In Reply to: Why is Jeremy Irons so under-appreciated? Name an posted by tinear on March 11, 2005 at 05:02:56:
tinear,I have to say I alternately love and loath Irons. He and Hugh Grant all remind me a bit of Jimmy Stewart- excellent and entertaining when acting in something that already suits them, but thrust into a broader arena, the lack of real acting range starts to appear.
When Irons (or Grant, or Stewart) is the Everyman, a slightly wide-eyed, ineffective observer- like "Brideshead Revisited" or his cypher/chameleon-like Von Bulow, he does well, but sometimes he ends up with ridiculous parts like his villain in "Die Hard with a Vengance".
Irons may take on projects with this poor casting because becoming the movie's "name brand" actor usually comes with a too- large- to- pass- up cheque. [Look also at Maggie Smith and K. Branaugh doing the "Harry Potter" disasters, Judi Dench in "Bond" stuff.]
If Irons had a bigger acting range and was more selective in the parts he accepts, he would have a more even critical position.
Cheers,
Bambi B
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Lack of Range? - Bambi B 18:13:48 03/11/05 (5)
- Re: Can we say... - Jeff Starrs 09:46:39 03/12/05 (3)
- Versatility - Bambi B 11:07:38 03/12/05 (2)
- Re: Yeah, exact! - Jeff Starrs 11:24:09 03/12/05 (1)
- Re: Yeah, exact! - rico 12:15:52 03/12/05 (0)
- Re: Lack of Range? - patrickU 01:15:32 03/12/05 (0)