Reply to Thread New Thread |
12-30-2005, 08:00 AM | #2 |
|
|
|
01-05-2006, 08:00 AM | #3 |
|
|
|
07-22-2006, 08:00 AM | #4 |
|
|
|
06-02-2009, 03:26 PM | #5 |
|
According to Behindwoods, the top 10 versatile actors are as follows:
10. Prasanna / Prithviraj 9. Arya / Jeeva 8. Pasupathy 7. Madhavan 6. Nasar 5. Sathyaraj 4. Prakash Raj 3. Vikram 2. Surya 1. Kamalahasan http://www.behindwoods.com/tamil-mov...ors/kamal.html What do you think? Do you agree? Or do you think someone who is truly versatile is not in the list? |
|
06-02-2009, 03:47 PM | #6 |
|
|
|
06-02-2009, 03:53 PM | #7 |
|
|
|
06-02-2009, 03:54 PM | #8 |
|
|
|
06-02-2009, 03:57 PM | #10 |
|
Prithviraj is like sugary sweet - thigatti pOchu |
|
06-02-2009, 04:08 PM | #12 |
|
The kind of films that is being churned out mostly does not need versatile talents. The kind of films that need versatile talents are not using one that should be. There is a serious mismatch going on. Just because the film that requires a versatile talent, uses a severely undertalented actor, the said artiste somewhat acquires the "versatile" tag. I agree on some, disagree on some.
Why isn't Dhanush in it? |
|
06-02-2009, 04:40 PM | #13 |
|
Danush should try to do other roles than poor boy is jobless, father dislikes him, falls in love with rich girl, girl doesn't like him, girl likes him, family likes him, clash with villain and finally wins villain in a well choreographed stunt sequence in the climax.
Puthupettai is the only odd one I guess, other than his introductory films TI and Kadhal Konden. |
|
06-02-2009, 04:46 PM | #14 |
|
bharat is certainly versatile.. people turned on him because he acted under perarasu
he has shown lot of promise since his debut.. has given tremendous performances in chellame and pattiyal. he's not bad in comedy (feb 14).. and dance best dancer of this generation. he has also worKed with ShanKar for 3 movies... no mean feat.considering he's a dream for all main level heroes. |
|
06-02-2009, 05:19 PM | #15 |
|
|
|
06-02-2009, 06:05 PM | #17 |
|
|
|
06-02-2009, 08:20 PM | #19 |
|
The kind of films that is being churned out mostly does not need versatile talents. The kind of films that need versatile talents are not using one that should be. There is a serious mismatch going on. Just because the film that requires a versatile talent, uses a severely undertalented actor, the said artiste somewhat acquires the "versatile" tag. I agree on some, disagree on some. |
|
06-02-2009, 08:40 PM | #20 |
|
|
|
Reply to Thread New Thread |
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 2 (0 members and 2 guests) | |
|