Good acting does not equal mobility of facial muscles. Otherwise Jim Carrey would be as celebrated as Laurence Olivier!
Good acting is the ability to convey different feelings and emotions and thoughts, with or without changing your expression. And in that aspect, Cavill was a bit limited. He conveyed just 2-3 things, introspection, anguish and wrath. Or something along those lines. Frankly the format these movies are made in, there isn't much for an actor to do frankly. The least an actor can be is charismatic. Even in that regard I think Cavill was a bit lacking. Look at Downey in Iron Man films or Hemsworth in Thor films, the way they just overwhelm and dominate the movie, that is called charisma. Even Loki has it!
I think Henry has plenty of charisma. You want to watch him when he's on the screen. That's charisma. (Being as drop-dead gorgeous as he is doesn't hurt! Or that's part of his charisma.
) Being "fun" or "funny" isn't a requirement.
And I'd argue that Tom Hiddleston has far more charisma being himself than when he was playing Loki. I wasn't all that enthralled with him in Avengers, but he's far more attractive in interviews and off-screen things.
I think we'll see more of Cavill's potential just because hopefully they will have even more to say about the character... if the material is juicy enough, he'll have a lot to work with.
As much as I love origin stories, especially Superman's, there is an element of predictability in that it's always going to be about how the character grows to be a hero.
The sequels are where it gets really interesting, because a lot of superhero movies just don't really know where their character goes from there. Some of them throw him right back down in the dirt so that he has to climb up again. Some of them deal with actual issues that are personal to that specific hero.
I hope MOS 2 is the latter.
I agree with this.
Bale didn't have a whole lot to do in BB, but he was given more extreme emotional beats to work with, especially early on.
Many folks here will argue that Bale wasn't given much to do in the entire trilogy, but I disagree. I think he was playing a very restrained character, and to show emotion believably
while being restrained is IMO the true mark of a great actor. Many actors would have overacted the part and come off amateur.
I don't think Cavill is as good an actor as Bale. He doesn't have the sensitivity. But the biggest weaknesses of MOS didn't come from Cavill's lack of sensitivity around the part. The flaws already present just made it look more flawed.
I think in that regard, Marvek plays more to the strength of actors than DC. A couple of pages back, many people agreed that going by MOS, more or less anybody could have acted the part of Superman in MOS. Nothing much to act on paper, and nothing that relied on the star's charisma. I think that is why Marvel's films are so keenly cast. An actor is doing a lot of the heavy lifting.
And herein lies the triumph of Marvel. In the best of their films, they are able to not just convey the star's charisma but also humanity, heroism, nobility and just hard on badassery. When Marvel heroes kick ass, they kick it with abandon.
It is this all round persona which so endears them to general audience. They know what they are, whereas the DC films think that they are some kind of treatise on the human condition and coming away looking ludicrous for that. But lets not turn this into a Marvel vs DC thing.
The kind of performances that Hemsworth and RDJ are doing are nothing if not skillful. Its acting where they access the deepest recesses of their natural charm and general bonhomie and it is brought to bear in scripts which allow them to fully express themselves. Marvel heroes also get angry and sad and hung up but they also get happy and amused and excited are wonderfully humane. The joie de vivre is both infectious and life affirming.
I think Cavill can be all this too. If he is given the opportunity. But if he's told by the script to just skulk and mope, he won't be able to fully express himself.
Then what exactly are you trying to do?
From what I can see, the only DC films that are a treatise of the human condition are the Nolan Batman films. (MOS halfheartedly tried, but I don't include it.) And I think the general audience liked those just fine, given that even BB (the lowest grossing of the lot) outgrossed Cap, Thor, and Hulk domestically, even unadjusted for inflation.
They're just different things. The general audience is perfectly capable of liking both styles. But I think the standard is more strict for a Nolan-esque serious superhero film. If a fun film is weak, hey, it's still fun. If a serious film is weak, then it's just a slog.
the **** out of this shot.
