Never could. His performances are wooden ... like he's reading his lines. I might catch this one on video.
shareI tend to like Kevin Costner whatever role he plays in, some more than others. He has a very mature kind of quality and he shows good character and integrity as a person. Kevin is one of my favorite actors and he does a perfectly fine job in this movie.
shareI disagree... he was perfect. Understated. Little things like the gum. I always want to know if the director adds these little things or if it's the actor.(Or writer...) I'm sure it depends on the movie.
I agree that sometimes he's Kevin Costner in a movie but that's ok with me!
Have you seen JFK?
did you not see black or white??
hes great in that
Kevin Costner plays Kevin Costner very well, and that's not meant as an insult. Frankly, most actors play variations on a "type" in most roles. How many can you name who truly disappear into a role and basically become someone else for a couple of hours? Tilda Swinton comes to mind. Daniel Day Lewis is the obvious choice. Gary Oldman occasionally surprises. Tom Hardy has some range. Johnny Depp used to. Jared Leto pushes the envelope, for better or for worse. Christian Bale has taken on some tough roles. That's about it, off the top of my head.
If you're a "movie guy," you need to accept that very few adventurous "master thespians" are working at any given time. You also need to admit that audiences generally like popular actors in roles that play to their strengths.
-------------------------
I have meddled with the primal forces of nature and I will atone.
'How many can you name who truly disappear into a role and basically become someone else for a couple of hours? Tilda Swinton comes to mind. Daniel Day Lewis is the obvious choice. Gary Oldman occasionally surprises. Tom Hardy has some range. Johnny Depp used to. Jared Leto pushes the envelope, for better or for worse. Christian Bale has taken on some tough roles. '
Vincent D'Onofrio should be mentioned too. Very few who can compete with this guy.
Elias Koteas and Stanley Tucci are also very good.
Aside from Bond (which he has done very well, BTW) Daniel Craig has done some great stuff.
Andrew Garfield is getting there too. Done some amazing work these last few years.
Yeah, I don't have any major gripes with any of those choices. Honestly, with Hollywood being such a bottom-line-centric environment, real, versatile acting isn't really tops on the list of desirable commodities. Your average couple going to a movie wants to have some idea what they're going to get. Not many people actively seek out challenging cinema, and if they do they won't require a "star" on the marquee.
They'll continue cast Chris Pratt in Chris Pratt roles, Tom Cruise in Tom Cruise roles, Dwayne Johnson in Dwayne Johnson roles, Jennifer Lawrence in Jennifer Lawrence roles, and Tom Hanks in Tom Hanks roles, etc until returns diminish sufficiently. I say that as a fan, more or less, of all these. Anyone who wants muscular, eye-popping acting would be better served going to plays.
-------------------------
I have meddled with the primal forces of nature and I will atone.
Gary Cole plays evil (American Gothic, Fatal Vision, An Officer and a Murderer, etc) and funny (the Brady Bunch movies, Office Space, etc) and noble/heroic (Crusade, etc) equally well. The same with Kevin Kline, from Sophie's Choice to The Pirates of Penzance (and he can sing, too!) to A Fish Called Wanda.
Boo Hoo! Let me wipe away the tears with my PLASTIC hand!--Lindsey McDonald (Angel)
Never could. His performances are wooden ... like he's reading his lines. I might catch this one on video.
Thanks for posting IMDB cliche #2: "fill in the blank" can't act! It's right up there with "This is the worst movie ever made!" and several others.
If Costner's performances are wooden, why don't you blame the director? All actors take direction. So if you're right, then every director who made a film with KC allowed him to give a bad performance. On the other hand, people still hire him, so maybe they think more of him. And maybe you're just wrong.
Kevin Costner is a great actor. It's just that some people don't understand subtlety in acting.
(Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.)
KC never had problems getting work because he was pretty. That guaranteed box office ... which is the bottom line.
You want to blame the director? Seriously? The director doesn't speak the lines or emote. He can't. He's on the other side of the camera. I'm just asking you, the next time you watch one of his movies look for this woodenness; for this feeling that he's reading a script. If you give it an honest chance and an open mind you'll see it.
But ... I shall settle this once and for all. The proof of the pudding is in the eating.
Look at his awards. He has three Oscar nominations and two wins - for Dances With Wolves - the one exception I named. The one nomination he did not win for that movie was the Acting award. He lost to Jeremy Irons. Most of his other acting awards, historically, have been for that movie and Hatfields and McCoys, a TV miniseries which I confess I have not seen, but will try to. But he has many, many "stinker" nominations for other acting roles and has won many of them. The record is right here in IMDB.
Not nominated for The Untouchables, Bull Durham (God no!), JFK, The Bodyguard, not even for freakin' Field of Dreams! All "famous" roles for him among a number of others.
You want to blame the director? Look to people who really know film - the people that run and participate in the awards for their craft. They almost entirely ignore him. Case closed.
Don't get me wrong. I actually like Kevin Costner. It's hard not to. I think he's probably a really nice guy. I'd sit and have a beer with him any time. Does not seem pretentious to me like other good-looking actors, say ... a George Clooney. But I think KC is a lousy actor and I think the actual record demonstrates that I am not wrong about that.
You want to blame the director? Seriously?
The director doesn't speak the lines or emote.
Look to people who really know film - the people that run and participate in the awards for their craft. They almost entirely ignore him.
I think the actual record demonstrates that I am not wrong about that.
Thanks for taking the time to reply. I appreciate your opinion, but that's all it is.
Your condescension ("Wow, you figured that out all by yourself?") is noted.
I treated you with respect, I expect the same.
A film does not begin and end with the director. Despite what you think. Directors respond to what producers want. And producers respond to what studio heads want. And with rare exceptions, studio heads respond to what sells.
A KC film draws viewers and money. That does not mean he can act. If you think a director who does not get what he wants from a major star can just jettison him for someone else, that simply isn't the case. It is more likely that another director will be brought in than that a money-star will be axed. (Again, it does happen, but it's hardly the rule). By the way, I browsed through KC's films. I couldn't find a single big-name director save Oliver Stone for JFK. This was a major dramatic role for KC. He was not nominated. Yet Tommy Lee Jones was for supporting.
Awards from his peers are the better indicator.
There are few, not "a pretty darn long list" of great actors who never won Academy Awards. Sometimes that was political. You would no doubt want to name, say a John Wayne as an example. But John Wayne was not a great actor. He was an icon of film, America's tough guy, irascible but still likeable, box office ... all of those things. But not a great actor. That's why he didn't win until very late (for True Grit) which was more of a life-time award than anything and was nominated only one other time 20 years earlier. But here's the thing; KC doesn't even get nominated. Why not? No such evaluation process is perfect or absolute. But IMO awards from peers are the best indicator. Costner doesn't have them, and his body of work is long and he has done plenty of serious roles. The rest of the movie-making process is more money-oriented than anything. The voting process isn't.
Perhaps "Kevin Costner can't act" is a bit of hyperbole. If you want to argue that, I'll grant it. I guess everybody can act a little. But I think without his looks and likability to get him started he would have had a different career. I would call him journeyman at best with acting talent fit for regional theatre. Not much more.
You want to blame the director? Seriously?... But ... I shall settle this once and for all.... Case closed....
But I think KC is a lousy actor and I think the actual record demonstrates that I am not wrong about that.
A film does not begin and end with the director.
By the way, I browsed through KC's films. I couldn't find a single big-name director save Oliver Stone for JFK.
Yes, a studio may have a star attached to a project before the director arrives, and he has nothing to say about it.
You count Ron Howard who "directed" Costner in "Night Shift" where Costner played "Frat boy #1"? LOL!!!
I didn't run across a single person on the list that had No nominations ...
Maybe I'm just more discriminating that you are.
Laugh all you want, but the guy has proven himself as an actor's director. He knows talent when he sees it, and he gets great performances out of people.
So once again, your metrics for a quality actor are pretty flawed.
As for the past 20-25 years, could it be that he has passed from leading man roles to more character roles which tend to be less prominent?
Did you see "10 Cloverfield Lane"? OMG!!!
Will search for a more interesting thread.
but I know there are a lot of people here who agree with me.
I disagree. He's a competent, though not great, actor.
share