|
Post by pacinoyes on Sept 16, 2020 14:38:57 GMT
English language only.......... if we exclude Day-Lewis at least since he's such a wild card to compare to other actors imo. Hopkins will likely be nominated for his 6th Oscar this year........ all after the age of 50 which will be a record. No actor has more Oscar nominations in that same era (post-'91) either regardless of age......... though Hanks would tie him this year if nodded with 6 in that period (7 overall) and DiCaprio and Washington have 6 also (Washington 8 overall). He's been strong on TV too in the same period........His only real lapse is comedic work though he's funny within drama like most dramatic actors are who have that lapse on their resume. Awards of course are not the sole barometer but he hasn't really been "passed over" in the 91-20 era imo.......though he arguably was prior to that though. Can we call him "the best" post-91 or is that too much praise? "Don't know" isn't an option people!
|
|
sirchuck23
Based
Bad news dawg...you don't mind if I have some of your 300 dollar a glass shit there would ya?
Posts: 2,724
Likes: 4,834
Member is Online
|
Post by sirchuck23 on Sept 16, 2020 15:43:57 GMT
Nope. Based on overall body of work post-91, Denzel Washington and Daniel Day-Lewis are the best actors of the past 30 years.
|
|
|
Post by wallsofjericho on Sept 16, 2020 15:47:12 GMT
He's up there.
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Sept 16, 2020 16:25:40 GMT
No. He had a great run for much of the 90's (well, up to Nixon anyway), but has been massively inconsistent since then. Too many of his performances after that period have been lazy and uninspired from what I've seen. You can really tell when he doesn't give a shit, and that is often.
But when you have 139 movies + TV shows on your ledger like Hopkins, and you have his ability, you'll throw in a few major performances along the way, just by law of averages. But Samuel L Jackson basically does the same thing, and no one is claiming he's the best actor of the last 30 years. Jackson is a great actor, as is Hopkins, but they like their lazy paycheck performances a little too much to be in that discussion.
For me, he's got a similar "comfortability" factor as Morgan Freeman. Always welcome presences, but they both know they have enough built-in gravitas to get away with doing the bare minimum a lot, and then proceed to do so.
|
|
|
Post by TerryMontana on Sept 16, 2020 16:40:48 GMT
Nope. I mean, I love the guy, he's in my top-5 favorite actors of all time. But nope.
Even excluding DDL, there are guys like Washington, Hanks who top him. Maybe even Di Caprio awards-wise.
Hopkins had a fantastic 90s decade and a great comeback in the last 5 years or so. But his work during the 00s or early 10s is pretty weak.
Hanks and Denzel have been very consistent for the whole last 30 years. At least that's the way I see it, I'm very bored to google and post their films.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Sept 16, 2020 17:01:24 GMT
Nope. I mean, I love the guy, he's in my top-5 favorite actors of all time. But nope. I didn't realize that you liked him that much ..........who are your top 5 all time terry?
|
|
Javi
Badass
Posts: 1,532
Likes: 1,622
|
Post by Javi on Sept 16, 2020 17:08:02 GMT
I'm gonna say YES just to troll the board a little bit - and there's his brilliant 90s run. Personally I find him extremely moving. At his best (not The Silence of the Lambs but Nixon!) he unites emotion and intellect like no other imo. Bring on The Father!
|
|
|
Post by therealcomicman117 on Sept 16, 2020 17:11:38 GMT
Nah, I gotta agree with everyone else. Hopkins is an amazing actor, and he had an incredible run in the 1980s and 1990s including great performances in films like The Elephant Man, Lambs, Remains of The Day and so-on, and while certainly he's given some great performances recently (he looks fantastic in The Father), there was a good decade + of work post Amistad where he basically zooned out, and was literally sleepwalking through most films. He even admitted he did movies like Thor, because they required no acting. When you compare that to actors like Washington, or Hanks, or Day-Lewis, you can see that Hopkins literally lost interest in the art of performances as a whole, and just saw it as a way to make money, and take vacations. Not that I can 100% blame him, but it does take my opinion of him as one of the greats down a bit.
|
|
sirchuck23
Based
Bad news dawg...you don't mind if I have some of your 300 dollar a glass shit there would ya?
Posts: 2,724
Likes: 4,834
Member is Online
|
Post by sirchuck23 on Sept 16, 2020 17:11:57 GMT
No. He had a great run for much of the 90's (well, up to Nixon anyway), but has been massively inconsistent since then. Too many of his performances after that period have been lazy and uninspired from what I've seen. You can really tell when he doesn't give a shit, and that is often. But when you have 139 movies + TV shows on your ledger like Hopkins, and you have his ability, you'll throw in a few major performances along the way, just by law of averages. But Samuel L Jackson basically does the same thing, and no one is claiming he's the best actor of the last 30 years. Jackson is a great actor, as is Hopkins, but they like their lazy paycheck performances a little too much to be in that discussion. For me, he's got a similar "comfortability" factor as Morgan Freeman. Always welcome presences, but they both know they have enough built-in gravitas to get away with doing the bare minimum a lot, and then proceed to do so. I agree him and Morgan Freeman had that "Gravitas for Paycheck" vibe going on, especially when they got comfortable. For Hopkins in the 00s and half of the 10s. Hopkins looks like he's putting in the effort again the past few years, don't know if Freeman has it in him anymore or if he has the roles.
|
|
|
Post by TerryMontana on Sept 16, 2020 17:18:41 GMT
Nope. I mean, I love the guy, he's in my top-5 favorite actors of all time. But nope. I didn't realize that you liked him that much ..........who are your top 5 all time terry? Pacino, De Niro, Jack, D. Hoffman and Hopkins (not necessarily in that order, except..you know... Al). These were (some of) the biggest stars during the 90s, when I loved cinema. And it's many of their films I watched and loved as a child. (I've said in another thread that I loved Pacino watching his 90s movies, long before I even saw the Godfathers.) As I was getting older and seeing many older films, guys like Cary Grant, Jimmy Stewart and Bogie joined my "all-time favorite list". But my top-5 never changed.
|
|
|
Post by therealcomicman117 on Sept 16, 2020 17:21:09 GMT
No. He had a great run for much of the 90's (well, up to Nixon anyway), but has been massively inconsistent since then. Too many of his performances after that period have been lazy and uninspired from what I've seen. You can really tell when he doesn't give a shit, and that is often. But when you have 139 movies + TV shows on your ledger like Hopkins, and you have his ability, you'll throw in a few major performances along the way, just by law of averages. But Samuel L Jackson basically does the same thing, and no one is claiming he's the best actor of the last 30 years. Jackson is a great actor, as is Hopkins, but they like their lazy paycheck performances a little too much to be in that discussion. For me, he's got a similar "comfortability" factor as Morgan Freeman. Always welcome presences, but they both know they have enough built-in gravitas to get away with doing the bare minimum a lot, and then proceed to do so. I agree him and Morgan Freeman had that "Gravitas for Paycheck" vibe going on, especially when they got comfortable. For Hopkins in the 00s and half of the 10s. Hopkins looks like he's putting in the effort again the past few years, don't know if Freeman has it in him anymore or if he has the roles. Morgan Freeman's another good one. He also had a decade + of incredible strong performances, and nowadays it feels like he mostly rests his laurels on his voice when he does work, and otherwise he looks a bit tired when he's on screen. I do wonder if age really plays a part here. When you reach a certain point in your life as an actor, and have a bit of gravitas to your voice, it's easy to just phone in your performances. Samuel L. Jackson was in a potentially similar category for a while of just being an angry badass all the time, until Tarantino called him again, and asked to him play different characters in Django Unchained and The Hateful Eight, and he succeed wonderfully at that. It's not hard to see Freeman doing incredible work again especially if he works another great director, but most of the film projects he's picked in the past decade ( The Fallen Series, all those retiree comedies etc...), do not require much in the way of strong acting, outside of him delivering huge exposition.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Sept 16, 2020 17:30:00 GMT
I'm gonna say YES just to troll the board a little bit - and there's his brilliant 90s run. One of the things I find fascinating about him is how he has someone just like him who emerged following him - Mark Rylance ...........who to many is the best working actor today - and was thought of as that by many just for his theater work alone........and then when he won his Oscar (in his 50s) and an acclaimed TV performance (in the same year!) it became more legitimate to say that about him.......the movies caught up with the acclaim they already had.Both Hopkins and Rylance are sort of heirs to Olivier and in some ways Rylance is an heir to Hopkins too.....or could be depending how his 2020s play out.
|
|
|
Post by thomasjerome on Sept 16, 2020 17:32:14 GMT
Not a huge fan of him tbh, I don't even like what he is doing in "Magic" which is supposed to be his best early film performance or something. Sure, he had great work in "Silence", "Howards", "Remains" and "Shadowland" in early 90s. I'm even very close to giving him a win for "The Remains of the Day" but in those years, he also had "Freejack", "Desperate Hours", "Dracula" and "The Road to Wellville" (which is a horrible fuckin performance). And definitely not nom-worthy in "Nixon", "Amistad" and "Two Popes". If anything, I'd call him one of the most overrated.
|
|
sirchuck23
Based
Bad news dawg...you don't mind if I have some of your 300 dollar a glass shit there would ya?
Posts: 2,724
Likes: 4,834
Member is Online
|
Post by sirchuck23 on Sept 16, 2020 17:33:17 GMT
I agree him and Morgan Freeman had that "Gravitas for Paycheck" vibe going on, especially when they got comfortable. For Hopkins in the 00s and half of the 10s. Hopkins looks like he's putting in the effort again the past few years, don't know if Freeman has it in him anymore or if he has the roles. Morgan Freeman's another good one. He also had a decade + of incredible strong performances, and nowadays it feels like he mostly rests his laurels on his voice when he does work, and otherwise he looks a bit tired when he's on screen. I do wonder if age really plays a part here. When you reach a certain point in your life as an actor, and have a bit of gravitas to your voice, it's easy to just phone in your performances. Samuel L. Jackson was in a potentially similar category for a while of just being an angry badass all the time, until Tarantino called him again, and asked to him play different characters in Django Unchained and The Hateful Eight, and he succeed wonderfully at that. It's not hard to see Freeman doing incredible work again especially if he works another great director, but most of the film projects he's picked in the past decade ( The Fallen Series, all those retiree comedies etc...), do not require much in the way of strong acting, outside of him delivering huge exposition. Yep..the "fat cat" syndrome. You make a good point about age and looking tired on screen, De Niro and Judi Dench has that problem as well. Some actors can go good work going into their late 70s-80s like Christopher Plummer, and Anthony Hopkins now, but it makes you wonder if guys like Nicholson and Hackman had it right to ride off to the sunset after a certain time. Depends on an actors' motivation as well.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Sept 16, 2020 17:48:17 GMT
Hopkins has a bevy of terrific performances to his name, and is more than worthy of being deemed a legend. I've always thought he deserved the mantle of being Olivier's heir apparent more than Branagh (and not just because Tony knew Larry well), and it's clear that even in paycheck parts, he's almost always giving it exactly what the role requires. It doesn't always mean he's Oscar-worthy or anything, but I can only count on one hand the number of times I felt like his heart wasn't in the film and still have fingers left over. For me, if you're going to slum it, at least have fun with it, which is more than I can say for other actors who have been granted the title of "greatest actor of all time" who take roles for the money.
Does that make him the best actor of the last thirty years? No, but I think he's given several performances that I'd stack up against any of his contemporaries quite handily.
|
|
|
Post by Mattsby on Sept 16, 2020 19:42:29 GMT
I wouldn't say so..... I'd go Pacino, though there's also Denzel, Hanks, Bridges, Penn, and the whole careers of Leo, Joaquin, Fiennes, Billy Bob, Depp, PSH....... For some of those their next perfs really matter to further argue them over Hopkins who I do love, and has The Father himself, but idk..... having Lambs and Remains starts him off extremely high, but between Nixon and Two Popes is nearly 25 years and there isn't much greatness between, though I really like his perfs in The Edge and Westworld S1.
For his peers(ish), he beats Caine, and may just beat Kingsley and Oldman (Mank looms) but isn't quite flat-up to DDL yet.
|
|
|
Post by franklin on Sept 21, 2020 11:49:46 GMT
Post 1991?? Nah.
There's Washington, DiCaprio, Phoenix, Bale, Hanks, Pacino (for the latter I'd say his late career resurgence with The Irishman, Once Upon A Time In Hollywood, Hunters, and the upcoming Gucci, is more impressive than Hopkins, whom I found not awards worthy for The Two Popes).
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Sept 21, 2020 12:24:51 GMT
I don't vote in my own polls but surprised how many people are not mentioning Willem Dafoe at all - thought he was bigger on this board .......I always say you can make a strong case that Dafoe is actually the best/most gifted American film actor of the 1980s class ....not the biggest star but.....that would put him in the running here too because his best is 91 onward too.
|
|
|
Post by mhynson27 on Sept 21, 2020 13:06:00 GMT
Post 1991?? Nah. There's Washington, DiCaprio, Phoenix, Bale, Hanks, Pacino (for the latter I'd say his late career resurgence with The Irishman, Once Upon A Time In Hollywood, Hunters, and the upcoming Gucci, is more impressive than Hopkins, whom I found not awards worthy for The Two Popes). Would Hopkins winning Oscar #2 for The Father sway your opinion at all? Especially in regards to Pacino v Hopkins in this late stage of their careers?
|
|
|
Post by TerryMontana on Sept 21, 2020 13:34:26 GMT
Post 1991?? Nah. There's Washington, DiCaprio, Phoenix, Bale, Hanks, Pacino (for the latter I'd say his late career resurgence with The Irishman, Once Upon A Time In Hollywood, Hunters, and the upcoming Gucci, is more impressive than Hopkins, whom I found not awards worthy for The Two Popes). Don't be very optimistic this Gucci project will come to fruition. Esp. not with Pacino and De Niro in it.
|
|
|
Post by franklin on Sept 21, 2020 13:35:39 GMT
Post 1991?? Nah. There's Washington, DiCaprio, Phoenix, Bale, Hanks, Pacino (for the latter I'd say his late career resurgence with The Irishman, Once Upon A Time In Hollywood, Hunters, and the upcoming Gucci, is more impressive than Hopkins, whom I found not awards worthy for The Two Popes). Would Hopkins winning Oscar #2 for The Father sway your opinion at all? Especially in regards to Pacino v Hopkins in this late stage of their careers? I would say no because still Pacino after 60 did way more terrific work overall both on film and television. (Insomnia, Angels in America, The Merchant of Venice, You Don't Know Jack, Paterno, The Irishman, OUATIH, Hunters).
|
|
|
Post by franklin on Sept 21, 2020 13:36:36 GMT
Post 1991?? Nah. There's Washington, DiCaprio, Phoenix, Bale, Hanks, Pacino (for the latter I'd say his late career resurgence with The Irishman, Once Upon A Time In Hollywood, Hunters, and the upcoming Gucci, is more impressive than Hopkins, whom I found not awards worthy for The Two Popes). Don't be very optimistic this Gucci project will come to fruition. Esp. not with Pacino and De Niro in it. You know something we don't know or you are just guessing?
|
|
|
Post by TerryMontana on Sept 21, 2020 13:51:13 GMT
Don't be very optimistic this Gucci project will come to fruition. Esp. not with Pacino and De Niro in it. You know something we don't know or you are just guessing? Guessing. I don't even think it will ever get made at all tbh.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Sept 21, 2020 14:02:13 GMT
Would Hopkins winning Oscar #2 for The Father sway your opinion at all? Especially in regards to Pacino v Hopkins in this late stage of their careers? I would say no because still Pacino after 60 did way more terrific work overall both on film and television. (Insomnia, Angels in America, The Merchant of Venice, You Don't Know Jack, Paterno, The Irishman, OUATIH, Hunters).I kind of agree ...........you don't want to rate Oscars anyway - I mean they matter but not that much - and that's especially true with Pacino who basically everyone feels is under-represented anyway there. Plus in that same 91-20 era Pacino also has Scent of a Woman, Glengarry Glen Ross, Carlito's Way, Donnie Brasco, The Insider , Phil Spector, Heat too...............that's one reason he never loses in our polls because he just has so much work to contend with (and that's not even including theater (!) and he had some major theater work in this period when Hopkins stopped doing it entirely). Now having said that I would also say those 2 guys would actually be a pretty good head to head poll............they are very similar as actors in a way, they work all 3 mediums, are both very Laurence Olivier-like in some surprising ways, same eras ....... and they both represent their country and its culture almost perfectly and have played outside of ethnic background and things like that. They are actually closer for a poll than many people who we constantly compare to Pacino actually imo.....
|
|
|
Post by Pittsnogle_Goggins on Sept 21, 2020 14:20:40 GMT
You know something we don't know or you are just guessing? Guessing. I don't even think it will ever get made at all tbh. This is an odd stance to keep throwing out there.
|
|