Thread: Oscars 2011
View Single Post
Old May 22nd, 2010, 2:51 am
Rastaban43's Avatar
Rastaban43  Male.gif Rastaban43 is offline
Representative Homosexual
Join Date: 24th January 2005
Location: chaos organisť
Age: 37
Posts: 4,107
Re: Oscars 2011

Originally Posted by lcbaseball22 View Post
Kevin Costner has never been nominated in the same year and while I like a lot of Costner's movies, Tom Hanks is in a whole 'nother league. He's amongst the very best actors of today but unfortunately he keeps doing the Dan Brown novel adaptations as of late.
That's the nice thing about opinions. You don't have to agree with me. It really doesn't matter if the two have been nominated in the same year; they can still be compared to one another. Let's just look at some of their most watchable films (obviously, these are subjective lists).

Kevin Costner:

Swing Vote (2008) - boring
Mr. Brooks (2007) - interesting, decent acting
The Guardian (2006) - boring
For Love of the Game (1999) - boring
Message in a Bottle (1999) - really boring
The Postman (1997) - interesting
Tin Cup (1996) - decent film
Waterworld (1995) - personal favourite
The Bodyguard (1992) - pretty bad
JFK (1991) - pretty good
Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves (1991) - good film, bad acting
Dances with Wolves (1990) - good film, passable acting
Field of Dreams (1989) - not my favourite, but good sports film
Bull Durham (1988) - good story
The Untouchables (1987) - good story

Tom Hanks:

Angels & Demons (2009) - boring
The Da Vinci Code (2006) - boring
Catch Me If You Can (2002) - good film, passable acting
Cast Away (2000) - boring, melodramatic
The Green Mile (1999) - long film, boring acting
You've Got Mail (1998) - boring
Saving Private Ryan (1998) - good film, good acting
Apollo 13 (1995) - over-dramatic
Forrest Gump (1994) - decent film, good but tired acting
Philadelphia (1993) - good film, good acting
Sleepless in Seattle (1993) - cute but boring
A League of Their Own (1992) - good film, passable acting
Joe Versus the Volcano (1990) - personal favourite
The 'burbs (1989) - good story, good acting
Big (1988) - cute but boring

The fact Hanks has been more recognised by the Academy doesn't really mean much to me. For the purposes of this thread, it makes it easier to say he's more likely to win an Oscar, if he decides to do something outside of boring, but looking through those lists, I don't see much that sets them apart from each other. They both lean toward dramatic roles. They both take themselves too seriously. They've both been in some really excellent films and in some really boring ones. They were born one year apart. They started their careers around the same time in tiny irrelevant roles and eventually made a splash with their looks more than their acting. They both have about the same amount of big star power despite being the same amount of boring.

The only real difference between them is that Costner has sort of turned into an anecdote for all bad acting (he's not actually the worst actor in the world) and Hanks has better public relations.

I said Hanks was a better actor than Costner most of the time. The reason I used Costner as a benchmark was because he has become an anecdote. I don't see what's so hard to understand about that. It's my opinion. You can disagree but saying it doesn't make sense doesn't make sense. How can I be more clear about it? He is a good actor, not a great one. I don't apologise for that sentiment. I appreciate that you disagree, and I'm sure there are plenty of others who would join you. But for me, they're in exactly the same league.

Sponsored Links