Advertisements

What the Hell Happened to Keanu Reeves?

Keanu Reeves

Keanu Reeves

Keanu Reeves has worked with some of the greatest directors around.  He’s been directed by Ron Howard, Kathryn Bigelow, Lawrence Kasdan, Gus Van Sant, Francis Ford Coppola and Bernardo Bertolucci just to name a few.  His costars include Al Pacino, Gene Hackman, Morgan Freeman, Sandra Bullock and of course the legendary Alex Winter.  He’s done comedy, drama, action movies, period pieces and sci fi.  Speed made Reeves an action movie star and The Matrix made him an icon.  But post Matrix, Reeves’ career has slowed down.  His last unqualified hit was in 2003.

What the hell happened?

Keanu means “cool breeze over the mountains.”   Reeves was born in Lebanon and is of British, Portuguese, Native Hawaiian, and Chinese heritage.   His father went to jail for selling heroin at Hilo International Airport.  He abandoned his wife and family when Reeves was only three years old.  Reeves was 13 the last time he saw his father.

As a child, Reeves relocated frequently and spent time with several stepfathers.  He and his mother moved from Hawaii to Sydney, Australia and then to New York City.  Most of his childhood was spent in Toronto.  Reeves is actually a citizen of Canada.  As a student, Reeves struggled with dyslexia.  He gravitated to athletics over academics and excelled at hockey, eh.  After an injury ended Reeves’ hockey career, he dropped out of high school to pursue acting.

Before I go about ripping Reeves, let me say this: The man is, by all accounts, an extremely nice person. The internet is filled with stories of Reeves’ generosity.  He spent $5 million dollars on leukemia treatments for his sister, bought Harley Davidson motorcycles for the crew of The Matrix Reloaded,  given $20,000 to a set-builder who was down on his luck, and frequently bought breakfast and lunch for crew members on his movies.  He is quoted as saying ″Money is the last thing I think about. I could live on what I have already made for the next few centuries.″

According to the Wall Street Journal, Reeves signed away his back-end deal on the Matrix sequels.  An “unnamed movie executive” told the Journal that Reeves gave the back-end portion of his salary (estimated between $70-80 million dollars) to the special effects crew of the movies.  The source explained “He felt that they were the ones who made the movie and that they should participate.”

The man has dealt with a lot, given a lot of himself to others, and does films that interest him. I’m going to say I don’t like a lot of his films and find some of his performances lacking. But before I rag on any of that, I thought it was worth noting that as a human being, I very much admire him. So then.

Youngblood – 1986

Keanu Reeves - Youngblood - 1986

Keanu Reeves – Youngblood – 1986

After a series of TV appearances Reeves struck his first notable role in the Rob Lowe and Patrick Swayze hockey vehicle Youngblood. Reeves’ experience playing hockey, and real life love of it surely helped in some form or fashion. Youngblood received a lukewarm reception as another feel good sports movie of no particular distinction… also it’s about hockey. So that.

Keanu Reeves - Act of Vengeance - 1986

Keanu Reeves – Act of Vengeance – 1986

Act of Vengeance – 1986

A TV movie starring Charles Bronson and Ellen Burstyn is actually a drama and not the action movie I was expecting. It has something to do with coal union workers, and has vengeance in the title, so there is some action, as assassinations are plotted. Reeves pops up in a small role. So does Wilford Brimley. Coal could cause diabetes. I have no idea what this movie is about. Reactions seems to be decent to it.

Flying (Teenage Dream) – 1986

Keanu Reeves - Teenage Dream - 1986

Keanu Reeves – Teenage Dream – 1986

This is one of those movies that nobody watched but when one person suddenly becomes a star later, is reissued with them now featured prominently on the cover. And boy what a bad cover it is. Here is the synopsis on IMDB, and even these sentences are hilarious:

Robin and her father have a car accident. Her father dies. Robin is badly injured and cannot compete in gymnastics tournaments anymore. Shattered dreams. She lives with her mother and bad step-father. Robin is accepted to the school athletics team but is not accepted by some other girls, so she works out at a friend’s house. Eventually Robin and her team compete in the national scholastic meet.

I can’t imagine more needs to be said.

There’s the whole movie I think. You’re welcome… I think.

Brotherhood of Justice – 1986

Keanu Reeves and Billy Zane – Brotherhood of Justice – 1986

Keanu Reeves and Billy Zane – Brotherhood of Justice – 1986

Reeves continued working busily in 1986 with this bargain bin movie (another that tries to capitalize on the later names of the stars) where he and Kiefer Sutherland star as high school students turned vigilantes turned thugs. Violence is never the answer rich kids. Unless you’re Batman. Then it is.

Next: The River’s Edge and Dangerous Liaisons

Advertisements

Posted on November 6, 2014, in Movies, What the Hell Happened?, WTHH Actor and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink. 269 Comments.

  1. LeBeau,

    Don’t hold back. If you don’t like him than just say it! The guy has been around for a long time, there must be something about him that people like….

    I don’t dont see him as awkward or wooden, I see him as different, as different. Not everybody is the same, not every body comes from the same background, not everybody has the same expectations. And never forget, being a nice guy goes a long way. I have never heard anything negative about Reeves except that he is somewhat hippified, nothing about cheating lying or stealing that fills your other WTHH articles.

    “My name is NEO” damit, and I don’t have to explain myself to anybody….

    I suspect this guy does what he wants not based on money but by other considerations only he understands. I saw 47 Ronan when it came out and new it was going to lose money half way through the movie, but I did enjoy it and watched it again HBO. My son and I are going to see John Wick this weekend. I’m going because I took the blue pill….or was it red?

    I don’t care what evidence you have, what examples you can show, and you can compare the money he made. I am a Keanu Reeves fan!

    Woa Dude, chill.☺️

    Keep those articles coming LeBeau, they give me a reason to keep on livin’

    Brad Deal

    Like

    • Just to clarify, I am not the author of this article. This one was brought to you by DWMCGUFF. He hasn’t written a WTHH article around here in a while, but his previous articles include Orlando Bloom and Josj Hartnett. I have not yet had a chance to read this entry, so I can’t comment fully. I’m sure I’ll comment more once I’ve had a chance to read and reflect. But big thanks to Mr. McGuff for what I am sure will prove to be another great article. I look forward to diving in soon.

      Like

      • No fair LeBeau. Regular Bait and switch. I thought the writing in this one was a little above average….should of spotted it off right away..

        You post it, you own the opinions. Can’t change now, no way, no how. You think this is some political forum or what? I mean WTHH??

        Now I gotta check both the author AND read too? It’s too much.

        Good job dwmcguff.

        Brad Deal

        Like

        • Hey wait, what? Better than average?!? Grrrrr!

          I have lamented before that the site doesn’t make the author more obvious. Not that I would want to distance myself from any content. Just want to make sure credit is given where it is due.

          Okay, now to read as much as I can before I get interrupted.

          Like

    • I actually came out and clearly said I like Keanu. I think he’s a great human being, and wish him success for that alone. I, however, am not always a fan of his acting, and think it strange he’s been as successful as he is given his talent and abiliity

      Like

      • DW,

        To be fair I thought I was talking to LeBeau. If I had known it was you I would have given you the prerequsite respect. But you know as well as I that you have to shock LeBeau to get his attention, same way I slap my little brother up long side his head when he goes off on a rant. Next time I will check to see who wrote the article….

        To be fair I went back and re-read your article. I know you said at the beginning and at the end that you held Reeves in high esteem, but everything in between was pretty derogatory. A man is signified by his work; his or her choices are a display of their character and their personality. So when you say that he is a great guy, but his work choices are shit, then it sets up a cognitive dissonance that confuses the reader. In my opinion you were pretty harsh in your delineation of his acting skills. If he was truly such a poor actor then his career would not span some thirty years. And it was a mistake to admit that you did not see Revolutions and that you refuse to see John Wick. This shows your bias against him, a bias that is reflected in the whole article.

        I disagree with your assertions regarding his acting skills. Where you find him wooden, I see subdued. I thought Constantine was a great movie. It’s one of those movies I watch over and over late at night when I can’t sleep. And the one ahhhh, Johnny Nemonic is another that is underrated movie, especially now with the Snowden disclosures and all the survalence going on, exactly the same topic depicted in the movie…so did he see that coming, or is he just a good ole boy bumbling along? I don’t know, but still waters run deep…

        I disagree with your characterizations, but that is good because in respectful disagreement a subject can be fully explored and the truth discovered. Most times the truth is somewhere in the middle. You say Reeves is wooden and I say he is fluid, the truth is he is an above average actor but not great. But he has the capability to be great when the stars aline and he is given a role that fits his personality. But I just don’t get the feeling that he cares about being great.

        Having said all that, thank you for spending the time writing about Reeves because if you hadn’t we would never have had this discussion. And between you and me, I don’t think LeBeau knows the difference between the red pill and the blue pill….😀

        Brad Deal

        Keep ’em comin LeBeau, I can take it!

        Like

        • Trust me, I know the difference between the red and blue pills. I’m popping blue pills like there’s no tomorrow. What’s that? The blue pill is Viagra? Oooops. Well, should be a fun weekend I guess.

          I use to have a harsher view of Reeves that mirrored the tone of the article. Back in the day when Reeves was completely miscast in Dracula, I took my fair share of pot shots at him. But I have definitely softened my stance. Any actor can be bad in the wrong role. Not every actor can be great. Reeves can be fantastic in the right part. I’ve come around to thinking he’s kind of excellent. And as a human being, well, I wish there were a lot more successful actors out there like him.

          I did not like Revolutions. In fact, it made me angry. I was willing to give the Wachowskis the benefit of the doubt during Revolutions that everything would pay off in the third film. So I was horribly disappointed when Revolutions sidelined the main characters for a big battle scene filled with characters I did not care about. Years later, I went back and rewatched the trilogy to determine if I had given it a fair viewing. It didn’t make me angry the second time around. But I still felt it was a disappointing conclusion to the series. If I had my way, I would prefer a world in which the Matrix sequels did not exist.

          Having said that, I do kind of feel like everyone should sit through them at least once. Misery loves company.

          I actually skimmed the bit in the article about John Wick. It’s gotten good reviews. I definitely plan to see it. Frankly, it’s the main reason I haven’t written this particular WTHH article myself. It smelled a little like a comeback.

          Like

        • Lebeau,

          The red pill is for blood pressure. Never mix the red pill and the blue pill or you run the risk of one massive explosion which may well be the best you ever had, but for sure will be your last…😥

          Like

        • I seem to recall my physician saying something similar. The middle aged equivalent of “don’t cross the streams”

          It’s good to have a little levity in this comments section. Things have gotten so tense around here.

          Like

        • Where is my unlicensed nuclear accelerator anyway?

          Like

  2. As different = as interesting…..ahhh

    Like

  3. iam surprised christopher nolan hasnt cast him in his movies he fits the scifi thing like bill and ted matrix he would fit the comic book mold green lantern and lebeau he got great reviews for the fit u make it out like he was trashed he was great and why did u bring up costners name when u mentioned the movie replacement

    Like

  4. u kind of trashed costnr too when u mentioned hardball costner is doing good he has oscar buzz for black and white he avoided by not being costner costner id oing better then keanu right now i would say but keabu is a good actor iam starting to think u got a problem with costners acting

    Like

    • Once again, this article was not written by me.

      I can’t speak for the author’s opinion on Costner. I personally don’t think he has a ton of range. But he’s got a great screen presence in the right role. Much like Keanu Reeves actually.

      Like

  5. I finally finished reading the article. Great stuff. Reeves has had a long and fascinating career. I actually started researching a Reeves article about a year ago but didn’t pull the trigger on it. I was waiting to see how some of his more recent projects turned out. I came away from my research with a ton of respect for Reeves as a person. And a bit more respect for him as an actor.

    Like

    • Thanks. I also admire him as a person, I went out of my way to say that. I think he can be a perfectly acceptable actor in the right role. I’ve watched him in a lot of stuff over the years.

      Like

      • Absolutely. I appreciated that you got that out of the way right up front.

        Way back in the early 90s, I read an unflattering interview with Reeves. The interviewer painted him as a space cadet (which he is) and a jerk. The interviewer asked Reeves what preparation he did for his role in My Own Private Idaho and Reeves got offended by the implication and terminated the interview. So the article made him out to be a homophobe. That was pretty much my opinion of Reeves for decades. I was pleasantly surprised to find out he is not at all like that reporter made him out to be.

        In fact, he’s one of the few WTHH subjects I would happily hang out with.

        No mention of Dogstar though? 😉

        Like

  6. Whoa! Whatever Happened to Keanu Reeves?

    http://frettsonfilm.com/2013/04/26/whoa-whatever-happened-to-keanu-reeves/

    Keanu Reeves once seemed on the verge of an excellent acting adventure, but as he approaches his 50th birthday next year, his cinematic career has mostly turned out to be a bogus journey. He started out as convincingly surly teenagers in films ranging from Tim Hunter’s dark River’s Edge to Ron Howard’s sunny Parenthood. But the dude-speak intonations that served him so well in the Bill & Ted movies started to limit his range, as he seemed wildly out of place (and time) in period pieces like Dangerous Liaisons, Much Ado About Nothing and Bram Stoker’s Dracula.

    He made a surprisingly credible action hero in 1994’s Speed, then wisely passed on the franchise’s waterlogged sequel, Speed 2: Cruise Control. By 1999, he’d found the mind-blowing role that would redefine his career, Neo in The Matrix, but he probably should’ve skipped the muddled sequel and three-quel. He gave his best performance to date as a violent, wife-beating drunk in Sam Raimi’s The Gift. But he hasn’t done himself any favors with his head-scratching choices since, whether it’s weepy romances (Sweet November, The Lake House), warmed-over sci-fi (The Day the Earth Stood Still), rom-coms (Something’s Gotta Give) or generic action flicks (Street Kings).

    He’s all but vanished from the big screen in the past half-decade, appearing only in obscure indies like The Private Lives of Pippa Lee and Henry’s Crime. Now another of these “art” films, Generation Um…, is arriving on VOD in advance of a theatrical release. And it’s certainly not going to turn around his downward career trajectory.

    Reeves stars as a New Yorker who embarks on a night of drinking, drugs and sex with a pair of younger women (Adelaide Clemens, of The Great Gatsby and the Sundance Channel’s hypnotic new drama Rectify, and Bojana Novakovic). He steals a video camera and turns it on them, leading to various amateurishly shot revelations. Plus, there are long scenes of Reeves eating a cupcake, wishing himself a happy birthday, and sleeping. (You may join him in a nap.) Most of the snail-paced movie’s wisdom, courtesy of fittingly unknown writer-director Mark Mann, is along the lines of “Shit doesn’t mean shit unless it means shit to you.” As for Generation Um…, this shit doesn’t mean anything to me.

    What’s next for Reeves? He’s getting in touch with his half-Asian roots (“Keanu” means “cool breeze over the mountains” in Hawaiian, as every magazine profile of Reeves in the ’90s informed us), making his directorial debut with the martial-arts flick Man of Tai Chi, which he shot in China, and the long-delayed 3D samurai epic 47 Ronin, which was filmed in 2011 and is now scheduled for release at Christmas 2013. And he recently gave his blessing to a remake of Kathryn Bigelow’s 1991 cult surfer pic Point Break. Might he be lobbying to reprise his role as wave-catching undercover FBI agent Johnny Utah? At this point, that could be his next big break.

    Like

  7. As a Keanu Reeves fan, I found this article painful to read. I had hoped for better, frankly. Just once in my life, I want to read a critique of the man that does not involve multiple hackneyed references to a film role that he did a quarter of a century ago (actually filmed over 27 years ago)., and which does not confuse the actor with a role he performed as a young man (all of 22 at the time). One doesn’t have to think of Mr. Reeves a s a great actor-I do not-yet surely we can do better than this.

    I’ll leave it here with one minor fact that needs editing. Mr.. Reeves did not give up his Matrix back-end to the special effects crew. That’s an urban myth. While the sequels were being financed, Reeves was warned that certain payments due him might have to be deferred if the money for the production was to be secured, and agreed to it. That tale was transformed into the rumor, endlessly repeated, that he had given away his earnings to the crew. There is no reason to believe this ever happened. He was asked about it recently on a trip to Uruguay and had no idea what the interviewer was talking about.

    Like

    • While you’re inclined to dislike it, internet policy basically dictates that if I’m writing a comedy article about Keanu and don’t make a Bill & Ted joke, I’ve failed. As a Val Kilmer fan all the fat jokes suck, but they’re easy pickings. However, I don’t confuse the too. Keanu seems to be a thoughtful, kind human being, I’m more than aware he’s no doofus. Though he does say he’s not the smartest person around, which I find endearing. He knows who he is. He’s a quiet, private guy who happens to be an actor.

      As for the legitimacy of the rumor, I can only say what I’ve heard, and the quotes attributed to him about it. So, I guess that needs to be vetted.

      Like

    • I fact checked this story. It was originally reported by the Wall Street Journal and picked up by tons of mainstream media outlets. If you can point me to an interview with Reeves that refutes this, I’d love to see it. I do enjoy busting up urban legends when the opportunity presents itself.

      Like

  8. Okay, that’s fair enough.

    Like

  9. Hollywood Hype Machine:
    http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/HollywoodHypeMachine

    Keanu Reeves first made a splash with the Bill & Ted stoner comedy films. Soon after he got a big push with such films like Point Break and Bram Stoker’s Dracula. However it would be 1994’s Speed that would cement Reeves as an A-List star. While he maintained steady work throughout the rest of the ’90s, people were beginning to notice his limited acting range and his star power began to fade. Then came 1999 and the release of The Matrix, and Reeves was once again launched into super-stardom for a time. Unfortunately, this new rise to fame went as quickly as it had come. The highly anticipated Matrix sequels left a bad taste in both audience and critics’ mouths, and The Matrix franchise would be Deader Than Disco by mid-decade. Coupled with, again, criticism of Reeves’ acting range (or lack thereof) the rest of his films in the ’00s were flops or under performers. The 2013 film 47 Ronin seemed to be one last attempt to bring him back to the A-List status, but the film was plague with a Troubled Production and was a Box Office Bomb. Now he’s attempting a comeback yet again with John Wick, only time will tell if it brings him back to his former glory.

    Like

  10. Thanks to McGuff. It’s impressive that to me that someone born in 1989 has such excellent writing skills. This was an engrossing retrospective onto Keanu’s career. And the writing style dovetails with the signature Lebeau narrative very nicely, it’s especially noticeable on a day where 2 new WTHH posts have appeared.

    That’s not to say I agree with everything. For example, The Lake House. I LOVE that movie and only love it more with every repeated viewing. Yes, I own it. What the hell they got Paul McCartney to write the lead song, and that’s not even the best part?

    He’s got, in my view, an amazing career overall, and I am sure he is not going away.

    Also wasn’t there a documentary about film-making that is not included here?

    Keanu Reeves is, as this article shows, such an amazing person that his sheer personality transcends any perceived lack of other skills, yet I don’t agree that he doesn’t have those skills. I think he does and he’s just so gorgeous that he may not get credit for what he can do. It’s just not easy, not being taken seriously, always being thought of as this mindless sex symbol, I totally understand how difficult that is. If for any reason he is not happy, feel free to give him my contact info.

    Like

    • Born in 89… grumble grumble… that’s when I graduated high school…

      McGuff had a few zingers that made me laugh out loud. And a few that had me steaming. Pot shots at Mira Sorvino? Not on my waych, pal! 😉

      On the whole, I think his style is a little more harsh than my articles tend to be. But I definitely agree his work fits within the parameters of the series. I always enjoy reading his articles even if we don’t always agree.

      One observation is that all of McGuff’s articles after his first one on Val Kilmer have been about pretty boy actors he doesn’t seem to think of as immensely talented. The Kilmer article was a love letter. But all the others, the snark has been on full blast.

      I will be interested to see what comes next. I know Adrien Brody was mentioned as a possibility. I look forward to seeing how that plays out.

      Like

    • Now that’s what I’m talking about! My wife loves Lake House

      Like

    • 1989…1989….? I have erasers that are older than 1989. That was the last year they used pencils in class. Every since then it’s been computers, iPods, tablets, then emails, and now Twitter!! There is a real possibility that hand held computers will replace cursive writing. It’s all replaced by OMG, LOL and WTHH!! Pretty soon What The Hell Happened will be written in short hand only a high school girl will understand. Grammar, grammar! We don’t need no stinking grammar!! Hell, when I went to college I was taught computers by using a punch card….and a big ole funny looking typewriter. OMG! I mean…Oh My Goodness…… I am losing the irresistible fight to conform..

      Brad Deal

      Like

      • There was great debate in my daughters’ school as to whether or not cursive should still be taught. My 9-year-old is learning it. But I don’t believe it is still being taught at the public schools. The kids are horrified when I tell them about the dark days of the 70s and 80s. How when dad was a kid, cartoons were only on Saturday morning and there was no such thing as a cell phone or YouTube.

        Like

  11. how can u say costner and reeves have no range both actors acting stlyes are different so the comparison is weird and costner was different in silverado upside of anger mr brooks black and white he apparently troubles drunk a perfect world he got great reviews u know that it was a bad guy different then his other a for keanu what your buddy didnt point is he got reviews for rivers edge hes rising star who was respectable the gift shows he has range costner and keanu are not worst actors on the list arnold has less range then them his acting not based

    Like

  12. but do u agree he would fit a noan films watching interseller i can him in matthews role

    Like

  13. this article makes day earth stood still to be a flop despite make 230 mill world wide on 80 mill budget it sorry to say but i think whoever wrote it was way too hard on keanu hes gotten good reviews before too so has costner every actor has a flop now and again

    Like

    • I looked up the numbers on Wikipedia and you’re right, Day the Earth Stood Still only cost $80M to make and earned $233M worldwide, with marketing involved it probably made a modest profit. So it did a bit better than I expected, but regardless the film was dull and unnecessary.

      Like

      • The Day the Earth Stood Still was a disappointment in the US. It failed to recoup its production budget domestically despite opening at #1 at the box office. With a budget of $80 million, it really needed to clear $100 million in the US. $150 million to be considered anything close to a hit domestically. It came in just under $80. That is bordering on flop territory.

        On the upside, it performed very well internationally. It did more than double its domestic take overseas.

        Like

        • Yeah, overseas saved it from being an outright flop. But an $80M domestic take for a film that was meant to be a blockbuster is disappointing. It was a signal to Hollywood Keanu isn’t capable of opening huge blockbusters anymore. A shame it was such a dull movie.

          Like

        • The Matrix films bought Keanu a lot of credibility in the overseas markets where action is king. It’s the same thing that keeps Nic Cage and a lot of other action guys working even after their domestic track record has gone flat.

          Like

  14. The whole article is insulting from beginning to end, he’s bashed at every point. Also, almost nothing in here is factual, someone needed to do some serious research before he wrote this. This wasn’t a critique at all, it was just some pathetic, lame ass excuse to tear into him for reasons i have never been able to understand. There’s nothing wrong with his career, he’s doing well right now, and the guy who wrote this should be ashamed.

    Like

    • I’ve been a fan of Keanu over the years. The two Bill and Ted movies were hilarious. Point Break and Speed were top-notch action flicks. I thought Devil’s Advocate was enjoyable and maybe a bit underrated. Matrix? An undeniable sci-fi classic, I’d go so far as to call it one of the best films of the 90’s. Yes, Keanu does have a limited range as an actor, but within his range he can be quite good. If he didn’t have any talent at all, then I wouldn’t have enjoyed those films I just mentioned, right? And besides, Keanu has been successful in comedy, action and drama over the years, so he has more range than a one-note actor like Steven Seagal.

      Like

    • While I do think the tone of the article is a bit harsh, I don’t think it is completely unfair.

      Let me know which points you believe to be factually inaccurate. I will fact check and update the article accordingly.

      Like

  15. 230 mill mean it made more then twice its bydget it did more then modest i enjoyed yes critics hated it from a business standpoint its not a flop it did hurt his career peyton is right it was insulting usual in the other articles then give some compliemnts to actors career but i did not hear 1 compliment for keanu just insults hes doing good john wick did good keanu is a nice guy too and costner is a nice guy now so it was irrevleant to bring him up

    Like

  16. craig do u like costner who the article briefly bashed

    Like

  17. ‘Nother thought… like Craig I rather liked Devil’s Advocate, not crazy about the subject matter but it was well done and well acted….now McGuff I think isn’t crazy about Pacino either, correct me if this is wrong, so I can see where you might not be impressed with a movie that stars both of them. To me Pacino is such a great actor, he is one I would show up to hear him read the phone book. In the DevilA, it was the perfect juxtaposition with Keanu’s more laid back style and Pacino being Pacino…

    Like

    • A friend of mine worships Pacino. Even in full “hoo-ahh” mode, my friend thinks Pacino is awesome. This friend really talked up Devil’s Advocate like it was an overlooked masterpiece. So I went in with inflated expectations and could not believe what an incredibly cheesy mess of a movie it was.

      But cheese has its merits. Hammy overacting like “hoo-ahh” Pacino can be entertaining as all get out, if you’re in the mood for that sort of thing. I don’t think The Devil’s Advocate is a good movie. I’d go so far as to say it is a bad movie. But it’s definitely not boring. That counts for something.

      Like

      • How is what Pacino does “overacting.” I think one or two of the actors here called it “scenery chewing” which was not a familiar term to me. If it connects with the audience there is something to be said for that isn’t there? And Pacino doesn’t exactly elbow other actors out of the way. He is so charismatic that other actors seem to be elevated playing opposite him. Isn’t that in general good for a picture? The only movie I remember full “Hooah” mode was Scent of a Woman and that was the character.
        In Devil’s Advocate, maybe the movie would have been hopelessly cheesy without him. With him, Keanu was understated, it was effective for me but clearly not everyone agrees. I dunno. DA was a movie where you would see Pacino in the elevator or something and you get all unglued from a fleeting facial expression. I wouldn’t have called it a masterpiece, but it was watchable.

        Like

        • I need to force myself to rewatch it. I remember being entertained. But that’s because I was laughing at it. Very loudly and much to the chagrin of my Pacino worshiping friend. Pacino’s performance was so over the top he looked like a cartoon character. I consider it to be a bad performance. But it fit the tone of the movie. So maybe it was perfectly pitched. These things are in the eye of the beholder. Maybe if I watch it again I will feel differently.

          Like

  18. For one thing, Speed made 350, not 120. There is not one thing written in this disgusting article that is fair, every single thing is an attack on him. I’ve seen child molesters get better coverage than this! He got good reviews for The Gift, My Own Private Idaho, and even though it got bad reviews, The Day the Earth Stood Still is far from a flop or even disappointment. I cannot even put into words how god awful this article is.

    Like

    • Sorry you don’t like it. But so far, you haven’t named a single inaccuracy. Speed grossed $121,248,145 in the US. Usually when quoting grosses, this is the figure that is used unless one specifies that it is a world wide figure. The $350 mill figure you are using is international.

      Everything else you mentioned is a matter of opinion. Do I think the article had a slant? Yes. Is Reeves being compared to a child molester? No. Is it fair? Debatable. But I think your reaction is largely emotional. The article gives Reeves his due for his long career and his generosity. At no point did the author suggest that every movie Reeves ever appeared in received bad reviews.

      As for The Day the Earth Stood Still, I have already explained how and why it is viewed as a disappointment. Movies that earn their profits overseas incur additional costs to do so. It was by no means a hit. It is in fact commonly seen as a flop. Disappointment is being generous.

      Like

      • Im sorry it came off so unfair. Ive rewritten a good chunk of it. It was supposed to be in fun. I didnt anticipate such hot reactions. Obviously my tone got away from me. But also, its a comedy article meant to poke fun. It should be in good humor, which is how i meant it. Hopefully my newest draft more accurately reflects my personal feelings about the subject.

        Like

        • I don’t believe you had anything to apologize for. I hope your apology was directed to peyton and not to me because we’re totally cool.

          I have been editing your rewrite and I think it is fair. One thing I am doing stylistically is changing most of the “Keanu”s to “Reeves”. I left a few when they were part of a joke. There were originally over 100 “Keanu”s which I think may have contributed to a tone of disrespect. Typically in the series, I only use the first name of the actor in the introduction. From that point on, I refer to the actor by their last name unless the first name is necessary to distinguish between the subject and someone else with the same last name. So I’ve been changing Keanus to Reeves to stay consistent stylistically. But I also think it will help the overall tone.

          Like

        • It was to peyton. Im willing to say where there is smoke there is fire. I got away from giving credit to certain performances and acknowledging his attributes that have made him a star. I fixed that. I believe its as fair as my Colin Farrell or Orlando Bloom articles. I wont apologize for my opinion though. Im a well informed consumer, have studied acting at school, and been acting for a while now, with success. Im entitled to call him wooden if thats how i see it.

          Like

  19. Also, there was nothing minor about the success of the lake house. The budget was 40 and the final gross was 114, does that sound minor? That sounds like a fig fat hit to me, and constantine was not a flop, it made 230 against a budget of 100. It may not have been as successful as the matrix, but 130 profit doesn’t sound like a bomb to me.

    Like

    • You are quoting worldwide figures. That’s not how this game is played. Domestically, it grossed just over $50 million. Counting marketing costs, it may not have even turned a profit in the US. It opened in 4th place at the box office. That’s not a hit. Calling it a minor success is actually being too generous in my opinion. I’d classify it as so-so or even a disappointment. Once again, Reeves had to rely on his international appeal to save the day.

      Constantine cost $100 million dollars and earned back $75 in the US. Movies that fail to recoup their production costs in the US are not considered hits. That was even more true 10 years ago than it is now. If you want to quote box office figures, domestic box office is still more heavily weighted than foreign grosses. The studios get to keep more of the domestic grosses than they do the international ones. So they count more.

      Again, I’m sorry you didn’t like the tone of the article. And it’s perfectly okay to have differences of opinion with the author. There are opinions in the article I disagree with. But so far, you’re quibbling over box office and you’re on the wrong side of that particular argument.

      Like

      • Ive rewritten the article. I dont hate keanu, and have been disappointed that my tone came off so negative, it was supposed to be playful and jesting. Hiwever, i may have gotten carried away poking fun. So i went in and made sure to highlight what ad when i admired him. Hopefully that balances it out a bit more.

        Like

        • Cool. Personally, I didn’t think the original article was unfair. At least not any more than some of the other articles in the series. My Val Kilmer article ends with a bunch of pictures of him at his fattest. That’s not fair. He’s even lost a lot of that weight. I fully acknowledge that is not fair. But most people think it’s funny and I figure Val Kilmer can take it. So I live with being slightly unfair.

          If I had thought the original version of the article crossed a line, I would have let you know. I didn’t have any problem with it (slams on Michael Keaton and Mira Sorvino aside). But you’ll probably get less criticism in the comments now that you have rewritten it. 😉

          I know you’ve taken a few lumps here. And some of them were less fair than what you wrote. So thanks again for the effort. I appreciate your contribution to the series.

          Like

        • oops! this is what happens sometimes when I spend half an hour composing a comment. By the time I post it, there’s no point. Ah well…:-)

          Like

        • I’m reading/editing the new version. And I have to say, the changes are subtle. Which is good. I would have hated for the original article to get gutted because of a few comments.

          Like

        • I thought the article was a bit harsh. Especially compared to the Lebeau entries. I agree Reeves is not as natural as some of his peers, but he obviously has had enough talent to become a big star. The question is how? I would have been interested on more elucidation on how he has been able to become a A list star with a long career given his limited range. However, it was an informative and interesting article, that maybe needed a little work on style and tone.

          Like

  20. Boy, people sure can get peeved when their heroes are criticized.

    I’m not going to have the conversation about box office take, because frankly I just don’t care. There are lots of examples of great films that did poorly financially and lots of examples of terrible films that made lots of money. Don’t quote box office and tell me that makes a good movie. It doesn’t.

    I have absolutely nothing against Reeves as a human being. By all accounts he is a good fellow.

    It is completely fair, however, to say that overall his acting skills have proven to be underwhelming. I’m not buying the argument that he’s just very understated. If that was the case, then we’d also have examples where he pushed beyond that and produced good work. What is undeniable is that his ACTING (NOT his films) has NOT been very versatile. A good actor does not single-handedly mar an otherwise decent Dracula film and then turn around and give so little to Shakespeare on film. Yeah, I’ve heard that he spent some time with a company that does nothing but Shakespeare. All that means is that he failed to measure up to those he was working with. Not everybody is a good actor. It happens.

    Reeves has been, at times, sort of like a talented but frustratingly unproductive athlete. Every coach thinks he will be the one to get that great performance from him. Every coach is wrong. Reeves is a blank slate that directors think they can paint on. Meanwhile, he’s handsome and popular so he puts butts in seats. That doesn’t make him a good actor. That makes him a handsome actor who made some good movies that people liked.

    I would also take umbrage with the idea that somebody has to continue to submit themselves to a particular actor/director/artist in order to have an opinion on the topic. If a restaurant butchered your meal multiple times, would you keep going back? I sure wouldn’t.

    Okay…now I’m going to say something nice about Reeves’ acting. He was actually kind of good in his supporting role in Something’s Gotta Give. What I mean is that he was far more natural and charming than I’ve seen him in anything else. Perhaps this is a case where he DID step up his game to not get blown off the screen by giants like Nicholson and Keaton. Maybe these excellent actors brought that performance out in him.

    I have a degree in acting and it is something I have done consistently since I was in elementary school (almost exclusively on stage). I have a few awards on the local level. I don’t relish criticizing other actors. In fact, I often find myself much less critical than many of my fellow performers. But sometimes the truth is the truth. Can’t help that.

    Like

    • Thanks for lending some perspective to the proceedings. Taken as a whole, I think the comments section always turns into a balanced conversation.

      Like

    • While i owned up to and fixed what i saw as flaws in the article, i also believe the backlash is because ive never written about someone as high caliber as reeves before. Farrell, bloom, and hartnett are nowhere near the national treasure reeves is. Kilmer, almost, but lebeau nailed that down before i got here. So the more vehement defense i attribute to that as well. But i basically agree with all your points

      Like

    • I liked Something’s Gotta Give, but oddly it wasn’t my favorite Reeves performance because of the realism factor. (Watch out.. Lebeau is not exactly a fan of Director Myers…) Nicholson and Keaton obviously carried the film, and yes Reeves was very charming – almost effervescent. But realistically a handsome young doctor is not going to fall for a middle aged woman old enough to be his mother. Hell I WISH that could happen! He was positively giddy over the Keaton character. Yeah, no. That doctor is going to fall for a shapely nurse half his age. Myers’ work charms me no end but this plot point was pushing it.

      Like

      • It’s true. I’m not a fan of Myers’ work. But others are and I can understand that. I am not the target demo for her movies. Any more than I am for the Twilight series of the TV shows on Bravo my wife can’t get enough of.

        I don’t mind the lack of “realism” in Something’s Gotta Give. It’s a rom com. Rom coms are romantic fantasies. If we can have rom coms where young, beautiful women fall for ugly middle aged stand-up comics, I’m okay with one where a hunky doctor falls for Diane Keaton. She is Diane Keaton afterall.

        Like

      • Lebeau beat me to this particular point. One of the functions which the movies can serve is as wish fulfillment. This plot point in Something’s Gotta Give is okay by me for a couple of reasons: 1) it is a flip-flop of the much more prevalent movie pairing of young women with older men (and let’s admit that when we see an older famous actor next to an age-appropriate woman on the red carpet it is kind of a surprise) and 2) the script recognizes the situation as unusual. The characters recognize it.

        Like

  21. Why don’t you count worldwide figures? That’s how almost every studio makes their money back, you act like worldwide doesn’t mean anything. I never said reeves was being compared to a child molester, but there is not one thing in the article that is critique, it’s all one big attempt to tear into him and insult him.

    Like

    • But not how you measure a films success. Studios get less from the earnings overseas. And films are still measured by their success stateside. If the recoup overseas its considered a relief, but if youre an american studio making films for americans (firstly) then that is how you measure success.

      What is in the article is critique. Calling a oerformance wooden or bland is not an insult. Because you dont agree with an opinion does not make it not a critique. Im not tearing him down as a person, as i go out of my way to point out. Ive even rewritten portions to build up and give credit to performance and skill where it was due. Thats the best i can do.

      Like

    • Clearly the tone didn’t work for you. I thought it was on the harsh side but not unfair. We will have to agree to disagree.

      Worldwide figures do matter. But when one is determining whether or not a movie is a hit, a bomb or something in between, they matter a lot less than domestic numbers.

      Part of the reason for that is that things get really complicated when you start factoring in international numbers. There are a lot of additional costs above and beyond the production costs. And the studio keeps a smaller percentage of the grosses.

      International grosses are becoming more important all the time and I would never ignore them. But you can’t just throw iut those inflated numbers and act like every movie is suddenly a hit. The movies you mentioned were not.

      Like

  22. Well i still think worldwide counts. Your acting like you called a few performances wooden, you insulted him at every single turn. Next to practically every movie mentioned is a picture making fun of what you call a ‘blank stare’ or a video called ‘bad acting.’ Making fun of his weight by the way was a very classy touch. I’m hoping the rewritten article is a step of improvement over the original.

    Like

    • I didnt create the memes or videos or madtv skits. So, the only thing is theyre included because they are funny and it shows im not the only one with this opinion, clearly. But it is done in fun, is the thing you seem to be missing. And one weight gain joke? Hes even lost it, it was a wink at the val kilmer article which ends way worse than that.

      Like

  23. The lake house was most definitely a hit, and the day the earth stood still is not a bomb. You may not have made the videos, but you didn’t have to include every single one of them. By including so many, this article becomes far from a critique and just an excuse to mock him. If this is supposed to be about his career then why the hell did you even include that photo? I fail to see how that has anything to do with his career.

    Like

    • The Lake House opened in 4th place at the box office. It grossed 52 million on a 40 million dollar budget. It probably broke even in the US. That’s not a hit. That’s so-so box office. Not a flop, but arguably a disappointment. I guarantee the studio wanted at least $100 million domestic and a #1 opening. Second place would have been acceptable. You can’t just call a movie a hit when by definition it wasn’t.

      The Day the Earth Stood Still didn’t even recoup its production costs in the US. It was a box office failure domestically. The blow was softened by healthy grosses over seas. Whether or not that qualifies it as a bomb is debatable. I’m inclined to say it was not because I think the term “box office bomb” should be reserved for movies that truly fail across the board. But it most definitely was not a hit.

      You are quibbling over box office terminology which is a really weak criticism of the article. And you aren’t even supporting your arguments. You’re just denying the definition of these terms. Let’s move on.

      Was there mocking? Yes. Undoubtedly. The WTHH series always includes a gentle ribbing of the subject. Did the author include too many? I guess that’s debatable. Look, there’s a lot more stuff on line making fun of Keanu Reeves. He’s been a target of jokes for decades. He actually has a pretty good sense of humor about it from what I have seen. You should probably follow his example in that regards.

      The fat picture was a bit of a low blow. But its hardly unprecedented in the series. I took it as a reference to the Val Kilmer article which the author actually mentions along with the picture. I included several fat Val Kilmer pictures in that article. I mean, it’s an unflattering picture. So what? The author spends a great deal of the article saying how good looking Reeves is.

      Obviously the article has a lot to do with Reeves’ career. It’s at least 90% career retrospective.

      It’s fine that you don’t like it. But for all your protests, you have yet to provide one inaccuracy in the entire article. If you find one, let me know and I will correct it.

      Like

  24. LeBeau,

    OK, now you’ve done it; you just had to pull my chain one last time. Well, now you got the tiger by the tail, better not let go…

    How dare you suggest that Matrix Revolutions was anything less than spectacular. I don’t want any back story, I don’t want relationships, I don’t want personality or fleshing out or any of that sissified stuff. By the time of the last titanic struggle for neurological freedom I had enough of the nambi pambi sub plots to last me a billion nano seconds. I sat through 6 and one half hours? of Matrix just to see the final showdown, I wanted violence, I wanted destruction, and I wanted revenge for the Human Race. And if you can’t understand that then you’re just stupid, and fat like Val Kilmer…No not Kilmer, he’s one of my favorite actors. I mean fat like Keenu Reeves….ah no wait, he’s one of my favorites too….I know..fat like like Steven Segal. Yeah that’s it. Fat and stupid like Steven Segal. So the next time you bad mouth NEO, MORPHEUS, and the beautiful TRINITY then just think….Segal….and then you will think twice about attacking America’s favorite actors…

    Brad Deal

    Like

    • Ouch. I could have handled being fat Val Kilmer. But Seagal. That hurts, man.

      What I wanted from Revolutions was more of a focus on the characters we cared about. But Neo, Morpheus and Trinity got lost in the shuffle. spoilers Neo becomes some blind prophet and if I remember correctly, Trinity dies. Uh what? That’s not the ending I wanted at all! And then that big climatic showdown we waited more than six hours for ends in an anticlimactic cease fire with the machines still running things but promising to let humans choose whether or not to be released from the Matrix? Yeah, that’s obviously not going to work at all. I much preferred the ending of the original film which told us all we needed to know. Neo was the one. He destroyed the machine that had enslaved humanity. He set everyone free and flew away like Superman in a trenchcoat. There really wasn’t any story left to tell after that.

      You know what, being compared to Seagal doesn’t bother me so much afterall. Just don’t quarrel with me about the box office prospects of The Lake House and we’ll be all right.

      Deep breaths everybody. Keanu Reeves is rich and happy. No amount of snarky blog posts is going to change that. Now, if you will all excuse me, I need to see if I can make another actor cry. 😉

      Like

  25. There’s a world of difference between a little ribbing, as you put it, and saying how awful he is in every movie, which is what this article basically does. The Lake House house made 114 worldwide, which should be mentioned, as should Speed’s worldwide gross. the worldwide totals are mentioned on other peoples pages, but not on his. The 233 million gross of the day the earth stood still sure as hell sounds like a hit to me. Why do you think studios don’t count worldwide?

    Like

    • Seriously, Peyton. Do you want to continue flogging the dead horse about the box office figures?

      If I had written the article, I would have made more mentions of the world wide box office just like I do in the majority of the articles. Instead, we’re talking about it here. Time permitting, I plan to go back and flesh out a few things. For example, there’s no mention of Reeves’ band. I feel like that should be there. Also, rather than link to articles about Reeves’ good deeds and personal tragedies, I will probably incorporate them into the article at some point. But there’s only so much time in the day and I have my own articles to write. I can also provide a little more context around the box office figures.

      But like Daffy pointed out, you are weighting the box office figures way too heavily. Who cares if The Lakehouse was a hit, a disappointment or a bomb? Did you like the movie? Why should you care about how much money it made in Europe and Asia? I don’t understand why you are so hung up on this. It seems to me that you had an emotional reaction to McGuff criticizing and actor you liked and now you’re clinging to the box office figures like they matter. Let it go!

      Just to clarify, studios do count worldwide grosses. They matter. As international grosses continue to grow and US box office remains relatively stagnant, worldwide grosses matter more and more all the time. But you can’t just look at a worldwide gross and compare it to the budget and say that if it is bigger than the production costs its a hit. Hollywood bookkeeping is way more complicated than that. The truth is that given enough time most movies make money. Or at least break even. Even flops. That’s not what we’re talking about here.

      When a studio spends $80 million dollars to make a movie, they have certain expectations. They probably spent another $15-20 million marketing the movie. And that’s just in the US. Then they split the gross with the theaters. International grosses have to be negotiated with the countries the movie plays in. For these reasons, the studios want big opening weekends in the US. For The Day the Earth Stood Still to have satisfied the studio, it needed to gross at least $150 million in the US alone. I guarantee they were hoping for figures north of $200 million. Any movie that fails to earn back its production cost in the US is a disappointment at best. It would have been an outright flop if it weren’t for the strong international figures.

      There’s only so many ways I can explain that and I think I have tried them all. We’re repeating ourselves. So I’m done talking about box office figures for The Day the Earth Stood Still and the Lake House. If you want to continue disagreeing with me, that’s your prerogative. But let’s just agree to disagree and move on.

      Like

  26. And I have another bone to pick with you. In case you have not noticed, we have been experiencing globalization. When you see another one of our jobs being exported to a foreign country, think Globalization. It’s the reason why American workers work more hours for less money than any other industrialized country on this globalized planet. So when you talk about box office recites it would be naive to believe that those pasty faced bean counters did not take in the account every ticket buyer everywhere on this globalized ball in space. It’s all how it’s spun. The studios use box office income to compare winners and losers. Hell, my whole artistic experience is dictated by the total monetary income of any particular movie. Not by its content. Super ninja frog movie makes $200 million, it must be good, but the frozen train movie barely breaks even so it’s a bomb. Even if it makes an important social statement. Our whole society rates people based on their monetary worth, not their character. A billionaire drug dealer will get our respect where a public minded family man is looked at as a loser. WTH LeBeau? So you are caught in a paradigm shift where US ticket sales is morphing into a Global ticket sale senerio. And if you believe those bean counters don’t know exactly the exchange rates overseas, and their profit margins to last ruble then I have a bridge to sell you.

    So there…

    Brad Deal

    Like

    • The bean counters know. They even get creative with their numbers to make movies that aren’t hits appear to be successful and vice versa. Numbers can be spun whichever way the studio wants to spin them. I get that.

      As Daffy said, box office receipts are not a measure of quality. I have no interest in Super Ninja Frogs but I went out of my way to see the Frozen Train movie and I’m glad I did. By the way, Snowpiercer is on Netflix now for those of you who still haven’t seen it.

      I include the box office figures in these articles because they are part of the story. Hits and flops impact the course of a career. The Matrix made Reeves an international star which is why he is still making movies today. He hasn’t had a real hit in the US since the Matrix sequels which is part of why he isn’t starring in any big mainstream movies currently. It helps explain why Actor A is reading all the best scripts and Actor B is reading the scripts Actor A passed on.

      Beyond that, I think people care way too much about these numbers. I like plenty of movies that were not box office hits and there are plenty of box office smashes I don’t care for.

      Anyway, how much are you asking for that bridge? I need something to jump off of.

      Like

  27. I guess i’m just having trouble understanding why Keanu is even on here in the first place.

    Like

  28. Peyton,

    I feel your anguish, but remember dwmcguff wrote this for our entertainment. The article did not come off the way he wanted and he got alot of blowback from his readers. He owned up to his miscalculation and rewrote the article. He manned up and changed his original thoughts. Not a lot of guys would do that. So give him the benefit of a doubt and help him to write a more acceptable article for the next WTHH.

    In my opinion Reeves probably did not warrant a WTHH article, but so what, I loved the article even if it pissed me off. I would never have learned so much about one of my favorite actors if he had written about Brad Pitt or George Klooney.

    Keep in mind these guys are here to have a good time. When they poke fun, it’s for fun, not to be mean. If you want mean then there are a ton of political forums that will make you scream. I can tell you have a good understanding of the subject matter, don’t let it upset you too much or it will ruin the whole experience.

    Just sayin’. You must choose, but choose wisely

    Brad

    Like

  29. What do you mean why wouldn’t he be on here? What the hell is that supposed to mean? What makes him so worthy to be on here when his career has not dried up in anyway. I understand that a career drying up isn’t the main purpose of the site and there are many other reasons, but he has a movie out right now that’s gotten great reviews and seems to be doing well, plus he has three new ones coming up. It seems to me he was put on here just because he had a few flops before that.

    Like

    • I think you answered your own question.

      Michael Keaton’s making a splash with Birdman right now. I’m not taking down WTHH to Michael Keaton or the entry on his costar, Edward Norton.

      Being included in WTHH is not an insult despite the mild profanity in the title and the lame-o jokes. It’s a sign that someone achieved something worth writing about. Even Steven Seagal.

      At the end of the day, all of the people we write about are far more successful than me, Daffy, McGuff or any of the other contributors here. They shouldn’t let a few jokes get to them and neither should you. As Brad pointed out, this is meant to be fun. If it stops being fun, just don’t read the article. Go listen to Le Show. We can use a few more listeners. 😉

      As I wrote in the About WTHH article all I need for a WTHH story is a rise and a fall. Reeves’ career had those elements. We’re telling that story. Doesn’t mean the story is over. Doesn’t mean you should feel bad about liking him or his movies. Hopefully what you get from these articles is a sense of how a career has progressed, a couple interesting bits of trivia and maybe a chuckle or two. That’s the idea anyway. Sorry this one didn’t work for you. Have you read WTHH to Liv Tyler? I quite liked it.

      Like

  30. You bring up some good points, Brad, I guess my anger just stems from the fact that he doesn’t deserve to be on here at all and how this article in particular seemed to be 10 times more harsh than the others. The others felt like a critique, this to me just feels like one long attack on him by saying how awful he is in everything. I can admit it mainly stems from the fact that i’m a fan and i’m tired of hearing years of criticisms of him, I would just like someone to explain to me why they put him on here in the first place.

    Like

    • I know I have mentioned this before, but having people tell me who should or shouldn’t be included in the series is my one pet peeve. It’s my series. As far as I am concerned every actor who has ever been committed to film is fair game. I choose the stories that interest me the most. Simple as that.

      I’ve said it 100 times. More than once in the comments section of this article. Being a WTHH subject is not a sign of failure. It’s a sign of success. It’s a celebration of achievement. It’s an affectionate roast that sometimes gets a bit rowdy.

      You see offended that the article was even written. If that’s the case, there’s very little chance of pleasing you.

      Like

  31. How did Keanu’s career have a rise and fall? Because of a few flops, every actor in history has those, it still sounds premature to include him here. I’m a fan of Keaton but even I can admit that I understand why he’s on here. I understand the idea you mentioned about what to get from these articles, I just wish he wasn’t being called awful over 90% of it.

    Like

    • The last movie Reeves was in that was an unqualified hit was over 10 years ago. He has been largely absent from the public eye since 2003. The mainstream movies he starred in during that time were not hits. His career hit its peak with the Matrix films and has since cooled off. That’s a rise and a fall.

      I promise he is not being called awful in 90% of the article. Not even 75%. Let’s try to be fair here too.

      Like

  32. Keanu Reeves is hot like the sun alternating from smoldering ash to nuclear fire. It all depends on the sun spots. I think that wraps it up. No more to be said. See you guys later I’m going to bed.

    If you guys were closer I’d take you all out for a beer.

    Brad Deal

    Like

  33. Largely absent from the public eye since 2003? You’d call the lake house, constantine, the day the earth stood still, street kings being absent from the public? None of those movies were flops.

    Like

  34. Keanu’s turn as the lead in The Day The Earth Stood Still was sort of an end-of-an-era, in a way. A big-budget special-effects heavy popcorn film centered around a movie star? With the collapse of the star system in recent years, those don’t happen much anymore. Unless you’re Tom Cruise. Nowadays film studios mostly rely on the spectacle to be the draw, and not the actors.

    Like

  35. And i’m saying again that they were far from flops and made plenty of money. I don’t know why the hell worldwide doesn’t matter for you. There’s no freaking way over 230 million is a disappointment, or over 100, especially if the budget is only 40. Those numbers certainly don’t sound like few people.

    Like

    • You’re looking at that $230M dollar number as a raw number here Peyton, which in this instance is wrong. The Day The Earth Stood Still cost $80M to make, and then you have to add in marketing costs which can be half of a films’ budget or more. It probably cost $40 to $60M worldwide to market and distrbute the film (and that’s a conservative number), so we’re talking about an actual cost of roughly $120-150M to create and release the film. Movie theatres take roughly half of the ticket sales, so the film had to make $240M to $300M….. just to break even. A major film studio doesn’t invest that much money just to break even, or maybe make a few bucks years later when it earns some money on home video and cable. So the film earned $230M worldwide, so yeah a decent number of people went to see the film, but the film either just broke even or maybe made a minor profit. That’s not exactly a win for either the film studio, or for Keanu Reeves.

      Like

      • “a decent number of people went to see it”

        … in Europe and Asia.

        Not to discount that, but as far as US audiences are concerned Reeves has largely vanished.

        This isn’t the first article ever written asking what happened to him. John Wick has been called a comeback because Reeves has been largely absent in recent years.

        I appreciate you once again trying to explain worldwide box office. At this point, I am done explaining.

        I have stayed up waaaay past my bedtime tweaking the article to make it more fair. I am likely to lose it if I have to hear about The Lake House being a hit one more time. I seriously don’t know what I will do. Where’s my beer, Brad?!?

        Like

        • You know, that beer sounds mighty refreshing right about now! Count me in! 🙂

          Like

        • I don’t even drink. But I’m thinking about starting. Let’s meet at Brad’s place. Road trip!

          I did bury a new joke in the article that relates to the comments section. I figure fair is fair. If I am up at 3am changing Keanus to Reeves and removing excessive memes, I’m having some fun with the conversation that necessitated it.

          Like

  36. mcgruff the gift got reviews i was a theatre geek in highschool ill tell u reeves accent was spot u didnt mentioned he was got good reviews for shakshepre on stage another thing why do u trash costner hes a great actor he got oscar buzz for black and white hes gotten good reviews has more range then u think here an article i think i think u and lebua should read if u think he sucks http://www.thejay.com/2006/06/13/keanu-reeves-does-not-suck-and-i-can-prove-it/

    Like

  37. craig hanson u didnt answer my question do u like costner

    Like

    • Sure do! Untouchables and JFK are my two favorite films of Kostner’s. Seinfeld even did a hilarious parody of JFK with the “magic loogie”, no surer indication that JFK made an impact on pop culture.

      Like

      • LeBeau, speaking of the “Magic Loogie” bit from Seinfeld, just for fun what would you think of adding that Seinfeld clip into the JFK portion of Kostner’s article? I know it’s silly and all, but since Seinfeld was one of the biggest tv shows of the 90’s the Magic Bullet – excuse me Magic Loogie parody does show how popular JFK was at the time since everyone got the joke. And besides, it’s good for a laugh. I looked on Youtube and found the Magic Loogie bit on there, if you’re interested.

        Like

  38. he has a lot of screen time in it is it rewritten differently now i hope it mentioned he has gotten good reviews before critics praised his performance in john wick even the kilmer article didnt get bashed as much however it did make him out to be an a lister at one point which he never was it made his performance in matrix to be easy its not easy it takes talent to convey emotion with more facial features then words he does that iam still upset he takes a crack at costner no costner is no tom hanks who is the greatest of all time and my favorite but him and keanu better then u give them credit for

    Like

  39. i look at wikipedia under reception they describe constaine as a box office hit yet this site makes it out to be a flop

    Like

  40. Collection of thoughts. First, Lebeau, please tell your wife to throw something at you, on my behalf, as we are in different states and hence not within throwing distance. Second – Sweet November looks really good, I have to get that!! Third – the rewritten article does flow a bit better, proving that even good writing improves with rewriting. Along those lines, I am really busy so quit distracting me until after the 11th.

    Like

    • Ouch. Did she have to throw a shoe?

      Like

    • No RB. You were not the inspiration for the stalker joke. The Chevy Chase reference should make more sense when you see what I have been working on this afternoon. Hopefully it will be up later today. I am afraid you will want to throw more than a shoe at us. If you do, remember, it was Daffy’s idea.

      Like

    • RB,

      I was trying to make a point. When important papers are written they go through a process of review and editing internally. All the changes and revisions are made prior to publication. Professional papers are peer reviewed by a panel of experts to confirm the accuracy and validity of its contents. Once the paper is published then there are no revisions allowed. The reputation of the author rests with the quality of the paper. There are no take backs allowed.

      However, in LeBeau’s world, all the laundry is done in the front yard for everybody to see. It becomes a kind of friendly joint effort. A far cry from the selfishness of a professional paper. But a friendly effort must have limits in order to stay friendly. It relies on the integrity of the participants. Post it, you like it, fine. Don’t like it, then we’ll just change it a little bit. There happy now? It works here because there is nothing at stake, and it is after all allot of fun.

      But there is something at stake. Anybody who puts the time and effort into anything like this becomes emotionally invested in the project. Unsubstantiated, irrational attacks hurt the author. That is the line that should not be crossed.

      A funny thing happened a few minutes ago. I was hit up along side of my head by a shoe. Don’t know where it came from or why. How about it LeBeau, do you know anything about this?

      Brad Deal

      Liked by 1 person

  41. iam sorry to harp on it but can leave costner out of this hes not doing bad now and this costner not reeves i think both are good at doing what they do why bring up costner its keanus article costner is my 2nd fav actor of all time say what u want about him but he made a big impact on cinema in early 80s to mid 90s his acting gotten better he was the only positive thing ciritics said about swing vote that should count for something

    Like

    • I never made fun of costner. I simply reference him because costner is the king of sports movies. And reeves does one not so successful and then succesful sports movie.

      Like

  42. Swing vote was a huge flop though

    Like

  43. Youre misunderstanding the costner reference.
    And i do more than act. Its my profession. I teach theater and acting as well as run my own production company. Not that this makes my opinion any more worthwhile, im just saying

    Like

  44. iam sure u are good at what do but keanu got great reviews for his stage performance in hamlet even we tlak about films here plus even critics who hate keanu liked him the gift rivers edge my own prive idaho hes not as bad u make him out to be its funny after rivers edge he was hailed as a great actor i honestly think bill and ted destroyed that reputation but hes still good costner is also talented what do u think of costner do u like him

    Like

    • I gave him credit for his good performances, particularly every one you listed.I even said nobody could play the lead in scanner darkly but him. I read about his hamlet.

      But no, i dont like kevin costner, at least not as a lead, he can be fine in supporting parts. I prefer keanu reeves if i had to pick. Butthat had nothing to do with the reference

      Like

      • The only bad thing I can say about Kevin Costner is when he got into that pissing contest over Wyatt Erp and Tombstone. The damn fool took on Kurt Russel, Sam Eliot, Val Kilmer, Bill Paxton, Powers Booth, Micheal Bien, CHARLTON HESTON….omg. Steven Lange, Dana Delany, even BillyBob Thorton and last but least, Billy Zane. Talk about a wreckin crew. Poor ole Kevin stepped on a land mine. A whirlwind of talent that swept away his Wyatt Erp movie and part of his prestige like a hurricane. I liked Wyatt Erp but I loved Tombstone. I’m your Huckleberry. Val Kilmer should had won an Academy Award but noo, some timing BS screwed him out of a well deserved validation.

        Other than that ass whippin for Costner, I think he provides high quality entertainment. Water world is a good movie, very well done and I don’t care about the stupid critics or the box office recites. I liked the Postman, I can’t understand why it’s picked on so badly, and his Dances with Wolves was a once in a lifetime lightening strike. So the man is talented and my wife likes him. And I can’t argue with my wife….ever…

        Brad Deal

        Like

  45. That clip of Keanu sneezing from Lake House has me laughing. Look, I’ve sneezed before. You’ve sneezed before. Every living person has sneezed before. We all know what a sneeze looks like. That is the fakest-looking sneeze I’ve ever seen in my life. Too funny. AHHHCHOOOO!!!!!!

    Like

  46. his sneeze wasnt bad eastwood was the keanu reeves of his generation talentless actor got off by his look no range jack nicholson even compare keanu to clint clint wasnt appreciated till he got older however keanu has more range then clint

    Like

  47. i would say costner does too clint have more then those two but those two can do more then clint

    Like

    • It’s a reach to criticize a single sneeze, but it didn’t bother me because despite the author saying “20 years of hate”, the article as a whole suggests that he likes Keanu more than that.
      I think Keanu Reeves has too good of a soul to play evil and maybe he shouldn’t go for those roles.

      Like

  48. Psssst the Parenthood trailer you have is for the current NBC show, not the movie.

    Like

  49. john wick will bring him back iam surprised geres not on the list his career is worse then keanu spacey had only 2 hits since american beauty put him on chris o donnoel ewan mcrgeor too

    Like

  50. I thought this was well-written and interesting. Thank you!

    Like

  51. i could see keanu in a nolan film what u think lebeau

    Like

  52. Guys and Dolls,

    Hot Damn, I just saw John Wick.

    Oh Yeah, now that’s what I like! Not too much talk’in, none of this relationship crap. Just action, action, and action. Spoiler alert….there’s a lot you can do to a guy, but don’t steal his car and kill his dog. Payback is a bitch. Keanu is back, not that he was ever gone, but my man is BACK….5 stars in the testosterone category!!

    Now if Val Kilmer and Keanu Reeves could just together. It would be a movie made in Heaven😊

    Brad

    Liked by 1 person

    • I skipped the spoilers because I plan to see this movie. The movie has done well enough. But it hasn’t been a big hit. So I’m holding off. I figure the wait to see it on video won’t be long. I’ll circle back to you once I’ve seen it.

      I did start watching Snowpiercer again on Netflix. I wasn’t able to finish it unfortunately. But what I was able to see held up remarkably well on second viewing.

      Like

  53. dwmcguff
    u mentioned kilmer in above article would u say kilmer was ever a list i think he wasnt based on his only leading hit batman forever and that movie his name did not attract people to come nor did his next big budget films post batman he was all hype

    Like

  54. I think that Reeves would be a great Dr. Strange, especially if he has a good director (I think he needs a strong director to make good movies). The actor for Dr. Strange needs to be older than Cumberbatch and Whedon spoke positively of working with him on Speed. His style would suit the part if he can get a director that will push him past his robotic tendencies. But I’m not enough of a fanatic (I won’t even argue world wide figures with you 😉 since you clearly get the economics of that better than I) to think he has the box office appeal to get the part. (Also, from interviews, he doesn’t seem interested in going after the part aggressively, which may be a Reeves/ego thing, or he may not want it, or it might just not matter, but dammit SLJ got Fury that way.) It frustrates me because I think it would be a good chance for his career. Yes, I’m fangirling, but I’d like to think I’m not being insane about it. (For example, the second and third Matrix movies bored the hell out of me with their endless and meaningless action sequences. I couldn’t even watch them again so that I could defend Reeves’ acting.)

    I also agree that he does a great job in supporting roles and as a character actor. He’s also a good straight guy for others to play off of — Something’s Gotta Give, and one where only crazy people think he’s wooden. A lot of the dud movies he’s in, Reeves actually does a great job. I’ll watch his scenes in I Love You to Death over again. Replacements isn’t a great movie, but I have fun with it and Reeves plays his character really well. He even emotes. And maybe it’s different for me, because I’ve had depression, but in Constantine, there’s a real visceral impact to his body language in expressing that condition. (I know, he’s nothing like the REAL Constantine, but I never read that comic, so I didn’t care.)

    Would be curious as to what you had to say about his rumored script battles–Speed being one of the few he won. He’s said to have had reservations about 47 Ronin and the final script of Chain Reaction was not the one he signed on for, which I’m sure is common, but seems to have frustrated him in several movies. Also, in the movies where he has a terrible accent, what was going on with the director’s that they didn’t just say, “Screw it, forget the accent and use generic American?” Isn’t that their job?

    Like

    • I’d be okay with Reeves as Doctor Strange. I don’t have strong feelings about who should or shouldn’t play he character though. There’s not all that much too Dr. Strange. So I don’t think it requires any specific type. Reeves does have international box office appeal as has been pointed out repeatedly. So that’s a definite plus in favor of casting him. But if it goes another way, I can’t imagine he would be all that upset about it. There’s a lot of super hero roles out there. He seems like a natural to play one.

      Like

    • In my opinion Reeves just doesn’t possess the intrinsic gravitas to play Dr Strange. He certainly could be made to look a lot like him, but then he’d have to act the part. If he got the role, he’d have to do quite a fine job at it to convince me he was the right choice.

      When it comes to performing dialects (if a character is a native English speaker then their unique manner of speech is not an accent, it is a dialect), that’s the actor’s job. There are very specific and well-paid coaches who work with successful actors on this skill. If a director is put in a position to abandon a character’s dialect, what that really means is that the actor should be fired, because that actor has not done, or is incapable of doing, their job. Some actors just don’t have the ear for dialect work and should eventually just accept it and not take roles that demand this skill.

      Like

      • This is probably a result of my low opinion of Dr Strange, but I figure any actor who can rock the cloak and facial hair is up for the task of shouting “By the Hoary Hosts of Hoggoth!” I don’t care if there’s an unspoken “dude” at the end of that sentence.

        Like

        • And they apparently thought that any handsome young actor could play Harker in Dracula. But they were wrong.

          Like

        • No argument. But I do think Reeves has matured as an actor. Reeves at that age read California surfer dude. He was woefully out of place in a period piece like Dracula. Although he fared better in Dangerous Liaisons. So maybe the directors were a factor. Since that time, Reeves has shown that he is capable of handing in better performances than he did in Dracula. So I don’t automatically assume that would be the result.

          Partially, my willingness to experiment with the role is that I have no rooting interest in Dr. Strange. I have read a lot of comic books with Dr. Strange in them and 99% of the time he is there as an easy out for a lazy writer. In Civil War, he was basically Captain America’s teleportation device. Since Marvel is introducing Dr Strange around the same time as the Civil War storyline, I expect the treatment will be similar.

          Cast Reeves as a character I care about, and I may feel differently. Although honestly, no parts come to mind that I would strenuously object to. Reeves as Batman wouldn’t be any more objectionable than Affleck. He’d make a pretty lousy Wonder Woman though.

          I will concede that Reeves would not be my first choice for any super hero. There will always be someone else I would prefer even if its an unknown.

          Like

        • Between FFC saying that he cast Reeves on the strength of Ryder’s recommendation alone just on needing a guy to bring young women to the theatre, I think it’s pretty clear that his directing was an issue, not the only one, but definitely a problem.

          Dr. Strange doesn’t interest me at all. My casting is pure fangirling that I think it would be good for his career. Out of the Marvel characters coming up, that’s the one he could pull off.

          Reeves has mentioned wanting to do Batman and Wolverine. I love the guy, but he couldn’t pull off Wolverine. I’m not that crazy.

          Looking at John Wick as an audition for an aging Batman story, though, that he could do. And he’s got a better action resume than Affleck. And the voice. Reeves has a low, deep, soft voice, which is why his yelling sounds weird to people, but it’s perfect for “I’m the goddamn Batman and I don’t need to yell.”

          Like

        • I don’t disagree. Any handsome actor can be Batman. You just have to look dark and moody as Bruce Wayne. The cowl does the work for you as Batman. You just have to not embarrass yourself with your Batman voice, sorry Bale.

          Like

        • 😊No, no, noooo, “My name is Neo!”

          Like

        • Dracula is a great example of what happens to Reeves when he’s got a lazy director that just wants him for eye candy. His acting skills come to the surface under strong direction. That’s just part of who he is.

          Like

      • Absolutely, but whether he was capable of an English dialect wasn’t really for Reeves to know at the time he did Dracula, not to mention problematic to self judge. FFC admitting to casting him because Ryder wanted him (the cast has been described as her dream team) and he was good looking; I don’t think he even auditioned, so it’s FFC’s failure as a director not to realize this guy couldn’t pull off an English dialect and go with someone else or tell him “Your dialect sucks; get a decent voice coach.” That’s his job as the director.

        Same thing with Devil’s Advocate. His dialect isn’t horrible at the beginning, but could have been better and started to fall apart by the end. If we’re going to complain about his dialect at the start, the director’s the one that should have said to him: “Not good enough.” Something a good director should be on top of before filming starts, esp after Dracula. Having the dialect fall apart later, yes, a big part of that is on Reeves to keep up quality, but shouldn’t the director be on top of that as well? Isn’t that part of what the director is there for?

        Like

        • While it certainly reflects negatively on Coppola that he cast the role without seeing the actor read, I cannot disagree more with the idea that the actor is not responsible for knowing what his own skills are. The results are clear in Reeves’ own poor performance in Dracula. When I was an acting student it was made very clear that NOBODY else is more responsible for knowing what an actor is capable of than the actor himself. The number one most important thing for an actor to do is to identify and pursue roles he is capable of succeeding in. He has nobody but himself to blame if he fails in a role he should not have taken to begin with. This is especially true nowadays when most actors are free agents instead of employees of a specific studio or producing organization.

          Like

  55. he did a great accent in gift plus he got great reviews for devils advcate al was over the top iam surprised nolan hasnt cast him in a movie he fits scifi well

    Like

  56. i saw u mention batman here is a list of actor i think would be good batman give me your 2 cents on it matt damon james franco michael c hall leo ryan gosling

    Like

  57. For some godforsaken reason rumors are swirling on the next Matrix trilogy. Hopefully after Jupiter Ascending bombs, that will stop.

    If anything wouldn’t Jupiter Ascending bombing significantly up the likelihood of a new Matrix trilogy? When directors (and for that matter actors) get into trouble they tend to retreat to safe ground meanning what has worked before. Think the Farrellys and Jim Carrey returning to Dumb and Dumber for no other reason than both need a hit.

    Like

    • That’s a distinct possibility. Although where the Wachowskis are concerned, it’s hard to say.

      I for one would welcome a good Matrix movie. But it would have to be good. Nothing like Reloaded and Revolutions.

      Like

  58. His success is easy to pinpoint. Regardless of his range, he has great screen presence. Its a gift that really cannot be taught. You either have it or you don’t. No one ever said Harrison Ford was a good actor but his screen presence made him a huge movie star. Once the studios know you have it, its like being in a winning super bowl coach, you have a job for life. Unlike some other actors on here I commented on, he is basically stuck on the silver screen and I do not think he can ever do TV, as his screen presence is his asset and that would disappear on TV.

    His laid back style, although mocked, is actually kind of perfect for action movies. An actor’s actor would ham it up (look at Johnny Depp for example in just about every role and why every movie he is in is atrocious) and detract from the movie. In action/sci fi movies like the Matrix, having a guy with huge screen presence who does not have to “act” is actually a huge plus for the movie, as counter-intuitive as it is.

    I do not think his lean years really has anything to do with his roles, its basically just that he is getting older. It seems like Mr. Lebeau likes Constantine, but its now 0-2 in adaptions. If there was one bad choice in hindsight with Mr. Reeves, it was doing those two awful Matrix sequels. They are on many lists as in the running for worst sequels ever. I guess with the hit it was, they were inevitable, but they were so bad they actually pulled down the first one a peg or two. Its hard to rewatch “The Matrix” now knowing it will end up as a CGI turd fest. The Matrix was a really great film and to enjoy it you really have to try to put the sequels out of your mind and enjoy it on its own’s merits The Wacowskis(sp.) have really been awful since, they had one good idea and are the director equivalent to a one hit wonder. If he could have somehow avoided them, his career might have been better off.

    I bet he will end up in direct to video movies and occasional spring releases til he retires with maybe one comeback role down the road in an action flick that needs an upper middle aged lead. (like Harrison Ford in those Jack Ryan movies) There is a reason why they put him is that John Wick movie, he really can do those Liam Neeson movies in his sleep and will probably be fine in them.

    Like

  59. i saw commerical for interseller saw him in matthew role he fits the scifi genre well dont know why nolan dont cast him more

    Like

  60. forrestbracket

    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt4334266/ heres link him and jim making movie together

    Like

  61. 10 Most Polarizing Actors Of All-Time:
    http://whatculture.com/film/10-most-polarising-actors-of-all-time.php/11

    Keanu Reeves

    There are many who think that Keanu Reeves is the worst actor of all-time – wooden, unemotional, cold, offering up the same performance in each and every one of his motion picture ventures. It’s understandable that people think that, of course, because Keanu has played a lot of forgettable, oddly accented characters. And yet… the man is still around.

    So there is a sense that Keanu Reeves somehow got a “lucky break.” He is often thought to be unworthy of his career; folk cite him as a bad actor whenever they need one to use for an example. But there are many who appreciate Reeves as a sensitive and sincere performer whose calm, meditative and quiet mannerisms are often mistaken for indifference.

    He was right for The Matrix, of course – Neo needed to be passive, cold, subdued – natural emotions for Reeves. He also showcased mean comic chops in Bill & Ted’s Excellent Adventure and was somebody to root for in the recent action flick John Wick. But there are many misfires in and amongst those films that work, all of which render Reeves as something of a mystery: so can he act or can’t he? Point Break and Dracula would argue that he cannot.

    Like

  62. Real Thoughts on Nostalgia Critic Reviews: The Matrix:

    Welcome to a new series of videos where we (Doug and Rob) give our real thoughts on films that the Nostalgia Critic has reviewed. First up, The Matrix.

    Like

    • “The Matrix” (1999) Was an Accident:
      http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2975590/board/flat/247413826?d=247413826#247413826

      I want to preface this by saying I love “The Matrix”. However, I have come to realize it’s greatness (everything that makes it great) is an accident.

      Why It’s an Accidental Classic Sci-Fi Film: The fact is, the Watchowski Brothers had lightning in a pan. They created the concept (outline) and all the right things fell into all the right places. They haven’t done anything on par with “The Matrix” since.

      I feel giving them a lower budget where they have to be creative, makes them better. I think the horror/ominous vibe from the original was by accident. I believe they had to create the setting differently due to the lack of funds they requested from WB. They wanted 3x the budget they got from WB because it was risk film.

      I feel they had to shorten the story, leave more things to the imagination due to a lack of budget, and I think it is when they are at their best.

      Give the Watchowskis 3 times less than they ask, they will have to cut corners, leave things to the imagination (Hitchcock Style) and you will get a film 3x better.

      The Trilogy would have worked better if they all matched that budget/style.

      I absolutely love the idea of extending the “Pre-Matrix” beginning. Making it more suspenseful and thrilling. Then end the first film with him waking up and we see the scene where Morpheus says “Welcome to the real world” and everything is hazy.

      That way The Matrix II would begin where the last one left off, kung fu training, freeing his mind, meeting the oracle, and setting up the final sequence and saving Morpheus.

      I think then they should have done a Matrix III where it was like a “Twilight Zone” or “Outer Limits” twist/Sci-Fi ending. Akin to 1950s films.

      Thoughts?

      Like

      • What’s do people hate The Matrix sequels so much?

        http://www.imdb.com/board/bd0000007/flat/254650964?d=254652670#254652670

        I don’t dislike them nearly as much as many people seem to, but while The Matrix was a carefully crafted masterpiece that was obviously a labor of love, the sequels come off as rushed and cheap (even though they cost drastically more to make), as well as in some ways functioning almost like a parody of itself. I still think they have value, but it would have been nice if the Wachowski Sisters had taken the time to really get these right, rather than pumping out these overly CGIed, convoluted films. The original had an aura of mystery but was never actually confusing, but the sequels tried too hard to re-capture that sense of mystery and instead they came off as needlessly complicated.

        Like

    • 10 Dead Movie Franchises That Hollywood Must Revive

      http://whatculture.com/film-tv/10-dead-movie-franchises-that-hollywood-must-revive?page=10

      The Matrix

      It’s almost universally acknowledged that the second and third Matrix movies – overlong, overambitious and overblown – didn’t hold a candle to the first. The cod philosophizing completely got in the way of the central aesthetic of the first film: the idea of bringing a video game to life as an action movie, with state-of-the-art special effects and choreography working hand in hand to provide revolutionary action sequences.

      Forget the stoned ramblings of the Architect and the Baudrillard-light pseudo-intellectualism: what we want to see are guns. Lots and lots of guns, and kung fu out the wazoo – and, most importantly of all, a hard reset.

      That last isn’t the big stretch you’d think it is. This is, after all, a video game writ large, and anyone who’s ever owned a games console knows all about having to hit the big button in frustration when the thing freezes or dies. Well, that’s what’s happened here: the latest releases for the franchise were bugged to hell and back, and after a while the damn thing just stopped playing altogether.

      Cast Keanu Reeves as the returned Neo in a cameo: either as the villain or some souped up recluse that gives the heroes their mojo. Limit the amount of time spent in the monumentally crappy ‘real world’. Cast a couple of bright young things that look good in pleather trousers and storyboard yourself some lean, devastatingly off-the-wall action sequences – probably two or three more than you think is reasonable for a ninety minute popcorn flick – and go nuts.

      In these superhero-heavy times, you’ll have to work hard to trump Norse gods, armored one-liner-machines and giant green rage monsters… but that’s the beauty of the Matrix. Anything can happen.

      Like

      • No! Hollywood must stop reviving movie franchises that have run their course! They do enough reviving already. Tell What Culture to stop encouraging them!

        Like

        • Yeah, no more Hollywood bailouts; I think it’s past the point of irksome. It’s like if a painter decided to paint his/her best piece again because it was popular and they’re currently fresh out of ideas, except in this case Hollywood is given new material, but they’re either too afraid to release it or don’t trust that the public will get behind something new.

          Like

        • The problem is, the public has shown that they won’t. Movies like Edge of Tomorrow face an uphill climb at the box office with with a star like Tom Cruise. People flock to the opening of a turkey like Batman V Superman despite horrible reviews because the characters are familiar. It’s a sad state of affairs. I wonder how new franchises are ever supposed to get off the ground these days.

          Like

      • jeffthewildman

        Parts of this show that Whatculture only understands The Matrix on the most superficial level.

        Like

  63. forrestbracket

    leabeau what u think of movie with him and carrey

    Like

  64. forrestbracket

    plot line soudns cool

    Like

  65. Re: ACTORS/ACTRESS Who Cannot ACT!!

    http://www.lipstickalley.com/showthread.php/875419-ACTORS-ACTRESS-Who-Cannot-ACT!!?p=22034670&viewfull=1#post22034670

    Keanu Reeves – no one can tell me he didn’t get all of his acting roles due busting it wide open on the casting couch, because it sure wasn’t from being a great/good/or even okay actor. Nor was it because he has a great personality. A log could emote better than him. His voice is so flat when he speaks and his face only seems to show confusion and that’s it. He’s not even a one note actor, like Clooney, who pretty much plays himself in every role, but at least he’s good at being that one character. Keanu has no note. He is devoid of any kind of personality. All people ever say is he’s nice, not that he’s smart or funny or witty or interesting, just nice. There is nothing to justify his career, nothing.

    Like

  66. forrestbracket

    he is good actor . early in his career he got amazing reviews for rivers edge and my own private idaho u want bad acting go wathc eastwood he has less personality. keanu has more range then clooney

    Like

  67. Future of Movie Stars: Who Will Shine? Who Will Fade Away?

    http://forums.previously.tv/topic/7750-future-of-movie-stars-who-will-shine-who-will-fade-away/page-13#entry1171421

    Quote

    I remember someone asked Keanu Reeve’s agent (I think it was his agent) how he became a star. Because, seriously. The guy has questionable talent as an actor at best. The answer was that he was ridiculously easy to work with. If he booked a job he showed up on time, off book, ready to work. If a director told him to do his part standing on his head wearing drag, he did the part standing on his head wearing drag. People liked working with him so he kept getting booked and he happily worked wherever he could until Point Break and Speed came along.

    I kinda feel like Channing Tatum is the modern-day Keanu Reeves. People just liked working with him, so he kept getting cast in various things, until he had his big breakthrough with Dear John in 2010, which led to the Vow and 21 Jump Street in 2012 and cemented his A-List status.

    Like

  68. forrestbracket

    watch the gift rivers edge my own private idaho he can emote more emotion then channing. never compare him to no talent channing. all channing does is grunt and look tough. fighting was his only great performance. keanu had several

    Like

  69. forrestbracket

    i think charlie sheen is candidate for the list lebeau .hes more known for his personal life and he has no projects coming up.

    Like

  70. Correcting the link

    Like

    • Superhero Rewind: Constantine Review

      “Constantine,” (2005). Keanu Reeves, Tilda Swinton. Directed by Francis Lawrence.

      Like

      • 10 Worst Times Famous Comic Book Characters Were Radically Changed For Movies

        http://whatculture.com/film-tv/10-worst-times-famous-comic-book-characters-were-radically-changed-for-movies?page=8

        John Constantine (Constantine)

        Keanu Reeves can be a very enjoyable actor in the right role. In this case however, John Constantine was not the right part for him. To make things worse, this miscasting had a ripple effect for the character’s entire demeanor and appearance.

        Just looking at him, Reeves in no way resembles the comic book character from the iconic Hellblazer series. He’s meant to be modeled after rock-star Sting and not only is Reeves not blonde, he’s not even British!

        The failings of these changes go beyond just the superficial. The characterization of Constantine is just all wrong. He’s meant to be somewhat unlikable, too cocky for his own good but charming enough to keep you coming back to him. Instead, the cinematic version is just confident, quiet, and bland. There’s no real trace of his distinctive personality.

        John Constantine is a character who, if adapted faithfully, could have provided a new spin on the heroic archetype. But instead of constructing a unique character like he is in the comics, the film made him like any other generic hero.

        Like

  71. You know, in the scope of things his career has been decent. He was big draw from the early 90s and a legit star for about 10-12 years from the mid 90s to 2005.

    Having just re-watched 2008’s The Day the Earth Stood re-make, it was more the writing, directing, plot and just excessive bad CGI that was awful, not really Keanu’s performance. I mean there was one scene where they used a CGI helicopter that just looked stupid when a partial model would have been fine. Also having Gort turn into a cloud was a terrible plot choice – movies with clouds as the bad guy never work (Fantastic Four 2, Green Lantern). Also the kid actor was bad. If anything, I think Keanu was decent in it. His style is actually well-suited to play Klaatu.

    That said, it was really tough blow after Rachel McAdams walked out of Passengers and then the Weinstien company dumped it. Now Sony has picked it up as a big budget vehicle with Chris Pratt and Jennifer Lawrence – probably going to be one of the bigger movies of 2016.

    Keanu’s upcoming projects for 2016 don’t look promising either (The Bad Batch – a comedy co-starring with Jim Carrey, ouch; other A-minus or borderline B-list stuff). They did announce a John Wick 2 so maybe he’s going to take a poor-man’s Liam Neeson status.

    I’d say Keanu has a decent chance of getting over the slump he’s had that seemed to start with The Lake House, but he’s going to need to find something that fits him. He’s still getting work – not A-list work, but not back-alley work either.

    Like

    • It only takes one hit. John Wick helped. I hope the sequel is as much fun as the original. I don’t think Reeves will ever be A-list again, but I don’t get the impression he cares either.

      Like

  72. forrestbracket

    keanu fits scfi well. I think its weird nolan hasnt cast him in a movie i can picture him in a nolan movie.

    Like

  73. Since today is the 48th birthday of Keanu Reeves’ “Matrix” co-star, Carrie Ann Moss, I think that now is a perfect time to put her up for a suggestion of her being a feature WTHHT subject:
    http://scripts-onscreen.com/2013/carrie-anne-moss-scripts/

    Carrie-Anne Moss had a skyrocketing career after she first appeared in the Wachowski brothers epic The Matrix trilogy in 1999. Her dynamic persona in the film was breathtaking- a truly tough female character that both women and men could like and feel intimidate by.

    However, her choice of films following the trilogy are not equally memorable- with the sole exception being her role in Disturbia (2007). What could have caused this A-list actor to fall under the radar? It can’t be said that the trilogy ruined her career, as Keanu Reeves is still counted among the A-list and has been receiving continuous roles since the trilogy’s completion.

    While the answer may not be clear, there are some things that her decline could be attested to. For one, Moss had received such attention during the “Matrix years” that she may be trying to lay low; trying new types of films that challenge her as an actress. Two, she may have continued to pursue roles like hers in the Matrix, not realizing that this would mean sudden death to her career. Once you are typecast, there is not much that you can do to save yourself besides find a role that is completely opposite of you.

    Whatever the reason is, lets hope that the dry spell passes soon and that we will see her dynamic personality in future films. As for all the future writers and actors out there, remember to keep diversifying! It could save your career!

    Like

    • MOVIE JAIL: THIS WEEK’S DEFENDANT IS…CARRIE-ANNE MOSS!:
      http://www.joblo.com/movie-news/movie-jail-this-weeks-defendant-iscarrie-anne-moss

      Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, when The Matrix and its sequels hit theaters in the late 90s and early 00s, the prosecution thought Carrie-Anne Moss was poised to become a huge star. The actress had also starred in Christopher Nolan’s breakout film Memento, and had a supporting role in the Academy Award nominated movie Chocolat, so like many, the prosecution believed Miss Moss had a bright future ahead of her. So what in the hell happened?

      The second and third Matrix films weren’t as well received as the original, but the prosecution isn’t going to blame Miss Moss for those movies’ failures, because there were many big problems with those films, and the actress still did a pretty good job. The prosecution is sure most of the people working in Hollywood would also agree, so why didn’t Miss Moss become a bigger star?

      The problem is the actress has often been cast in completely unremarkable films that do little to help further her career. Knife Fight? Love Hurts? Have any of you even heard of these movies, let alone seen them? Well, you’re not missing much. The other issue has been the size of Miss Moss’ roles in her movies. How did she go from being one of the leads in a huge franchise to playing Kale’s mother in Disturbia? Miss Moss has proven she’s a talented actress, yet rarely gets a chance to show off her skills. The defense is probably going to argue she hasn’t been in many films that are downright terrible, but isn’t wasting your talents in mediocre movies almost just as bad? There are some that really like The Chumscrubber even if critics didn’t love it, but almost any actress could have played Miss Moss’ part, and she didn’t bring anything to the role. Also for the record, some of Miss Moss’ movies have been pretty awful, like Red Planet and Suspect Zero.

      Miss Moss has also done some work in television, but nothing too impressive or memorable. The prosecution understands it can be harder for an actress to find great roles as they get older, but there are others that have had no problems getting great parts. Or at least parts better than playing Emily Browning’s Mom in Paul W.S. Anderson’s upcoming Pompeii. The jury might think Miss Moss isn’t guilty of starring in too many horrible films, but she is guilty of letting her talents go to waste, and because of that, the prosecution believes she needs to spend some time in Movie Jail.

      Like

    • She’s a candidate. But she’s going to be on Netflix’s Jessica Jones show. I’ll wait and see how that plays out.

      Like

  74. I know spacey is a hit netflix show too lebeua but his movie career has slowed done alot since American beauty. It seemed he was poised to have a huge career after his 2nd oscar win it didnt happen. He mostly appeared in flops too . Not saying his current career is bad I am a huge fan of him but i can admit I am not impressed with most of his film work in last 16 years.

    Like

  75. Spacey in a great candidate he made quality work in the 90s and seemed close to a list. He gradually went from character actor to potential leading man to leading man in flops back to character actor. House of cards saved him from totally dipping into obscurity. HE did manage to appear in some supporting hits like 21 and horrible bosses. I think the leading man thing didn’t work out for him so he went back to comfortable territory which was character actor.Hes one of those actors who had a great career but never really lived up to alot of people expectations. He still respected actor and will work alot years to come not if he will ever became a huge movie star. But even after house of cards I can gurrentee he wont have trouble finding work.

    Like

  76. I know is old lebau but i came across a quote kutcher says about keanu ten years ago. Here is quote kutcher trashing keabu acting skill . lol Like pot calling kettle black. I’ll watch a Keanu Reeves movie and I’ll go, ‘Wow. He’s really not a great actor.’ But the guy works really hard and keeps doing hit movies.”I know u dont like Keanu but I am sure you can agree kutcher is alot worse and keanu has more range. Keanus has had more critically acclaimed performance then ashtun . Ashtuns delivery is awkward.

    Like

    • I like Keanu. His range is limited, but cast him in The Matrix or Speed and he’s perfect.

      I don’t really have an opinion on Kutcher one way or another.

      Like

      • I’ve always liked him as well; I especially enjoy his early work, like 1986’s “River’s Edge” and 1988’s “Permanent Record” (I may have mentioned this before). I know those are ensemble casts in both films, but he played characters that I related to.

        Like

  77. I guess you havent see much of kutcher work. No offense but you say like keanu but says his range is limited. I thought it contradicts you like him but admitting hes not the best. I guess it dose make sense you find him entertaining but dont thinks a top caliber actor. I personal think he has more range then people give him credit for. The gift ,rivers edge and my own private Idaho performances kutcher cant touch. Funny thing is early is career he was critically acclaimed then he did bill and ted and people thought thats all he could do.,

    Like

    • Lots of movie stars have limited range. Tom Cruise has a tiny little range. So does Kevin Costner. But in the right role, they are great.

      Like

      • That part is true. Jack Nicholson, as great as he is, has his range. You’re never gonna see him play a totally warm character.

        Like

        • Exactly. Movie stars don’t become movie stars based on their range. It’s based on having an appealing screen persona. More often than not, they play similar parts over and over again. When they attempt to grow, their efforts are usually ignored or derided. Character actors need range. Leads and movie stars, it’s not as big of a requirement.

          Like

  78. I am guessing you are not fan of costners acting . I remember we talkaed about this before on the kenau site when i asked why costner was refferenced

    Like

  79. As I told you before I am huge of hanks and costner. You dont like costner well I guess to each their own. I am huge theater geek in high school those two actors where inspirations to me. I grew up on their movies, I defend costner alot to people lol but I honestly think he is underapericated. Jfk black or white upside of anger and A perfect world. All different characters. Hes not worst actor he dont deserve hate he gets.

    Like

  80. He did get great reviews for those films . Never saw permant record but hear hes great, Its not the most popular thing on keanus resume but shows he has chops. Keanu may been victum of typecast. He started taking on more mainstream films after bill and ted little less indies people all sudden thought he was bad acting far from it. I personal thought he outacted pacino in devils advcate who i find hammy. Gift he did get great reviews I would call him oscar worthy in that.

    Like

    • Yeah, I think the Ted role caused Keanu Reeves some problems, as audiences viewed him as some kind of doofus stoner after that.

      Like

      • He was very natural in the role. I don’t know if he was a stoner in the late 80’s, but I hear he was a doofus. A sweet doofus, but a doofus all the same. But hey, he was still a kid. Most kids that age are doofuses.

        Like

  81. His costars said hes well read very intelligent. Hes far from ted character. He took less indie roles people thought he has no talent. He was pretty good in speed.

    Like

  82. Alot of fans think actors are like characters they play. Hes far from worst actor. Hes better then kutcher richard gere bruce willis and michael keaton. All actors i really cant stand. Ill also take take him over current a listers like clooney pitt tatum will smith

    Like

  83. Cruise and costner have lots of range. A perfect world is a far cry from his hero roles. He was amazing in black or white. Cruise has range.Alot of his characters in moves go through devolpment. In rainman he went from selfish brat to caring brother.Lets not forget collateral nothing like his character few good men. The fact that his character go through change in the movie shows he more range then a perosn would think. But if you dont care cruise or costner as actors your entitles to your opinon.

    Like

  84. Here website devoted to a fan defending keanu. Gives reasons why he dosent suck, http://www.thejay.com/2006/06/13/keanu-reeves-does-not-suck-and-i-can-prove-it/

    Like

  85. He was nice in bucket list. If he watch some his films his character have a rough exterior on the outside but have their moments of kindness. Like tom cruise jack character go through personality changes. In the end of as good as it gets he was much softer then he was in the beginning. Same with somethings gotta give and terms of endearment Sometimes its not about rather actor can do its if he offered it, Sometimes an actor has successful in a cearitn genre producers cant him any other light they don’t cast hin in different roles. Take for instance Daniel day lewis I know a lot people who say he is only does serious type films aimed for oscars and alot of period pieces. He never really done a comedy or a popcorn flick That is true on daniels part . However for all we know hes not offered those kind of parts he wants thme but no studio can think he can pull it off. Same goes for clint when does he play character that are not the tough quiet types. Hes never to my knowledge played a villain or done comedy. But then again maybe those roles are hard to get for him

    Like

    • Nicholson’s character didn’t really “develop” in As Good as It Gets (none of the characters really went through any significant transformations.. it’s a romcom) and for that matter, neither did the doctor played by Keanu Reeves. Don’t get me wrong, I liked the movie, and loved how Reeves made his character sincere and likeable. It was all unrealistic, of course, such is the genre, but nonetheless enjoyable. Going back to Nicholson, he was good in his role, but he was also unmistakably Jack Nicholson. For his fan base, that’s a plus.

      Like

  86. He let Greg kinear a homosexual stay in his house until he found a place. If you remember the film he was bigot homophobic who made gay jokes towards greg kinear character. Even when he had to take care of the dog he developed a warm caring side thought of something other other then himself. By them as good as it gets also had alot of dramatic elements to it . He even stopped become a player in something gotta give he settled down with diane keaotn.Keanu was good in something gotta give but I feel his character didnt habve much depth. Not his fault the director didnt really give that much to work wiht.,Its like he was there as obstacle for daine and jake to be together. I still thought he did good for what he was given. His chacter was very sweet i felt bad for what happened to him .

    Like

  87. Jack character even stepped on a crack in the end and dint care. The speech he gave to helen hunt in restaurant how helen made him want ot be better person. Hits nail on the head. Her character inspired him to be better person.

    Like

  88. Their movie stars with range not every star fails when they go against typecast. Road to perdition and collateral where box office hits and cruise and hanks known for playing heroes.Lets not forget robin williams jim carrey and eddie murphy all had box office hits in dramatic roles that didnt really require them to be over the top. Mel gibson had some hits in non action roles.

    Like

  89. You’re not as good at writing these as Lebeau.

    Like

  90. Not trying to be as good as Lebeau. There are so many scfi movie keanu would been good at. I saw commercial of the martian i think keanu would owned that role. Scfi is his forte. He does well in dramatic and comic roles too. picking role in parenthood after bill and ted didnt help break the sterotype that he is not a doofus. He was praised before Bill and ted I have a feeling had he not taken those roles he wouldnt have bad actor status. I think its unfair penn breakthrough role was a dimwitted teenager it didnt stop him from being taken seriously

    Like

    • Excellent point on Sean Penn: after his Jeff Spicoli role, he starred in films like 1983’s “Bad Boys”, “Racing With the Moon” in 1984, and “The Falcon and the Snowman” in 1985. Maybe Sean Penn had a whole James Dean quality to him, and came off as someone who would bust you in the mouth if you messed with him. Keanu Reeves, on the other hand, has kind features and an agreeable demeanor, so it was easy for the media and public to take him lightly (or lighter at least).
      For myself, I think that’s all bogus, as I respect both actors, and never thought either was an actual doofus just because they played such a role (I think Matthew McConaughey had that whole laid back “duuude!” perception for a long time as well, just not in doofus form).

      Like

      • Well, also, Keanu Reeves is a pretty boy and Sean Penn is kind of homely. For a male actor, being too “pretty” is something to work against, and being a little weird looking or even sort of unattractive doesn’t necessarily work against you the way it does for an actress. Plus, Reeves played the doofus in more films than just “Bill and Ted”. Sean Penn was only stupid in one film, and he already had films like “Bad Boys” under his belt. He also had a less discreet and much more volatile personal life than Reeves who keeps his his head down and his nose clean. People simply didn’t know enough about Reeves as a person to know that he’s not, in fact, Ted. Penn easily proved that he’s nothing like Jeff Spicoli, though not necessarily in a positive way.

        Like

  91. Yes penn bad guy attitude was in the spotlight alot. SO it was easy for people to ster away from the idea hes a dumb surfer guy. Keanu does not have a rough demeanor. MAtthew took on hard hitting roles so made people see him lightly. I dont think keanu seen as an idiot.now

    Like

  92. Woah, Renee Zellweger is going to be in something? I thought she’d never work again after she did a total Jennifer Grey on her face. She no longer looks like Renee Zellweger so much as a facial mashup of Robin Wright and Cameron Diaz. She doesn’t look bad, she just doesn’t look like herself.

    Like

  93. Picking on Renne looks is mean. Penn does not have keanu heartthrob status but I never heard anyone consider him ugly. But as we both discuss Penn off screen behavior is why no one sees him as the doofus. It hasn’t worked in his favor either. Keanu is kind and plus from interviews I have seen he comes off as well read intelligent. Playing idiot in I love to death and parenthood didn’t help either. He has not played a role remotely to that in a while so not sure if people still view him that way. Kutcher has same problem.But watching him interviews you can see playing immature doofuses is not acting stretch for him. I dont see kutcher ever taken seriously as actor.

    Like

    • I think it’s unlikely that Ashton Kutcher will ever be taken seriously; it’s probably what held back the original “Jobs” (though Kutcher will always find Jobs).

      Like

    • It’s just an opinion, and I’m not picking on Penn either. It wasn’t said with the intention of putting him down, but a neutral observation.
      I don’t see Kutcher as a doofus in real life; he seems to be very interested in business and doing very well in his investments outside of acting. I think it’s his voice that gives him a ‘doofus’ vibe, but also, he just doesn’t have the ability to portray depth or complexity onscreen. I don’t assume that it means that he doesn’t have any in real life, but people have a hard time separating person from persona.
      Some celebrities, on the other hand, are the opposite. Jeremy Irons is known for having a sophisticated image, but some of his quotes in interviews also reveal him to be not the sharpest tool in the box (like expressing the concern that gay marriage would lead to fathers marrying their sons). Wolf Blitzer- did you hear about his Jeopardy! appearance? He doesn’t know SHIT. Apparently he’s not so much an investigative journalist as he is an effective teleprompter reader. Gwyneth Paltrow is known for projecting an image of class and intellect but says things like, “I don’t think anything that’s natural can be bad for you”.

      Like

  94. Your right people view actor as character they play sometimes in real life. I have watched kutcher interview hes not so much dumb as immature. I haven’t seen much of Irons interview. Lets not forget Meg ryan and julia roberts sweet girl next door image however both high maintenance jerks on set. Or lastly a lot of people I talk to think depp is this off beat goofy weird but lovable guy due to his film choices but hes extremely shy. Kenu as I mentioned before gained a lot of critical notices for some of his smaller films that went unnoticed. Bill and ted breakthrough role after role like alot of actor do they take on similar roles to keep their careers on float since playing dimwit made money. He has also branched off in years too. Had rivers edge made money maybe people would not see keanu as idiot

    Like

  95. Infamous Queer: The Watcher (2000)

    Like

  96. Keanu film bad batch with him and jim sound like a hit

    Like

  97. 47 RONIN (2013)

    http://www.cinefilestv.blogspot.com/2016/01/47-ronin-2013.html

    The screenplay for this film was featured in the 2008 Blacklist; a list of the “most liked” unmade scripts of the year.

    The main problem with the film is that. While I understand technology is changing and most of the times video games now look as vivid as movies and vice versa. That is the problem here it feels more like an interactive video game stuck on demo mode as you can’t interact. Yet are thrown right into the action to watch the heroes fight against evil and tyranny. Which is not as exciting as it sounds.

    The action would be captivating if half the time the characters were fighting just plain old human being warriors. Instead most of the time they are fighting CGI spirits, Wizards, and monsters. Even when in competition there will be some kind of CGI human/monster hybrid. Like that will excuse the violence and let it be more graphic as they aren’t slaughtering humans.

    Based on a true story. The fantasy elements mixed with classic samurai legend. Though with all the special effects this could have been more of a animated film.

    The one thing the film has going for it is that while Keanu Reeves is the star the film allows others to be the heroes and the brave ones. He is co-leader of them, but fits more as part of a troop or ensemble. Rather than a one man army who happens to have some sidekicks.

    I also give the film credit for having a downbeat ending. That is something you don’t see in a big budget film.

    It’s not surprising that this film was a nightmare for the studio and the filmmakers as the film seems to have a blockbuster scope, but has the soul of a smaller more traditional character story. So it is often times at odds with itself. Then when you hear about what went on behind the scenes you aren’t too shocked

    When executives at Universal saw an early cut of the film in 2011, they had concerns about the story and ordered script changes. They also slated another week of shooting to make Keanu Reeves’ character more integral in the film’s finale.

    The film’s budget ballooned from $175 million to $225 million. Between the costs of production and advertising, it needed to gross $500 million to break even, a figure that it did not even come close to. Only bringing in $150 million

    Carl Rinsch clashed with Universal over the final vision of the film. Universal wanted to make an effects-driven fantasy blockbuster akin to Avatar or The Lord of the Rings, while Rinsch envisioned the film as more of a drama such as Gladiator or Kingdom of Heaven. One hell of a studio film directorial debut. He was supposedly rumored to have been kicked out of the editing room during post production. As his vision for the film was reportedly and art house Samurai film.

    Well with a budget that big he should have known better.

    What I do appreciate about the film is that it has many artistic flourishes that soon become forgotten due to the over abundance of CGI. Which is a shame because in many aspects the film seems devoted to trying to create the time period and seeming like a picture more about the culture. Up until Keanu Reeves comes into the film even though at times he almost seems to fade Into the background. Though he is our introduction and guide throughout the culture and situations.

    There is an attempt at creating a grand vision for the epic storytelling that feels deeper and more heartfelt then movies such as 300. The Production and costume design are gorgeous and have the feeling and looks of the period

    Here the film like the character feels at odds or battling itself over it’s identity as it plays into both, but never comes around to be either fully. It has a blockbuster appeal with effects and the romance, but it also has a soulful side of respect, identity and values. Which the whole work ends up suffering from. As it never makes a decision so it never has a definitive vision.

    The major problem with the film is it isn’t engaging sure it looks nice, but again as you watch you never feel anything personal or they grabs you. It just constantly feels like the film is going through the motions and still would with or without you. If it has anything to say. It’s not saying it strongly at all.

    Even visually there is nothing too special or awe inspiring. As it tries to mix classic with futuristic. Think a less noteworthy Far East version of 300. If you want to see a unique version of a similar story I would suggest 13 assassins by Director Takashi Miike. That film is noteworthy engaging and has a running 30 – 40 minute sequence that is nothing but action.

    The film has almost nothing in common with the original historical epic, being set “in a world of witches and giants.”

    The film was supposed to come out in November 2012, but after primary shooting was complete and just prior to the release, the studio demanded more scenes for Keanu Reeves to capitalize on his star nature, and insert a love story involving Reeves’ character as well as add in more fantasy battle scenes in the style of The Hobbit or Harry Potter.

    This film for all it’s attention to detail and action sequences comes off as rather dull. Which is a shame though it’s preview looked horrible. I Will admit to having a soft spot for Keanu Reeves.

    Grade: F

    Like

  98. I think Keanu Reeves is underestimated; I know I mentioned his roles in “River’s Edge” and “Permanent Record”, but there are other role in when he reached, and I thought gave. Hopefully I think I’m right:-). I always took him seriously as an actor.
    I can understand why people see him in a certain way, But I see it differently.

    Like

  99. River Edge and permanent Midnight He received great reviews for. Those however where not hits in their original release those films are hard to find now. After Bill and Ted critics started disliking him. They thought that`s all he could do. Critics though he had great potential bill and Ted typecast ed him. Taking roles that required him to play dumb like I love you to death and parenthood did not help either.

    Like

    • Hey, “Permanent Midnight” was the Ben Stiller flick; Now, I thought it was a tough watch, in the same way “Leaving Las Vegas” or “Requiem for a Dream” is.

      Like

  100. I meant permanent Record which critics raved about keanu performance. He got better reviews before bill and ted

    Like

    • I know what you meant, I was just being opportunistic and mentioned “Permanent Midnight” for shoots and tickles:-)

      Like

    • Worst Actor in Hollywood?

      http://www.city-data.com/forum/entertainment-arts/741464-worst-actor-hollywood-22.html

      Today, 12:01 AM

      Agree both actors are a little over-rated. Keanu’s best performance was probably in an independent film few people have heard of: Permanent Record. Believe it was made back in 1988. I recommend the film. The director was able to get a good performance from him and many of the other actors, too IMO. The actors in this one had good chemistry and that is often more important than special effects and a big budget. Don’t think he has come close to duplicating that performance since then, though.

      Like

      • I disagree that the last time Keanu Reeves gave a good performance was “Permanent Record”. Besides, I thought he was good in 1991’s “My Own Private Idaho”. I do believe some of the projects he lended himself to aren’t the best though.

        Like

  101. He does not always pick best films but gives a efforts. My own privated idaho and gift he was praised for

    Like

  102. 9 Terrible Casting Decisions That Ruined Great Movies

    http://whatculture.com/film/9-terrible-casting-decisions-that-ruined-great-movies.php/9

    Keanu Reeves – Dracula

    Keanu has never been blessed with the greatest range as a performer; in the right role – say Neo or John Wick – he’s perfect, but in the wrong part you get his turn in Dracula. It’s not even a case of Keanu phoning it in, because you can see him trying his best; it’s just that outside of casting Hulk Hogan in the role it’s hard to imagine a more miscast actor for the part.

    His attempt at an English accent is one of the worst ever committed to film, and the atrocious grey wig he’s lumbered with in the second half only adds to the artificial nature of his performance. It doesn’t help he’s performing beside heavyweights like Gary Oldman and Anthony Hopkins, who are so effortless they just highlight Keanu’s weaknesses.

    Keanu was smarter about his choices post-Dracula, and he stuck to movies that highlighted his strengths instead of exposing his limits.

    Like

  103. Infamous Sphere: A Walk in the Clouds (1995)

    Hey, remember when Keanu Reeves played a chocolate salesman in a movie-length advertisement for wine? Yeah, that was a thing.

    Like

  104. The most outrageous facts about Keanu Reeves’ life

    http://www.looper.com/25557/outrageous-facts-keanu-reeves-life/

    Keanu Reeves hit Hollywood like a cool breeze in the ’80s—that’s what his name means in Hawaiian—and ever since he’s been one of cinema’s most intriguing and versatile actors. On screen, the Beirut-born, Canada-raised Reeves has saved humanity from robot slavery (The Matrix), delivered himself from military school and damnation (the Bill and Ted movies), avenged the death of his cute dog (John Wick), kept a doomed bus from going under 50 mph (Speed), sold his services as a male prostitute (My Own Private Idaho), and made out with Paula Abdul. But as prolific an actor as Reeves is, he remains far more private—and enigmatic—than many other celebrities.

    Like

    • Keanu Reeves’ tragic real life story

      http://www.nickiswift.com/88339/keanu-reeves-tragic-real-life-story/

      Keanu Reeves went from being one of Hollywood’s most in-demand stars to being left out of the spotlight. Reeves started his career in the late ’80s and graduated to big-time films in the ’90s and early 2000s. But tragedy reared its ugly head time and time again over the course of his life. Not only did Reeves lose his best friend, River Phoenix, his child was stillborn, his girlfriend died shortly thereafter, he was sued many times and his career has fallen on hard times. Take a deep dive into the tragic story that is Reeves’ life.

      Like

  105. Did Keanu Reeves really give away $80M to the special effects crew of the #Matrix? http://uproxx.it/2eOOenZ

    Like

  106. john wick 2 is coming out that could be ahit

    Like

  107. Keanu is talented actor .you want bad acting watch ben affleck movie

    Like

    • The whole deal is just too subjective for me to say concretely, but I was never impressed with what Adrian Zmed brought to the table (and I like “T.J. Hooker”), but he’s done theater too, so maybe he was really good there. As actresses go, Michelle Johnson didn’t really do it for me either (and I’m not going to just Blame It On Rio either).

      Like

  108. John Wick: Chapter 2 is destined to go down as one of the greatest American action films of all time

    http://www.talkfilmsociety.com/reviews/review-john-wick-chapter-2

    Like

  109. Keanu Reeves boards a bus that can’t slow down for one of the great ’90s action movies

    http://www.avclub.com/article/keanu-reeves-boards-bus-cant-slow-down-one-great-9-249622

    Like

  110. john wick 2 is alreDY a hit over 100 mill on a 40 mill budget

    Like

    • Seems like Keanu Reeves has struck gold with these pair of films, and unlike “Speed” or “The Matrix”, it’s all his own.

      Like

  111. speed and matrix are his own

    Like

  112. Why didn’t Keanu Reeves become a bigger star?

    https://www.datalounge.com/thread/18719000

    I liked Keanu in the Matrix but since then he really hasn’t had another big hit. Sure his acting doesn’t make you go wow, but neither does Leonardo Di Caprio’s.

    —Anonymous (381 views)

    31 replies 28 9 hours ago

    Like

  113. Actors who succeeded after flops?

    http://officialfan.proboards.com/thread/558274/actors-who-succeeded-after-flops

    5 hours ago QuotePost Options Post by DiBiase is Good on 5 hours ago
    Keanu Reeves has a habit of following up hits with bizarre choices and flops. And vice versa.

    Dracula and Much ado About Nothing were followed by Little Buddha.

    Speed was followed by Johnny Mnemonic

    The Matrix was followed by The Replacements

    Chain Reaction and Feeling Minnesota were followed by The Devil’s Advocate

    47 Ronin was followed by John Wick.

    Like

  114. How the hell did The Fast And The Furious launch one of cinema’s biggest franchises?

    http://www.avclub.com/article/how-hell-did-fast-and-furious-launch-one-cinemas-b-255371

    The Fast And The Furious was practically a beat-for-beat remake of Point Break, Kathryn Bigelow’s near-perfect 1991 surfing-bank-robber movie. The similarities went right down to the dazed, Keanu-esque look in perma-chill undercover cop Paul Walker’s dreamy, ice-blue eyes. But on that seemingly flimsy foundation, a whole empire was built. The Fast And The Furious would spawn its own immediate rip-offs, movies like Torque and Biker Boyz, as well as its own string of ever-bigger, ever-more-ridiculous sequels. Seven movies later, the ongoing Fast And The Furious saga is now the most consistent, lovable, and bankable summer blockbuster franchise that we’ve got going right now (even if the movies don’t always open in the summer). And when the inevitable Point Break remake came along in 2015, the new movie came out as a rip-off of the Fast And The Furious series. The biter had become the bitten.

    Everything about The Fast And The Furious was unlikely. Vin Diesel had only just come off of his first action-star role, in the low-budget Aliens bite Pitch Black, and while he certainly had a forbidding charisma, there was no guarantee that he would be anything. Paul Walker, like Point Break-era Keanu Reeves, had only just stopped playing high schoolers, and he seemed hopelessly bland and wooden except in this one role, where he found a weird way to turn that blandness and woodenness into zen thrill-seeker cool. Director Rob Cohen was the veteran schlockmeister who’d made Dragonheart and Daylight and The Skulls and who would go on to make Stealth and Alex Cross and The Boy Next Door; nothing in his filmography, before or since, suggests that he could pull off a scene as cool and visceral as the climactic Fast truck heist. But he pulled it off. They all pulled it off.

    Like

  115. Millennium’s Avi Lerner Rips Into Keanu Reeves For Walking Away From Movie ‘The Detail’; Reeves’ Lawyer Disputes https://twitter.com/DEADLINE/status/900517051055263744

    Like

  116. When (or If) Did An Actor’s Career Tank?

    http://zubindoshi.com/data-and-graphs/when-or-if-did-an-actors-career-tank/

    Reeves started out his career with a number of hits but his career seemed to loose steam by 2005. But since 2013, he has been in a fairly even amount of good and bad films.

    Like

  117. Why Keanu Reeves Is One Of Hollywood’s Biggest Movie Stars

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/scottmendelson/2017/09/18/keanu-reeves-is-our-most-franchise-friendly-movie-star/#534eb5465c9e

    To the surprise of absolutely no one, Lionsgate has announced and slotted John Wick: Chapter Three. The third entry in the accidental franchise is now slated for May 17, 2019.

    I’ve always said that the weekend before Memorial Day is among the very best on the calendar, offering the potential for a big opening and then a solid holiday hold. Yes, last summer had Alien: Covenant, which was the least leggy such offering in recent history, but the slot has seen the likes of all four Shrek movies, all three Star Wars prequels, The Matrix Reloaded and Mad Max: Fury Road. So, yeah, Lionsgate watched Star Wars 9 ditch the Memorial Day opening weekend and saw an opening.

    If we argue that a franchise grows bigger in stature by virtue of its release dates, then John Wick has been promoted yet again. The first installment was a genuine buzzy sleeper in October 2014. So, the sequel got a more high-profile launching pad over this past President’s Day weekend. We’ll see if the franchise peaked at part II (like Scream or Pirates of the Caribbean) or whether it builds on the third shot (or potentially goes crazy like Goldfinger or Skyfall.

    Maybe the answer is somewhere in-between, but John Wick is now the rarest of things, an explicitly star-driven franchise. The success of John Wick is very much about the ongoing and periodically regenerated star power of one Keanu Reeves. Mr. Reeves is arguably the most successful movie star of the modern age in terms of creating wholly original and sequel-friendly franchises.

    Sure, we can talk about his famous philanthropy, his understated and often underappreciated acting, his “sad Keanu” memes, or the fact that he apparently drank from Tuck’s well in the early 1980s and thus will never age. But what’s most impressive is that Reeves’ stardom persists in this IP/franchise-driven era. The secret is that the reclusive and philosophical actor has made a habit of creating a new iconic cinematic character on an almost generational basis.

    Depending on how old you are, you may have discovered Reeves in the late 1980s with Bill and Ted’s Excellent Adventure, where he so exquisitely played a good-hearted airhead that said characterization stuck as a kind of offscreen typecasting for decades. Or maybe you first saw the actor in Kathryn Bigelow’s Point Break, where overeager and exasperated FBI agent Johnny Utah and Patrick Swayze’s guru surfer bank robber essentially invented the testosterone-fueled bromance. It wasn’t a big hit, but it spawned a remake, a satirical stage play (Point Break Live) and a loose rip-off that spawned a rather fast and furious eight films-and counting franchise.

    Or maybe you discovered (or rediscovered) Reeves via Jan De Bont’s action classic Speed, which turned his onscreen kamikaze airhead reputation on its head for what amounted to a cheerful, well-mannered action hero. The film was slightly ahead of its time in casting a somewhat unconventional actor as its muscular action lead. It was a new trend begun by Die Hard and Batman and made mainstream when Nicolas Cage cashed in on his Oscar win to make The Rock, Con Air and Face/Off in the mid-1990s.

    Reeves’ blockbuster action hit, which turned Sandra Bullock into a leading lady, kept Reeves’ name in good graces as he dabbled in smaller films and quirkier projects like A Walk in the Clouds, Feeling Minnesota or The Devil’s Advocate. While Reeves has long specialized in understated dramatic turns (not unlike Harrison Ford or Kevin Costner), Taylor Hackford religious melodrama/gonzo comic thriller, which gave us Charlize Theron, is a rare occasion where Keanu Reeves delivered a terrific over-acted performance. He held his own against a peak-ham Al Pacino.

    But just as Reeves’ star was fading, he gave us a new iconic cinematic character for a new generation in the guise of Thomas Anderson. You may know him as Neo, but The Matrix was one of the most influential major studio releases of our time, and the Wachowskis’ mind-bending cyberpunk action trilogy became Reeves’ biggest grossers here and abroad. And whether they acted as a gateway drug for younger would-be Reeves fans or served to reignite the fandom born of Bill and Ted’s Excellent Adventure, Point Break and Speed, The Matrix gave Reeves yet another defining and iconic cinematic character to call his own.

    By the time the Matrix franchise wrapped up in late 2003, the industry was starting to do away with outright star vehicles, especially those not based upon prior source material. So, it’s no surprise that Reeves’ two big hits in the mid-to-late 2000s were Constantine (a loose adaptation of the DC Comics title Hellblazer) and The Day The Earth Stood Still (a remake of a classic 1950’s sci-fi drama). Both films earned around $230 million worldwide on budgets of $100m and $80m respectively. Fun fact: Until Wonder Woman, Constantine was the biggest DC Comics adaptation without Batman or Superman ever.

    The post-Matrix 2000’s offered a few small-scale winners (I will defend Reeves and Sandra Bullock’s The Lake House, a moving meditation on adult loneliness, unto death) and worthwhile indie films (Thumbsucker, The Private Lives of Pippa Lee, etc.), but the mainstream stuff (Street Kings, 47 Ronin) didn’t stick. Even the actor admits that the phone stopped ringing as much, although he did produce and narrate a terrific documentary (Side by Side) about digital video versus conventional film stock and direct the delightfully entertaining Man of Tai Chi.

    And on paper, John Wick probably looked like a somewhat lower-rung, glorified VOD actioner better suited to Bruce Willis or Scott Adkins, a kind of “Oh, I guess Keanu Reeves is making a Taken knock-off” grindhouse offering. But the stylized and stylish actioner, starring Reeves as a retired hitman drawn back into the fray after Russian mobsters kill his newborn puppy, was a rarity. It was a genuine, under-the-radar sleeper hit.

    The picture, directed by Chad Stahelski and David Leitch, was picked up by Lionsgate less than three months prior to its eventual late-October 2014 release and turned into a genuine mainstream hit. Thanks to good reviews, strong buzz and a solid marketing campaign that treated the film as a generational coronation for the occasionally underappreciated movie star, the picture vastly overperformed its pre-release tracking estimates, opening with $14 million and legging it to $43m domestic and $88m worldwide on a $30m budget.

    That’s not a king’s ransom, but the picture, which played off Reeves’ star persona as a Zen-like man of action (and the fact that he had been somewhat MIA from mainstream movies), became an instant genre favorite and would-be cult classic. It was a big post-theatrical hit and John Wick: Chapter Two opened this past February as a true breakout sequel with a $30 million debut weekend for an eventual $92m domestic and $171m worldwide gross on a $40m budget.

    The John Wick franchise is rooted in the idea of seeing Keanu Reeves specifically as John Wick, specifically because of Reeves’ performance and how the character plays off his persona. And that applies to all his defining characters, from Ted to Neo to Wick. Plenty of actors have one or two iconic/defining cinematic characters to their credit. Reeves has at least four (Bill and Ted’s Excellent Adventure, Speed, The Matrix and John Wick) and possibly five (if you want to count Point Break’s Johnny Utah). Moreover, all of them stemmed from original screenplays sans any attachment to branded content or preexisting source material.

    Moreover, all of them stemmed from original screenplays sans any attachment to branded content or preexisting source material. In 2017, Reeves is still around, still relevant, and still creating wholly original cinematic franchise-friendly characters. It would be like if Harrison Ford were still creating new characters as popular as Indiana Jones or Han Solo. Or, it would be like if Hell of High Water or Blackhat did even 25% of what Star Trek or Thor did at the domestic box office.

    It is that ability (aside from the whole talent/charisma/professionalism/commitment stuff), to create new characters just often enough to snag new fans and reacquaint himself with older fans that keeps the actor exciting and bankable even in an IP/branded content world. Most actors are lucky to have one iconic character. Some, like Alan Rickman, get two. Keanu Reeves has at least four, all of which are wholly original cinematic creations.

    Like Denzel Washington and Leonardo DiCaprio, Keanu Reeves is still a movie star because he remains bigger than the property and can score big bucks and new fans absent any property at all. And unlike any of his peers, he has a knack for embodying wholly original characters that redefine (or reenergize) his stardom right when the wick is about to burn out. And in terms of starring in films that create sequel-friendly franchises, franchises that succeed specifically because Reeves is the star, he has no equal.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: