Al Pacino voted Greatest Film Star of All Time. (1 Viewer)

[Blu]

No Christopher Lee?!?!?!?!?!

 

[Ricky Hustle]

1) Star Wars (1977) / The Empire Strikes Back (1980)

Well there ya go, a poll is a poll and it's not worth a damn!

 

[Steve Christou]

Um Rick that's Star Wars not Plan 9 from Outer Space, or is there little difference in your opinion? I think we can excuse the man on the street for picking those films instead of some obscure foreign film that only a handful of 'aficianados' have seen.

The YMDB has Fight Club as the number one film. with FOTR at number 2.

 

[Ricky Hustle]

Steve, its just that the 19 films behind it should be ahead of it, at least IMO. As well as hundreds of other films, but then again, the poll was for "movies".

And yes, I know its not Plan 9 from Outerspace.

 

[Tim BBB]

These types of lists always bring up large discussions. Here is my opinion on them:

There really needs to be two different types of lists. The first one for the best movies of all time. The second one for the movies with the biggest impact for their time.

For example, take the movie Citizen Kane. For its time, it was revolutionary. It created more techniques in movie making then was ever discovered in one film. It probably had the biggest impact on the movie industry compared to any other movie for its time. In this regard, it should be considered the best movie for its time.

On the other hand, Citizen Kane, by today's standards, is a pretty average movie. I know some of the film buffs get all pissy about this. However, if you compare it to a movie of today, without considering the time frames they were made in, Citizen Kane looks choppy and a little cheesy. Therefore, when saying which movies are the best of all time, its really hard to say it's number one.

The same thing pertains to actors. Once again, many of fans of old time movies will get pissy about this, but the acting quality of 50 years ago doesn't compare to the acting today. It just wasn't as good. The acting of 50 years ago was more artificial and less authentic compared to many of the better actors of today.

Therefore, there really needs to be two lists for actors as well. They need a list for the actors with the most impact for their time. And then they need a list of the best actors of all time. Two very different things.

And for the people who really have a problem with saying the acting of the 50's was worse, think of it this way:

Wilt Chamberlin, for his time, was the best. He was so good that the NBA changed about 10 rules in order to make him less of a force. Michael Jordan, who many (not myself) think is the best of all time, did not have 10 rules changed in order to slow him down.

Therefore, Chamberlin is obviously the player with the biggest impact for his time. However, based on talent, he didn't have to compete with guys like they have today. Therefore, the athletes of today (like Jordan) need to be considered the best of all time.

 

[Paul J Anderson]

for comparison, here are the top 20 movie stars of all time as judged by the editors of the magazine Entertainment Weekly in 1997.

1. Humphrey Bogart
2. Katherine Hepburn
3. Jimmy Stewart
4. Marilyn Monroe
5. John Wayne
6. Cary Grant
7. Marlon Brando
8. Clark Gable
9. Charlie Chaplin
10. Bette Davis
11. Elizabeth Taylor
12. Ingrid Berman
13. Paul Newman
14. James Cagney
15. Spencer Tracy
16. Clint Eastwood
17. Jack Nicholson
18. Gary Cooper
19. Fred Astaire
20. Laurence Olivier

 

[RobertR]

That's a MUCH better list, Paul.

 

[JakeMcM]

John Wayne and Eastwood are icons not actors, they play the same character over, and over, and over again. I like their films but I don't know. Where is Robert Deniro on that list, he seems to be on every other one. I'm not pissed off or anything but just wondering.

 

[Lew Crippen]

John Wayne and Eastwood are icons not actors, they play the same character over, and over, and over again.

I think that there is a big difference between best actors and top movie stars.

 

[Keir H]

I'm surprise there's no Gary Oldman on this list....isn't he British? Fine actor with alot of range in role types...(The Contender, The Fifth Element, BS Dracula ect ect). He would make my list as well as many alread mentioned from years past.

 

[Michael Reuben]

I think that there is a big difference between best actors and top movie stars.

A "movie star" is someone who can carry the weight of a film, someone whose very presence at the center of the film will attract people to it. Most actors, no matter how great their skill, are not movie stars, and a fair number of movie stars are not great actors (or at least not versatile ones) -- a classic example being Steve McQueen.

M.

 

[Holadem]

Once again, many of fans of old time movies will get pissy about this, but the acting quality of 50 years ago doesn't compare to the acting today. It just wasn't as good. The acting of 50 years ago was more artificial and less authentic compared to many of the better actors of today.

I entirely agree. Sometimes, people in their worship of the classic stuff tend to forget how far we've come as far as acting goes. Heck, you're average TV show has better acting than the exagerated, often melodramatic theater style performances of the past. People deplore the lack of subtlety in todays movies, yet don't seem to have any problem with acting that was anything but subtle.

--
Holadem

 

[Michael Reuben]

I entirely agree. Sometimes, people in their worship of the classic stuff tend to forget how far we've come as far as acting goes.

Sorry, Holadem, but pronouncements like this make me want to reach for the "rolling eyes" smiley.

Generalizations about film acting are largely specious, given the enormous variety of films out there and the range of acting styles that they require. And the notion that today's film acting is less "artificial" is ludicrous; could there be anything more stylized, melodramatic and theatrical than the performances in Lord of the Rings? (That's not a criticism; a stylized, "theater-style" approach is exactly what that material needs.) Any Jimmy Stewart or Spencer Tracy performance from 50 years ago is more "natural" than most of what appears in today's Hollywood films. So what?

The real problem with these generalizations is that film "acting" doesn't represent the full range of expression that constitutes acting. It's a relatively recent phenomenon that has fundamentally changed the nature of the actor's craft -- and not necessarily for the better.

The art of acting is literally thousands of years old, and for almost all of that time, acting occurred before live audiences. Film "acting" is barely a hundred years old. And as Mark Leiter noted above, film "acting" is often not primarily the work of the actor. The performance is often constructed in the editing room, months after the actor's work is completed. (If you want to see a very specific example, rent The Deep End on DVD and watch the "Anatomy of a Scene" extra.)

Now, the technology of editing has certainly come a long way; whether acting has made progress or is just different is a more difficult question. All acting is "stylized". There's no such thing as "natural", just the appearance of natural, and different eras and cultures have different notions about how to achieve that appearance. Add technology to the mix, and you've got a complex set of variables -- too complex for generalizations about "progress" to be meaningful.

Acting involves a connection between the performer and the audience, and there are a lot of different ways to establish that connection. In movies, though, the connection doesn't happen in real time, and that's why so many actors prefer the stage, Al Pacino being a notable example (to bring this back to the thread topic ). Susan Sarandon said it best: Theater acting is like making love; film acting is masturbation.

M.

 

[Steve Christou]

Good points Michael, but theatrical acting, playing to an audience, is usually exaggerated and... too theatrical, it can't compare to say Gene Hackman as Popeye Doyle or De Niro's Jake La Motta. Seeing an actor walking around on the stage holding his head up high and quoting Shakespeare isn't as thrilling (to me) as watching a brooding Al Pacino in the Godfather.
What I'm saying is a great actor in a great movie is far more effective (acting-wise) than the same actor prancing around on stage.

 

[PatrickL]

What I'm saying is a great actor in a great movie is far more effective (acting-wise) than the same actor prancing around on stage.

On what do you base this sweeping statement? Have you seen Al Pacino on stage? I have, about a dozen times, and as recently as a couple of weeks ago opposite Marisa Tomei in "Salome."

Michael's comments are right on the money.

 

[Steve Christou]

So what are you saying? Al Pacino on stage opposite Marisa Tomei in Salome was just as effective as Pacino as Michael Corleone in the Godfather?
Any prancing involved?

 

[PatrickL]

I'm asking what in the world you've seen on stage that could prompt you to make such a statement. It seems to me you're citing what you consider to be great, effective film performances, and comparing them to what you only imagine you would see from the same actors on stage. Would that be fair to say, or have you seen Pacino in a number of plays?

I don't mean to give you a hard time; I apologize in advance if it seems I am. Just understand that I disagree with your statement so passionately and so completely that I want to know how you came to this belief.

 

[Michael Reuben]

Any prancing involved?

No, actually. The full title is Salome: The Reading. Pacino sits in a chair for the entire play. And the performance is just as "brooding" as his Michael Corleone, but it's a different kind of brooding.

M.

 

[Steve Christou]

Haha ok forgive me if I'm totally biased toward film, the last time I went to a theater was back in the 80's and it was 'Dracula' starring George Chakiris (of all people) as the Count, and Roy Dotrice as Van Helsing, I enjoyed it but compared to a film version of Dracula it seemed like pantomime.
Pacino is a hero of mine and would love to see him on stage, but I still would much prefer film, to each his own, the theater just seems... stagey to me [wince].

 

[JohnRice]

Steve, all I can say is, if I lived in London, I would take advantage of it and go to the theater. Pacino must have been in productions there at some time. It sounds like you are basing your entire opinion of live theater on one (apparently not very good) production of Dracula. What if your entire opinion of film was based only on Coppola's film of Dracula?