What's happened to the Tom Hanks I once loved? Lately he seems too complacent as an actor to be interesting, too willing to ride on his considerable charm and nice-guy persona rather than challenging himself, coasting along in roles that either aren't right for him or to which he just doesn't feel authentically committed. His return to the role of Robert Langdon in Angels and Demons exemplifies this problem with who Hanks has become as an actor.

I spent a great deal of my childhood enjoying Hanks' earlier work in films like Splash, Dragnet, Big, Bachelor Party, and especially the underrated Joe Versus the Volcano, then followed the actor's career as he transitioned to bigger, more "serious" roles in films like A League of Their Own, Sleepless in Seattle, Philadelphia, Forrest Gump and Apollo 13. The great thing about Hanks is that he was so unlike any other movie star, making it difficult to compare him to anybody; I suppose Henry Fonda might be a decent enough comparison, but Hanks was infinitely more at ease with light comedy than Fonda. But that’s why we all liked and rooted for Hanks; he was an original, someone with boyishly goofy good looks who was adept at being the center of films, his palpable energy never allowing one to be stolen from him.

And then we have The Da Vinci Code and now, Angels and Demons, in which Hanks plays one of the most boring characters in the history of books and film. Langdon's a passive character, not an active one; he's always reluctantly dragged into these outrageous scenarios, and the role seems to require that Hanks spend much of his time perfecting bemused looks and intense stares while jogging around Europe trying to decipher symbols to save the day. Hanks' willingness to take on a role as banal as that of Robert Landgon at this point in his career -- not once, but twice! -- speaks to me of a profound lack of willingness in Hanks to continue to grow as an actor, or even to keep his game up to the level that got him the clout he has to begin with. That’s the most upsetting thing about seeing his dead eyes on screen in Angels and Demons: the lack of passion and vigor. He seems bored with the role and the film, and so was I.

The major turning point in Hanks' career might have been Sam Mendes’ Road to Perdition. In the much better film The Godfather, Al Pacino embodies the malevolence inherent in Michael Corleone, lending a weight and believability to the character that is completely lacking in Hanks' portrayal of Michael Sullivan in Road to Perdition. It's impossible to say whether Hanks himself was unwilling to fully embrace the darkness of Sullivan's hit-man personality, or if he was just terribly miscast, being too innately likable to convey the darkness of soul necessary for such a role. In either case, he's just never believable as a hit man who has no remorse for what he does for a living.

Road to Perdition came on the heels of Cast Away, which in my opinion is the finest performance he's given. In Cast Away, Hanks is the epitome of the pampered American who has to find who he really is without the material comforts he's used to relying on. In a way, Hanks' performance in this film is a perfect analogy for what I wish he would get back to as an actor: strip away all the bullshit and start from scratch, find out who he is as an actor without the aura of "Tom Hanks, movie star" clouding his judgment every time he looks at a script. I want him to reach for what will make him satisfied and content as an artist; then he will be able to satisfy us an audience.

In movies like The Terminal or the great Catch Me if You Can, he’s good and likable and charming, but he can do all of those things in his sleep. Even though he might have failed in Road to Perdition, it was, at least, an interesting failure and showed that he was interested in growing as an actor and subverting his image as a wholesome superstar. I really enjoyed his rakish performance in Charlie Wilson’s War and enjoyed that movie as a whole, but it was the first time where I saw an actor really truly steal a movie from him; when Philip Seymour Hoffman is on screen, we hardly notice that Hanks is there and that had never been the case before for me.

Most actors and filmmakers work hard their whole careers in order to attain a certain amount of clout. Hanks arguably has more power than any other actor in Hollywood and it is disappointing to see him use his weight to help get a Dan Brown adaptation off the ground rather than challenging himself with more difficult material. I obviously can’t know what Hanks’ reasoning is for starring in these films, but I have a feeling that it isn’t to make his artistic mark. It would be one thing if it was taking these roles to help finance smaller, more intelligent films, but the films that he’s producing have been things like Mamma Mia! and City of Ember.

I do love what he has been doing on television, though, because John Adams, From the Earth to the Moon and Band of Brothers have all been some of the most worthwhile TV ever produced. But in terms of what Hanks is producing for the big screen, I really wish that he would take a darker turn in a smaller film. I wish he would get together with someone like David Fincher or Mark Romanek or Rebecca Miller and remind us all of his versatility and show us that he still has a desire to really act and inspire us.

I’d also love for Hanks to get back behind the camera again; That Thing You Do! might not have been a classic film, but I found it to be an enjoyable one that showed Hanks could be as assured and confident behind the camera as he is in front of it and it was clear that this was a story Hanks was passionate about. Honestly, I don’t care how he does it, but I want Hanks to make the most of his enormous talent. I want him to find roles that he's passionate about, to which he's willing to commit his energy to bringing us something more than the mundane. I want Hanks to find that inner spark again and show it to us, to leave the mediocre Robert Langdon-type roles to actors of lesser talent, and do something surprising, even dazzling again.