6. William Hurt
This one is a case of I simply don't understand it. I know people who venomously despise William Hurt. I've heard a number of negative reactions to films such as under-rated Ed Norton gem, The Incredible Hulk, justified purely "because William Hurt." I should probably confess that my knowledge of the man boils down, more or less, entirely to The Incredible Hulk, Into the Wild and Altered States - it's far from his entire filmography, but shouldn't three performances be enough to tell if someone can act or not? I have actually seen him in a great deal of other films, but I didn't even realise that it was him in those roles until I checked his IMDb profile whilst researching this article. That might suggest that he's forgettable - which, to be fair, isn't exactly a good thing as an actor - but it also suggests that he's not actively bad enough to stick out to me. A poor actor in a quality film sticks out like a sore thumb and I really like some of the films in question. In the three films that I do remember him in, he gave perfectly fine performances. None of them blew me away, but they were all nothing short of completely acceptable. General Ross was all that I need from a villainous army-general-cum-protective-father-of-the-female-love-interest, Walt McCandless was all that I need from a stuffy old father who disapproves of his hippy son and he was pretty good in his breakthrough movie, Altered States, where he plays a mad scientist who accidentally causes his DNA to regress backwards through time, causing him to keep transforming into a neanderthal. He fully throws himself into what is quite a physical role and he does a good job of it. I just don't understand why people don't like him. Plus, his name is hilarious in a completely childish "my willy am hurt" kind of way. Right?