Yup. His acting was probably better in this film than any of his others that I've seen, but his monotonous narration kind of brought it down a little bit. Also the fact that he is trying really hard to be a chameleon but not quite getting there. When I'm watching his movies, I'm not watching his character, I'm watching him play the character, if that makes sense. Like, I see the other characters in the movie, and then I see Edward Norton. Don't get me wrong, Edward Norton is a good actor, but he has never actually been the characters in his movies, and the fact that I notice that kind of detracts from any movie he's in. He can do it, parts of the first half of American History X, and some parts towards the end of Fight Club I felt he 'dove in', so to speak. But in all the movies I've seen him in (which are pretty good movies, all of them), HE is the biggest issue I have with them. He's young, he can get better at this, it's not that big a deal to me.
I know that'll probably draw ire, because a lot of people think he's pretty great. And he is, there is definitely a larger number of actors worse than him than there is better. But to me, he's not as great as everyone else thinks, just pretty good.
On a related note, I've also heard he's a bit of a narcissist, and the director of American History X is too frustrated with the studio for allowing Edward to edit it to release his version of the film.
Author
Topic: A film a year for every year you've been alive (Read 17211 times)