Frank Longo Member since Nov 18th 2003 86689 posts
Tue Jul-21-15 05:28 PM
6. "This is an impossible task, because if they gave good performances..." In response to In response to 0 Tue Jul-21-15 05:29 PM by Frank Longo
... then they are almost certainly good actors.
Maybe their subsequent performances have been disappointments or shitty roles in shitty movies... but untalented actors don't get critical raves. Cinema is by miles the most emotionally honest of mediums-- you can see through the bullshit from far away. Bad actors can get away with theatrics on stage or with just playing themselves on TV (though that's pretty fucking hard too). On screen? Nah. You need talent to conjure up whatever it takes to really connect with an audience.
All of the big-name actors who get shit for being "bad actors" are almost always incredibly good actors. They just have dud roles under their belts.
Now, if this post was about which critically acclaimed performances you think actually *weren't* good performances, subjectively... then I'd have some good names to drop. Til then? I'll be defending the inevitable mentions of Keanu, Cage, and whoever else the easiest punching bags are. Those guys are very good actors.