Yeah, I'm Talkin' To You. Both Of You.

I like Bill Simmons. I really do. Or at least I try to. The reason I sometimes dislike him is that I'm jealous that he has his job and I have mine.

Anyways, he recently wrote a piece about which team he likes more, the 2007 Patriots or the 1986 Celtics. It was really good. And I felt I could be pretty objective about both of these squads since I dislike the two teams immensely (quick? Who won more titles in the 80s, Lakers or Celtics? I'll give you a hint..... It's not very close). In my mind, the '86 Cees have to be more liked, if for no other reason than the fact they are CONSTANTLY referenced. Maybe that will happen with the '07 Pay-Triots, but for now, the '86 Smeltics have to get the love (Me? I'll take the '92 Sox. Naehring, pre armed robbery Jeff Reardon, circle change and ill mustached Frankie V, sliding catch Brunansky, Zupcic, Ellis Burks, Bankrupt Jack Clark, Phil Plantier, Jody Reed, always spitting Luis Rivera, ambidextrous Greg Harris, future manager of the year Eric Wedge, Yankee bench coach Tony Pena, race car Mike Greenwell, lefty dominator Tony Fossas and a pre-twilight-of-his-career Clem).

And along with that article came a link to a similar piece debating the greatness of two actors, Al Pacino and Robert De Niro.

Now, my little sister and I have discussed before that you can tell a lot about a person based on who they say their favorite actor is. If they say Daniel Day Lewis or Sean Penn (we'll get to them in a minute), then they are pseudo movie intellectuals who read too much A.O. Scott. If they say Tom Hanks, then they have never seen an independent film. If they say Sean Connery, then they last saw a movie in 1987. If they say Mel Gibson, they are idiots. If they say Harrison Ford, they are 45 year old women who remember his scruff and chiseled look from his Indiana Jones days. If they say Cate Blanchett, then they think they are smarter than you. If they say Judi Dench, then they ARE smarter than you. If they say Maryl Streep, they are your mother. If they say Arnold Schwarzenegger, they are my brother. If they say Brad Pitt, they are me. If they say Chad Michael Murray, they are in high school. If they say Ryan Gosling, they just read this weeks Entertainment Weekly. And if they say Robert DeNiro and Al Pacino, well..... They haven't seen any movies. Or they are painfully unoriginal. Or Italian.

Quick what do these movies have in common?

Analyze That, Marvin's Room, The Fan, Frankenstein, Great Expectations, 15 Minutes, Rocky and Bullwinkle, Men of Honor, We're No Angels, Showtime, Hide and Seek, The Devils Advocate, Two Bits, Author! Author!, Any Given Sunday, Insomnia, Cruising, Chinese Coffee, Two For The Money, The Recruit, Simone, and Gigli (yes, you read that right. Gigli. Arguably the most laughed at movie of the past 20 years. You know the one. It ruined Bennifer.)?

Well, I'm sure you guessed, but those are all films starring De Niro and Pacino. Now, I understand that they have The Godfather, Raging Bull, The Deer Hunter, Donnie Brasco, The Insider, Taxi Driver, Goodfellas, and the hugely underrated Midnight Run (note: I did not give them Heat, Scarface, or Serpico. Three hugely, HUGELY overrated films). But look at their percentages of hits compared to misses. It isn't good. On the right, I have the films they starred in. Count them up and see what their batting average is. Cooperstown material? You decide.

But to me, these guys have been riding the wave of some critically acclaimed films for far too long and truthfully, it's confusing. If you look at it, they have had awfully spotty careers and a few dominant films, but I've always been perplexed as to why they receive so much acclaim. They have also had the extreme good fortune of being in huge budget films with big name directors and tremendous supporting casts. Recently, when a film is their own, they can rarely carry it. Like I said, they had their defining moments, but over the course of an acting lifetime, their defining moments have been surprisingly few and far between.

I get frustrated when people "lament" the good old days. Of anything. I have long said that music, particularly rock, is as good as it's ever been and maybe at it's peak. The NBA, often bashed for not being what it was in the 80s, has made a tremendous bounce back. Look at some of the scores in recent days: 120-109, 111-105, 125-117, 126-96, 111-107, and 132-124. Certainly sounds like the run and gun 80s to me.

But nothing gets me more irritated than people pining for the films of yesteryear. And even more irritating is when people cite the greatness of De Niro and Pacino films that are 25-35 years old.

Because here's the thing: The days of getting belted with an eternal classic like The Godfather or getting bopped over the head with a monstrous performance like Jake La Motta are over. There is too much knowledge of films before they are even made. No longer (or at least, very rarely), can a movie sneak up on you. We know about "big" movies and "big" performances months or even years before they happen. The internet has taken away all surprise in films. I still remember seeing Se7en the night it opened back in the Fall of '95. I knew nothing about the movie and I was DESTROYED by the ending of it. Absolutely floored. But that cannot happen anymore because of the internet, leaks, advance screenings, and the glut of periodicals reporting on the film industry. And that was only '95. Imagine how hard it was to get ANY info on Raging Bull back in the day? You probably went to your local cineplex, had six movies to choose from (some of which could have been a year old), and so you walked into this boxing movie and were blown away by what you just saw. And that you can't do any more. You will be surprised by nothing. Sometimes, a film comes along that for some starnge reason, is not hyped or talked about or ruined. The Sixth Sense did this. I saw it pretty late into its run and still had no idea what I was about to see. Cloverfield has done a nice job of keeping stuff in the vault, but for the most part, it's impossible.

So when you discuss the actors of today, I think it is important to understand that they can't be judged like they once were. It's like comparing sports teams of past years to more recent years. Of course the this year's Pats crush the '72 Fins. Their fullback is as big as the offensive line of the Dolphins. The world of acting has evolved and their are so many opportunities to be an actor that no one will sneak up on us. You can see Ben Foster pull off a great performance in 3:10 To Yuma, but if you spent any time watching Boston Public (and I hope you didn't), Six Feet Under, or Freaks and Geeks, then you've known about him for some time.

Further, every actor is larger than life. We know them now as people, so it is hard to see them as "actors." Then there are just so many "critics" that an actor, regardless of how good he is, will still be shredded somewhere, by someone.

So who today are our greatest actors? Well, I have a list and let me tell you whose NOT on that list: Daniel Day Lewis and Sean Penn.

People love these two and I found it hilarious recently when the Globe ran a piece comparing the two and tried to decide who was the "Heavyweight Champ" of acting. I think neither are. For one, Daniel Day Lewis does not have enough of a resume to decide. He's been in literally 11 films. Yes, My Left Foot is awesome as is There Will Be Blood. He carried both. People loved him in Gangs of New York. I found him way too over the top. In The Name of the Father and The Boxer were both solid but not superb all around films. Then he was in The Crucible, The Ballad of Jack and Rose, The Age of Innocence, and Last of the Mohicans. All mediocre to not good films. So I just don't understand how a guy who gets this much love has really been in maybe TWO great movies, a Scorcese pic that won exactly ZERO Academy Awards, and two films that he carried, yet you may not keep on if you switched to it on a snowy Saturday in January.

Then there's Sean Penn. I want to like this guy because of his crazy politics and I certainly loved him in a few films (Dead Man Walking, Casualties of War) and he did a great job of transforming himself in Carlito's Way. But this guy has done some run of the mill Hollywood thrillers (The Interpreter, The Game), a Madonna movie, some big budget disappointments (The Thin Red Line, All The Kings Men, Hurlyburly), a horrific Oliver Stone film (U-Turn. What the hell as that?)and then he cashed it in with a few EASY performances as a disabled man and grieving, vindictive father. Those roles BOTH had Academy Award written on them before they were even released. And let's also not forget that I STILL see him as Spicoli, even when he's saving Katrina victims.

So on that note, who does my loud, obnoxious, pseudo intellectual opinion claim are the best actors? Well, that will have to wait for Part II (up this weekend I swear). Let's just say you can probably guess one guy I'll be defending pretty fiercely.....