|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
67.100.241.146
In Reply to: Still, one must be troubled by a reviewer praising a movie in which posted by tinear on June 20, 2006 at 04:22:40:
...what he's clearly suggesting is that although Routh has yet to prove his broader acting bona fides, he thinks he's born for this role. That is NOT the kind of contradiction you make it out to be. And it's NOT really the kind of role that requires subtle, methodical acting. He's playing a cartoon character.
Follow Ups:
prefer to let the author speak for himself. He said what he said (thin enough for you?).
You're quite wrong about a successful turn in these comic-book roles, too. Christoper R left some big shoes to fill--- and he was an accomplished actor.
There is a reason the Batman series has cast good actors in its principal role and why X-Men have Jackman, also a fine actor.
You seem to confuse tv programs with film. To hold a paying audiences' attention during 2 hours, an actor must be more than a hunk. Hackman, Nicholson, and now Spacey... damn fine actors are cast opposite these leads, too, so... maybe the directors know something you don't?
I agree that Christopher Reeve proved to be a good actor, but his performances in the Superman series were not nuanced and deep. They were only slight glosses on what one could very legitimately describe as cartoonish. Reeve himself described these performances in this sort of way.I've liked some of the superhero movies quite well, even thoughI haven't seen all of them. But I can't recall a one in which the character's backstory was more complex than "my parents were murdered and now I'm screwed up and I've got a dark side."
...it could also be construed to mean that the critic felt that there was no 'actor' behind the role - therefore, an actor's dream.
Actor with no personal history?
See Spacey's reasons for not divulging his personal life.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: