Oh, I agree completely (though I’d rather take a nice long nap before watching Forrest Gump again, and when I’m flipping channels and You’ve Got Mail comes on and a girl says “oooh! go back to that!”, it’s a sure sign she isn’t girlfriend material). I’d just rather be picking someone about whom we could say “Actor X’s #1 skill was finding iconic parts in rewatchable classics… and so what if he missed a couple along the way.” Washington and certainly Travolta have had more than a couple misses, but a Pulp Fiction kind of role is almost required, I think - and while some might put Gump there, I wouldn’t. YMMV.
Ditto; Hanks is a nice (and seemingly intelligent) guy who has a charasmatic screen personality, but I havein’t seen anything from him that would make me place him in comparison with the likes of a Taxi Driver through Cape Fear Robert DeNiro. He can be unbearably hammy at times, and in more challenging roles–like acting all alone in Cast Away–his performance isn’t exactly memorable.
It’s old hat to compare actor _____ blank to the less impressive roles of someone like DeNiro, Pacino, or Nicholson–all of whom have prostituted themselves for the apocryphal thirty pieces of silver, but then you watch films like Raging Bull, The Godfather, or Five Easy Pieces (or Chinatown) respectively and you realize how much better these actors can do when put to task as compared to an actor like Hanks. Hanks is affiable. But great? Meh.
Stranger
I haven’t seen it, but how good was Turner and Hooch? Bonfire of the Vanities is also said to have sucked. Everybody with any kind of resume has got some crap in there. I’d take Denzel over Hanks, so there’s at least one guy from his generation I prefer.
I hate Forrest bloody Gump. I don’t see how it became such a cinematic milestone when it’s the biggest piece of disposable glurge in the last 20 years. I lost major respect for the Academy Awards when it beat *Pulp Fiction * AND *Shawshank Redemption * for Best Picture in 1994.
He’s almost* too* careful. Many great performances are given where an actor takes a real chance with a character. Hanks generally sticks with meat and potatoes roles that are comfortable fits for him. Not that that’s bad, but you’re not all that likely to get a relevatory performances via this method.
Good, entertaining? Definitely. A match for Phillip Seymor Hoffmann, not in my opinion, YMMV
I loved Ladykillers! Well, I didn’t love it, but I enjoyed it quite a bit. I also liked Tom Hanks’ performance in it. So there.
How the hell can you dismiss Hanks by saying he is the “modern Jimmy Stewart”. Stewart was arguably the best film actor of his time.
This reminded me of something in the book Blink. Talking about Apollo 13, some movie producer (?) said something (I’m paraphrasing) about the studio’s concerns that Tom Hanks wasn’t believable as an astronaut. This producer pointed out that it didn’t matter that Hanks isn’t believable as an astronaut … the key is that he’s very believable as a guy you would be very concerned about if he were stranded in space.
This is one of those things that had me laughing because it’s so true. If I heard, for example, that Robert DeNiro was stranded in space, I would say “What the HECK is Robert DeNiro doing in space?” … but even as someone who is not a particular fan of Tom Hanks, if I heard he was stranded in space, my first thought would be “Oh my gosh, that’s terrible! How are they going to get him back?” Only then would I start wondering why he was in space to begin with.
I don’t like to compare Hanks with folks like DeNiro or Pacino, the hardcore Stasbergians, because he’s doing an entirely different thing. It’s comparing apples and oranges; of course, if you like oranges better than apples, more power to you, but just because that’s the case, it doesn’t mean a fantastic apple isn’t great. Hanks is of a much quieter school – and, let’s face it, is much less interested in disappearing into his character like the Method folks do. But what Hanks does awfully well is the subtle emotional work that, while Pacino can do it, often gets lost in the midst of his bombastism.
Who else is of that school? Off the top of my head I say the aforementioned Denzel Washington (who is better at it than Hanks) and a million TV actors of varying quality.
–Cliffy
I like Tom Hanks, but I admit it took me a while to get past Bosom Buddies. I was uncomfortable watching him do dramatic scenes in his earlier movies, like Punchline, it reminded me too much of the over the top acting in Bosom Buddies. But he has grown over the years and he is a very likeable. I’d be very upset if I were to find out that he secretly kicks puppies and eats kittens for breakfast.
I would say he is a good actor, he should definitely make say a Top 20 of our generation, but I don’t think he’s the greatest.
He’s definitely waaaay better than Tom Cruise.
Well, how many other actors from cheesy sitcoms go on to major film success? I didn’t think so.
*Joe vs. The Volcano was at the top of my “Favorite Movies of All Time” list for years, though that may have been because of the movie itself more than Hanks’ performance. The thing is, you have to watch it more than once. I watched it every day for a week several years ago, ad every time, I noticed something I hadn’t seen before, and the movie seemed deeper with repeated viewings. Only recently was it bumped from my top spot by Hero
However, I’ll agree that Johnny Depp is probably the better actor. But he’s kind of Tom Hanks’ antithesis - Hanks consistently plays the everyman while Depp consistently plays the unique oddballs.
Erm, could a mod fix my italics tags? Only “Joe vs. The Volcano” and “Hero” should be italicized.
Tom Hanks is mediocre. But I am a harsh Critic, I mean Cast Away was a total waste of time. *Forrest Gump * is better watched in French for any enjoyment. (Southern drawl in French is kinda funny…)
I do want to see Da Vinci Code, but I am disapointed in Tom Hanks in that large role.
The thing about Hanks is that he’s just so darn likeable. That quality shines through in all his roles. (The Jimmy Stewart comparison is a good one in that respect.)
I wonder if he could successfully play a true villain (as opposed to the comedic villain in Ladykillers). Jimmy Stewart was able to pull that off. Could Hanks? (Has he done that in a role I’m forgetting?)
A weakness for Hanks is accents. He turned in horrible fake Southern accents in Forrest Gump and in The Ladykillers. Travolta (to use a contemporary for comparison) put on a very good Southern accent in Urban Cowboy.
Travolta also had a spot-on take on Bill Clinton’s mannerisms and accents in Primary Colors.
I think that sums it up nicely. 
These discussions are always bizarre.
Pacino and De Niro DISAPPEAR into roles? Since when?
Pacino’s been playing Pacino since 1980! Pacino has two states of being, like Robin Williams. He’s either manic and bombastic (City Hall, Scent of a Woman, Scarface) or “pacino minus the manic” (Donnie Brasco, Insomnia).
Believe me, I still love watching him.
But, Hanks. . .for my money. . .he’s been the best thing working for 20 years running.
Disappearing into roles. . .here’s a guy who changes his body, his mannerisms, his voice, his accent, his delivery. When’s the last time you could say that about De Niro? Raging Bull? Hanks has been doing it for every role for 25 years. He plays “Hanks” when it suits the role. . .notably his romantic comedies.
Fact of the matter is, comedic ability always gets overlooked. Hanks is a gifted PHYSICAL actor, has great delivery, and impeccable comic timing. Watch The Money Pit, Big (remember when he runs across the room and then jumps on the top bunk? And tell me that keyboard scene doesn’t grab you? How funny is he when he discovers he’s big and has to get out of the house?).
Sleepless. . .when he leaves the instructions for the baby sitter, struts out the door like he’s in charge of everything all set for his big date, <beat> then comes back through the door, “forgot my coat”.
Joe. . .that motion he makes when he explains, “brain cloud”. And the dancing in front of the moon, and the physical transformation he goes through from beat down worker bee to the man who beat the volcano.
For an example of how he brings it into another role, recall his reaction when he realizes he’s been had in the hotel room in “Catch Me If You Can”. Shit, recall his “knock knock” joke in “CMIYC”. (“You wanna hear a joke? Knock. . . Knock. Who’s there? ::looks over at him and looks back:: Go fuck yourself.”).
He has done straight comedy, romantic comedy, heavy drama, farce, satire, tragedy. The only guys who immediately spring to mind who have come close to his ability across ranges are Depp and Dustin Hoffman. With PS Hoffman definitely getting there.
Jim Carrey or Robin Williams is who Tom Hanks would be if he couldn’t act. . .if his “acting” consisted of “not being outrageous”.
Consider the CHARACTERS from these movies:
Gump, Philadelphia, Terminal, Perdition, Big, Cast Away, Sleepless, Private Ryan, Catch me if you Can.
That’s just 9 very distinct characters right there.
I’ll see your drag queen and Agent Smith, and raise you a Kip ‘Buffy’ Wilson, and Agent Hanratty.
Hugo Weaving played Agent Smith in his role as Elrond. Exact same character. I guess “elf king” and “cyber space super agent” deserved the same treatment from this rangy actor. Two sides of the same coin, really.
Neither character is acting. It’s just finding a guy with a cool voice to fill a role. If you want to see Weaving show off his chops, check out “The Interview”.
I agree that Hanks is a great actor. He’s just not a showy one.
He’ll be remembered as one of the greats, right up there with Jimmy Stewart, who I think is a very good comparison.
Well, I think it was supposed to be a faketastic accent in The Ladykillers. And my dad loves Turner and Hooch. But no, I don’t go to see movies just because they have Tom Hanks in them; actually, it’s a mark against them usually, not because of him so much but because they tend to be very safe, middle class movies. I did love Road to Perdition, however.