Shatner's best performance was in Star Trek 2, but the credit for that goes to Director Nicholas Meyer. He famously did take after take after take until Shatner was so worn out he no longer had the energy to overact.
Interesting how a big chunk of his TOS performance wasn't overacted, either - must've been exhausted otherwise.
Hopped right on the bandwagon that I was describing
A greater amount of criticism today does not imply a complete lack of criticism in the past.
I wasn't talking about a "lack of criticism in the past", let alone a complete lack - I was talking about the ludicrous proposition that old performances are now less criticized while contemporary more, even though whenever there's actually an even somewhat weaker performance people still have no touble noticing.
Thanks for not reading, I was only tearing down two of them.
Well, whatever you did there to the third one, wasn't that good either...
Do you have any concrete points to make in rebuttal, or are you just going to sneer like a 12-year-old using non-stop sarcasm to try and bluff her way into looking like a grownup?
Thoughz you'd never ask!
Elijah Woods was the weak link in the Lord of the Rings movies. He did not look or act like a Hobbit, and you had Sean Astin's look and performance as Sam as direct comparison
He didn't act like a made-up species? That's the worst attempt to criticize a "weak performance" I've ever read.
There's nothing unusual about hobbits, they were just portrayed as a bunch of fat, drunk, wrinkly hicks, and curiously enough, all 4 of them were nothing like that.
The comparison to Sam is laughable - the two are completely different characters, Sam being a bit of a simpleton, and Frodo a "high-born" who was additionally into fancy lore and might've even gone out and conversed with elves or whatnot (forgot that plot point in the books, but it'd just be a cherry on top).
So the most noble-blooded / spiritual of the 4 supermodel hicks doesn't act like the other hicks or his simpleton servant - awesome.
and his acting choice of rolling his eyes to show the influence of the ring was dogshit compared to Ian Holm's acting choices for Bilbo in the same situation.
It's less about what is done, and more about how it is - the way he rolled those eyes was done in combination with face expressions and body language, and all of it created a creepy, surreal atmosphere that was congruent with the aesthetical stylization of the scenes where he did that.
The point was to convey semi-consciousness / rush / slipping off into the demon world or whatever.
Holm, on the other hand, played like Jeremy Irons in D&D - now he certainly did that well (again, just like Jeremy Irons in D&D), and that acting choice may be justified by other approaches such as the idea of Bilbo having sat on this ring for considerable time and probably anticipating some attempt by others to make him give it up... however if you're gonna pick one acting choice to declare "a bit dodgy", it'd certainly be his.
The first (and only first) Matrix movie was the best combination of setting and marginally talented actor since The Terminator.
I really, really hope you're not referring to Arnold there, or I'll stop humoring you right away.
Reeves' ability to wander around in wide eyed confusion perfectly fit the plot as audience identification character.
That's of course the popular thing to say, "lololololol Keanu acts confused, lololol, well let's give him a pat on the back for that when he's put in a movie where he's supposed to be confused it actually works lolololol", however an actual look at his performance shows that this "confusion" is merely one of the many emotions he displays throughout the film, in different scenes.
But let's be perfectly honest, every character in these movies were bland and forgettable save one. [...] because Will Turner was nothing more than a blood sausage with legs that whole movie. Kinda like Big Trouble in Little China without the self-awareness.
What's a "blood sausage"?
