Be that as it may, the last time it felt like he wasn't just playing himself was 2004 in Collatoral (or maybe Tropic Thunder in '08) There's no discernable difference between Ethan Hunt, Jack Reacher, Maverick, and whatever his name was in The Mummy.
Cruise wasted his career doing so many action movies, he turned down Shawshank Redemption, he was the first choice for the lead in Goodfellas and he rejected a Beautiful Mind.
Cruise is excellent at playing characters who you root for, make you feel good or are charismatic because he's a very high energy human being.
But he cannot break out of that mold. If you cast him in Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer he wouldn't be able to do it.
>If you cast him in Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer he wouldn't be able to do it.
you literally couldn't be more wrong holy shit what a dull imaginationless redditor
3 months ago
Anonymous
It's the truth. You're just biased, I look at them as actors, not who they are outside of that.
i dont think any of this is true
he played the same sorts of roles at the start because thats what you do when you are young making a name.
you just need a script that plays into his humanism and rejects it at surface level. collateral works because cruise is so charismatic and trustworthy--the movie could have been serious with a heavier actor and a slightly expanded script. cruise playing a hurt pick up artist was great in that PTA movie, felt like it was deconstructing him as an artist, same with eye wide shut.
Here's roles that Jack Nicholson rejected >Michael Corleone - The Godfather (1972) >Father Karras - The Exorcist (1973) >Hannibal Lecter - The Silence Of The Lambs (1991) >Indiana Jones - Raiders Of The Lost Ark (1981) >Deckard - Blade Runner
He's not tryhard, he simply has a reputation of being good so contrarians will say he's tryhard. Being "natural" isn't inherently good as an actor. You're not being paid to play yourself.
>You're not being paid to play yourself.
Some are, but it's usually a happy coincidence or them being typecast. I agree that an "actor's actor" should be able to play any character.
Nah, you've just fallen for the "I'M ACTING" meme at face value. An open or more vocal display of emotion isn't bad acting. He's legitimately one of the best modern actors.
He's eating, robot-kun. If you want an actual example of overacting here you go
3 months ago
Anonymous
>He's eating
Seems to be eating either gorilla glue or the driest meat known to mankind
3 months ago
Anonymous
Minimalist stiff movements aren't inherently good acting. In fact, many actors are too robotic and come off as fake and inauthentic because they know they're in a movie.
The trick is to embody the character and forget there's even a camera photographing you.
Fact of the matter is, the only reason you think it's a bad performance is because it has received praise.
This anon's analysis is correct
1. Ddl
2. Brando
3. Tom cruise
4. Nicholson
5. De niro
Ddl changes everything from voice to face to posture so naturally. Brando to a lesser extent. Tom Cruise is underrated magnolia should have gotten him an Oscar. 4. Jack is great but he's always got the same voice, posture etc. It's just him acting this way. De niro is the same way really. Besides cape fear he's the same guy.
Id say oldman and bale are better than everyone but Brandon and ddl..Johnny Depp is better than de niro. He actually has range
DDL is one of a handful of modern actors to ever even try to act outside of just "I'm collecting a paycheck". There's a reason why he wanted to retire early.
3 months ago
Anonymous
I've lived in areas with people with that accent and posture and pacing. Hes spot on. Then you go to the East Coast and you see where he got some of the gangs down. Then last of the Mohicans. He changes everything and alters his voice, micro facial stuff. Bale, oldman, Depp, rdj, are the same way.
He's not tryhard, he simply has a reputation of being good so contrarians will say he's tryhard. Being "natural" isn't inherently good as an actor. You're not being paid to play yourself.
He's had a large diversity of roles and performances but normies only remember his big loud screamy ones. Shame.
In terms of best
DDL > Brando > DeNiro > Nicholson > Cruise
Keep in mind you don't have to be a good actor to have good roles/movies. But Cruise simply can't delve into the human psyche as deep as someone like DDL.
>DeNiro early on in his career was headed towards that path
frickin when?
he was 0/10 right out of the gate and has zero range
his best film was heat and all he does is make that one face he does and scowls his lines at everyone
wow what an artist
How is pic related and his role in Meet the Fockers the same? Nicholson is a better example of someone with more limited range. But in his case he doesn't really need range because he's Jack Nicholson.
>different roles =/= range
False. It's the easiest way to tell if someone has range, and he's proven he has enough. He simply got relegated to playing himself.
I get Cinemaphile hates him now for the Trump shit but I don't take that into account at all. Al Pacino is a more overrated actor.
3 months ago
Anonymous
>and he's proven he has enough
hahahahahahaha
no
3 months ago
Anonymous
>It's the easiest way to tell if someone has range
True but not in the way you think. He played two completely different characters with the same mannerism, same tone of voice, same expressions, no range at all.
3 months ago
Anonymous
Kek this, that guy's a moron. Doesn't even know what acting range means.
It's very close for me but I think DDL edges him out just a bit. Realistically, I think they're on par. The rest aren't on that caliber but they still mog zoomer "actors" hard.
I don't hate De Niro, by the way. It's just that he does the same few little things every time and he's often miscast. I haven't seen the Cape Fear remake in years but maybe he was a little different in that. I know everybody hates that movie but I don't recall much from it.
di neros is great in cape fear
does a tommy lee jones thing
the thing about acting is at the end of the day it all comes down to how a presence makes you feel. I love brando and think hes great, but hes got one of those faces that represents everything potential in it.
I cant tell if that makes me think hes a great actor. or if it's his acting that makes me think of read that potential.
Travis Bickle's descent into ruin was gradual. In the Shining, Nicholson seems like he's already on the cusp of becoming the "bad" Jack Torrance. He's still great in that movie but he plays sinister characters better than regular people.
you seem like you really can't grasp the concept of a role vs acting/range. nicholson was never supposed to be the "family" man at the start of the shining, and deniro was never supposed to be an insane killing spree lunatic right off the bat. it's not the actors range, it's literally just the movie script.
This. But Nicholson got tired, started making slop, he showed that he was just working super, super hard when he was at his best, contrary to Brando's natural talent.
1. Ddl
2. Brando
3. Tom cruise
4. Nicholson
5. De niro
Ddl changes everything from voice to face to posture so naturally. Brando to a lesser extent. Tom Cruise is underrated magnolia should have gotten him an Oscar. 4. Jack is great but he's always got the same voice, posture etc. It's just him acting this way. De niro is the same way really. Besides cape fear he's the same guy.
Id say oldman and bale are better than everyone but Brandon and ddl..Johnny Depp is better than de niro. He actually has range
No one said he's a bad actor, just not quite on the level of the rest. Maybe he's better than DeNiro, but then again, DeNiro in Cape Fear was pretty amazing.
whats great about cruise in collateral is while the movie has philosophical themes and what not--it's almost like a character waking up from a Groundhogs Day stupor--it's not a heavy movie. a few changes to the script and you could easily get a tone closer to taxi driver, and cruise would have had the chops for that. cruise could have played the taxi driver as well though.
even doing a comedy role.
the thing about being an actor, you almost have to play the same sorts of roles to build your repertoire. but cruise could do anything. and hes a blockbuster guy. I wish other starts were as fun. you dont see clooney or pitt taking the risks cruise has, ever.
cruise could spend the next 10 years doing comedies and the 10 years after that being a drunken old man in films and he'd be the clear GOAT.
>clooney or pitt taking the risks cruise has, ever.
they couldn't play Vincent nearly as well. Neither could DDL. It'd be like watching them play themselves or other roles they've already played. Whoever's the worst out of these five, it's not Cruise.
it's funny, I like ddl. I think we need a big tent for different acting methods. but Ive never been on board the 'ddl is the best actor ever' train at all. imo it's just hype to keep him going and marketing to keep his films profitable.
it sounds really stupid, but I think great actors have this sort of 'common man range' that they can nail. Val Kilmer in tombstone is brilliant. It's great stagework, it's terrifying, and it's fun. I could see ddl building something similar. but I dont think it would have been as fun.
similarly, I dont see ddl being one of Mike's crew in Heat. I dont think he could have done that what Sizemore did.
no hate on ddl, I just think hes more marketing than anything. you go to see him to see a specific acting tradition being kept alive.
>he's too entrenched in nuance to the point where he just looks like he's showing off
Maybe the rest should keep up then. I know what you're talking about though, but I think it's an issue only in the context of the movie you're in. Tom Hardy has this problem because he's like this in everything he does, even if it's "goo monster man from outer space". DDL applies it because it fits the production. He wouldn't go nuance mode in a Marvel flick.
>reads off telepromter and cards >doesn't give a frick >eats like a madman and shits on other actors >still mogs every tryhard and "method" actor without trying
He's been well regarded as an actor for a long time, it's just that he died so he doesn't get mentioned often anymore. Same with Philip Seymour Hoffman.
Deniro is a horrible actor. He only gets saved by being cast in movies by great directors in roles as the autistic mumbling moron he is in real life. To see him actually trying to act, try to watch Hide and Seek and you'll realize just how bad he is at just playing a dad.
DDL is a total fricking scream meme. Of course he fools plebs and the Academy into thinking he's le good actor. His more subdued roles are completely unremarkable. Nicholson et. al.'s subdued roles are not unremarkable.
Cruise, but he's still good, most of his performances have him get by on his charisma rather than his acting ability though, which is fine for the kind of characters he usually plays but it hasn't left me as impressed as those other actors.
Jack Nicholson, by far. His "crazy man" schtick is for normies and broad appeal. Less subtle than Dennis Hopper, for example, and more mild than Rip Torn, who was legitimately crazy.
Cruise is a good actor, but his fame and looks have gotten him a lot of wooden leading-man roles. Every now and then he's in a film where he really shines.
De Niro's career petered out as he got older, but his early work is great.
Brando and DDL are above any criticisms.
Neither Nicholson nor DeNiro act. They don't have range and they don't play characters. That doesn't mean that they can't produce great films or that the roles they pick aren't suited for their talents. They've had great careers. But they're not actors.
Tom Cruise is an actor. Take Lestat from Interview with the Vampire, and compare it to Less Grossman from Tropic Thunder. That's range. Those're characters. The wienery pilot Maverick vs the drugged out rocker Stacee Jaxx. Tom doesn't have a lot of range, but he can act and he does have characters. He belongs in the middle of the list.
And so it comes down to Brando vs DDL. Both are excellent character actors who have produced some of the most varied roles and performances in Hollywood history. But DDL only does one movie every five or six years and spends two or three years of prep for each role. Brando could vanish into multiple roles a year without having to work at it. Brando is the superior actor.
DeNiro has played Travis Bickle, Max Cady and Rupert Pupkin who are all pretty different characters even if they're all deranged men. Pupkin in particular is very different from his typical role and he plays it well.
Johnny Depp? not going to pretend he is the goat or something and i think the dude is weird but his filmography is impressive. I only realized it was him in the movie blow years after watching it.
Johnny Depp? not going to pretend he is the goat or something and i think the dude is weird but his filmography is impressive. I only realized it was him in the movie blow years after watching it.
One thing I like about Cruise is if you made a similar 3x3, you'd have a similarly large range of characterization. Lestat? Stole the show.
As I get older, I realize I prefer actors who put on characters. Do a voice, give me speech patterns, show some vulnerability. Explore territory.
We are festooned in European actors that pretend to be Americans by just holding their accent in a bit and they get lauded with awards. I like Americans that go the other way.
The biggest shame about the industry is that it's an industry. It has to prop up actors to make money and get movies made, and people have to pay to see the movies so more movies can get made.
You'd never have Denzel as Lestat even though I think he'd learn to have fun with it. Depp would do it.
btw, dinero is a great actor despite lacking some common readability in his face. then again, you dont just act with your face or it comes off as mugging, which is dicaprio territory these days. DiNero in cape fear vs taxi driver vs Heat vs Jackie Brown is both variance and wide range.
Born on the 4th of July, Jerry MaGuire, Interview With A Vampire, A Few Good Men, Collateral, Mission Impossible, Eyes Wide Shut, Magnolia, Edge of Tomorrow, War of the Worlds
You Cruise haters are absolutely mental.
I think Cruise and Johnny Depp are the only actors that can give you the same thing and something new every time. American actors anyway.
Cruise is a guy who if he lives until 80 we'll see evolve into different roles, still. I want to say I wish he had more heavy almost theatrical roles like glen garry glen ross, but he did act across ed harris and gene hackman in The Firm. I want to say I wish he were in more ensemble stuff, but he not only leads his own ensemble in the MI series, but he started out with some heavy fricking hitters in The Outsiders which had everyone up and coming at the time including patrick swayzee and rob lowe. I could say he should do a few more comedies, but there are lots of laughs in his action roles. The guys done everything.
Cruise is already the GOAT. But I want to see Cruise do a movie with Denzel and I want him to do comedy in the next Rush Hour with Chris Tucker and Jackie Chan just to cement that legacy. If Cruise could go from intense to comic, it would be the greatest acting arc of all time.
>Born on the 4th of July, Jerry MaGuire, Interview With A Vampire, A Few Good Men, Collateral, Mission Impossible, Eyes Wide Shut, Magnolia, Edge of Tomorrow, War of the Worlds
is this supposed to convince me that cruise is a good actor or that these are good movies
From worst to best:
>Nicholson < Cruise < Brando < De Niro < DDL
>cruise
>in any thread about great actors
lel
He's genuinely a great actor
Be that as it may, the last time it felt like he wasn't just playing himself was 2004 in Collatoral (or maybe Tropic Thunder in '08) There's no discernable difference between Ethan Hunt, Jack Reacher, Maverick, and whatever his name was in The Mummy.
the firm? eyes wide shut? well those two were the same character, but different. gee collateral was good, imma rewatch it
missing al pacino
same thing should be said about deniro. has deniro ever played a character that wasn't himself?
>al pacino
one dimensional shouter. He was good in the first Godfather.
Tropic Thunder (2008) bro
>Best action star of all time
>Just as good at serious drama as Action
>Mogs everyone besides Jack in Charisma
Yes
3/10. ill give you an extra point for the effort but it's just way too obvious. next time dont try to oversell your bait.
Cruise wasted his career doing so many action movies, he turned down Shawshank Redemption, he was the first choice for the lead in Goodfellas and he rejected a Beautiful Mind.
Cruise is excellent at playing characters who you root for, make you feel good or are charismatic because he's a very high energy human being.
But he cannot break out of that mold. If you cast him in Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer he wouldn't be able to do it.
>If you cast him in Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer he wouldn't be able to do it.
you literally couldn't be more wrong holy shit what a dull imaginationless redditor
It's the truth. You're just biased, I look at them as actors, not who they are outside of that.
i dont think any of this is true
he played the same sorts of roles at the start because thats what you do when you are young making a name.
you just need a script that plays into his humanism and rejects it at surface level. collateral works because cruise is so charismatic and trustworthy--the movie could have been serious with a heavier actor and a slightly expanded script. cruise playing a hurt pick up artist was great in that PTA movie, felt like it was deconstructing him as an artist, same with eye wide shut.
Here's roles that Jack Nicholson rejected
>Michael Corleone - The Godfather (1972)
>Father Karras - The Exorcist (1973)
>Hannibal Lecter - The Silence Of The Lambs (1991)
>Indiana Jones - Raiders Of The Lost Ark (1981)
>Deckard - Blade Runner
cruise would have been awesome in goodfellas man
I would have liked to have seem him do more dramatic work on the whole, but hes done a shit ton of dramatic work. I cant fault his career.
action seems like one of those things that you find yourself doing and keep doing because you find the fun in it.
It's going to be very fun seeing old man cruise doing some acting.
Literally reverse order if that's worst to best
I think you meant best to worst
Why is Tom Cruise even on the list?
Nicholson>Cruise>Brando>DDL>De Niro
DDL is too try hard, all the others are naturals. Brando > Jack > Cruise > De Niro > DDL
He's not tryhard, he simply has a reputation of being good so contrarians will say he's tryhard. Being "natural" isn't inherently good as an actor. You're not being paid to play yourself.
>You're not being paid to play yourself.
Some are, but it's usually a happy coincidence or them being typecast. I agree that an "actor's actor" should be able to play any character.
>He's not tryhard
Cringeworthy tyhard, acting-mogged by a natural – Classic Paul Dano
A more recent example would be Jesse Plemons owning that total fake DiCaprio in Killers of the Flower Moon.
Fake Matt Damon mogged Faker Dicaprio?!
They're both better than Damon/DiCaprio
Nah, you've just fallen for the "I'M ACTING" meme at face value. An open or more vocal display of emotion isn't bad acting. He's legitimately one of the best modern actors.
No I haven't. Even before his outburst look at his ridiculous chewing and squinting in the first setup of that clip. What is he doing.
He's eating, robot-kun. If you want an actual example of overacting here you go
>He's eating
Seems to be eating either gorilla glue or the driest meat known to mankind
Minimalist stiff movements aren't inherently good acting. In fact, many actors are too robotic and come off as fake and inauthentic because they know they're in a movie.
The trick is to embody the character and forget there's even a camera photographing you.
I literally know people like Daniel Plainview IRL.
It was a good performance.
You know people who act like an overrated performance in a movie, cool
Fact of the matter is, the only reason you think it's a bad performance is because it has received praise.
This anon's analysis is correct
DDL is one of a handful of modern actors to ever even try to act outside of just "I'm collecting a paycheck". There's a reason why he wanted to retire early.
I've lived in areas with people with that accent and posture and pacing. Hes spot on. Then you go to the East Coast and you see where he got some of the gangs down. Then last of the Mohicans. He changes everything and alters his voice, micro facial stuff. Bale, oldman, Depp, rdj, are the same way.
I agree. Good examples btw.
He prepares a decade for a role, imagine if De Niro or Pacino did that
>You're not being paid to play yourself.
Wrong.
He's had a large diversity of roles and performances but normies only remember his big loud screamy ones. Shame.
Brando > Nicholson > De Niro > DDL > Cruise
>Daniel Day-Lewis had to deal with tough South London children. At this school, he was bullied for being both israeli and "posh
Him
DDL
>de niro>ddd>cruise>nicholson>brando
that's it, shut the frick up, close the thread.
>worst post in the thread
>acts like her opinion is definitive
Brando objectively can't be lower than 3
I mostly agree with your list but you underrated Brando too much. Watch Apocalypse Now.
In the opposite order, yeah
Are you listing them worst to best?
In terms of best
DDL > Brando > DeNiro > Nicholson > Cruise
Keep in mind you don't have to be a good actor to have good roles/movies. But Cruise simply can't delve into the human psyche as deep as someone like DDL.
Deniro sucks dick tbh
i just cant take deniro seriously anymore after his political antics in recent years. it undercuts all believability
he was always a wormy little talentless twerp
honestly, ddl
DDL acts circles around them. DeNiro early on in his career was headed towards that path but nowadays he mostly plays himself.
>DeNiro early on in his career was headed towards that path
frickin when?
he was 0/10 right out of the gate and has zero range
his best film was heat and all he does is make that one face he does and scowls his lines at everyone
wow what an artist
He has range, he just got relegated to playing "Robert DeNiro" and making a frown.
nicholson and deniro are F tier and always have been what an embarrasement
At least Nicholson still got to make good movies as an elderly man.
Nothing from DeNiro after his early 30's is good.
>At least Nicholson still got to make good movies as an elderly man.
and he was dogshit in all of them
because he has no range and is mobbed up to the hwood machine
How is pic related and his role in Meet the Fockers the same? Nicholson is a better example of someone with more limited range. But in his case he doesn't really need range because he's Jack Nicholson.
different roles =/= range moron. playing an angry boomer as a boomer does not require range.
>different roles =/= range
False. It's the easiest way to tell if someone has range, and he's proven he has enough. He simply got relegated to playing himself.
I get Cinemaphile hates him now for the Trump shit but I don't take that into account at all. Al Pacino is a more overrated actor.
>and he's proven he has enough
hahahahahahaha
no
>It's the easiest way to tell if someone has range
True but not in the way you think. He played two completely different characters with the same mannerism, same tone of voice, same expressions, no range at all.
Kek this, that guy's a moron. Doesn't even know what acting range means.
>literally just acts like a mean spirited scowling moron
wow much range
such acting!
>inb4 b-but he did like pushups and shit!!!
Draw between DDL and Jack Nicholson (both overactors)
Ranking is -
DDL
Jack
Brando
Deniro
Cruise
Any ranking that doesn’t have Brando as the best is wrong.
He's incredible but Nicholson is better
It's very close for me but I think DDL edges him out just a bit. Realistically, I think they're on par. The rest aren't on that caliber but they still mog zoomer "actors" hard.
brando>nicholson>ddl>cruise>de niro
Joe Pesci mogs both DeNiro and Pacino.
DeNiro is the most overrated actor of all time.
Nicholson is great at his peak but doesn't even try in most his roles.
I don't hate De Niro, by the way. It's just that he does the same few little things every time and he's often miscast. I haven't seen the Cape Fear remake in years but maybe he was a little different in that. I know everybody hates that movie but I don't recall much from it.
It's a pretty good remake, worth checking out
It’s a shit movie but he’s great in it. Also, the Simpsons episode makes the movie worth of existing.
>It’s a shit movie
It's on par with the original if not better in some respect
di neros is great in cape fear
does a tommy lee jones thing
the thing about acting is at the end of the day it all comes down to how a presence makes you feel. I love brando and think hes great, but hes got one of those faces that represents everything potential in it.
I cant tell if that makes me think hes a great actor. or if it's his acting that makes me think of read that potential.
he won
DDL for being weird, followed by Brando for becoming fat and worrying about Native Americans.
Scorsessy. He's a director
I think Scorsese would've made a good actor unironically.
Nicholson mogs Brando, I have no idea what anons itt are smoking.
Nicholson isn't as versatile. He's good though, but too much of a typecast. He didn't start proving his range until he was older.
He could have played De Niro’s role in Taxi Driver far better
any joe schmo off the street could have too
Travis Bickle's descent into ruin was gradual. In the Shining, Nicholson seems like he's already on the cusp of becoming the "bad" Jack Torrance. He's still great in that movie but he plays sinister characters better than regular people.
In the beginning of the Shining*
you seem like you really can't grasp the concept of a role vs acting/range. nicholson was never supposed to be the "family" man at the start of the shining, and deniro was never supposed to be an insane killing spree lunatic right off the bat. it's not the actors range, it's literally just the movie script.
This. But Nicholson got tired, started making slop, he showed that he was just working super, super hard when he was at his best, contrary to Brando's natural talent.
Tom cruise
Who are the GOAT actresses? I can't think of one for some reason. Help me out bros.
Eva Green
Winona Ryder
Marion Cotillard
Julianne Moore
Tilda Swinton
Isabelle Adjani
Winona is gorgeous but she can't act
yeah that list is hilarious. blanchett is way better than any those
all-over-the-place film with a bunch of strong performances
She's still to young. Streep or Frances https://youtu.be/QIHzWvAYHVg?si=vw_nNs8cLs_mlL9I
>Marion Cotillard
lmao come on now
>only sleep now
She is very good outside of one shot in the Batman movie.
Elizabeth Taylor is probably the best
jodie foster, probably.
Cate Blanchett
Streep or McDormand
Toni Collette
Kathy bates
Naomi Watts
Faye Dunaway
Frances McDormand
Old: Ingrid Bergman, Liz Taylor, Katherine Hepburn, Bette Davis, Greta Garbo, Vivian Leigh, Catherine Deneuve, Gena Rowlands, Jeanne Moreau, Anne Bancroft, Luise Rainer
More contemporary: Meryl Streep, Liv Ullmann, Juliette Binoche, Isabelle Adjani, Helena Bonham Carter, Sigourney Weaver, Helen Mirren, Judi Dench, Julianne Moore, Frances McDormand, Uma Thurman, Kate Winslet, Salma Hayek, Naomi Watts, Annette Bening, Jodie Foster, Kathy Bates, Gillian Anderson, Diane Keaton, Cate Blanchett, Susan Sarandon
Most contemporary: Toni Collette, Charlize Theron, Tilda Swinton, Michelle Williams, Carey Mulligan, Brie Larson, Jessie Buckley, Saoirse Ronan, Amy Adams, Viola Davis, Angela Bassett, Rosamund Pike, Eva Green, Lena Headey, Rose Byrne, Rooney Mara, Anne Hathaway, Shailene Woodley, Abbie Cornish, Lily Collins, Diane Kruger
There's more but that's a basic list
homie wrote all that to showcase a supposed knowledge of cinema and named only holywood slop makers.
>missing marilyn monroe
you're such a midwit
Natalie Portman, Tilda Swinton, Uma Thurman. Verification not required.
Mary Pickford
Joan Crawford
Machiko Kyo
Kate Beahan
cruise is a great actor but he's not on the legendary level... he's last
de niro is great but i don't think he's as good as brando, DDL and nicholson
choosing between those 3 is the hard part. gun to my head...
>1 brando
>2 nicholson
>3 DDL
1. Ddl
2. Brando
3. Tom cruise
4. Nicholson
5. De niro
Ddl changes everything from voice to face to posture so naturally. Brando to a lesser extent. Tom Cruise is underrated magnolia should have gotten him an Oscar. 4. Jack is great but he's always got the same voice, posture etc. It's just him acting this way. De niro is the same way really. Besides cape fear he's the same guy.
Id say oldman and bale are better than everyone but Brandon and ddl..Johnny Depp is better than de niro. He actually has range
the last one loioks like terry or whatever it's name
the programmer that killed himself that used to say funny words on camera
You listed the wrong Tom.
no one on this board is a fan of tom 'pedo' hanx
you believe in qanon too?
Tom Cruise. He's not a bad actor; but he's a tier below the rest of the men in that pic.
I honestly only recognized Tom. Have no clue who the others are.
Gonna do a thread for actresses, should i include Foreigners or make it strictly Hollywood?
Jodie Foster
Elizabeth Taylor
Ingrid Bergman
Liv Ullmann
Juliette Binoche
include foreigners... from Hollywood, like michelle yeoh
People forgets that Cruise did this amazing kino performance
No one said he's a bad actor, just not quite on the level of the rest. Maybe he's better than DeNiro, but then again, DeNiro in Cape Fear was pretty amazing.
whats great about cruise in collateral is while the movie has philosophical themes and what not--it's almost like a character waking up from a Groundhogs Day stupor--it's not a heavy movie. a few changes to the script and you could easily get a tone closer to taxi driver, and cruise would have had the chops for that. cruise could have played the taxi driver as well though.
even doing a comedy role.
the thing about being an actor, you almost have to play the same sorts of roles to build your repertoire. but cruise could do anything. and hes a blockbuster guy. I wish other starts were as fun. you dont see clooney or pitt taking the risks cruise has, ever.
cruise could spend the next 10 years doing comedies and the 10 years after that being a drunken old man in films and he'd be the clear GOAT.
>clooney or pitt taking the risks cruise has, ever.
they couldn't play Vincent nearly as well. Neither could DDL. It'd be like watching them play themselves or other roles they've already played. Whoever's the worst out of these five, it's not Cruise.
it's funny, I like ddl. I think we need a big tent for different acting methods. but Ive never been on board the 'ddl is the best actor ever' train at all. imo it's just hype to keep him going and marketing to keep his films profitable.
it sounds really stupid, but I think great actors have this sort of 'common man range' that they can nail. Val Kilmer in tombstone is brilliant. It's great stagework, it's terrifying, and it's fun. I could see ddl building something similar. but I dont think it would have been as fun.
similarly, I dont see ddl being one of Mike's crew in Heat. I dont think he could have done that what Sizemore did.
no hate on ddl, I just think hes more marketing than anything. you go to see him to see a specific acting tradition being kept alive.
denigro
None of them are bad actors per se, but I'd go for DDL or Cruise
Cruise has two modes- honest charm or hard expressions without restraint, he can't do nuance
DDL has the opposite problem, he's too entrenched in nuance to the point where he just looks like he's showing off
All the others are far more naturalistic and charismatic in their performance, although they've all done their share of hammy shit
>he's too entrenched in nuance to the point where he just looks like he's showing off
Maybe the rest should keep up then. I know what you're talking about though, but I think it's an issue only in the context of the movie you're in. Tom Hardy has this problem because he's like this in everything he does, even if it's "goo monster man from outer space". DDL applies it because it fits the production. He wouldn't go nuance mode in a Marvel flick.
Every single one of these plays the same character except Brando
>reads off telepromter and cards
>doesn't give a frick
>eats like a madman and shits on other actors
>still mogs every tryhard and "method" actor without trying
A try legend
Nothing beats DDL's overacting in Gangs of New York, only Cruis in Tropic Thunder is close
Where is Anthony Hopkins
if he replaces cruise it becomes
ddl > brando > hopkins > nicholson > deniro
That sounds good to me.
I'd put Patrick Swayze up there with Brando. They don't have the same movies, but they carried the same energy and magnetism especially in youth.
Daniel Day by a country mile.
Meanwhile
Nicholson (The Last Detail) > Brando (Last Tango in Paris) > DDL (There Will Be Blood) > Cruise (Eyes Wide Shut) >>>>> De Niro (Taxi Driver)
I'm not going off their averages, just them at their best, in their best film.
Famous actor that actually had an incredible "range" but no one will think about: Robin Williams
He's been well regarded as an actor for a long time, it's just that he died so he doesn't get mentioned often anymore. Same with Philip Seymour Hoffman.
Jim Varney was better. Williams could never pull of Shakespeare like he did:
no one care about Shakespeare.
Ameripleb moment. Movie acting is a lower form of acting to the theatre.
embarrassing post
Deniro is a horrible actor. He only gets saved by being cast in movies by great directors in roles as the autistic mumbling moron he is in real life. To see him actually trying to act, try to watch Hide and Seek and you'll realize just how bad he is at just playing a dad.
DDL easily. Lacks all the nuance of the others. DDL shills are rebbit personified.
DDL is a total fricking scream meme. Of course he fools plebs and the Academy into thinking he's le good actor. His more subdued roles are completely unremarkable. Nicholson et. al.'s subdued roles are not unremarkable.
Cruise, but he's still good, most of his performances have him get by on his charisma rather than his acting ability though, which is fine for the kind of characters he usually plays but it hasn't left me as impressed as those other actors.
5 Guys Actors And Fries
Brando > Nicholson > Cruise > Day Lewis > DeNiro
Scratch that. Day Lewis dead last.
correctest rating
Current era de niro is easily the worst. Early era de niro is arguably the best.
Only deniro and Brando are shit, every other one here has had brilliant roles
Jack Nicholson, by far. His "crazy man" schtick is for normies and broad appeal. Less subtle than Dennis Hopper, for example, and more mild than Rip Torn, who was legitimately crazy.
Cruise is a good actor, but his fame and looks have gotten him a lot of wooden leading-man roles. Every now and then he's in a film where he really shines.
De Niro's career petered out as he got older, but his early work is great.
Brando and DDL are above any criticisms.
a reminder to all u plebs:
kinski >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all the rest
Neither Nicholson nor DeNiro act. They don't have range and they don't play characters. That doesn't mean that they can't produce great films or that the roles they pick aren't suited for their talents. They've had great careers. But they're not actors.
Tom Cruise is an actor. Take Lestat from Interview with the Vampire, and compare it to Less Grossman from Tropic Thunder. That's range. Those're characters. The wienery pilot Maverick vs the drugged out rocker Stacee Jaxx. Tom doesn't have a lot of range, but he can act and he does have characters. He belongs in the middle of the list.
And so it comes down to Brando vs DDL. Both are excellent character actors who have produced some of the most varied roles and performances in Hollywood history. But DDL only does one movie every five or six years and spends two or three years of prep for each role. Brando could vanish into multiple roles a year without having to work at it. Brando is the superior actor.
I would rank them then:
Nicholson = DeNiro > Cruise > Day-Lewis > Brando
DeNiro has played Travis Bickle, Max Cady and Rupert Pupkin who are all pretty different characters even if they're all deranged men. Pupkin in particular is very different from his typical role and he plays it well.
Agree about Cruise, and I'd throw in Vincent for Collateral as example of his range.
Johnny Depp? not going to pretend he is the goat or something and i think the dude is weird but his filmography is impressive. I only realized it was him in the movie blow years after watching it.
>Day-Lewis>[Brando>Nicholson>Deniro]
margin
Inside brackets are pretty equal, all great method actors. I'd probably give it to Brando for being innovative.
and now, reddit is here in force, everyone.
I think you guys are underselling cruise here.
One thing I like about Cruise is if you made a similar 3x3, you'd have a similarly large range of characterization. Lestat? Stole the show.
As I get older, I realize I prefer actors who put on characters. Do a voice, give me speech patterns, show some vulnerability. Explore territory.
We are festooned in European actors that pretend to be Americans by just holding their accent in a bit and they get lauded with awards. I like Americans that go the other way.
The biggest shame about the industry is that it's an industry. It has to prop up actors to make money and get movies made, and people have to pay to see the movies so more movies can get made.
You'd never have Denzel as Lestat even though I think he'd learn to have fun with it. Depp would do it.
btw, dinero is a great actor despite lacking some common readability in his face. then again, you dont just act with your face or it comes off as mugging, which is dicaprio territory these days. DiNero in cape fear vs taxi driver vs Heat vs Jackie Brown is both variance and wide range.
Nicholson > DDL < Brando > De Niro > Cruise.
Cruise by far
Cruise, and it isn't even close. The other four are among the greatest ever. Cruise doesn't even belong next to them.
tom cruise doesn't belong
Cruise is the worst actor there, and it's not even close (and I like him as an actor). He doesn't belong on that list.
Born on the 4th of July, Jerry MaGuire, Interview With A Vampire, A Few Good Men, Collateral, Mission Impossible, Eyes Wide Shut, Magnolia, Edge of Tomorrow, War of the Worlds
You Cruise haters are absolutely mental.
I think Cruise and Johnny Depp are the only actors that can give you the same thing and something new every time. American actors anyway.
Cruise is a guy who if he lives until 80 we'll see evolve into different roles, still. I want to say I wish he had more heavy almost theatrical roles like glen garry glen ross, but he did act across ed harris and gene hackman in The Firm. I want to say I wish he were in more ensemble stuff, but he not only leads his own ensemble in the MI series, but he started out with some heavy fricking hitters in The Outsiders which had everyone up and coming at the time including patrick swayzee and rob lowe. I could say he should do a few more comedies, but there are lots of laughs in his action roles. The guys done everything.
Cruise is already the GOAT. But I want to see Cruise do a movie with Denzel and I want him to do comedy in the next Rush Hour with Chris Tucker and Jackie Chan just to cement that legacy. If Cruise could go from intense to comic, it would be the greatest acting arc of all time.
>Born on the 4th of July, Jerry MaGuire, Interview With A Vampire, A Few Good Men, Collateral, Mission Impossible, Eyes Wide Shut, Magnolia, Edge of Tomorrow, War of the Worlds
is this supposed to convince me that cruise is a good actor or that these are good movies
Brando mogs everyone else. Literally the most influential actor of the past century.