined to be rivals to the grave and I think Hanks will be remembered as THE GOAT over everyone one day (not to me!).... Washington and when I say he has big flaws he obviously does....... unless you're a Zelbot....... no comedies really for me.....his Joe Cool persona can f'n annoy (Equalizer! Equalizer 2!! Two Guns!! you get the idea)....... his filmography is historically weak ...... BUT he's the only one here who does theater a lot (Hanks is not comparable really his Tony nomination notwithstanding) and does it big time so that's a huuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuge plus .......it matters....a lot......to me.Jennifer Lawrence - gave a performance in SLP that was like like grabbing a movie by the throat. Rarely do you EVER see it. I like her when she's right for roles and pull for her even when she isn't which is a lot Johnny Depp - The 90s most creative, imaginative actor - yeah, I said it....had a great 10 years which he never gets credit for but this board gives a lot more credit to guys who did it for less (Crowe/Norton) Brad Pitt - like him but without the high points of Depp to me, think of him as a comedic actor more Harrison Ford John Wayne Angelina Jolie Tom Cruise Julia Roberts Will Smith
|
|
urbanpatrician
Based
"I just wanna go back, back to 1999. back to hit me baby one more time" - Charli XCX
Posts: 4,711
Likes: 2,291
|
Post by urbanpatrician on Jun 22, 2020 10:48:41 GMT
Washington and when I say he has big flaws he obviously does....... unless you're a Zelbot....... no comedies really for me.....his Joe Cool persona can f'n annoy (Equalizer! Equalizer 2!! Two Guns!! you get the idea)....... his filmography is historically weak ...... BUT he's the only one here who does theater a lot (Hanks is not comparable really his Tony nomination notwithstanding) and does it big time so that's a huuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuge plus .......it matters....a lot......to me.
I feel like this Leo vs Denzel thing has a sort of root. On one hand, people prop Leo up because he has such a strong filmography working with the 3 most acclaimed modern filmmakers: Nolan, Tarantino, and Scorsese and he's the king of the box office. On the other hand, people (I won't lie, I'm in this group ) suggest that he's just a small part of that and he's riding high on directors who are not known for a whole lot of failures in the box office AND in critical acclaim. Isn't that kind of like the DDL-effect?? Where Denzel is like the polar opposite. It seems like Denzel has films made primarily for him. Some actors, such as Jolie, Depp, Denzel, and maybe Dwayne Johnson - (can't see his parts going to anyone else that's around anyways) has movies that probably won't exist unless they knew those actors would do them. Those films that really has only 1 guy in mind for the lead otherwise they'll be a high concern about the ability to get those seen. Denzel has one group that views his "historically weak filmography" with unsatisfactory lens, and then another group propping him up for his elevating of horribly weak material, and his ability to get such destined bombs seen, and still appeal to people. I dunno, I do find it impressive people keep staying interested in Denzel.... I mean look at his counterparts Morgan Freeman and Samuel L. Jackson.... both kinda look like they're at a lowpoint and Denzel has persisted with The Equalizer (not a terrible movie), Fences, Flight, and The Magnificent Seven. I dunno, this begs the question..... which perspective do you choose to adopt? You're not wrong either way. I feel like it's either one or the other though - both is a stance that's up to the viewer to take. Agree with you on Lawrence and Depp. I think Lawrence has the benefit that she has no comparative equal right now that can compete with her. She casts a far larger shadow on her peers. Maybe the only other equal is Emma Stone, but I somehow see Emma as that 2nd bill, living in the shadow of Lawrence. And once Lawrence gets her golden parts again, Stone probably gets put back in her original place... which was always trailing Lawrence from the start. I think Lawrence will blast through the 2020s with a newfound flair. Depp felt like he lost something after a point. Though, even past his peak 1994-2003, I still think he had 3 top notch performances: Sweeney Todd, Public Enemies, and Black Mass. He was really awesome in Black Mass. Just do more gangster films, seems his 100% ratio of succeeding in gangster films (Donnie Brasco too ) is better than doing Alice in Dungenland for the 12th time.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Jun 22, 2020 11:32:47 GMT
Washington and when I say he has big flaws he obviously does....... unless you're a Zelbot....... no comedies really for me.....his Joe Cool persona can f'n annoy (Equalizer! Equalizer 2!! Two Guns!! you get the idea)....... his filmography is historically weak ...... BUT he's the only one here who does theater a lot (Hanks is not comparable really his Tony nomination notwithstanding) and does it big time so that's a huuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuge plus .......it matters....a lot......to me.
I feel like this Leo vs Denzel thing has a sort of root. On one hand, people prop Leo up because he has such a strong filmography working with the 3 most acclaimed modern filmmakers: Nolan, Tarantino, and Scorsese and he's the king of the box office. On the other hand, people (I won't lie, I'm in this group ) suggest that he's just a small part of that and he's riding high on directors who are not known for a whole lot of failures in the box office AND in critical acclaim. Isn't that kind of like the DDL-effect?? Where Denzel is like the polar opposite. It seems like Denzel has films made primarily for him. So me actors, such as Jolie, Depp, Denzel, and maybe Dwayne Johnson - (can't see his parts going to anyone else that's around anyways) has movies that probably won't exist unless they knew those actors would do them. Those films that really has only 1 guy in mind for the lead otherwise they'll be a high concern about the ability to get those seen. Denzel has one group that views his "historically weak filmography" with unsatisfactory lens, and then another group propping him up for his elevating of horribly weak material, and his ability to get such destined bombs seen, and still appeal to people. I dunno, I do find it impressive people keep staying interest in Denzel.... I mean look at his counterparts Morgan Freeman and Samuel L. Jackson.... both kinda look like they're at a lowpoint and Denzel has persisted with The Equalizer (not a terrible movie), Fences, Flight, and The Magnificent Seven. I dunno, this begs the question..... which perspective do you choose to have? You're not wrong either way. I feel like it's either one or the other though - both is a stance that's up to you to take.Well..............the answer is imo a little of both - DW is a great the only question is "how great of an actor is he?" - comparable to Bridges.......Hanks.......Dafoe? Maybe a tad better, maybe less....... sure that's reasonable debate.......but comparable to Nicholson/Newman/PSH/DDL etc? Not at all to me.........and he is elevated by fanboys that only can be rationalized by a maddening, willful fudging of history: People roll their eyes at my "acting metrics" stuff but DW is elevated too highly by just ONE metric isn't he (Oscar nods) which he at least partially got by being the one African American actor to persevere.........would he have 8 Oscar nominations otherwise (?) - I'd say probably not, and that he got a lot of stroke from being THE default check-box African American pick for a whole lot of years and he's going to die with ~10 Oscar nods I am guessing which is 2nd ever for Americans. On the other hand no one else did that - HE did it - he did it to such an extent that he single-handed beats Cheadle/Fishburne/Foxx/Whitaker by a lot COMBINED and that Superman-like metric number causes people to juggle other things with him in other ways for things he didn't do (lame excuses for the lack of comedic work, the shakiness of the current filmography quality, and even the missing BAFTA nods applies here). Instead of arguing what he did - people to often bend over backwards to fudge what he didn't do......that's the whole thing with him...... BUT he's still working and like I said about Gene Hackman's late career - with his sudden late career comedies that came out of nowhere and raised his stature late - you never know with actors.................. and DW ain't done who knows what's to come for him? Now, the anti-DiCaprio argument made a whole lot more sense before the 2010s before he carried 3 huge films for 3 big directors to 3 nods and a win in 7 years in this decade.........prior to that maybe I could see the argument against but now .......I think you have to give him credit for what HE did there.......
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Jun 22, 2020 11:50:11 GMT
Washington and when I say he has big flaws he obviously does....... unless you're a Zelbot....... no comedies really for me.....his Joe Cool persona can f'n annoy (Equalizer! Equalizer 2!! Two Guns!! you get the idea)....... his filmography is historically weak ...... BUT he's the only one here who does theater a lot (Hanks is not comparable really his Tony nomination notwithstanding) and does it big time so that's a huuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuge plus .......it matters....a lot......to me.
I feel like this Leo vs Denzel thing has a sort of root. On one hand, people prop Leo up because he has such a strong filmography working with the 3 most acclaimed modern filmmakers: Nolan, Tarantino, and Scorsese and he's the king of the box office. On the other hand, people (I won't lie, I'm in this group ) suggest that he's just a small part of that and he's riding high on directors who are not known for a whole lot of failures in the box office AND in critical acclaim. Isn't that kind of like the DDL-effect?? Where Denzel is like the polar opposite. It seems like Denzel has films made primarily for him. Some actors, such as Jolie, Depp, Denzel, and maybe Dwayne Johnson - (can't see his parts going to anyone else that's around anyways) has movies that probably won't exist unless they knew those actors would do them. Those films that really has only 1 guy in mind for the lead otherwise they'll be a high concern about the ability to get those seen. Denzel has one group that views his "historically weak filmography" with unsatisfactory lens, and then another group propping him up for his elevating of horribly weak material, and his ability to get such destined bombs seen, and still appeal to people. I dunno, I do find it impressive people keep staying interested in Denzel.... I mean look at his counterparts Morgan Freeman and Samuel L. Jackson.... both kinda look like they're at a lowpoint and Denzel has persisted with The Equalizer (not a terrible movie), Fences, Flight, and The Magnificent Seven. I dunno, this begs the question..... which perspective do you choose to adopt? You're not wrong either way. I feel like it's either one or the other though - both is a stance that's up to the viewer to take. In the real world, Washington's filmography isn't considered "weak", (and that is why he can have the longevity of Wayne or Eastwood). Quite the opposite. It's common for regular people to claim he's never made a bad movie. I saw a Twitter poll where he trounced Tom Cruise when people asked who had the best filmography, which would never happen on a board like this. A lot of regular people think he has maybe the strongest filmography out of his contemporaries (bar Hanks maybe ). They are not keeping count who has been in the most best picture nominees or who worked with the most auteurs like many here. They just remember which films they liked.
Look at the Amazon film ratings (probably less prone to racism and spam votes than things like IMDB, because people are often paying for the film direct from the site). Of the contemporary male actors on this list, Washington has the most films with a 4 star rating or above. None of his films are rated below 4 stars on Amazon (though to be fair, DiCaprio doesn't either. But the likes of Pitt do, his latest one beneath 4 stars being Ad Astra)Even Hanks has a couple of films rated below 4 stars on Amazon.com ( like The Circle and A Hologram For A King), though I think he has the most films with a 5 star rating, so overall regular folk might think Hank has the strongest filmography. I think the "weak filmography" thing for Washington is just something a few film nerds on forums like this have run with because he's not always making Oscarbait with the latest European auteur that won the Golden Palme or whatever. I don't believe Denzel could have the following he does from the public, if audiences didn't think his filmography was strong as fuck. The man has his finger on the pulse. His mix of sociallly conscious Oscarbait and well made action/thrillers really seems to hit a sweet spot with audiences. Of course his acting and presence is a huge factor, but if people didn't like the movies, he'd have been done a long time ago. The guy really knows what he's doing.
|
|
urbanpatrician
Based
"I just wanna go back, back to 1999. back to hit me baby one more time" - Charli XCX
Posts: 4,711
Likes: 2,291
|
Post by urbanpatrician on Jun 22, 2020 12:15:06 GMT
I feel like this Leo vs Denzel thing has a sort of root. On one hand, people prop Leo up because he has such a strong filmography working with the 3 most acclaimed modern filmmakers: Nolan, Tarantino, and Scorsese and he's the king of the box office. On the other hand, people (I won't lie, I'm in this group ) suggest that he's just a small part of that and he's riding high on directors who are not known for a whole lot of failures in the box office AND in critical acclaim. Isn't that kind of like the DDL-effect?? Where Denzel is like the polar opposite. It seems like Denzel has films made primarily for him. Some actors, such as Jolie, Depp, Denzel, and maybe Dwayne Johnson - (can't see his parts going to anyone else that's around anyways) has movies that probably won't exist unless they knew those actors would do them. Those films that really has only 1 guy in mind for the lead otherwise they'll be a high concern about the ability to get those seen. Denzel has one group that views his "historically weak filmography" with unsatisfactory lens, and then another group propping him up for his elevating of horribly weak material, and his ability to get such destined bombs seen, and still appeal to people. I dunno, I do find it impressive people keep staying interested in Denzel.... I mean look at his counterparts Morgan Freeman and Samuel L. Jackson.... both kinda look like they're at a lowpoint and Denzel has persisted with The Equalizer (not a terrible movie), Fences, Flight, and The Magnificent Seven. I dunno, this begs the question..... which perspective do you choose to adopt? You're not wrong either way. I feel like it's either one or the other though - both is a stance that's up to the viewer to take. In the real world, Washington's filmography isn't considered "weak". Quite the opposite. It's common for regular people to claim he's never made a bad movie. I saw a Twitter poll where he trounced Tom Cruise when people asked who had the best filmography, which would never happen on a board like this. A lot of regular people think he has maybe the strongest filmography out of his contemporaries (bar Hanks maybe ).
Look at the Amazon film ratings (probably less prone to racism and spam votes than things like IMDB, because people are often paying for the film direct from the site). Of the contemporary male actors on this list, Washington has the most films with a 4 star rating or above. None of his films are rated below 4 stars on Amazon (though to be fair, DiCaprio doesn't either. But the likes of Pitt do, his latest one beneath 4 stars being Ad Astra)Even Hanks has a couple of films rated below 4 stars on Amazon.com ( like The Circle and A Hologram For A King), though I think he has the most films with a 5 star rating, so overall regular folk might think Hank has the strongest filmography. I think the "weak filmography" thing for Washington is just something a few film nerds on forums like this have run with because he's not always making Oscarbait with the latest European auteur that won the Golden Palme or whatever. I don't believe Denzel could have the following he does from the public, if audiences didn't think his filmography was strong as fuck. The man has his finger on the pulse. His mix of sociallly conscious Oscarbait and well made action/thrillers really seems to hit a sweet spot with audiences. Of course his acting and presence is a huge factor, but if people didn't like the movies, he'd have been done a long time ago. I get you and I largely agree that, you're right.... lots of people can't tell the difference between Leo's filmography vs Denzel's filmography, but I think the people who recognize "Scorsese is great" is not just a small sample of people. Shutter Island had 1,000,000 votes on IMDB while American Gangster only got 300,000. I'm not trying to slight Denzel by bringing up that HUGE difference between those 2 films, just trying to put that all into perspective because they both seem like films that should have an equal amount of votes initially yet one has so much fewer votes. I think the clout of Scorsese's greatness extends beyond just IMDB and film nerds. So I do think even in the real world, Scorsese's name matters just enough to proportionally affect the way people OVERALL look at films. Not that everyone cares about those big-name film-nerd directors like Tarantino, Scorsese, and Nolan, but I do think at the very least they recognize the fact that movies like Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, Inception, and The Wolf of Wall Street are highly positively reviewed. And they've seen enough critics lists to see that they're always on the top of the rankings lists. We're in the era where doing a casual browsing of the internet to get a general impression about how good a film is - (and critics lists) - have become a passing fancy since it's so easily done. Also, a more useful tool to the average people is rottentomatoes. I just think internet sites these days play a huge part, the average people checks reviews too. However, there is always that sample of people who don't care even if they see a rotten score, and then I guess there's also a portion of people (older, maybe?) who don't even check these things. Who knows. I do feel confident in saying with certainty that Denzel's filmography isn't considered terrible to an average person like what Freeman and Jackson has been doing lately. Even if his filmography is considered "weaker" to any group, I don't think "average people" (like the ones you describe) necessarily consider his filmography terrible.
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Jun 22, 2020 12:28:37 GMT
In the real world, Washington's filmography isn't considered "weak". Quite the opposite. It's common for regular people to claim he's never made a bad movie. I saw a Twitter poll where he trounced Tom Cruise when people asked who had the best filmography, which would never happen on a board like this. A lot of regular people think he has maybe the strongest filmography out of his contemporaries (bar Hanks maybe ).
Look at the Amazon film ratings (probably less prone to racism and spam votes than things like IMDB, because people are often paying for the film direct from the site). Of the contemporary male actors on this list, Washington has the most films with a 4 star rating or above. None of his films are rated below 4 stars on Amazon (though to be fair, DiCaprio doesn't either. But the likes of Pitt do, his latest one beneath 4 stars being Ad Astra)Even Hanks has a couple of films rated below 4 stars on Amazon.com ( like The Circle and A Hologram For A King), though I think he has the most films with a 5 star rating, so overall regular folk might think Hank has the strongest filmography. I think the "weak filmography" thing for Washington is just something a few film nerds on forums like this have run with because he's not always making Oscarbait with the latest European auteur that won the Golden Palme or whatever. I don't believe Denzel could have the following he does from the public, if audiences didn't think his filmography was strong as fuck. The man has his finger on the pulse. His mix of sociallly conscious Oscarbait and well made action/thrillers really seems to hit a sweet spot with audiences. Of course his acting and presence is a huge factor, but if people didn't like the movies, he'd have been done a long time ago. I get you and I largely agree that, you're right.... lots of people can't tell the difference between Leo's filmography vs Denzel's filmography, but I think the people who recognize "Scorsese is great" is not just a small sample of people. Shutter Island had 1,000,000 votes on IMDB while American Gangster only got 300,000. I'm not trying to slight Denzel by bringing up that HUGE difference between those 2 films, just trying to put that all into perspective because they both seem like films that should have an equal amount of votes initially yet one has so much fewer votes. I think the clout of Scorsese's greatness extends beyond just IMDB and film nerds. So I do think even in the real world, Scorsese's name matters just enough to proportionally affect the way people OVERALL look at films. Not that everyone cares about those big-name film-nerd directors like Tarantino, Scorsese, and Nolan, but I do think at the very least they recognize the fact that movies like Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, Inception, and The Wolf of Wall Street are highly positively reviewed. And they've seen enough critics lists to see that they're always on the top of the rankings lists. We're in the era where doing a casual browsing of the internet to get a general impression about how good a film is - (and critics lists) - have become a passing fancy since it's so easily done. Also, a more useful tool to the average people is rottentomatoes. I just think internet sites these days play a huge part, the average people checks reviews too. However, there is always that sample of people who don't care even if they see a rotten score, and then I guess there's also a portion of people (older, maybe?) who don't even check these things. Who knows. I do feel confident in saying with certainty that Denzel's filmography isn't considered terrible to an average person like what Freeman and Jackson has been doing lately. Even if his filmography is considered "weaker" to any group, I don't think "average people" (like the ones you describe) necessarily consider his filmography terrible. Well, I wasn't trying to do a Leo vs Denzel comparison again (please let's let that one rest for awhile ). Just pointing out that the average person reaction to Denzel' s filmography isn't judged on his proximity to this or that auteur. It's like John Wayne . Most people don't have the first clue who directed a John Wayne movie. They just know his westerns are the shit! Denzel has built up a trust with audiences. They like the movies he makes. Even the ones that get poor rotten tomatoes scores like Man On Fire, end up as some of his most beloved films
|
|
urbanpatrician
Based
"I just wanna go back, back to 1999. back to hit me baby one more time" - Charli XCX
Posts: 4,711
Likes: 2,291
|
Post by urbanpatrician on Jun 22, 2020 12:41:59 GMT
I get you and I largely agree that, you're right.... lots of people can't tell the difference between Leo's filmography vs Denzel's filmography, but I think the people who recognize "Scorsese is great" is not just a small sample of people. Shutter Island had 1,000,000 votes on IMDB while American Gangster only got 300,000. I'm not trying to slight Denzel by bringing up that HUGE difference between those 2 films, just trying to put that all into perspective because they both seem like films that should have an equal amount of votes initially yet one has so much fewer votes. I think the clout of Scorsese's greatness extends beyond just IMDB and film nerds. So I do think even in the real world, Scorsese's name matters just enough to proportionally affect the way people OVERALL look at films. Not that everyone cares about those big-name film-nerd directors like Tarantino, Scorsese, and Nolan, but I do think at the very least they recognize the fact that movies like Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, Inception, and The Wolf of Wall Street are highly positively reviewed. And they've seen enough critics lists to see that they're always on the top of the rankings lists. We're in the era where doing a casual browsing of the internet to get a general impression about how good a film is - (and critics lists) - have become a passing fancy since it's so easily done. Also, a more useful tool to the average people is rottentomatoes. I just think internet sites these days play a huge part, the average people checks reviews too. However, there is always that sample of people who don't care even if they see a rotten score, and then I guess there's also a portion of people (older, maybe?) who don't even check these things. Who knows. I do feel confident in saying with certainty that Denzel's filmography isn't considered terrible to an average person like what Freeman and Jackson has been doing lately. Even if his filmography is considered "weaker" to any group, I don't think "average people" (like the ones you describe) necessarily consider his filmography terrible. Well, I wasn't trying to do a Leo vs Denzel comparison again (please let's let that one rest for awhile ). Just pointing out that the average person reaction to Denzel' s filmography isn't judged on his proximity to this or that auteur. It's like John Wayne . Most people don't have the first clue who directed a John Wayne movie. They just know his westerns are the shit! Denzel has built up a trust with audiences. They like the movies he makes. Even the ones that get poor rotten tomatoes scores like Man On Fire and John QYeah, the Leo vs Denzel thing needs to rest. I didn't mean to bring it back, but the point that stood out to me about pacinoyes' post is that "Denzel has a far weaker filmography." I dunno tho.... I tend to look at actors for their performances not the quality of the films which they don't have the contractual power to actually control. Actors are responsible for their performances and not the actual product of the film right? Also you don't hear Kidman vs Streep debates about who has the better filmography. To an IMDB poster.... of course Kidman. Dogville, Eyes Wide Shut, and The Killing of a Scared Deer is more interesting to most people who post here than Sophie's Choice, The Iron Lady, or The Devil Wears Prada. And yet Streep is MAR's actress. Just wondering why this only applies to Leo vs Denzel. Oh, absolutely. I think that Wayne comparison applies aptly to Denzel. Wayne's filmography is filled with the generic type of stuff that people claim Denzel's filmography is full of. They choose to single out The Searchers and Rio Bravo, but those are not what I see Wayne for and yeah pretty much all of the remaining John Wayne fans don't single him out for the films theyshootpicture single out like The Searchers or Stagecoach. But yeah.... we can proceed to talking about the other 11 names here. Not just Denzel and Leo which is what everyone feels like sharpening their knives for. Yeah, John Q is entertaining. A bit generic but I don't think most common dudes don't at least enjoy it (I did when I first saw it anyways). And Man On Fire I highly dig and it's not even close to a bad movie imo.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Jun 22, 2020 12:42:12 GMT
I do feel confident in saying with certainty that Denzel's filmography isn't considered terrible to an average person I agree with this but remember he's not just anyone here and I don't think anyone said this in the first place did they that his filmography would look weak to Eddie Lunchbucket and Sally Housecoat? He's a GOAT contender or at least best of his generation contender - and his filmography at that level loses to all of the other guys - not just some but every rival at that level............for Oscar nods, wins, major critical acclaim.........for different types of films and his specific roles within them (drama and comedy) like I say, his son is going to tie him for BP Oscar nominated movies this year alone...... To argue "the average person" is kind of moving the goal posts..........if you're arguing his place among the GOATs.........if you're arguing something else though then it's totally fine.
|
|
urbanpatrician
Based
"I just wanna go back, back to 1999. back to hit me baby one more time" - Charli XCX
Posts: 4,711
Likes: 2,291
|
Post by urbanpatrician on Jun 22, 2020 12:55:37 GMT
I do feel confident in saying with certainty that Denzel's filmography isn't considered terrible to an average person I agree with this but remember he's not just anyone here and I don't think anyone said this in the first place did they that his filmography would look weak to Eddie Lunchbucket and Sally Housecoat? He's a GOAT contender or at least best of his generation contender - and his filmography at that level loses to all of the other guys - not just some but every rival at that level............for Oscar nods, wins, major critical acclaim.........for different types of films and his specific roles within them (drama and comedy) like I say, his son is going to tie him for BP Oscar nominated movies this year alone...... To argue "the average person" is kind of moving the goal posts..........if you're arguing his place among the GOATs.........if you're arguing something else though then it's totally fine. But that goes back to my point. Isn't it an actor's job to act and not to actually control the artistic palette behind the films? They don't have the contractual power to do so, firstly. I realize you can criticize Denzel's script choosing, but then.... script choosing is a very small percentage of what matters overall. The most important thing is the final composition of an actor's performance. as far as the GOAT rankings go.... it's kinda hard to put post-70s guys against DePac, Hoffman, and Nicholson. The latter group always wins on this board. You gotta rank him with Hanks, DiCaprio, PSH, and Pitt.... it's more logical to me. But if you ask me..... Nicholson is overrated so yeah.... I could put Denzel ahead of him. The other guys probably not. As far as Brando goes, I've ranted enough about how that guy doesn't move a needle in my body , so..... I don't know how to be objective on that.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Jun 22, 2020 13:20:11 GMT
I agree with this but remember he's not just anyone here and I don't think anyone said this in the first place did they that his filmography would look weak to Eddie Lunchbucket and Sally Housecoat? He's a GOAT contender or at least best of his generation contender - and his filmography at that level loses to all of the other guys - not just some but every rival at that level............for Oscar nods, wins, major critical acclaim.........for different types of films and his specific roles within them (drama and comedy) like I say, his son is going to tie him for BP Oscar nominated movies this year alone...... To argue "the average person" is kind of moving the goal posts..........if you're arguing his place among the GOATs.........if you're arguing something else though then it's totally fine. But that goes back to my point. Isn't it an actor's job to act and not to actually control the artistic palette behind the films? They don't have the contractual power to do so, firstly. I realize you can criticize Denzel's script choosing, but then.... script choosing is a very small percentage of what matters. The most important thing is the final composition of an actor's performance. Yes but with a big and crucial caveat: This isn't just script choosing - it actually hinders the actor's overall level of greatness in many ways imo - for the other things we talked about in other posts: generosity/interacting to other actors, the range of work the actor actually tried (leads, ensembles), the level of the actors opposite him (it's a lot easier to not have to worry about Ethan Hawke showing you up than Joaquin Phoenix just sayin'), the pressure of being in a prestige piece or carrying one and maybe letting it down......what is an actor adding to the piece besides just himself anyway (the whole notion behind what we on MAR call the "MVP"). Totally agree with you on the GOATs - the 70s Mt. Rushmore class got a unique advantage over every other class and they rode it out and not just in the 70s either.......that kind of lightning in a bottle is not coming back and it never existed like that in US film prior either.
|
|
urbanpatrician
Based
"I just wanna go back, back to 1999. back to hit me baby one more time" - Charli XCX
Posts: 4,711
Likes: 2,291
|
Post by urbanpatrician on Jun 22, 2020 14:06:11 GMT
But that goes back to my point. Isn't it an actor's job to act and not to actually control the artistic palette behind the films? They don't have the contractual power to do so, firstly. I realize you can criticize Denzel's script choosing, but then.... script choosing is a very small percentage of what matters. The most important thing is the final composition of an actor's performance. Yes but with a big and crucial caveat: This isn't just script choosing - it actually hinders the actor's overall level of greatness in many ways imo - for the other things we talked about in other posts: generosity/interacting to other actors, the range of work the actor actually tried (leads, ensembles), the level of the actors opposite him (it's a lot easier to not have to worry about Ethan Hawke showing you up than Joaquin Phoenix just sayin'), the pressure of being in a prestige piece or carrying one and maybe letting it down......what is an actor adding to the piece besides just himself anyway (the whole notion behind what we on MAR call the "MVP"). It's your call either way. That sounds like severe overthinking though, and you have all those minuscule criterias. Personally though, those things are too much to think about and why not just make it simple. An actor's performance is the final composition regardless of the quality of the film. I can easily switch my brain to that line of thinking. That makes it so much easier. As for as interacting with other actors go, ehh.... I don't know. Some of those things sound like psychological items that's not easily transparent to the naked eye. Nobody can tell how much pressure Denzel feels when Joaquin Phoenix is his co-star. Whether it steps up his game, or whether it impacts him at all, or anything. Tho, the pressure of being in a great film point you make is a good one. When Scorsese approached DeNiro with Raging Bull... it's a lot different than Denzel getting approached with 2 Guns. The caliber of artistic ambition is different. But....I don't know. As far as what I've heard, he turned down Se7en but not aware of what other "great" parts he didn't take. By all means enlighten me tho because I don't really know what great parts he was even offered. Like... this might be veering off topic a bit. But personally speaking, lots of actors have done GOAT work in bad films. Jessica Lange's performance in Frances a GOAT among her gender. Terrible film though, but the film being bad doesn't make me think for a second that she wasn't some force in Frances. And....... Elizabeth Hartman is essentially a goddess in You're a Big Boy Now. That type of talent is rarely seen, but it's unfortunately attached to a Coppola but pre-man-possessed Coppola, so the film isn't seen enough. Just sayin'.... not sure how to apply those criterias you named to those 2 performances which both feel incredibly amazing to me. It's hard to break it all down and I try not to think too much on how their pressures will affect their psyche against their comparative co-star or something.
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Jun 22, 2020 14:15:27 GMT
Yes but with a big and crucial caveat: This isn't just script choosing - it actually hinders the actor's overall level of greatness in many ways imo - for the other things we talked about in other posts: generosity/interacting to other actors, the range of work the actor actually tried (leads, ensembles), the level of the actors opposite him (it's a lot easier to not have to worry about Ethan Hawke showing you up than Joaquin Phoenix just sayin'), the pressure of being in a prestige piece or carrying one and maybe letting it down......what is an actor adding to the piece besides just himself anyway (the whole notion behind what we on MAR call the "MVP"). It's your call either way. That sounds like severe overthinking though, and you have all those minuscule criterias. Personally though, those things are too much to think about and why not just make it simple. An actor's performance is the final composition regardless of the quality of the film. I can easily switch my brain to that line of thinking. That makes it so much easier. As for as interacting with other actors go, ehh.... I don't know. Some of those things sound like psychological items that's not easily transparent to the naked eye. Nobody can tell how much pressure Denzel feels when Joaquin Phoenix is his co-star. Whether it steps up his game, or whether it impacts him at all, or anything. Tho, the pressure of being in a great film point you make is a good one. When Scorsese approached DeNiro with Raging Bull... it's a lot different than Denzel getting approached with 2 Guns. The caliber of artistic ambition is different. But....I don't know. As far as what I've heard, he turned down Se7en but not aware of what other "great" parts he didn't take. By all means enlighten me tho because I don't really know what great parts he was even offered. Like... this might be veering off topic a bit. But personally speaking, lots of actors have done GOAT work in bad films. Jessica Lange's performance in Frances a GOAT among her gender. Terrible film though, but the film being bad doesn't make me think for a second that she wasn't some force in Frances. And....... Elizabeth Hartman is essentially a goddess in You're a Big Boy Now. That type of talent is rarely seen, but it's unfortunately attached to a Coppola but pre-man-possessed Coppola, so the film isn't seen enough. Just sayin'.... not sure how to apply those criterias you named to those 2 performances which both feel incredibly amazing to me. It's hard to break it all down and I try not to think too much on how their pressures will affect their psyche against their comparative co-star or something. You make a good point about a lot of great/GOAT level performancess coming in mediocre or even poor films. I don't think much of Mommie Dearest as a film (it almost feels like a campy TV movie), but I think it's arguably the performance of Faye Dunaway's career.
|
|
urbanpatrician
Based
"I just wanna go back, back to 1999. back to hit me baby one more time" - Charli XCX
Posts: 4,711
Likes: 2,291
|
Post by urbanpatrician on Jun 22, 2020 14:26:35 GMT
It's your call either way. That sounds like severe overthinking though, and you have all those minuscule criterias. Personally though, those things are too much to think about and why not just make it simple. An actor's performance is the final composition regardless of the quality of the film. I can easily switch my brain to that line of thinking. That makes it so much easier. As for as interacting with other actors go, ehh.... I don't know. Some of those things sound like psychological items that's not easily transparent to the naked eye. Nobody can tell how much pressure Denzel feels when Joaquin Phoenix is his co-star. Whether it steps up his game, or whether it impacts him at all, or anything. Tho, the pressure of being in a great film point you make is a good one. When Scorsese approached DeNiro with Raging Bull... it's a lot different than Denzel getting approached with 2 Guns. The caliber of artistic ambition is different. But....I don't know. As far as what I've heard, he turned down Se7en but not aware of what other "great" parts he didn't take. By all means enlighten me tho because I don't really know what great parts he was even offered. Like... this might be veering off topic a bit. But personally speaking, lots of actors have done GOAT work in bad films. Jessica Lange's performance in Frances a GOAT among her gender. Terrible film though, but the film being bad doesn't make me think for a second that she wasn't some force in Frances. And....... Elizabeth Hartman is essentially a goddess in You're a Big Boy Now. That type of talent is rarely seen, but it's unfortunately attached to a Coppola but pre-man-possessed Coppola, so the film isn't seen enough. Just sayin'.... not sure how to apply those criterias you named to those 2 performances which both feel incredibly amazing to me. It's hard to break it all down and I try not to think too much on how their pressures will affect their psyche against their comparative co-star or something. You make a good point about a lot of great/GOAT level performancess coming in mediocre or even poor films. I don't think much of Mommie Dearest as a film (it almost feels like a campy TV movie), but I think it's arguably the performance of Faye Dunaway's career. OMG.... my mind was just thinking of putting the Dunaway example there as well , but I thought 2 examples were enough and didn't wanna appear overly long-winded. Mommie Dearest is my favorite Dunaway performance, though maybe nowadays tied with Bonnie and Clyde. Another example I'll make is Al Pacino in Donnie Brasco. Not that it's a bad movie by any means, but it's a film that gets lost in the overall breadth of essential Pacinos, but it's his best performance IMO outside of The Godfather: Part 2. I'm willing to bet that this board (made up of 85% people 25 and under) were 3 when it came out, and 10 years old in 2005. Don't think that film had a shelf life of that long (8 years) when the younguns on this board see Pacino mostly thru the lens of The Godfather + Part 2, Dog Day Afternoon, Scarface, and Heat.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Jun 22, 2020 14:34:23 GMT
Yes but with a big and crucial caveat: This isn't just script choosing - it actually hinders the actor's overall level of greatness in many ways imo - for the other things we talked about in other posts: generosity/interacting to other actors, the range of work the actor actually tried (leads, ensembles), the level of the actors opposite him (it's a lot easier to not have to worry about Ethan Hawke showing you up than Joaquin Phoenix just sayin'), the pressure of being in a prestige piece or carrying one and maybe letting it down......what is an actor adding to the piece besides just himself anyway (the whole notion behind what we on MAR call the "MVP"). It's your call either way. That sounds like severe overthinking though, and you have all those minuscule criterias. Personally though, those things are too much to think about and why not just make it simple. As for as interacting with other actors go, ehh.... I don't know. Some of those things sound like psychological items that's not easily transparent to the naked eye. The caliber of artistic ambition is different. But....I don't know. As far as what I've heard, he turned down Se7en but not aware of what other "great" parts he didn't take. By all means enlighten me tho because I don't really know what great parts he was even offered. Like... this might be veering off topic a bit. But personally speaking, lots of actors have done GOAT work in bad films. Jessica Lange's performance in Frances a GOAT among her gender. Well I don't think it should be simple. Acting is complicated so we should discuss it at the level of the craft itself and the criteria should be minuscule too - good acting is about detail after all - otherwise we can just do simple stuff like what we're good at on this board - voting in a Best Makeup 1931 poll (kidding, kidding)! "Artistic ambition" is a big deal and it gets misunderstood all the time - Olivier had it ....... DDL had great ambition it seems but never went back to comedy at all after "failing" twice so that means something ........what it means is arguable and not transparent to the naked eye but it clearly doesn't mean "nothing"? Washington will play Macbeth so he's got huge ambitions ........but will he play a gay character?........I dunno but he hasn't so if you're going to give him the credit take some credit away too. There's only so much time you have to do things - filmography matters in what you actually do and not..........btw I know he turned down Michael Clayton. The other day I mentioned that Bardem in Biutiful and Lange in Frances are the two greatest performances I ever saw in very weak films (without them) so totally on the same page there, absolutely.
|
|
oneflyr
Full Member
Posts: 565
Likes: 251
|
Post by oneflyr on Jun 22, 2020 15:57:20 GMT
John Wayne Clint Eastwood the others lol
|
|
|
Post by fiosnasiob on Jun 22, 2020 20:48:06 GMT
Don't really know what criterias I should use to rank them, apparently it's free, not about the biggest or most important or best, etc... I will simply go with overall favorites (which often go with best to me). Top 3 would be : Denzel....Surprise !!! Let's start with the weak points, I think he arguably never worked with at least 8 of the 10 greatest Hollywood directors of his time and for an actor of his caliber it's a shame, the result is a lack of great/masterpieces films in his filmography. Also he could have been a little more daring, fearless and adventurous in his choices during some moments of his career but when you are such a great star, a big name and role model, I guess it's not that simple BUT his venture into darker characters starting in the early of this century (even a lil bit before that) has been nothing short of brillant. Other than that, well, best actor that ever lived in my eyes, the somewhat generic quote like "he plays his part with utter sincerity, conviction and believability" has probably been invented for him because that's simply what he does, to a level and a consistency never seen before or since, he's "the realest, the truth" as many people like to call him and since this is about Star, his on-screen star qualities are equaled by very very few, that charisma, that appeal, the way the camera loves him, it's unfair for the others actors. Leo, No more a great young actor, a great actor period, a great star, worked with the cream of the crop in some of their finest films, like many I love the actor he has becomes in the 2010's, not a big fan of his oscar win but I would have been more than fine with him winning for The Wolf of Wall Street and Once Upon a Time... in Hollywood, he's superb in both. He would be stupid to not work with all these big and talented names that are at his "feet" but I want him to surprise us in the years to come with something...smaller, a Half Nelson/Blue Valentine kind of film maybe. And I'm a Titanic fanboy, not for him but the movie overall Clint, the man, the legend, not really a great actor but a truly, truly iconic one and one of the most important figures in American film history. After that.... Harrison Ford (underrated as an actor) Brad Pitt Tom Hanks Will Smith Julia Roberts Tom Cruise Angelina Jolie (A wasted talent) John Wayne (My father would kill me to put him so low, " The Duke below that Tomb Raider chick you *beep* *beep* *beep* ") Johnny Depp Jennifer Lawrence
|
|