Posted on 05/04/2025 1:03:40 PM PDT by CondoleezzaProtege
There are many ways an actor can surprise. Jack Nicholson surprises by being … surprising. Even though he’s not a chameleon like Oldman or Depp, you never know what he’s going to do next. But whatever he does, it’s grounded in psychological reality. It never seems fake. Christopher Walken, Glenn Close, Al Pacino, and many others have a surprising danger in them… you feel they might jump you or blow up at you at any time. They are ticking time bombs. And, many comedic actors (e.g., Julia Louis-Dreyfus) surprise us in all sorts of quirky, zany ways…
Some people think acting is good if they like the movie. Keanu Reeves, in my mind, is a horrible actor—it often seems as if he’s reading from cue cards rather than saying words that are his. There is a difference between playing an undemonstrative person and being a wooden actor. In fact, playing someone who is reserved is very difficult…But some people like Reeves because they think the Matrix films are cool.
Lots of people think an actor is great if they like his or her character…Or they think she’s good if she pulls off some impressive effect, such as gaining or losing a lot of weight or pretending to be handicapped… If you forced me to rank Dustin Hoffman in Rain Man versus Dustin Hoffman in Kramer vs. Kramer, I’d say he did more exciting work in the latter. In Rain Man he was able to hide behind some stunts. In Kramer vs. Kramer, he just had to be truthful.
Tom Cruise… rarely surprises me, and he doesn’t seem to dig deep into a anything raw or vulnerable inside him. He seems guarded. The must vulnerable I’ve seen him is in Eyes Wide Shut…but it’s not the norm.
(Excerpt) Read more at slate.com ...
Daniel Day Lewis is the best actor of our times.
Last of the Mohicans and Gangs of New York, DDL owned them. I’ve watched both several times, and loved them more with passing time.
Right now I am ONLY talking about ability.
Many truly great ones have yet to be mentioned on this thread and perhaps more people can add to the following list.
Ginger Rogers had an AMAZING range...singing, dancing, comedy, drama, you name it, she was GREAT at it.
Myrna Loy...from major ( often Asian ) villainess, to wise cracking, upper class wife of Nick Charles, to everyone's idea of THE DREAM WIFE...she was believable in every role.
NATALIE WOOD...unlike her counterpart Margaret O'Brien, she made the leap from CHILD STAR to an accomplished adult actress, who could easily do both drama and comedy.
The BRIT "GREATS" are a MASSIVE amount. a very few of whom have already been named.
Okay...have at it.
She was amazing as Julia Child in “Julie and Julia,” too. Also remarkable in The Devil Wears Prada.”
A great actor or actresses will NEVER "drop the mask", allow you to see the REAL person, whom they are, when acting.
And THAT is a good thing, because once you see "THE REAL XXX", it might spoil anything and everything you ever see them in afterwards/take away the "magic".
Right. Good scripts and good directing make for good acting.
Danged if I know. I can spot really terrible acting, but what differentiates bad from good from excellent acting, I don’t know. Does anybody really know, or is it just a matter of liking the actor or the role?
Hackman was one of the handful that I was thinking of.
The ones who rely on being themselves are usually fine until they become caricatures of themselves.
He was really good as Boyd Crowder in Justified.
Ginger Rogers has definitely grown in my estimation, once you separate her from Fred Astaire (a real hambone along with Gene Kelly). She had it all, everything you name, and besides she was a real dish, a babe you might say. When I spot her I put down the remote.
I’d like to add Barbara Stanwick to that group. Although as she aged she became more bitter and edgy, a young Barbara was downright perky and pleasant.
Fred was type cast in films; you can't blame him for that and neither should you judge those films bu today and YOUR taste.
OTOH...Ginger Rogers, before teaming up with Fred was in many diverse roles and excelled in them. And after Fred, she REALLY spread her wings into many different genres of acting parts; unlike Fred. Look her up and see all of the varied parts she took and was GREAT at.
Also, THE STORY OF IRENE AND VERNON CASTLE, starring Fred & Ginger, was a love story as well as a drama and just MIGHT change your mind about Fred, a bit. And it IS a really good film!
I'm NOT a fan of Joan Crawford; however, she did do an EXCELLENT job in the likes of GRAND HOTEL, A WOMAN'S FACE, and WHATEVER HAPPENED TO BABY JANE.
His supposed "invention" of "athletic dance" ( a REALLY stupid and inaccurate description that he made up ) and over the top "acting" is off putting.
Neither have I ever cared for Bing Crosby, so we're on the same page.
Fred and Adele Asatire were trained, as children, at the very famous and well regarded ALVIENE SCHOOL, which from its inception, through the early 1950s was a place that Broadway and film scouts went to look over the kids in the classes, and many of them DID indeed go on to big roles in the theatre, film, opera, and ballet companies. The school also gave voice and acting lessons.
Kelly and his brother ( who was a better dancer, but never made it in film, though he was in one with Gene ), didn't have as good training.
Kim Novak was a beauty, could act; however, was just really a "journeyman actress".
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
