Great Acting

[superdog]

Interested to hear opinions.

I was recently watching the Penguin and thinking what an incredible actor Colin Farrel is. Dude can play a wide range of roles.

Then I think of someone like Jeff Bridges, who is similarly talented. Tom Hanks, Denzel Washington, Joaquin Phoenix, Morgan Freeman, Leonardo DiCaprio etc…all awesome. A lot more. Heath Ledger, Russel Crowe even.

Then I think of Ryan Reynolds, Tom Cruise, Dwayne Johnson, Johnny Depp, Liam Neeson, Robert De Niro, Brad Pitt, and George Clooney. All very good. All talented. But appear to mostly have one speed. I very much enjoy most movies with these guys. I just know exactly what I’m getting.

Watching Colin Farrel, I’m simply amazed at his acting ability. I didn’t much like Banshees of Inisherin. It’s just not my style. But damn, Colin and Brendan Gleeson were amazing in it.

Curious, what TRF says. Who do you think is a great actor. And who do you think is just one speed. Good or not.

[MrGoat]

I think Keanu could branch out and do well in other genres. He is definitely typecast in the John Wick style though.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[brandrea]

Great thread

I was always a fan of Kevin Spacey’s acting. Thought he covered a good number of eclectic roles. I particularly liked The Usual Suspects.

Many of the actors you mentioned are great. Not a fan of some of them (strictly speaking of acting and not what goes on outside of acting).


Eastwood might be my favorite … you definitely know what you’re getting with him

[edyu]

Originally Posted by brandrea

Great thread

I was always a fan of Kevin Spacey’s acting. Thought he covered a good number of eclectic roles. I particularly liked The Usual Suspects.

Many of the actors you mentioned are great. Not a fan of some of them (strictly speaking of acting and not what goes on outside of acting).


Eastwood might be my favorite … you definitely know what you’re getting with him

I enjoyed American Beauty. Was bummed that the character died.

[brandrea]

Originally Posted by edyu

I enjoyed American Beauty. Was bummed that the character died.

Another great film


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[travisb]

I just saw that Denzel Washington will star in the sequel to Gladiator. Can't wait to see that!

[MrGoat]

I think Kevin Costner has a pretty wide range too.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[edyu]

Originally Posted by MrGoat

I think Kevin Costner has a pretty wide range too.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Love Yellowstone.

[Maleg]

I agree with your observations. I love the movies De Niro is in, but he always plays the same type of character. He conveys those characters very well, but I wouldn't put him in the same masterclass as an actor who can play a broad range of characters.

I compare Humphrey Bogart to Lawrence Olivier. Both excellent actors that portray characters very well. But Bogey usually played the same character, whereas Olivier could portray anything with equal skill.

[Krash]

There is typecasting, but some of these actors seem to play the same guy in every movie regardless of genre, plot, or setting. I hate to pick on George Clooney, but I’ll use him as an example. It doesn’t matter if he’s an astronaut, a soldier, or a leader of a crime ring. He’s the same exact guy. They just plug him into different movies. But to be fair, why would he want to do things any different than that? It works for him.

I think Tom Hanks sticks out as someone who has played an extremely broad range of roles.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[brandrea]

Originally Posted by Krash

There is typecasting, but some of these actors seem to play the same guy in every movie regardless of genre, plot, or setting. I hate to pick on George Clooney, but I’ll use him as an example. It doesn’t matter if he’s an astronaut, a soldier, or a leader of a crime ring. He’s the same exact guy. They just plug him into different movies. But to be fair, why would he want to do things any different than that? It works for him.

I think Tom Hanks sticks out as someone who has played an extremely broad range of roles.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Agreed, Tom Hanks has done it all

[JasoninDenver]

Originally Posted by brandrea

Agreed, Tom Hanks has done it

X2..

From Bosom Buddies to Philadelphia. What a range.

[brandrea]

Originally Posted by JasoninDenver

X2..

From Bosom Buddies to Philadelphia. What a range.

Right? Throw in Forest Gump and Saving Private Ryan …

[Krash]

Originally Posted by brandrea

Right? Throw in Forest Gump and Saving Private Ryan …

And Apollo 13, one of my favorite movies.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[MrGoat]

Originally Posted by brandrea

Right? Throw in Forest Gump and Saving Private Ryan …

Don’t forget Road to Perdition.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Blansky]

As I mentioned in another thread, that there is the concept of a "movie star" and the concept of an "actor". And even if a movie star is a decent enough actor they can and usually will get typecast by the studios in the studio system of the past, and the producers of today. So they often will just take the money and be a movie star and soon become a caricature of themselves.

Movies cost a fortune to make, and no producer want to gamble on the talent, so very often they'll make the safe choice with often a typecast actor to sell the movie, and the lesser pretty (male and female) ones will be cast as the support or heavy. Where often the heavy is the greater acting role and more interesting.

The movie 'THE PLAYER" is a great look at the system. The writer breathlessly talk about how he's using unknown actors, a dark ending and it will be a revelation. When the movie comes out it got Bruce Willis and Julie Roberts in it with a happy ending.

I agree with a lot of the OPs list and great actors are fun to watch as they shape shift in every movie.

Movie stars can also be fun for rather mindless stuff but still fun to go see. Generally these are the action stars, but action movies can make a ton of money and are easier for Hollywood to churn out because they sell easier to an international audience than a character driven acting tour de force.

If you look at the OPs first choice actors and second choice actors in a lot of cases the second choice ones are making movies that gross more money, possibly with the exception of Tom Hanks.

Another interesting thing about actors is a LOT of them came from acting on stage first. They can handle themselves, deliver the lines etc. Movie stars often were chosen because they are pretty to look at. Watching the Academy Awards shows its fun to watch an actor doing the presenting rather than a movie star because usually only the actor can walk and chew gum at the same time.

[Maleg]

Originally Posted by Blansky

As I mentioned in another thread, that there is the concept of a "movie star" and the concept of an "actor". And even if a movie star is a decent enough actor they can and usually will get typecast by the studios in the studio system of the past, and the producers of today. So they often will just take the money and be a movie star and soon become a caricature of themselves.

Movies cost a fortune to make, and no producer want to gamble on the talent, so very often they'll make the safe choice with often a typecast actor to sell the movie, and the lesser pretty (male and female) ones will be cast as the support or heavy. Where often the heavy is the greater acting role and more interesting.

The movie 'THE PLAYER" is a great look at the system. The writer breathlessly talk about how he's using unknown actors, a dark ending and it will be a revelation. When the movie comes out it got Bruce Willis and Julie Roberts in it with a happy ending.

I agree with a lot of the OPs list and great actors are fun to watch as they shape shift in every movie.

Movie stars can also be fun for rather mindless stuff but still fun to go see. Generally these are the action stars, but action movies can make a ton of money and are easier for Hollywood to churn out because they sell easier to an international audience than a character driven acting tour de force.

If you look at the OPs first choice actors and second choice actors in a lot of cases the second choice ones are making movies that gross more money, possibly with the exception of Tom Hanks.

Another interesting thing about actors is a LOT of them came from acting on stage first. They can handle themselves, deliver the lines etc. Movie stars often were chosen because they are pretty to look at. Watching the Academy Awards shows its fun to watch an actor doing the presenting rather than a movie star because only the actor can walk and chew gum at the same time.

You remind me of the movie star Will Smith, cast to play James West in the Wild, Wild West as the proverbial revenue draw. He seemed to be playing himself in that movie and the box office results were predictable (though not as bad as After Earth).

[Dan Pierce]

Originally Posted by Blansky

As I mentioned in another thread, that there is the concept of a "movie star" and the concept of an "actor". And even if a movie star is a decent enough actor they can and usually will get typecast by the studios in the studio system of the past, and the producers of today. So they often will just take the money and be a movie star and soon become a caricature of themselves.

Movies cost a fortune to make, and no producer want to gamble on the talent, so very often they'll make the safe choice with often a typecast actor to sell the movie, and the lesser pretty (male and female) ones will be cast as the support or heavy. Where often the heavy is the greater acting role and more interesting.

The movie 'THE PLAYER" is a great look at the system. The writer breathlessly talk about how he's using unknown actors, a dark ending and it will be a revelation. When the movie comes out it got Bruce Willis and Julie Roberts in it with a happy ending.

I agree with a lot of the OPs list and great actors are fun to watch as they shape shift in every movie.

Movie stars can also be fun for rather mindless stuff but still fun to go see. Generally these are the action stars, but action movies can make a ton of money and are easier for Hollywood to churn out because they sell easier to an international audience than a character driven acting tour de force.

If you look at the OPs first choice actors and second choice actors in a lot of cases the second choice ones are making movies that gross more money, possibly with the exception of Tom Hanks.

Another interesting thing about actors is a LOT of them came from acting on stage first. They can handle themselves, deliver the lines etc. Movie stars often were chosen because they are pretty to look at. Watching the Academy Awards shows its fun to watch an actor doing the presenting rather than a movie star because usually only the actor can walk and chew gum at the same time.

Back in the 1950's George Peppard & George Hamilton were standing out front of a movie studio when a tour group approached. A little boy went up to George Peppard and asked, "excuse me sir, are you a movie star?" Peppard replied, "no son, I'm an actor." The little boy turned to George Hamilton and asked, "are you an actor?" Hamilton replied, "no son, I'm a movie star."
dP

[Blansky]

Originally Posted by Dan Pierce

Back in the 1950's George Peppard & George Hamilton were standing out front of a movie studio when a tour group approached. A little boy went up to George Peppard and asked, "excuse me sir, are you a movie star?" Peppard replied, "no son, I'm an actor." The little boy turned to George Hamilton and asked, "are you an actor?" Hamilton replied, "no son, I'm a movie star."
dP

Exactly right. LOL

[BraveBold]

Christian Bale and Ed Norton are both outstanding.

[AzPaul]

This sums it up pretty well.

https://youtu.be/eTbLkYmWZJo

[huncho]

Originally Posted by BraveBold

Christian Bale and Ed Norton are both outstanding.

yeah Bale is the epitome of range. amazing actor

[brandrea]

Originally Posted by BraveBold

Christian Bale and Ed Norton are both outstanding.

Two great ones there

[albertf]

Bryan Cranston comes to mind.

He transitioned from goofy father in Malcolm in the Middle to the Heisenberg in Breaking Bad. Even in Breaking Bad, there was alot of character transformation across all the seasons.

[huncho]

i'm a huge fan of Leo and Denzel. Leo's performance in The Departed was absolutely insane

huge fan of De Niro too and i think most people just think of Goodfellas, Bronx tale, Casino (some of my favorite movies), etc when they think of him and kinda typecast him there but his earlier run was insane. Taxi Driver, Raging Bull, Godfather 2, Mean Streets...he broke out through a pretty wide range but obviously he's a Scorcese guy so the movies all have similar styles

[Blansky]

Don't forget about Jack Nicholson.

I have a picture of him somewhere in my files where he was an up and comer and was acting in a Catholic morality short for Franciscan Communications before he got his big break which was probably Easy Rider. 1969.

Ok here's one of them 1962, The Hour of St. Francis.

[Blansky]

Being an actor is probably one of the biggest crapshoots of a career a person can attempt.

Only 5% of actors in the Screen Actors Guild make a living at it. It can take years to get a break, if you get one at all. Even for established actors, you spend the majority of your life sitting at home waiting for the phone to ring, if it rings at all. Just when you are starting to get the hang of it, your age will dictate what work you can get. And for women it's even worse.

You are also up against perception. You do screen tests, to see if the camera likes you, which is a real thing. Some people just blossom in the camera while others do not.

There is a huge 'it's who you know" element to it or who you're related to. Nepotism runs rampant. As Fran Lebowitz said, "the hardest part of being an actor is getting in the door, and the ones that get in are usually someone with a leg up, because acting isn't all that difficult."

Next you have to please the public. Will they pay money to see you. Lots of great actors don't register with the public and lots of terrible actors do.

It's also a tight community and you can get blackballed if you screw up. And you can go a long way if you're great to work with. In fact as the news has shown, you can get black balled if you don't sleep with the right people on demand as well.

On top of that there are a huge number of slimeballs in all levels of the ranks of agents, producers, casting agents, publicity agents...etc etc.

You probably can't find one actor or movie star that hasn't experienced the slimeball element of the business.

If you do make it you have the paparazzi element stalking you and your family, and you have to do press junkets all over the world and answer the same stupid insipid questions for weeks.

And yet they line up just to taste the supposed glamor of it all.

[cdmorenot]

Love Christina Bale...

As of recent, I could not stand Adam Sandler. I thought he only had one speed... and I hated that speed. That is until Uncut Gems ... Holy Crap, what an actor and then there was Hustle...

New appreciation for Sandler.

[Speedbird-1]

Sir Alec Guinness.
Sir John Mills.

[White Collar Boy]

Originally Posted by cdmorenot

Love Christina Bale...

As of recent, I could not stand Adam Sandler. I thought he only had one speed... and I hated that speed. That is until Uncut Gems ... Holy Crap, what an actor and then there was Hustle...

New appreciation for Sandler.

Yes, he’s FANTASTIC in Uncut Gems. He’s also incredible in Punch Drunk Love.