Stewball wrote:GI Joe? WTF, That was 2008, and I didn't see it. Maybe I should. This year he did Hesher as well as this, neither of which you've seen, and no matter how much you disliked 500 Days, its received very high critical acclaim in several major mags including Rolling Stone as well as Rotten Tomatoes,
The populist argument ("a bunch of nameless, scumbag critics told me I should like something, hence I will!") is bad enough, but it's incredible coming from you, considering how often you take critics to task for being biased and worthless. (Which they are)
Be consistent. Either ignore the bleating of critics like I do, or embrace them as Gospel like frederic_g does. But don't use them as an argument for one movie while simultaneously dismissing them for another one.
Besides, the fact that "500 Days" was a mediocre flick has nothing to do with what I wrote above. I was specifically talking about Levitt's role; he did it very competently and well, sure, but it was a simple
"Naive, generally likable young nerd" is a role that at least a hundred different male actors can do very well. No "complexity" involved.
Inception was an action film in which I'd have hated to see James Franco play the part as was originally planned, and it was a very demanding role athletically. Christopher Nolan obviously was impressed which is high praise in my book.
Dude, all the roles in Inception
were incredibly simple, since all the characters were cartoon cut-outs; merely a set-up for the action. (And I loved the film)
You might as well praise a role in Avatar
for being complex.
As for the role being demanding athletically, not only did they have stunt doubles, but if Levitt's tiny, frail body can handle it, I doubt that it would be hard for any number of Hollywood actors, many of whom are former college athletes.