Michael Keaton is, by far, one of the greteat actors ever!
-
hnt_dnl — 17 years ago(May 22, 2008 12:25 AM)
I recall Tim Burton saying in a brief interview way back then that he cast Keaton in Batman as Bruce Wayne because of Clean and Sober. He thought, like you and me, that Keaton gave the best performance of 1988 in this film. Great minds think alike!
-
owleye1 — 17 years ago(August 02, 2008 06:39 PM)
Keaton is an excellent actor and probably deserves more accolades than he gets. However, I suspect he's not ranked higher on the A-List because his portrayals all seem to be similar, despite the difference in characters he plays. In
My Life
and in
Mr Mom
, as well as in this one, he plays entirely different characters, yet it often seems he is playing them in the same way. I don't mean to denigrate his performances, which are always great, but I'm not entirely sure he should rank among the very best in terms of his acting ability. But even if he should be of that caliber, in and of itself, skill in acting, especially for male performers, is not always the primary quality that movie-goers use to judge whether a performance excels. Many think Bruce Willis does a great job, for example, but I would question his ability to be convincing in many of the roles he does take on. Indeed, of those you mention, George Clooney and Tommy Lee Jones seem to have this sort of star quality, without (imho) really excelling as actors. (I do think Jackson is a great actor.) In any case, Keaton's acting talent is definitely worthy of merit and makes you believe in the character he is playing, but whether he has something else going for him that would raise his star quality, I'm not sure.
James -
jwild49 — 17 years ago(October 24, 2008 11:42 PM)
Are you sure about that owleye1? I mean I think even his performances in Night Shift and Mr Mom were quite different in the way he approached them despite both of them being lighthearted comedies. Then take a look at Clean and Sober, then Beetljuice. Those four performances were all approached in COMPLETELY different ways. Then the Batman movies were different again. Then came Much Ado About Nothing, and even Jackie Brown. All different and his acting abilities are top notch in all of them.
I don't think you give his versatility enough recognition IMO.
"I am Reality" -
stevenackerman69 — 17 years ago(January 22, 2009 08:26 PM)
It is ironic because he originally didn't want to do it, as I read in an interview with Roger Ebert. Keaton is a good actor and has grown a lot over the years. It is too bad this film didn't do as well as Beetlejuice, which had been released a few months before.
-
billyweeds-1 — 16 years ago(June 09, 2009 08:49 AM)
There has seldom been such a convincing one-two punch as Michael Keaton's 1988 twin triumphs in "Beetlejuice" and "Clean and Sober." Not only does it demonstrate his phenomenal talent, but also his stunning versatility. He remains one of my favorite film actors of all time, right up there with Jimmy Stewart and Buster Keaton.
The plateauing of his career arc has always been a mystery to me, since he never gives less than a good performance and often much better. (Nobody could do much with the likes of "Jack Frost.")
I keep hoping he'll score a big hit again and get that long-overdue and much-deserved Oscar that should have been delivered back in 1988 for "Clean and Sober." It's one of the handful of movies I can watch again and again. -
falcon2484 — 16 years ago(July 01, 2009 04:47 PM)
It's in his eyes. He looks at you a certain way, you might think he's crazy. It's why he was so good in "Pacific Heights." In that movie, you're never quite sure what he's thinking - or what he's capable of.
The Falcon flies -
tpcorless — 16 years ago(July 25, 2009 09:03 PM)
Yes, Pacific Heights is another example of his fine acting. The late '80s was a great period for Keaton with three excellent performances in Beetlejuice, Clean and Sober and Batman.
I don't think Keaton is ranked as one of the greats because he seemed to lose his footing in the '90s. He still made some good movies but not enough great ones to keep him in the A-list. I also think he alienated moviegoers when he didn't return to the Batman franchise. Of course it was his choice not to return, but I think some people perceived it as arrogance rather than Keaton's wish to move on to new roles. -
RazzberryBeret — 15 years ago(October 09, 2010 10:05 PM)
I agree. Siskel & Ebert rave about him towards the end of this review:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4_o9OeaEI8A&feature=related
