OK...following the DeNiro vs. Pacino thread i'll throw this one in: who is a better actor: Gene Hackman or Dustin Hoffman...kind of tough since they're both different style actors, i don't think Gene has ever really put in a bad performance, he's great even in fluff like Enemy of the State, his pinnacle (for me) The Conversation or the French Connection....as for Hoffman, he's more of a character actor, Midnight Cowboy, Straw Dogs, The Graduate...the list goes on. I have to give it to Dustin (he tranforms himself to every role). Have they ever been in a movie together? I think they have i can't remember though

Yes they were in one movie together.'The Runaway Jury' and in my opinion Hackman gave the better performance.
As you say, overall different types of actors, but I'll take Hackman any day.
I've never seen Hackman 'grandstand' in a drama. He just exists within the framework.
I think Hoffman's best work is far behind him, great as it was (Little Big Man, Graduate, Midnight Cowboy, Rainman, SD's etc).

They were in Runaway Jury together, and they actually were roommates back in the 60's while they were both trying to get work. According to their IMDB pages, they were both vote Least Likely to Suceed in their class.

Hoffman's best performances, roles, and films trump Hackman's. So I'll take Hoffman, although both are great.

Both are great but I prefer Hackman's style more

Please... Hackman easily. I don't think I've liked any of Hoffman's performances (and most movies as well), his persona just doesn't do it for me I guess.

I pick Hoffman. He was much more versatile, playing so many different types of characters (sometimes unrecognizable). Hackman is great, but it seems like he has the exact same personality in most of his characters.

The only reason I need to place my vote for Gene Hackman is because of his role from Young Frankenstein.

"Wait. Where are you going? I was going to make Espresso!"

Both of these actors are superb, so neither one is no better than the other. It all depends on the character they portraying in the film.

I think they're both great, but Hackman is ALWAYS watchable, no matter how bad the film is. I can't say the same for Hoffman. Hackman also handles David Mamet dialogue a lot better than Hoffman.

So I vote Hackman.

Yeah, I'm going with Hackman, too. The guy is just easy to watch on screen.

The French Connection, Hoosiers, Crimson Tide, Get Shorty, Unforgiven, Superman I & II, The Poseidon Adventure....mmm mmm good.

Hackman, easily.

Hoffman's been on a downhill slide ever since he appeared in Star Wars.

I think critically, Hoffman is the better actor. But, I prefer Hackman.

"Otisburg?!"

you, sir, are correct!

I don't think you know a good acting performance when you actually see one. Have you ever seen Dustin Hoffman performances in Rain Man, Kramer vs Kramer, Tootsie, Marathon Man? just to name a few.

Hackman.

I can't believe I missed him in that all these years.

I think Hoffman was a phenomenal actor in his earlier roles. So if you just judge his work from before... say 1988, I would say he wins hands down. Now, like Pacino in my mind, he seems more of a characiture of himself. Considering the total body of work I would have to give the edge to Hackman.

My feelings exactly. Loved Hoffman's earlier work (Little Big Man was a tour de force, among many more oft-cited roles), but he does seem to be "phoning it in" in most of his recent roles. Like you, Pacino came to mind...although they "still have it" when they want to, they seem to have adopted the Brando style of aging actor boredom with their jobs (guess that's what happens to old Method actors...they project their current attitude toward their professions onto the characters...and turn in embarrassing "performances" that resemble Sat. Night Live impressions). Hackman, while not stretching himself as far in his choice of roles, continues to be one of the most believable actors working today...an "everyman" type of star who can tackle almost any type of character and pull it off...even while making it look easy. Talk about a natural!

I used to work at a video store in Pacific Palisades in the late 80's, and one time two ladies came in and asked for recommendations, I recommended a few and two or three where Gene Hackman movies, one lady pulled me aside and whispered to me not to recommend any more Gene Hackman movies as the other lady was his ex wife and hated him. So whenever the ex wife would return to the store and asked, I made sure to recommend any Gene Hackman movie I could think of. I think she stopped asking for recommendation after the third time she came by.

I think Hackman is a great actor, but I don't think he's in the same league as Hoffman, Pacino, De Niro. I think it would be a better discussion as to the trio.

Big fan of Hackman right here.

And here I was thinking this was a new movie in the veins of Godzilla vs. Mothra.

You're not very good at reading minds. He was good in Rain Man.

If I have to compare, I'd say Hoffman is better when it's a role where he's playing an out-there character with a complete transformation, like Rain Man, Tootsie, etc. For a more "normal" guy role, Hackman is better.

Although Hackman has made more crappy movies than Hoffman, Hackman at his best is better than Hoffman at his best.