Tom Hanks is a boring hack of an actor. Why is he so successful of all people?
And he's not even a fun drunk.
Tom Hanks won various parts partly because casting directors and then audiences could place themselves in his shoes. He was not intimidatingly good looking to either men or women. He built up a nice list of credit - and friends - and the momentum continues.
I have a friend who considers him the equal of James Stewart. I don't dislike Hanks, but he's no Stewart.
I agree. Dull as day old dishwater.
The proper idiom is "dull as ditchwater," not "dishwater."
He can put in a a good performance in some films and he's a likable presence. I ended up surprised by how good he was in that stranded on an island movie.
I like him and think he's funny, but I know he's hated by many. I thought he was cute back in the 80's and up to Philadelphia. I also like him in Angels and Demons.
He used to be fun, back when he made comedies like "A League of Their Own" and "Big".
Then he got all self-imporant and shit.
He's definitely not a fun drunk, unless you're a big ol' masochist.
His onetime "boy next door" appeal has long disappared behind the alcohol bloat. The only way I can explain Hanks's continued success is that he's built up a network of powerful and supportive Hollywood friends.
Thanks, you're so right R9.
He is a bit of a cunty person, too. I remember at some awards ceremony, a guy in a wheelchair was sent by an Australian TV station to do a cross. The poor bastard accidentally parked his chair on the hem of Rita Wilson's dress. As soon as he realised, he moved his chair and apologised to Hanks, who, by that time, was shuffling around trying to free the dress. Hanks proceeded to shoot him a filthy look and storm off without a word.
Get over yourself, cunt!
[quote] I have a friend who considers him the equal of James Stewart.
You say this as though it's a new comparison.
Hanks probably has played characters with more variety than Stewart did. I don't get why they're discussed together. Yes, there's the everyman plain looking aspect to them both, but other than that, nothing. Plus, Hanks has played some assholes.
They compare Clooney to Cary Grant. As if!
and why is Jimmy Stewart so great? What makes him a better actor than Tom Hanks? Jimmy Stewart, no matter what role he was in, played the classic "ah shucks" character. Jimmy Stewart was a very one dimensional actor who played one dimensional characters.
^ agree 100%
Jimmy Stewart wasn't so aw shucks in Vertigo, Rear Window and parts of It's A Wonderful Life. He could play angry, obsessed or tormented pretty well. Those fianl scenes with Kim Novak in Vertigo with him angrily confronting her about her deception are very intense.
Yes. We know Jimmy Stewart can act. So can Tom Hanks. The question is what makes Jimmy Stewart better than Tom Hanks? Different times. Different era. Different audience. For me, classic films are very simple. Vertigo was beautiful shot, but was Stewart really all that great in the film?
It's a Wonderful Life is a great film, but Stewart is most definitely doing his best aw shucks. Rear Window was a great film, but I think any actor of the day could have played that character. There was nothing extraodinary about Stewart in that film. Vertigo? Well, all I will say is the film was beautifully shot.
Yes he's rather bland and sometimes actually boring. He's successful because he doesn't challenge audiences with his acting or his looks. He has the technique to pull of most of his roles, but he's white-bread American bland
I got tired of the way he always played such a goody two-shoes overgrown boy scout in every damn movie. And I lost all respect for him after starring in the most subtextual-evil, despicable, stupidity-celebrating, conformist, fascist movie ever made, Forrest Gump.
[quote]I have a friend who considers him the equal of James Stewart.
Hope you don't think your friend was the one who came up with that comparison on his own. Upon our request, Hanks himself has been referencing Stewart since "Big."
Tom Hanks, Inc. Publicity Enterprises
Does Tom Hanks have a big giant head? That seems to be a prerequisite to fame in Hollywood.
[quote]That seems to be a prerequisite to fame in Hollywood.
No. It's a pre-requisite for acting in front of a camera - a small body and a big head (the lollipop syndrome). It's what the lens picks up best.
Hence the reason why so many actors/video stars, especially the men, end up disappointing us with their real height (Tom Cruise, Dustin Hoffman, Shirley MacLaine, Madonna, all lollipops).
Due to print work requirements, however, models need not apply with big heads, unless they're strictly spokesmodels or just doing TV shows and infomercials (see Vanna White, the quintessential "lollipop").
James Stewart was one of the worst actors ever. Tom Hanks isn't great but miles better than James Stewart.
[quote]a small body and a big head (the lollipop syndrome). It's what the lens picks up best.
How funny -- on lunch, I'll see if I can track down the scientific reasons why.
R23 obviously hasn't seen Rope.
I liked a couple of his movies (Apollo 13, Shaving Ryan's Privates, and the Green Mile), but I think he does not have a lot of depth as an actor. Rather boring.
Buffy and Hildegard
There's something about Tom Hanks that just wears thin with me. I can't put my finger on it. I think he's pretty dull too.
"Rear Window was a great film, but I think any actor of the day could have played that character."
Any actor of the day?
Are you really all that certain you would have liked Marlon Brando, Tony Curtis, Jack Lemmon, Charlton Heston, Peter Finch, Ernest Borgnine, Kirk Douglas, Gregory Peck, Rock Hudson, Richard Burton, Tyrone Power, Montgomery Clift, Farley Granger, Robert Walker, Yves Montand, or Spencer Tracey in that role?
Let alone that they would have been nearly as good as Stewart was?
Ton Hanks will be on Broadway this season.
Having done over 30 episodes of Bosom Buddies in front of a live audience, he should be an old pro at treading the boards.
He's been quite good in a number of films over the years. He is hardly a boring hack of an actor (and producer). I could list about a dozen reasons off the top of my head.
Another stupid thread.
I never realized that anyone other than my silly friend would have the audacity to compare Hanks (favorably) to Jimmy Stewart.
And I never realized that anyone could fail to appreciate the guy who did (in addition to those mentioned above) "The Philadelphia Story", "Mr. Smith Goes To Washington", & "The Flight Of The Phoenix".
Standards do slip, don't they?
Tom has done some good work. Philadelphia (for which he won a much deserved oscar), Nothing in Common with the great Jackie Gleason, Everytime we say goodbye, Sleepless in Seattle, Big.
His entire career is based on "Bachelor Party."
Nothing else he has done since has won him any fans.
And he was quite attractive in that.
He can be pretty boring. He does have fairly bland looks, and he seems sorta boring as a person.
But, I don't think he's a hack actor at all. I think he's been very good in a number of things, such as Philadelphia, early comedies, Castaway.
No one has mentioned the black underwear scene in Turner and Hooch. My attraction to Tom Hanks started and ended there.
Most his roles were either likeable goofs or heroes. Plus, he never offended anybody with a messy personal life. He conducted himself like an old school star when he became a star. Personally, I avoid Tom Hanks movies and am no fan at all, but I think that's part of his success.
"[Stewart] could play angry, obsessed or tormented pretty well."
Pretty well?!! That scene in "IaWL" where he destroys his drafting desk in front of his mortified wife and children is an amazing piece of work. He was a brilliant actor.
He's certainly a bore. I've seen him a couple of times on late night talk shows and couldn't believe his dullness. He thinks he can tell a story but he can not.