Robert Redford v Gene Hackman

Xplosive here is obviously confused and has hi judgement clouded by Robert´s swooning good-looks.

Redford would have won Best Actor in 1973 if he wasn´t up against a whole fucking host of big-hitters (Lemmon, Brando, Pacino, Nicholson).
Also has a great body of work (for someone most people associate with good looks):
Barefoot In The Park
Butch Cassidy & The Sundance Kid
Downhill Racer
Jeremiah Johnson
The Candidate
The Sting
The Great Gatsby
Three Days Of The Condor
All The President´s Men
A Bridge Too Far
The Natural
Indecent Proposal
Quiz Show
Spy Game

60 years of fucking great and varied roles.
Plus he´s proved his mettle with Direction and set up the Sundance Film Festival.


Now compare with Gene:
Bonnie & Clyde
The French Connection*
The Poseidon Adventure
The Conversation
French Connection II
A Bridge Too Far
Superman: The Movie
Mississippi Burning
Unforgiven*
Crimson Tide
The Royal Tennenbaums

IMO, Hackman did a LOT of dogshit from 1971 onwards, but obviously he is a great actor that he could pull out the stops for specific roles.

 

Both are great actors, but Hackman has been praised here like he is a Brando or an Olivier. He isn't.

BTW you left out from Redford's his recent works which also got him great reviews like 'All is Lost' (a one man performance film) and 'Our Souls at Night' plus other older titles like 'Brubaker' and 'Out of Africa' (and he was the Hydra mole baddie corrupting S.H.I.E.l.D. in 'Captain America: The Winter Soldier'...okay that wasn't a great role, but I loved the fact that he turned out to be the bad guy).

 

My bad, but I was just cherry-picking really.

Still think Redford has a better, more consistent body of work over the decades....

 

To be fair Hackman retired from acting long time ago and was more picky on his roles. Redford is a non-stop workaholic still at his age.

 

At the end of the day, Redford vs Hackman is kinda a weird comparison.

Redford couldn't play a villain or anti-hero as well as Hack.

And Hack couldn't play a hero, or love interest as well as Redford.

Redford vs Newman would be the better comparison.

 

Hackman is clearly better, able to play virtually any role

Redford must play type

 

Hello Sly, Mk II

 

Redford has a msrginally better resume and has consistently chosen better material...dunno about Hackman being more picky about his roles, it seemed to me that he was collecting cheques for much of the 80s and late 70s. Redford could certainly play against type, downhill racer and the candidate demonstrating that, and All is Lost is an awesome role. Hackman was a more talented actor I think, but he didn't seem too interested a lot of the time.

 

He's not part of this topic, but i definitely disagree with Cdogg on Hackman being better than Nicholson. I think that's absurd.

One Flew Over alone is better than Hackman performance.

And Jack was better in Chinatown than Hackman was in French Connection, imo.

 

Nicholson plays Jack Nicholson in every film ... I enjoy Jack Nicholson too but that's not great acting anymore than Clint Eastwood being badass is great acting

 

Hackman is Hackman in TFC.

 

Hackman lost points with audiences by going totally camp with his Lex Luthor in Superman. I am sure that he could have been more convincing and menacing by playing the character straight.

 

No, sorry. You don't have a case here. Popeye Doyle and Harry Caul are polar opposites... they don't even speak similarly

Jack Nicholson in Five Easy Pieces, Carnal Knowledge, Cukoo's Nest, etc ... same fucking guy... entertaining as fuck and totally compelling but he's acting like Jack Nicholson...

It's very easy to impersonate Jack Nicholson ... Gene Hackman, not so much

One is a peacock, the other a chameleon or an octopus

 

Cdogg really doing his best Sly4Mayweathee impression now so I'm wondering whether he's purposely trolling...

 

Stop being an idiot

This shouldn't even be a conversation

 

Hackman is clearly better and that’s no knock on Redford. Hackman is one of the best actors of all time