|
|
Post by mattfincher on Jul 3, 2020 2:01:42 GMT
All directed Best Picture winners, but have never seen to be overly respected as actors. Who is the most gifted?
|
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Jul 3, 2020 2:11:51 GMT
Mad Mel is far and away the best actor and director of the bunch.
|
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Jul 3, 2020 2:18:49 GMT
Gibson was a quite decent Hamlet opposite a GOAT in all 3 mediums male (Triple Crown winner the great Paul Scofield) and female (Close) plus Ian Holm, Alan Bates....I mean .....that alone is hard to beat.  |
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Jul 3, 2020 2:25:58 GMT
Gibson was very respected as an actor in Hollywood. He just didn't Oscarbait that much in his prime, and when he did succesfully with Braveheart, the fact that he produced and directed the film overshadowed his acting, so it was unfortunate he didn't recieve an Oscar nod for it (which he deserved). Shit, people have won Oscars for lesser performances than that, never mind being nominated.
But things like Mad Max and Lethal Weapon are incredible performances. But nobody gets nominated for genre fare like that. Gibson was clearly a cut above Costner (a solid but limited actor, who worked well only in very specific parts) and Affleck, an often stiff and unnatural performer who has gotten better with age, but still is miles behind the natural ability of someone like Gibson.
If Gibson chose to be a professional Oscarbaiter (like Daniel Day-Lewis or Leonardo DiCaprio) he probably would have ended up an Academy favorite actor.
|
|
|
|
Post by mattfincher on Jul 3, 2020 2:38:18 GMT
Gibson was very respected as an actor in Hollywood. He just didn't Oscarbait that much in his prime, and when he did succesfully with Braveheart, the fact that he produced and directed the film overshadowed his acting, so it was unfortunate he didn't recieve an Oscar nod for it (which he deserved). Shit, people have won Oscars for lesser performances than that, never mind being nominated. But things like Mad Max and Lethal Weapon are incredible performances. But nobody gets nominated for genre fare like that. Gibson was clearly a cut above Costner (a solid but limited actor, who worked well only in very specific parts) and Affleck, an often stiff and unnatural performer who has gotten better with age, but still is miles behind the natural ability of someone like Gibson. If Gibson chose to be a professional Oscarbaiter (like Daniel Day-Lewis or Leonardo DiCaprio) he probably would have ended up an Academy favorite actor. Do you think Ben Affleck will get an acting nom eventually? |
|
|
|
Post by quetee on Jul 3, 2020 2:43:38 GMT
Without a doubt, Mel.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mattsby on Jul 3, 2020 2:45:22 GMT
Don't care for Costner at all outside of A Perfect World, JFK, and maybe Bull Durham. Affleck I never liked but lately seems more tense on screen and it's kinda accidentally working in his favor imo. Mel was a bonafide star, with mad appeal ("It hath made me mad!" as he vividly says in Hamlet). He can be intuitively charismatic (Gallipoli), slyly romantic (Mrs Soffel), physical/imposing (Mad Max, Braveheart), vulnerable (Lethal Weapon), goofy (later LWs), sometimes you just gotta appreciate the energy in the effort (Conspiracy Theory), recently solid in Dragged Across Concrete, a statistical, insinuating perf.
|
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Jul 3, 2020 2:46:48 GMT
Gibson was very respected as an actor in Hollywood. He just didn't Oscarbait that much in his prime, and when he did succesfully with Braveheart, the fact that he produced and directed the film overshadowed his acting, so it was unfortunate he didn't recieve an Oscar nod for it (which he deserved). Shit, people have won Oscars for lesser performances than that, never mind being nominated. But things like Mad Max and Lethal Weapon are incredible performances. But nobody gets nominated for genre fare like that. Gibson was clearly a cut above Costner (a solid but limited actor, who worked well only in very specific parts) and Affleck, an often stiff and unnatural performer who has gotten better with age, but still is miles behind the natural ability of someone like Gibson. If Gibson chose to be a professional Oscarbaiter (like Daniel Day-Lewis or Leonardo DiCaprio) he probably would have ended up an Academy favorite actor. Do you think Ben Affleck will get an acting nom eventually? I don't see why he couldn't. He's on their radar as a filmmaker, he still works as an actor with major directors ( Fincher, Ridley Scott, himself)...., so definitely if he's in the right role and movie it can happen. But it's very far from a certainty. I don't think their is any burning desire to acknowledge Affleck as an actor in the industry, so it will come down to the right movie/ role at the right time, if ever it happens. He'd have been a solid nominee for Hollywoodland, his best performance. But he is rarely as good as that. |
|
|
|
Post by futuretrunks on Jul 3, 2020 2:46:53 GMT
Gibson is the best actor. Affleck is the best director. Costner is growing as an actor as he ages.
|
|
|
|
Post by mattfincher on Jul 3, 2020 2:52:13 GMT
Gibson is the best actor. Affleck is the best director. Costner is growing as an actor as he ages. I don't know if Costner has gotten demonstrably better. I never watched the series he won an Emmy for, but I can't remember the last time he gave a really great performance on film? He was pretty good in The Upside of Anger, but that was a while ago. Fine in Hidden Figures, even if I kind of hate the way that role is written. It seems like almost all of his best work came at the peak of his popularity between the late 80s and early 90s (Bull Durham, Field of Dreams, Dances with Wolves, JFK, and A Perfect World). I think A Perfect World is his only great performance. He's a fine anchor in JFK, but there's like a handful of better perfs. in that movie. Affleck has been very good three times (Hollywoodland, Gone Girl and The Way Back), but all three times the roles seemed to call upon some aspect of or the entirety of his public persona so I'm not sure what that says about his range (probably that he doesn't have much). Gibson definitely has the most charisma of the three. |
|
|
|
Post by futuretrunks on Jul 3, 2020 2:54:02 GMT
Gibson is the best actor. Affleck is the best director. Costner is growing as an actor as he ages. I don't know if Costner has gotten demonstrably better. I never watched the series he won an Emmy for, but I can't remember the last time he gave a really great performance on film? He was pretty good in The Upside of Anger, but that was a while ago. Fine in Hidden Figures, even if I kind of hate the way that role is written. It seems like almost all of his best work came at the peak of his popularity between the late 80s and early 90s (Bull Durham, Field of Dreams, Dances with Wolves, JFK, and A Perfect World). I think A Perfect World is his only great performance. He's a fine anchor in JFK, but there's like a handful of better perfs. in that movie. Affleck has been very good three times (Hollywoodland, Gone Girl and The Way Back), but all three times the roles seemed to call upon some aspect of or the entirety of his public persona so I'm not sure what that says about his range (probably that he doesn't have much). Gibson definitely has the most charisma of the three. I haven't seen all of his recent work, but I think he's good in Yellowstone, and it's the kind of performance he couldn't pull off in 1994. He just didn't have the authority as a younger actor. |
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Jul 3, 2020 2:57:55 GMT
Gibson is the best actor. Affleck is the best director. Costner is growing as an actor as he ages. has directed nothing as good as Apocalypto. Even though I felt his last directing effort Hacksaw Ridge was a bit on the generic side, at his best Gibson feels more like a legit auteur as a director compared to the other two. |
|
|
|
Post by futuretrunks on Jul 3, 2020 3:06:31 GMT
Gibson is the best actor. Affleck is the best director. Costner is growing as an actor as he ages. has directed nothing as good as Apocalypto. Even though I felt his last directing effort Hacksaw Ridge was a bit on the generic side, at his best Gibson feels more like a legit auteur as a director compared to the other two. I really liked Hacksaw Ridge and the visual language of Apocalypto, but I think The Town is hands-down the best movie any of the three have directed. He gets the micro-tones about directing and controlling attention right in a way lots of actor-directors don't, including people like Eastwood, who has never directed a film half as masterful as The Town. |
|
urbanpatrician
Based
"I just wanna go back, back to 1999. back to hit me baby one more time" - Charli XCX
Posts: 4,824
Likes: 2,353
|
Post by urbanpatrician on Jul 3, 2020 3:10:02 GMT
Well I'm in the minority here, but by default...... Affleck. Not that he's some amazing virtuoso, but the other two are pretty damn vanilla to me. I'm in the minority with Gibson it seems, but the dude gets some strange resurrection on this board.  I always thought he was some bland good looking actor ala What Women Wants - and just like Clint Eastwood is the premiere director of WESTERNS, Mel is the premiere director of historic epics, but an auteur he is not... sorry. Affleck is at least some decent Michael Mann wannabe. Gone Baby Gone and The Town are REALLY entertaining. He's not Mann, but he makes a decent attempt so I gotta give him a little credit there. |
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Jul 3, 2020 3:11:32 GMT
Not a huge fan of The Town. It's a perfectly fine/entertaining movie, but it feels like a bit of a Frankenstein compilation of better, more original movies in the same genre that came before it (notably Heat and Point Break).
|
|
|
|
Post by futuretrunks on Jul 3, 2020 3:18:07 GMT
Not a huge fan of The Town. It's a perfectly fine/entertaining movie, but it feels like a bit of a Frankenstein compilation of better, more original movies in the same genre that came before it (notably Heat and Point Break).I get why someone would think that, but vehemently disagree. I think the strong character work in The Town (particularly what Renner establishes) makes Heat look silly, so it's just The Town being penalized for lifting aspects of the filmmaking/shootout technique. Point Break is very fun, and Swayze is awesome, but as an entire movie, it doesn't quite compare for me. Not as knotty and complicated, which is a demerit. |
|
|
|
Post by mattfincher on Jul 3, 2020 3:21:01 GMT
Gibson's a little hard to peg as an actor because the list of great films he acted in is pretty small imo. He never got the material to fully show his abilities as an actor (and I think it's safe to assume he'll never get a great part again and is going to the grave as a never Oscar nominated actor). But he elevated a lot of so-so stuff which is more than can be said for the other two and that gives him the edge (even though I'm not as big a fan of him as an actor as some here). Costner and Affleck need either great material or material that is perfectly tailored to them to be good.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tommen_Saperstein on Jul 3, 2020 4:56:34 GMT
Yikes, they're all pretty uninspired performers. Costner was weakest when he was a movie star in the late 80s/early 90s. Dull and bland in everything he appeared in from Untouchables to Dances with Wolves to JFK, incapable of possessing an ounce of charisma or having more than one facial expression or tone of voice, so it's kind of amazing to find that he does possess some of that charisma later in his career with Upside of Anger and Hidden Figures.
Gibson... don't care for him at all. Never displayed much range. Not super interesting. Can't really differentiate his perfs in the Weir films despite those characters being wildly different. Flew by a lot on his movie star looks and status. Braveheart was a vanity project.
Affleck, also not a fan but he was my choice here. His lows are abysmal but he's displayed a capacity for depth on a couple occasions (most notably his recent turn in The Way Back) that I haven't seen from either of the others. Generally uninteresting acting slate but his highs are much higher than Gibson or Costner.
|
|
|
|
Post by TerryMontana on Jul 3, 2020 5:28:24 GMT
Mad Mel.
And Affleck is not a real actor...
|
|
|
|
Post by themoviesinner on Jul 3, 2020 5:51:51 GMT
Mel Gibson is the best actor out of these three. He is not among my favourites, but he can deliver some pretty great performances when on top of his game. Costner is nothing special. He was fantastic in JFK, but that's about the only really memorable performance I've seen from him. Affleck is definitely last in this comparison. He's one of the blandest actors I've ever seen.
|
|
|
|
Post by jimmalone on Jul 3, 2020 7:09:44 GMT
Costner is far and away the best of this trio.
|
|
|
|
Post by JangoB on Jul 3, 2020 9:24:32 GMT
Costner is my MAN.
|
|
|
|
Post by Johnny_Hellzapoppin on Jul 3, 2020 10:54:34 GMT
As actors Gibson overall, though Costner at his best is probably the better of the two. Affleck is a plank.
As directors, I would say I have enjoyed and occasionally quite liked most of the stuff from Affleck, so probably him.
|
|
|
|
Post by ibbi on Jul 3, 2020 19:38:35 GMT
I love Kevin Costner with all my heart and soul, there are few actors I like watching more on screen, whose presence proves more winning, but Gibson by far. Dude is electric. Affleck has obviously had his moments over the years, but the bad so thoroughly outweighs the good it's tough to put him there with them for consistency.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pittsnogle_Goggins on Jul 3, 2020 22:22:31 GMT
Not a huge fan of The Town. It's a perfectly fine/entertaining movie, but it feels like a bit of a Frankenstein compilation of better, more original movies in the same genre that came before it (notably Heat and Point Break).While it borrowed from both of those it’s still a great movie in its own right with thrilling action and great characters getting fleshed out with real depth. |
|
I always thought he was some bland good looking actor ala What Women Wants - and just like Clint Eastwood is the premiere director of WESTERNS, Mel is the premiere director of historic epics, but an auteur he is not... sorry.
