Tom Hanks...great?

Jared Caldwell

Jared Caldwell

Active member
Ok, I was thinking about actors yesterday, and I realized just how many good movies Tom Hanks has been in (I have been a fan since Big).

I have not seen all of his movies, but has Tom Hanks EVER been in a bad movie?

When I say bad movie, I don't mean less than perfect. Bad to me means significantly less than mediocre.

What are your thoughts?

If Tom Hanks has been in a bad movie, list the movie, and your reasons why.

If you use rottentomatoes review of The Da Vinci Code, I will not take your argument seriously (22%? Why do critics either bomb or praise movies nowadays instead of giving decent reviews!?).

Thanks!
 
Hanks in nothing less than our finest actor. Hands down he is the best of modern times, but I even made a slot for him in my top 10 ever amongst the likes of Bogie, Jimmy Stewart, Cary Grant, Brando & Cagney.

I have joked that "funny" Hanks was abducted by aliens (around the year 1989 or so) and somehow reformulated or cloned into the greatest of actors before being returned to earth. This is of course because it is at times difficult to believe that Rick from Bachelor Party was played by the same cat that so perfectly portrayed Forrest Gump...

But of course, in reality, these polar opposite performances of his just act as a further testament to his genius. Like Cary Grant, he can run the gambit of acting styles (from hardcore slapstick to the most moving of drama) and hit a home run each and every time...

As I have said before, Hanks has succeeded Jimmy Stewart as the "Everyman" king...and he sits humbly upon this secure throne.
 
Great?!? Because he has performed well in a string of popular movies? Sacrilege, I say. Not one Art House movie among the bunch. How can he be judged on work done in a "Hollywood" movie. When are we going to see how he can REALLY act, with no script, no story and no purpose? Then we'll know if he's great. Just because he can make us believe the character he is portraying, you want to label him great?

Let's look for a moment at some of the movies he's been in:
Apollo 13 - A Hollywood piece of propoganda trying to make us believe space flight really happens...right, we know it's all a conspiracy.

Saving Private Ryan - Meg Ryan...Private Ryan...I think they wanted us to think it was another crappy chick flick so they could make a boat load of money on events that none of us were around to confirm. His nomination for an academy award proves how lame he is. Pure Hollywood.

The Terminal - Great?!? Making fun of immigrants is hardly the right thing to do, is it?

Road To Perdition - Putting him in a movie with that hack cinematographer, Conrad Hall...jeesh... And who wouldn't look good compared to Paul Newman. He should stick to salad dressing.

Cast Away - this was ALMOST a movie. It still had too much dialogue and it STILL had a story. If they could have done away with those two things, they might have had something.

On the other hand he showed promise in Turner and Hooch and He Knows You're Alone.


Great? You can't call him great until he's got some Experimental and Art Films to his credit. Anyone can sell billions of dollars worth of tickets to the bleating masses who'll suck down any crap Hollywood directors like Spielberg, Mendes, Zemeckis and Ron Howard put out. If he was really any good, he wouldn't be stuck having to "act" in so many movies by that hack, Spielberg.




:Drogar-BigGrin(DBG)
 
Blaine, old boy...

The ghost of Jonathan Swift himself would be proud of that delicious plate of hot steamy satire you just served up.

emoticon-10.gif
 
John_Hudson said:
Hanks is most definately one of the great actors of any generation. Mel Gibson is my personal favorite
Click to expand...
I love the story about Gibson in crocodile hunter :nads:
 
I believe there are movie stars (people who have a popular face) and then there are actors (people who can act and act well). I believe Tom Hanks is a movie star and is no whare near in rank with fine actors such as Gary Oldman. In fact the only movie I felt Tom Hanks wasn't the same type casted character was when he played the bumbling idiot in Forest Gump or when he played a similar less bumbling idiot in the Terminal (and he's been in alot of movies). So I'm puzzled by this amourous feeling towards him as a actor. Hut. hum...
 
Blaine said:
Great?!? Because he has performed well in a string of popular movies? Sacrilege, I say. Not one Art House movie among the bunch. How can he be judged on work done in a "Hollywood" movie. When are we going to see how he can REALLY act, with no script, no story and no purpose? Then we'll know if he's great. Just because he can make us believe the character he is portraying, you want to label him great?

Let's look for a moment at some of the movies he's been in:
Apollo 13 - A Hollywood piece of propoganda trying to make us believe space flight really happens...right, we know it's all a conspiracy.

Saving Private Ryan - Meg Ryan...Private Ryan...I think they wanted us to think it was another crappy chick flick so they could make a boat load of money on events that none of us were around to confirm. His nomination for an academy award proves how lame he is. Pure Hollywood.

The Terminal - Great?!? Making fun of immigrants is hardly the right thing to do, is it?

Road To Perdition - Putting him in a movie with that hack cinematographer, Conrad Hall...jeesh... And who wouldn't look good compared to Paul Newman. He should stick to salad dressing.

Cast Away - this was ALMOST a movie. It still had too much dialogue and it STILL had a story. If they could have done away with those two things, they might have had something.

On the other hand he showed promise in Turner and Hooch and He Knows You're Alone.


Great? You can't call him great until he's got some Experimental and Art Films to his credit. Anyone can sell billions of dollars worth of tickets to the bleating masses who'll suck down any crap Hollywood directors like Spielberg, Mendes, Zemeckis and Ron Howard put out. If he was really any good, he wouldn't be stuck having to "act" in so many movies by that hack, Spielberg.




:Drogar-BigGrin(DBG)
Click to expand...

You forgot to mention the unmentionable The Lady Killers
 
Blaine said:
Great?!? Because he has performed well in a string of popular movies? Sacrilege, I say. Not one Art House movie among the bunch. How can he be judged on work done in a "Hollywood" movie. When are we going to see how he can REALLY act, with no script, no story and no purpose? Then we'll know if he's great. Just because he can make us believe the character he is portraying, you want to label him great?
Click to expand...

cast away is the movie you are searching for.
 
I hate arthouse flicks... how many gay devils, gay meth-heads, and gay killers can you fit into a freakin' short anyway? The answer? A lot. Gives gay people a bad rep. (jeez, wasn't Philadelphia enough for you?)

If you want to convert any mainstream story into a "challenging" arthouse role then make the lead a gay drug user with some sexual problems.

It's GOLD Jerry... GOLD!

I can't believe somebody would call Tom Hanks a movie star before an actor... Brad Pitt. What is he? Fill in any other similar actor...

Tom Hanks is not a particularly good looking guy... what do you think is carrying him? Is he just running on a growing snowball of luck like a circus poodle... about to fall at any minute? I don't think so... I think he keeps getting high-profile work because he gets the job done and he's a professional... and despite esoteric longing for the success of "unappreciated brilliance" there's a reason why Tom Hanks is getting roles that virtual unknowns aren't getting.

In my HUMBLE opinion it's because Hanks eschews an "everyman" quality that most theater goers can relate to... and no matter the role he is given he still manages to convey that sense of reality within the role... basically I'd put Will Ferrel at the opposite end of the same acting scale... where you see a genuine detachment in his eyes... just look in Will's eyes when he's acting and look in Hanks' eyes... who knows... maybe it's just me.

I thought the latest flick was weak in comparison to the others... but I don't think any of that was Tom's fault.
 
Last edited:
Tom Hanks, Harrison Ford, Mel Gibson and Robert DeNiro are all at the head of the class. :thumbsup:

Put any one of them in a movie and you'll more than likely have a winner. :)
 
I like Tom Hanks. I know quite a few people that hate his guts (my brother for example). He can't stand the sight or sound of him. I have to defend Tom Hanks all the time.

On the other hand I just don't view him as one of the best actors ever. Keeping my personal opinion of perfection in mind; he has certain annoying things about him. Like the timbre in his voice would be an example. His voice is kind of throaty. I agree he's not quite at the level of Gary Oldman who can completely change everything about his voice from role to role. Looks wise Hanks is average, but that's one reason I like him even more. I think he plays his roles well. I've been a fan ever since bosom buddies (or the reruns at least).
 
I don't hate Tom Hanks, I just don't feel, acting like the same person in every movie constitutes any real acting talent. Slosh that one around. Correct me if i'm wrong....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top