Most overrated actors

Just a thread about which actors are deemed as the most overrated ones.

For practical reasons it is meant to only include english-speaking actors.

*

Some of my own suggestions for this anti-award:

-Robin Williams (i never liked him, he seems to be ruining everything or nearly everything by his brand of comedy which often is not at all in the spirit of the role; i suppose the - already problematic without that anyway - GWH film is a more pronounced example of that).

-Robert Pacino/Al Deniro (they are playing the same role over and over and over and over and over and over and over again).


I suppose that 'J Law' ( ) might be in this list too, but i haven't seen any complete movie with her so i will refrain from being more kneejerk on this than i absolutely have to

I would agree with you that Paciono and De Niro lack a bit more versatile roles, but De Niro was awesome in those few that he got.

Well I would have to say that my one of my favorite actors, Robert Downey Jr. is overrated. He hasn't played an non-Robert Downey Jr. character in ages.
But to save my time, pretty much any actor that got "famous" or creed for wining an Oscar, is overrated to me, and that especially goes to actresses. It seems that today all you have to do is some descent acting and suddenly you are one of the greatest actresses that ever lived. I blame Hollywood for that, simply because in the major blockbusters it gives to little space or material for the actresses to work with. They are just there to smile and look pretty. But this trend seems to die/break out sporadically.

I mostly blame Megan Fox and Kirsten Stewart for this, while Jennifer Lawrence and Emma Stone give me hope.

I disagree about Robin Williams. He is apparently an appalling human being in person but I think he has turned out some wonderful nuanced performances like in Good Will Hunting, Dead Poets' Society and Good Morning Vietnam. The same can be said for Russell Crowe, an embarrassingly boorish and unpleasant man with very fine cinema portrayals, particularly in A Beautiful Mind, Master and Commander, Gladiator, 3:10 to Yuma and L.A. Confidential

Well to me the intend of actors is what matters a lot to me. Do they only want to appear in whatever makes the most money or do they pick up roles that seem interesting to them? Do they dare to take a chance or do they always play it safe? Do they dare to make a fool of themselves?

To me, not every actor has to be working purely on artistic merit and be a complete chameleon however. You need the right actors for the right parts. If an actor does a limited range of character types very well, thats just fine. I'd rather see proper casting done than big actors being put in roles unsuitable for them just because they feel they have something to prove.

I like to see credit given where credit is due though. Never was a fan of the "fishing for oscars" roles.. those deeply dramatic parts where the very beautifull protagionist always looks great while undergoing their troubles.

But most of all, I appreciate an underdog getting proper credit. Someone who does not fit the hollywood ideals of beauty and who are usually condemned to playing bit parts, side characters and such.

Originally Posted by Inhuman One

But most of all, I appreciate an underdog getting proper credit. Someone who does not fit the hollywood ideals of beauty and who are usually condemned to playing bit parts, side characters and such.

Like Kevin Spacey's oscar for the usual suspects. His career exploded after that.

Spacey in the long run did not create many more interesting roles (in my view).

While the usual suspects did create an impression at the time, i think it has not aged that well.

Originally Posted by Kyriakos

Spacey in the long run did not create many more interesting roles (in my view).

While the usual suspects did create an impression at the time, i think it has not aged that well.

I'll admit he's not got much range, but the quality some of his performances make up for it e.g. L.A. confidential, Richard III, House of Cards and, above all, American Beauty.

I don't think it's a case of overrated actors. It's a case of studios hedging their bets in an industry where they spend a minimum of a hundred million on a small-medium budget movie. They're going to give a big actor a role they're comfortable with that actor having. If you want to see that actor in an interesting role after their breakthrough, see if you can find a low budget film.

Originally Posted by Gaidin

I don't think it's a case of overrated actors. It's a case of studios hedging their bets in an industry where they spend a minimum of a hundred million on a small-medium budget movie. They're going to give a big actor a role they're comfortable with that actor having. If you want to see that actor in an interesting role after their breakthrough, see if you can find a low budget film.

That would be a small-medium budget blockbuster action movie.

Most movies in most genres don't cost that much to make.

Originally Posted by the_mango55

That would be a small-medium budget blockbuster action movie.

Most movies in most genres don't cost that much to make.

Say that as if the point doesn't stand, especially when combined with my Range-Within-Range point in post 9.

Originally Posted by Gaidin

Say that as if the point doesn't stand, especially when combined with my Range-Within-Range point in post 9.

I didn't say anything about your point about actors. I was just mentioning that it seems you were saying most movies these days cost 100 million dollars, and anything less is a small budget film. 100+ million still well above the average movie's budget.

Originally Posted by the_mango55

I didn't say anything about your point about actors. I was just mentioning that it seems you were saying most movies these days cost 100 million dollars, and anything less is a small budget film. 100+ million still well above the average movie's budget.

Those are the big name movies where the archetypes of actors are named against them is my point. Try and say it isn't. Where does Tom Cruise play Tom Cruse? In the 100+ million movies where he's playing something like a superspy like Knight and Day. Not in Rock of Ages, where he probably had the bigger chunk of the budget paying him. Speaking of, Knight and Day is the perfect example of my Range-Within-Range point. A super-spy that embraces his career and has fun with it compared to Collateral, a burnt out likely ex-spy turned assassin that kills people for a living(though that one only had 65 million for a budget). But hell here's where I throw out Mission Impossible if I feel like it, where if you're honest with yourself he's playing a different form of Ethan Hunt in each movie regardless. Where does Leonardo DiCaprio play Leonardo DiCaprio, in movies like Inception and Blood Diamond. Not movies with 35 million dollar budgets like J. Edgar. Go down your list and find similar examples.

Originally Posted by Gaidin

I don't think it's a case of overrated actors. It's a case of studios hedging their bets in an industry where they spend a minimum of a hundred million on a small-medium budget movie. They're going to give a big actor a role they're comfortable with that actor having. If you want to see that actor in an interesting role after their breakthrough, see if you can find a low budget film.

I totally agree, studios don't like taking risk by giving actors too different a roles: Kiefer Sutherland said in an interview that the only roles he get offered are to play clones of jack bauer. Studios seems to have actors to repeat the charisma/presence they displayed on their first big commercial success.

Originally Posted by John Doe

I totally agree, studios don't like taking risk by giving actors too different a roles: Kiefer Sutherland said in an interview that the only roles he get offered are to play clones of jack bauer. Studios seems to have actors to repeat the charisma/presence they displayed on their first big commercial success.

It's going to seem like I'm repeating myself, but it's not as a point against you, just merely a repeat of a point. Range-within-Range. For Kiefer Sutherland it would be The Sentinel, and The Confession to name two projects he did that were good. Hell The Confession was a beautiful web series, even better than 24.

You also have to look at what I call Range-Within-Range. Spacey, for example. The differences between some of his more stylish roles in Casino Jack and House of Cards and 21(not your best movie, admittedly, but Spacey is great) and Superman Returns(again, not your best movie, but Spacey is fun as hell). With the way the studios hedge their bets, you get more range out of actors in how you look at the characters as opposed to the types of roles those characters actually are.

Leonardo Decaprio is by far the most overrated in my book. Whether it be Titanic or The Wolf of Wall street, the only thing he's good at is yelling.

I'm not a fan of Sean Connery, to be honest.

Connery was good in that adaptation of Eco's novel (In the name of the Rose).

I seem to recall that he was ok/decent in The man who would be king.

He did have loads of bad movies too, of course.

Robin Williams is rather brilliant at improvisation, something that literally caused havoc in his early acting days as he would suddenly go off on tangents that were hysterical but unscripted. As I recall he was given great leeway with this. Did you see Awakenings? It's a fine film. He also did the most unusual and underappreciated film The Final Cut. I also enjoyed the very creepy One Hour Photo, which is hardly standard Robin Williams fare.



De Niro became famous quite early with The Deer Hunter, then Godfather II, and so on, but he also later did lots of mediocre films. He's an intense actor who used to loathe giving interviews to help bolster ticket sales.

Jude Law did a very fine remake of the French film Purple Noon (Plein Soleil) under the title The Talented Mr. Ripley. He's also been not very discriminating in his work, but has done Closer and the Wisdom of Crocodiles to make up for it. Closer directed by Mike Nichols is a fine film.


Every actor has to pay the bills, and independent films in which they can stretch themselves and hone craft and natural ability can never achieve stardom like big budget films.

Tom Hanks.

When I watch him I am always aware I am watching Tom Hanks playing somebody. "Tom Hanks is Tom Hanks as 'X' in...."