This was a topic elsewhere:
Both guys are legends.
Considering their entire body of work, who is the greatest?
His entire body of work gives it to Steve Martin, IMHO.
I think the length and the list quality of his career is more and his range of talent (stand up, comedy albums, acting, writing, banjo music) is demonstratively greater, although the misses in his movie offerings have been pretty numerous.
His best movies ("The Jerk," "Planes, Trains and Automobiles," "Grand Canyon," "Three Amigos," "Roxanne" and "It's Complicated") are, for me, nuanced, layered and multi-dimensional.
Even his flick (box office and/or critical) failures (and there have been many) are way out there, showing innovative cinematic creativity, which (this time) ended up as still interesting, but over reaching or unfulfilled missteps rather than completely realized films.
He's a "wild and crazy guy" who's always been out on the edge with his many offerings.
Bill Murray is very talented guy and he's certainly not a one trick pony.
But, IMO, his movie portrayals have had an unmistakable sameness in the characters he plays.
That's part of why his many, many fans like them all so much.
He doesn't ever play against type.
He personifies his type.
Heck, given a chance, he could have played that big Leibowski dude without much effort, makeup, costume or probably even a script.
With a good story and/or other fine actors you can get "Lost in Translation," "Groundhog Day," "Tootsie," "Hyde Park on Hudson," "Where the Buffalo Roam," "Broken Flowers," "St. Vincent" or "Aloha."
I liked all of those.
I was pulling for Bill to win the Oscar for "Lost in Translation."
He may never have a better role with which to win an thespian award.
When benefiting from Murray's creative collaborations with writer/director Wes Anderson, you'll get "Moonrise Kingdom," "The Darjeeing Limited," "The Royal Tenenbaums," "Rushmore," "The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou" or "The Grand Budapest Hotel".
I noticed movie making excellence in all five of those flicks (although none of them were my personal cup of tea), but Bill didn't really have a leading role in any of them.
While enjoying "Ghostbusters I & II," "Caddyshack," " Stripes" and "Meatballs" multiple times, I've laughed at and even occasionally later quoted from the delicious satire and comedic musings of Bill Murray.
His" Saturday Night Live" improvisational style was just right (and how) for those classic extended skit type of films.
So, given the question, I'll pick Steve Martin.
I hope they both keep doing what they do.
And I think Bill Murray's best work could still be to come.
JMO.
Maybe he'll pick up some of those Robert Duvall as a curmugeon type roles, if if that Gus McRae portrayer ever retires.
If Murray'd clean up, get a little style, comb his hair and wear a suit, I could even see him playing George Clooney's roles in "Up in the Air" or "The Descendants."
Such castings would be a real stretch against Murray's type, but I could see it if Bill put out the effort.
But, he probably wouldn't give acting that much exertion.
Murray can do what he does now just by being himself.
I know, weird topic.
Any thoughts?
Both guys are legends.
Considering their entire body of work, who is the greatest?
His entire body of work gives it to Steve Martin, IMHO.
I think the length and the list quality of his career is more and his range of talent (stand up, comedy albums, acting, writing, banjo music) is demonstratively greater, although the misses in his movie offerings have been pretty numerous.
His best movies ("The Jerk," "Planes, Trains and Automobiles," "Grand Canyon," "Three Amigos," "Roxanne" and "It's Complicated") are, for me, nuanced, layered and multi-dimensional.
Even his flick (box office and/or critical) failures (and there have been many) are way out there, showing innovative cinematic creativity, which (this time) ended up as still interesting, but over reaching or unfulfilled missteps rather than completely realized films.
He's a "wild and crazy guy" who's always been out on the edge with his many offerings.
Bill Murray is very talented guy and he's certainly not a one trick pony.
But, IMO, his movie portrayals have had an unmistakable sameness in the characters he plays.
That's part of why his many, many fans like them all so much.
He doesn't ever play against type.
He personifies his type.
Heck, given a chance, he could have played that big Leibowski dude without much effort, makeup, costume or probably even a script.
With a good story and/or other fine actors you can get "Lost in Translation," "Groundhog Day," "Tootsie," "Hyde Park on Hudson," "Where the Buffalo Roam," "Broken Flowers," "St. Vincent" or "Aloha."
I liked all of those.
I was pulling for Bill to win the Oscar for "Lost in Translation."
He may never have a better role with which to win an thespian award.
When benefiting from Murray's creative collaborations with writer/director Wes Anderson, you'll get "Moonrise Kingdom," "The Darjeeing Limited," "The Royal Tenenbaums," "Rushmore," "The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou" or "The Grand Budapest Hotel".
I noticed movie making excellence in all five of those flicks (although none of them were my personal cup of tea), but Bill didn't really have a leading role in any of them.
While enjoying "Ghostbusters I & II," "Caddyshack," " Stripes" and "Meatballs" multiple times, I've laughed at and even occasionally later quoted from the delicious satire and comedic musings of Bill Murray.
His" Saturday Night Live" improvisational style was just right (and how) for those classic extended skit type of films.
So, given the question, I'll pick Steve Martin.
I hope they both keep doing what they do.
And I think Bill Murray's best work could still be to come.
JMO.
Maybe he'll pick up some of those Robert Duvall as a curmugeon type roles, if if that Gus McRae portrayer ever retires.
If Murray'd clean up, get a little style, comb his hair and wear a suit, I could even see him playing George Clooney's roles in "Up in the Air" or "The Descendants."
Such castings would be a real stretch against Murray's type, but I could see it if Bill put out the effort.
But, he probably wouldn't give acting that much exertion.
Murray can do what he does now just by being himself.
I know, weird topic.
Any thoughts?
Last edited:
