It is said that a rose smells the same no matter what you might call it, this man is a pretty good illustration of that.

Fans love him no matter what he looks like or does.   Film critics almost without exception can't seem to find much that is good to say about his work.   There's some middle ground in there, but few seem to find it, or care to.   And none of it matters all that much to the man himself.   He continues on with the work, more and more of it too, if the chatter is true, he's got quite a few projects ahead of him.   He's been around for a long time for Hollywood, he's been working a long time for Hollywood too, and steadily at that.   He's worked with some of the best, and he's been in some groundbreaking films, some few that have made iconic marks on everyday life - who doesn't know what you're talking about if you say "Whoa!" in just the right tone?   And who doesn't almost instinctively know what the Matrix means?

It is said that The Matrix changed film itself, and it has been said that only this man could have been Neo.   It's often said that this is because the character didn't take much acting, only action.   Some of these same remarks made the rounds again with the recent remake of The Day The Earth Stood Still.   That's wrong of course.   Both characters took not only acting but a certain skill that many actors can not manage properly.   This man did though, and I agree that 'they' are right, only this man could have portrayed Neo and Klaatu with just the right amount of both acting and action.

It is said that your peers can be a good barometer of your self.   If this is truth - and it is in some degree - then this man is among the best no matter what 'the critics' might like to think.   His peers have in their numbers some of the best directors, producers and actors in the field, who have not only worked with him but would work with him again, some have, and there are others that want to and may yet do so.   Not to say that he hasn't done lesser work, as any actor has, or that some of his films could have been better, or maybe shouldn't have been made, true of any actor's works.   But this man still gets more than his share of criticism for all of his work, as though there is a sheet of instructions somewhere that all must use when dealing with anything that includes this man's work.   Perhaps there is, perhaps there's a standard form that is handed out when preparing to write up a review of any film he is in.   Maybe it's a part of a 'critic's code' that must be adhered to if one is going to make a mark as a film critic.

Sounds a bit silly doesn't it?   And it is, as silly as automatically knocking anything this man does without actually putting in the time and effort to actually watch what he's doing each time he does it.   It's much easier to use that prepared form of course, and quicker too.   But in spite of this the man keeps working, with some of the best and on some of the best efforts produced for the screen.   No matter what is said by those critics, most of whom haven't actually done anything to earn the title.   I haven't named this man, but then do I really need to?

You know who he is.

The rose, by any name smells just as sweet.. like success..   This rose is still a rose.


Make a Free Website with Yola.