Worst Actor: Marlon Wayans

Sorry to interfere here but your logic makes no sense. LadyKillers can not PROVE that Marlon Wayans is a horrible actor unless you can agree that Requiem for a Dream can prove he is an excellent actor. You can argue that both prove or disprove a single situation but one rational can not exist without the other and at the same time both scenarios can not feasabily be true. More simply isntead of discussing the importance or possible lack thereof of a single performance allow us to look at the sources of measure while assessing abilities in one's acting. These are versatility, believability, range and depth. Some may argue that VERSATILITY and RANGE are the same thing however they are wrong when stating this.

Versatility is the ability to play many different roles that face different situations.

Range is the ability to express diverse and often contradictory emotions simultaniously, repeatedly and in reaction to one another.

Personally I don't believe one movie (any movie) can PROVE if an actor is great or not, except in very rare occasions (i.e. William Macy in The Cooler and Vincent Gallo's performance in Buffalo 66 left no room to argue because the characters themselves went through so many emotions that here range was credibly shown and therefore they can easily be labeled excellent actors). Generally speaking, one would measure an actor's ability against different roles.

Personally I think that Marlon's performance in LadyKillers was well done and performed well. You have to look and see the psychology of the character and not simply if the character is annoying. He's supposed to be annoying and overdone. That wasn't where the comedy was found. The comedy in this movie was much more subtle and found in the actual happenings and not in a character (any character for that matter). It's the relationships that build to the happenings that then bring the comedy out of this dark murky production.

And that's what it's supposed to be and it does it very well. It's dark, it's sinister and it represents the battle between EVIL and GOOD.

People casually mention the Poe references without really understanding their reason for being there. It isn't simply so someone can say, "wow that's from Edgar.." No, it's there because Poe's writing had battled the same internal demons that this script tackled.

It's deeper and Marlon's character added to that depth. His simple yet strong persona brought the house of cards together and then slowly one by one as they died, it crumbled down.

Now again this comes down to opinion. You have every right to state that for whatever reason you found Marlon's character unbelievable and without emotion or lacking some quality you found necessary to qualify him in your mind as more than satisfactory. However, to state then that this character shows his inability to act while not acknolwedging then that a different role could disqualify this notion entirely only beckons arched eyebrows and dismissive responses from your readers.

What a dumb thread

"the role that proved he is not a good actor. How does specifying an actor in a particular film equal that actor in general?"

this is an old post but i just have to say WTF!?

you said:

the role (particular) that proved he is not a good actor (universal). How does specifying an actor in a particular film equal that actor in general (universal)?

why am i responding to a post 4 years old? anyhow.... you said:

How did you make that conclusion? That's totally absurd. We're talking about Marlon Wayans in The Ladykillers, the role that proved he is not a good actor. How does specifying an actor in a particular film equal that actor in general?