-
⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️
Film & Television
Welcome Guest
⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ -
⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️
Forum Rules Film Chit-Chat Recently Watched Best Documentaries ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ -
Film & TV Moderators: ghostfreak
The Greatest Movie Star of our Time
- Thread starter ArcsAngles
- Start date
Busty St Clare
Ex-Bluelighter
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2007
- Messages
- 12,667
Jackie Chan.
lostNfound
Bluelight Crew
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2005
- Messages
- 13,678
Vince Vaughan, Clive Owen.
L O V E L I F E
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2000
- Messages
- 9,523
Greatest Movie Star Of *ALL* Time
If I may introduce a side-discussion, and offer up my nomination for GREATEST MOVIE STAR (THIS thread's definition of "movie star") OF ALL TIME, I would hereby nominate:
PAUL NEWMAN.
He could have played a jar of tomato sauce in a French interpretation of an obscure Shakespearean play, and it would have opened at the top of the charts in every country which chose to show it.
People have mentioned "looks" and "charisma" and yes, those two things are important, but in my strong opinion, there's one specific thing which separates the greats from the almost-greats.
And Paul Fucking Newman was the definition of having IT.
If I may introduce a side-discussion, and offer up my nomination for GREATEST MOVIE STAR (THIS thread's definition of "movie star") OF ALL TIME, I would hereby nominate:
PAUL NEWMAN.
He could have played a jar of tomato sauce in a French interpretation of an obscure Shakespearean play, and it would have opened at the top of the charts in every country which chose to show it.
People have mentioned "looks" and "charisma" and yes, those two things are important, but in my strong opinion, there's one specific thing which separates the greats from the almost-greats.
And Paul Fucking Newman was the definition of having IT.
AmorRoark
Bluelight Crew
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2002
- Messages
- 21,182
Paul Newman is one of my two favorite actor of all time so I feel the same. Acting doesn't get better than him in Cool Hand Luke & Butch Cassidy.
A close second for me is my second favorite actor Jimmy Stewart. I think Newman was technically a better actor but Stewart was an equally compelling personality and human being.
edit: I don't know why these were merged. They're not the same topic.
A close second for me is my second favorite actor Jimmy Stewart. I think Newman was technically a better actor but Stewart was an equally compelling personality and human being.
edit: I don't know why these were merged. They're not the same topic.
Last edited:
HoneyRoastedPeanut
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2008
- Messages
- 754
Depp or Clooney
Cruise if this was ten years ago
Pitt's too good imo
Cruise if this was ten years ago
Pitt's too good imo
tribal girl
Bluelight Crew
- Joined
- Jan 29, 2006
- Messages
- 13,269
So, I'm a bit confused as to what the OP is asking. I thought I understood it at first - morginal talent, but major star power. That's Tom Cruise to a T. I'd even argue "marginal", because I think he is a below average actor who plays the same role in every stinkin' movie. But, he makes excellent choices for films, and surrounds himself with talent like Spielberg, Jack Nicholson, Paul Thomas Anderson;, Stanley Kubrick, etc.
Where I get confused is the quoted post, which includes Pitt and Pacino, Ok, ok, Pitt is debatable (personally, I think he's really good and doesn't get enough credit due to his looks, but I get those that don't), but Pacino? I'm not sure how Pacino's talent can be questioned, especially if you've seen venues like Panic In Needle Park, Dog Day Afternoon, or even watching him work in an action vehicle like Heat. So, that's my confusion.
As to the original question, yeah, Tom Cruise is far and away (pun intended) my choice. I can't stand him, think he is a terrible actor, but there is no denying he is one of the biggest movie stars in Hollywood. He must have a terrific agent.
CharlesTheHammer
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Oct 8, 2010
- Messages
- 366
Talent must count for something here....
^^Yes, Tom Hanks 'is' a movie star, mainly because he stars in movies.
In my opinion when you are judging people of any occupation, including 'movie stars', then you should judge them based on how well they do their job....their level of talent, not how famous they are, or how rich.
I think that the hallmark of what makes a great actor, is the ability to play a role of a person who has a completely different personality from your own. In other words, I dont really see Brad Pitt, Tom Cruise or definitely George Clooney as being great actors, because most if not all their roles are personalities very similar to their own. They all usually play characters who are "hip", "cool", "good looking", etc. They are basically just playing themselves.
One of the best acting jobs I've seen was involving Charlize Theron in the 2003 movie 'Monster', where she played serial killer Eileen Wournos. Eileen Wournos was an unstable, depressed, bi-polar, schizophrenic 'Tom-boy' type woman who looked and acted VERY rough. Charlize Theron in real life is a pretty, glamorous, soft spoken, feminine woman. However, she was able to convincingly play the role of Eileen Wournos to a tee. I believe she won awards for her acting in that movie.
I wouldnt say that Charlize Theron is my absolute favorite actor/actress, but she did a damn good job there! I'd agree that Paul Newman was good, so is Robert Duvall.
^^Yes, Tom Hanks 'is' a movie star, mainly because he stars in movies.
In my opinion when you are judging people of any occupation, including 'movie stars', then you should judge them based on how well they do their job....their level of talent, not how famous they are, or how rich.
I think that the hallmark of what makes a great actor, is the ability to play a role of a person who has a completely different personality from your own. In other words, I dont really see Brad Pitt, Tom Cruise or definitely George Clooney as being great actors, because most if not all their roles are personalities very similar to their own. They all usually play characters who are "hip", "cool", "good looking", etc. They are basically just playing themselves.
One of the best acting jobs I've seen was involving Charlize Theron in the 2003 movie 'Monster', where she played serial killer Eileen Wournos. Eileen Wournos was an unstable, depressed, bi-polar, schizophrenic 'Tom-boy' type woman who looked and acted VERY rough. Charlize Theron in real life is a pretty, glamorous, soft spoken, feminine woman. However, she was able to convincingly play the role of Eileen Wournos to a tee. I believe she won awards for her acting in that movie.
I wouldnt say that Charlize Theron is my absolute favorite actor/actress, but she did a damn good job there! I'd agree that Paul Newman was good, so is Robert Duvall.
tribal girl
Bluelight Crew
- Joined
- Jan 29, 2006
- Messages
- 13,269
That performance was a complete fluke. I've not seen her do anything nearly as good as that before or after.
![:\](https://bluelight.org/xf/BL_Images/Orig_Emoji/wrygrin.gif "wry grin :\")
EA-1475
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2008
- Messages
- 1,665
Of ALL time, Cary Grant, hands down. The guy made a bagillion movies and there are only a handful that I would rate less than a B. Plus he could do drama and comedy equally well. That's something you can't say about Tom Cruise, De Niro, Pacino, Brando, Woody Harrelson.
Of OUR time? My gut says Brad Pitt. Has good to bad movie ratio is pretty good. And like Cary Grant can do drama and comedy.
Robert Downey Jr. is a great actor. Hollywood is just now starting to trust him enough to give him important project. He may well surpass Pitt before it is all said and done.
After spending the 90's showing his range, he seems to be settling on one persona which he carries from movie to movie. Which is fine by me. That's how stars of old did it back in the day. Clark Gable played the same character his entire career. I could watch RDJ be RDJ all day.
George Clooney is very good. However, I think Clooney's good to bad movie ratio is not so great. He's got some good ones but he has plenty of clunkers too. If I see a movie has Pitt or RDJ in it, I'm 95% sure I will like it. With Clooney, it's more like 70%.
Secondly, Clooney does a lot of movies with overtly political messages (Syriana, Good Night And Good Luck). Historically, these movies tend not to age very well. Try watching Fail-Safe or An American President sometime.
Of OUR time? My gut says Brad Pitt. Has good to bad movie ratio is pretty good. And like Cary Grant can do drama and comedy.
Robert Downey Jr. is a great actor. Hollywood is just now starting to trust him enough to give him important project. He may well surpass Pitt before it is all said and done.
After spending the 90's showing his range, he seems to be settling on one persona which he carries from movie to movie. Which is fine by me. That's how stars of old did it back in the day. Clark Gable played the same character his entire career. I could watch RDJ be RDJ all day.
George Clooney is very good. However, I think Clooney's good to bad movie ratio is not so great. He's got some good ones but he has plenty of clunkers too. If I see a movie has Pitt or RDJ in it, I'm 95% sure I will like it. With Clooney, it's more like 70%.
Secondly, Clooney does a lot of movies with overtly political messages (Syriana, Good Night And Good Luck). Historically, these movies tend not to age very well. Try watching Fail-Safe or An American President sometime.