There's no accounting for taste when it comes to any form of art. Every actor or actress you mentioned in the article is probably somebody's favorite actor or actress. But the broader question is what makes a good performance for an actor or actress.

Consider John Wayne. He was a huge star. A legend in Hollywood. An American icon. But could he really act?

Could John Wayne transform himself into another persona, as Marlon Brando did in The Godfather or Daniel Day-Lewis did in Lincoln, or did John Wayne basically just play John Wayne over and over? In other words, did John Wayne have any range, any ability to transcend his own character?

I love some John Wayne movies, in particular his last one called The Shootist. But it seems to me that he was still playing John Wayne. That's okay. Things worked out very well for him. He was a fine actor but a limited one.

Wayne is a good example of how important it is for an actor to be in a role that suits them. Dustin Hoffman was offered the role of John Rambo in First Blood. Hoffman was brilliant in movies such as Papillon and Rain Man, but Rambo seems to be a stretch for him. Sylvester Stallone is not the actor Hoffman is but he was much better suited to be Rambo.

Everyone has a niche. It's hard to imagine Mick Jagger singing Summer Wind or Frank Sinatra singing I Can't Get No Satisfaction. Most actors and actresses have to stay with roles for which they are best suited.