Movie stars with a perfect filmography?

PaulB1984 · 21-11-2012 12:01am

pixelburp wrote: »

My game, my rules? Sorry but I call bullsh*t on this; you talk about how everyones' got an opinion and everyone has to debate & get along, but you then decide to jettison the factors most around here would consider important to a debate on actors' merits - the actual craft of acting - then get itchy because people call you out on it. That's not a debate, that's just creating shopping-lists & easily done if all we're doing is finding the most profitable actors, go to google!

This is exactly what i'm talking people! Where's this member's choices? Pixelburp, i'm pretty sure i have a reason for everything i say. My point about TC's list of movies is that i may compliment whichever i choose without being slammed for it. All of his movies were hits, all of his future movies will be hits. And if anyone thinks i'm wrong for saying that, well, i do apologise. Now please, name me a movie star, man or woman, who you believe has never starred in a bad movie. If i disagree, that's where you chime in and defend your opinion, the way i do with mine. And stop with the insults, please, there's no need to get nasty.

PaulB1984 · 21-11-2012 12:02am

Custardpi wrote: »

How about Kevin Spacey? Looking at his filmography the only possible flaw on it would be Pay It Forward. Reckon pretty much everything else he's done is respectable.

Completely agree. Wonderful actor, although i must say i loved Pay It Forward and detest Superman Returns, that's his one low point, but anything else i've seen him in he's wonderful.

PaulB1984 · 21-11-2012 12:07am

JohnMarston wrote: »

Clint Eastwood

Al Pacino

The worst they have had is mediocre movies.

Clint's had a shining career, there may be a turkey here or there, but as you've said, mediocre at worst. Pacino's had a few duffers though, but the good far outweighs the bad.

Fr D Maugire · 21-11-2012 12:09am

Well a good place to get a good idea of actors quality is to look at a site like 'Rotten tomatoes' and check out the scores for movies.

Many of Tom Cruise's movies are viewed as poor to being complete turkeys by the various reviewers.

Then look at Humphrey Bogart, 4 movies rated as 100% with his lowest rating movie 65% which is still better than a large % of Cruise's movies.

I admit to not having seen many of Bogie's movies but Casablanca and The Big Sleep alone spank anything Tom Cruise has ever done.

PaulB1984 · 21-11-2012 12:10am

WoollyRedHat wrote: »

Adam Sandler. When future generations look back, they will declare, rather matter of factly, that the man was a true ledgend, way ahead of his time.
ust look at his back catalogue, he is a genius and he knows a masterpiece when he sees one, his whole career is testament to thatHow he hasn't gotten an Oscar yet is mind boggling. J.In fact, the true indicatator that the Oscars stopped being relevant years ago, is the fact that Sandler fails to be acknowledged by the academy. **** em'. Sandler, one of the best, maybe the best, who would know.

Couldn't agree more. Funny People alone deserved at least 3 Oscars and got diddly squat. The man's an icon, the only reason people pick on him is for that very reason. But let them go out and create movies like Billy Madison, Happy Gilmore, Big Daddy, The Waterboy etc... The man is wonderful. And for what it's worth, i loved Jack & Jill and so did everyone else at the screening i went to, there were cheers and screams of laughter, everyone loved it.

pixelburp · 21-11-2012 12:13am

PaulB1984 wrote: »

This is exactly what i'm talking people! Where's this member's choices? Pixelburp, i'm pretty sure i have a reason for everything i say. My point about TC's list of movies is that i may compliment whichever i choose without being slammed for it. All of his movies were hits, all of his future movies will be hits. And if anyone thinks i'm wrong for saying that, well, i do apologise. Now please, name me a movie star, man or woman, who you believe has never starred in a bad movie. If i disagree, that's where you chime in and defend your opinion, the way i do with mine. And stop with the insults, please, there's no need to get nasty.

Nobody's getting nasty, go to After Hours if want nasty, but the premise of your argument by your own admission is box-office sales, which from the outset is a flawed argument. It ignores talent, craft, ability, charisma etc. etc. If you want to talk box-office, we'll talk box-office but as I said, most people here aren't naming actors whose films are 'hits', they're naming people who are / were amazing acting talents in their own right, irrespective of the vehicle they were in. I'm well aware at how discussion fora work thanks, I don't need pointers on how to jam, but what's a discussion forum without conflict, it's the essence of good drama, and you are somehwat curtailing your own debate with rules

Frankly, if you want my actual opinion and you want consistently great actors, real honest-to-god craftsmen, you go beyond the vacuous non-entities like Cruise and you search for the Character Actors, the professionals who always bring their a-game, but aren't always are top of the bill. I look to people like Phillip Seymour Hoffman (now a leading man, but not always), Frank Langella, Bryan Cranston etc. etc.. Jesus Cranston's got more natural acting talent than that midget 1-trick pony Cruise. He doesn't put bums on seats, but it's a bit shallow to rate the mans ability on that factor.

PaulB1984 wrote: »

Couldn't agree more. Funny People alone deserved at least 3 Oscars and got diddly squat. The man's an icon, the only reason people pick on him is for that very reason. But let them go out and create movies like Billy Madison, Happy Gilmore, Big Daddy, The Waterboy etc... The man is wonderful. And for what it's worth, i loved Jack & Jill and so did everyone else at the screening i went to, there were cheers and screams of laughter, everyone loved it.

Open. Mouthed. :eek:

PaulB1984 · 21-11-2012 12:16am

A-Trak wrote: »

I think we all know PaulB is jumping up and down on a sofa smiling maniacally while typing his posts....

Yup, i am, the naysayers may not want to take part and just slam me, but 1,000 views in a few hours speaks for itself. Nothing wrong with a little bit of debate, and i love the fact that so many people are giving intelligent answers like Kevin Spacey, Clint Eastwood, Adam Sandler etc... It's all about honesty. It's a bit rich that members have a problem with me questioning their choices and yet mine were questioned first.

johnny_ultimate · 21-11-2012 12:16am

I never understand how this question comes up so much here - there's been at least two or three threads on the same subject in the last year or so. Ultimately, there's only so responsible an actor can be for a film's quality. Even the most discerning script picker will inevitably end up in something that doesn't work out. Financing could fall through, the director / producer / ensemble / studio could screw it up, indeed any number of factors could go wrong. An editor could singlehandedly make a good performance seem bad, or vice versa. An actor is just one of the many people involved in a film's production, and indeed far from the person with the most creative control. I think the question of directors with perfect filmographies is a more appropriate one, as the creative lead of the film is far more responsible for the end product than the actor (even if, as we all know, a good performance can propel a film to the upper echelons). Even then, I'd say you're looking at a small handful of directors.

PaulB1984 wrote: »

C. The man's an icon, the only reason people pick on him is for that very reason. But let them go out and create movies like Billy Madison, Happy Gilmore, Big Daddy, The Waterboy etc... The man is wonderful.

Being perfectly honest with you Paul, the reason he's picked on is because many of us think he's basically a comedy black hole.

PaulB1984 · 21-11-2012 12:18am

ViveLaVie wrote: »

Marion Cotillard.

Possibly Ralph Fiennes? Haven't seen everything he's in though.

Leonardo di Caprio. I think The Beach is pretty good.

Every Twilight film is a disgrace.

Ralph Fiennes, BRILLIANT choice, never seen him in a bad movie. Can't even name one i haven't seen.

In fairness to Twilight, i thought the same before i saw them, watched the first 3 last Christmas and completely loved the first movie, thought nothing of the second and loved the 3rd one. Haven't seen BD 1 and 2 yet.

PaulB1984 · 21-11-2012 12:23am

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

I never understand how this question comes up so much here - there's been at least two or three threads on the same subject in the last year or so. Ultimately, there's only so responsible an actor can be for a film's quality. Even the most discerning script picker will inevitably end up in something that doesn't work out. Financing could fall through, the director / producer / ensemble / studio could screw it up, indeed any number of factors could go wrong. An editor could singlehandedly make a good performance seem bad, or vice versa. An actor is just one of the many people involved in a film's production, and indeed far from the person with the most creative control. I think the question of directors with perfect filmographies is a more appropriate one, as the creative lead of the film is far more responsible for the end product than the actor (even if, as we all know, a good performance can propel a film to the upper echelons). Even then, I'd say you're looking at a small handful of directors.

Being perfectly honest with you Paul, the reason he's picked on is because many of us think he's basically a comedy black hole.

Again, really, it's about personal choices. Just people naming actors who, in their own opinions, have had a perfect run of movies. As an example: Plenty of people hate most of Roger Moore's James Bond movies, but i think his run was perfect, he's the only actor as Bond to have (In my opinion) a perfect run of Bond movies.

Nah, he's picked on because he's loved, any one of those movies is better than anything i'd ever do in my lifetime, so you'd never see me bad mouth him. I actually have a shirt worn by him in Jack & Jill, Sony Pictures in London sent to me a few months back, it's among my most treasured possessions.

PaulB1984 · 21-11-2012 12:28am

donalg1 wrote: »

What was the one he was in with Cameron Diaz recently, think he was a hitman in it, I cant remember the name because thankfully my brain blocks out such sh1te. Just saw it was Knight and Day, yes that was a load of tripe.

Daniel Day Lewis as others have said seems to only make a film every few years and they are usually very good with great performances from him. There will be blood being one of the best performances ever.

So many people love There Will Be Blood, even the Oscars loved it. I watched it once and it just shocked me, i couldn't believe how psychotic and pointless it was. And the ending was just dreadful, i actually winced in pain for DDL, especially when i thought of his truly brilliant performances (I'd have kissed hand for My Left Foot and In The Name Of The Father, those are performances).

PaulB1984 · 21-11-2012 12:41am

Here's another.. Harrison Ford. Haven't seen every one of his movies, but i'm fairly sure there isn't one i wouldn't like.

21-11-2012 1:31am

PaulB1984 wrote: »

Yup, i am, the naysayers may not want to take part and just slam me, but 1,000 views in a few hours speaks for itself. Nothing wrong with a little bit of debate, and i love the fact that so many people are giving intelligent answers like Kevin Spacey, Clint Eastwood, Adam Sandler etc... It's all about honesty. It's a bit rich that members have a problem with me questioning their choices and yet mine were questioned first.

You keep mentioning debate but I really don't think it means what you think it does. Any time anyone has disagreed with you, you have replied with well I think they are so you're wrong. It's like arguing with a child or an idiot, no matter what any of us says you'll just reply with some nonsense about how you're right and were all wrong. Your criteria is also odd, Cazale can't have a perfect CV because he only made 4 films. Cruise is a great actor because he's never had a flop. By that reasoning Spacey can't be considered a great as he's had a few flops.

The fact that you think Adam Sandlet is one of the greats says it all. Jesus, the man is cinematic bile. Sure he's been in some good films but they don't excuse crap like Jack and Jill.

Saganist · 21-11-2012 1:37am

JohnMarston wrote: »

Al Pacino

The worst they have had is mediocre movies.

Have you seen Righteous Kill ? Uugh.

ViveLaVie · 21-11-2012 1:42am

pixelburp wrote: »

Frankly, if you want my actual opinion and you want consistently great actors, real honest-to-god craftsmen, you go beyond the vacuous non-entities like Cruise and you search for the Character Actors, the professionals who always bring their a-game, but aren't always are top of the bill. I look to people like Phillip Seymour Hoffman (now a leading man, but not always), Frank Langella, Bryan Cranston etc. etc.. Jesus Cranston's got more natural acting talent than that midget 1-trick pony Cruise. He doesn't put bums on seats, but it's a bit shallow to rate the mans ability on that factor.

Agreed. Bryan Cranston is insanely good. It was obvious he was dripping talent in Malcolm in the Middle but my dear God he takes it to a whole other level in Breaking Bad. His performances are mind-blowing. Chills running down the spine kinda stuff. He IS Walter White.

PaulB1984 wrote: »

Ralph Fiennes, BRILLIANT choice, never seen him in a bad movie. Can't even name one i haven't seen.

In fairness to Twilight, i thought the same before i saw them, watched the first 3 last Christmas and completely loved the first movie, thought nothing of the second and loved the 3rd one. Haven't seen BD 1 and 2 yet.

I have seen them all, unfortunately, aside from BD Part 2. BD Part 1 is possibly the worst film I've ever seen. I just don't see how it is terrific under any sort of criteria aside from box office takings? It has no integrity as a story and the actors leave a lot to be desired.

21-11-2012 1:50am

ViveLaVie wrote: »

Agreed. Bryan Cranston is insanely good. It was obvious he was dripping talent in Malcolm in the Middle but my dear God he takes it to a whole other level in Breaking Bad. His performances are mind-blowing. Chills running down the spine kinda stuff. He IS Walter White. .

I love Cranston, have since before Malcolm in the Middle but by Christ has he been in some truly terrible films. And worst of all in many of the his performanc isn't even a saving grace. It's amazing how he's gone from getting 7th or 9th billing in low budget action and sci-if films to where he is now. Really shows how perseverance and talent with a bit of luck can turn you into a major star.

kitakyushu · 21-11-2012 1:50am

Custardpi wrote: »

How about Kevin Spacey? Looking at his filmography the only possible flaw on it would be Pay It Forward. Reckon pretty much everything else he's done is respectable.

Em, no.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-AfXL5PZt10

(tbh other than Cazale , who no doubt would also have done a few clunkers had he lived long enough, I can't really think of anyone who fits the bill).

Zaph · 21-11-2012 1:58am

PaulB1984 wrote: »

i love the fact that so many people are giving intelligent answers like Kevin Spacey, Clint Eastwood, Adam Sandler

I think I may have finally found the fine line between irony and trolling...

PaulB1984 wrote: »

Plenty of people hate most of Roger Moore's James Bond movies, but i think his run was perfect, he's the only actor as Bond to have (In my opinion) a perfect run of Bond movies.

Ah here, now I know you're taking the p*ss. Anyone who can describe Moonraker, Octopussy or A View to a Kill as perfect really needs to stop watching movies.

indough · 21-11-2012 2:11am

pixelburp wrote: »

Frankly, if you want my actual opinion and you want consistently great actors, real honest-to-god craftsmen, you go beyond the vacuous non-entities like Cruise and you search for the Character Actors, the professionals who always bring their a-game, but aren't always are top of the bill. I look to people like Phillip Seymour Hoffman (now a leading man, but not always), Frank Langella, Bryan Cranston etc. etc.. Jesus Cranston's got more natural acting talent than that midget 1-trick pony Cruise. He doesn't put bums on seats, but it's a bit shallow to rate the mans ability on that factor.

do you honestly think those actors are significantly (or even marginally) better than tom cruise? cruises performance was the best thing about magnolia (outdoing PSH in the process), bryan cranston is the popular choice at the moment riding on the crest of breaking bad but whether or not he lasts in the spotlight remains to be seen (he put in a **** performance in total recall without even having much to do). he certainly hasnt done anything film-wise to match the performances of cruise in rain man, born on the 4th. hell even with crap like days of thunder and top gun he brings his a-game, more often than not carries fairly terrible movies, has remained a-list for the best part of 3 decades and consistently gets chosen by top directors (not talking just commercial directors but also the likes of kubrick, anderson, mann). now i disagree with much of paulb's opinions on film but let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

T-K-O · 21-11-2012 2:13am

Philip Seymour Hoffman. I haven't seen them all but there is something about that guy that captures your attention

don ramo · 21-11-2012 2:23am

Deleted User wrote: »

You keep mentioning debate but I really don't think it means what you think it does. Any time anyone has disagreed with you, you have replied with well I think they are so you're wrong. It's like arguing with a child or an idiot, no matter what any of us says you'll just reply with some nonsense about how you're right and were all wrong. Your criteria is also odd, Cazale can't have a perfect CV because he only made 4 films. Cruise is a great actor because he's never had a flop. By that reasoning Spacey can't be considered a great as he's had a few flops.

The fact that you think Adam Sandlet is one of the greats says it all. Jesus, the man is cinematic bile. Sure he's been in some good films but they don't excuse crap like Jack and Jill.

hes clearly a troll, any film lover worth their salt knows the BO has noting to do with a films quality, or how good the the people who made it are, going by BO alone Samuel L Jackson is the greatest actor that ever lived, he holds the title of highest grossing actor per film, so hes wins, debate over, thread locked

perfect filmographies do not exist, actors can have great bodies of work, spanning 4 or 5 decades, but their guaranteed to have the 5 or 6 bad films that the begrudgers will always be willing to beat them with,

one or two actors that come to mind that i have never seen put in a bad performance would be Ryan Gosling, Jessica Chastain, Philip Seymour Hoffman, and Emma Stone, and im fairly sure theyve all had their bad films, but i havent seen them, they all seem to pick the right rolls that seem to play to their strengths,

its harder to name older actors cause most of their good work has been tainted by the few duds that play over and over in my begrudging mind, i love actors like Jack Nicholson, George Clooney, Kevin Spacey, Helen Mirren, Amy Ryan and Meryl Streep, plus plenty of others, but i accept that they have bad films, so i dont think any less of them cause they dont have "perfect" filmographies,

markesmith · 21-11-2012 2:27am

It has to be Cazale. Gosling and Seymour Hoffman pretty good too.

T-K-O · 21-11-2012 2:45am

markesmith wrote: »

It has to be Cazale. Gosling and Seymour Hoffman pretty good too.

It's a impossible question Every actor has their moments but Cazale was a great find.

Wrongway1985 · 21-11-2012 3:14am

PaulB1984 wrote: »

....create movies like Billy Madison, Happy Gilmore, Big Daddy, The Waterboy etc... The man is wonderful. And for what it's worth, i loved Jack & Jill and so did everyone else at the screening i went to, there were cheers and screams of laughter, everyone loved it.

Haven't seen Jack & Jill but the other films you've listed are pretty much the same film with Happy Gilmore being the pick of the bunch if I was to recommend one maybe its just me but I wouldnt mix him with the great actors at all more with the Will Ferrell,Jack Black bunch who more often than not appear in films that are very formulatic and/or similar a previous work.

halpin17 · 21-11-2012 3:19am

I never seen somone with a bigger hard on for Tom cruise. Larry crown with Tom hanks is horrible. But I'll chuck it out there will smith has a perfect filmography

speedboatchase · 21-11-2012 8:27am

halpin17 wrote: »

I never seen somone with a bigger hard on for Tom cruise. Larry crown with Tom hanks is horrible. But I'll chuck it out there will smith has a perfect filmography

Really? Men in Black 3, Wild Wild West, Shark Tale, The Legend of Bagger Vance? Also, whoever said Ralph Fiennes has clearly forgotten about The Avengers UK TV show remake, one of the biggest flops of the 1990s.

Big fan of Cruise too but Knight and Day was absolute muck. Personally I think DiCaprio and Gosling's filmographys are pretty untarnished. Also Carey Mulligan has a small but amazing filmography too.

speedboatchase · 21-11-2012 8:29am

T-K-O wrote: »

Philip Seymour Hoffman. I haven't seen them all but there is something about that guy that captures your attention

The guy from Patch Adams and Along Came Polly? I kid but yeah, it's impossible for actors to have a 'perfect' filmography, there's always one or two duds even with the best around.

pixelburp · 21-11-2012 8:49am

indough wrote: »

do you honestly think those actors are significantly (or even marginally) better than tom cruise? cruises performance was the best thing about magnolia (outdoing PSH in the process), bryan cranston is the popular choice at the moment riding on the crest of breaking bad but whether or not he lasts in the spotlight remains to be seen (he put in a **** performance in total recall without even having much to do). he certainly hasnt done anything film-wise to match the performances of cruise in rain man, born on the 4th. hell even with crap like days of thunder and top gun he brings his a-game, more often than not carries fairly terrible movies, has remained a-list for the best part of 3 decades and consistently gets chosen by top directors (not talking just commercial directors but also the likes of kubrick, anderson, mann). now i disagree with much of paulb's opinions on film but let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Truthfully? Yeah I do, I mean what I say. I picked Cranston precisely because he's flavor of the month, but my overall point I stand by: I think if you want to find real actors' actors, you go to the 2nd billing and the character actors who pop-up in a lot of vehicles but don't always get the kudos, or aren't considered 'leading men / women'. Sure their CVs tend to be patchier because they often take whatever's going, but if you want to find real acting chameleons, you look to these guys. Maybe it's because they have to keep working in various projects, their range stays broader than those at the top of the posters *shrug* Then again I am a sucker for the underdog hah.

As for Cruise, the man has one character - the cocky / slimy douchebag - and that's it, more or less. Now don't get me wrong, he hit it out of the park with Magnolia, but it can't have been a stretch as he was playing his default character type. I don't seriously think he has anything else in his bag. Even his much loved Tropic Thunder role was just his one from Magnolia, only in a fat suit. Oh and as for the contention the man prints money, well for a start I direct ones' attention to Legend, the Ridley Scott movie from the 1980s starring Cruise - a film that didn't even earn its budget back.

JustAThought · 21-11-2012 8:50am

speedboatchase wrote: »

... but yeah, it's impossible for actors to have a 'perfect' filmography, there's always one or two duds even with the best around.

Meryl Streep.

One of the finest.

+ judi dench - thou always very much the same- usuallly done extremely well.

Nothing compares to Meryl.

KramerVKramer, The Deer Hunter, Out of Africa, the hilarious Mamma Mia...

speedboatchase · 21-11-2012 9:10am

JustAThought wrote: »

Meryl Streep.

One of the finest.

+ judi dench - thou always very much the same- usuallly done extremely well.

Nothing compares to Meryl.

KramerVKramer, The Deer Hunter, Out of Africa, the hilarious Mamma Mia...

Streep's filmography is fantastic actually, although I personally didn't enjoy Lions for Lambs, AI or Rendition. Not of them are 'crap' though, just my personal taste.

Judi Dench was in a lot of nonsense though. Doogal, Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides, The Chronicles of Riddick, Home on the Range. Not to mention Die Another Day and Quantum of Solace, probably the two worst Bond movies of my lifetime.

Movie stars with a perfect filmography?

Comments