Movies: Denzel vs Hanks

[OzzyFan]

Battle between the 2 'everyman utility actors', Denzel Washington vs Tom Hanks. Contribute as little or as much as you'd like. Here's some debatable categories I was interested in hearing people's opinions on:

-More consistently great?
-More range?
-Better top performance/peak?
-Better 'prime'/better top 10 performances?
-Better top 5 films(alone, performances not accountable unless needed for tiebreaking purposes)?
-Why not even possibly....more charismatic?


I am a bit surprised/not surprised that Denzel and Hanks have been working in "Hollywood'' for roughly the same amount of years, yet Hanks has a notably bigger filmography in this category as an actor (94 to 60 per IMDB). But that's likely due to Hanks more mainstream popularity and the more availability of roles for him (not being political or anti or pro anything here, but there are/were a lot more films for a "whiter" cast looking for a ''whiter lead/supporting actor'' than there were for Denzel physically appearanced one, imo at least).

Click to read more...

 

[Spring in Fialta]

Denzel Washington easily.

 

[Blackhawkswincup]

Hanks to me though Hanks hasn't played the villian , etc

I find Hanks best to be superior to Washington

 

[kihei]

Washington every day of the week and twice on Sundays.

 

[NyQuil]

Hanks has only gone out of his comfort zone a handful of times (e.g. Philadelphia, Road to Perdition) to mixed results and has carved out a career with fairly safe leading roles as all-around American good guys.

I think Denzel Washington has shown a great deal more range in his performances, although he too has a bit of a type (supremely confident) and hasn't shown the willingness or had the opportunity to play the wider type of roles of someone like Gary Oldman IMO.

Has Denzel ever played more of a passive character?

 

[chicagoskycam]

Hanks to me though Hanks hasn't played the villian , etc

I find Hanks best to be superior to Washington

Road to Perdition is as close as he gets.

 

[chicagoskycam]

Hanks has only gone out of his comfort zone a handful of times (e.g. Philadelphia, Road to Perdition) to mixed results and has carved out a career with fairly safe leading roles as all-around American good guys.

I think Denzel Washington has shown a great deal more range in his performances, although he too has a bit of a type (supremely confident) and hasn't shown the willingness or had the opportunity to play the wider type of roles of someone like Gary Oldman IMO.

Has Denzel ever played more of a passive character?

Hanks has a bit of range ..... we see the best of it in movies like Big and Forest Gump, Cast Away as well. Denzel is typically a badass either good or bad. John Q is one where he's a bit more humble. I recently watched Philadelphia again and really didn't like Denzel in that. Hanks killed it though. They are both fantastic actors. Hanks focuses on grade A blockbuster opportunities vs. taking a chance on some smaller stuff. Wouldn't mind seeing either of them in a limited Netflix/HBO series. I could see Hanks as he ages really nailing some minor roles.

 

[Pranzo Oltranzista]

Tom Hanks is a particularly poor actor - so Mr. Washington by a mile.

 

[NyQuil]

Hanks has a bit of range ..... we see the best of it in movies like Big and Forest Gump, Cast Away as well.

Yeah, that's fair.

He did well in Big.

 

[Fantomas]

Tom Hanks is the contemporary Jimmy Stewart. Not much of an actor, but dependable and easy on the palette.

Denzel is a real powerhouse actor and I love his swagger. Inside Man is a great movie.

 

[Hockeyfrilla]

Denzel

 

[Perennial]

Not a fan of Hanks... he's had some good performances, but I find him to be overrated for the most part... and with the exception of The Money Pit, I don't think he's ever made me laugh

I also find Hanks to be kinda dopey, so I don't think he's convincing whatsoever as a love interest...

Denzel has a presence on screen that commands attention, so I prefer his career

 

[ItsFineImFine]

Not really a fair comparison, they both do different types of characters in different types of movies. Reminds me I gotta download Bridge of Spies though thanks.

 

[x Tame Impala]

The Tom Hanks hate is lame. He made a lot of good to great movies spanning three decades.

 

[Osprey]

Hanks has the greater range, IMO, which is weird to say because he seemingly always plays himself. Still, it's more than Denzel, who gives the same performance no matter the role. At least Tom adapts to his roles a little, like in Forrest Gump and A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood, in which he changed his mannerisms and way of speaking. I haven't really seen Denzel do that, much less try and succeed in screwball and romantic comedies. If Hanks is Jimmy Stewart, Denzel is maybe Robert Mitchum. I really like both, but I'd have to say that Hanks is the slightly more versatile and accomplished actor.

 

[Eisen]

Not the biggest fan of either.

 

[Shareefruck]

Agreed with the people underwhelmed by Tom Hanks (his role selection and the types of movies he seems to gravitate towards makes it worse for me), although I can't say I've ever paid enough attention to Washington to have any feeling on how good or bad I think he is.

 

[Pranzo Oltranzista]

At least Tom adapts to his roles a little, like in Forrest Gump and A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood, in which he changed his mannerisms and way of speaking.

And he's pretty bad at it. Ain't no Peter Sellers.

I haven't really seen Denzel do that, much less try and succeed in screwball and romantic comedies.

Can't say he succeeded, but can't say he didn't try...





Maybe he's just smarter than Hanks and stays into his range.

I really like both, but I'd have to say that Hanks is the slightly more versatile and accomplished actor.

I really like neither of them, I just think Hanks is particularly poor.

 

[Stylizer1]

I believe Washington plays the same character in all his movies. I think Hanks has a better overall catalogue of impactful films.

 

[t0nedeff]

Tom Hanks is the contemporary Jimmy Stewart. Not much of an actor, but dependable and easy on the palette.

Denzel is a real powerhouse actor and I love his swagger. Inside Man is a great movie.

2 Oscars and a shit ton of memorable films but sure.

 

[LeafalCrusader]

Both amazing actors. Personally prefer Denzel but its close.

 

[Jumptheshark]

Hanks did comedy better

 

[Babe Ruth]

Hanks did comedy better

yeah, I think so much time (& roles) have passed.. it's forgotten that Hanks basically started in comedic roles. My opinion, he wasn't especially funny, but they were usually goofy, light hearted parts & scripts. Bosom Buddies on TV, then stuff like The Man with One Red Shoe, The Burbs, Bachelor Party, Money Pit (probably got my chronology off, but) .. basically if u had stopped going to the theaters around 1988, you wouldn't have anticipated Hanks having so many serious, acclaimed movies..

To the original question, I'm kinda lukewarm about both actors.. but did like Washington a lot in 'Glory'.

 

[KallioWeHardlyKnewYe]

Denzel Washington won an Oscar for Training Day, a perfectly fine crime thriller that would have been lost to time if not for his substantial presence.

Tom Hanks won an Oscar for Forrest Gump, a treacly Oscar courting prestige project that ages worse by the day.

There are certainly other data points to point to, but I think that distinction summarizes my feelings on the two.

Not picking on Hanks — Sleepless in Seattle, Saving Private Ryan, Apollo 13, Captain Phillips and That Thing You Do, among others, are all great performances. It's not playing "Tom Hanks" as much he often fills a very exact space in a movie. There's a Tom Hanks sized hole that you fill with Tom Hanks.

Denzel walks into any otherwise generic thriller crime script and by sheer persona makes it what ... 15-20-50% better?

Sometimes it isn't the great stuff that defines the greats — much easier to score when you're surrounded by talent — it's the crap that really sets them apart.

 

[NyQuil]

Denzel walks into any otherwise generic thriller crime script and by sheer persona makes it what ... 15-20-50% better?

Sometimes it isn't the great stuff that defines the greats — much easier to score when you're surrounded by talent — it's the crap that really sets them apart.

He's always the same persona.

I mean, Jack Nicholson is JAAAAACK but then you see him in something like About Schmidt and he's playing a completely different person.

I asked earlier if Denzel ever played a passive role and I'm still waiting. I mean, even in St. Elsewhere he was the same cocky guy.

In that vein, it's interesting that Washington and Hanks are being compared because they both fill a need without a lot of variation.