Which actor will have the most promising career??

The most underrated actor on this board: Madman Redmayne. No one can say if he's incredible or terrible, but he never does anything less than 110%.

Dune will be probably a flop, I think Chalamet's career took off only because of hype from CMBYN.

Very early days in his career, but I was very impressed by John David Washington in Tenet. It's a film with a ridiculous script that overwhelms you with extremely aggresive sound design/track and propulsive pace, but JDW stoicly carries this stream of consciousness bullshit that Christopher Nolan typed with an earnestness and conviction that would do his father proud. He's a terrific action star and leading man. I don't think he has his dad's raw charisma, but his commitment to believability feels damned near on par with his dad. In a cast of veterans all more experienced than him, JDW held that movie together with aplomb. If  Marvel chooses to recast Chadwick Boseman as Black Panther, JDW feels like the most obvious choice.

It's probably down to recency bias, but I'll go with JDW (with reservations. All of these guys could fade).He's still growing as an actor, but considering he's had nowhere near as many films as someone like Pattinson to learn his craft on, where he is at now is incredibly impressive. He can only get better.

A lot of these guys are quite close in terms of potential. Michael B Jordan has the most charisma, but needs to start expanding his range (but he has plenty of time, and it still could be him that does the best). Daniel Kaayula probably has the most raw talent, but as mentioned, might be a lot harder to cast in conventional leading man roles like JDW or Jordan. Pattinson is very jack-of-all-trades (or accents), but he always seems like he's "acting" to me. Not fully sold on him like some are.

(I found Tenet entertaining. Visuals were on point, and it works great as an action movie. But that pretentious, silly script....ugh! It's not that deep. Episodes of Star Trek have done this stuff more intelligently with more sense)

1. Stanfield
2. Washington
3. Kaluuya

I don't have strong feelings about the rest, I have seen nothing incredible or revelatory about their work or performances.

That's because you tried to understand it. Like the trailers said, just feel it. You got to feel the muthafucka.

On a side note..I haven't watched it yet. I'll wait to VOD.


In regards to this poll, I'll go with JDW as well. He'll get better and better as an actor in films and carrying the Washington name he'll have opportunities for the foreseeable future. Could follow his dad in dipping in the action thriller genre from time-to-time as well.

I swear I heard a podcast on The Ringer and they were trying to explain the plot of this film and it made my head hurt. Don't know how many more zany ideas about time Nolan has but I bet he's going to try and explore them. He's been messing with time in a way since Memento.

Out of this group? Pattinson...........have no idea why people are voting for Washington over Pattinson (or Stanfield or Kaluuya)- is that a father son "overrated" thing........kidding (sort of )

But he's shown nothing other than he can be fine in a couple big films which is impressive but not that much....Driver I guess is considered too far ahead but is peerless here in this age range for getting big scripts and I haven't even been overly impressed by him yet ......but:

Redmayne has the same amount of Oscar nods as Driver, has a win AND has a Tony Award (I saw it, he was quite good), he's extremely likely to join the Triple Crown club and he is 2 years older than Driver too....those guys are sort of linked in this "in their 30s or younger" class......

I'm not saying you're wrong, but can we be sure MBJ is a big star right now?  I give him some credit for Creed working out, but that's established IP, as is Black Panther.  We have yet to see him succeed in something where he primarily has to sell it.  Pattinson isn't a star either in the Damon/DiCaprio/Pitt/Denzel/Hanks/etc. sense, but if we're gonna count Creed and Black Panther, we have to count Batman and even Tenet (which would have grossed at least $500 million in normal circumstances).  

Farrell is an interesting case.  I actually don't think the industry went all-in on trying to make him a big star.  His marquee early movies were actually successful (Minority Report, The Recruit, Phone Booth) and he was good in them.  After that you have The New World, which to me is one of the 10 best films ever made.  Miami Vice, which is Mann's most or second-most underrated movie (Blackhat being the other).  In Bruges, where Farrell triumphed.  Cassandra's Dream, where both he and McGregor (and Wilkinson) are excellent.  His career has a weird rep, but I'm not sure it's deserved.  He and Norton are really good in Pride and Glory.  He's very funny in Horrible Bosses.  Pattinson has had a surprising run, but comparing him to Farrell means he'll step up his game, it's not a put-down at this point.  Audiences have no issues with Farrell.  

Creed is a spin-off of an established IP, but the character of Adonis Creed is new, and it's Jordan's performance that endeared a brand new character to audiences. He has to be given the lions share of the credit for making Creed work with audiences. If his Adonis doesn't resonate with audiences, it very easily dies a death instead of becoming a new franchise that can go on indefinitely and make potentially billions. Creed doesn't even need Stallone to keep putting in appearances. Audiences have embraced Adonis so completely, and the character is so inextricably linked to Jordan, that without him, the franchise is dead or dormant. Just based on Creed alone, which Jordan could concievably make sequels to for the next 30 years, Jordan is a major star. Adonis isn't Batman or Spiderman. You can't just put another actor in the role without massive risk involved.

Yeah, Jordan still needs to prove he can get hits off his starpower elsewhere, but Creed gives him the kind of indefinite starpower leverage none of his peers have, because he is not replacable in that role/franchise. You could replace Pattinson as Batman after his film comes out, and the studio would not bat an eyelash. They would panick if Jordan said he didn't want to play Adonis anymore. By that measure, he is a far bigger star.

As for Farrell, the industry kept having him front massive budget tentpole movies that flopped. Alexander, Total Recall, Miami Vice, Dumbo etc. For me, they went all in on him, and audiences didn't reciprocate. Most of his early successes paired him with established stars ( Cruise, Pacino etc).No one is saying he isn't a very good actor, but the industry wanted him to become a superstar draw, and they just never seemed to understand why they couldn't get him over big time with audiences. He found his level as an indie guy working with the likes of Yorgos Lanthimos and Martin McDonough, where being a big draw isn't that important. Nothing wrong with having that career, but no question that the industry kept hoping he'd become a Brad Pitt/DiCaprio/Damon type of draw, and he kept getting massive opportunities and audiences kept rejecting him at that level.

I’ll just go down the list here:

Timothee Chalamet: I actually think Chalamet, despite his rabid fan-base, is actually in a somewhat precarious position here. He has proven himself an adept enough actor at the sort of roles he has played to this point (svelte, sensitive types), but most male actors have to also show they can play tough guys as well to really succeed. Dune will be a major proving ground for him, as Paul both plays to his usual sensibilities but also pushes Chalamet into uncharted territory. This will be a very physical part, and he has to be able to project the charisma and physicality the role requires by the end of it (provided, of course, Denis gets to finish his vision with the second film). Chalamet’s closest correlation, historically, is DiCaprio pre-Titanic—an actor who scored a nomination very young, but whose follow-ups haven’t quite hit the mark as expected. Will Chalamet be able to find his Scorsese, or will he find it a bit tougher to make a dent? Remains to be seen, but I do think he’s got longevity.

Robert Pattinson: I mean, I think Pattinson’s already lived up to his promise and more. He was lucky enough to make enough “fuck you” money with his early franchise work to be able to pursue a career playing oddballs and idiosyncratic types with auteurs, both rising and established. Pattinson’s certainly the most ambitious of these guys, and also seems to be the one willing to take the most risks given the roles he’s had of late. Pattinson’s closest correlation is Joaquin Phoenix—and while I think Pattinson and Adam Driver are both filling the void left by Phoenix as he ages out of it—I think Driver will be the more audience-friendly (and thus awards-friendly) whereas Pattinson will probably be seen as perennially robbed until he winds up getting his due in his mid-to-late-forties, as Joaquin did.

Lakeith Stanfield: I’m of two minds on Stanfield. I think he’s incredibly talented (probably top five of these guys if I’m ranking them), but I think his biggest hindrance is that he tends not to stand out. He’s a very giving performer, and even in parts where his character gets a lot of attention (i.e. Sorry to Bother You, his Atlanta standalone eps), he plays things so low-key you almost don’t see what he’s doing until you reflect on it. He is capable of being showy, but I don’t think he’s yet played a role to really let him go hog-wild. He’s a consummate straight man, though—I expect he’ll be seen playing against louder, showier performances that wind up getting awards attention while he consistently gets overlooked.

Daniel Kaluuya: Kaluuya is definitely maximizing his potential post-Oscar nomination, taking on hefty roles in baity projects that look good on paper. Kaluuya also has the British industry on his side; I see him being able to jump back and forth with ease if he wants, and as long as he’s able to keep cranking out Queen and Slim and Judas and the Black Messiah-esque projects, I see him enjoying a long career on both sides of the pond. As he well should.

Taron Egerton: I quite like Egerton (Eddie the Eagle is dynamite work) and he’s off to a very fine start. Funnily enough, he’s always reminded me of the early presence of his Kingsman co-star, Colin Firth, and I think there could be some Firth upside to his career. He’ll probably get his due as a veteran.

John David Washington: Still haven’t seen Tenet yet, but BlacKkKlansman and Monsters and Men were enough to sell me that he’s got the goods. It sucks that he has to constantly be compared to his old man, but that’s the downside of nepotism, especially if your dad is one of the most accomplished actors alive. Still, I think there’s definite Michael Douglas upside to John David, where I think he could break free of Denzel’s shadow if he works at it.

Michael B. Jordan: Another top-fiver in terms of pure talent. Jordan’s playing his cards exactly how a young actor of his caliber (and color, to boot) should be, considering how difficult it has been for minority actors to establish themselves as bankable leads in an industry that is only recently beginning to made headway into allowing for such things to happen. Jordan’s routinely lauded as a fine talent and even when he’s stuck in garbage (Fan4stic, he hasn’t gotten sullied by it. I think Jordan’s been on the cusp of an awards breakout for so long that he just needs that role, and I think he’s golden.

Tom Holland: Much like Chalamet, I feel like Holland’s biggest hurdle is proving he can age out of the teenage milieu and play darker, more adult parts. Actually, if you’d asked this a month ago, I would’ve still said the jury was out on whether Holland—a great child actor—could transition easily. After seeing The Devil All the Time, Holland proves that he can go there and do surprisingly well. I don’t have faith in the Uncharted project, but it’s largely because of factors outside of Holland; he’s charming and likable enough, and I think with ten years on him, he might make a fine Nathan Drake from the games. I expect Holland to have longevity, and maybe Cherry will be more of an awards breakout for him.

Paul Mescal: Haven’t yet watched Normal People yet so I can’t say, but I’ve heard nothing but good things about his work.

Yahya Abdul-Mateen II: I really like him and I think his Emmy win is really neat (even if I think he’s fifth at best out of that stellar supporting ensemble), but I think he’s still too “new” to really be able to judge where he’s gonna go from here. Depends on how he capitalizes on that momentum over the next few years.

Jeremy Pope: Haven’t watched any of his work, but a Tony win and an Emmy nod is a nice start. A triple threat at that age can’t be ignored.

Ashton Sanders: I think he’s good in what I’ve seen him in, but I think I need to see how he ages into more adult roles before I can determine more.

Lucas Hedges: Very much the sort of de facto rival to Chalamet at the moment (note: should this mean he should be Feyd-Rautha?) in terms of acclaim, constant appearances in BP nominees, and while he doesn’t elicit the same obsessive fan-base, he’s still very well-regarded. With that said, there’s something about him that just makes me feel like he’s not going to be as embraced as other actors, and I can’t quite pin it down.

Harris Dickinson: I had to look up this guy. That should say it all. I saw Trust and he was fine in it, but nothing to write home about.

Eddie Redmayne: I mean, an Oscar and a Tony under his belt already—I don’t think he really needs to be in this group. Guy’s made it, as much as I’m not a fan of him. He’ll be around a long while.

George Mackay: A stellar talent (if he’s not top five for me, he’s right under it) who carried a massive movie on the weight of his presence, and who has routinely stood out as MVPs multiple times (i.e. 11/22/63, Captain Fantastic). I think as long as he steers clear of Joe Cole in a Highlander-type situation, he should be fine and do very well.

Dean-Charles Chapman: I like the guy, and I’m really hoping he goes on to do more, but I still feel that he hasn’t yet done enough to gauge what his career path will be like.

Fair. I was more referring to the fact that he came out of the gate rather strong, and showed a lot of promise working with some high profile names, and then he had some personal problems that effected him, he can't even recall making Miami Vice because his drug / alcohol problem was THAT bad by that point for example. As a leading man he was a bit of another bland pretty boy who could be charming, but he really excels when pushed by directors to be funny and or strange, like in The Lobster or In Bruges.