re: Is Tom Hanks considered one of the best actors of all time?

The thing about Hanks is he won back to back Oscars, from there he pretty much just did the roles he wanted too and that he would enjoy doing. I think we get too caught up in old actors being great because they are from the classic Hollywood. John Wayne and company were entertaining and played the part well but were not superbly great actors.

Hanks had done some solid work since 2002 and people forget his work on Toy Story 2 & 3 and Polar Express which were huge box office successes as well as his work behind the camera with Band of Brothers and Pacific.

I would say that Hanks is the most successful normal person in Hollywood.

quote:

---

John Wayne and company were entertaining and played the part well but were not superbly great actors.

---

I agree with Wayne but who is "and company."

quote:

---

I think we get too caught up in old actors being great because they are from the classic Hollywood. John Wayne and company were entertaining and played the part well but were not superbly great actors.

---

So everyone from classic Hollywood is an overrated actor?

Many, today and yesterday, have limited range. I'll give you John Wayne, Bogart to a lesser extent, and even Stewart to an even lesser extent (even though Stewart is a favorite of mine).

But when you get to Henry Fonda, Marlon Brando, Alec Guinness, Peter Sellers, Gregory Peck, William Holden, Laurence Olivier, Toshiro Mifune, James Cagney, Takeshi Shimura, etc., these aren't actors we have just some mushy feelings of because they are in black and white films. They are legitimately great and have made their mark in "acting."

There are many modern day actors who can fit in that mix: Hoffman, De Niro, DDL, Nicholson, Oldman, Caine, etc. Hanks just isn't one of them, no matter how much you want him to be.

And that's nothing against Hanks, he's a different kind of actor.

quote:

---

Hanks had done some solid work since 2002 and people forget his work on Toy Story 2 & 3 and Polar Express which were huge box office successes as well as his work behind the camera with Band of Brothers and Pacific.

---

The question isn't, has Tom Hanks contributed to film more than other movie stars of his generation? Or has Tom Hanks entertained more thoroughly than other film stars of this generation. The question is:

quote:

---

Is Tom Hanks considered one of the best actors of all time?

---

quote:

---

I feel like I'm taking crazy pills here. Hanks is one of the greatest actors of all time.

---

Just because we really like someone doesn't mean they are great. And I don't think it's an insult to Hanks to say he's a wonderful movie star, but not a great actor.

quote:

---

Steven Gold, Andrew Beckett, Forrest Gump, Jim Lovell, Capt. Miller, Chuck Noland, etc.

---

None of these drift far from center. There's a lot of Tom Hanks in each one. This is precisely WHY he's more famous than most actors, and why he's a superstar.

I'm going to guess that you wouldn't argue if I said De Niro is a better actor than Hanks right? So if "success" is what judges an actor, then why have Hanks films generated for box office revenue?

quote:

---

He's won Oscars for roles in comedies and dramas and has been nominated numerous times.

---

He's won two Oscars for two dramas. As said previously, Meryl Streep has way more Oscar noms and we aren't talking about her in this light right now.

quote:

---

You all are penalizing him because he's not afraid to act or take family oriented roles or roles that are geared toward children.

---

We're penalizing him because he has limited range. He's not a DDL, completely take on the character method actor. He's a "play a variation of Tom Hanks in every role," kind of actor. Nothing wrong with that, but it's not particularly great "acting."

quote:

---

Doesn't mean he's not one of the greatest of all time. Possibly top ten actors ever.

---

Yes it does. Because this thread is about acting, not movie stardom. Change the OP and title, and yeah It would be hard to disagree with the assessment. As long as this is about acting, this is a different kind of discussion.

quote:

---

I'd definitely rank Tom Hanks above Mel Gibson.

---

A whole ton of this stuff is subjective, I'd rate him over a number of guys on that list (Gibson, included), yet behind both Frederic March and William Powell, neither of which are on Haze's list.

And Heston is on there, but I don't regard Chuck as any better actor than John Wayne, frankly. A great actor has to be able to do anything - Jimmy Stewart, Jack Lemmon, Claude Raines, they all had turns in comedic roles, dramatic roles, lead roles, supporting roles - but none of those 3 really had that star quality (although for a time Raines did and Stewart approached it). Lemmon is the classic example of this, almost the Philip Seymour Hoffman of his era - makes it seem so effortless that you dismiss how good he was.

Any competent lead actor could have played Mr. Roberts - only 3 or 4 working actors of the time could have even attempted Pulver and none would have been as good as Jack.

(ETA: More to the original point - Hanks has a lot more in common with Jack Lemmon and Jimmy Stewart than he does with John Wayne or Marlon Brando.)

quote:

---

So everyone from classic Hollywood is an overrated actor?

---

overrated film actors, great stage actors

LINK

quote:

---

I honestly don't think De Niro is any better of an actor than Hanks.

---

quote:

---

And since when did method acting equal better acting? That's complete horseshite.

---

It doesn't. Just an example of someone who disappears into roles, that's all.

quote:

---

And you mean to tell me there is no large variation, or that the roles don't stray far from center, when you look at characters like Forrest Gump and Andrew Beckett? Come on, man.

---

I never said Hanks DIDN'T have an outstanding performance or two that did stray quite a bit, just that the large majority of his roles don't and for good reason.

I'l say it again: People love Tom Hanks because he's Tom Hanks, regardless of the role he's in. People love DDL because you never know who he is going to be. (Again, DDL is a stand-in for any great ACTOR. Same goes for Nicholson (peak Nicholson), Hoffman, Guinness, etc.)

quote:

---

I'm not saying he's the best actor, but he's certainly one of the greats.

---

Should be a short list, and he's not on it.

quote:

---

She's one of the best actresses to have ever walked this earth.

---

No gender separation needed, she's a Top 30 actor all-time. Easily actually. Hanks isn't.

Why are some people in this thread acting like john wayne is a great actor? People are saying hanks is a great movie star but not a great actor. I think that description would also fit wayne.

quote:

---

This is how i see it too. Try to imagine Hanks filling the shoes of Oldman in "Dracula", or as Vito Corleone and Travis Bickle as De Niro did.

I know its not fair to compare roles, but i do feel Hanks does what he does well. Drama and comedy, never really see him venture out past those.

---

Exactly, but its not even about genres really, people get hung up on Hanks playing comedy an that proving that he has range. But even roles in Apollo 13 and Sleepless in Seattle are quite similar in feeling.

quote:

---

I'd put Hanks, Johnny Depp and Denzel Washington in the same league. With actors like Hopkins, De Niro, Oldman and Pacino above them.

---

Bingo. People will riot clearly, but this is correct. Add Tom Cruise and Will Smith to that first list as well. And this doesn't mean they can't put out a good performance or two, it's just that that's rare.



Look, I think people are getting worked up because they feel slightly upset that some are saying Tom Hanks isn't a good actor and that's insulting. So let's really define the term "movie star," (I'm not sold on that phrase, but it's what we have so far) and create a better context to show what Hanks is skilled at, because he has much more in common with Tom Cruise than he does with Dustin Hoffman.

Let's say that "movie star," means an actor is skilled at keeping the majority of his characters tied to a cultivated persona that is comfortable for people to watch. Movie Stars are better at familiarity, at creating a cadre of characters that inspire great cultural appeal. They use acting as a way to connect to culture at large. Movie stars have a better command of their cultural persona, infecting every character with it, rather than letting a character take over.

They are talented actors they just USE acting differently.

Great movie stars are not (but can sometimes be) great actors. And great actors are not (but sometimes can be) great movie stars.