For the sake of this post, I'm defining a great actor by his versatility and ability to maintain a consistent level of quality across those varied roles.

Now, Matt Damon, he can do comedy, whether in the more literate sorts or gag-heavy shtick.

He can do action-based and politically minded equally as well, or even basic drama at an Oscar-caliber level.

Everyman, super man, business man, he's got 'em down.

He's attractive, but not to the point that it may inhibit some of the parts he can play (Clooney, Farrell, etc.).

He's more likable than Russell Crowe, has more consistent roles than Edward Norton, and gets better characters than Denzel at this point.

I'm not saying that he delivers the best performances in every movie he's featured in, but, right now, on the whole, he has shown the most range and requisite skill.

Agree or disagree? Who else?

I'd put Dicaprio up there with Matt too.

Tom Hanks?

For example, The Machinist and American Pscyho, but the good guy likeability, suave and romantic roles that Damon can pull off, outside of his Newsie days, I don't know for Bale -- he seems to wanna play it a lot more dark and sullen now (which Damon can pull off too). But I haven't seen him enough films admittedly, like say Batman Begins, to give too much of a definite opinion.

>I'd put Dicaprio up there with Matt too.

I think DiCaprio gave a stronger performance than Damon in The Departed (it was a meatier role), and his choices may be more ambitious, but it's only in the last couple years that he's come on.

>Tom Hanks?

Oddly enough, it was a Tom Hanks role / movie that inspired this thought in the first place.

2008 was a catch-up year for everyone.

2009's the getback.

.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

the revolution will not be inboxed.

=======================================
<=== screeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeammmm......

---
Stoicism and chill.
---
Stay +.
---