Hacker News Reader

The number of actors coming out of hollywood that don't act these days is awful.

The Chris Pratt school of not acting is strong.

That's not new at all. The amount of acting in any Rat Pack movie is about zero. A lot of classic black and white comedies and musicals are just actors doing vaudeville or Broadway schtick with a camera running.

It can still be fun and enjoyable, but it's not Acting.

Chris Pratt is okay.

Joel Kinnaman on the other hand. Why is he repeatedly cast in leading roles?

I think Joel Kinnamen is fine in the roles he's cast in - maybe he doesn't have much range (I'm not saying he hasn't got range, just that I've not seen him in anything other than things like Altered Carbon or The Suicide Squad); I think Chris Pratt is exactly the same.

Joel does stoic tough guys with a dead-pan sense of humor extremely well and doesn't stand out as miscast in the things I see him in.

Chris Pratt is fine doing what he does best, playing Chris Pratt in a variety of different scenarios.

In terms of acting, where you adopt someone else's persona, he makes Sylvester Stallone look diverse.

Isn't this what they used to say about Clint Eastwood - that he's playing himself in most movies?

Don't forget Bruce Willis. There's definitely a place for these kinds of actors. I think Chris Pratt is fine for that niche.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com