Charlie Wilson's War

[Ardentfrost]

It's not about the variety of characters he plays, which, as you point out, is obviously dissimilar, but HOW he plays them... with that same crooked half-smile and beady-eyed look he gives ALL THE FUCKING TIME. The inflection of his voice is near constant, though it has 3 volumes (soft, medium, and loud).

As for the specifics, I didn't see Road to Perdition, and I've already talked about Philadelphia...

for Cast Away, if you want to see someone slowly lose their mind, just have a camera film me watching this movie. It is slow, boring, and uses the occasional "shock scene" (like him pulling out his own tooth) to try to revive the audience. For most of the movie Hanks doesn't even talk, so has to use the majesty of pantomime to express his emotion. So, huddled up in a cave = in pain, yelling wildly = going crazy... umm, maybe there's one more emotion expressed in this movie? I kept waiting for the movie to start. And then at the end when he delivers that one package he didn't open, like that's supposed to be heroic or something... it's just silly.

The Green Mile was written by Stephen King, so before even seeing it we shouldn't be expecting too much. However, the movie, as a movie, is pretty good despite him and Hanks. Hanks, however, is using his same old expressions and the closest he gets to acting in the entire movie is when he's pissing out kidney stones. Luckily for Hanks, Michael Clark Duncan and David Morse CAN act, and carry the movie largely by themselves. Hanks is more of a prop than anything else in this movie... a reciter of lines... a crotch to grab.

I've already mentioned Saving Private Ryan, but the movie is good enough to mention again. The supporting cast MADE this movie. The realism they were going for made the movie. Hanks most certainly did NOT make the movie. He wasn't so terrible to take away from the movie, but his part was at times unbelievable and at other times bland enough to be ignored. This is, again, him using his same few facial expressions and zero voice inflection (with 3 volumes) to muscle his way through a movie that did not rely on his performance AT ALL to be fucking incredible.

Apollo 13 is probably one of my most hated Hollywood blockbusters of all time. It would have been better as a documentary instead of a drama-injected movie wrought with poor acting. I don't think Hanks is full to blame, though at points I felt he was dragging the performance of his supporting cast down. No one did a good job in this movie... not the writers, not the director, not the actors. The only reason people were fleeced into liking it is because of the constant fake drama rolled into the movie, and for some reason people (as a whole) like that crap.

Forrest Gump... oh man, I can't say enough about how bad this movie is. I don't even know where to start. Scenes in the movie were so distracting it ruined immersion into the film, Hanks was HORRID (omg, he can talk with a retard accent, he's a great actor!!11!1one!!1eleven). Other than his accent, he's doing the same looks, the same stiff and unbelievable acting... it's always the same, and him playing a retard didn't change that. I just picture the director tossing back advil after take 47 and saying "You know what? We'll just get it in editing."

A league of their own was decent... I haven't seen it recently enough to harp on Hanks though. He was either still decent enough to not distract from the movie (which, for the most part, I remember the OTHER actors in that movie doing a decent job), or his one persona he's good at (which is, as far as I can tell, just Tom Hanks) worked well in that particular movie.

I'll tell you what I thought Hanks was really good in though: Toy Story. As just a voice, when the visual acting is done by animators, he did a decent job. I even thought Tim Allen did a good job in that movie, and he's God awful for the most part. I tend to credit Pixar more than the actual actors, but either way that was a movie easy to enjoy.

What Hanks is REALLY good at, though, is BACKING a project. Band of Brothers is easily one of the greatest mini-series of all time. Hanks is really into WW2 history, and went the extra mile in making stuff in that movie historically accurate, even pulling in a variety of WW2 veterans to tell their stories. In that way, I respect Hanks. He really put a lot into that project. The show didn't rely on his acting ability, just him being passionate about the subject, which he certainly is.

I'll tell you the three performances which really got me on the road to my position on Hanks: Catch Me if You Can, Ladykillers, and The Terminal. Catch Me if You Can wasn't exactly a movie I was expecting a lot out of. It looked interesting enough from the previews, but when it came out I was under the impression DiCaprio was utterly incapable of acting. However, his performance in this particular movie wasn't bad at all. I guess he just surprised me. But Hanks performance was, as it often is, dull and unimpressive. The thing that I enjoyed the most about the movie was the cinematography, the editing, and the plot itself, but Hanks' performance was, at times, distracting to the point that I noticed.

The Ladykillers was a movie I was very much anticipating. At the time it was "the next Coen Brothers' movie" and I am a huge fan of their work. The cast, except for Hanks, was just what I would expect from a Coen movie: unique and quirky actors playing unique and quirky characters. You gotta hand it to the Coens, they even made Nick Cage a good actor for one time in his life. However, them casting Hanks as the lead was an ENORMOUS mistake. He drug the ENTIRE movie down. He tried so hard to force the quirkiness into the character, but succeeded in only creating an unbelievable character and was unable to hide his normal "Hankisms" (if you will).

Lastly, The Terminal, which is another movie I wasn't exactly expecting a lot out of, but thought it might be entertaining enough to see once. The writing was funny enough, and the movie had its "cute" moments, but Hanks playing the foreigner was so bad and distracting, it again drug the whole movie down. He didn't even have to speak sense, he was speaking a non-language the entire time, but it was just plain bad.

After that movie, I started to really evaluate his performances in other movies and took notice of the one character Hanks always plays: Hanks. Sure, it might be Hanks alone on an island or Hanks on a space ship, but it is ALWAYS Hanks playing that one character. It's unimpressive, often distracting, and sometimes just plain shitty (depending on the part he's trying to play). A movie being bad isn't always his fault, but sometimes it is.

[Scrum]

You're nuts.



And as far as Cage goes, the only movie he was ever decent in was Leaving Las Vegas. Everything else was garbage.

[Linzyhop]

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

Tom Hanks always plays the same guy, even when it's completely uncalled for,

This movie, Saving Private Ryan, Forrest Gump, the LadyKillers, the Green Mile, Cast Away... i couldn't see more varying roles.

[Linzyhop]

and we got off topic. this is about the political implications of this movie. even Guiliani is mentioned in it as the prosecutor against Wilson for some illicit activity.... it's sure to turn some heads.

[Ardentfrost]

Originally Posted by Scrum

You're nuts.



And as far as Cage goes, the only movie he was ever decent in was Leaving Las Vegas. Everything else was garbage.

Naw, Leaving Las Vegas was decent, but his best role was Raising Arizona. That's the one time he actually ADDED to a movie.

[Ardentfrost]

Originally Posted by Linzyhop

This movie, Saving Private Ryan, Forrest Gump, the LadyKillers, the Green Mile, Cast Away... i couldn't see more varying roles.

Varying roles being played by the same acted guy... like I said, he always plays Hanks. Whether it's Hanks as a retard or Hanks as a prison guard, the persona is the same.

The trailers should end with something like "Tom Hanks is Tom Hanks in Tom Hanks Plays A Retard."

[Linzyhop]

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

Varying roles being played by the same acted guy... like I said, he always plays Hanks. Whether it's Hanks as a retard or Hanks as a prison guard, the persona is the same.

The trailers should end with something like "Tom Hanks is Tom Hanks in Tom Hanks Plays A Retard."

i disagree with that assessment.

[Ardentfrost]

Originally Posted by Linzyhop

i disagree with that assessment.

rarely do people agree at first.

But you'll all start noticing from now on.

[Linzyhop]

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

rarely do people agree at first.

But you'll all start noticing from now on.

doubtful since he's one of my more favorite actors.

we'll agree to disagree.

I still highly recommend this movie.

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

As for the specifics, I didn't see Road to Perdition, and I've already talked about Philadelphia...

Road to Perdition was good. It was another example of Tom Hanks mastering an accent and making it part of his character.

for Cast Away, if you want to see someone slowly lose their mind, just have a camera film me watching this movie. It is slow, boring, and uses the occasional "shock scene" (like him pulling out his own tooth) to try to revive the audience. For most of the movie Hanks doesn't even talk, so has to use the majesty of pantomime to express his emotion. So, huddled up in a cave = in pain, yelling wildly = going crazy... umm, maybe there's one more emotion expressed in this movie? I kept waiting for the movie to start. And then at the end when he delivers that one package he didn't open, like that's supposed to be heroic or something... it's just silly.

You finding the movie boring or thinking he didn't speak enough has nothing to do with the acting performance given by Hanks.

The Green Mile was written by Stephen King, so before even seeing it we shouldn't be expecting too much. However, the movie, as a movie, is pretty good despite him and Hanks. Hanks, however, is using his same old expressions and the closest he gets to acting in the entire movie is when he's pissing out kidney stones. Luckily for Hanks, Michael Clark Duncan and David Morse CAN act, and carry the movie largely by themselves. Hanks is more of a prop than anything else in this movie... a reciter of lines... a crotch to grab.

I think Hanks carried that movie. It's interesting you think Duncan can act, but Hanks can't.

I've already mentioned Saving Private Ryan, but the movie is good enough to mention again. The supporting cast MADE this movie. The realism they were going for made the movie. Hanks most certainly did NOT make the movie. He wasn't so terrible to take away from the movie, but his part was at times unbelievable and at other times bland enough to be ignored. This is, again, him using his same few facial expressions and zero voice inflection (with 3 volumes) to muscle his way through a movie that did not rely on his performance AT ALL to be fucking incredible.

I think you're missing the entire point of Saving Private Ryan. He was a school teacher. He wasn't some gung-ho Rambo in the jungle. They were all normal people getting sent over to Europe during WWII trying to find someone so they could get home. That is why the movie was such a hit within the military. You're saying he has 3 volumes over and over again and saying his supporting actors were better. How many volumes did they have?

Apollo 13 is probably one of my most hated Hollywood blockbusters of all time. It would have been better as a documentary instead of a drama-injected movie wrought with poor acting. I don't think Hanks is full to blame, though at points I felt he was dragging the performance of his supporting cast down. No one did a good job in this movie... not the writers, not the director, not the actors. The only reason people were fleeced into liking it is because of the constant fake drama rolled into the movie, and for some reason people (as a whole) like that crap.

Perhaps your opinion of Apollo 13 is a rarity?
Apollo 13 - Rotten Tomatoes

Forrest Gump... oh man, I can't say enough about how bad this movie is. I don't even know where to start. Scenes in the movie were so distracting it ruined immersion into the film, Hanks was HORRID (omg, he can talk with a retard accent, he's a great actor!!11!1one!!1eleven). Other than his accent, he's doing the same looks, the same stiff and unbelievable acting... it's always the same, and him playing a retard didn't change that. I just picture the director tossing back advil after take 47 and saying "You know what? We'll just get it in editing."

Same looks, same stuff? His Forrest character was completely different than any other character he has played. You just have a Tom Hanks bias

A league of their own was decent... I haven't seen it recently enough to harp on Hanks though. He was either still decent enough to not distract from the movie (which, for the most part, I remember the OTHER actors in that movie doing a decent job), or his one persona he's good at (which is, as far as I can tell, just Tom Hanks) worked well in that particular movie.

You wouldn't like it. Judging by the above you'd probably think the best part of his acting was when he was peeing out his alcohol.

I'll tell you what I thought Hanks was really good in though: Toy Story. As just a voice, when the visual acting is done by animators, he did a decent job. I even thought Tim Allen did a good job in that movie, and he's God awful for the most part. I tend to credit Pixar more than the actual actors, but either way that was a movie easy to enjoy.

So those same "three voices" off stage work just fine. But when you see him act it out, despite the fact that just about everyone in America thinks he's a very good actor, you somehow think it's bad?

Sorry I can't keep going....

[Ardentfrost]

I didn't say you had to agree with me, but I'm still right

I can take it when he's in a movie that's good despite him, but it drives me up the wall when he pulls the whole movie down. Your assessment of my assessments of his movies, though, are weak. A movie being bad DOES speak to the actor. You can't insinuate someone else is a bad actor and use that to criticize me criticizing Hanks. Offering up Rotten Tomatoes doesn't give any sort of counter-argument to my dislike for Apollo 13. Making a cursory statement about how Forest Gump is different than his other characters doesn't address the issues stated with his acting.

If you want to offer up scenes in which you think Hanks does an exceptional job which should dissuade my attack on him, fine. But me seeing his same act in every movie he does overlaid SOMETIMES with a bad accent, to me, does not warrant good acting. He's been in a few decent movies, but as I said before, they were decent DESPITE him, not because of him.

[Linzyhop]

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

I didn't say you had to agree with me, but I'm still right

I can take it when he's in a movie that's good despite him, but it drives me up the wall when he pulls the whole movie down. Your assessment of my assessments of his movies, though, are weak. A movie being bad DOES speak to the actor. You can't insinuate someone else is a bad actor and use that to criticize me criticizing Hanks. Offering up Rotten Tomatoes doesn't give any sort of counter-argument to my dislike for Apollo 13. Making a cursory statement about how Forest Gump is different than his other characters doesn't address the issues stated with his acting.

If you want to offer up scenes in which you think Hanks does an exceptional job which should dissuade my attack on him, fine. But me seeing his same act in every movie he does overlaid SOMETIMES with a bad accent, to me, does not warrant good acting. He's been in a few decent movies, but as I said before, they were decent DESPITE him, not because of him.

considering how you think those movies are horrible, kindof goes against the majority of the film audience. Forrest Gump won how many awards? as well as Cast Away, Road to Perdition, the Green Mile etc.....

you hate him for whatever reason, everyone has those actors that annoy them, but discrediting those great movies that have been acclaimed throughout most of movie history, is discrediting your opinion.

[kinggovernor]

Adrentfost - did Tom Hanks steal your girlfriend from you or something?

[WickedLou9]

I think you are confusing Kevin Costner with Tom Hanks.
Now THERE is an actor who plays the same guy in every movie, with no voice inflection what so ever.
Everything you hate about Tom Hanks movies is unargueably true about Kevin Costner movies.

[Publius]

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

I think you are confusing Kevin Costner with Tom Hanks.
Now THERE is an actor who plays the same guy in every movie, with no voice inflection what so ever.
Everything you hate about Tom Hanks movies is unargueably true about Kevin Costner movies.

"Unlike some OTHER Robin Hoods, I can speak with an English accent."

[Ardentfrost]

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

I think you are confusing Kevin Costner with Tom Hanks.
Now THERE is an actor who plays the same guy in every movie, with no voice inflection what so ever.
Everything you hate about Tom Hanks movies is unargueably true about Kevin Costner movies.

[Linzyhop]

I'm not a fan of Kevin Costner but Dances with Wolves is an awesome movie.

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by Linzyhop

I'm not a fan of Kevin Costner but Dances with Wolves is an awesome movie.

Open Range was good.

[Ardentfrost]

Originally Posted by Linzyhop

I'm not a fan of Kevin Costner but Dances with Wolves is an awesome movie.

Yeah, that and Robin Hood were good movies I thought. Kinda similar parts played in each I guess, but still good. I remember liking Wyatt Earp too, though it's been a few years since I've seen that one. That must mean it's pretty good b/c normally I don't much