Patrick Sun
Senior HTF Member
- Joined
- Jun 30, 1999
- Messages
- 39,660
It thought Keanu was decent in "The Replacements", but that was more of an ensemble piece. Also "Hardball" was entertaining without a distracting performance by Keanu.
I'm surprised to see praise for his acting in Bram Stoker's Dracula. For me, it was the most painful cinematic experience of that year; shockingly bad acting in every way.I was waiting for someone to say that. Just listen to Keanu's narration on the train, where he does his Shatner impression: "The ... impression that I got..." Also, check out the scene where he is shaving - "Music?! Those ANIMALS?!" Watching Gary Oldman opposite Keanu just makes it even more unbearable. Eesh.
He's easily the most replaceable actor in the Matrix seriesI don't understand that, are you saying the mega success of The Matrix had very little to do with it's leading man? Would it have been just as successful with Jason Patric or Christian Bale as Neo? I don't think so. I thought Keanu was just right for this film, in fact the whole film was perfectly cast.
I do agree that Keanu was hopelessly miscast in Dracula though, I'm almost certain he said "whoa!" when those vampire babes appeared... mmmmm vampire babes...
He's easily the most replaceable actor in the Matrix series.i disagree.
but whatever. these threads remind me of little kids:
A: yes he is
B: no he's not
A: yes he is
B: no he's not
A: yes he is
B: no he's not
A: yes he is
B: no he's not
A: yes he is
B: no he's not
....:rolleyes
i disagree.At least we are giving reasons why.
Your first statement fits nicely with the rest of your post!
At least we are giving reasons why.sure. ok, let me revise the way these threads go:
A: yes he is, because X.
B: no he's not, because Y.
A: yes he is, because X.
B: no he's not, because Y.
A: yes he is, because X.
B: no he's not, because Y.
A: yes he is, because X.
B: no he's not, because Y.
A: yes he is, because X.
B: no he's not, because Y.
.....
as far as i can tell, all of these topics come down to personal preference, which has got absolutely nothing to do with reason(s). which is why no-one is actually convinced to abandon their position except about once every 4 billion posts.
for instance, i don't think an actor's range or ability or whatever necessarily has anything to do with their "replaceability" in that role; what matters is how easily it is to imagine someone else playing that part.
but that's subjective - for me, i simply can't imagine anyone else being neo. no one. an this in spite of the fact that i'll be the first to agree with you that reeves is not a very good actor.
for you, however, there are any number of good-looking, skillful actors in hollywood you can imagine playing the role of neo as well, if not better, than keanu.
which is cool - vive la difference. but neither of us is wrong. and if not, then going back and forth with "reasons" is fundamentally useless. two people might as well argue about the taste of peanut butter.
on the other hand, if you want to insist on some sort of objective test for the interchangeability of actors and roles, one that is furthermore based on the skill of the actor, then the implication would be that any actor can play a role just as well as any other actor of at least comparable acting ability.
but even if that were true, what difference would it make to my opinion about keanu reeves and neo?
i mean, if someone came up with an objective test for the repulsiveness of beer or ice cream or hamburgers or whatever, would that make you like the taste of them any less?
in other words, people care about movies and actors and what-have-you because they like them, and all the "standards" in the world aren't going to change that.
unless, of course, what you like is standards....
I don't understand that, are you saying the mega success of The Matrix had very little to do with it's leading man? Would it have been just as successful with Jason Patric or Christian Bale as Neo? I don't think so.Artistically or financially?
Maybe Keanu being a name got some people in the door; certainly, The Matrix did better at the box office than Dark City, despite certain similarities of story and character. How much of that can we attribute to Keanue Reeves having more name recognition than Rufus Sewell? Hard to say.
But, could someone else have played the role better? Absolutely. Stick Luke Wilson, Jude Law, or Alessandro Nivola (to give three examples off the top of my head) in there, and they could probably do everything that Reeves can do and display something resembling chemistry with their leading lady (which, admittedly, was more of a problem in the sequel than the first).
No way. Keanu Reeves IS Neo. His whole career was leading up to these movies.Would it have still been leading up to these movies if the Wachowskis had cast someone else?
Indeed, wasn't Keanu originally sort of imposed on them? I seem to recall reading about Warner being concerned that The Matrix was a very expensive R-rated movie without much name recognition.