Hidden Figures : Kevin Costner can't act

Never could. His performances are wooden like he's reading his lines. I might catch this one on video.

He's really awful..in everything. Weird he got this far.

I'm glad somebody else gets it.
I would name one exception Dances With Wolves. But think about it he is a narrator in that film and his wooden delivery fit perfectly.
But his famous "speech" to Susan Sarandon in Bull Durham? "Well, I believe in long, slow, deep, soft, wet kisses that last three days".
OMG AWFUL!!!

Yeah, I've nottliked him since Prince of Thieves; it was atrocious. DWW was good, but not particularly because of him. But I will ignore him with these actresses. I don't think there's a thing yet where I haven't liked Octavia's acting (even if the movie was so-so).

You've actually seen the film? I would love to know what your honest opinion of it.

He was good in Silverado where he energetic, jovial, friendly, somewhat brash, and a bit of a ladies man, but for some reason he usually wants to play very dry, stoic characters, and he's terrible at it.

He was awesome in The Big Chill as the dead guy in the casket

I agree that he comes across as wooden in a lot of his performances, but it worked well here. He's playing a white man with senior leadership in NASA who, because of both racial and gender privileges, is blind/aloof to Katherine's situation until she brings it directly to his attention. From then on, he's her biggest ally, but he does all of this without much of an uptick in his demeanor.

---

He's playing a white man

---

Sounds challenging.

The only director to get a halfway decent performance out of Costner was Oliver Stone in JFK. As far as being a bad actor concern Kevin is in good company in Hidden Figures as Jim Parsons is also in this.

I agree, the stiffness in his performance here made sense. All he cared about was getting the job done. He didn't care what Katherine looked like, as long as she got the job done. Although, if there was intended to be some character development, it wasn't there. He never came across as the cold man they described him to be at the beginning, it seemed that he liked her from the beginning so was always going to be her ally. But it's not always necessary to show massive change.

Yes, he's being asked to play a white man in a position of power. It's really not a stretch for him. He's good enough, as is Parsons.

Even Dunst is good. All three of them have minor or larger "adjustments" to their attitudes about race. The changes take time to develop and are not insultingly simplistic.

One of the strengths of the movie is how it shows a wide spectrum of levels of racism. Not everybody is Governor Faubus. (There's a Google search term for everybody.)

I like a lot of his movies Bull Durham, Revenge, JFK but try two little seen movies The Upside of Anger and Mr. Brooks.

I concede that Costner can be wooden but I have enjoyed some of his filmsFandango and Silverado come to mind. He was decent in this.

There's nothing wrong with Kevin Costner's performance. He's fine.

Why anyone would focus on his performance when three black actresses are acting up a storm in excellent roles is beyond me.

---

Why anyone would focus on his performance when three black actresses are acting up a storm in excellent roles is beyond me.

---

three black actresses pretending that black people saved the American space program definitely demands some convincing performances, I'll grant you that

You're a stupid *beep* i n g moron who hates this movie because black people are front and center, and a racist a s s h o l e like you can't take it, is what.

I guess that is why he won an Oscar. I am so sure they give bad actors Oscars.

It wasn't an acting Oscar.

The man was in Good Fellas. He can act.

He played the main law enforcement going after the gangsters

Uh no. He was nowhere near Goodfellas. Perhaps you have confused that with his role as Elliot Ness in The Untouchables.

My mistake. Still he was great in Untouchables

Correct. He's won one "personal" Oscar for Direction in DWW. It also won Best Picture. Nothing since. He's never won an acting Oscar and he never will.

Costner has a small range of roles that he can do well. I've liked him him in a few movies that have stretched that. He doesn't have a great amount of range, but that's not the worst problem. His biggest issue is that he's the worst actor in the film industry at doing accents. He's mauled the English accent, the Boston accent, and the New Orleans accent. Honestly I prefer Sean Connery's attitude: from the '80s on he just used his Scots accent for every role.

FWIW, Costner is not one of the leads in the movie. He's either the 4th or 5th most important character. (I would say 4th.) And he doesn't try to do any accent. And he isn't really stretching his ability to act by taking on a very complicated character. So he's fine here.

I would recommend seeing the movie to see the three leads. All three are very good.

I tend to like Kevin Costner whatever role he plays in, some more than others. He has a very mature kind of quality and he shows good character and integrity as a person. Kevin is one of my favorite actors and he does a perfectly fine job in this movie.

Disagree. Love him. He CAN act.

Agree with you, I love him but his acting is subtle and understated and I guess some people don't like that style of acting but it works for me.

I disagree he was perfect. Understated. Little things like the gum. I always want to know if the director adds these little things or if it's the actor.(Or writer) I'm sure it depends on the movie.

I agree that sometimes he's Kevin Costner in a movie but that's ok with me!

Have you seen JFK?

did you not see black or white??
hes great in that

Kevin Costner plays Kevin Costner very well, and that's not meant as an insult. Frankly, most actors play variations on a "type" in most roles. How many can you name who truly disappear into a role and basically become someone else for a couple of hours? Tilda Swinton comes to mind. Daniel Day Lewis is the obvious choice. Gary Oldman occasionally surprises. Tom Hardy has some range. Johnny Depp used to. Jared Leto pushes the envelope, for better or for worse. Christian Bale has taken on some tough roles. That's about it, off the top of my head.

If you're a "movie guy," you need to accept that very few adventurous "master thespians" are working at any given time. You also need to admit that audiences generally like popular actors in roles that play to their strengths.

-

I have meddled with the primal forces of nature and I will atone.

'How many can you name who truly disappear into a role and basically become someone else for a couple of hours? Tilda Swinton comes to mind. Daniel Day Lewis is the obvious choice. Gary Oldman occasionally surprises. Tom Hardy has some range. Johnny Depp used to. Jared Leto pushes the envelope, for better or for worse. Christian Bale has taken on some tough roles. '

Vincent D'Onofrio should be mentioned too. Very few who can compete with this guy.

Elias Koteas and Stanley Tucci are also very good.

Aside from Bond (which he has done very well, BTW) Daniel Craig has done some great stuff.

Andrew Garfield is getting there too. Done some amazing work these last few years.

Yeah, I don't have any major gripes with any of those choices. Honestly, with Hollywood being such a bottom-line-centric environment, real, versatile acting isn't really tops on the list of desirable commodities. Your average couple going to a movie wants to have some idea what they're going to get. Not many people actively seek out challenging cinema, and if they do they won't require a "star" on the marquee.

They'll continue cast Chris Pratt in Chris Pratt roles, Tom Cruise in Tom Cruise roles, Dwayne Johnson in Dwayne Johnson roles, Jennifer Lawrence in Jennifer Lawrence roles, and Tom Hanks in Tom Hanks roles, etc until returns diminish sufficiently. I say that as a fan, more or less, of all these. Anyone who wants muscular, eye-popping acting would be better served going to plays.

-

I have meddled with the primal forces of nature and I will atone.

Gary Cole plays evil (American Gothic, Fatal Vision, An Officer and a Murderer, etc) and funny (the Brady Bunch movies, Office Space, etc) and noble/heroic (Crusade, etc) equally well. The same with Kevin Kline, from Sophie's Choice to The Pirates of Penzance (and he can sing, too!) to A Fish Called Wanda.

Boo Hoo! Let me wipe away the tears with my PLASTIC hand!Lindsey McDonald (Angel)

---

Never could. His performances are wooden like he's reading his lines. I might catch this one on video.

---

Watch the movie. He's quite good and believable in this role. Most of the reviews say he's one of the highlights of the film.

Thanks for posting IMDB cliche #2: "fill in the blank" can't act! It's right up there with "This is the worst movie ever made!" and several others.

If Costner's performances are wooden, why don't you blame the director? All actors take direction. So if you're right, then every director who made a film with KC allowed him to give a bad performance. On the other hand, people still hire him, so maybe they think more of him. And maybe you're just wrong.

Kevin Costner is a great actor. It's just that some people don't understand subtlety in acting.

(Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.)

KC never had problems getting work because he was pretty. That guaranteed box office which is the bottom line.
You want to blame the director? Seriously? The director doesn't speak the lines or emote. He can't. He's on the other side of the camera. I'm just asking you, the next time you watch one of his movies look for this woodenness; for this feeling that he's reading a script. If you give it an honest chance and an open mind you'll see it.
But I shall settle this once and for all. The proof of the pudding is in the eating.
Look at his awards. He has three Oscar nominations and two wins - for Dances With Wolves - the one exception I named. The one nomination he did not win for that movie was the Acting award. He lost to Jeremy Irons. Most of his other acting awards, historically, have been for that movie and Hatfields and McCoys, a TV miniseries which I confess I have not seen, but will try to. But he has many, many "stinker" nominations for other acting roles and has won many of them. The record is right here in IMDB.
Not nominated for The Untouchables, Bull Durham (God no!), JFK, The Bodyguard, not even for freakin' Field of Dreams! All "famous" roles for him among a number of others.
You want to blame the director? Look to people who really know film - the people that run and participate in the awards for their craft. They almost entirely ignore him. Case closed.
Don't get me wrong. I actually like Kevin Costner. It's hard not to. I think he's probably a really nice guy. I'd sit and have a beer with him any time. Does not seem pretentious to me like other good-looking actors, say a George Clooney. But I think KC is a lousy actor and I think the actual record demonstrates that I am not wrong about that.

---

You want to blame the director? Seriously?

---

Yes, I do. Because at the end of the day, the performance is dictated by what the director wants (and to an extent, what the editor can build out of the material the director hands him/her).

---

The director doesn't speak the lines or emote.

---

Wow, you figured that out all by yourself? Time for you to learn something new. If the director doesn't like what he's seeing, he calls "cut." He gives the actor an adjustment. They roll again. If you're someone like Stanley Kubrick, you keep rolling hundreds of times until you get what you want out of the actor.

If you think "He's a big star! No director would stand up to him!" you're wrong. Every actor takes direction, and most of them enjoy the process of finding their character and performance. And even if he didn't, word would spread, and no one would want to work with him.

---

Look to people who really know film - the people that run and participate in the awards for their craft. They almost entirely ignore him.

---

The list of greats who never won Academy Awards, etc., is pretty darn long. And the list of people who won awards and their careers went nowhere is equally long. There is no correlation between talent and awards. None.

---

I think the actual record demonstrates that I am not wrong about that.

---

And the fact is that A-list directors are hiring him to be in their movies. My money is that they know more about this than you do.

Thanks for taking the time to reply. I appreciate your opinion, but that's all it is.
Your condescension ("Wow, you figured that out all by yourself?") is noted.
I treated you with respect, I expect the same.
A film does not begin and end with the director. Despite what you think. Directors respond to what producers want. And producers respond to what studio heads want. And with rare exceptions, studio heads respond to what sells.
A KC film draws viewers and money. That does not mean he can act. If you think a director who does not get what he wants from a major star can just jettison him for someone else, that simply isn't the case. It is more likely that another director will be brought in than that a money-star will be axed. (Again, it does happen, but it's hardly the rule). By the way, I browsed through KC's films. I couldn't find a single big-name director save Oliver Stone for JFK. This was a major dramatic role for KC. He was not nominated. Yet Tommy Lee Jones was for supporting.
Awards from his peers are the better indicator.
There are few, not "a pretty darn long list" of great actors who never won Academy Awards. Sometimes that was political. You would no doubt want to name, say a John Wayne as an example. But John Wayne was not a great actor. He was an icon of film, America's tough guy, irascible but still likeable, box office all of those things. But not a great actor. That's why he didn't win until very late (for True Grit) which was more of a life-time award than anything and was nominated only one other time 20 years earlier. But here's the thing; KC doesn't even get nominated. Why not? No such evaluation process is perfect or absolute. But IMO awards from peers are the best indicator. Costner doesn't have them, and his body of work is long and he has done plenty of serious roles. The rest of the movie-making process is more money-oriented than anything. The voting process isn't.
Perhaps "Kevin Costner can't act" is a bit of hyperbole. If you want to argue that, I'll grant it. I guess everybody can act a little. But I think without his looks and likability to get him started he would have had a different career. I would call him journeyman at best with acting talent fit for regional theatre. Not much more.

---

You want to blame the director? Seriously? But I shall settle this once and for all. Case closed.
But I think KC is a lousy actor and I think the actual record demonstrates that I am not wrong about that.

---

Sorry if I was condescending, but your statements indicated a level of, shall we say, self importance?

---

A film does not begin and end with the director.

---

I'm talking about the filming process. You're talking about the production process leading up to that. Yes, a studio may have a star attached to a project before the director arrives, and he has nothing to say about it. But once the cameras are rolling, the actor and director work together to shape the performance. That's the way it works, and you seem to be oblivious to that fact. What you see in the finished film is what the director wants you to see, not what he was stuck with by an immature actor who doesn't play well with others.

---

By the way, I browsed through KC's films. I couldn't find a single big-name director save Oliver Stone for JFK.

---

As for directors he's worked with, you're right there. He's worked with a bunch of nobodies I've never heard of like Ron Howard, Lawrence Kasdan, John Badham, Brian de Palma, Roger Donaldson, Clint Eastwood, Ron Shelton, Sam Raimi, Andrew Davis, Zack Snyder, Kenneth Branagh, Ivan Reitman, and Aaron Sorkin. Some of them multiple times. You might make the case that they got stuck with him once, but two or three times?

Okay, you don't like him. Fine.

p.s. Never. Won. An. Oscar
(and many never nominated)
Peter O'Toole
Richard Burton
James Dean (posthumously)
Gary Oldman
Ian McKellen
Liam Neeson
Julianne Moore
Leonardo di Caprio
Tom Cruise
Glenn Close
Johnny Depp
John Travolta
Edward Norton
Samuel L. Jackson
Ralph Fiennes
Joaquin Phoenix
Amy Adams
Annette Benning
Ed Harris
Albert Finney
John Malkovich
Toshiro Mifune
Alan Rickman
Max Von Sydow
Peter Lorre
Steve Buscemi
Jeff Daniels
John Barrymore
Marilyn Monroe
Donald Sutherland
Edward G. Robinson
Fred Astaire
Kirk Douglas (honorary only)
Errol Flynn
Greta Garbo
Cary Grant
Angela Lansbury
James Mason
Agnes Moorehead
Peter Sellars
Orson Welles
Charlie Chaplin (honorary only)
Lee J Cobb
Clint Eastwood
James Earl Jones
Buster Keaton
Boris Karloff
Gene Kelly
Arthur Kennedy
Eli Wallach
Martin Sheen
Robert Shaw
Robert Redford
Basil Rathbone
Nick Nolte
Steve McQueen
Malcolm McDowell
Judy Garland
Deborah Kerr (honorary only)
Shirley Temple
Natalie Wood

It would appear that Costner is in good company, and your metric of awards won as an indicator of talent lies shattered on the floor

---

Yes, a studio may have a star attached to a project before the director arrives, and he has nothing to say about it.

---

My point exactly. Of course, once he's got the actor in his movie, he does the best he can with him. That's a given. I am "oblivious" to nothing, including your continued condescension.
You count Ron Howard who "directed" Costner in "Night Shift" where Costner played "Frat boy #1"? LOL!!! That kind of trivia does not help your case, gnome. Do you think Howard insisted "get me Costner for Frat boy #1"!
I looked up every major director you mentioned. They seem to be finished with Costner more than 20 years ago almost 25. Hmmmm. That's odd! The one exception was Branagh in "Jack Ryan", a demanding role requiring extreme acting ability on the closeups! LOL!!! In fact, Costner just doesn't get really strong dramatic roles with big-name directors and there's a reason for that.

Your Oscar "data" is distorted (and on at least one point wrong).
And I'm only counting Best Actor not Supporting
Peter O'Toole 8 nominations
Richard Burton 7 nominations
Leo DiCaprio Yes, has won (so I don't know where you got your list) and nominated 4 other times.
Tom Cruise No wins, deservedly so
Glenn Close 3 nominations (lost to Streep, Foster, and Cher for Moonstruck vs. Fatal Attraction)
Ed Harris 4 nominations
Robert Redford 1 nomination and he's a good actor. Haven't looked at the details of that, but that strikes me as odd.
Clint Eastwood, fine actor, better film maker. Two nominations. Lost to Pacino, Scent of a Woman.
John Travolta (same category as Costner not a great actor)
Kevin Costner, 1 nomination for a role where he doesn't (as I recall), speak on screen.
I didn't run across a single person on the list that had No nominations not "many with no", though I only sampled a handful from the top and there probably are some. Many of these are also journeyman actors who have done a good performance or two (but see note on awards themselves below). So he is in the company of a number of journeyman actors as well. Neeson is a good example. One fine dramatic role in Schindler's List. (Lost to Tom Hanks for Philadelphia). Though I will say, my favorite sword fight scene and ending ever is the one from Rob Roy - a great action performance.
The bottom of the list is mostly actors/actresses from long ago. The film industry has changed so I'm not sure it's fair to compare today's films and performances with those from 75 years ago. And I'm not sure that some on this list don't have a much smaller body of work, particularly in big films, than Costner. Additionally, there are only a handful of nominations per year, so obviously Hollywood saves those for the very best performances. And there's only one winner, so it does happen that really fine performers get skunked for wins. (Clark Gable didn't win for GWTW)! That is why I am focusing not just on wins, but on nominations as well. Costner has one nomination for his one good performance. Also notice that some of his films get other nominations, but not for his acting.
We're not going to agree on this, but I still say the data doesn't support Costner - particularly in the last 20-25 years.
Like I said, Costner is a journeyman actor. His "acting" fame is badly overblown. Maybe I'm just more discriminating that you are.

---

You count Ron Howard who "directed" Costner in "Night Shift" where Costner played "Frat boy #1"? LOL!!!

---

Laugh all you want, but the guy has proven himself as an actor's director. He knows talent when he sees it, and he gets great performances out of people.

---

I didn't run across a single person on the list that had No nominations

---

You didn't try hard enough. You could have just Googled "actors who have never been Oscar nominated."

Actors who have never been Oscar nominated (a partial list):
Joseph Cotton
Peter Lorre
Steve Buscemi
Jeff Daniels
Raul Julia
Alan Rickman
John Barrymore
Donald Sutherland
Edward G Robinson
Martin Sheen
Ewan McGregor
Guy Pearce
John Goodman
Sam Rockwell
Jeff Goldblum
Richard Gere
John Cusack
Alfred Molina
Kevin Bacon
Malcolm McDowell
John Turturro
Brendan Gleeson
Brian Cox
Brian Dennehy
Paul Bettany
Kurt Russell
Toshiro Mifune

So once again, your metrics for a quality actor are pretty flawed. As for the past 20-25 years, could it be that he has passed from leading man roles to more character roles which tend to be less prominent?

---

Maybe I'm just more discriminating that you are.

---

I'm a stage manager in Los Angeles working with professional actors every day. Sorry if I don't trust your ideas of what makes a good actor.

---

Laugh all you want, but the guy has proven himself as an actor's director. He knows talent when he sees it, and he gets great performances out of people.

---

Well, he certainly got all there was to get out of "Frat Boy #1". LOL!!!

---

So once again, your metrics for a quality actor are pretty flawed.

---

Well, judging by the list you just posted, gnome, I'm sticking with "more discriminating". Al Molina? John Goodman? Did you see "10 Cloverfield Lane"? OMG!!!

---

As for the past 20-25 years, could it be that he has passed from leading man roles to more character roles which tend to be less prominent?

---

Yeah that's probably it!

And last but not least we finally get to argumentum ad verecundiam. I knew we'd get to that! See ya gnome. You get the last word. Will search for a more interesting thread. I haven't done the math, but I know there are a lot of people here who agree with me. But of course, I'm sure they're not all stage managers.

---

Did you see "10 Cloverfield Lane"? OMG!!!

---

Again, you're all screwy. Being in one "bad" movie doesn't make one a bad actor. It doesn't erase a lifetime of good work. You're desperately making stuff up to support your position. But the fact remains that Costner (and John Goodman) are working actors who get cast, so someone more important than you recognizes their talent. Reality trumps your opinion.

---

Will search for a more interesting thread.

---

Yeah, you certainly didn't make one here (for a performance you never saw!). You still have one week around here before they pull the plug

---

but I know there are a lot of people here who agree with me.

---

That's the heart of it, isn't it? You just want people to agree with you. Sad.

I disagree. He's a competent, though not great, actor.

This sort of thread started by wankers like you is one of the reasons the boards are closing.

Benman, it is kind of bizarre that he or she has been a member of IMDB for 6 years, and literally the only posts he or she has made are these few about Costner's acting ability