Are The Most Famous Actors Really Good Actors?

I might give the all-time award for going both ways, so to speak, to Jack Lemmon.

 

Kirk Douglas....great screen presence and always fun to watch. Not sure I would call him a great actor. He could be hammy and intense in equal parts.

 

I think a good illustration of your point is Ace in the Hole.

 

I don't know the answer to the OPs question but I know a lot of famous actors don't really seem to be very good imo.
Sandra Bullock, I can barely stand, along with Meg Ryan.
Both whom I actually liked at one point.

Recently while watching a movie I was amazed how wooden and pedantic Redford is.
Steven Seagal is famous, nuff said.

Samuel Jackson's brand of crazy has grown tiresome.
Bruce Willis's moue , and world weariness, has gotten old, and tired.
Does anyone think Ahnold is a good actor?

Your opinion may differ.

 

I think many actors are afraid to deviate too far from what pays the bills (even assuming they are able). As a result, they end up doing the same shtick and it becomes tiresome for some (you and me) while others eat it up.

I always thought Gary Burghoff would have made a great movie serial killer. Talk about taking a chance!

 

Hard to answer this question, but I think sometimes there is a difference between an a great actor and a movie star (what might be considered a popular actor). A movie star may not be the best consistent actor, but they have many qualities not all great actors have. This can be many factors, which will make an actor very popular without being the best actor. It takes a combination of acting, on-screen looks, personality outside of acting roles, how they deal with being a celebrity. Great actors may not want the off-camera spotlight, they are only interested in being in front of the camera, they can't handle or don't want the attention to being an famous actor. In general, this is true of any performer in the entertainment industry.

 

In the Cut (2003) by Jane Campion with Mark Ruffalo. Meg Ryan is different here, really great.

 

Ultimately, no actor is beyond reproach regarding their particular style of acting. Here's Katherine O'Hara with a spot on Meryl Streep on SCTV's Farm Film Report. (There's a bunch of them on Youtube.)

 

some are, some aren't (but wisely choose roles that play to their strength). Or bring such a strong personna to the screen, like Nicholson, that the audience can fill in a lot of the characters attutude. Though Nicholson has also explored a wide diversity of roles - he alwasy actually seemed interested in acting, and what he could bring to a part.

Bear in mind an actor might not have a lot of say or which take is selected and how a film is edited. all sorts of variables. Watching the Avengers, I was thinking how hard it is to play a character like Thor, or Captain America without looking silly. Moreso, actually dignified and commanding. In some ways, that kind of acting is uniquely challenging in a way those actors will never get credit for.

 

Kevin Bacon in James Wan's "Death Sentence ".

 

He once said that even though Batman and Robin was a crap film and he was crap in it, it more than set him up for life, so now he never takes any jobs based on financial considerations.

 

I'm watching "Highlander" for the first time. Christopher Lambert has to be one of the all-time worst.

 

I would submit that many actors are far more capable than they often show, but it's easy to stay in similar roles for the sake of maintaining their brand and popularity. Most actors do not have the balls to pull a Daniel Day Lewis and bounce from role to role with no concern for staying within the same somewhat narrow range.

That is the great thing about a director like Quentin Tarantino; he always get the best out of actors, and SLJ notwithstanding, usually has them acting out of their comfort zone, like Leo in Django Unchained or Brad Pitt in Inglorious Basterds.

 

that's very subjective...many factors go into an actors talent. I've yet to be hugely disappointing in any of the biggies...unless the plot sucks, etc...
I find it amusing how ppl love to hate some more than others especially when the bandwagon is passing by...

 

he has chops and I enjoy him...

 

LOL..there we go! bandwagon time...He was friggin F'n fabulous in both John Wick 1 & 2!...no denying that...; )

 

and a figure that doesn't quit!

 

I can only think of one actor that shocked me when I realized it was him in a movie more than once, and that's Sean Penn.

I realize that's also hair, makeup and the sort of viewer ignorance that may not be possible in our iMDb world. But when I fail to register a star several scenes into a movie, I still think that's exceptional.

 

I can't stand Sean Penn but I think you make a good point/observation.

 

Not always. Many are what used to be called "leading men"

Unfortunately many of them don't have the skills at least early on and they later develop them stretching out. Working with an acting coach helps as well--it tends to challenge the limitations that a lot of actors put on themselves or even turn those limitations on their head and use them as an advantage.

 

I agree — and he barely talks in those, which is a big reason they’re so good. In visual terms, Keanu is spectacular; I’ve long maintained he would have been a god in the silent-film era.

 

Acting is really not very hard. Every day we all act going through life.

 

To me, there's performing and there's acting. I think that some people tend to perform in life, especially teachers, radio and TV presenters etc. Teachers also act to some extent so as to be able to connect to their pupils, who might be 3 or 33.

Some actors appear to be saying "Look at me. I'm acting. I'm being happy. I'm being sad." etc. They tend to disappoint.

Other actors just become the characters that they are portraying, and thoughts of acting don't even come into it when watching them. They're just plain believable.

I don't watch many movies but, for me, good acting includes Peter Jurasik playing Londo Mollari in Babylon 5. At one moment he's comedic and the next moment there is massive pathos. The look of horror and guilt in his eyes when the Narn Home World is being bombarded by mass drivers is so believable. You feel what he feels. To me, that's acting.

I also suspect that true acting is actually very hard since one must adopt the character's personality to be believable. This means that the actor must have a strong personal core so as to not get lost in the character.

I suspect that similar requirements apply to those who work with people with personality issues or dementia. Such people can draw you into their world and the challenge then becomes getting back.

 

Movie go'ers seem to like familiar.
Truly great acting is mostly confined to more INDY type movies.

 

Different things can constitute a good performance. Sometimes the role calls for a nuanced, realistic character, whereas other times it calls for something over the top. Done successfully, both types (and everything in between) can be considered good acting. An actor like Samuel L. Jackson may not have the range of, say, Robert DeNiro, but he has his own brand of wild intensity that he does very well. Another example is Clint Eastwood; he has pretty much zero chops, but he plays the stoic tough guy so well that it doesn’t matter.

I do see the OP’s point though. There are a lot of actors who are not good at acting, but are somehow huge stars who repeatedly get roles because they are recognizable. There are also big stars who were good 10-20 years ago, but it seems like nobody notices that they haven’t done anything good in at least a decade.