I am heartbroken that show is over. I loved it so much.
Serkis also directed the last Venom movie. And yes, while the story was flawed, the actors (under the director’s yoke) pulled it through.
Now… would I want MY life made into a movie directed by Andy Serkis? I dunno…
(Then again, is there anyone out there who’d actually watch that…?)
Yeah, me, too.
It might be clearer to describe my dislike of him because, as I’ve said, he “insists on himself” to degree that bugs me. In other words, for the same reason I’m turned off by most of the performances of Ray Bolger, Martha Rae, Danny Kaye, Red Skelton, Jerry Lewis, Jim Carrey, and Robin Williams. Adherents to the Stewart “Looka what I can do!” school of acting. Most of those I’ve just named have given performances that transcended their usual style–most obviously the last three–when a director can keep them in line, and not allow them to indulge in the temptation to “wink” at the audience in a way that disrupts the film. ( Good Morning, Vietnam Is the only movie I’ve ever walked out on.)
But almost every performance of Serkis’s that I’ve seen places him squarely among that group. (That said, I’ve seen The Batman , wherein he held it together long enough to not actually ruin the movie for me.)
I think it’s interesting that you’re accusing the actor who’s most famous for not looking like himself of wanting everyone to look at him.
Andy Serkis is the Lon Chaney of CGI. He basically invented motion-capture acting, and every single CGI performance today owes a debt this work. And what he taught them is that when working under several millions of bytes of computer graphics, you can’t afford to be subtle. You need to act with your entire body, and you need bold, expressive, even exaggerated pantomime or the performance simply won’t come through. So is Andy Serkis an unsubtle actor? Absolutely. That’s what made him famous.
But I feel like he does that to keep himself, Andy Serkis, in the spotlight, not the character. His looka-me antecedent is not the character, but the actor.
I think he does exactly what his directors want him to do. If you want to blame ayone, blamce them, not him.
Andy Serkis not a marquee name like Adam Sandler or Jim Carrey, whose bring people to the theaters just by being in a movie. Nobody goes to see a movie because Andy Serkis is in it, to see that “Andy Serkis shtick”. Instead, he’s a character actor. Filmmakers bring him in to deliver a specific type of performance. If they thought people were looking at the actor rather than the character, they wouldn’t hire him. It’s as simple as that.
In other words, it’s just you. Nobody else sees what you’re seeing.
I totally agree with Alessan here, for the reasons Alessan offers. This is something you—not Serkis—are bringing to the table.
Show me on this doll where Andy Serkis touched you.
Jesus. Are you like 100 years old?
Oh come on. Bolger was a total screen-hog whore in Wizard. 
Oh damn skippy I’ll beat a path to the next theatre if there’s some (older) film with Alan Rickman or Chris Cooper in it. 
I can picture Lissener now, in 1945, huddled around his brand new Bendix Radio, listening to Danny Kaye:
“That god-damn Danny Kaye! Does anyone else hate him as much as I do? It’s just all “look at me” and “I’m myself”. I can hear him winking at the audience! Can anyone else hear him winking?”
And that Donald O’connor. His feet insist upon themselves.
And that Jimmy Cagney, all look-at-me…
But Donald O’Connor didn’t have a choice. When he was but three, his mama told him to be a clown.
This is all very interesting. It seems that Lissener is expressing an aversion to a certain type off performer/performance. If I were to suggest a common thread it appears to be prominent features (larger eyes, lips, nose, etc) and what they feel is over expressiveness. Granted, film actors are taught to “act smaller” vs. stage acting where one wants to be seen and heard by the back row. And it is no secret that older styles (pre-naturalism) were more artificial, AND that musicals and broad comedy require “bigger” performances.
Coincidentally, I began watching “The Batman” after reading this thread and I just don’t see Serkis “mugging” in his work in this film. The whole thing is very somber and quiet and slow, and he comports with that style. But that’s just my opinion.
Otherwise, I find lissener’s outsized violent reaction to be something I would suggest they explore with a professional, yah?
And that “bigger” quality is essential for motion-capture acting.
An example: are you familiar with Benedict Cumberbatch? Respected actor and famous movie star? As a baseline, here’s him performing a live action part, as Sherlock Holmes:
And here’s Benedict Cumberbatch playing a CGI dragon:
Notice a difference in acting style?
No. But movies are.
As I acknowdged above.
Yeah, it does seem kind of weird to react as though the state of having opinions about now-dead actors in old movies is somehow freakishly obsolete or anachronistic. There is no law that you had to have been alive during an actor’s heyday, or have seen a movie when it was first released, in order to have a valid opinion about them/it.
That said, I agree with the other posters in this thread that your opinion of Andy Serkis is highly idiosyncratic and counter-consensus.