Badmovies.org Forum

1. Cary Grant
2. Marilyn Monroe
3. Tom Cruise
4. John Wayne
5. Ingrid Bergman
6. Paul Newman
7. Julia Roberts
8. Greta Garbo
9. James Stewart
10. Henry Fonda
11. James Cagney
12. Grace Kelly
13. Humphrey Bogart
14. Katharine Hepburn
15. Marlon Brando
16. Jack Nicholson
17. Robert Redford
18. Audrey Hepburn
19. Spencer Tracy
20. Sidney Poitier
21. Clark Gable
22. Judy Garland
23. Fred Astaire
24. Doris Day
25. Bette Davis
26. Errol Flynn
27. Gregory Peck
28. Tom Hanks
29. Warren Beatty
30. James Dean
31. Steve McQueen
32. Jane Fonda
33. Shirley Temple
34. Rita Hayworth
35. Harrison Ford
36. Sean Connery
37. Al Pacino
38. Robert De Niro
39. Denzel Washington
40. Elizabeth Taylor
41. Peter Sellers
42. Gary Cooper
43. Clint Eastwood
44. Will Smith
45. Jack Lemmon
46. Meryl Streep
47. Johnny Depp
48. Nicole Kidman
49. Russell Crowe
50. Brad Pitt

I don't know about anyone else I find this list questionable. Julia Roberts is way to high on the list and Will Smith should not even be on the list.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You can’t give it, you can't buy it, and you just don't get it!-Aeon Flux

Clint Eastwood is right there with Will Smith? Who came up with this list? Oh, and for sure Tom Cruise has to be at #3...certainly. Ah, people and their opinions, what can you do about it?

I forgot to add it took Premiere Magazine two years to come up with this list. Its like they mixed up popular actors that people just know, with actors that have real talent and have won awards.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You can’t give it, you can't buy it, and you just don't get it!-Aeon Flux



Post Edited (03-17-05 14:30)

This is the reason I don't ever read Premiere magazine and it's ilk.  Utter nonsense.

Tom Cruise at #3 just kills me :)  

Oh, if only Sean Connery could command such majestic screen presence as Tom.

What a hilarious load of s**t!!  Tom Cruise isn't a gnat on John Wayne's ass!

I notice this is the top 50 movie stars, evidently the criteria for rankings on the list had nothing to do with talent.


Tom Cruise!!! snicker, snicker HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! !!!!!!!



Post Edited (03-17-05 16:34)

Ditto the other comments.  Tom Cruise at #3 was the FIRST thing I noticed.  Then, I had to search for Tom Hanks, way down at #28.  Say what you want about Hanks, but the boy can act.  Pacino and DeNiro down in the 30's and Cruise at #3.  NUTS.

And Julia Roberts?  What?  In the top 10?  Barely beaten by Ingrid Bergman and ahead of Katharine Hepburn?  Come On.

I didn't even pick it up to read it when I saw it. Any magazine that has "Greatest Movie Stars of All-Time" and Tom Cruise on the same cover is waaaaay wrong. You'll notice that Woody Allen wasn't even on the list. Now, who can you produce that personifies the movies he stars in better than Woody Allen? No Groucho Marx, no Charlie Chaplin, not even Jerry Lewis. I think the only foreign actor/actress in the whole list is Ingrid Bergman, and the only reason she appears is because of her work in American cinema. Why don't they just rename the magazine "Hollywood's A-List" and stop raising people's hopes of a fair world market of stars?

Even if the list was titled "Top 50 American Actors," it's still a hokey list.

Johnny Depp should be a little higher, I really think he goes all out of every role even if the movie is bad you know his performance will be great.

Also...WHERE'S CHRISTOPHER WALKEN!

"Also...WHERE'S CHRISTOPHER WALKEN!"

Yeah, and Lance and the Bruce?

Hell, apart from Peter Sellers and Jack Lemmon, comic actors are absent completely.

You are right about Will Smith and yes Julia Roberts is too high..
Let's be glad they left off Burt Reynolds.
My question is why did they forget Charlie Chaplin.
I am real sure is Will Smith is a bigger movie star than Chaplin.
We will see whose name is remembered in 50 years.
What about Jane Fonda or Jodie Foster? Maybe not enought work...

And just WHERE Is John Carridine? or Roddy Piper  heh heh
-Ed

How did they arrive at this list? A poll that any idiot could participate in, or a poll of people who could claim some expertise? Did they look at the history of movies as a whole, or decide that each generation must be represented more or less equally? There just seems to be something wrong with the process that produced this list. Much of it is reasonable, but I agree that some parts of it are really out of whack.

It looks like a list of who was boffo at the box office, and let's get people from various eras.  Tom Cruise?  His best movie was Risky Business.

Any list that has a specific order is going to have lots of controversy, and lets face it, the 'top 50 greatest movie stars' list is always going to be controversial in parts, and miss out on some great names.

I try not to get too sucked into it all.  It's probably easier if they just put 50 up there 'in no particular order' so people don't squabble about how high so-and-so an actor is etc.

Skimming over the list it seems like its pretty good, with the exception of one or two.

Did they have particular standards/criteria to apply to these actors?  That would explain why certain questionable actors people haver so far complained about are on the list.

For example, Tom Cruise, despite his seemingly shallow depth of acting range, he does have a rather commanding presence in the industry and because of that I think he has earned the right to be on such a list, as questionable as that may be.

After all, John Wayne has the exact same image/style to me in all the roles I've seen him in, so whats the difference?  Just because Cruise has starred in alot of shallow-minded blockbusters doesn't make it any different to the load of westerns John Wayne made.

Anyway, overall the list isn't that bad.  The only ones I think should be replaced by someone more deserving are Will Smith and Russel Crowe.  This isn't to say that they are not good actoers, I am a big fan of Smith's work, its just I don't see how both of them have really contributed in the same way most of the other people on the list have to the industry.

I suppose it does say "movie stars" and not actors, meaning that it can include the extremely overrated. Still, even when you compare their respective degrees of fame and staying power, the list seems off, somehow. It does seem to me that a lot of these sorts of things are weighted a bit too much in favour of recent successes. Either it's because they're fresher in people's memories, or somebody feels a need to include more names the kids will recognize, or something.

 Not to say that some of the more recent names don't belong on the list, many do. However, if I were participating in compiling a list like this, I probably wouldn't name so many stars of the last 20 years or so, just because they haven't yet proven that their fame will be as enduring. Not to say that it won't be, but it has yet to be proven. That, and I'd want to compensate for some of the other contributions. There are just too many unimaginative people who won't look beyond the folks who are big at the box office right now.



Post Edited (03-29-05 11:45)

No Gene Hackman, Lionel or John Barrymore, no Lon Chaney Sr.
Stupid list.
Russell Crowe?
Brad Pitt?
Not my choices.
Of Tom Cruise, enough has been said.
Except phfhtfphtphfpthpfhtpfhtphfpthphfpthfphthpfhpthpfhtphpfhtphtttt!!!!!!!! (raspberrry in print)

A propaganda list to legitimize overpaid "stars" of the current hollywood machine by mixing them with true and time-tested legends.

I just realized that Rudolph Valentino isn't on the list.  Sure he's from the silent era, but are any of these other folk going to have 10,000 people at their funeral.

You haven't watched enough John Wayne. Most folks do recognize that in his later years he became kind of a characature of his on screen persona.

He did some fabulous work with the likes of John Ford and Howard Hawks in his early years.  She Wore a Yellow Ribbon, Fort Apache, Red River, Rio Bravo, and probably the best Western of all time The Searchers, are classics of their genre. His best performances in his later years were in True Grit and The Shootist which I also consider classics.

The guy could act and was one tough SOB in real life.  He had a lung removed and was back making a movie 4 months later (The Sons of Katie Elder). Like I said , Tom Cruise wouldn't be gnat on his ass.

Kirk Douglas?  Alec Guinness?  Richard Burton?  John Voight??

I'd say there was a concerted effort to put in contemporary stars who don't belong (and one old timer - Judy Garland??).  Just be glad Jennifer Annisen and David Arquette weren't on it.

  That´s ridiculous!!!!Tom Cruise is a terrible actor and he´s not so big in the hole world,also Brad Pitt or Will Smith!!!Will Smith before Jack Lemmon????!!!!!!!!!Come on...!!!!!
  Also I can´t understand why Nicole Kidman is in the list and Leonardo Di Caprio no,he is a really fine actor,but you don´t recognice that,right?

  That´s ridiculous!!!!Tom Cruise is a terrible actor and he´s not so big in the hole world,also Brad Pitt or Will Smith!!!Will Smith before Jack Lemmon????!!!!!!!!!Come on...!!!!!
  Also I can´t understand why Nicole Kidman is in the list and Leonardo Di Caprio no,he is a really fine actor,but you don´t recognice that,right?

The folks at Premiere Mag got me worked up over their list so I came up with my own, and it only took me a few days of pacing and head scratching, compared to a couple years for their staff of tall foreheads.  I call mine the 50 greatest ACTORS of the sound era (sorry Chaplin and Keaton fans).  Also, I've restricted the picks to English-speaking thespians.  Here they be:
  1. Jimmy Stewart
  2. Burt Lancaster
  3. John Wayne
  4. Humphrey Bogart
  5. Cary Grant
  6. Spencer Tracy
  7. Henry Fonda
  8. Bette Davis
  9. James Mason
10. Robert DeNiro
11. Claude Rains
12. Jack Nicholson
13. Gregory Peck
14. Charles Laughton
15. Alec Guinness
16. Katharine Hepburn
17. Kirk Douglas
18. Fredric March
19. Robert Duvall
20. Paul Newman
21. Gene Hackman
22. Myrna Loy
23. Edgar G. Robinson
24. Olivia de Havilland
25. Gary Cooper
26. Vincent Price
27. Harvey Keitel
28. William Holden
29. Al Pacino
30. Laurence Olivier
31. James Cagney
32. Meryl Streep
33. Walter Brennan
34. Anthony Quinn
35. Boris Karloff
36. Deborah Kerr
37. Peter Sellers
38. Mickey Rooney
39. Michael Redgrave
40. Ward Bond
41. Dustin Hoffman
42. Jack Lemmon
43. Fred Astaire
44. Melvyn Douglas
45. Michael Caine
46. Randolph Scott
47. Walter Mathau
48. Orson Welles
49. Marlon Brando
50. Woody Allen

I don't mean to diss the talents of today's stars, but you really have to stack up a pile of great performances to make it to my top 50.  Mesage to Tom, Brad, Johnny + Julia:  you gotta stay busy!

I could discard this list right away as there's 2 that are missing in my opinion:
Clint Eastwood
Steve McQueen

It was close but no cigar for Clint.  Eastwood's curse is that in addition to being a great actor he also happens to be an enormously talented director.  Had Clint focused on his acting to the exclusion of all else, he'd likely be challenging DeNiro and Nicholson at this point for the title of greatest living actor.  
 
McQueen did high quality stuff but simply not enough of it to qualify.  Reminds me of Montgomery Clift in that respect.  Both had the goods but both of their careers were cut short by cruel fate.

I agree, there are some names missing. Still, there are quite a bit fewer instances of "what the hell is he doing on the list?" That alone makes it better than Premiere's list. And it is at least a little more specific in its criteria.

I've just had my first glance, so I can't really comment on the order. But I'm not sure Jimmy Stewart was the greatest actor of the sound era. One of the greats,  for sure, but I don't know about #1.

I looked at this list, I thought, "this is a pretty good list, but the ORDERING will ALWAYS be subject of debate."  I think if we agree to name the "Top 50 in no particular order," we'd all come up with pretty much the same list, plus or minus 5 or so.

One criterion I'd use in assembling such a list is "did they play multiple KINDS of roles convincingly."  As much as I dig Clint, so many of his movies involved pretty much the same character.  But I'd still probably put him on there.  I know, I know, the bias is showing.

True, many of Clint's movies involved the same type of character but you may be overlooking some great performances. For the most part I would clump the Dirty Harry character in with his gun slinging characters. They are all fairly similar in attitude and style.  But you have quite different and believable characters in:
Firefox
The Beguiled (excellent movie BTW)
Thunderbolt and Lightfoot
Play Misty For Me
Kelley's Heroes (awesome movie)
Escape from Alcatraz (who could forget this one?)

Even his comedic roles were played out well (Every Which Way But Loose). The unfortunate thing is that most people think about him as a gunslinger or Dirty Harry. I admit, these are the first roles that pop into my mind when his name comes up but he has done so much more that is quite often overlooked in the whole picture. Anyway, I admit that I am biased too as he has been my "hero" since as far back as I can remember. I've always looked up to Clint as an actor and a great person in general.

My criterion for selecting an actor for the top 50 was really an answer to the question: "how rich a legacy did this actor leave for the film-goers of tomorrow?"   On that basis, I'm pretty comfortable with putting Jimmy Stewart at the top of the list, since his legacy is truly a wonder to behold.    

The first 25 selections came much easier to me than the last 25.  It was tough passing over the likes of Clint Eastwood, Robert Redford, Joseph Cotten, Ingrid Bergman, Lee Marvin and many others.   I wouldn't have a problem with anyone substituting some of those names for any of my more controversial picks.  

For me, the most egregious omission on Premiere's list was Burt Lancaster.  I still can't figure that one out.  Choosing Will Smith or  Doris Day over Burt  is like picking the batboy to pinch-hit for Babe Ruth.