and never short on flavor... it's getting rather warm in here, isn't it?...

---

For instance The Neo you see in the first, second and third movies are completely different.

---

YES.

And he played a cop in Point Break, too. :)

I don't intend any of this as a slam. You're no slouch in the arguing department, so I figure you have a reason for choosing the words you do. I'm just trying to puzzle through a seeming dichotomy between what you say to fish (and how you say it) vs. what you say to us. Does such a dichotomy exist? If so, why?

1) When debating people on any subject, it's usually my tactic to not attack them too strongly, because that only makes them more defensive and less likely to change their minds - and if they do change their minds, it makes them much less likely to admit it, because of pride; and the more someone defends a position, the more they identify with it, the more they interpret any challenge as personal, the more they dig in.

1b) It's a give-and-take process. If I compromise on things, they're more likely to compromise on things. So if I have to, I'll let them have the debatable, subjective points in order that I can hold on to the ones that matter more to me. Meanwhile, people are more likely to agree with people with whom they have shared beliefs (or interests), the more the better. It's a lot easier to win an argument with a friend than with an enemy; someone who likes you will be much more willing to let you win, while the latter will fight you to the end. So: love your enemies, do good to those that harm you. Basically what Jesus said. :| I'm gay and trans in a country where homosexuality is illegal and ~70% of the population considers it wrong. So I've... had a lot of practice in being nice to people who aren't at all nice to me, because that usually makes them nicer to me, and I need that to survive.

1c) Most of my life I've had problems with anger; I get angry very easily and sometimes end up doing things I regret. Because of that I've spent lots of effort in trying to curb that response (to the point that it's gone to the other extreme and created another bunch of issues from anger-repression that I now have to work through with my counsellor, but that's another story). So I'm always trying hard (sometimes still failing) not to get upset by things, especially when they're things that don't matter so much on a larger scale of things, like whether or not someone thinks Keanu can act. I've also learnt to just accept insults, for better or worse, and try to take them out of the picture when considering an argument or evaluating the other person. And if I'm not as upset, I won't respond as strongly. I try never to respond to hate with hate - that always just increases the hate and ultimately harms everyone more. I still do that now and then, because sometimes I can't take it anymore, but so far I've always ended up regretting it - because they just push back harder.

2) Regarding Keanu - I love him with a burning platonic love. ;) And I realise that that is, naturally, going to make me biased towards thinking that everything he does is the epitome of awesome. (Heck, if it doesn't make me biased, it would suggest I don't love him that much. Bias is sort of a natural result of love.) So on an objective level I can recognise that this bias very likely also affects how I view Keanu's acting, and probably makes it seem better than it is. So, to an outsider who has yet to grow cognizant of the amazingness that is The Anu, I can grant that they're not going to see it the same way; and that their different opinion isn't necessarily wrong, just coloured by their different Keanu-free vantage point. And if Keanu's acting is bad to them, then that's what's real for them, and I can acknowledge that. It just doesn't mean it's real for everyone.

2b) Starting from a few years ago, I think I've become incapable of making any truly objective assessment of Keanu's acting - both bad and good. I see bits of excellence in his 'bad' performances that most non-fans don't. But I also see flaws in his 'good' performances that most non-fans don't. And for all his performances, I read things into them that might not have been intended, and that are probably invisible to the average viewer.

I basically know way too much about Keanu to be able to separate Keanu-the-person from Keanu-the-actor. A particular reaction or line from his characters might remind me of stuff from his life that he was quite likely also thinking about when delivering that on screen. Or perhaps a particular scene was heavily discussed in interviews that I read prior to watching the movie, along with character intentions and creative differences and behind-the-scenes anecdotes.

So all that means that I bring in added nuance and meaning and background information to the performance, which enhances Keanu's performance and my resulting appreciation, but which to the average viewer simply does not exist. Such that if they don't find that nuance and meaning there, it's not their fault - they couldn't have known, and their opinion is just as valid, because how good an actor is ultimately depends on how good a viewer thinks they are. Other people's opinions don't really change how one views a performance. If someone thinks that Oscar-winning John Doe is an excellent actor, but I think he sucks, no amount of external accolade is going to make me suddenly enjoy his acting. So I grant the same for others who react that way to Keanu. As neaura says, he's an acquired taste. Most people don't have the time or energy to acquire it, or he's just not their type, and I can accept that.

2c) Aside from that, I think my good opinion might have declined over the years - again, as a result of knowing too much. The more of Keanu's acting I watch, the more happy discoveries I make about the little acting things he's doing, but also the more flaws I see here and there. Whereas before I became a fan, I just watched his movies and enjoyed them and didn't really care about his acting. I didn't think he was a bad actor, but neither did I appreciate his performances the way I do now. I've since become a lot more aware of both the good and bad. But the good still outnumbers the bad. :)

I hope that helped!

(off-topically - do you know if anything might be causing the double-posts on your end? Double-clicking, refreshing pages, bad internet connection?)

And about Point Break: He was FBI, i didn't exactly count that as a hard core cop :)

neaura - no worries :)

---

I hope that helped!

---

Yes, I think so. Thanks for not taking offense, and for such an outstanding analysis.

I did understand what you were doing in terms of debate/argument tactics, and you're more generous in that respect than I am. As for the rest, it's...thought-provoking.

I'm sorry about the recent double posts. I think it must be a connection problem on my end. Something freezes after I hit "submit" and I wait a bit, then hit the button again because I assume it didn't go through.

---

Ani - *slow applause* You're my hero. Right next to The Anu. :)

---

@Jack - nah, it's ok if it's a connection issue. I thought it might be something wrong with the coding, so at least there's an explanation for it. :) One day when I'm bored I'll edit the code to prevent accidental double-posting, but I'm too lazy right now.

Off Topic:just saw Young again yesterday :), the remake also came to my mind and i realised how i did not feel at all for any character in the remake! Biased may be, but the innocence and desperation was just not there in the latter

---

but the innocence and desperation was just not there in the latter

---

.... because in today's world, innocence is deader than dodo and unicorns :|
Today's teens are 'cool', 'jaded' - or so they want to seem. It's not accidental that the basic message of the movie was the one the main character sent to his daughter: that she shouldn't have sex with her bf just to be accepted. Times, they are a-changing...

Add the LOTR references and the Napster references and...

Both movies are the products of their times.

---

Both movies are the products of their times

---

Ah, that is so true! the former was before my time but i still seem to identify with it more. Guess caught in the middle and all that :D and also a tad biased.

I'm with Ani, in admitting I can't separate my views of Keanu, The Man from those for Keanu, The Actor. And just generally, because I'm a storyteller, I hold tremendous respect for all kinds of creative expression, whatever form they take, whether I personally enjoy them or not. That makes my feedback gentle in nature, and I'm dismayed by the sometimes rabid violence with which some tear into others' works. I wish some folks would understand that they aren't the arbiters of good taste and that they've no omnipotence to support a declaration of one thing as "good" and another as "crap." Better, I feel, to say what worked for them and what didn't, and to provide examples in either case. In that way, a conversation can be had, whereas dispassionately damning a thing is a one-sided conversation, at best, and a masturbatory exercise, at its worst.

~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
http://www.minalobo.com
https://www.facebook.com/GothMomLite
https://twitter.com/GothMomLite
http://gothmomlite.tumblr.com/

I mostly like it. Keanu's accent is...awkward, but I like his understanding of the character. I love Gary Oldman's performance. I can't abide Anthony Perkins in this, not sure how Van Helsing as dirty old man happened, but yuck. The production design is gorgeous, the music is good. Direction? Was there direction?

As for the lambasting of the accent, I did hear that he might 've gotten it right taking into account the time and the character's position or level in the society. It is an interesting accent though :-)

Admittedly, I watched it on Youtube, so the lack of quality might have been a factor. But I've also watched lots of other movies on Youtube which I enjoyed fine, including Cube, which ended up being on my top 10 list, so... idk.