Cinematical Seven: Most Overrated Actors
Filed under: Cinematical Seven, Lists

Taking potshots at people can seem fun in the moment, but regrettable later. Especially when someone shoots back. For example, in choosing this list of the most overrated actors, I might at one time have chosen someone like Tobey Maguire, Mark Wahlberg or Ryan Gosling. At various points in the past, I was convinced that none of them could act a lick and they all proved me wrong. I could also shoot fish in a barrel, taking aim at people who are already down, like Freddie Prinze Jr., Ben Affleck, Chris Tucker, Paul Walker or Ryan Reynolds. Or Jennifer Hudson, whose flash-in-the-pan Oscar win will probably prove to be a hilarious mistake. History tends to sort things out into their proper places, which is why I ended up not choosing anyone from cinema's glorious past (I wrestled with Gary Cooper and Gregory Peck, but decided against them). So in choosing this final seven, I went with people who, at this moment, feel "overrated." They're all currently working, and each could use a serious career adjustment.
1. Ben Kingsley
Is there a more arrogant, conceited, pretentious actor alive? And why does no one ever call him on it? I wrote a nasty review of House of Sand and Fog in 2003 and got volumes of angry e-mail from his fans and supporters, but it remains that Kinglsey can barely disguise his own smugness even while acting. The last straw came during the opening credits for the small scale "B" picture Lucky Number Slevin: "Sir Ben Kingsley." If he can't even loosen up for something that silly, then what good is he? He is also a screen hog, overshadowing all his co-stars with his scenery-chewing. His one great achievement came in Schindler's List, in which he generously allowed the leads to shine, while he did marvelous things in his small, meek role. He needs more jobs like that.
2. Matthew McConaughey
Since the beginning, Hollywood studios "created" stars. Hopeful candidates received screen tests, went to talent school, dance school, voice lessons, diction lessons, etc. But in the 1990s, Hollywood grew so bold as to create new stars simply by thrusting them into the media spotlight. In 1996, to promote A Time to Kill, McConaughey turned up on zillions of magazine covers and talk shows. If you ran a Xeroxed newsletter out of your basement you could have probably landed an interview. But despite the fact that he has no personality and very little talent (his performance in We Are Marshall was the pinnacle of awful) he refuses to go away.
3. Kate Hudson
Some children of famous stars find a way to grow and develop their own personalities, away from that of their parents. Hudson, on the other hand, is very simply a pale, pale, imitation of her mother, Goldie Hawn. Hawn had a kind of sunshine goofiness, with a broad smile that hinted at something alluring just beyond her bubble-headedness. Hudson has the same smile, but it's empty. She's a staple on my yearly "worst movies" list (About Adam, The Four Feathers, Alex & Emma, Le Divorce; You, Me & Dupree, etc.). People still cling to Almost Famous as her shining moment, but that's an overpraised work, a movie about journalists that journalists adored; it's passive and blandly unrealistic. She's too arch for romantic comedy, too muted for drama, and otherwise, she's just obnoxious.
4. Heath Ledger
Heath Ledger got lucky. Before Brokeback Mountain, he was on a career track to oblivion. Decades from now, nobody will ever remember The Patriot, The Four Feathers, The Order or Ned Kelly, and nobody would be able to pick Ledger out of a lineup. But then he was cast in that socially responsible epic Western, which was safe and bland and pretty and made people feel good about themselves. But at the same time, he stumbled upon a great trick, and one that hasn't been used in so long that people have forgotten it: he mumbled. Marlon Brando wowed people for years by using this trick. Apparently, if people can't understand what you're saying, they assume it's something profound. Ledger's mumbling worked so well that it didn't even matter that he obscured the film's final line of dialogue, and his momentum was such that he even earned a few rave reviews for the dim-witted Casanova, released a few weeks later. Now he has joined the Serious Brooders club (Joaquin Phoenix, James Caviezel, Eric Bana, etc.). It will be interesting to see if he can out-brood Christian Bale in the next Batman movie.
5. Ben Stiller
Stiller's shtick consists of his combination of a giant ego and crushing ineptitude. Even his funny cameo on TV's "Extras" showcased this: he brags about all the things he can do and has done, but is actually incapable of doing them (or uses them as an emotional shield). I've never understood what's so funny about this; separately I find both traits odious, and they're not much better combined. Sadly, this persona also adapts itself to the comedy formula of the "uptight" character who gets "loosened up" by an outside force (There's Something About Mary, Meet the Parents, Meet the Fockers, Along Came Polly, etc.). In his cameos, he almost always appears as a totally condescending bad guy, or at least completely crazy. In short, there's little in his personality that people can adapt to any emotional reality. But there's hope: he has directed three movies, and although two of them are duds, the third, The Cable Guy, is a fascinating and disturbingly funny look at neediness. If Stiller were brave enough to continue exploring this career path, it could be useful. Plus, in Night at the Museum, he was cast as a straight man to an army of great comedy character actors and, although a few scenes were wasted on Stiller trying to be funny by himself, it worked. He could be a great Bud Abbott, if only he would lose the ego.
6. Tom Hanks
I gained a reputation years ago for disdaining Tom Hanks, but it's more of a love-hate thing. For the first leg of his career, Hanks was a lovable comedian who made a lot of bad movies (The Man With One Red Shoe, Volunteers, The Money Pit, Turner & Hooch), but also a few good ones (Splash, Bachelor Party, Big). Every comedian goes through a period in which they realize their comedy work is not going to get them any kind of real recognition. (It's the smoldering "lifetime achievement" award instead of the blazing "Best Actor" glory.) When Big earned Hanks his first nomination, it whetted his appetite. He lusted for more. So he abandoned his comedy skills for a long series of so-called important films, socially responsible films with messages and long running times. Usually this ploy fails; audiences resist the comedian who turns serious. But for some reason, Hanks' transition caught on, and it only encouraged him. (Forrest Gump, Cast Away and The Da Vinci Code are particularly dreadful.) I maintain that all of these acclaimed films put together don't equal the power of one laugh from Bachelor Party.
A Welsh-born beauty with porcelain skin and an exotic accent, Zeta-Jones broke out at the perfect time and the perfect place as Zorro's love interest in the rousing adventure film The Mask of Zorro (1998), and she was perched on the verge of great things. But her luck proved more powerful than her taste, and (with the exception of an effective bit part in High Fidelity) she came back in one bad movie after another (Entrapment, The Haunting, America's Sweethearts, etc.). She appeared in a couple of overrated award contenders (Traffic and Chicago) and somehow charmed her way into an Oscar. But more than just uninteresting movies, Zeta-Jones is rather uninteresting herself. She doesn't particularly know how to use her beauty onscreen, or for that matter in stills. She lacks an earthy, physical, sensual quality; she's like a pristine statue. And her much-publicized and somewhat creepy marriage to Michael Douglas has further served to dampen her allure. Those few playful moments in High Fidelity, high on her own power, could be the answer.









Reader Comments (Page 1 of 34)
4-24-2007 @ 7:51AM
Bobarr said...
How could Tom Cruise NOT be on the list, he can;t act his way out of a box. He plays the same tired "Tom Cruise" in every movie he's made.
4-24-2007 @ 2:24PM
button said...
I pretty much agree with most of what was said here, just believe a lot was left out, I agree those that note cruise, pitt, and travolta...who by the way was only ever in one good movie, pulp fiction, and that was a case of good writing overcoming his dreadful "acting".
But where are the British screen queens on this list? Every year come oscar time we must endure five or ten of these so called important films, ie The Queen and Elizabeth I, does anybody actually ever watch these drawn out bore-fests for anything other than oscar consideration or for something other than a good nap with no sleeping pills needed? Yet of couse every year we must hear of these films and see mostly these old untalented women win, and all through the run up to the oscars (itself over-rated and lacking relevence) we must hear about the Brits inventing acting, and Shakespere, first of all they didn't invent it, four year olds pretending all throughout the span of human history did, and Shakespere was in the 1600's, other than Trainspotting and Shaun of the Dead, what have the Brits done for us lately?
4-23-2007 @ 9:09AM
Liz Newcomb said...
I'm not sure I agree with Ben Kingsley but the rest seem valid, though I would have replaced Kingsley with Nicolas Cage. The guy can't act his way out of a paper bag and has only made really awful choices of late.
Reply
4-23-2007 @ 9:24AM
RP said...
Woah there, Ben Kingsley? I take it you haven't seen Sexy Beast then.
Reply
4-23-2007 @ 9:27AM
kel said...
Substitute Robin Williams for Tom Hanks, who's become unwatchable in both his comedic and dramatic roles.
Reply
4-23-2007 @ 9:40AM
Rob Walley said...
I'm totally onboard with the choice of his highness Ben Kingsley. I've studied film for over 30 years and with the exception of his performances in Schindler's List and Gandhi, the actor has made one bad choice and one over-the-top performance after another. The peak of this absurdity came to me one afternoon when I settled in to watch a movie with my daughter called "Spooky House." Where did this come from? There are a lot of great kid's movies being made and a lot of great actors participating in them. This one had neither. Kingsley seems to be used for his name only and based on his performances, he knows this.
Reply
4-23-2007 @ 9:45AM
movieac said...
Very glib. Who exactly are you? What are your qualifications to criticize these actors? At times you confuse criticism of the films with the actors. Do you think Ben Kingsley was involved in how the screen credits were created? When you can't do; criticize, it's easier.
Reply
4-23-2007 @ 10:19AM
Corie said...
I about lost it when I saw Hanks on your list. I have always had the feeling I was alone in thinking he is overrated and overstuffed as an actor. http://www.timeww.com/2007/02/27/tom-hanks/
I do disagree a bit about Ledger and think I would have to replace him with Tom Cruise. I think Ledger has a charming personality that comes across nicely on in his films.
Thanks for sharing your opinion on this. I'd love to see more from the other writers here and who they think is over-rated.
Reply
4-23-2007 @ 10:21AM
bgdc said...
Agree about most - especially Tom Hanks. Does anyone really consider Kate Hudson or Zeta Jones an actor? Come on. I'd toss on Jack Nicholson as he hasn't really acted in anything beyond About Schmidt for the past 20 years.
Reply
4-23-2007 @ 10:23AM
bgdc said...
movieac wrote: "Very glib. Who exactly are you? What are your qualifications to criticize these actors"
He's a consumer. Just as you will criticize a hamburger or a couch or a new car, he is consuming and criticizing the quality of work by this commodity. He doesn't need a special credential to stand up and say, "the work of this person is subpar in my estimation."
Get over the idea that someone must have special training or papering to be allowed to say a commodity is not up to one's liking.
Reply
4-23-2007 @ 10:53AM
Ant said...
whoah! Ben Kingsley?? I think you are dead wrong on that one. I'm a big fan of his work.
The rest of this list is fantastic. However, I think Tom Hanks and Ben Stiller should be closer to the top of the list. Brad Pitt would make a good addition this list.
I may get a lot of heat for this one, but.. Al Pacino is the single most overrated actor alive.
Reply
4-23-2007 @ 10:57AM
Steve Vesolich said...
I might be crucified for saying this, but am I the only person that thinks that John Malkovich is over rated?I will grant him a couple of movies where he was tolerable, most notably Rounders, In the Line of Fire, and Being John Malkovich. I can forgive an actor that’s in a bad film here and there, but he’s brought in horrible performances numerous times. Would you like some examples? Well how about Man in the Iron Mask. I know, the movie sucked, but try watching the scene where he pretends to cry. It’s funnier than any Ben Stiller movie. What about his turn as Javert in Les mIserables, where he butchers a French accent and brings no personality to one of the most interesting villains on written page. Then there was the time where he tried to be a gangster in Knock Around Guys. I think that was the final straw for me.
Oh, and I’m sorry, but he wasn’t good in Con Air. A man talking with a lisp is not scary. Steve Buscemi outshined him by far. I’ll now wait for everyone to tell me how wrong I am, and how great he was in OF Mice and Men. People consider him to be one of the great actor, but the actors I consider great don’t suck in half the movies they do. Name one movie Edward Norton, Anthony Hopkins, Robert Duval, Daniel Day Lewis or Robert Deniro Sucked in. They may have been in some bad movies, but they weren’t the cause of it being bad. John Malkovich is the cause of most of his movies being lousy. He sometimes ends up on top just because of a good script.
Reply
4-23-2007 @ 10:59AM
Richard von Busack said...
McConaughey is an excellent choice for this roster. When some of the hacks from the movie magazines were annointing him the next Robert Mitchum I couldn't believe my eyes. He's obviously a nice guy, but he was born to play best friends, not leads. And he has a roster of gutless movies few actors could match since Richard Chamberlain died.
Sexy Beast was the perfect example of an actor drilling away despite the material, despite the mood, despite the reactions of his fellow actors. There's a substantial part of the film loving communuity that is completely wowed by that kind of intensity, no matter how monotonous it gets.
Reply
4-23-2007 @ 10:59AM
Craig De Ruisseau said...
How could Bill Paxton have missed the list??
Reply
4-23-2007 @ 11:26AM
Rich said...
Tom Cruise definitely belongs on this list. Same with Will Ferrel (Don't me wrong, I love him). They both can only play one character and do so over and over.
And the reason Bill Paxton isn't on this list is he's really only every been a B actor.
Reply
4-23-2007 @ 11:33AM
revi said...
I agree with Corie. Tom Cruise should be on there. Sure he's lots of bit of that with the recent crazy-crazy, but they still cast him in uber-budget films. He's getting a completely new script for the Hardy Boys. Why? Overrated? MmHmm.
How about Edward Norton? He's good, but not great. Very overrated by critics and fanboys.
And John Travolta. Watching him onscreen is like having my eyeballs and ears loved on with a cheese grater. How does this guy still get cast in anything with a budget?
Reply
4-23-2007 @ 11:56AM
toby tyler said...
I think Tom Hanks can do anything. You're just plain wrong here.
Matthew McConaughey makes more sense. I could maybe go there with Cruise, Nicholson, Affleck, Damon, Pitt. But not Hanks. Audiences relate to him. it works.
Reply
4-23-2007 @ 12:16PM
bgdc said...
Hanks - flat and always the same.
Pitt - actually a pretty varied guy. Watch The Mexican, then Snatch and then Babel then 12 monkeys and finally True Romance. He does bring something to his characters. He's not afraid to look the fool or the goon. I'd say his willingness to slip into various different roles goes far but especially he willingness to look goofy helps with my view of him. He's not a great actor but he takes some fun chances.
McConaughey is charming. That's it. He did show a bit of edge in Thirteen Conversations About One Thing and he was pretty solid Bill Paxton's first directing gig: Frailty. Still more charmer than actor. My guess is that most people missed those two smaller film roles.
Cruise - like Hanks - is a star, not an actor.
Will Ferrell's got some chops. wait and see. He's got a fairly evocative moment in Old School, he played Woody Allen perfectly in Melinda, Melinda and in Stranger Than Fiction gave him a chance to tone down his comedy antics. If he ever really does play in A Confederacy of Dunces we may see what Jim Carrey kept trying to become: an actor.
Reply
4-23-2007 @ 12:38PM
matty blue said...
jack black? a perfect example of someone who is best taken in small doses. i can't think of a single appearance he's had where i couldn't wait for it to end. except 'high fidelity,' of course...because he wasn't the headliner.
Reply
4-23-2007 @ 12:51PM
bgdc said...
Jack Black is best as a small character. He killed in Orange County - precisely because his shtick works best in small doses.
Reply