Over/Under (-rated)

One Jeffery M. Anderson over at Cinematical has posted an article listing his list of seven most overrated actors. Lists like these are basically meant to be conversation-starters at best and fluffy post-quota fodder at worst but in this case it stood out to me because it seems that Mr. Anderson has gone out of his way to pick on some admired actors just for the sake of being controversial.

I suppose part of the problem is in the basic premise: When one says an actor is overrated, whom are we to assume are rating them too highly? Casting directors? The entertainment media? Moviegoers? It is never made clear whose appreciation of these seven individuals is worthy of disdain, but from the context of the article it seems like it’s kind of a combination of all. Basically Mr. Anderson sounds like he’s saying that these actors get too much general recognition to continue to get work (high profile actors need to have some sort of intrinsic box office draw in order to command their heightened salaries I suppose).

Without exposition, here is Mr. Anderson’s list (why do I always hear/read that name with an Agent Smith inflection?):

1. Ben Kingsley
2. Matthew McConaughey
3. Kate Hudson
4. Heath Ledger
5. Ben Stiller
6. Tom Hanks
7. Catherine Zeta-Jones

Now some of these are legitimately overrated actors. At the very least some of Mr. Anderson’s gripes are well founded. I haven’t seen Ben Kingsley in Ghandi which I gather was kind of his breakout role, but he does ham it up in most of the recent movies I’ve seen him in. He also seems to pick very odd projects to work on including what seems like a lot of low-rent B-grade Sci Fi pictures.

I more or less agree completely with Anderson’s evaluation of Ben Stiller who has always bugged me because, primarily, he isn’t funny and he isn’t a good straight man either. But some of these others… I wonder about.

In the case of Kate Hudson, Heath Ledger and Catherine Zeta-Jones, I question whether their star power is even sufficient to be overrated. Hudson has been in a string of forgettable and/or fairly unsuccessful romantic comedies in the last few years but other than “Skeleton Key” which was bland until the final fifteen minutes hasn’t made much of a splash since “Almost Famous.” I guess I can see Mr. Anderson’s point about that film (although I liked it pretty well, and it did decent business) but one good role that is just enough to get you a few more years worth of work isn’t the same as being overrated. Heath Ledger is likewise with the difference being that his big role was more recent (I haven’t seen and don’t plan to see “Brokeback Mountain,” but regardless of the specifics of that film, it’s impact at least on Ledger’s career ought to carry for a few more years). In any case I don’t know that he’s even done enough work yet to be considered overrated.

Catherine Zeta-Jones is an even better example of this because as far as I can tell she is a passable actor who has mostly gotten roles for her looks. Unlike Ledger or Hudson who’ve at least had one role that had people buzzing “Oscar,” I’ve never heard anything like praise about her acting chops, all I hear is how hot she is or was. Which is maybe not a quality that smacks of a great actress but clearly physical attributes are often sufficient to land a spot in a movie or two (look, Cindy Crawford got top billing in a movie, okay?). Are we really going to qualify that as overrated?

Matthew McConaughey is exactly the same as Zeta-Jones. His inherent goofy charm is enough to get him through a popcorn flick like “Sahara” or “A Time To Kill” and women seem to be forgiving enough of his acting in favor of his appearance for tripe like “Failure to Launch” and “How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days.” I’d say he more or less has the Keanu Reeves effect going for him: He’s not too good but the ladies like the look of him and for the most part he’s smart enough to stay out of the way in movies that are otherwise very good (see “Contact,” “The Matrix”).

What kills me is that Mr. Anderson throws Tom Hanks on the list. And as near as I can tell, he’s only there to rile people up. I’m not some big Tom Hanks apologist: As far as I’m concerned he’s a good actor who has managed and navigated his career exceptionally well. Plus he connects with audiences and seems like a legitimately decent guy offscreen which gives the general moviegoing crowd a sense that they can root for this guy without feeling bad about it. It’s okay that he’s nominated for a lot of Oscars because (true or not) he gives the sense that he won’t really let it go to his head.

But for Mr. Anderson to pick on him for not sticking with his comedic roots is absurd. Now, I freely admit that I’m no great fan of movie comedies. I’m such a stickler for stories that I feel like feature length comedies are constantly at odds with the format: In order for it to be really funny it has to be gag-a-minute, but that comes at the expense of plot and I cannot abide a movie—of any genre—that is bereft of plot. Call me what you will, I think scripted comedies work far better in shorter formats like TV. Or, I much prefer a subtler form of cinematic comedy like “Shaun of the Dead,” “Best in Show” and “Wag the Dog.” But back to Tom Hanks, suggesting that utter crap like “Splash” or “Bachelor Party” can hold a candle to “Forrest Gump” or even “Toy Story” is like admitting to a mental illness. Please.

The irony is the article ran next to an advertisement for the upcoming movie “Next” starring…

Page 1 of 3 | Next page