|
| quote: | Originally posted by Laushinameee
is this based on the quality of the acting, or the quality of the actual role on it's own?? |
I would say the quality of acting is the factor to look at here.
The quality of the role has nothing to with the movie, it's what the actor does in the role to make it outstanding.
Some movies could be pure shit, but thanks to the actor/actress, the role is energized.
Taxi Driver, could've been a shit movie about a psychological damaged taxi cab driver... but DeNiro brought his method of acting to the role and became Travis Bickle.
Pirates of the Caribbean, a typical summer blockbuster full of action and adventure (same old storyline) but Johnny Depp gave one hell of a performance as Jack Sparror.
There are tons of other examples as well, and sure there could be reversal here, some roles may call for a profound and deep sense of acting but perhaps the actor isn't qualified for that role. Honestly i feel that away about most of John Cusack movies...
|