...than the actors of 30's thru the 60's. There are exceptions but not many.

I mean it. While watching some "classic" dvds' over the last few months such as "THE TEN COMMANDMENTS", "BUTTERFIELD 8", THE GHOST AND MRS MUIR" and others. I noticed the acting was really strange. Maybe it's the weird cadence of their deliveries....or the weird stiff body movements of some of the actors. Anne Baxter(ALL ABOUT EVE, THE TEN COMMANDMENTS) is one who comes to mind.

Does anyone else know what I mean? I can't be alone in this.

I think it’s fair to say that acting, in parallel with movie making, has evolved over the years; the norm today is more naturalistic, less staged or stylized than in the earlier days of film. Still, I find a lot to enjoy in the performances from classic movies.

Kevin Spacey is the greatest actor of all time.

Vin Diesel is obviously a more accomplished actor than say a Laurence Olivier.

Vin probably could act in those 50's movies due to his stiff dilivery. Maybe then, they would call him an accadamy award winning actor.

This is what I'm talking about. I'm glad you posted first before the smartasses started in.

Naturally I'm not saying ALL acting today is better, and I will always enjoy the great films of Yesteryear.

I think I agree with you.

It's this kind, although not the same, "stiffness" I see in many films from back in the day.

No, they aren't. It's just a style. Its not so much acting as it is presence. Bogart's presence has yet to be matched in today's Hollywood.

I am sorry, but if you took lists of the best actors and actresses from "yesteryear" and compared to actors and actresses of today:

"Yesteryear" would WIN. Hands down.

Yeah. I know. Those boring movies like Hamlet, Henry V, and Wuthering Heights have nothin' on XXX and The Fast and the Furious.

Whatever. maybe it's PERSONAL TASTES?

with a touch of snob

If you read -ALL OLD MOVIES- somewhere in my statement then gimme some of what you're smoking k?

Jimmy Stewart alone makes this thread "wrong"...

All I know is I would gladly run out and blindly buy any movie starring Jimmy Stewart, Cary Grant, John Wayne, Orson Welles, James Cagney, William Powell, Humphrey Bogart, etc, etc, and know that I would be happy with the movie just due to their star power.

As for current movies, I have a hard time working myself over a movie just because a specific actor is in it.

"Oooh, the new George Clooney movie comes out this week! Gotta pre-order my tickets."


In my opinion, there is absolutely no comparison between current actors and the classic actors. The actors of today are clearly out-classed and no longer have that power to draw in the audiences by themselves.

...what about Henry Fonda?

Oh, c'mon. Actors from all generations make stinkers. Both old and new. Jimmy Stewart was in Airport '77, for cryin' out loud.

It seems that everyone on this thread is considering guys like Vin Diesel and Sly Stallone to be representative of today's actors.

I would blindly go see a movie starring Tom Cruise, Jude Law, Ralph Finnes, Harvey Keitel, Al Pacino, Bruce Willis, John Cusak, Kevin Spacey, Kurt Russell, Robert DeNiro, Matt Damon, Anthony Hopkins, Tom Hanks, Christopher Walken, Billy Bob Thornton, Daniel Day-Lewis, John Tuturro, George Clooney, Brad Pitt, and Ed Norton, among others, but that doesn't mean that they're any better than any other group of actors working at any given time.

Every generation of actors has accepted big paychecks for stinkers at one time or another. It's a fact. But it's unfair to think that just because an actor worked back in the day or in the 2000s he's better than someone from another time period.

I do think the difference lies in style--acting was a lot more stylized and stage-like. Although movies like Days of Wine and Roses and The Best Years of our Lives had a more naturalistic feel, they were the exception. If I had to pick one, I'd pick the naturalistic style, but I can appreciate both styles--neither really take me out of a movie.

Jack Lemmon told a interesting story once...when he was first starting out, the director kept yelling "Cut! Cut!" until finally, an exhausted and frustrated Jack Lemmon asked: "What's the matter? Don't you want me to act at all?" The director smiled and said that is exactly right.

It was a case of overacting vs naturalism - and Lemmon was King.

The acting in "the old days" isn't wrong or weird, it's just different.

Today every actor is "method". This is a more "natural" style. The same goes for the formal asthetic of the films themselves, there's "classic cinema" that emphasised style and often depended on studio artiface. And now there's modern/post-modern cinema that leans toward realism and authenticity in style, mise-en-scene, and yes: Acting. Neither is inherently better or worse, but the "Star Power" of old definately outshines the star power of today.

One could argue that the nature of "the method" defys the traditional notion of "star". Under the method, every actor is a character actor and only a few (a very few) rise to be stars. Look at today, we have very few Stars. Maybe a dozen. Back in the day there were maybe 50.

i have to agree. Old movies just don't do it for me.. it's not because of black and white or because they're old and I'm not.. it's just the way they talk and act. But I think it also has to do with the way people talked in general back then too. I like todays style of acting a lot more, though there will always be classics, like anything with the 3 stooges

In general I like newer movies better just because most of the old school of movies have actors that look like actors. They don't talk like normal people talk or act like normal people act, I just find most olf movies very "fake" not in a bad way, but just not what I like watching.

I don't agree. The films were different and the acting was different. It doesn't make one style 'better' than another.

I do have one specific area though where old-school actors absolutely OWN the vast majority of the new school: VOICE. They were classically trained and had superb vocal control, and memorable voices. So many of today's film actors sound so ugly and unconvincing that it ruins all other aspects of their performance.