53 thoughts on “April 20th – Top 25 AFI Actor Rankings By UMR Commenters”

1. thank you all. a challenge to all. lets eliminate legendary or not, eliminate time frames, eliminate influence, eliminate box office, eliminate Oscars, include supporting thespians. I respect all of yours knowledge and opinions. lets do this again with just our favorites. since we are doubling the timeframe I suggest a top 50 males and top 50 females, in order, simply our all time favorites. anyone willing to share? Cogerson’s previous top 3: Willis , Grant, Caine, may be modified. I suspect we will go from 48 legends to 150 favorites as a group.
   ouch, until I read the analysis, I did not realize I missed my #1 spencer tracy and # 11 sidney poitier thus eliminating my humorous pick # 25 jerry lewis and # 24 rex Harrison. my apologies to all.

   1. A Top Favourites list is an interesting suggestion. What I consider my favourites and what I consider legends or Best Actors are not the same. My top three favourite actors are Gregory Peck, Richard Widmark, and Glenn Ford. As you can see, I did not include Glenn Ford in my legends list. My top 3 favourite actresses are Audrey Hepburn, Bette Davis, and Lauren Bacall.

2. I am amazed by the number of AFI Top 25 legendary actors who got named by only one or two people. I won’t give a long reply about the ranking of the actors. I see Bruce’s comment about established stars rather than having started their on screen career – ie made their first movie before – 1950. For me, they needed to ave started their career before 1950, but they did not need to be established stars.

   Regarding Steve suggesting a Top 25 of modern stars, I am not sure that I am sufficiently familiar with these stars to participate. I will have to see about what the rules would be.

3. Hi Bruce, thanks for putting all this together. Good to see everyone’s picks at a glance.

   I see the bane of Bob’s existence Joel Hirschhorn has joined us on the chart. Bob has a good point about John Wayne not being picked by Joel, unless those were very personal choices by Joel it doesn’t make sense not to include such an iconic actor, arguably the most popular in movie history. For example Flora can’t stand John Wayne but she included him on her list of 25 Hollywood greats.

   Looking at my list – there are two that I picked and no one else did – Alan Ladd and Robert Taylor. I count 7 actors on my list that are included on everyone else’s list, including Joels! 🙂

   Good work Bruce. Vote Up!

   What’s up next? A top 25 of modern era actors and actresses? 😉

   1. HI STEVE
      1 Thanks for the support in you 9.55am post
      .
      2 I have come to the conclusion that there is a possibility the lists are being manipulated so that certain actors are excluded. Certainly differing standard are being applied to men and women in the lists.

      3 Bruce’s Greatest Actors list 1950 – to – 2010 stated that (again) Mr Mumbles and Dean were excluded because nobody on the AFI lists was being given a placing

      4 However the criteria for the actress lists 1950 – 2010 spelt out that it was set in a way that enabled 4 actresses who WERE on the AFI lists to be included in the Cogerson female list – MM, the Princess, Loren and Audrey Hepburn.

      5 The latest Cogerson lists exclude Joel for the women but include him for the men so that the Duke is denied a rating in the overall table that others whom Joel liked more are not denied and the overall criteria for the two lists is set in a way that excludes UMR scores for Mumbles [also Poitier and Dean] and this time some women as well.

      6 It seems to me that whether a Cogerson list is about older or more modern actors the criteria needle is set at a point that avoids giving full or even any credit to certain actors. As Alice said in Wonderland it becomes “Curiouser and Curiouser.”

      1. 1 HI MOSES I have tried to make the points that (1) The Cogerson lists of the Greatest Movies Stars 1950-2010 didn’t treat males and females equally. Marlon Brando, James Dean and Sidney Poitier were excluded from those lists because they were on the AFI lists and yet Marilyn Monroe, Audrey Hepburn, Grace Kelly and Sophia Loren were included in Bruce’s 1950-2010 female lists even though they WERE on the AFI lists and their careers were within the same time frame as the excluded males (2) if Hirschhorn’s subjective opinions were to be imposed on male lists, the female lists should be subject to the same impositions though I thought he should be kept out of an inter-viewers exercise altogether. We already get enough of him is my personal opinion.

         2 I attempted to get a reasonable explanation for those seeming inconsistencies but it appears to me that instead I got a dogmatic lecture, without any detailed review of the facts, about how Joel’s opinions were of equal value to all others and no explanation was given about why males and females are apparently being treated unequally.

         3 Leaving aside the fact that my opinions or those of anyone else but Joel’s that I am aware of have never been set on a pedestal on this site or thrust in the face of others their relative weight in the scale of things was not the point, which was that in the drawing up of the 1950-2010 lists there was unequal treatment of the males and females who were on the AFI lists and that this inequality was compounded in the latest lists which happily Flora at least seems to question.

         4 All my life I have been opposed to discriminatory treatment of any kind and in any form via whatever medium and also I wish to exercise the right not to any longer inadvertently condone one critic’s views being, and in my opinion insensitively and self-indulgently, imposed on a captive audience..

         5 Accordingly I will no longer be contributing to this site and I wish to thank you for your part in the wonderful, witty and at times even [albeit enjoyably] combative exchanges we’ve had together and I wish you all the best for the future. I shall miss you!

         YOURS [an abdicating] RAMESES the 2ND

         1. Please reconsider staying on this site. Steve and I would miss you terribly. Take a day off. Steve has just completed an expanded Kirk Douglas video.

         2. Hi Bob, I hope it’s Rameses II that’s leaving and not Bob Roy.

            I know you have a silly sense of humour just like I have, but sometimes you take things far too seriously. You have to remember that this is Bruce’s movie site and he’s the boss, he is obviously very fond of Joel Hirschhorn and his book.

            I know Hirschhorn (dead for many years now) wasn’t a fan of Brando or John Wayne but I’m sure he liked other idols of yours like Cary Grant, Jimmy Stewart and Joan Crawford. Flora doesn’t like Wayne and Brando either, but that didn’t bother you, why should this dead critic’s views matter?

            For myself I might read Joel’s views on an actor, smile, and than an hour later forgotten all about it, blissfully gone from my memory. I simply don’t care if Joel hates Charlton Heston or The Marx Brothers. I don’t dwell on such things. Everyone has an opinion. We might differ on one subject but agree on another. It would be a boring world if we all agreed on something.

            Honestly none of this is worth getting worked up over. Ignore Joel and his writings. There’s a lot more here at the UMR to enjoy plus you have your fellow movie buddies to chat with.

            Take the weekend off. Clear your mind of this matter. I’m not the only one here who enjoys reading your posts, it would be sad to lose you.

            Steve.

            1. HI STEVE Thanks for your replies to my last 2 posts. I’m glad you liked the IMDB list and obviously it pleased me too particularly with Chuck and Laddie getting some recognition at last. Maybe though you or I should write to IMDB and ask them to remove all of those who are on the AFI List! I support your Widmark/Mitchum proposals though I would have Charlie Bill in place of Mitchum.

               In setting out his criteria for the 25 males 1950-2010 Bruce makes no bones about the fact that Brando, Dean and Poitier are OUT because they are on the AFI Legends lists.However in the criteria for his 25 women he says that Audrey, Sophia, MM and the Princess, the only 4 women on the AFI list who would time-qualify for Bruce’s own list, DO get onto his list and that would leave room for their removal from the AFI list and substitution with 4 other actresses one of whom would be MYRNA LOY.

               Of course the great fallacy in all of this is that Bruce does not have the power to make any substitutions on the AFI lists and obviously the 4 actresses concerned are still on the AFI lists as well as being on Bruce’s one whereas the 3 males are on just the AFI list though they too are time-qualified to be on the Cogerson one as well.

               As you say this is Bruce’s site and he can do what he likes within the law but I had always pre-supposed that he would want to play fair with his viewers in relation to their own idols and of course anyone who doesn’t think he is doing that is equally entitled to withdraw from participating in the site’s activities, though I will of course continue to watch your videos as long as they are available.

               As for Joel he is a secondary issue but he seems to have had some novel ideas about what actually constitutes a Legend and certainly if I had been a publisher I wouldn’t have wanted Joel to even read a movie rankings list that I printed let alone compile one for me though I wouldn’t object to him being cast as Dathan!

               I don’t apologise for taking seriously discrimination that I perceive and I don’t need to think about the matter over the rest of the weekend as I abore discrimination at any level and from whatever quarter Have a good weekend yourself as you deserve a rest after compiling all those videos and doing other stuff like parting the Red Sea but “The Lord has hardened Pharaoh’s heart.” Exodus 10:27

         3. Hi Bob, I agree with Steve and Flora, you should reconsider your position. I see your point, but you would be greatly missed.

            1. HI PHIL, MOSES & FLORA
               1 Thank you for your kind sentiments but in terms of priorities my strong feelings about discrimination transcend even my love of movies and I don’t like to see ANYWHERE or IN ANY FORM people being treated unfairly in terms of race, religion, gender or sexual orientation.

               2 I trusted Bruce completely to be fair so whilst I examined the placings within each list on the 25 males/females 1950- 2010 I didn’t think to compare the two lists with each other when they first came out. Therefore I became aware of the discriminatory criteria against the males in those 1950-2010 lists only when Joel was imposed upon the men and not the women in Bruce’s composite lists and I then started to look at the wider picture.

               3 I have really no interest in Joel whom I regard as possibly an eccentric character with strange views on the movie world. which I have countered at times with opposing views from other highly regarded critics .. Nothing that Hirsch SAID would ever have made me not wish to be involved with the site but it was Joel being used in a discriminatory manner that broke the camel’s back.Why on earth include him in the male composite survey of our own ranking lists but not in the female one? Whatever the answer there the effect was to ensure that The Duke and ole Mumbles immediately lost ground in any comparisons with others as Joel appeared to have a bias against those two that seemed to go beyond opinions about their films,

               4 Steve’s attempts to compare Joel with Flora are not really relevant because (1) Flora is not being imposed on us as a professional expert though she is nevertheless an expert (2) Flora in devising her own list bent over backwards to be fair and objective as I think we viewers all did whereas what we were getting from Hirsch were subjective opinions. If you are trying ti get an objective idea of who who are regarded by the film industry and the wider community as the greatest legends Joel is the last kind of guy you want to let near the project.

               5 Mumbles was of course again a casualty in Bruce making gender distinctions in the criteria for his 1950-2010 lists. By my reckoning only 7 stars among the AFI 50 were time qualified to be on Bruce’s 1950-2010 lists, 3 males and 7 females. Yet Bruce decided to exclude the males because they were on the AFI list, but not exclude the women. I say again WHY ON EARTH DO THAT? Off the top of my head the only reasons I can think of are a wilful ploy to keep one or all of the 3 men out for some strange reason, or to create a fantasy that the 4 women could be regarded as no longer being on the AFI lists and that Myrna Loy and 3 other substitutes could now be considered to be on the existing AFI list of 25 greatest legends. The latter really is “parallel universe” style thinking because on this planet that’s not going to happen.

   2. Hi, Steve.

      I don’t usually mention Joel Hirschorn or ever read “his” comments when they show up on pages. But I must admit I was surprised to see him included on this chart for Top 25 Actors as he is not a real commentator but Bruce adding comments from his book on pages. I admit that I have never heard of him before his comments started appearing. And yes, I cannot stand Wayne having watched most of the films I have seen for his costars but I included him in my list. I would not have included Marlon Brando either if it was just personal preferences either.

      I am not sure I would be any good at a list of modern actors and actresses.

      1. Hi Flora, when I said modern actors I really meant people like Paul Newman, Steve McQueen, Charles Bronson, Faye Dunaway etc and of course Jack Nicholson, Redford, De Niro, Pacino, Meryl Streep and Sigourney Weaver. Not necessarily Tom Cruise and Will Smith. 😉

         Yeah in retrospect maybe Bruce should have just included only the UMR members on the Top 25 charts and let Joel sit this one out. Adding Joel has got Bob Roy thinking there is a conspiracy afoot. “the UMR’s attempt to spread the gospel according to Joel” [wink wink] 🙂

         1. Hi, Steve. Thanks for explaining your idea of what modern actors would be. Maybe I would be able to do that. 🙂 I’ll likely wait until some others have published their list.

            1. Hey Flora….here is a Top 100….with modern and classic stars….https://www.ultimatemovierankings.com/top-100-movie-stars/
               It is over two years old….and needs some tweaking but overall…I feel pretty good about these 100 stars.

         2. Joel made a list in 1983…when it comes to stars in the Golden Era…..it seemed to go nicely with the lists…..plus it got rid of a problem of making the table looking out of balance. I strongly disagree that Wayne and Brando are rated so lowly in his system….but it is his opinion….and I can not say his opinion is wrong…but I can say I do not agree with that opinion. Despite…..Joel rating Brando so low….he included Brando twice on the cover of his book…..so when it came time to pick people that might help him sell the book….he picked Brando twice….not to mention Wayne as well. Dan Aykroyd is the only other person that is seen on the cover twice.

            1. Thanks Bruce for putting up the link of the Top 100 Stars. It will greatly help me come up with more names that fit the modern era than comes to mind. And thanks for explaining more about Joel’s list. I will likely have an easier time making up an Actress list than an Actor list.

            2. I misworded that statement. It should read: I will likely have an easier time making up the ACTOR’s list than the ACTRESS list. Oh, well.

         3. Hi Steve, Hhmm…what you consider modern is in some cases not so modern then? I tend to think that actors like Newman and McQueen belong both in the classic and modern era, but we were using the AFI’s arbitrary 1950 film debut cut-off, so could not include them in the lists above. If we were to consider including them in a modern list, I would need to also consider actors like Poitier and Heston, who like Newman and McQueen, had their heydays mainly in the 1960s and early 1970s. This could get a little confusing. In the end, there is no clear line between classic and modern. Also, I’m not sure of the rationale of why Sigourney Weaver would be eligible, but not Tom Cruise. What if we were to consider “modern”, those stars who had their strongest popularity and output between 1960 and 2000 for instance? We leave out the really modern ones. This could mean that some of the ones we considered in the classic lists are considered again in these new lists.

            1. Phil. I really meant actors that weren’t included in the dfi chart but we’re still acting in the 1970s and o ward’s. So actors like Newman and mcaween as well as Tom crusw

         4. Hi Bruce,
            I’ve seen that list (your Top 100 Classic and Modern), and it’s interesting. But what I’m trying to figure out is where on the site are the lists of top UMR classic actors and actresses that you included in the chart above? There are so many pages and lists now, I get a bit confused 😉

         5. Hey PhilHOF17….never really put my personal favorite lists out there. The link to the Top 100 Stars…is the one I did a few years ago….I did just do a list that names my Top 50 actors and Top 10 actresses……this list was strictly based on personal preference versus the best actors. That list can be found here….among all the recent comments. Might be easier to use the Forum page to find it.

      2. HI GANG

         In para 5 of my immediately preceding post to you I meant 3 actors and 4 actresses , 7 in total as I initially correctly said. Apologies for any confusion

4. 1 Many people disagree with the AFI lists to one extent or another but a common thread running through the complaints, not just on this site but among the wider cinema going population, is the relatively low (13th) placing given to John Wayne.

   2 Certainly there would probably be a lot of agreement that any list that does like the AFI one extend to TWENTY FIVE of the greatest careers that began before 1950 but which actually excluded John Wayne altogether lacked credibility

   3 In that respect it should be noted that it is only in the Joel column of the latest list on actors that Wayne is excluded and you have to ask yourself why Mr Hirschhorn has become a part of the actors’ rankings equation when his conclusions in the matter were not part of the actress table, but whatever the reasons the basis of comparison between the two tables is eschewed.

   4 Despite efforts by this site to make him seem so Hirschhorn to the best of my own knowledge is, unlike AFI, not a widely recognised expert on the cinema and most people have probably never heard of him.

   5 It is unfortunate therefore that from my own perspective at least his inclusion eschews the value of both the actress and actress composite lists for making even friendly comparisons among the rankings reflected in those lists.

5. 48 Actors got named…..when looking at my list….please realize I concentrated my picks on actors that were established stars prior to 1950….so AFI legends like Marlon Brando, James Dean, Sidney Poitier did not make my list.

Comments are closed.