Gene Hackman. It seems like his movies alternate wildly between absolute genius and complete and utter ass.
It’s as though he’ll do any script that comes across his agent’s desk. I guess the brilliant directors hire him because of his talent, not his taste.
Cuba Gooding Jr., of the incredible disappearing career.
Reminds me of the Caine-Hackman Theory … 
Not really the “greatest” but these actors can really shine or embarrass themselves depending on the film:
Demi Moore
Mira Sorvino
Marisa Tomei
Matt Dillon
David Arquette
I think that wildly inconsistent actors are the fault of directors. Somebody like Bruce Willis is great if he gets good direction but terrible if left to his own devices.
Omar Sharif-although that was his own fault, from what I understand-he took any work he could get to pay off his gambling debts.
I seem to remember that Eddie Murphy was good once. My vote though would probably be Kevin Costner.
It’s true; as much as I love her, Jean Harlow needed a good director . . .
I nominate Tom Cruise. He’s never a truly great actor, but with good co-stars and a great director, Cruise is pretty good–as in Rain Man and The Color of Money. After both those movies, I thought “hmm, maybe he can act.” But then he does Days of Thunder and Mission Impossible (admittedly MI was fun, but Cruise wasn’t a good actor in it), and I remember Legend, Top Gun and he goes back to pretty boy status. Like Costner, in the right movies, he’s great, but neither has any range.
I thought De Niro did well as the monster in Frankenstein. At least he played the monster as he was written in the book, if that is unforgiveable, then so be it.
I’ll put in a nomination for Malcolm McDowell.
Well, MOST actors are “inconsistent” in this sense: given an interesting role in a well-written script, even mediocre actors can be very effective. Given an uninteresting role in a badly written script, even the best of actors will be atrocious.
Many actors that I once thought had no talent at all turned out to be quite capable, once they got hold of decent screenplays. Just as an example, when Rob Lowe was the sex symbol of the BRat Pack, I thought he was just a pretty boy who couldn’t act his way out of a paper bag. But in fairness, even a master thespian couldn’t have done much with his roles in crud like “Oxford Blues” and “St. Elmo’s Fire.” Years later, when he got to say lines written by David Mamet and Aaron Sorkin, he surprised me with how good he was.
And in general, I think the writing is key. Sure, there are great actors who can breathe life into a poorly written/underwritten part (Gene Hackman often does), and there are lousy actors who’ll trip over the most elegantly turned phrase. And yes, there are even a few actors who are so flaky that you just never know whether they’ll be brilliant or laughably bad (Al Pacino, Marlon Brando, and Val Kilmer come to mind). But MOST of the “inconsistent” actors named here are only as good or bad as the scripts they accept.
Pacino is at his best when he’s most restrained. He was chilling as Michael Corleone, a guy who’s almost always in control. But, not surprisingly, he won his Oscar for his most over-the-top performance, in “Scent of a Woman.”
His problem is the same problem faced by Jack Nicholson: far too often, he’s not hired to act, he’s hired to do a schtick. Nicholson, like Pacino, can give superb performances when he takes the trouble to read the script and get in character. But too often, the only direction he seems to get is “Just do your Crazy Jack routine.” And that’s fine in a comedy like “Anger Management,” but it ruins any movie that’s supposed to be even moderately realistic.
That’s a good point, astorian. A great script can help out a lot. But I believe the directors have more impact than the script for a number of reasons.
The directors get to pick which take to use. Each shot is done several times, and actors performances will vary from take to take. The director might choose take four because of the lighting or the sound quality, while the actor did her best work in take seven.
The director is the one offering immediate critique of the actor’s work. After take one, the director says “OK, that was good, but I want more angst.” Then they do it again, only this time with more angst. Almost all actors can take direction. If the director has a clear vision of what he wants and is able to communicate it effectively to the actors, the results are good. Otherwise, you get The Phantom Menace. Lucas is a fantastic technical director, but he’s no damned good at communicating with his actors. That’s why Ewen McGregor, who is a fantastic actor, comes off OK in the Star Wars movies, while Natalie Portman, who is just an OK actor, comes off wooden. (OK, OK, you’re going to say “that script sucks”…bad example)
The director is the person who should be objective. When you’re in character, you are by definition subjective–you’re putting yourself in someone else’s shoes. What works for your character might not work in the big picture, but if you don’t have anyone to tell you that it’s not working, you’ll never know about it until opening night.
I think I know what your thinking with Vincent Price. His early movies he played it straight and was good. Later in his career when he starred in gothic horror films (which I think are wonderful) he always said he played them WAY over the top because of the type of movie they were. Dang, I can watch those Poe movies over and over again with a glass of wine and my bride.
rande…
I think I know what your thinking with Vincent Price. His early movies he played it straight and was good. Later in his career when he starred in gothic horror films (which I think are wonderful) he always said he played them WAY over the top because of the type of movie they were. Dang, I can watch those Poe movies over and over again with a glass of wine and my bride.
rande…
Gotta agree about Pacino. He’s kind of always playing ‘Al Pacino’ these days, and sometimes it’s dismal. Also: can someone tell me why he looks like he hasn’t slept since Godfather III? Or did I just answer my own question?
I agree completely that George Lucas can’t direct humans.
There can be only one, and that one is Marlon Brando. Like Nicholson and Pacino, he’s often over-the-top. But unlike the other two, he’s always over-the-top in a different way in each movie.
Regarding Pacino …
See, it was all in preparing for Insomnia…
I thought of De Niro right away. That movie where he stalked the baseball player stuck out in my mind. So I went to IMDB to look for some more bombs or bad performances and there weren’t really that many. Movies like The Score, Ronin, 15 minutes all stick together.
I wouldnt include Costner because it looks like Dances with Wolves was the exception rather than the rule. He’s a pretty face that’s good for a romatic lead but not much else.