I was having a discussion the other day about the movie 'Twilight' and the forthcoming 'New Moon' and how rather than making things up as the writers go along, they could have chosen better scenes from the book to include.
Now I'm not informed about Twilight. I have no knowledge of what happens at all in the books. Admittedly I have watched the movie twice now, and I still feel the same way about it.
I explained that because the book is so long, and some of the key moments are probably in the less exciting parts then they have to keep the story going and tell the information, so naturally they will change the storey to fit as they adapt it into a screenplay, mostly because of time restraint.
That said, my friend made a good point. That there was not enough dialogue between the two main characters in the movie. And she was right.
It was all brooding looks and angst and the occasional grunt.
Which led me on to something I read on a message board about the actor Misha Collins and how he would make a good John Constantine – because Keanu was as good as an oak tree – or something like that.
This got me thinking.
While I don't deny that yes Misha would give a good portrayal of John Constantine, I don't think it would top Keanu's performance. It's one of his best performances of his career. Trust me, I have seen all of his movies (aside from the 2 or 3 I can't find on DVD or video) and own them, so I would like to think that I have a rather extensive knowledge about his acting abilities.
This again brought me to thinking about him as an actor, after my friend and I declared our love for the 'Bill & Ted' movies. No one else could have played Ted like Keanu did.
And I think that is the problem, I think whether subconsciously or not critics always perceive him as that guy from that movie. They can't get beyond the 'meat-headed' persona and don't realise that he is as talented as the next big actor. If he wasn't he wouldn't have had the career he has had.
Now admittedly the roles he chooses do tend to revolve around the stoic almost emotionless character, and I think that this is where he tends to fall a little. Because he is giving the role with the sort of persona he would identify with a character, critics tend not to see that really he is doing what he does – acting. They see him as a stoic, emotionless and wooden actor who wouldn't know a good performance if it hit him in the face.
That is the critic's biggest mistake, because he can play those stoic characters extremely well.
I do think he should extend his genre's, he has had great success in his roles in films of the non-science fiction kind. Personally I enjoy seeing him in more light and altogether romantic type films, films that you can get your teeth in to. And he has pulled out some outstanding performances over the years. Edging on 60 films, we know not all of them are going to be incredible, but it is a great sight to see when you put one on to watch and BOOM he brings it.
People over look his past roles, and some of his greatest, and to me they shouldn't. Many pass the film up because he's in it and they assume he'll be wooden. He won't and they shouldn't not choose a movie based on that, yes some have been poor but there have been a few gems that make you forget about those.
For me some of his stand out roles were in these films:
Sweet November
Hardball
The Replacements
Bill & Ted
The Gift
Constantine
Speed
Rivers Edge
The Lake House
The Last Time I Committed Suicide
The Matrix
Feeling Minnesota
The Watcher
Some are quite obvious, some not so. Whatever way you look at it, it's not hard to see that he is talented. He chooses the roles that he feels drawn too, ones that he is passionate about doing, and he makes sure he plays the role well.
You can't fault him for that.
Many forget that he is not Ted. He is a diverse actor, who is misunderstood at the best of times.
Give him a chance before you judge. Don't judge on one or 2 movies, expand your knowledge. You may just be surprised.
No comments:
Post a Comment