Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Most overrated actor or actress

bullshit. Tom Cruise, the actor, is highly under-rated. Of course, Tom Cruise the Film Star (aka the ego, the scientologist, the freak) is highly over-rated. But people who deny his skills as a performer are pandering to a populist agenda not dissimilar to the one which would proclaim him a "star". Rain Man, anyone? Collateral? Magnolia? Tropic Thunder? Mission Impossible 1 & 3? The Last Samurai? Only a fool would question the quality in any of them...

I like a lot of these films, and would add Minority Report to that list, but was Tom Cruise at all memorable in any of them? I don't think so.

I think Di Caprio is a much better example of an actor who people assume is shit cos he's popular. I think he's a fucking good actor, whereas I honestly don't think Cruise is, much as I dig Collateral, Rain Man and Minority report.
 
I like a lot of these films, and would add Minority Report to that list, but was Tom Cruise at all memorable in any of them? I don't think so.

I think Di Caprio is a much better example of an actor who people assume is shit cos he's popular. I think he's a fucking good actor, whereas I honestly don't think Cruise is, much as I dig Collateral, Rain Man and Minority report.

Tom Cruise made rain man (excellent, understated and competing with DHs showey performance) and collateral (who knew he could be such a convincing bad guy?) for me. Minority Report would have been good with whoever (will smith, matt damon, christian bale, maybe even nick cage....) but that is the nature of the Summer Blockbuster - find an indentikit "star" and surround them with special effects, then pray that the script, supporting cast, directing and marketing are better than last and next weeks release...
 
Tom Cruise made rain man (excellent, understated and competing with DHs showey performance) and collateral (who knew he could be such a convincing bad guy?) for me. Minority Report would have been good with whoever (will smith, matt damon, christian bale, maybe even nick cage....) but that is the nature of the Summer Blockbuster - find an indentikit "star" and surround them with special effects, then pray that the script, supporting cast, directing and marketing are better than last and next weeks release...

I agree, Damon is pretty anonymous but Bale would have been wicked in Cruise's role in Collateral.

smith is a much better actor than Cruise IMO
 
Tom Hanks (apart from Philadelphia)

Nobody rates Tom Hanks as an actor surely? Apart from people who don't know what actors are.

He wasn't good in Philadelphia at all if you ask me, but he was, I have to say, effective in The Road To Perdition, because the character he plays is completely flat and barely a real person, and an actual actor might have accidentally emoted something convincing.
 
As fridgey says though, the whole point about Hanks is that he's a Safe Bet actor, whose success has rested entirely on his films being good First Date films. You can rely on them being wholly inoffensive and unobjectionable...
 
Clive Owen always comes across like an American pretending to be British. Which is, as everyone knows, the most annoying thing in the entire universe.

Also, Clint Eastwood. What is the fucking point of Clint Eastwood? You could just have a carboard cutout of him instead, it would be just as good at acting as the real thing and it would have the considerable advantage of not directing anything.
 
Big is good, mind you :)

Well, I don't think Big is good, but his presence doesn't generally ruin a film, it's just not going to make it good by the quality of his acting. As you say he's a safe bet; he's not bad enough to ruin a film that doesn't need good actors anyway, and he's a Name. It's not like he's Steve Gutenberg or something.
 
I'm surprised that no one has mentioned:

Keanu Reeves

is he hugely rated? he's been in some big films but i don't think most people rate him hugely as an actor

one i'd add would be hugh grant. every sodding film it's the same crappy middle-upper class twit character. and four weddings was a pile of unfunny brit luvvy toss as well
 
is he hugely rated? he's been in some big films but i don't think most people rate him hugely as an actor

one i'd add would be hugh grant. every sodding film it's the same crappy middle-upper class twit character. and four weddings was a pile of unfunny brit luvvy toss as well

Yeah Keanu reeves is awful.

Ford on the other hand is good at what he does - Han Solo, Indiana Jones for instance - but is mostly pretty shit.
 
Well, I don't think Big is good, but his presence doesn't generally ruin a film, it's just not going to make it good by the quality of his acting. As you say he's a safe bet; he's not bad enough to ruin a film that doesn't need good actors anyway, and he's a Name. It's not like he's Steve Gutenberg or something.

:D I'd forgotten Gutenberg existed until this post.
 
Hanks ranks pretty high in the over-rated catergory.

He wins oscars for playing bland characters in bland films, he's whole being is geared towards being 'liked' and his only acting ability is doing a dopey dog look and a sincere everyman face. Ok, he clearly has one more expression than Keanu Reeves, but who rates Keanu anyway. Tom hanks is the Paul McCartney of the film world, with the only difference being that he was never in anything good to start with.

As for female actors, Rachel Weisz is bloody awful, she looks so uncomfortably in front of the camera I feel embarrased when I watch her.

On the whole, most of the big stars get by without having to 'act', they just repeat versions of a role they've always played. Cage, Cruise, Pitt, Aniston, Hanks, Reeves...anyone big are just faces to plaster on posters, no one expect the to act do they?
 
Also, Clint Eastwood. What is the fucking point of Clint Eastwood? You could just have a carboard cutout of him instead, it would be just as good at acting as the real thing and it would have the considerable advantage of not directing anything.

:hmm:

Eastwood is consistently the most succesful actor and director of all time, and quite possibly one of the most underated stars in cinema history. He never wins prizes for his acting (for specific roles), but he has remained present and prominent in film for 5 decades.

It would be hard to over-rate that!
 
Clive Owen always comes across like an American pretending to be British. Which is, as everyone knows, the most annoying thing in the entire universe.

Also, Clint Eastwood. What is the fucking point of Clint Eastwood? You could just have a carboard cutout of him instead, it would be just as good at acting as the real thing and it would have the considerable advantage of not directing anything.

he's great at racist growling, shooting and looking grizzled
 
Hanks ranks pretty high in the over-rated catergory.

He wins oscars for playing bland characters in bland films, he's whole being is geared towards being 'liked' and his only acting ability is doing a dopey dog look and a sincere everyman face. Ok, he clearly has one more expression than Keanu Reeves, but who rates Keanu anyway. Tom hanks is the Paul McCartney of the film world, with the only difference being that he was never in anything good to start with.

The Oscars don't mean shit though. Hanks has never been in anything where he's Tried To be Good. He knows he's bland and plays bland. He does it well, for what it's worth.

As for female actors, Rachel Weisz is bloody awful, she looks so uncomfortably in front of the camera I feel embarrased when I watch her.
Would like her to be Catwoman though if Nolan chooses the character for the third film in his Batrilogy

]On the whole, most of the big stars get by without having to 'act', they just repeat versions of a role they've always played. Cage, Cruise, Pitt, Aniston, Hanks, Reeves...anyone big are just faces to plaster on posters, no one expect the to act do they?

Fight Club? You can't compare Pitt with Hanks. Hanks has never done anything as remotely as edgy as Fight Club or Twelve Monkeys.
 
The Oscars don't mean shit though. Hanks has never been in anything where he's Tried To be Good. He knows he's bland and plays bland. He does it well, for what it's worth.

Yes, he's very good at being bland, and that's fine, but the fact that he gets oscars ticks the over-rated box - amongst his peers he was voted the best out of the follwing lists...

1993 Tom Hanks - Philadelphia as Andrew Beckett
Laurence Fishburne - What's Love Got to Do with It as Ike Turner
Anthony Hopkins - The Remains of the Day as James Stevens
Daniel Day-Lewis - In the Name of the Father as Gerry Conlon
Liam Neeson - Schindler's List as Oskar Schindler

1994 Tom Hanks - Forrest Gump as Forrest Gump
Morgan Freeman - The Shawshank Redemption as Ellis Boyd 'Red' Redding
Nigel Hawthorne - The Madness of King George as George III
Paul Newman - Nobody's Fool as Sully Sullivan
John Travolta - Pulp Fiction as Vincent Vega

Not great lists by a long shot...but he was hardly the best.
 
Well Freeman in Shawshank is one of my favourite performances ever.

But generally I think people overrate the importance of the Oscars. I don't think they're taken all that seriously by most people.

I agree Hanks is a pretty poor actor, but he's also a safe bet and not as bad as say Keanu Reeves
 
Back
Top Bottom