ironSoap

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…

Nicholas Cage and Julianne Moore.

I’m just sayin’. Ironic.

I’ll be keeping an eye on tonight’s Dallas/Vancouver game (the last one in the first round from the only series to go seven games) because it will directly determine who the Sharks play in round two.

Basically, with Detroit taking care of the Flames yesterday, if Dallas Vancouver wins tonight the Sharks play The Red Wings in round two; otherwise they get Anaheim. Neither team is likely to make round two particularly easy on San Jose, but I think I’d prefer to play Detroit and let Vancouver have a crack at eliminating the Ducks. As strong as Detroit is, they gave Calgary a chance to win or at least make the series more interesting than it was so I think the Sharks can exploit some of that. The Ducks/Sharks games in the regular season were exciting but I felt too often that the Sharks came up short against them and I’d prefer to have an extra round for Ron Wilson to iron out some of the Power Play issues they had against Nashville before we have to face the hated SoCal squad. Plus, assuming the Sharks can get past Detroit and the Ducks can handle Vancouver, how great would the conference finals be if it were Sharks vs. Ducks?

Meanwhile over in the East it’s going to be Ottawa vs. New Jersey and the Rangers against the Sabres. Interestingly, if Vancouver can’t pull it together tonight that will make the Senators the only Canadian team left in the hunt for the Cup. The Sens handled the Penguins pretty adroitly but then again, the Pens weren’t even supposed to make the Playoffs this year. The dangerous Lightning proved that you can beat Martin Brodeur (they scored 14 goals against him in six games) but it seems like their netminding wasn’t up to the task (Holmqvist’s 18 goals allowed is tied for the most in the playoffs). The question there is going to be if perennial playoff busts Ottawa can ride their momentum through the Garden State. They certainly outplayed Pittsburgh, but it probably would have meant a meltdown of epic proportions for them to not come out on top in that series. New Jersey is likely to be their first legitimate challenge.

As for the NY matchup, it’s kind of tough to say. I’m inclined to give the advantage to the Sabres despite the Rangers’ strong sweep of Atlanta… mostly because the 4-0 series final doesn’t really do justice to how badly the Thrashers played. Not that the Rangers were slouches, but as with Ottawa, this is probably going to be the first real round of playoff hockey they have to face and I suspect that Buffalo is pretty hungry to move forward.

At least for now I’m thinking San Jose vs. Anaheim and Buffalo vs. New Jersey in round three. In the west, anything else will be a huge disappointment and in the east it really could go any direction. But honestly, as much as I want the Sharks to take home the Stanley Cup, I think that any Ducks/Sharks matchup will be more or less the series to watch in all of the playoffs. As long as they outlast the Ducks, I’ll at least be content—if not completely satisfied.