Who is the most suitable actor for a historical movie

About these historical movies.......
Disscusing about all this movies wich Holywood makes them as result of a lack of ideas I've realized that it became a big challenge for an actor to take the role of a great man, true heroes of our history.
If they are considered such great actors, why is so hard for them to
perform such roles, they should better leave them for someone else.
I know that Gladiator was a very inspiring for all the movies who were to come due to his succes, but that's too much, not because there are to many movies but because there are too many BAD movies.

Who do you thing would be the most fitted actor for this kind of role,
for example: say who was better in the role of Alexander ( cause Collin Farrel played very bad )

I can tell you who is not....MEL GIBSON

Compared with these, the " young talents" he was preety good
Perhaps the best so far ! ! !

Tom Hanks, no question, although I can't see him playing a Gladiator type of role.

eric bana made a very good role... atleast thats my epinion

Its impossible to say that. It depends on what role and what movie and what time.

Originally posted by cal31
Tom Hanks, no question, although I can't see him playing a Gladiator type of role.

What can you see him playing, other than some crusty war general?

Originally posted by bakerboy
Its impossible to say that. It depends on what role and what movie and what time.

Actually, it's quite easy. You're questioning the question with what you said. We're looking for examples, just think about it.

i.e. Christopher Lee's done PLENTY of period pieces. You could throw Ian Holm in the role of Julius Caesar, Johnny Depp could pull off Sherlock Holmes, etc.

Can you imagine Ben Affleck in the role of Alexander ? 😆

..only if Matt Damon took Jared Leto's role.

Lets see, cinema adicction.I said that it depends on what movie and what actor and what character etc. And we cant post this or that actor could pull that or this character or will suck as this or that character because it depends of the movie, the story, the director, etc. Maybe a good actor playing a good character could suck because the movie is garbage and the opposite.

You're not making any sense. The only question here is what actor would be suitable for a period piece role. That's it. The quality, director, none of that, is in question.

Anthony Hopkins

It is really not who the suitable actor is for such a movie but which actor can acted and look like someone from history.JM

Originally posted by Jackie Malfoy
It is really not who the suitable actor is for such a movie but which actor can acted and look like someone from history.JM

Well, actually ,that's acting. 🙂
But who do you think is up for it ???

I agree, say Chris Rock would not be able to play Napoleon, oh and btw I dont think its of lack of idea that hollywood makes a historical movie, almust all historical epics are good

Liam Neeson.

Originally posted by Lord_Andres
I agree, say Chris Rock would not be able to play Napoleon, oh and btw I dont think its of lack of idea that hollywood makes a historical movie, almust all historical epics are good

I've said it's a lack of ideas because they are starting to make movies already made many years ago but with different titles.
For example let's take the subject King Arthur , many movies about it, so many theories about him, and so many titles
The Mists of Avalon(2001),King Arthur(2001), A Knight in Camelot(2001), Return To Camelot(2001) , the Young Warlord (1975), Arthur the King (1985), "King Arthur and the Knights of Justice" (1992)
"The Tales of the Knights of the Round Table: King Arthur" (1979)
Do you wan't more.....The last King Arthur was the best because it was simple and closer to the truth.
Ain't this a lack of ideas ? Yas, they aren't all bad, but when you make so many movies with historical story some have to end bad.

Originally posted by dark1365
Liam Neeson.

Liam Neeson is better in second roles, his is the type of the quite and smart guy, like in the role of Jean Valjean. Remember Rob Roy, his a very good actor ( one of my favorites) but he doesn't fit to a role of a great leader, he's more of the wiser guy.

Viggo Mortenses, or however the hell u spell his name ✅

Viggo indeed, but he can't speech

I thought Mel wasn't that bad

Jeremy Irons would play a fine general.
So would christopher Lee.
I agree that Liam Neeson is better as the wise thoughtful second lead guy.
Personally I liked Russell Crow in Gladiator.

I do fear however that there are no good actors left to play historical leaders. Mainly because they all lack the voice to deliver a good speech.

Which all of the above can do IMO