Who Are the All-Time A+ List Actors?

Cafe Society
1

In the thread talking about Ronald Reagan’s legacy as an actor, I suggested that actors can be ranked along a grade scale. The top grade was A+ - the true legends of the silver screen, actors who were superstars, legends, will be remembered forever and were giants in their time.

Let’s figure out who they are, shall we?

The basic qualification, I believe, are as follows:

  1. There probably shouldn’t be more than 40-60 names in this list. If there’s hundreds, it can’t be that exclusive. They should be people remembered for being ACTORS, not primarily for other moviemaking skills or events outside the movies.

  2. An actor on the A+ list should be someone who is remembered long after their careers are over (Cary Grant, Katharine Hepburn) or who, given what they have done to date, obviously will be (Tom Hanks, Meryl Streep) as a superstar actor.

  3. An actor like this should have been a huge, huge star in their time, who during their peak was a lead actor in the majority of their films, and whose name would have headlined their movie.

  4. An actor like this should have been a good actor. They don’t necessarily have to have been one of the 40-60 most talented actors ever, but they should have been at least damned good in the opinion of most people or been critically acclaimed for some of their roles.

  5. Their resume should be fairly extensive. Someone who was a megastar for a short period of time - like Jim Carrey, for instance, although he still has time to come back - is not really the same as someone with big movies over a long career.

I’ve already named a few I think are on the A+ list, but what do you think?

2

Audrey Hepburn
Joan Crawford
Jack Nicholson
Jimmy Stewart
Marilyn Monroe
Richard Gere
Al Pacino
Elizabeth Taylor
Marlon Brando

Well there’s a few for starters. Or so I’d think.

3

Humphrey Bogart
Spencer Tracy

4

I hesitated to bring up anyone very recent, but I had to mention Denzel Washington. I really think he’s a top-notch actor.

5

John Wayne, obviously, belongs at or close to the top of the list.

Others:

Humphrey Bogart
James Cagney
Gary Cooper
Errol Flynn
Clark Gable
Cary Grant
Boris Karloff
Jimmy Stewart
Spencer Tracy

6

I’d like to add:

Richard Burton
Henry Fonda
Jack Lemmon
Sidney Poitier
Robert Mitchum
Paul Newman
Robert Redford
Barbra Streisand
Dustin Hoffman
Sophia Loren
Jane Fonda

7

Gregory Peck
Claude Rains
Joseph Cotten
Maureen O’Hara
Bette Davis
Joan Crawford
Irene Dunne

8

Ronald Colman
Michael Redgrave
Laurence Olivier

9

Rudolf Valentino
Charlie Chaplin
Stan Laurel
Oliver Hardy
Lon Chaney Sr
Douglas Fairbanks

10

Jessica Tandy

11

Judging by his movie career alone, is Bob Hope big enough to make the list?

12

Sean Connery
Clint Eastwood
Harrison Ford

13

I don’t think so, no.

So far nominated we have:

Tom Hanks
Jimmy Stewart
Cary Grant
Katharine Hepburn
Meryl Streep
Audrey Hepburn
Joan Crawford
Jack Nicholson
Jimmy Stewart
Marilyn Monroe
Richard Gere
Al Pacino
Elizabeth Taylor
Marlon Brando
Humphrey Bogart
Spencer Tracy
Denzel Washington
Rudolf Valentino
Charlie Chaplin
Stan Laurel
Oliver Hardy
Lon Chaney, Sr.
Douglas Fairbanks
Ronald Colman
Michael Redgrave
Laurence Olivier
Gregory Peck
Claude Rains
Joseph Cotten
Maureen O’Hara
Bette Davis
Joan Crawford
Irene Dunne
Richard Burton
Henry Fonda
Jack Lemmon
Sidney Poitier
Robert Mitchum
Paul Newman
Robert Redford
Barbra Streisand
Dustin Hoffman
Sophia Loren
Jane Fonda
Robert de Niro (I’m adding this one, an obvious oversight)

That’s 44 names if I’m counting right, so our list is already getting there. I think most of these nominations are good, exactly what we’re looking for, but I disagree with some, and I’ll argue against them here:

  1. Richard Gere. Gere has been around a long time, and has been a leading man, but he’s never really been the biggest name around at any time. He’s sort of the Rafael Palmiero (pre-steroids) of actors, always very good, never great. If we were making a Top 100, maybe, but I think he’s A, not A+.

2-3 Laurel and Hardy. Obviously, Stan Laurel and Oliver Hardy are major names in film history, but they’re a team, not individuals, and did nothing of note outside of their duo films. We’re looking for individual movie stars here, not teams. Unfair? Well, we’re just not making that list.

  1. Marilyn Monroe. Monroe is very, very famous, obviously, but her resume as an actress is unimpressive as compared to anyone else on this list; it’s substantially less impressive than Sharon Stone’s. She’s famous for too many reasons other than being an actress.

Let’s debate, add more names!

14

My reply “I don’t think so, no” was in response to Thudlow. I agree with Little Nemo’s nominations of Eastwood, Harrison Ford, and Sean Connery.

I would also nominate Michael Douglas.

15

Oh, since musicals made up a big part of Hollywood’s Golden Age, I think Fred Astaire definitely needs to be on the list.

16

I agree with you on Laurel & Hardy, RickJay, but what do you say to Charlie Chaplin? He was very influential and pretty innovative. In fact, I’d say he’s one of the few actors from the Silent Era who could stand up to this list, not to mention he was one of the first movie “stars” ever.

17

I agree with what you’re saying about Gere and I nominate the above names to the un-nominated list. They are simply too limited as actors to be on a list like this. Even if stardom and impact shoul mean somehing - a list of Grade A+ actors should have actors that are more versatile than these.

18

Rex Harrison?

19

We should be careful to distinguish actors (people who can act) from movie stars (people who draw customers into the theatre)–they should be synonymous, and often are, but not always. No one should confuse Sly Stallone or Clint Eastwood or Julia Roberts with a great practitioner of the thespic arts, but some of the names on the list above I’ll want to ask the question “Do you really think this person gave consistently elevating PERFORMANCES? Can you name three?”

I don’t think Nicholson or Connery or Michael Douglas have enough range OR enough depth to qualify as A+ actors. A+ movie stars, yes, of course. A or A- actors? Maybe. I’d place Douglas as a B+ actor, myself.

20

I have to jump back into my own thread here and point out that we’re compiling an honest list here, and if you can keep personal preferences out of it we’d probably do better.

Sly Stallone wouldn’t really qualify anyway, but with all due respect, if you think Clint Eastwood can’t act, you’re just being personally biased. The man is a fine actor, with several outstanding performances in his resume; his work in “Million Dollar Baby” was acting at its very best, and I thought he was even more brilliant than Hilary Swank or Morgan Freeman. He was also outstanding in “Unforgiven,” and I could cite a dozen movies or more where he was really first rate. If you compare his performances in any of his spaghetti westerns or cop films to the likes of, say, Jean-Claude Van Damme, you’ll know the difference. Given the astonishing length and breadth of his career, his fame and importance, and the number of important films he’s been in, geez, I thought he was a no-brainer. He’s going to be remembered with John Wayne, and Eastwood is a better actor.

Eastwood might not be one of the 50 most talented actors to ever live, but he’s more than good enough to be considered an A+ superstar.

As for Julia Roberts, again, same thing. She’s not even 40 years old and so the true shape of her career has yet to be determined, so I am not sure she belong on the A+ list yet, but by any objective viewing she is a perfectly fine actress.

I’l disagree with Nicholson, too, though I see your argument about Connery and Douglas.

but some of the names on the list above I’ll want to ask the question “Do you really think this person gave consistently elevating PERFORMANCES? Can you name three?”

I don’t think Nicholson or Connery or Michael Douglas have enough range OR enough depth to qualify as A+ actors. A+ movie stars, yes, of course. A or A- actors? Maybe. I’d place Douglas as a B+ actor, myself.
[/QUOTE]