DVDizzy Forum

Tom Hanks sums up how acting is percieved by most people. He's not a bad actor, or even an average actor. He's a very good actor. But he's not the best.

He can't outperform actors such as William H. Macy, Paul Giamatti, Sean Penn, Russell Crowe (much as I detest him as a person) or Dakota Fanning (only joking about the last one - or am I?).

Yet people like him.

The thing is, they like him because of his earlier comedy roles. Roles which, as always, were terriblely underrated by the critics, but were not underrated by the public. There's no doubt a lot of his current success is due to his earlier, funny roles as "the guy everyone would want as a neighbour".

It's a shame the industry itself doesn't rate comic performances, almost ALL the actors state it is harder playing comedy than drama, yet it's drama which gathers most of the critical acclaim. It's also a shame that people's memories of Hanks' earlier films are tainting their judgement now he is taking more dramatic roles. He's managed to use this form of subconcious "typecasting" to his advantage - notice how (with the one exception) he plays the charismatic nice guy the filmmakers want the audience to root for.

So far, I wouldn't call him a character actor - he's not the chameleon a true character actor needs to be. People ignore his art for his charisma.

I think 2099net said it best, Tom Hanks (and Tom Cruise) are great character actors but not great pure actors like the ones 2099net mentioned. Add to the list Humphrey Bogart, Jimmy Stewart, John Wayne, Clark Gable and Cary Grant. They are incredible in the right roles but none of them could match Marlon Brando in pure acting talent. Of course, all those actors metioned also had a better resume of movies than Mr. Brando. (And they caused less ulcers.)

And Yes, I saw Joe vs. Volcano at the theater and I hated it as well as the Bonfires Of The Vanities (Wrong role for Mr. Hanks.) To be honest, I did not like any of Hank's comedies that much except for Big but he definitely had comedic talent as he was always funny on Late Night and SNL. I found it kind of amazing he had such a turn around in the early nineties.

2099net wrote:He can't outperform actors such as ...Paul Giamatti...

Yeah! God knows his work in the ground-breaking Big Momma's House changed the world as we know it and was indisposable to both the acting community and modern filmmaking.

2099net wrote:The thing is, they like him because of his earlier comedy roles. Roles which, as always, were terriblely underrated by the critics, but were not underrated by the public. There's no doubt a lot of his current success is due to his earlier, funny roles as "the guy everyone would want as a neighbour".

I'll quote myself on this one:

Lazario wrote:Tom Hanks is hard to take as a comedic actor, which is where he got his reputation - Bosom Buddies, Big, The Money Pit, Turner & Hooch... Although he generally had a good eye for quality comedic material, his role was always essentially a screaming, angry but still charming guy. He certainly had a great penchant for doing that, but it stretched him so thin that he was forced to reinvent himself in dramatic roles.

2099net wrote:It's also a shame that people's memories of Hanks' earlier films are tainting their judgement now he is taking more dramatic roles.

I don't think they are. A League of Their Own displayed his best comic talents to date, and in at least one scene (Dottie quitting), his dramatic abilities were lacking.

I don't much care for Tom Hanks. I prefer Tom Cruise over Hanks, and by a longshot. Cruise is a wonder to watch in most of his contemporary pieces. He's very much a leading man, and has the screen presence to back it up. Hanks is just a bore. His signature blank stare to convey dramatic moments and his arched eyebrows to show deadpan comedy are really annoying for me. I liked Forrest Gump, but his performance wasn't even standard acting, it was a gimmick. In other words, it's very Oscarbait. It was very showing, visible acting, but just because a role requires a lot, doesn't mean it's a role that requires an actor to get into the mental or inner state of the character. Just thinking about that role makes me cringe. Any actor who would have played the role would have won the Oscar that year. In fact, it was WRITTEN to get the leading man an Oscar. Ew...

I like Paul Giamatti, but I don't think he's worth his praise. Once you have seen one schlub, you have seen them all.

Lazario wrote:

2099net wrote:He can't outperform actors such as ...Paul Giamatti...

Yeah! God knows his work in the ground-breaking Big Momma's House changed the world as we know it and was indisposable to both the acting community and modern filmmaking.

All actors have embarassing movies on their CV, it doesn't make them any less an actor.

Go and see American Splendor, Cinderella Man, Sideways or Big Fat Lier (only joking about the last one).

Prince Eric wrote:I don't much care for Tom Hanks. I prefer Tom Cruise over Hanks, and by a longshot. Cruise is a wonder to watch in most of his contemporary pieces. He's very much a leading man, and has the screen presence to back it up. Hanks is just a bore. His signature blank stare to convey dramatic moments and his arched eyebrows to show deadpan comedy are really annoying for me. I liked Forrest Gump, but his performance wasn't even standard acting, it was a gimmick. In other words, it's very Oscarbait. It was very showing, visible acting, but just because a role requires a lot, doesn't mean it's a role that requires an actor to get into the mental or inner state of the character. Just thinking about that role makes me cringe. Any actor who would have played the role would have won the Oscar that year. In fact, it was WRITTEN to get the leading man an Oscar. Ew...

I like Paul Giamatti, but I don't think he's worth his praise. Once you
have seen one schlub, you have seen them all.

I can see Arnold playing Forest Gump - Mama Said Eat a Box of Chocolate Now - Or I'll be Back

memnv wrote: I can see Arnold playing Forest Gump - Mama Said Eat a Box of Chocolate Now - Or I'll be Back

Remember when I said I would eat you last... I lied!

Now that would be 100% different and totally... weird. I think Tom Hanks was perfect for that movie.

2099net wrote:All actors have embarassing movies on their CV, it doesn't make them any less an actor.

I was just kidding. I've only ever seen him in bit parts, because other than Sideways and maybe a few other breaks too few to mention, he's a bit-part actor. A supporting actor. Do you think he'll ever star in his own film, because you see a lot of that is actually done for actors who are really believed in to be extraordinary supporting actors - Macy for example has had at least one movie I can remember where he was the star, main character- the works. Though it was a TV movie, that channel played the heck out of it.

As for Tom Cruise, he's only slightly less overrated than Owen Wilson, Brad Pitt and Denzel Washington.

Lazario wrote:As for Tom Cruise, he's only slightly less overrated than Owen Wilson, Brad Pitt and Denzel Washington.

Lordy, I don't understand the appeal of Owen Wilson! Brad Pitt is just another pretty-boy actor, though he's got a couple good movies to his name (Thelma and Louise, Ocean's Eleven, and...okay, maybe that's it?). Denzel Washington is a pretty good actor, I wouldn't consider him one of the best, but he is overrated at times. Didn't enjoy John Q or the Manchurian Candidate remake...

Escapay

Zoltack wrote:

memnv wrote: I can see Arnold playing Forest Gump - Mama Said Eat a Box of Chocolate Now - Or I'll be Back

Remember when I said I would eat you last... I lied!

Now that would be 100% different and totally... weird. I think Tom Hanks was perfect for that movie.

He may have been perfect, but that doesn't mean any other actor couldn't have been perfect as well.

Escapay wrote:Lordy, I don't understand the appeal of Owen Wilson! Brad Pitt is just another pretty-boy actor, though he's got a couple good movies to his name (Thelma and Louise, Ocean's Eleven, and...okay, maybe that's it?). Denzel Washington is a pretty good actor, I wouldn't consider him one of the best, but he is overrated at times. Didn't enjoy John Q or the Manchurian Candidate remake...

The thing that really drives me nuts about Owen Wilson is that this guy has the level of acting talent of teens on bad WB shows but he is sought after by some of these highly-respected, but temporarily insane, auteur-ish film directors. He's just obnoxious and ugly and annoying as hell, always plays a showoffy knuckleheaded guy, and all these people in Hollywood seem to think that's endearing. That it's enough to base an entire career on... Denzel Washington is one of the most overrated actors in Hollywood for one simple reason - he has no guts. He's a decent dramatic actor, but he always plays the same damn characters. Every one is the same person with only differences in his wardrobe... I mean, he even reads the dialogue the same way, the only difference might be an accent. He apparently has no aspirations whatsoever to do anything but ultra-serious drama. And it's so tiring to go watch him in yet another conspiracy thriller or a drama where he's the oppressed guy - even your typical black person goes to see his movie just because he's good looking, Denzel's fanbase is mostly comprised of women. Because most of them have an extraordinary amount of patience and can find interest in anything. Me- I just can't see another lame drama, beit thriller or tearjerker... You see 1 Denzel movie, you have seen them all!!!

Brad Pitt has a better knack for taking more varied film roles than either Owen or Denzel, but his skills are supremely limited. It's actually painful to try and watch him limp his way through Interview with the Vampire - he's also really, really bad at accents. His greatest role? He'll never, ever, in the whole of his career, beat his performance in Kalifornia. Great performance, but his career has just been spitting ever since. He's only gifted at achieving more or less aggressiveness in his performances. The only movie he was able to give his all was Kalifornia - if you're a fan of his and you haven't seen this movie, you had better see it tomorrow, buy it, rent it, whatever you have to do. See it immediately.

Lazario wrote:Brad Pitt has a better knack for taking more varied film roles than either Owen or Denzel, but his skills are supremely limited. It's actually painful to try and watch him limp his way through Interview with the Vampire - he's also really, really bad at accents. His greatest role? He'll never, ever, in the whole of his career, beat his performance in Kalifornia. Great performance, but his career has just been spitting ever since. He's only gifted at achieving more or less aggressiveness in his performances. The only movie he was able to give his all was Kalifornia - if you're a fan of his and you haven't seen this movie, you had better see it tomorrow, buy it, rent it, whatever you have to do. See it immediately.

I think Twelve Monkeys is Pitt's best role to date. It was really a breakout role for him, and it deliberately played against his "pretty boy, so must be dumb and vapid" associations. I also like him in Fight Club enormously, but he doesn't "own" the role of Tyler Durgan like some actors can "own" their roles. I can see a lot of other people playing that part just as well if not better.

I also think he does well in Meet Joe Black, which contary to lots of other people's opinions, I do enjoy enormously.

Also check out Snatch - this is a wonderful performance from Pitt - and slightly campy, who's clearly relishing his role, and his performance is streets ahead of his work-for-the-money roles in films like Troy.

Re: Paul Giamatti Lazario, I do strongly suggest you rent American Splendor where Giamatti is the star. I think as he gets older, he'll get more mainstream and bigger parts - but inevitably he will be playing the lead character's father or work boss or similar, rather than the star.

Also, for William H Macy, see if you can see The Cooler - that's a film with Macy headlining the cast.

Sadly, both American Splendor and The Cooler are small, independent movies. It appears the public isn't open to accepting a film where the star doesn't look like a model. Odd when they generally put a premium on "realism" in every other aspect of the movie experience.

I think Tom Hanks is a really good actor! Not the best in the world, but I've enjoyed almost every movie he has been in that I've seen!

Prince Eric wrote: He may have been perfect, but that doesn't mean any other actor couldn't have been perfect as well.

Blah, blah, blah! Don't listen to him! He has HORRIBLE taste in movies! He likes Pocahontas better than The Nightmare Before Christmas!

He doesn't appretiate films as art at all and has probably THE WORST taste in movies on UD!

BIG from me!


For those wondering why I'm attacking Prince Eric, it's nothing personal, we just have a history of fighting on UD and it's kinda fun.

I think I might have seen more movies with Tom Hanks than any other actor. I feel like he tends to pick movies that would interest me (and many people) and that his presence alone lends additional appeal to the project for moviegoers. That explains why many of his films have done very well at the box office. It also explains why he's gotten many Oscar nominations, all deserved from what I've seen. He makes for a likable protagonist and the visibility he automatically garners in turn raises his potential for awards. When you get first crack at nearly any movie of your choosing, you have that luxury. So things have fallen into place for him quite well. Plus, he's been able to launch an impressive career as producer too.

All that said, I think his movies have run a pretty wide gamut of great to lame. Most of the lame ones were from the '80s or early '90s, so he's forgiven in that regard. That period also provided <i>Big</i>, which I still consider my favorite of his live action movies. (And best, if there is a difference.) I know people fault him for having limited range and they can classify all of his performances into a few categories, but I think he's excellent at whatever he does, assuming the film's problems aren't too numerous, in which case the blame has yet to lie with him. I still haven't seen foreign Tom (<i>The Terminal</i>), goatteed Tom (<i>The Ladykillers</i>, maybe), and CG-animated Tom (<i>The Polar Express</i>), so if any of those render anything I've said vastly off the mark, you'll have to forgive me. But I have next to nothing in the way of interest in <i>The Da Vinci Code</i>, so long-haired Tom isn't on my "To View" list.

Even though I'm still not a fan of his acting (and never will be), I do think I forgot to mention one thing in my ranting lo all those UD-years ago...

He was friggin' HOT in the late 80's. I did check out a few episodes of Bosom Buddies though he disappeared next to Peter Scolari (whose enormous, muscular thighs and perfect ass were on ample display in the show's title sequence). But- Big, Turner & Hooch... humminahumminahummina... Peter, who?

Timon/Pumbaa fan wrote:

Prince Eric wrote:He may have been perfect, but that doesn't mean any other actor couldn't have been perfect as well.

Blah, blah, blah! Don't listen to him! He has HORRIBLE taste in movies! He likes Pocahontas better than The Nightmare Before Christmas!

He's not the only one.