h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I've always had a problem with the concept of her being someone who has sex, let alone someone that would be an actress who could be considered, um, desirable...

"Sleeper" didn't help.

I must confess to always having really liked Sleeper (was probably exposed to it at much too early an age).

And I've always liked Keaton, too, for all the Woody Allen films she did, as well as for giving a really solid and unflaky performance in the first two Godfather films (amongst other things).

Would I sound like a cad if I said I thought she was really attractive thirty years ago?

Not really.
Thirty years ago I was twelve and incapable of calling anyone a cad. Not sure I knew what it meant.
But even at that age I preferred William Katt's mum... the lady who played Della Street... what was her name...

and Adrienne Barbeau.

Is Keanu Reeves the only crummy actor who people don't mind being a crummy actor?

No. But usually, they are known as "character" actors because the public and the directors can rely on them to do the same thing every time, regardless of script.
Crint Eastlood is a famous example.
Mel "the Holy Spirit built the vehicle, I'm just the driver" Gibson ranks up there, too.
So was Charles Bronson, Steve MacQueen, Humphrey Bogart, and Jimmy Stewart.

That's why I like Jackie Chan. He knows his limitations and when he directs himself, he tries to make the most of them. When others direct him, his WB cartoon show comes off as a very fine dramatic experience in comparison.

Those are arguably good actors though...

It's the famous distinction between a great actor and a great movie star - Alec Guinness was a great actor, he could disappear into any role and become virtually unrecognisable. Whereas with someone like Clint Eastwood or Jimmy Stewart, they are limited performers but make up for it with their 'persona' - the way they are routinely perceived by the audience. Their ability to project that is what makes them a star. It helps if they stick to roles that fit the persona (unlike Keanu, obviously).

Case in point - Gregory Peck played Mengele pretty well in Boys From Brazil, but got pasted because it was such a massive contrast with his film-star persona (a noble, decent, liberal man).

I kinda liked Keanu in "Johnny Mnemonic", but I can see what you mean.
Maybe like Emilio Estevez, he just hasn't found his niche, yet.

On the other hand Roger Moore and Sir Sean have basically been playing the same role for years and I don't have any complaints.

I guess it comes down to personal preference.

We really like that guy who plays Jack Deth in the "Trancers" movies, because he knows he's a hack and he's having fun.

Oh yeah, Tim Thomerson, to be seen in many a piece of SF hackwork (Trancers, Cherry 2000, the Crusade TV show). Yeah no complaints about him.

I think Keanu's pretty much got his persona sorted out, it's just that finding scripts that suit a thirty-something surf-dude who comes across as sweet-natured but naive and/or dim isn't that easy.

Connery and Moore are exactly the kinds of performers I mean, in that they both give basically the same performance in almost everything they ever do, but they do it very well.

Then it becomes a case of believability I suppose.

In Speed it was Julia Roberts who gave the peril, not Reeves who seems to sort out his problems by having lets and lots of drugs to calm down (not that he actually does).

He needs a role that is basically calm with no action or, as you say, Bill and Ted III.

Julia Roberts?!?!?

I take it you mean Sandy Bullock. Anyway I thought that film was very much a team effort.

I knew I'd gotten the name wrong but I couldn't get it!

Team Bullock/Hoffman?

Hopper sorry.... God damn it...

Reeves/Bullock/Hopper/Daniels/de Bont/the guys that wrote it/everyone else...

It wasn't a film built around a single outstanding element or contribution. Except for maybe the concept, and you can't give someone credit just for that.

I'm not saying that it was built around one element but the general peril was created by What'sherface and not Reeves who is a crummy actor.

You're not going to tell me I'm stupid and brainwashed because I've been to the cinema or seen an advert are you?

I would never dream of telling you that to your face.

Anyway you seem to be confusing me with another Post reviewer whose handle starts with an A. I'd've said the sense of peril was mainly down to the direction, anyway, and it's not like Sandy Bullock is ever going to get confused with Dame Judi Dench or Meryl Streep...

Keanu's not a rotten actor, just an extremely limited one (and okay maybe I am juggling semantics there)...

Why would a director needs to direct someone's peril?

So, the Oscars... and this Passion of Christ stuff.

Hmmm - the director is responsible for the storytelling which includes things like atmosphere and tension.

Anyway, haven't seen Passion yet, not sure if I'm going to... and the Oscars will be one of this week's 24LAS topics.

I've a small bit on the pre-Oscars show... that half hour of ass-kissing...


I think I'm going to see passion of christ but only because my brainwashed christian pal really wants to see it.

Well, as I think JR made clear, the BBC were contractually obliged to show it.