Best Actor Last 100 Years?

[Bear28]

I voted for Tom Hanks, though I'm pretty disappointed Edward Norton wasn't included on this list.

Thanks

[milner828]

Im really not sure why Nicholas Cage is on this poll...Great actor??? Sure but as of recently he can't pick a role to save his life...

[milner828]

Originally Posted by idioteque...

denzel is one of my favorite actors but deja vu wasn't good and taking of pelham 123, as much as i enjoyed it, it's such a heavily flawed movie. That script was epic fail and great debaters/inside man are just one time watches. His last enjoyable movie imo was american gangster.

+1

[Sussudio]

That being said, I think it is important to get back on track...

Orson Welles doesn't seem like someone who has been discussed much on here. Besides the unquestionable (imo) Citizen Kane, his performance in Touch of Evil was incredible. Anyone enjoy any of his other performances? He's definitely in my top 10.

[goochspot]

Originally Posted by Sussudio

Very true. No one should change or feel pressured to change their ways because someone or many someones tells them to. On the same token, there are people on this board that I have no interest in interacting with anymore for various reasons, so I'll just leave it at that

That being said, I think it is important to get back on track...

Orson Welles doesn't seem like someone who has been discussed much on here. Besides the unquestionable (imo) Citizen Kane, his performance in Touch of Evil was incredible. Anyone enjoy any of his other performances? He's definitely in my top 10.

I really like Orson Welles, but I like him more for his genius as a film maker than his acting ability, which is really good as well. Have you seen F for Fake? It's a love it or hate it type of movie, but I love it and have a blast every time I see it.

[Sussudio]

Originally Posted by goochspot

I really like Orson Welles, but I like him more for his genius as a film maker than his acting ability, which is really good as well. Have you seen F for Fake? It's a love it or hate it type of movie, but I love it and have a blast every time I see it.

I haven't, but I'm really interested in checking out more of his work so I'll add it to my list. I see he wrote, directed, and starred...seems pretty Wellesian to me And I see it's a Criterion

It's a shame he lost so much credibility with the studios after Kane, especially because of what it's now become.

[milner828]

Originally Posted by Sussudio

I haven't, but I'm really interested in checking out more of his work so I'll add it to my list. I see he wrote, directed, and starred...seems pretty Wellesian to me And I see it's a Criterion

It's a shame he lost so much credibility with the studios after Kane, especially because of what it's now become.

Same here gonna have to check out more from him...

[CZAR]

Cleanup time! Thanks mod! Back to topic! Got Em!!

[goochspot]

Originally Posted by Sussudio

I haven't, but I'm really interested in checking out more of his work so I'll add it to my list. I see he wrote, directed, and starred...seems pretty Wellesian to me And I see it's a Criterion

It's a shame he lost so much credibility with the studios after Kane, especially because of what it's now become.

If I'm not mistaken, he was the first director in Hollywood to have complete creative control, and after Citizen Kane, he was the last one for a long time.

F for Fake is completely different than anything anybody has ever done. It is never what you expect it to be. After you've seen it, let me know what you think.

[Sussudio]

Originally Posted by goochspot

If I'm not mistaken, he was the first director in Hollywood to have complete creative control, and after Citizen Kane, he was the last one for a long time.

Exactly, and he pioneered many filmmaking innovations (deep focus, low angles, miniatures) Such a shame what happened to him.

F for Fake is completely different than anything anybody has ever done. It is never what you expect it to be. After you've seen it, let me know what you think.

Definitely

[coolmilo]

Originally Posted by jhiggy23

Coolmilo, nice choice with Nicholson. I was watching The Shining for the umpteenth time last nite and I am still amazed at his performance. His facial expressions, voice tonality, and presence in that film are impeccable.

He was so good in so many movies. I really enjoyed him in The Departed too. I think I am going to watch it tonight.

This list just reminds us of the talent in Hollywood.

[P@t_Mtl]

Originally Posted by goochspot

If I'm not mistaken, he was the first director in Hollywood to have complete creative control, and after Citizen Kane, he was the last one for a long time.
.

I was wondering, was not Chaplin actualy one of the first to have that distiction?

[goochspot]

Originally Posted by P@t_Mtl

I was wondering, was not Chaplin actualy one of the first to have that distiction?

Maybe, but I think he did a lot of his stuff independently without studio financing, but I'm not sure. I would like to know as well.

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by P@t_Mtl

I was wondering, was not Chaplin actualy one of the first to have that distiction?

Originally Posted by goochspot

Maybe, but I think he did a lot of his stuff independently without studio financing, but I'm not sure. I would like to know as well.

Chaplin was. Quite obbsessive. Maniacal really.

[P@t_Mtl]

Originally Posted by goochspot

Maybe, but I think he did a lot of his stuff independently without studio financing, but I'm not sure. I would like to know as well.

You might be quite right about being outside of studio control, he was United Artist afterall along with Fairbanks & Pickford, his situation was probably very different then what Wells had to endure for his movies.

[Double Down]

Jack Lemmon!

[P@t_Mtl]

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

Chaplin was. Quite obbsessive. Maniacal really.

Extremely, I would have love to meet him, I adore his movies but I am not sure I would have like working with him on one of his movies

[lollypop]

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

Yes.

Strong. Confident. Capable of showing sadness. Repeat.

My point is this. If an actor (example only) Plays a crazy truck driver, then plays a crazy doctor, then a crazy school teacher, a crazy scientist, a crazy musician, a crazy cop, a crazy homeless person, a crazy political leader etc., is that range? No. He may be wearing a different uniform or suit, but he is always playing crazy.

Denzel needs to take a dip in the other end of the pool and play a role far removed from himself. Play someone thats pathetic, or frightened, or weak, or dance or sing or do comedy.

I think he is a great actor that needs to spread his wings. He gave a genius performance in Glory, but I avoid his films lately because I know I am going to see the same old character. For the record, I feel this way about a couple other actors too. They seem to take the easy road and do roles that are very COMFORTABLE because the characters are not far from the actors own personalty (not personal character though).

Daniel Day Lewis is an example of an actor with range. He has played everything from an absolute evil tyrant business man, to an absolute delicate powderpuff sissy, to a slaughtering gang member, to singing and dancing.

Hugh Jackman....from Wolverine to Tommy in the Fountain. RANGE.

Nicholson...from the Shining to About Scmidt. RANGE

Bale...The Machinest...American Psycho

Dustin Hoffman...Too many to list

Denzel has done more comedy in his career than Day-Lewis and Christian Bale combined. His debut film in 1981 (Carbon Copy) was a slapstick comedy. He played a Ghost in a comedy with Bob Hoskins called Heart Condition. He's done Shakespearian comedy (Much Ado About Nothing). And he did romantic comedy in in 1996 with The Preacher's Wife, where he played an Angel, opposite Whitney Houston (a remake of a Cary Grant comedy called The Bishops's Wife). I'd like to see Washington in another comedy, because he's pretty good at it. But he doesn't need to prove it. If people want to see him do comedy, the films are out there. Though I doubt it will matter how much comedy Denzel has done. If people want to find an excuse not to give him credit, they'll find it.

Washington has had a long, long career on stage and on film. At some point, he's covered pretty much everything. His range is incredible. For example, no A-list American leading man in the last 30 years, has done as much Shakespeare as Washington. He's done most of it on stage (Julius Ceasar, Othello, Richard III, Corialanus), but he did do Much Ado About Nothing on film, where he played a Spanish Prince, and handled Shakespearian laguage with ease (and he got better reviews for his performance from UK critics than Kenneth Branagh, considered by many to be the foremost Shakespearian actor of his generation).

Now Jack Nicholson can't do Shakespeare and isn't a classical (or classically trained) actor like Washington. Nicholson doesn't lack range, but he can't play King Lear. Denzel can. Being a classical actor requires serious range...if it didn't, every actor could manage it. Washington is one of the few American Hollywood film actors who can do it to a high standard.

Many great actors play to their strengths the majority of the time. I can't name a single "weakling" Marlon Brando played. He never drifted far from his screen persona traits. I can name many conflicted, sad, angushed, masculine characters Brando played, but most of the time, he was doing his Brando thing, occassionally with a funny voice.

Denzel didn't play a strong, confident character in The Taking Of Pelham 123. His character was mild mannered, humble and subservient. And often insecure. For him, it was an against type character turn. He didn't just phone in his cool, confident character from Inside Man.

Washington's South African character in Cry Freedom was gentle soft spoken and a pacifist. Almost the South African equivalent to Ghandi. To go from that to playing Carey Grant style romantic comedy figure in The Preacher's Wife to a Shapearian Prince in Much Ado About Nothing to a Corrupt Ghetto overlord "gangsta" cop in Training Day....to me, that requires RANGE, and then some. Washington's gift is that he makes it look really, really easy. Cry Freedom and Training Day are polar opposite characters. Which one of them is "Denzel"? No idea. Meryl Streep actually noted that when they worked together on The Manchurian Canidate. Streep said she found it amazing that Denzel could so so much, without the requisite "huffing and puffing" she saw in other actors.

[CZAR]

Originally Posted by lollypop

Denzel has done more comedy in his career than Day-Lewis and Christian Bale combined. His debut film in 1981 (Carbon Copy) was a slapstick comedy. He played a Ghost in a comedy with Bob Hoskins called Heart Condition. He's done Shakespearian comedy (Much Ado About Nothing). And he did romantic comedy in in 1996 with The Preacher's Wife, where he played an Angel, opposite Whitney Houston (a remake of a Cary Grant comedy called The Bishops's Wife). I'd like to see Washington in another comedy, because he's pretty good at it. But he doesn't need to prove it. If people want to see him do comedy, the films are out there. Though I doubt it will matter how much comedy Denzel has done. If people want to find an excuse not to give him credit, they'll find it.

Washington has had a long, long career on stage and on film. At some point, he's covered pretty much everything. His range is incredible. For example, no A-list American leading man in the last 30 years, has done as much Shakespeare as Washington. He's done most of it on stage (Julius Ceasar, Othello, Richard III, Corialanus), but he did do Much Ado About Nothing on film, where he played a Spanish Prince, and handled Shakespearian laguage with ease (and he got better reviews for his performance from UK critics than Kenneth Branagh, considered by many to be the foremost Shakespearian actor of his generation).

Now Jack Nicholson can't do Shakespeare and isn't a classical (or classically trained) actor like Washington. Nicholson doesn't lack range, but he can't play King Lear. Denzel can. Being a classical actor requires serious range...if it didn't, every actor could manage it. Washington is one of the few American Hollywood film actors who can do it to a high standard.

Many great actors play to their strengths the majority of the time. I can't name a single "weakling" Marlon Brando played. He never drifted far from his screen persona traits. I can name many conflicted, sad, angushed, masculine characters Brando played, but most of the time, he was doing his Brando thing, occassionally with a funny voice.

Denzel didn't play a strong, confident character in The Taking Of Pelham 123. His character was mild mannered, humble and subservient. And often insecure. For him, it was an against type character turn. He didn't just phone in his cool, confident character from Inside Man.

Washington's South African character in Cry Freedom was gentle soft spoken and a pacifist. Almost the South African equivalent to Ghandi. To go from that to playing Carey Grant style romantic comedy figure in The Preacher's Wife to a Shapearian Prince in Much Ado About Nothing to a Corrupt Ghetto overlord "gangsta" cop in Training Day....to me, that requires RANGE, and then some. Washington's gift is that he makes it look really, really easy. Cry Freedom and Training Day are polar opposite characters. Which one of them is "Denzel"? No idea. Meryl Streep actually noted that when they worked together on The Manchurian Canidate. Streep said she found it amazing that Denzel could so so much, without the requisite "huffing and puffing" she saw in other actors.

Wow what a great read! I aint to big on plays etc...but thats good info to know. I didnt need to know that in considering Denzel the greatest IMO but its still good to know. I find him to have no limits. He knocks me out pretty much everytime out. Got Em!!

[makaveli21]

Originally Posted by Secretagentnumber6

I do not even feel he is even the best African American actor, that goes to Morgan Freeman.

I have no idea why you feel race is relevant to mention--it makes no sense contextually in this discussion. It comes off like you are saying African-American are automatically not as good as white actors, and that Denzel's not even the best of this "lower" group of actors.