Most overrated actor

Canterbury Frank wrote:

Natasha Whittam wrote:Sean Bean. Top guy, but wooden as they come.

Good actor,Top wanker in real life.

You done security for him?

Canterbury Frank wrote:Sly,Arnie,Bruce,Roger Moore, take your pick all rank.

Nobody in their right mind would rate any of them as actors. You've missed the point.

Sir Laurence Olivier - and 99% of film stars before 1960.

Luvvie and professional over-actor. Pretty much everything before Spartacus was done in the angst-ridden style that he could be credited for creating - which invariably involved exclusively upper class roles.
I know that Olivier's style is what is considered "classic acting" and I've nothing against the man himself, it's just that I don't like "classic acting" as it lacks the social realism, regional accents and reality of later acting genres. 
Until film grew up - and grew out of the class stereotyped formulaic nonsense it churned out - actors played the same roles with varying degrees of ludicrousness.
I like "classic films" but I watch them fully understanding their limitations - and they are all the nicer for it.
But it's not good acting. It's hammy.

Breadman wrote:

Canterbury Frank wrote:

Natasha Whittam wrote:Sean Bean. Top guy, but wooden as they come.

Good actor,Top wanker in real life.

You done security for him?

He shagged my sister a few times.

Canterbury Frank wrote:

Breadman wrote:

Canterbury Frank wrote:

Natasha Whittam wrote:Sean Bean. Top guy, but wooden as they come.

Good actor,Top wanker in real life.

You done security for him?

He shagged my sister a few times.

Give it a rest AD. 

Canterbury Frank wrote:

Breadman wrote:

Canterbury Frank wrote:

Natasha Whittam wrote:Sean Bean. Top guy, but wooden as they come.

Good actor,Top wanker in real life.

You done security for him?

He shagged my sister a few times.

To paraphrase Ron Burgundy, stay classy, AD.......

The wanderlust wrote:Sir Laurence Olivier - and 99% of film stars before 1960.

Luvvie and professional over-actor. Pretty much everything before Spartacus was done in the angst-ridden style that he could be credited for creating - which invariably involved exclusively upper class roles.
I know that Olivier's style is what is considered "classic acting" and I've nothing against the man himself, it's just that I don't like "classic acting" as it lacks the social realism, regional accents and reality of later acting genres. 
Until film grew up - and grew out of the class stereotyped formulaic nonsense it churned out - actors played the same roles with varying degrees of ludicrousness.
I like "classic films" but I watch them fully understanding their limitations - and they are all the nicer for it.
But it's not good acting. It's hammy.

Bit harsh to judge anybody pre 60's in this sense though considering it was the very beginning of film as an art form. A bit like comparing the first footballers to Messi, it's hardly a level playing field.

Liam Neeson. If Blockbuster was still going it would have a section entitled "Liam Neeson action films". 
Have to save a family member or get revenge for someone doing something to a family member. Even in the Lego movie he had the same scenario.