Riverwind (imported) wrote: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:28 am I could not agree with you more, Tom Hanks is way over rated and inflated.

River

Ditto. His rise to fame has always amazed me. His laid back, almost boyish-ness isn't amusing, it's boring. He affects me in the same way Jack Lemmon did, that almost constant twitchy nervousness isn't very watchable. Hanks has had the luck or someone had the intelligence, to cast him in films that had a strong, vulnerable, admirable hero ("Philadelphia", "Saving Private Ryan", "Forrest Gump" etc) without remembering trash such as "Joe Versus the Volcano". And then there's this; in terms of Hollywood he's squeaky clean, no drugs, no ugly divorce, no drunken rides down the Pacific Coast Highway-how rare is that? He's also middle aged which, just now, appeals to executives who, themselves, are middle aged. How many of you are like me and read a name and am told they're a "star". Although of what and for doing something I'm unsure. A "Tom Hanks" is a jewel of great price. Studios no longer try and present tidy pictures of America played by believable people. Now it's all CDG, Aliens, Monsters, Super Heroes.....a large dose of the unreality that seems to pervade the United States.

I'm in agreement with the Tom Hanks detractors. Same goes for Alan Alda and others like them. Can't get next to guys like that, just old fashioned I guess. John Wayne, Jimmy Stewart, James Cagny, Lee Marvin, Clark Gable, The list could go on and on. They were my kind of guys.

There are some good actors today, most are from Great Britten, you remember that place where they teach acting.

River

Finally watched a portion of the movie.

I had avoided it because of many things that I don't think belong here.

It's not a rosy or happy ending movie.

People read into that Phillips was god and heroic but not if you watch the movie and pay attention to what happens.

I did not have to pay attention to see things that did not make sense.

But if you ignore the plot holes then it's an action movie.