The most talented actors you know

Gurubashi

Chieftain
Joined
Sep 28, 2011
Messages
49
Location
Jalan Bisma Timur Block D/10 Sunter
This is the thread where we discuss the actors we think are at the top or near the top of the current pool of thespians. My list includes:

1.Hayden Christensen. He seems especially talented pulling off the insecure, moody youth type. Also very good at using his eyes and eyebrows to convey what he's feeling. And he got chosen for the part of Anakin Skywalker.

2. Geffrey Rush. He may not look good, but this man has the acting soul if I've ever seen it in anyone. You could see his passion for and love of acting just radiate from every character he plays. Also has the type of grating but cultured voice I just love in lead actors (even though admittedly he doesn't often play leads).

3. Robert de Niro. His ability to make people empathize with his deep, introverted characters and his imposing screen presence fo such a short man is extemely mind-boggling. Also a very good team player who enhances every other actor around him.
 
1. Keanu Reeves - No man can maintain his levels of serious introspection, at least in this era of talkies.

2. Gary Busey - Insane, or insanely talented? Remember, Van Gogh cut his own ear off, Tyson bit other's ears, and Busey assaults yours.

3. Neil Patrick Harris - Do I need to explain this?
 
Geoffrey Rush and Gary Oldman is my all time favorite.

Christopher Plummer is probably the most underrated actor I think.

His portrayal of Aristotle is something I think was really cool. Wishing for a Oliver Stone "Aristotle" spin off with him playing the lead role.... yeah right.:rolleyes:

christopherplummer1.jpg.w300h225.jpg
 
I adore Marion Cotillard. Who knew that this lady:

Marion_Cotillard+June_29_2009.jpg


Could pull this off with such heart-wrenching perfection?

LaVieEnRose_468x472.jpg
 
Men: Al Pacino, Robert DeNiro, Jack Nicholson, Michael Caine, Gene Hackman, Johnny Depp

Women: Meryl Streep, Helen Mirren, Natalie Portman, Jody Foster

For purposes of comparison:
Deceased men: Buster Keaton, Lawrence Olivier, James Cagney, George C. Scott, Clark Gable, Douglas Fairbanks, Sr., Robert Mitchum, Marlon Brando, Humphrey Bogart

Deceased women: Katherine Hepburn, Mary Pickford, Myrna Loy, Ginger Rogers, Greta Garbo, Bette Davis, Barbara Stanwyck
 
^^^^ Those are all among the best.
 
Jim Carrey, Heath Ledger (for his timeless rendition of the Joker), Kevin Spacey, Leonardo DiCaprio

Jodie Foster, Zooey Deschanel, Marisa Tomei

all of them have very expressive faces, played roles and characters i really liked and have appeared in movies that have influenced my worldview to a large extent.

EDIT: I forgot to add Jack Black.
 
As for current ones, I think Michael Caine is probably the best one going, but Gary Oldman (Commissioner Gordon in the Batman films and Sirius Black, although I must admit I never noticed that) and, as already said, Geoffrey Rush (Lionel Logue in the King's Speech) are also fantastic.
 
1. Keanu Reeves - No man can maintain his levels of serious introspection, at least in this era of talkies.

2. Gary Busey - Insane, or insanely talented? Remember, Van Gogh cut his own ear off, Tyson bit other's ears, and Busey assaults yours.

3. Neil Patrick Harris - Do I need to explain this?
In the same vein, who can possibly forget John Wayne, Ronald Reagan, Arnold Schwarzenegger, and Audie Murphy.

Anybody can play themselves. Great acting means having the ability to become someone entirely different. Tom Hanks, Dustin Hoffman, Johnny Depp, Meryl Streep, Bette Davis, and Katherine Hepburn are classic examples.
 
Men: Al Pacino, Robert DeNiro, Jack Nicholson, Michael Caine, Gene Hackman, Johnny Depp

Women: Meryl Streep, Helen Mirren, Natalie Portman, Jody Foster

I can't let this thing go unnoticed. I've noticed they divide actors into men/women groups in award ceremonies like the Oscars. Why is that? Is one gender naturally better at acting or something? What's the point in separating them?
 
I can't let this thing go unnoticed. I've noticed they divide actors into men/women groups in award ceremonies like the Oscars. Why is that? Is one gender naturally better at acting or something? What's the point in separating them?

The Oscars started in a era before political correctness when we had actors and actresses. Today we just have actors. No one wants to change the Oscars because it would mean half as many nominees and half as many winners. The members of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences (the guys who hand out the Oscars) consist of both men and women; they all seem happy with the status quo.

On a different note, I think when you recognize a great actor you should do it for a body of work not just a few roles. Those roles should be challenging and they should be in films that matter. Great actors convince us that they are who they are playing. Having an expressive face is only the beginning. Who is the better actor? Jim Carrey in Ace Ventura or Al Pacino in The Godfather?
 
johnny depp transforms every role into johnny depp.
Johnny Depp has extreme range: Edward Scissorhands, Ed Wood, Donnie Brasco, Sweeny Todd, John Dillinger. None of these characters have anything in common with each other.
 
On a different note, I think when you recognize a great actor you should do it for a body of work not just a few roles. Those roles should be challenging and they should be in films that matter. Great actors convince us that they are who they are playing. Having an expressive face is only the beginning. Who is the better actor? Jim Carrey in Ace Ventura or Al Pacino in The Godfather?

i agree with this. talent in acting is best measured by looking at the performer's full repertoire. but there is one peculiar thing about movies that's not present in theater or drama and that's role replayability.

there are a number of classic movie character roles that are, by design, destined to leave an indelible mark on-screen. virtually any person, with half the acting talent to pull off the role, who somewhat does justice to the character, tasked to play any powerful and challenging role is then perceived to be the most appropriate cast for the part after the fact. nobody else, not even the most talented actor, can replay and thus appropriate the same character without people harping back to how the character was played the first time. who can imagine anyone else playing Michael Corleone other than Al Pacino? true, he did a convincing portrayal but that's mostly because of how he looked...basically his authentic Italian-American deportment played half the part for him even without Al Pacino actually uttering any lines.

my point is, comparing talent based on movie roles played is a standard that inherently is deceptively hard to apply.
 
my point is, comparing talent based on movie roles played is a standard that inherently is deceptively hard to apply.

It can and it can't be. Let's take a look at a more universal role: Hamlet. Hamlet is a role we have seen on film many, many times (50 plus) and may reasonably expect to see again. Among others, it has been played by Lawrence Olivier, Kenneth Branagh, and Mel Gibson. I think comparing acting in a role like this may give a better sense of acting talent.

Times change as well. Buster Keaton was extremely popular is his own time but he was never thought of as anything more than just a "comic." It has only been lately that his genius as an actor and a director has come to be recognized.
 
Back
Top Bottom