Minor nitpick, but Jim Carrey played the Riddler, Tommy Lee Jones played the Two Face guy.
:eek:
As near as I can tell, when the mad scientist swapped Keanu Reeve’s brain with a tree frog’s, the tree frog brain was irrevocably damaged during the operation. The perils of mad neurosurgery have given us an actor with exactly one emotion:
“Huh?”
When he’s got a character who’s supposed to act out anything else, he’s painfully bad. See Johnny Mnemonic if you want an example and don’t mind watching the worst film in Hollywood history. But when, as in Matrix, his character is utterly clueless about the state of the world, he’s absolutely perfect.
Of course, this only works if his character stays an idiot throughout the film. Matrix fell apart completely when Keanu became a Messiah. I mean, sure, machines keep humans alive as a source of energy, whatever, I can go along with it. But Keanu saving the world? No fucking way! He couldn’t save his buttlint!
Ahem.
Keanu is a classic wooden actor, IMHO. Brad Pitt, in Interview with the Vampire, puts in a 2x4 performance as well. And then there’s Monica on Friends, who thinks that lips stretched in a skeletal rictus can convey every emotion from hilarity to grief.
Daniel
Interesting question. Waiting for Guffman may, indeed, fit your criteria. Also, Julianne Moore (IMHO, one of the finest actresses working today) provides an excellent example of this in Boogie Nights. Her touching portrayal of an emotionally damaged porn star nicely contrasts with her character’s terrible acting in the stilted dialogue scenes of her porn movies. The difference is night and day.
Which is what I told myself as I typed it, but my fingers didn’t listen. :smack:
The benchmark for wooden acting is Jack Buetel, the guy who plays Billy the Kid in Howard Hughes’ “The Outlaw.” He was awful. The posters who are accusing various current stars of being wooden actors are just working out their feelings at not being big stars themselves. All of the actors mentioned: Reaves, Heston, Costner – are scenery-chewers compared to the Buetel. Just watch The Outlaw and you will have the benchmark you need for the term ‘wooden.’
It was worth searching for this thread just to type in this name: Bill Paxton.
Even when he manages to change facial expression, his voice never changes. I love watching his movies just to see how robot-like he can be.
I just want to say a few words in support of Mel Gibson’s Hamlet, which I found to be one of the strongest cinematic interpretations of the play since Olivier. I liked this (slightly) more dynamic Dane, whose procrastination comes not so much from his self doubts as from the way he doubts everyone around him. Gibson did a fantastic job: especially with the comic scenes, which are too often underplayed. Too many people have this preconception of Hamlet as being unrelentingly dark, but there are some devastatingly funny scenes. Particularly the interactions between Hamlet and Polonius, and when they’re trying to find out what Hamlet did with Polonius’ corpse. But he also does a great job with the heavy drama: suspicion, betrayal, anger, lust (With Gertrude, no less: loved that directorial gambit). Often all in the same scene. Sometimes in the same line of dialogue. And Helena Bonham Carter gave just about the best Ophelia I’ve ever seen. She nailed that role shut and sent it home to mother.
Anyway, identifying wooden actors isn’t that hard. The term “wooden” is used because it’s a metaphor. Look at an actor’s performance and ask yourself, “Would this movie have been materially different if they’d cast a dime store Indian in that role instead?” If the answer is “no”, then the acting is wooden.
Come to think of it, “giving an Ophelia” sounds a lot like a sexual euphamism, doesn’t it?
That’s wierd. I always noticed that he usally picked at least once line per movie to overact.
Though he usally does his overacting on good lines, so it’s fun to watch, at least in my opinion.
“It’s PEOPLE I TELL YA! SOYLENT GREEN IS PEOPLE!”
“IT’S A MADHOUSE! A MADHOUSE!”
Check him out in Frailty he’s great.
Oh, sweet Jesus! That movie was bad but him? Took it to whole new level of amateurishness. Made Jane Russell’s “acting” look good.
Does there seem to be more wooden actors these days than there used to be?
I think so.
Some reasons.
Actors act less than they used to. In the 30s actors were under contract, movies were shot on lot, and product was pumped out the door. Actors made two, three, four films a year. Today few actors can do lead roles in more than one movie a year because so much time is required for them, because press junkets afterward now can last months, and because they get paid so much they don’t have to.
Actors have less stage training than they used to. It’s much harder being a wooden stage actor than a wooden movie actor. You either won’t get hired or you’ll learn to act really fast. Movie actors can get away with looking at the camera, mouthing two or three lines, and going off to do something else. Stage actors have to use their entire bodies for long periods of time to inhabit characters.
Actors work less with other actors today. They emote to green screens that will later be filled in with CGI. They stay off screen while stunt people fill in for them. They spend large chunks of movies throwing punches instead of emotions.
Actors get rewarded for performances that just aren’t very good. There’s no need for a rant about the Oscars here: you can find plenty of threads that already cover that. But in general nobody goes to Matrix Reloaded and cares much that Keanu Reeves has one expression, or that Lawrence Fishburne is over the top in every scene, or that the villains can’t convincingly speak their lines. The same is true for more serious movies. A dictionary definition of “chewing the scenery” was Dennis Quaid in Far From Heaven, but he was spoken seriously of when award time came along.
Actors are being given bad scripts. Summer blockbusters don’t really have scripts at all; they have endless stage directions. Teen comedies, horror movies, crime flicks, tv remakes, and all sequels are so formulaic that there is usually nothing there to act to.
All these things have been true to lesser extents in the past, and you can find wooden (and just plain bad) acting in every era. But all these trends are hitting simultaneously in, to use the current overused idiot Hollywood movie cliché, the Perfect Storm of bad acting extravaganza.
And it seems like it will only get worse in the future.
Another example of wooden acting - Jeremy London in Mallrats. In every scene it’s like he’s listening to the other characters simply in order to know when he’s supposed to read his lines.
Gary Cooper built a career on wooden acting.
Two words: Rock Hudson
For another TV show reference, catch the redhead on That 70’s Show. No matter what she is saying, she has the same expression and odd stance, as if she isn’t really sure how she should be standing, or talking, or anything.
Two pages and nobody’s mentioned Pinocchio? 
:d&r:
How about John Rhys Davies?
You’re kidding right, ffabris? Terence Stamp was fantastic in that movie.
Ba-boom-boom-TISH! 
Nice one!
Keanu Reeves, I can’t say it enough, Keanu Reeves.
I saw Johnny Mnemonic last night and was stunned that he was ever put in another film. He is cute as a button and all, but they boy can’t act for peanuts. Very well put whoever said his only emotion is “clueless”. This is why Bill & Ted is his finest work.
For me, it is wooden if I don’t believe them. If their physical movements are marionette-like, and their lines are spoken in the same way. In some films, the characters have a scene where they are supposed to “act”, if you follow me. By this I mean when Tilly drops the whiskey bottle in Bound, or when mad Auntie is explaining her business problems in My Big Fat Greek Wedding (Oh! Woe Is Me!). When actors are doing this, they act acting (still with me?), this is what wooden acting looks like, but it is not being done deliberatly.