It makes you wonder if perhaps some are choosing based on versatility, over pure acting skill.

I'm leaning towards Mel Gibson due to versatility (the breadth of his career - he spans quite the spectrum from action hero to Shakepearean actor).

To be fair, Keanu Reeves has spanned the same spectrum.

I agree. I voted for Crowe too.
I can't see Hanks as Maximus or William Wallace.

I COMPLETELY agree. I am of the opinion that somehow there is somekind of technology used in EVERY Tom Hanks movie that hypnotizes & brainwashes people that watch him. b/c the man is some of the most limited range of any leading actor today, & this thread is FULL of people saying he has the BEST range of these 4 actors. Hanks plays the same role in EVERY single movie he is in. The sappy, safe, please love me good guy in EVERY SINGLE MOVIE. The guy refuses to play a bad guy or a character that the audience doesn't sympatize with.

Russel Crowe is in a league above the other actors listed (& I'm a huge Mel Gibson fan). Crowe's roles are so diverse it's insane. He completely becomes every character he takes (hell, the guy learned the F'n violin for one little scene in Master & Commander). The man has an extremely strong & high profile personality yet can completely mask it in roles like the Insider & Romper Stomper. He can play the timid, week willed character yet can kick ass much as anyone in recent years. There aren't many better than Crowe.

Since Paul Walker is curiously absent from the list, I'll go with Denzel. He manages to create a living, breathing, and captivating character in all of his roles. He convinces you to follow him through any story. From He Got Game, to Glory, to Training Day, to Crimson Tide, to Out Of Time, etc.

I would go with Crowe myself. Denzel can be very powerful, and Hanks can be very dramatic, but they just don't have the range Crowe does. And range means a lot. With the few films Crowe has done, the characters are just wildly different. Compare the insider to Gladiator to Beautiful Mind...three roles that really are nothing alike and are played to a tee. Mel...well, I enjoy Mel but I've never thought him a great actor...some of his dramatic acting can get a bit hammy. Hanks is great, but really somewhat limited to comedic and leading everyman/good guy. I was hoping for something different in Road to Perdition, but alas, that was Tom Hanks as a hitman. Same for Denzel...while he is a powerful presence, he really brings his Denzelness to any role. Only Crowe would I saw completely loses himself in a role to a point that...I don't even think about Crowe. Yes, he does have this outside persona, but it just doesn't come across in his performances.

Russell Crowe. They are all good but he is amazing.

After Master and Commander, I'm convinced that Crowe is the best actor alive.

Crowe for me. He's easily the most versatile dramatic actor in the bunch. His roles in Gladiator and The Insider are so night and day from one another, and he made A Beautiful Mind work. Of the four he's the one who blends into his roles the best.

In "That Thing You Do!" Hanks plays a an opportunistic manager of The Wonders. He's neither likeable nor sympathetic.

Also, in "Road to Perdition" Hanks plays a cold-blooded killer. Maybe the audience DOES sympathize with the character but he's still a cold-blooded killer.

And in "Catch Me If You Can," he plays FBI agent Carl Hanratty who is less than sympathetic. Hanratty is very non-sociable and has very little tact. In fact, in this film you're always looking forward to how Frank Abagnale is always getting away from him. Not really a BAD guy but not a very likeable one.

In the upcoming movie, "The Ladykillers" I would say Hanks' character would be a bad guy.

Very small role & there is nothing unlikeable about his character.

Quote:

---

Also, in "Road to Perdition" Hanks plays a cold-blooded killer. Maybe the audience DOES sympathize with the character but he's still a cold-blooded killer.

---

Hanks plays about as warming & endearing of a killer as you can be & the audience is COMPLETELY sympathetic towards his character. He IS the likeable character in the movie.

Quote:

---

And in "Catch Me If You Can," he plays FBI agent Carl Hanratty who is less than sympathetic. Hanratty is very non-sociable and has very little tact. In fact, in this film you're always looking forward to how Frank Abagnale is always getting away from him. Not really a BAD guy but not a very likeable one.

---

Not very diverse either. His character is not a bad guy & the role is not a risk. It's a safe character.



I'm sorry but Hanks IMO is not even in the same league as Russel Crowe. IMO what seperates the truly great actors is diversity. They are paid to ACT, transform themselves. Hanks does not ever take risky roles, or play extreme characters. He takes the safe roles, the PC roles to get awards. Crowe's weak spot is definitely comedy, aside from the comedic roles (& Crowe would have been great as Hank's character from A League of Their Own) there is not a role Hanks plays that Crowe can't do. Hanks could NEVER pull off Crowe's role in Gladiator, or Romper Stomper, or Master & Commander, or LA Confidential, or some other Crowe films. It's just my opinion.

CROWE is AWESOME
GIBSON is 2nd

How soon we forget about "Castaway".

:hscratch: <b>Castaway</b> was a fine film with an outstanding lead performance, but how does it address people's comments about Hanks only playing likeable characters?

das

I like to think Crowe could handle it ;)


Forrest Gump on the other hand...

1. Hanks

2. Gibson

3. Washington









4. Crowe


Hanks is versatile.


Could you see Crowe as Forrest Gump?

I can EASILY see Crowe as Forrest Gump. Just dumb down his character of Nash in ABM.

And all these people saying how versatile Hanks is have yet to back it up. Every movie he is in it's just the please-love-me-like-me-&-sympathize for me character. That is not my version of versatile, it's my version of type cast.

But Andy liked Woody best :)

hard choice, but hanks, for me.

I think some examples were already pointed out. In Catch Me If You Can his character is not very loveable nor is he in Road to Perdition. Just because he doesnt play an all out villain role doesnt mean he is not versatile.

No examples were. His character in CMIYC is not a stretch of a role at all. And his character in RTP IS likeable, it is the character you sympathize with. I'm not saying he is not versatile. He is very versatile at playing the good guy, sympathetic average Joe. I am saying he is not anywhere near as versatile as Crowe.

Crowe...the best actor alive. He can do so much with the smallest looks and expressions. Hanks is likeable and one of my favorite actors, but you never forget you are watching Tom Hanks. Crowe has it all, and I believe he is quite capable of comedy - he just hasn't done that many American films yet. And he would be the king of romantic comedy should he ever choose to star in one.

So because he usually plays sympathetic characters he is not versatile? In RTP he is not the good guy or the sympathetic average joe.

I really like Tom Hanks, but in terms of acting ability it would have to be Russell Crowe.

Wasn't a very hard decision for me, although i love Tom Hank's movies and 1 Russell Crowe movie so far (Gladiator) haven't seen Master And Commander yet, (((Mel Gibson is the man here c'mon with movies like Braveheart, Lethal Weapon, Mad Max, Maverick & The Patriot, easy choice...))) Denzell Washington has a couple good movies Crimson Tide and Remember The Titans...