I had this brief discussion with my wife over the weekend. We saw the “Da Vinci Code” preview over the weekend, and while my wife is
excited to see it, I am kind of bleh about it. She thinks Tom Hanks is a great actor, possibly the greatest of our generation. I was shocked she would even say such a thing!
But as we talked about it, she brought up some good points namely in the form of movies he has done; “Big”, “Sleepless in Seattle”, “Saving Private Ryan”, “Philadelphia”, “Green Mile”, “Apollo 13”…and the list goes on (she really is a fan of his). Of course, I come back with; “Joe vs the Volcano”, “Ladykillers”…and well thats all I could think of.
So instead I went to some of the classics; Robert Redford, Dustin Hoffman, Al Pacino, but while all good actors, they have done a number of crappy movies as well. And I really dont think (except for Hoffman) they have gone the range of Hanks. He does comedies and dramas equally well, and does even better at mixing the two.
So, now I’m not sure. Is Tom Hanks one of the greatest? Possibly the greatest? help me out here…either push me over the edge for him, or draw me back from the abyss!!
You know what’s funny? The movies your wife listed I would mostly consider to be arguments against the proposition, and the movies you listed to be arguments in favor. I’d rather watch Joe vs. the Volcano over Saving Private Ryan any day of the week.
I think Hanks is a smart guy (or has some excellent counsel) and enough clout to pick only the best projects. He never struck me as a very good or versatile actor, but he does Joe Average very well.
Ye gods, no. He’s maybe the best comedian-turned-actor currently working, but that’s the most I’ll give him. He’s not a bad actor by any stretch, but he’s certainly overrated.
I have to admit I haven’t seen Road to Perdition but, that excepted, I can’t think of any movie in which he plays a character with much moral ambiguity. Actually, I can think of one – The Ladykillers – but I hated it, and him in it, so I don’t find it a very instructive example. His range seems restricted to the spectrum ranging from loveable idiot (Gump) to contemptible asshole who’s not really such a bad guy (Volunteers, You’ve Got Mail).
Let’s see him play a villain and maybe I’ll give him a little more credibility.
First 10 Actors I could think of who are all better than Tom Hanks:
Johnny Depp
Ian McKellan
Gary Oldman
Geoffrey Rush
Phillip Seymour Hoffman
Edward Norton
Ed Harris
Hugo Weaving (anyone who can play both a drag queen and Agent Smith has got Hanks beat for range, right there*)
Liam Neeson
Michael Caine
Though I guess you could say the same thing about Terence Stamp, since he played a drag queen in the same movie and had previously played General Zod.
I think of Hanks as a modern Jimmy Stewart. Good at playing the everyman, good at being likeable. I can only think of two times when he’s played a bad guy: The Road To Perdition (an excellent film that audiences stayed away from because nobody wanted to see villain-Hanks) and The Ladykillers (a horrible film that audiences hopefully stayed away from because it sucked). But as far as true versatility, he’s not even in the same league as Johnny Depp, Edward Norton, or Kevin Spacey (or DeNiro, Pacino, and Hoffman in their primes).
He’s good enough. He’s more versatile than Tom Cruise, nowhere near as much as Johnny Depp, but he’s not talentless and he chooses his roles well. I thought he was believable and convincing as the hitman father in Road to Perdition which is probably the least Tom Hanks role he’s played to date.
He’s somebody who doesn’t really come to mind when I think “good” or “bad” actually- sort of middle of the road. He seems an extremely likeable and well read actor, though, and that gives him major points.
Yeah, he seems like a nice guy, and from all accounts, he really is. I always think that if Hanks had the interest to enter politics, he’d become knowledgeable on the issues and sweep any election he was involved in.
I’m inclined to say no, but I’m not positive who we’re counting as Hanks’ generation. He can definitely act, though. Cast Away is entirely him, and he really was the right choice in Saving Private Ryan. I like him more in movies like The Ladykillers and Catch Me If You Can, when he’s not playing the typical Tom Hanks part. His reputation is bolstered by the fact that he is good at playing a very likeable, average sort of a guy.
I’d say he’s a good actor whose status has been elevated by his talent for finding good projects with good writers and directors. Anyone who works with Steven Spielberg, the Coen Brothers, Sam Mendes, Pixar, Jonathon Demme, Robert Zemeckis, Penny Marshall, John Patrick Shanley, etc., is going to seem better than they are by mere association.
But I dunno, maybe I’m wrong and he’s better than good – maybe he’s very good, or even great. I think people underestimate him because a) he’s kind of goofy-looking, b) many of his pictures are aimed squarely at the middle class, and c) he tends to work in lighter stories – comedies and romances, for example. So it’s hard to tell. Even having said that, I don’t think I’d list him as the greatest actor of this or any other generation.
I agree that he is a great actor, sort of the modern Jimmy Stewart like someone else said.
Will he be rememberd and admired when he’s gone? Yes. Are there better actors than him? Yes.
I don’t like Tom Hanks as an actor. Every time I see him I think “Bosom Buddies”, and that’s it. It’s a problem I have, associating some actors with the first thing I’ve seen them in. Hanks is kind of a “Meh” on my radar, so he can’t overcome. Plus, he speaks as if he has had a shot of novocaine in the lips sometimes.
I think that when he is judged in the future, he will be called a great actor. I certainly think he’s played great roles and done them well, and even done right by roles that weren’t that good—for me, he made Joe Vs the Volcano watchable.
Pretty much my opinion. Though I thought he was great in “Punch Line” among others. I think he’s brilliant at comedy and probably better at drama than we give him credit. I would like to see him cut lose in a role like “Big Daddy” in a few years or maybe “Maish Rennick” from “Requiem for a Heavy Weight” or even something like “Willie Loman” from “Death of a Salesman” (in which BTW Dustin Hoffman was simply awful – IMNSHO).
I agree with the Jimmy Stewart thing. Hanks will not go down as this era’s best actor, but he will go down as the most beloved. When Tom Hanks dies, it will be a “punched in the gut” moment for a lot of people born between 1960 and 1985.
I probably had the Stewart comparison in my head based on something you wrote in the past. You’re probably the biggest Tom Hanks fan I know, and usually when I hear about his new projects, I always wonder what you’ll think about it.
This is why discussions like this can never come to a solid consensus. I think Kevin Spacey’s a horribly overrated actor; in all his films, he comes across as doing more Kevin Spacey schtick. I can’t see for the life of me how Tom Hanks, and most actors for that matter, doesn’t have twice the range Spacey does. If I were to make up a numbered list of actors ordered by greatness, I’m not sure Spacey would even make it to the top hundred.
Edward Norton? Maybe - he’s been in very few movies, as compared to anyone else being discussed. Hard to say. I can’t possibly see Hanks pulling off the menace Norton conveyed in “American History X,” but I can’t see Norton pulling off the quiet, seething performance Hanks pulled off in “Saving Private Ryan.”
I agree with George Clooney; unless they’re all doing the same roles, how can you tell, really?
It’s not so much that I don’t like Tom Hanks… I just don’t really like the kind of movies that he always seems to pop up in, “Oscar-movies” as it were. I would gladly take Woody in Toy Story over all of his other roles; I also liked him a lot in Catch Me If You Can and Road to Perdition. Most of the movies that people identify him with, though… they’re movies that I’d see once 'cause they’re “great movies”, and have no desire in the world to ever watch again. I think Toy Story is the only movie with Hanks that I’d pay money for to buy on DVD.
Travolta has higher highs (Grease, Pulp Fiction, Get Shorty), but MUCH lower lows (Battlefield Earth, anyone?). Denzel Washington got started later in his life, but has been pouring it on with quality movies for the last decade or so. Someone noted Ed Norton, who has a much smaller collection of work, but some great stuff (how about Rounders, American History X, and Fight Club for three projects in a row?)… but he’s also some 15 years younger than Hanks, so I’m not sure if he’s in the same generation. Heck, Harrison Ford is 10-15 years older than Hanks, but his older stuff is iconic for the current generation anyways because of how Star Wars and Indiana Jones have permeated - and he has Blade Runner, the Fugitive, Witness, and some Jack Ryan on top of that (though I can’t imagine Indy 4 will build on his legacy too much). Depp is probably the poster-child for “range” for this generation. On the hypothetical desert island, I’d rather have the lifetime collection of any of those than of Hanks.
… and when I can say that about five guys when thinking about it for ten minutes, it’s hard for me to give Hanks the seal of approval for Best Actor of Generation.
I think he is really good. Philadelphia sealed the dramatic actor part and I think he has a very good sense of comedic timing. Plus there is something so engaging about him, yet ordinary.
Well, he’s poured it on with some real stinkers as well (Man On Fire, John Q, Bone Collector, Fallen…). Most actors do, if they like to have a lot of work. Hanks’ #1 skill is avoiding the real crap projects so deftly.