Change Your Image
![](https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BMjQ4MTY5NzU2M15BMl5BanBnXkFtZTgwNDc5NTgwMTI@._V1_SY100_SX100_.jpg)
dahlberg31
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Lists
An error has ocurred. Please try again![](https://m.media-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BMTcwNzQwODI5NV5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTcwNzQxMjI5MQ@@._V1_SX86_CR0,0,86,86_.jpg)
![](https://m.media-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BMTM5MzYwNDA3NV5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTcwNDExMTMwNw@@._V1_SY86_CR18,0,86,86_.jpg)
This list is attempting to actually have the 100 most talented actors of all-time. So while this is subjective, I think I try to be objective when judging acting talent. One of the determinants is the number of lead roles in great movies an actor accrued. So Robert DeNiro was in several tremendous movies, mostly Scorsesi. There may have been another actor who could have commanded a better performance, but Deniro was fortunate. However I did try to picture another actor doing the movie from one of the top actors. If it was nearly impossible, such as Marlon Brando in Apacolypse Now!, I would raise Brando up the list.
There's actors who had incredible performances in one or two movies, and the rest of their career was obscure. These actors were difficult to rank, since they may actually have been among the all-time talented, but for whatever reason, were not able to land several memorable roles. The most notable of this list is Malcolm McDowell. His role in A Clockwork Orange is legendary. However, there is not another main stream movie attached to his name. And that is my favorite movie. So I do not know if I over or undervalued him. Other actors in this category are Guy Pierce, Heath Ledger, and Gabriel Byrne. Actors like Mickey Rourke seem to be a late bloomer and may shoot up the list, while Charlie Sheen had so much success early in his career, only to settle for sitcoms.
The greatest limitations by far is simply the vast number of movies I have never seen. There are so many "classics" that I have never watched, or may have once in a glossing sort of way. Or I may have watched a movie and didn't fully grasp the meaning of it and missed a great actor. But, its a list I wanted to make, since these actors do deserve recognition. And as I often do when comparing athletes of past years to their contemporaries, I believe that the talent pool has gotten better overall. Acting is an art form that has become better over the years. The diversity of movie roles are greater than they used to be. Even with this bias, I still have two actors leading the list with most of their movies made during the 50s, 60s, and 70s.
I know that no woman makes this list. This was intentional. This is not to say that women are not talented enough. Its more of my condemnation of Hollywood for failing to have enough dynamic lead roles for woman. Woman in the early days of films were always submissive to the will of men. Men could be complex while women could not. And this continues on to an extent today. If I did put women on the list, Merryl Streep would be among the elite. I hope I see enough films with women headlining movies, both classics and currently being made. And once I do, I will make a separate list for women, because its hard to compare when the types of roles are so different than lead male roles.
![](https://m.media-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BMjA5Njk3MjM4OV5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTcwMTc5MTE1MQ@@._V1_SX86_CR0,0,86,86_.jpg)
Reviews
The Vanished (2020)
Ignore the bad ratings. A solid psychological thriller
This is not a great movie by any stretch of the imagination. But it is a compelling mystery. Has a rather slow beginning but that is often the case with psychological thrillers. The acting is solid. Neither great nor bad. The point of most mysteries is to have the audience keep guessing as to the full picture. The clues trick in at a steady pace. There are plenty of red herrings that seem to upset some viewers, but that adds to the fun. As a viewer, you know all the pieces don't fit neatly together, some are outright contradictory. Some reviewers don't call this as a realistic betrayal of how most people would act. That's fine to point out but that's really not the point. This isn't a gritty noir but a psychological thriller. There is usually a surrealness to them in order to slightly disorient the audience. When the story concludes at the end, your mind will kick itself for ignoring some glaring clues in the first third of the movie that will seem, in retrospect, obvious.
I know Thomas Jane has been in plenty of trash lately, but in this one you get glimpses as to what made him popular two decades ago. Only glimpses.
Don't make this your movie of the month pick. But if you are simply in the mood for a mystery, I don't think you'll be disappointed.
Annihilation (2018)
It's not trying to be anything
I don't usually do movie reviews, but I watch Ralph Sepie, so I'm an expert now. I'll go for as spoil free as I can though hints might accidentally be passed thru.
From the production standpoint, I think they wanted a movie half-realism, half-Avatar. It probably looked incredible in a iMax/3D theater. You don't get that full experience unless you have a proper theater set up.
From the acting standpoint, everyone worked around Natalie Portman. She was the centerpiece. The actors around her have proved themselves in other projects so I think they were good. Oscar Isaac is simply one of the best talents and it's really good he was in it. If not, the movie may have suffered quite a bit. Portman did great with having to deal with both facial acting and funny body movements.
I was afraid 1/3 of the way thru this may end up like Contact. It didn't. The source material was better, the pacing, Portman is better than Foster, etc...
I've seen some reviewers wanted this to be Aliens or The Terminator for some reason. Have guns a blazing! That's not this film (though there is action).
The best part of the film: the suspense. By leaving the audience uneasy about not knowing what's going on plays into what the director wanted. This can be construed as "pretentious." I try avoiding that label for the truly pretentious. I'm looking at you Requiem for a Dream. The uneasiness of the film was similar to 2001: A Space Odyssey. Obviously this wasn't directed by Kubrick, but definitely Kurbrick inspired.
The worst part: the dialogues. Many lines didn't feel natural to what a normal person would say. Sometimes less is more. They could have learned from The Larry Sanders Show of minimalism. If dialogue can be replaced with body language, then omit the lines.
The themes of the movie is why you have the love it or hate it phenomenon. I think the director wanted a 2001 feel, so the themes are murky. I don't think the film was trying to be known as the thought provoking movie of the year. But it could have done better. The first lines of the movie was explaining how abiogenesis is one of the big unknowns. If pondering abiogenesis and possibly natural selection is thought provoking, then this film might be for you. Outside of that, possibe themes of destroying things humans don't understand, the purpose of life of either fighting/fear/acceptance, and questioning what it means to be sentient are present. How much in depth is up to the viewer.
In summation: Annihilation is an ambitious film. It has a star studded cast and amazing visuals. The film wasn't trying to be inventing the wheel, but it far from being a hack job. For those wanting a non military SciFi film, then give this a chance. Sometimes, a movie isn't trying to be something more than a movie.