Meh.

>> ^ant:

Meh.


I had a feeling you'd feel that way

I don't understand why they hire Ricky Gervais for awards shows. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy his wry wit, but he turns these events into more of a roast than a celebration of people's work.

He did that at this Golden Globes specifically so he wouldn't be invited back again. Weeks before the event he was already quoted as saying that they wont be asking him to do an awards show ever again.
>> ^HugeJerk:

I don't understand why they hire Ricky Gervais for awards shows. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy his wry wit, but he turns these events into more of a roast than a celebration of people's work.

And these award shows are watchable without that?

Good stuff !

You know - quite frankly - I don't see why people think Tom Hanks is that great. I remember him when he first came on the scene in "Bosom Buddies". He was moderately amusing, but no more so than Peter Scolari was. He did some bit parts in Family Ties, and did that lousy D&D TV movie "Mazes & Monsters". He did nothing exceptional.

Then he went on to do crappy comedies like Money Pit, Dragnet, Bachelor Party, and Joe Vs. The Volcano. He wasn't very good in any of them. His acting in these shows was one-note. Swap Hanks in Splash with Hanks in Money Pit and there is no difference. He was servicable, but he wasn't that great.

But I think "Big" for some reason started making people think he was a good actor. In the 90s, studios were always trying to turn comedians into "serious" actors. Robin Williams tried it with Patch Adams and Good Morning Vietnam. Jim Carrey tried with "Truman Show", et al. With Hanks, it was A League of Thier Own, Sleepless in Seattle, Forest Gump, and Philadelphia. I see very little difference between "80's Hanks" and "90's Hanks". He isn't a better actor than he was way back in "Mazes & Monsters". He's still the same old one-note Tom Hanks. He just has a better movie. You could take a potted plant and stick it in Forest Gump and get the same result. Some of his performances like in Polar Express and Angels & Demons are cringe-worthy.

So I don't see why Tim Allen has to take the shot here. He's shown at least as much acting "ability" as Tom Hanks. Hanks just got lucky and happened to end up getting better roles and more credit than he deserves.

lets rename it "The Golden Globe Akward" show or something

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

You know - quite frankly - I don't see why people think Tom Hanks is that great. I remember him when he first came on the scene in "Bosom Buddies". He was moderately amusing, but no more so than Peter Scolari was. He did some bit parts in Family Ties, and did that lousy D&D TV movie "Mazes & Monsters". He did nothing exceptional.
Then he went on to do crappy comedies like Money Pit, Dragnet, Bachelor Party, and Joe Vs. The Volcano. He wasn't very good in any of them. His acting in these shows was one-note. Swap Hanks in Splash with Hanks in Money Pit and there is no difference. He was servicable, but he wasn't that great.
But I think "Big" for some reason started making people think he was a good actor. In the 90s, studios were always trying to turn comedians into "serious" actors. Robin Williams tried it with Patch Adams and Good Morning Vietnam. Jim Carrey tried with "Truman Show", et al. With Hanks, it was A League of Thier Own, Sleepless in Seattle, Forest Gump, and Philadelphia. I see very little difference between "80's Hanks" and "90's Hanks". He isn't a better actor than he was way back in "Mazes & Monsters". He's still the same old one-note Tom Hanks. He just has a better movie. You could take a potted plant and stick it in Forest Gump and get the same result. Some of his performances like in Polar Express and Angels & Demons are cringe-worthy.
So I don't see why Tim Allen has to take the shot here. He's shown at least as much acting "ability" as Tom Hanks. Hanks just got lucky and happened to end up getting better roles and more credit than he deserves.


Also, Tim Allen's a crackhead.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
... Some of his performances like in Polar Express and Angels & Demons are cringe-worthy.
...


You do realize that Polar Express has been universally panned for having almost zombie-level animation? Money for Nothing's Minecraftian characters had more life.

Although, I have to agree A&D was possibly the most boring "thriller" I have ever sat through.

Awards shows are mindless Hollywood circle jerks. For four hours, rich people come to the stage to thank God and a selection of contractually stipulated names, intertwined with brief sections of other rich people reading bad jokes from an autocue.

Now, I'm not entirely sure WHY they hired Ricky Gervais, but he did a good job making it enjoyable. And I guess it got the Golden Globes some awesome publicity and buzz.

You do realize that Polar Express has been universally panned for having almost zombie-level animation

Oh - I realize it. They show the stupid movie every Christmas now, and by process of random chance I am occasionally exposed to a few seconds of it. It really and truely is an awful movie - and not just because of the creepy Uncanny Valley factor, and the nuclear Santa. The writing is just awful, and you can tell that Hanks was just dailing this one in. The movie has more padding than a linebacker because it was like a 10 page kid's book stretched out into a feature film. And the so-called 'musical numbers'? When I saw that Hot Chocolate song I about ralphed. The Polar Express movie is a massive stinkburger that should have been on MST3K.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'tom hanks, golden globe, awards, 2011, introduction' to 'tom hanks, golden globe, awards, 2011, introduction, roast, insult' - edited by calvados

*british

Adding video to channels (British) - requested by Zifnab.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

You know - quite frankly - I don't see why people think Tom Hanks is that great. I remember him when he first came on the scene in "Bosom Buddies". He was moderately amusing, but no more so than Peter Scolari was. He did some bit parts in Family Ties, and did that lousy D&D TV movie "Mazes & Monsters". He did nothing exceptional.
Then he went on to do crappy comedies like Money Pit, Dragnet, Bachelor Party, and Joe Vs. The Volcano. He wasn't very good in any of them. His acting in these shows was one-note. Swap Hanks in Splash with Hanks in Money Pit and there is no difference. He was servicable, but he wasn't that great.
But I think "Big" for some reason started making people think he was a good actor. In the 90s, studios were always trying to turn comedians into "serious" actors. Robin Williams tried it with Patch Adams and Good Morning Vietnam. Jim Carrey tried with "Truman Show", et al. With Hanks, it was A League of Thier Own, Sleepless in Seattle, Forest Gump, and Philadelphia. I see very little difference between "80's Hanks" and "90's Hanks". He isn't a better actor than he was way back in "Mazes & Monsters". He's still the same old one-note Tom Hanks. He just has a better movie. You could take a potted plant and stick it in Forest Gump and get the same result. Some of his performances like in Polar Express and Angels & Demons are cringe-worthy.
So I don't see why Tim Allen has to take the shot here. He's shown at least as much acting "ability" as Tom Hanks. Hanks just got lucky and happened to end up getting better roles and more credit than he deserves.

Forrest Gump may be a cliche now, but his performance in it was great. He was great in Philadelphia and The Green Mile as well. For pure strength of acting, I think you've got to go with Cast Away. Not many actors can carry a movie all by themselves with only a volleyball to interact with. If you want a role that really steps out of the norm, try The Ladykillers.

Hanks may not be one of those guys who completely transforms himself for a role, but I still think he's solid. Tim Allen has never acted, to my knowledge. He plays himself in all his roles.

I saw those movies (except for Ladykillers) and I have still put Hanks in the same 'class' of actor as Kevin Costner, David Ducovony, or Nicolas Cage. These are actors who are the same guy in every role they have. Story is different, but character is about the same in terms of what the actor is 'doing'. Costner is always the slightly wry everyman in every show he does. Hanks is the same way. They play their particular approach solidly as you put it, but in no way does it come across to me as great acting. So I don't see why people fall all over themselves talking about how great Hanks is. IMO, he's strictly average at best and in some shows he is painfully sub-par.

And I hated Hanks in Castaway. That movie sucked. Five minutes of movie 'packed' into two hours.

...trying to turn comedians into "serious" actors... With Hanks, it was A League of Thier Own


Yes, anyone would look superb in serious, melodramatic Oscar bait like "A Leauge fo Thier Onw". Why did they think a comedian could summon the requisite gravitas for such a serious subject? Were they trying to make fun of women's sports? Is there no crying in baseball?

Castaway.. That movie sucked. Five minutes of movie 'packed' into two hours.


Yes, if only he did better at acting there would have been more plot. Maybe he could have acted out some lasers and explosions for you. I don't think Tom Hanks is super amazing - and certainly not always - but he did a good job with a hard role in Castaway. I mean, sure, obviously you could just drop Forrest Gump in there and it's the same film, but what can you do. He's only one man.

Why don't you tell us who the great, currently active actors are, friendo? I've heard people (seriously) suggest scenery-chewers like Pacino or Denzellle. Sean bloody full-retard Penn? Jack Nicholson? OK. I like Jack Nicholson. But he's one dude and he's just barely still alive let alone active.

For my money, the best performance of the last decade was Matthew Lillard in the Scooby Doo movie (whatever the Hell it was called). Not gonna lie: it wasn't a great film. But flawless performance by Lillard. He was Shaggy. What else can you ask for in an actor than completely inhabiting a difficult role like that? Drop frickin' Sidney Poitier or Orson Welles in that movie and sure maybe it becomes watchable, but I doubt they nail the role like Lillard did.