Which 4 actors have the most range/versatility?

[ssBaldy]

I wonder why people vote Phoenix, Depp and Hanks. Love them all as actors, but former 2 always look fucked up in the head no matter who they play and Hanks is always a nice guy.

 

[horc00]

I'd add Woody Harrelson to the mix. Definitely not Top 4 but pretty darn good.

 

[Drain Bamage]

^ This is why I stopped posting movie threads here

 

[Batjester]

Jim Carrey
Bobcat Goldthwait
Will Farrell
Carrot Top

 

[LEWIS540]

Scent Of A Woman? He played a very convincing blind guy. Maybe you only know about Scarface?

SOAW has to be one of the worst Oscar winning performances ever. It is almost comically bad. Pacino dis some really good work earlier in his career (and even a couple of good roles after), but the fact this is his one award winning role shows how pathetic and irrelevant the Oscars really are.

 

[Deleted member 110072]

I wonder why people vote Phoenix, Depp and Hanks. Love them all as actors, but former 2 always look fucked up in the head no matter who they play and Hanks is always a nice guy.

Phoenix does tend towards intense nutcases(albeit often very different ones) but you also have something like Her playing the opposite, does comedy very well to in Inherent Vice.

Speaking of Her a swell Johansson would probably be a decent answer for recent actresses, didn't really do Oscar friendly stuff until Marriage Story but managed voiceover work very well and can play sex girl and spaced out weirdo plus did dumb blonde very convincing in Don Jon.

SOAW has to be one of the worst Oscar winning performances ever. It is almost comically bad. Pacino dis some really good work earlier in his career (and even a couple of good roles after), but the fact this is his one award winning role shows how pathetic and irrelevant the Oscars really are.

The Billy Ocean school of acting...

 

[Takes Two To Tango]

SOAW has to be one of the worst Oscar winning performances ever. It is almost comically bad. Pacino dis some really good work earlier in his career (and even a couple of good roles after), but the fact this is his one award winning role shows how pathetic and irrelevant the Oscars really are.

The reason Pacino won was because they are making it up for his past losses in his previous nominations. He obviously should have won for the The Godfather II and Serpico. The Oscar win to me was a culmination of his career, that's why he got the award. It's been done before in the Oscars and it's been done since. Btw who do you think should have won the Oscar that year Pacino won?

Also you honestly think that no winner ever deserved there Oscar? I think Anthony Hopkins for Silence of the Lambs and Robert De Niro in Raging Bull were well deserved. Just to name a few.

 

[Streeter]

DDL, Oldman, Bale maybe the 3 most versatile actors ever.


4th is a toss up between. Hoffman, Phoenix, n Leo.

 

[LEWIS540]

The reason Pacino won was because they are making it up for his past losses in his previous nominations. He obviously should have won for the The Godfather II and Serpico. The Oscar win to me was a culmination of his career, that's why he got the award. It's been done before in the Oscars and it's been done since.

Yup. John Wayne won an Oscar once when up against Peter O'Toole, Dustin Hoffman, Richard Burton and Jon Voight. Shows what a shit show they are.

Btw who do you think should have won the Oscar that year Pacino won?

No idea. Anyone else. Denzil?

Also you honestly think that no winner ever deserved there Oscar?

Never said that did I? But deserved? It's certainly not a meritocracy. All politics and popularity. But sure many fine performances have been rewarded. To say they were the best performance of the year is so subjective. Ever notice how the nominees are almost always the same award show to award show? Crazy, eh?

I think Anthony Hopkins for Silence of the Lambs and Robert De Niro in Raging Bull were well deserved. Just to name a few.

Hopkins was fine (and memorable), playing Lecter in the pantomime villain vain, in his supporting role. Would have made a good comic book villain. Preferred Cox's interpretation in Manhunter. de Niro was good, yeah.

Again, it's more often than not down to hype/popularity/politics as much as anything as to who wins.....and again not saying fine performances don't get the nod.

 

[Takes Two To Tango]

Yup. John Wayne won an Oscar once when up against Peter O'Toole, Dustin Hoffman, Richard Burton and Jon Voight. Shows what a shit show they are.

The year that Pacino lost for The Godfather II. He lost to Art Carney for the film Harry and Tonto. Pretty much a forgettable film. It was also Carney first nomination, actually his only nomination. I guess that was a career tribute Oscar sympathy award given to Art Carney.

No idea. Anyone else. Denzil?

Denzel should have won for Malcolm X imo. And Robert Downey Jr. was great in Chaplin to.

Never said that did I? But deserved? It's certainly not a meritocracy. All politics and popularity. But sure many fine performances have been rewarded. To say they were the best performance of the year is so subjective. Ever notice how the nominees are almost always the same award show to award show? Crazy, eh?

Yes there indeed politics and influence of money involved. Especially when Shakespeare in Love beat out Saving Private Ryan for an Oscar. A lot of behind the scenes trickery. But it's not always like that. There have been deserving winners that's for sure.

Also yes it's subjective but when you have 5000 Oscar member voters who vote for who had the best performance. Than it becomes much more fair and objective I believe. It's not a perfect system, but it works most of the time.

Again, it's more often than not down to hype/popularity/politics as much as anything as to who wins.....and again not saying fine performances don't get the nod.

Yes there is a combination of many things that can give a nod a particular movie or actor. Like what I said it's not a perfect system. But it works most of the time imo.

I mean is there system that really works perfectly?

 

[bufetadanacara]

Peter Sellers
Wilem Dafoe
Gary Oldman
Philip Seymour Hoffman

 

[LEWIS540]

Also yes it's subjective but when you have 5000 Oscar member voters who vote for who had the best performance. Than it becomes much more fair and objective I believe. It's not a perfect system, but it works most of the time.



Yes there is a combination of many things that can give a nod a particular movie or actor. Like what I said it's not a perfect system. But it works most of the time imo.

I mean is there system that really works perfectly?

They literally campaign to win nominations, then votes.

If you gave 5000 voters 100 good films to watch and then asked them to vote blind (ie no outside influence).........the results would be all over the place, without people telling them what to do. I'm sure likes of Day-Lewis would still do well though, because that's what they are supposed to like.

+ There is certain Oscar bait tropes, too. Take someone like Bill Murrary. One of the best actors of the last 40 years imo, but he doesn't conform to the typical Hollywood norm, so gets shunned. Guys like John Turturro, Steve Buscemi, Guy Pearce, Paddy Considine, Steve Martin, John Goodman, Jim Carrey (maybe ) etc etc have put in several great performances but aren't "Hollywood" enough or don't resort to Oscar bait films, so don't get nominated.

Sylvester Stallone came within a flea's chuff of winning for playing Rocky in 2017 though!!! <Lmaoo>

Then you get your Oscar darlings or those who clearly go all out in an effort to try and win awards like Leo did successfully, and Will Smith and Tom Cruise failed to do.







Best alternative? Don't bother with the circle jerk. Or at least don't think they mean 5% as what they're meant to represent.

 

[Takes Two To Tango]

They literally campaign to win nominations, then votes.

If you gave 5000 voters 100 good films to watch and then asked them to vote blind (ie no outside influence).........the results would be all over the place, without people telling them what to do. I'm sure likes of Day-Lewis would still do well though, because that's what they are supposed to like.

+ There is certain Oscar bait tropes, too. Take someone like Bill Murrary. One of the best actors of the last 40 years imo, but he doesn't conform to the typical Hollywood norm, so gets shunned. Guys like John Turturro, Steve Buscemi, Guy Pearce, Paddy Considine, Steve Martin, John Goodman, Jim Carrey (maybe ) etc etc have put in several great performances but aren't "Hollywood" enough or don't resort to Oscar bait films, so don't get nominated.

Sylvester Stallone came within a flea's chuff of winning for playing Rocky in 2017 though!!! <Lmaoo>

Then you get your Oscar darlings or those who clearly go all out in an effort to try and win awards like Leo did successfully, and Will Smith and Tom Cruise failed to do.

Best alternative? Don't bother with the circle jerk. Or at least don't think they mean 5% as what they're meant to represent.

Bill Murray was nominated for only one Oscar which is Lost in Translation. What else movies do you think he should have been nominated for?

I hear you. Lot of those guys you mentioned are very good actors on their own rights. I don't know why Turturro or Buschemi in particular haven't got nominated for an Oscar for at least in the supporting roles they've been in.

Guy Pearce is a good actor, but I don't know if he's been in really strong Oscar worthy roles. Besides Memento and L.A Confidential.

Steve Martin, John Goodman and Jim Carrey are more comedic actors. Though Jim Carrey has taken Oscar baity roles in his career. Like Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind and Man in the Moon.

Leo finally won an Oscar for The Revenant. I think that was a sympathy tribute award for his career.

While Will Smith and Tom Cruise have unfortunately never won. But they did deserve to win in previous roles they've been in.

 

[LEWIS540]

Bill Murray was nominated for only one Oscar which is Lost in Translation. What else movies do you think he should have been nominated for?

I hear you. Lot of those guys you mentioned are very good actors on their own rights. I don't know why Turturro or Buschemi in particular haven't got nominated for an Oscar for at least in the supporting roles they've been in.

Guy Pearce is a good actor, but I don't know if he's been in really strong Oscar worthy roles. Besides Memento and L.A Confidential.

Steve Martin, John Goodman and Jim Carrey are more comedic actors. Though Jim Carrey has taken Oscar baity roles in his career. Like Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind and Man in the Moon.

Leo finally won an Oscar for The Revenant. I think that was a sympathy tribute award for his career.

While Will Smith and Tom Cruise have unfortunately never won. But they did deserve to win in previous roles they've been in.

That's the point. It's all basically arbitrary.

You keep using the word "deserve". It means nothing.


Don't know why you're so obsessed about ranking films and performances. It's weird to me.

 

[Cpt Migraine]

Lol @AgentSmecker liked your post.

Such a corny movie with such corny dialogue. But Dafoe KILLED it as the gay FBI agent.

Fuck you for making me like a post where you shit on boondock saints.. well played sir..

 

[Takes Two To Tango]

That's the point. It's all basically arbitrary.

You keep using the word "deserve". It means nothing.


Don't know why you're so obsessed about ranking films and performances. It's weird to me.

To each their own.

 

[Philo-Publius]

Peter Sellers

Johnny Depp

Edward Norton

Heath Ledger

Daniel Day-Lewis

Sam Rockwell

Christian Bale

Viggo Mortensen

Wilem Dafoe

Lon Chaney

Gary Oldman

Russell Crowe

Sean Penn

Jared Leto

Tom Hardy

Leonardo DiCaprio

Tom Hanks

Joaquin Phoenix

Philip Seymour Hoffman

4. Daniel Day-Lewis
3. Tom Hardy
2. Christian Bale
1. Gary Oldman

 

[Deleted member 53199]

Gary Oldman
Daniel Day-Lewis
Tom Hardy
Christian Bale

 

[Buddy Revell]

Tom Hanks wins this in a landslide... Jamie Fox is a really good mention too. More talented than everyone on that list besides Hanks. He can do comedy, sing, dance, play the tough guy, the hero, the villain. Only thing I’ve never seen him do well is be a romantic leading man.
And I know DDL, Bale, and Penn have their fans but they either don’t work enough or don’t take on varied enough roles to qualify as being the most versatile. Gotta at least be able to do comedy.

 

[Sad Dad]

Anyone who didn’t vote PSH or DDL hasn’t seen enough movies