Keanu Reeves: Wooden wonder boy

Sarah
I wonder if maybe that generic quality — “genericness”? “genericity”? — is what allows Keanu to enjoy such Teflon-esque success. I agree with you that he’s an acting flatline, but he’s always an acting flatline, so maybe that consistency works in his favor somehow.

I mean, a “performance” like the one he gave in “Bram Stoker’s Dracula” would have gotten any other actor pushed out to sea on an ice floe, but somehow he went straight from that tour de wood into a Kenneth Branagh production of “Much Ado About Nothing.” How? Because it’s pretty much impossible to give the man an unflattering haircut? Or because the casting director knows exactly what she’s going to get, even if what she gets is “hilariously stiff”?

That’s the key, for me. I went to see “The Replacements” in the theater (…I know, I know) because he’s hotter than the sun, but Keanu’s acting made it worth the price of admission. See, I don’t think he’s boring to watch at all; I think he’s hysterically funny. Exhibit A: “The Devil’s Advocate.” Watching Keanu try so hard to “react” that he practically pops a hernia while Al Pacino is merrily snacking on every piece of scenery on the set? Good times.

“Constantine” is going feature a number of portentously doom-y lines that Keanu has nothing resembling the thespian resources to deliver believably. Instant drinking game — just add Sarah. I kind of can’t wait.

Tara

In his movies…he just tries so hard. But he still sucks. It actually kind of breaks my heart.

Really? You think Reeves is so hilariously bad that it’s worth seeking him out in order to crack on him? I wouldn’t even go that far; I think he’s bad in a boring way — less Ed Wood than…I don’t know, Garry Marshall.

Actually, not even: he makes me sad, a little. You see, Reeves seems to be a decent guy in his day-to-day life; I actually read in “Entertainment Weekly” this morning that he didn’t pick up one bit of swag when he was at Sundance, because (according to a handler) that isn’t his thing. He has also often given up part of his own movie salary, either to give it to another actor the production couldn’t afford otherwise (as he did with both Pacino on “Advocate” and with Gene Hackman on “Replacements”), or to crew members (as he did on “The Matrix”). I mean, he’s a good person – a much better person than I would be if I were hugely famous and fabulously rich. And in his movies…he just tries so hard. But he still sucks. It actually kind of breaks my heart.

But, you know. He’s gorgeous. So if he were also amazingly talented, we’d have to hate him. This way, we can appreciate him in still photographs, and also pity him a tiny bit.

Sarah
Aw…now I kind of feel bad for using all those synonyms for “wooden.”

I said “kind of.”

I don’t know that I’d seek out Keanu’s constipated brand of thespionics if he looked like, say, Jackie Mason – but that’s why I can’t feel too sorry for him. He’s probably the best-looking man alive, and he’s well compensated for his efforts; he’s gotten a long way on not much talent, but one thing he is good at is making me giggle through swill like “Sweet November.” It’s probably a stretch to call that an actual skill, but that’s my story and I’m sticking to it.

Tara Ariano and Sarah D. Bunting are co-creators and co-editors of Television Without Pity

MORE FROM TARA VS SARAH

Cameron Diaz: America’s spaz-heart

Cameron Diaz: America’s spaz-heart Kate Hudson: Still ‘almost famous’ John Cusack hasn’t outgrown Lloyd Dobler Will the real Natalie Portman please stand up? Drew Barrymore: Real or fembot? Sandra Bullock: The perfect girl next door Keanu Reeves: Wooden wonder boy Jennifer Garner: Not quite A-list ready Chick Flicks: Embarrassment or pleasure?   Add Tara vs Sarah headlines to your news reader: