The Best of the Best

Mark Cruz15 said:Aside from Forrest Gump, Tom Hanks isn't exactly known for his transformations—which, in my opinion, should be a primary criterion when making a selection.

Are you referring to physical transformations? Like dropping or gaining 50 pounds like Christian Bale—or those Oscar-winning maneuvers by Gary Oldman?

velvetbear372 said:Are you talking about those massive physical transformations? Like dropping or gaining 50 pounds just like Christian Bale, or pulling off those Oscar-worthy performances like Gary Oldman?

I think a great actor can be one person in one film and someone entirely different in the next, possessing a completely distinct psychological profile and everything else that comes with it...
Anthony Hopkins was Hannibal Lecter and Don Diego de la Vega, Jim Carrey went from being a comedian to delivering heavy dramatic performances... and so on...
In other words, they shouldn't just play themselves all the time, but actually have the capacity to become someone else entirely...

It’s honestly fascinating to me—how actors who have actually won an Oscar end up starring in absolutely brainless movies, often delivering some truly terrible performances. A prime example of this kind of disaster, despite having a cast full of legends, would be Las Vegas (2013). To me, every single one of them was just subpar—the whole movie was garbage.

Looking at the cast from that film, the one most prone to this kind of career meltdown has to be Robert De Niro; he just keeps picking these trash projects. Then you have DiCaprio—I don't think he'll ever quite get there. I doubt he’ll ever stumble into something like this: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt2361509/ (where he looks and acts like a complete idiot—just making a fool of himself) or even https://www.imdb.com/title/tt3276924/

I have a feeling that if Angelo Jurkas offered him a tiny supporting role in a new movie where they just sat around making homemade chili, he’d probably take it.

Who would’ve thought Robert De Niro would actually take on roles like that before the turn of the millennium? Looking at his filmography from that era, you’d be like, "No way." To me, he’s easily the actor behind the highest number of absolute masterpieces. But then things started sliding downhill—kind of like Al Pacino, though maybe not quite to the same extent. Both guys are basically looking for redemption now with The Irishman (Al Pacino has OUTIH too). If Marty doesn't manage to pull something meaningful out of them, then nobody will.

Honestly, I’ve gotta say this whole topic feels pretty sexist—regardless of how much the author tries to distance themselves from it. Leaving names like Louis Brooks, Mia Farrow, John Rowlands, Meryl Streep, or Isabelle Huppert out of a poll like this isn't just misplaced—it's straight-up ignorant.

@Dennis Hall41/">@@Dennis Hall41

Try running a poll with the women instead.

And this is just straight-up sexist. It shouldn't matter if you're a guy or a girl—it's all about who actually kills it on screen.

I'm not even gonna get into the whole "who belongs and who doesn't" debate right now since that's a whole different conversation—but honestly, I have no idea what I was thinking voting in a poll that didn't even include Al Pacino in The Godfather lineup.

Sexism. 🙂

It’s pretty obvious they’re just listing roles that won an Oscar in the male categories. I didn't see any claims here about these being the greatest male or female performances in history. Maybe try actually reading the thread before you start losing your mind.

🤣

Šukurac, we’re missing Black actors on this list too. It’s a racist list.

Yeah, my bad, sorry about that.

If I go MIA for a few days—it's just because I've got blisters from training too hard.😁

velvetbear372 said:Interesting 🙂

A million people decided: This is the greatest actor ever

Honestly—I’d argue with a million people if I saw this.🤦

What a list. Ten American actors, and two of them happen to be women.

Dennis Hall41 said:I’d probably lose my mind if I saw this happening in front of me. It’s enough to make anyone snap.🤦

👍

I’m with you there. Honestly, I find Tom Hanks to be a pretty mediocre actor. Don't get me wrong, he picks smart roles and he’s perfectly competent at what he does, but he has never once left me speechless. He hasn't delivered a powerhouse performance like Leonardo DiCaprio or Jack. *Road to Perdition* is probably his best work, but even then, he was completely overshadowed by an aging Paul Newman.

Frank Richardson said:What a list. Ten American actors and only two actresses.

It’s honestly not that shocking—at the end of the day, people mostly watch movies based on two things: "Americana" and whatever is currently trending. Basically, we love anything in American English and anything that feels new—that pretty much accounts for 95% of what people actually watch.

If we ever let something old or non-American slip through, it’s usually just a glitch in the system or because it's unavoidable. But even then, it gets boring fast because everything falls into one of three predictable patterns:
a) old and American (think classics like *Gone with the Wind*—or if you're feeling fancy, the holy trinity of Stanley Kubrick, Martin Scorsese, and Alfred Hitchcock),
b) old and non-American (this is the toughest sell and honestly, most people fail here—I bet your average American couldn't even name ten non-US films from thirty years ago, let alone actually sit down and watch them),
c) new and non-American (usually those festival winners, maybe some Far East drama, or those heavy-hitting stories from the Middle East about crippled athletes and forbidden romances, made by directors who'll whip up one mid-length documentary and then vanish into obscurity).

Tom Hanks is a great guy—super likable—but there’s no way I’m ever gonna convince myself I'm some character he played. I don't feel that way as much as I used to as I get older, but every once in a while, I still catch myself thinking I'm Tony Montana, Sam Rothstein, or Dirty Harry.😁

Look, you don't seriously think you're some kind of Ramsay Bolton or Theon Greyjoy, do you? What was the point of that?

I mean, yeah—they're definitely complex, layered characters. I think we all have a bit of a dark side lurking in there, but honestly? I see these three as good guys at heart. Take Tony, for example—he saved a random woman and her kids even though he knew he’d be dead within 24 hours after doing it.
If that isn't being a hero, I don't know what is.

So, that’s why I got the feeling you’re picking on how certain people react to Tom Hanks.

Basically, look at the progression—going from "I'd lash a million people for making that choice" to "I can't imagine myself ever playing one of his roles."

I was saying you probably wouldn't even dream of being Ramsay Bolton. Just meant it's a killer performance regardless of whether we actually want to live out that character's life.

Bottom line—I'm not claiming Tom Hanks is the greatest actor to ever do it. It’s just that we don't really judge an actor's talent based on whether we could personally step into their shoes.

De Niro seems to care about everything, and since he’s one of the last icons left from old Hollywood, I guess it’s his job to be here. As far as I'm concerned, Taxi Driver remains his best role, though that's a tough call given how many great choices he has.

But we run into an issue because there's a whole crowd of Oscar winners out there who actually won for the wrong movie. Take Al Pacino and Paul Newman, for example.

Dennis Hall41 said:It’s not really a shocker. Most people view movies as just a mix of two things: "Americana" and whatever is trendy right now. I guess we basically just crave anything in English and anything that feels fresh; that probably accounts for about 95% of what people watch.

If we actually allow something old or non-American into the mix, it’s either treated like a glitch in the system or because it’s strictly necessary. Even then, it gets incredibly dull because everything falls into three predictable patterns:
a) old and American (think *Gone with the Wind*, or if you're feeling fancy, Stanley Kubrick, Martin Scorsese, or Alfred Hitchcock are basically treated like sacred cows),
b) old and non-American (this is where things get messy, and honestly, they look pretty bad: I bet your average American couldn't even list ten non-American films older than 30 years, let alone watch them),
c) new and non-American (usually those festival winners, maybe some Far East story, or some heavy-handed drama from the Middle East about crippled athletes and forbidden romances, directed by someone who will make one more mid-length documentary and then vanish into obscurity).

Let's be honest, blockbusters are what 99% of people actually watch.