I was re-watching Open Range last week, Kevin Costner and Robert Duvall.

Costner, pretty much the same in every role. Widely panned as a bad actor.
Duvall, pretty much the same in every role (at least in the last 3 1/2 decades). Widely thought of as one of the greats.

So what's the difference???

quote:

Originally posted by cas:
I was re-watching Open Range last week, Kevin Costner and Robert Duvall.

Costner, pretty much the same in every role. Widely panned as a bad actor.
Duvall, pretty much the same in every role (at least in the last 3 1/2 decades). Widely thought of as one of the greats.

So what's the difference???

Not sure why anyone would think Costner is bad?

The problem is when you ask that question people just associate the popular movies and shows with the actor/actress.
Yes they do contribute to the success but it is by no means the complete picture.
The script has to be interesting, the picture needs to be casted correctly, on and on.

I think what makes one "good" is that they are believable in the role they play.
Many will associate the character with the acting ability and that isn't necessarily the case.

Maybe, it is why a lot of them are picky in their roles they play, acting in a bad movie doesn't help them that much.

A popular character in a popular movie makes them bigger than life.
Too often they take any role just for the money.
It may be true that they also don't give 100% effort but who knows?
But acting ability is independent of all of that, IMO.

Do you really feel that Robert Duvall mostly plays the same character? I can't think of two more different characters than the shrewish Frank Burns from M*A*S*H and the war-mongering Col. Kilgore from Apocalypse Now.

A good director.

I've seen mediocre actors in amazing movies with great performances and actors I know can be great in godawful movies with terrible performances.

The only common denominator I can think of between the two is the directors, and normally when I look them up, I see a string of movies that confirm my theory.

Range. A good actor or actress has a very wide range. The greats, there are few. Take Phillip Seymour Hoffman as an example. One of the best actors in the world when he was alive. And no coincidence he has an extremely wide range of parts over the years.

Costner I like. I don’t think he is one of the greats or anything but he’s done some excellent films. I still like his Wyatt Earp. I’m a fan of Open Range sans the too many bullets without reloads. Solid film. He was also excellent in The Company Men. Liked For the Love of the Game a lot too. But his solid roles are quite long.

Molly’s Game
Hidden Figures
Draft Day
The Upside of Anger
A Perfect World
JFK
Dances With Wolves
No Way Out
The Untouchables
Silverado
Bull Durham
Revenge
The Bodyguard.

Guy gets a bad rap. He’s done a lot of good films and many of his roles have been small. Stinkers too like Waterworld and the Postman but most actors have done some stinkers.

I love Duvall and he's done some great work. But if you look at most of the roles in recent decades, it's the same thing over and over.

(I don't dislike Costner either, despite him being much the same in everything.)

Costner and Duvall are great actors. They both have plenty of range. They just tend to really capture a certain character better than any other current actors and so they are better remembered for those roles. For me Costner is the quintessential actor I would cast for a gruff western role or a baseball player. He nails those. Hell he even nailed the voiceover as a dog in The Art of Raving in the Rain. Lol As much as I have always enjoyed Robert Redford and The Natural I always felt his role as the ballplayer was a stretch.

Duvall can play anybody and has. Just look at his filmography and then tell us how he is limited in range.

I think it’s simply, are they believable in the role. I admire the old school actors (to include those of this era) who spend the time learning the character. If you’re playing a cowboy, you better look natural on and around horses and cattle. If you’re a gun hand (thinking of Keanu Reeves) you better look like it. Funny thing about that is that Reeves is thought of as a cigar store Indian as an actor. I think his speech pattern hurts his credibility in many roles.

I think that Duvall does a better job than Costner of becoming the character, but I don’t dislike Costner and as Prefontaine stated, he has made many entertaining movies.

Mrs Fenris says Costner has a nice ass. I do not know her opinion on Duvall's ass

great question

politics aside:

Sean Penn is a great actor IMO. Dead man Walking for instance

Christian Bale also to name a couple.

Russell Crowe

even Billy Bob Thornton

variety of roles they 'transformed' for.

a lot of the 'same guy every time' actors are better classified as 'entertainers' and that's okay too.

---------------------------

For me, Tom Hanks is that great actor. I really liked him in "Bridge of Spies" , "Road to Perdition" and of course "Saving Private Ryan".
Duvall could have stopped at "Lonesome Dove" in my opinion.

for me its where you forget who the actor is and he becomes the character

Daniel Day Lewis is an example from me. Plays a character so well that if you’re not aware it’s him, or thinking about it, you just see the character.

A good actor is one that can make you absolutely love him in one role and absolutely despise him in another.

One that comes to mind is David Tennant as Doctor Who/Kilgrave.

quote:

Originally posted by chongosuerte:
Daniel Day Lewis is an example from me. Plays a character so well that if you’re not aware it’s him, or thinking about it, you just see the character.

Agree there. He is at the top of the list but he also said he retired after his last film with PTA, The Phantom Thread. Daniel is borderline genius and goes so deep into character it really fucks him up mentally and takes quite a while to come back to himself. The Phantom Thread was a masterpiece as many of PTA’s films have been.

Christian Bale is also one of the best there is today, and probably Joaquin Phoenix. I was sad when Heath Ledger did himself in. But when Hoffman did the same, there are no words. Such a loss of art.

quote:

Originally posted by kkina:
Do you really feel that Robert Duvall mostly plays the same character? I can't think of two more different characters than the shrewish Frank Burns from M*A*S*H and the war-mongering Col. Kilgore from Apocalypse Now.

How about his first movie role?

as "Boo" Radley

quote:

Originally posted by chongosuerte:
Daniel Day Lewis is an example from me. Plays a character so well that if you’re not aware it’s him, or thinking about it, you just see the character.

definitely

------------------------------

I am hardly a film critic. That said:

Loved Open Range. The leads were great. The tragic fate of Abraham Benrubi’s character, the amusing affability of Michael Jeter’s character and the resigned ruination James Russo’s character gave the film depth.


I also enjoyed Duvall in Assassination Tango, which he starred in and directed the year before Open Range. He was on a good streak.

My personal definition is that a good actor can very naturally be himself or herself in front of a camera while following a script, and a great actor can be someone else.

quote:

Originally posted by Sig209:
great question

politics aside:

Sean Penn is a great actor IMO. Dead man Walking for instance


---------------------------

I agree. Penn in Taps, and Penn in Fast Times. Now that's range.

I'd also like to offer another distinction. There is a wide difference between an actor and a movie star. An actor plays a realistic part. A movie star takes a part and makes it larger than life. Two very different skills.