Movies made by Robert De Niro in the late 1970s include Godfather II, Taxi Driver, Deer Hunter, and Raging Bull. That's a pretty good stretch.
From 1982-1986, Gerard Depardieu starred in (amongst much else -- he pretty much carried the French film industry on his broad back during the 1980s), Return of Martin Guerre, Danton, and Jean de Florette.
From 2000-2005, Russell Crowe starred in Gladiator, A Beautiful Mind, Master and Commander, and Cinderella Man.
These kind of halcyon periods for leading men (when they're both at the top of their acting and their movie star games) never last terribly long. Perhaps the star gets tired, or audiences just get tired of him. By the time you get around to realizing so-and-so is the top dog, he's probably over the hill.
Anyway, that's just an intro for my new movie review in Taki's Magazine, in which I give my guess as to who is the best right now.
Posts
62 comments:
Al Pacino and Sylvester Stallone.
These kind of halcyon periods for leading men (when they're both at the top of their acting and their movie star games) never last terribly long.
It wasn't always thus.
Guys like John Wayne, Jimmy Stewart, and Cary Grant had careers which spanned decades.
I'd say that the phenomenon has more to do with the infantilization of the popular culture, which, in turn, is probably driven by the preponderance of homosexuals and pederasts in positions of power in Hollyweird and on Madison Avenue.
oh man, arnold clearly set the standard here. he set the action movie bar so high that it feels like we're in a permanent action movie recession in the post-arnold era. there was nothing like that stretch of CLASSIC action movies he put out between like 1982 and 1994.
"By the time you get around to realizing so-and-so is the top dog, he's probably over the hill."
this is a phenomenon in many fields. it's very common in music, in fact, it is usually guaranteed that a band is already in decline just 2 years after they put out their best album. their best album gets everybody's attention, puts them on peoples' radar, and people anticipate the next album. they all go out to buy the next album the week it is released, which makes it debut at number 1. then they listen to it and it turns out to not be as good.
musicians only become legends if they can deliver 2 (or more?!) major albums in a row. although i suppose in a few rare instances, the major hit albums can be spaced apart by as much as a decade, but that's totally rare and doesn't follow the natural rise/peak/decline curve of a major musician's abilities.
I'd add Tom Hanks to that list: From 1993 to '98 he made Sleepless in Seattle, Philadelphia, Forrest Gump, Apollo 13 and Saving Private Ryan.
Take a look at Sergio Leone's spaghetti Westerns from the 60's. There were any number of Italian "Mexicans" who looked even more Christlike and tough -- simultaneously, believe it or not -- than you describe Bardem as looking.
Yeah when Al Pacino, Stallone and Arnold are among our choices you can see the pathetic state of our current "culture". The stature of leading men in the past was immeasurably superior than that of today. This is a garbage culture we live now.
By the way, I just sat through the monstrosity called "No Country for Old Men". Can anyone explain the value of this turd? I wonder quite honestly if Steve and other critics have a moral blind spot when reviewing these movies.
Can anyone attempt to explain the redeeming value of that anti-human steaming pile of dung? And by the way, it is the opposite of a "guy" movie, unless you mean a certain type of guy that likes to whine about all the pain and darkness in the world he can't triumph over. Or you mean sociopathic guys.
What the hell is going on with the site design at Taki's mag? With all the shades of pink and the Sex and the City-style pink-haired cartoon mascot, I thought I had stumbled on a site aimed at teenage girls.
Derbyshire currently has an article up at Taki's called "Girly Nation." Indeed.
What about Mickey Rourke?
Billed as the new Brando after his breakthrough in the early 80s, Rourke had it all the looks, the meaty roles and a certain je ne sais qua raw edgy bad-boy sexiness, that made him the hottest property in the mid 80s.
He appeared on the cover of the oh-so-pretentious British music and fashion magazine 'The Face' umpteen times - usaully trying to impersonate Brando with a phallic cigarette in his mouth and wearing a silly beret, 40 years after Brando did the same.
Unfortunately he turned his back on Hollywood, taking his Hemingwayesque fantasies too far bt taking up professional boxing at an advanced age.Face got battered to pieces, plus some bad plastic surgery resulted in the 'Wildensteinesque' physiog. we see today, but ironically used his ruined looks to good effect in the obviously autobiographical 'The Wrestler' to effect a comeback.
I think Russell Crowe took himself out of the running by gaining so much weight. He looks like John Goodman now.
Tom Cruise?
Copied from IMDB:
2006 Mission: Impossible III
Ethan Hunt
2005 War of the Worlds
Ray Ferrier
2004 Collateral
Vincent
2003 The Last Samurai
Nathan Algren
2002 Austin Powers in Goldmember
Tom Cruise / Famous Austin ('Austinpussy")
2002 Minority Report
Chief John Anderton
2001 Vanilla Sky
David Aames
2000 Mission: Impossible II
Ethan Hunt
1999 Magnolia
Frank T.J. Mackey
1999 Eyes Wide Shut
Dr. William 'Bill' Harford
1996 Jerry Maguire
Jerry Maguire
1996 Mission: Impossible
Ethan Hunt
1994 Interview with the Vampire: The Vampire Chronicles
Lestat de Lioncourt
1993 The Firm
Mitch McDeere
1992 A Few Good Men
Lt. Daniel Kaffee
1992 Far and Away
Joseph Donnelly
1990 Days of Thunder
Cole Trickle
1989 Born on the Fourth of July
Ron Kovic
1988 Rain Man
Charlie Babbitt
1988 Cocktail
Brian Flanagan
1986 The Color of Money
Vincent Lauria
1986 Top Gun
Maverick
1985 Legend
Jack
1983 All the Right Moves
Stefen Djordjevic
1983 Risky Business
Joel Goodsen
That, folks, is a run.
If the topic concerns leading actors, one must mention Will Smith. Per Wikipedia, “[he] is the only actor in history to have eight consecutive films gross over $100 million in the domestic box office as well as being the only actor to have eight consecutive films in which he starred open at the #1 spot in the domestic box office tally.”
One can easily argue that Will Smith is the top leading man of the post-Arnold era. Take a gander at the films below, spanning from 1995 to 2008.
Bad Boys I and II
Independence Day
Men in Black I and II
Enemy of the State
Wild Wild West
Ali
I, Robot
Hitch
The Pursuit of Happyness
I Am Legend
Hancock
By the way, Smith also starred in a hit TV sitcom and has received two Oscar nominations.
Eddie Murphy in the 80s.
It certainly helps an actor chances of becoming top dog if he has a good working relationship with a talented director. DeNiro with Scorsese, Wayne with Ford and Hawks, Grant & Stewart with Hitchcock, etc.
Will Smith and Denzel Washington are the pre-eminent younger, and older leading men today and it is not even close.
That smack hurt, didn't it?
Leonardo DiCaprio is one of the greatest actors of our era. Maybe the greatest. From 2002 to 2006: Catch me if you can, Gangs of New York, the Aviator, Blood Diamond and the Departed. Doesn't get much better than that. Having Scorsese as your director clearly helps - look at de Niro, look at DiCaprio.
I can't stand the new brand of British leading man..so wan and wimpy. The original metro-sexuals!
To think we got the likes of Burton, Guinness, Finney, and yes the ghey Olivier, from that place. And Aussies like Peter Finch were good. It helped that they had big stage voices.
In the article you said:
Alejandro González Iñárritu’s follow-up to 2006’s Babel (a pretentious clunker gifted with seven Oscar nominations)
....
Thus, Babel was showered with Oscar nominations, while Biutiful barely found a distributor in this country.
Babel also had Brad Pitt and Cate Blanchette (sp?) in the lead roles playing wealthy Americans. That means that the Hollywood/Media elite had an inroad into the story. They don't like films that don't feature People Like Us. In 2005's Crash, these roles were occupied by Sandra Bullock and Brendan Frasier.
If Babel had revolved entirely around illegal immigrants, their daily travails, hopes and dreams etc, if the film had suggested that illegal immigrants have lives of their own separate from those of their benevolent Beverly Hills masters, I doubt it would have been showered with Oscars.
This has always been the way of things. Take a look at Redford and Streep's Out of Africa. The natives could barely get a word in and were pretty much set dressing.
The problem today for many actors is the movie audience--mostly teens and young adults who prefer younger actors. So, we have guys like Tom Cruise, Depp, Damon, Smith, etc who seem perpetually to be in their teens.
Also, there once used to be serious/non-serious dichotomy. When Peckinpah was offered to direct King Kong or Superman, he declined. And most serious actors would not have starred in comic book hero movies. Today, even the artsiest director will get in line to direct the next Batman movie and even top actors will wanna play IronMan, etc. I think Nicholson's role as Joker--when he was still a hot item in Hollywood(and the money he made!!)--broke the ice. It was suddenly OKAY and COOL for serious/major actors to take on silly roles that used to be reserved for lesser actors, newcomers, or the likes of Schwarzenegger. Then Beatty gave us Dick Tracy--which I liked btw for its superb art direction--, and rest is history, with Deniro doing Bullywinkle, etc.
Other than the movie, there has been a democratization in taste among actors, directors, and critics. When an art director like Chris Nolan is happy to make batman--and isn't even called a dirty sellout by critics--, it's a different ballgame.
As for Deniro, he either lost touch with Scorsese(with whom he did his best work--like Mifune and Kurosawa), got burned out from serious acting, or got addicted to fat paychecks. His last great role was what? Casino? Among his more popular movies, I only like Midnight Run.
Depardieu was big in Europe but never really in America, and worth of an actor is measured by something other than box office in France even today.
Among women, at least in art film, the energizer bunny seems to be Isabelle Huppert, for her range and commitment(though I can't say I like most of her wacky movies).
Very different types of leading men:
PSYCHO: Pacino, Dinero
KILLER HE-MAN: Arnold
VUNERABLE HE-MAN: Stallone, Crowe
EVERYMAN: Hanks
ROMANTIC: ???
Most don't have much charisma outside a well-suited role or two.
Bardem is the new Anthony Quinn.
I disagree about Babel. It's over-ambitious than pretentious but, in this age of facebook and instant cyber communications, a fitting topic. People travel more than ever and connect with people all over the world but are strangers to people around them(and unto themselves, as their identities are constantly hooked into something; the story of the deaf girl was strange for she was more isolated than others, therefore more desperate to form some/any kind of connection). The title Babel is ironic is because the world is becoming more fragmented as it becomes more united. Paradoxically, more fragmented precisely because more united. Before globalization, 'the world' for most people--especially in the Third World--was their own community. But with greater unity, people become more aware of differences(as with Muslim communities in Europe). The only thing that really pissed me off was putting those white kids out in the desert(as if to make us share the pain illegals). That was a cheapshot. But the Mexican guy was pretty shitty too. And we learn that the Mexican woman left/neglected her family in Mexico too. She's deported from the US but also comes home to her real family, something she's left behind for more money. She raises other people's kids, not her own.
Innaritu may know most about Mexico but I'll say his segment on Japan was more compelling than most movies made by Japanese. Also, there is something to be said about looking at a reality through foreign or outsider's eyes. A foreigner will miss out some of the nuances but also pick up on things locals don't see(out of over familiarity). Sofia Coppola probably saw things about Japan which Japanese do not. It's like Hindus don't smell the curry on their bodies but we do. And Jews, in their critique of whites, see things whites do not.
Innaritu is interesting for his 'beyond Mexico' perspective. He is a global cosmopolitan without a fixed perspective and tremendous empathy--however misplaced it may be. Even Amores Perros gave us a 'Mexico' that wasn't just Mexico. Mexican yuppies have more in common with American and French yuppies while the underclass has much in common with that of the poor in other thirdworld countries(or the underclass in America).
Antonioni became a worldtraveling director with Blow Up, Zabriskie Point, and Passenger, and Innarritu is following in those footsteps. An adventure of this scope is bound to have pitfalls but also its rewards. In our age of comicbook movies, I'm glad someone is tackling bigger themes. And if even another planet in AVATAR looks like the same old same old, Innarritu has taken me to places and lives on this planet that make us rethink reality and truth.
And for all his cosmopolitanism, Innarritu understands and values the family. Amores Perros ends with the former radical apologzing to his daughter for having chosen revolution over family. The Mexican woman returns home at the end of Babel, the Japanese man embraces his daughter, etc. When the concept of national or cultural family is weakening, the real family is more important than ever.
Speaking of Russell Crowe and The Return of Martin Guerre , no one seems to have noticed that they have recently remade that story once again. Richard Gere played the returning war vet who takes another man's identity in Somersby but now its been filmed yet again with a bigger budget and bigger stars.
Probably the reason no one noticed was because it was titled Robin Hood.
The whole first half of the movie is devoted to Robin (Crowe)assuming the identity of Loxley. It's all rather pointless. His ersatz nobility has very little to do with the rest of the story.
Whose name on the marque actually helps at the box office?
I used to religiously attend every John Wayne film. Other similarly sought out Robert Mitchum films.
A lot of Crowe's appeal is fading with age. In his early films like LA Confidential he moved like a cat. He still had some attractive physicality in Gladiator but for Robin Hood he had to go on a crash diet.
I actively avoid anything with Robert De Niro in it. I remember seeing The Last Tycoon and wondering how that guy ever got in to the movies. I still wonder.
The only stars who actually draw devoted fans these days are the action stars - Jackie Chan, Steven Segal, Jean Claude Van Damme, etc. It used to be that Elvis was like that - his presence in a movie guaranteed success.
In a similar vein George Clooney fans probably eagerly await his latest boring, pretentious, anti-American offering. In terms of marque power for liberals, only Michael Moore is more reliable.
The problem with stardom is acting gets in the way. Actors assume roles. Stars display themselves. John Wayne wore the same shirt in every Western he made for decades. Jimmy Stewart wore the same hat. They didn't want to be mistaken for anyone else.
Laurence Olivier on the other hand had a new nose for every new part - that's acting!
Jeff Bridges is now playing in two top box office smashes. As far as I can tell without having seen either picture, he is trying to be "The Dude" from The Big Lebowski. So I guess he's adopting the strategy of Jimmy Stewart's hat.
The best actor in films today is Brad Pitt. Period.
Albertosaurus
Guys like John Wayne, Jimmy Stewart, and Cary Grant had careers which spanned decades.
This is simply incorrect. Wayne's entire career was 40 years; Grant's was barely 30. Stewart's active phase ended in the mid 60s, so about 25 years.
Tom Cruise isn't 50, and his career is hitting 30 years; he has easily 10 more years to go. Russell Crowe's already at 18 years, and he's a relatively new star. Pacino has been acting for 40 years and going strong, ditto De Niro.
The equivalents to John Wayne--that is, actors who can open movies (or strong supporting marquis names) nearing the end of their career--have all been working for 50 years: Clint Eastwood, James Garner, Paul Newman (until he died), Donald Sutherland.
For all the complaints about actresses and age, our current actresses have far longer careers: Streep and Sigourney are at 30+ years, Julia Roberts is still opening A-list films over 20 years into her career.
Now, going back to Steve's picks--you've been seeing too many indies, pal. DeNiro wasn't even close to the top leading man in the 70s or, indeed, ever. Ditto Crowe (whose M&C was not a hit and thus the franchise ended).
70s: The 70s were an odd period, but the big names were Sean Connery, Robert Redford, Warren Beatty, Ryan O'Neal. Clint was huge in the 70s.
BIg 80s names--Arnold, as mentioned. Harrison Ford, who had a string of hits over 15 years.
90s--certainly not Russell Crowe. Tom Hanks, Cruise for much of it, Arnold again, Costner for the early era.
It depends. For popularity, films people will actually *SEE*, the main leading man is ... Nicholas Cage. Still. Yeah his movies are crap, mostly, but people will see them. Alternate: Adam Sandler in comedies only.
The Hollywood leading man is ... Jake Gyllenhall. Who will be shoved down our throats until we like him, dammit! No matter that he has the charisma of a stone.
Really funny -- one of your best reviews!
"This is simply incorrect. Wayne's entire career was 40 years; Grant's was barely 30. Stewart's active phase ended in the mid 60s, so about 25 years."
But Wayne in 1950 was not what he was in 1930. With Cruise, it's hard to tell the 2010 one from the 1990 one.
Harrison Ford actually grew in age as an actor. Same with Sean Connery.
Josh Hartnett is something special and I hope he makes more movies.
Vincent Cassel is wonderful and deserves better roles.
Jean Reno is another superb actor who should have earned more leading roles.
"Leonardo DiCaprio is one of the greatest actors of our era."
He's good and he takes chances but he's limited. A true talent is Edward Norton but he's take on so many dumb roles. Sad.
And too bad Brad Pitt decided to clone himself into another Robert Redford: a conscientious wasp. So boring.
Bardem is welcome because he's a leading man than a leading boy.
Some actors have natural presence. Bronson had it. In ONCE UPON A TIME IN THE WEST, he doesn't say much but we feel his power.
Eastwood had it too.
Dan Quayle said it best when he said "What a waste it is to lose one's mind".
Whoops, meant the comment on Dan Quayle for the discussion about the shooter.
Can anyone attempt to explain the redeeming value of that anti-human steaming pile of dung? And by the way, it is the opposite of a "guy" movie, unless you mean a certain type of guy that likes to whine about all the pain and darkness in the world he can't triumph over. Or you mean sociopathic guys.
Some of us like movies that remind us that we were a better place when you heard sir and ma'am and the border guards were beefy white guys who made damn sure you answered their questions. Because when all that starts to go and when it's all just about money, then we are defenseless against the monsters we unleash.
Why don't you watch Lethal Weapon 3? Your heart will swell with pride and machismo as Mel Gibson and Danny Glover protect the city of Los Angeles from all those awful Afrikaaner drug dealers.
A special case, but Daniel Radcliffe's had a good run.
Mitch: This is simply incorrect... The equivalents to John Wayne--that is, actors who can open movies (or strong supporting marquis names) nearing the end of their career--have all been working for 50 years: Clint Eastwood, James Garner, Paul Newman (until he died), Donald Sutherland.
Whew - if you're gonna compare Garner, Newman, and Sutherland [favorably] with Wayne, Stewart, and Grant, then the gulf between us is so wide that we're just gonna hafta agree to disagree.
Mitch: Tom Cruise
As I indicated above, if you want to understand the secret of Tom Cruise's success in Hollyweird, then you need to see Episode 9 of Season 12 of Southpark.
1. Great acting/charisma isn't the only consideration. It's also a matter of picking good scripts and directors. That seems like it would be easy, but I assume it's really hard to see, in advance, what scripts will produce great movies. Otherwise, there wouldn't be so many bad films.
2. You should put Crowe's streak back to 1999 to include The Insider, a movie that managed to be fascinating when the message was that cigarettes are unhealthy and suspenseful when you knew the message would get out.
3. Even with careers that run forever, most of the best work tends to come in short bursts.
Denzel can't act and Will Smith doesn't have the sex appeal or charisma of a true leading man. I would say Dicaprio, who has done a string of great films and unlike Smith and Washington can actually hold his own opposite real actors without getting blown off the screen (Denzel has to resort to co-stars like Captain Kirk, Jr).
Hanks still has some life in him but clearly has lost interest in maintaining leading man cred. Edward Norton showed early promise but never followed through. Harrison Ford, who has always had classic Hollywood appeal, nearly woke up during Morning Glory, but alas false alarm.
I guess when you get enough liberals and gays producing the material, you stop getting plausible leading men and start getting male models like the lead in Tron 2 or God help us manboys like Shia LaBoeuf.
I would rather watch Mickey Rourke than any of the above, all else being equal.
"Denzel can't act and Will Smith doesn't have the sex appeal or charisma of a true leading man."
You're probably right, but then John Wayne couldn't act, and Jimmy Stewart didn't have sex appeal or charisma either.
Leo DiCaprio
Leo DiCaprio
Whew - if you're gonna compare Garner, Newman, and Sutherland [favorably] with Wayne, Stewart, and Grant, then the gulf between us is so wide that we're just gonna hafta agree to disagree.
You left Eastwood off the list. Eastwood was the #1 box office star of the 70s, which without question puts him in Wayne's league. Newman was in the top ten in both the 60s and 70s.
By any objective measure, Wayne is in a class by himself. Eastwood is probably close. Newman ranks well. Grant and Stewart are iconic and did respectable box office, but any like to like comparison leaves them well in the dust. Hanks and Cruise look at them in their rear view mirror. So don't delude yourself.
James Garner isn't in the top ranks, but he's been an a-list star and an opener for fifty years. His lifetime box office is almost certainly very high, and that's not even counting his phenomenal TV career. He's not as iconic, but he's certainly in the top ranks when looking at the nexus of popularity, longevity, time as an opener, and box office.
This isn't about agreement or disagreement, either.
As for Cruise, he's probably in the top 5 in box office, and if you want to drop hints about his secret influence, go find some grandma to teach Eggsucking 101. Someone who actually knew what they were talking about would know both the rumors and the reality. You appear sadly lacking in the latter and probably did, in fact, gain your knowledge from the Simpsons.
As for other comments: Will Smith did have an excellent run in the 90s. In 2000 alone, Mel Gibson had three huge moneymakers (over $100 mill): WWW, Chicken Run, and The Patriot. DiCaprio is, with the exception of Titanic, more like Crowe and DeNiro than the moneymakers.
Someone I left off the 70s--Burt Reynolds. Spun out faster than anyone but O'Neal, though.
In generl, I'm surprised at how many people are talking about their own personal preferences, iconic stature, or anything else. Steve said "leading man". By his own metrics (top of the movie star game) his examples were, in my opinion, weak. There are much better examples of actors who were and are well-regarded as actors and had the box office of actual movie stars.
By any objective measure, Wayne is in a class by himself. Eastwood is probably close. Newman ranks well. Grant and Stewart are iconic and did respectable box office, but any like to like comparison leaves them well in the dust.
Certifiably "Epic" Movies
John Wayne: Stagecoach [1939], Fort Apache, Red River, She Wore a Yellow Ribbon, Sands of Iwo Jima, Rio Grande, The Quiet Man, Rio Bravo, The Alamo, Liberty Valance, The Longest Day, How the West Was Won, True Grit, Rooster Cogburn, The Shootist [1976]
Jimmy Stewart: Mr. Smith Goes to Washington [1939], The Philadelphia Story, It's a Wonderful Life, Rear Window, The Spirit of St. Louis, Vertigo, Liberty Valance, How the West Was Won, The Shootist [1976]
Cary Grant: Gunga Din [1939], His Girl Friday, The Philadelphia Story, Suspicion, Arsenic and Old Lace, To Catch a Thief, An Affair to Remember, North by Northwest, Charade [1963]
Clint Eastwood: Josey Wales
Paul Newman: None [closest would probably be "Cat on a Hot Tin Roof"]
Donald Sutherland: Animal House [in a brief guest-starring appearance]
James Garner: None
Your group has got one starring role in a truly epic movie [Josey Wales], whereas my group has more epic movies than I can count [more, frankly, than I have even watched from beginning to end].
John Wayne couldn't act (when he tried it was often funny) but he had charisma to burn...I think the secret to Stewart's success is that Hitchcock liked him. Watch him in The Philadelpha Story, where his candle is nearly extinguished every time Katherine Hepburn breathes in his direction. He looks like an extra.
A good actor can handle a reasonable range. Will Smith as a government scientist is about as believable as Chuck Heston from the original. I guess they stayed true to the original through bad casting. At least Heston looked like a grown-up, Will still exudes his Fresh Prince aura.
if mel gibson was not crazy in real life, this topic would probably be about him. he was way out in front of tom cruise or russel crowe or tom hanks for a long time, always showing up as the hero in all these really good movies.
it's stupid to downplay will smith as an entertainer. no, he can't act, and that's fine. there's plenty of actors who just play themselves in every movie. that's what arnold did and that's what will smith does and it works for them. they aren't character actors. will smith is overrated as a movie entertainer but he's clearly good and reliable. producers know they'll get "the full will smith experience" when they cast him. that's why all those big budget, big production value action science fiction movies are set up for him. they pass the script to him first.
denzel washington is the better actor by a good amount, although he usually just plays himself in every movie too. he's got a relationship with tony scott, a decent director, which is always good for an actor's career. plenty of actors have been helped or even had their careers made for them by establishing a long term relationship with a good director who looks to cast them in big projects. james cameron has a crew, christopher nolan has a crew.
personally i have been wondering what happened to the black action star. i really liked some of those guys. it pisses me off that wesley snipes won't be beating the crap out of anybody on film anytime soon because he's a retard in real life. and i had been wondering where the heck carl weathers was until he showed up in those bud light commercials. i won't settle for mixed race guys like the rock, or even worse, vin diesel. i mean they're ok, the rock is the much better actor, he's actually a decent actor. but i don't see very mixed race guys as "black", heck, vin diesel is barely even african at all. he's not black. i seriously wish danny glover would go away now though, he's definitely "too old for this shit".
also, would somebody please stop sam worthington from being cast in any more of these major movies. this guy can barely act. in every movie he's really in danger of veering into "this guy can't act" territory. he never quite gets there but, yikes. hate that he's the lead in the avatar world.
best character actor is gary oldman, by the way. his range is huge and he's totally convincing.
Yes, Gary Oldman as Lee Harvey Oswald, Sid Vicious, Police Commissioner Gordon in Batman Begins, he just disappears into roles.
Yes, Gary Oldman as Lee Harvey Oswald, Sid Vicious, Police Commissioner Gordon in Batman Begins, he just disappears into roles.
Beethoven.
Clint Eastwood: Josey Wales
I probably should have included TGTB&TU here, even though it isn't an American movie.
But, just off the top of my head, Josey Wales is the only truly epic [American] movie, involving an original story [not a remake, not a biopic, not an historical] which was made in the period 1975-2010.
"best character actor is gary oldman"
Maybe but he was awful as Beethoven and Dracula.
"Gary Oldman as Lee Harvey Oswald, Sid Vicious, Police Commissioner Gordon in Batman Begins, he just disappears into roles."
He was wrong for Lee. Lee was one of those pscyhos who looked harmless and so ordinary in real life, the sort of man you'd never think would change the course of history, which is why what he did was so shocking. But Oldman, with that deranged look, seems very much the type who would kill the president... but then strangely enough, the point of the movie is to say he was just a patsy and didn't kill the president. It's a double contradiction.
I am partial to Alain Delon. He wasn't as macho or as manly as American action stars, all he did - really, it's nothing - was be a paratrooper in the French Indochina War during the 1950's.
Apologies: Delon was a Fusilier Marin, a marine in Indochina.
And to make a comparison with the Americans in the 1960's and 1970's, the French had very few planes and were fighting not just in Vietnam but in Cambodia and Laos also...
I don't know if acting talent is superfluous for movie stars (probably not), but it doesn't seem quite necessary, either. Look at Eastwood; not a lot of range, but an excellent movie star. An actor with range might've strayed too far and often from laconic icon mode.
if mel gibson was not crazy in real life, this topic would probably be about him.
I agree. In terms of charisma and masculinity he blows most of those mentioned here out of the water. And the man can act, even if he is a ham. And he can handle comedy too.
also, would somebody please stop sam worthington from being cast in any more of these major movies.
I call him "Mr. Scream."
I used to be a huge Oldman fan, owing to his "cop" in The Professional. "EEEVRRRYYYYOOONNNE!" I was sold.
But for current leading men, isn't Christian Bale the guy? I'm not partial to him myself - that lispy lip of his always distracts me. It was particularly noticeable in the Bat-suit so I had to work to get past it and enjoy the great new Bat-flicks.
OT, but I'm really enjoying Human Target. Best action TV since the first season of 24. The humor of the two sidekicks is really fun. Guerrero is my favorite character on TV right now, and practically overnight Chi McBride has become my favorite black actor of all time; the man's a master of snark, and his derisive/sarcastic/sneering facial expressions are simply masterful.
I remember when the ads first came out for this show before the first season. I took one look at them, and the title, and thought "I give it one season, tops." I was wrong, it's a very fun show. The false notes are actually surprisingly frequent (many of them coming from the new billionairess character, who is neutral/negative for me so far), but not enough to detract from what's become my favorite current TV show, by far.
The Hollywood leading man is ... Jake Gyllenhall. Who will be shoved down our throats until we like him, dammit! No matter that he has the charisma of a stone.
I know I watch too much TV and everything, but I don't even know who Jake Gyllenhall is. Couldn't pick him out of a lineup if I tried. I only know his name because I was bitching about Katie Holmes' replacement in The Dark Knight. I was bitching to a friend about how homely she is, who is this broad and why do people in the movie keep referring to her as attractive, what where they thinking, etc. A friend says, "she's Jake Gyllenhall's sister."
Who?
That's why I didn't participate in the best movies of the year thread. I haven't watched any of them. :)
Does anyone know a site that lists actors like this but adjusted for inflation?
What about Clive Owen? He was good alongside Michael Caine in "Children of Men." BTW, Michael Caine is my all time favorite Hollywood actor, though many of his best roles were as a supporting actor.
BTW, Michael Caine is my all time favorite Hollywood actor, though many of his best roles were as a supporting actor.
I put Michael Caine into that special category of great actors who can do practically anything (except be genuine movie stars). John Lithgow is another. They can plausibly be the gentle butler or the make-your-blood-run-cold psychopath.
Still kinda surprised Bruce Willis' name hasn't been mentioned. He's one of those rare actors who can be a genuine movie star, and act really well, and do comedy.
Alan Rickman = hot. Is he a has-been now? Am I showing my age?
I guess he was never actually a leading man, either. But whattavillain!
I indulged with much wheezing and sighing the Harry Potter films for my kids' sake -- or so I told them. Never will they know I was secretly lusting after Snape.
So we've got no inflation-adjusted source. So how do we know Washington & Smith are the top dogs, again? Crystal ball?
If I was T I'd be more interested in pointing out that Washington, Smith, and Jackson are the only black game in town. Which is odd, if Washington & Smith are really as dominant as T suggests. The two are probably related, of course. When you want a white leading man, you have choices. When you want a black leading man, you don't.
Post a Comment