He can't deliver a single line convincingly, and he has a total of about two or three facial expressions. No wonder he was nominated for a Razzie for Worst Supporting Actor that year. It's no surprise, though; I've never seen a good acting performance from Reeves, so I probably shouldn't expect too much.
He's a horrendous actor, especially when acting alongside such wonderful talents as Emma Thompson and Denzel Washington.
Gosh, if we'd only had you to replace him on camera.
shareIt hardly matters, Don John being a sort of cartoon villain, he's only there to move the plot along. We're far more interested in the other characters.
shareKeanu wasn't so bad in the movie.
shareI'd just made a post about how good Keaton was, and how Brannagh seems to get the most of his actors, but, yeah, Reeves stinks on ice. But for my money, that's always been as good as he's gotten.
When evil is viewed as good, righteousness is viewed as evil.
Reeves just doesn't have the range for Shakespeare. In a movie with such a great cast in nearly every role, Reeves is notable for just how bad he is.
It's not that he's a bad actor - he's done very well in a number of roles, in movies ranging from Parenthood to the Bill and Ted movies to The Matrix. He does working class very well.
But he's dreadful here. When he's supposed to be angry he says angry words, but he doesn't really seem angry. Oh well. I find it helpful to add "bad acting" to Don John's list of crimes.
Didn't think he was that awful, to be fair he was barely in the film. I'd say at best he was on screen for 10 minutes of the 1hr 44mins of the film's running time. I thought he was solid at best.
shareHis stiffness and flatness work in some roles, but this isn't one of them. He should probably stay away from Shakespeare and period movies altogether, except maybe westerns.
share