From what I’ve read, he’s a great person but as an actor, he really seems one dimensional. Do you agree or have I just not seen him in the right role?
I think most actors are one dimensional these days. You hire Actor-X because they have whatever it is you are looking for. Reeves is that. He’s great in “The Matrix” and “Constantine”. What got him started was comedy in “Bill and Ted’s Excellent Adventure” (but he seems to have gone the action movie route which is fine). He tried Shakespeare in “Much Ado About Nothing” and was completely awful at it (and AFAIK he never tried again and was smart enough to stay in his lane of what he is successful at).
Occasionally you see some surprising break-outs like DeNiro doing comedy (or Leslie Nielsen way back who kinda paved the way for that).
But, in general, truly adaptable actors are few and far between. Meryl Streep comes to mind as an actor who can do almost any role.
He was pretty weak as an actor, but say he’s better now.
Even early on, he had flashes of brilliance.
Plus he has a reputation of working hard and not being a prima donna.
He’s competent. He’s good at low key stuff, and he should have done more comedy. He’s in one of my favourite movies, which, can you guess? It is not Speed, and not Bill and Ted, and not The Matrix, all good fun films, but is in fact The Lake House, a romantic fantasy film with Sandra Bullock. He is very low key in it, with a couple of emotional moments, and it suits him very well.
yes, I think he is a good actor.
I beg to differ. What got him started was River’s Edge which was about as dark as possible. It wasn’t his first job but it’s what got him noticed. Bill and Ted was 3 years later.
Which do you think was his “breakout” role? The movie (or TV show) where, instead of having to go to endless auditions, casting directors are now calling him because they have a role they think he’d be perfect in?
I agree that he’s a pretty good actor in roles that are appropriate for him. In fact, I think there are more roles he can do, than he can’t. My Own Private Idaho was a standout role, imo. He played an abusive scumbag frighteningly well in The Gift. And, though many disagree, I think he was really good in the Devil’s Advocate
Really, even if brief there’s this. He has workmanlike skills, does his parts, and is apparently easy to work with. I’d say he doesn’t have much range - and his efforts to emote complex emotions often fall flat for me - but that doesn’t mean he’s a bad actor.
For the record, his voice acting as the sullen, self-absorbed co-lead in Cyberpunk 2077 (video game) was well done, and managed to convey the rueful self-awareness of the character towards the end quite well.
Would I ever want to see him in a Shakespearean production again? Well no, not in one of the comedies, but he might manage better than I’d expect in some of the tragedies than I would have believed when I saw him in Bram Stoker’s Dracula for example.
He’s become much better, but I’m not sure if that’s him realizing where his bread is buttered, his agents and casting directors knowing what his capabilities are, or just him actually improving as an actor.
Based on what I’ve read of the guy, he’s a genuinely good person, and seems like the kind of person who’d conscientiously apply himself to improving his abilities within his craft and working hard at it.
He wasn’t bad at all in Speed, FWIW. I rewatched it a couple of months ago, and he was what I’d call workmanlike. Not spectacular, but I didn’t see him as Ted “Theodore” Logan. And when The Matrix movies came out, I didn’t see Ted Logan, Jack Traven, nor Shane Falco. And I didn’t see Neo as the quarterback in The Replacements either.
That’s the sign of a competent actor in my mind; he can play a bunch of roles in close proximity and manage to be good enough to be Jack Traven, Shane Falco, and Neo, without getting a lot of crossover type stuff. That doesn’t make him great, just competent.
He’s gotten better in the last quarter-century I feel. No real proof, just that John Wick was way more enjoyable than I’d have first thought, and I think a lot of that was his performance.
Sometimes the crossover just happens.
I read (long ago, no cite) that Tim Curry was so identified as Frank-N-Furter from “The Rocky Horror Picture Show” that he had a difficult time finding work after that for some years. He’s a very good actor but he just could not shed that image for a long time. He eventually got past it and has had a good career but it took him a bit longer than it should have because of that one (fantastic) role.
Susan Sarandon (also in “Rocky Horror”) managed a quicker career arc. Maybe because she was plain-Jane white chick who got her freak on one night. Didn’t type-cast her so much.
Yeah, I suppose when you are relatively unknown and are cast to play an iconic character like Dr. Frank N. Furter from The Rocky Horror Picture Show, it’s career-limiting, in that you’re immediately typecast no matter how good you are. Many actors like Tim Curry, Mark Hamill, Daniel Radcliffe, and Elijah Wood all have struggled to shed their iconic roles.
Keanu may have been lucky to be well established by the time he was cast as Neo in The Matrix, otherwise he’d have been relegated to forever being Neo, which hasn’t been the case, as he was already Jack Traven, Ted Logan, Shane Falco, Scott Favor, and others before the Matrix movies.
This goes toward what I was going to say. There’s more to being an actor than simply the performance that winds up onscreen. Reeves may have limited range, but in the larger context of being a working actor, he’s very well liked and well respected. He fully commits, he’s polite and professional, and he gives himself entirely to the production. Everyone who’s worked with him loves him. It says a lot that he and Sandra Bullock remained good friends after Speed and have looked for opportunities to work together again, among other repeat collaborators.
I also want to note something about his limited range. Yes, it’s true that, early in his career, he essayed a number of roles for which he wasn’t well suited, which are easy to make fun of now (Dracula, Much Ado About Nothing, etc). But take a closer look, and really consider what he’s doing there. He was consciously testing the boundaries of his range. He was taking unusual roles outside the usual young-buck wheelhouse. In both of those examples, as well as Little Buddha and others, he was an up-and-coming movie star — and it’s hard to overestimate just how interesting he was as an up-and-comer, after Bill and Ted and River’s Edge put him on the map — who was choosing these wild left-field projects.
This is not a stupid actor. This is a smart, thoughtful man who wants to know what he’s capable of on screen. So he picks projects that will challenge his skills and his range, and he sees what happens. Sometimes he falls on his ass, crashing and burning in a spectacular way. Sometimes it’s a near-miss and he’s just kind of wooden. Sometimes he hits. But he’s always trying stuff.
Now, in late middle age, he’s pretty much figured it out. He still tries stuff from time to time (he’s hilarious in Always Be My Maybe), but he largely sticks to what he’s comfortable with. And the reason he’s able to do that is that he spent a number of years exploring his limitations, instead of just finding a hit role and then dry-humping it until the public got tired of him and his career fizzled out. He didn’t make the mistake so many other short-sighted actors do. He very consciously considered his long-term career, and was willing to fail, a lot, to ensure he’d know himself fully as an actor.
I have tremendous, tremendous regard for Keanu Reeves as an actor. Sure, he may not have the raw performance talent of someone like, say, Michael Pitt. But Pitt’s personal life is a godawful mess and he’s squandered his gifts on substance abuse and selfish (now criminal) behavior, whereas Reeves is firmly established as a movie star. I know which actor deserves more respect.
I agree with everything @Cervaise said, and like to add that Reeves may be, as of today, the world’s greatest action movie star, and one of the greatest ever. That’s not a backhanded compliment: starring in action movies requires a very particular set of skills, and not every actor can pull them off.
I really like Reeves. Especially as a good person but also as a good actor.
To be fair though, every role requires a very particular set of skills. Each good actor has some combination of those skills that is unique to them.
I agree. I just said that because people tend to look down on action movie acting.
I find him average. He is typically typecast as an action hero, hence perhaps the feeling of one-dimensionality, but for example he had a more emotional role in A Walk in the Clouds, one of his earlier roles, which I think he performed well. He may not be the most versatile actor, but I have nothing against him.
Yes to The Lake House. A small winner all around.
He’s pretty bad at emoting, even in that scene from Parenthood, which is a very emotional scene, or when he finds his dog killed in John Wick. He has a low affect to his acting (I think that’s the right term?). Still, he’s better than, say, Vin Diesel.
I’d say that someone who has such a limited range is not a good actor in my book. But, he’s good within that range.