Many times a great film is carried by a great performance by one of its stars, but sometimes a film is great DESPITE a lackluster performance from an actor who should be carrying the film.

Here are two examples.

First, The Matrix. Say what you will about the sequels or even the concept, this is a landmark sci-fi film that grabbed the Oscar for Visual Effects everybody thought would be a shoo-in for The Phantom Menace. But it isn't a great film because of Keanu Reeves' limited acting ability. I think a big reason why the sequels suffered is that the screenplays for those films asked more of Reeves than he could deliver.

Second, Christopher Nolan's Batman trilogy. Christian Bale is a good actor who has proven himself in many other films, but in the Dark Knight films he was a bit of a black hole. (I think the fans moaning about Ben Affleck are going to be surprised.) In my opinion, his best performance in a Chris Nolan film was "Batman v. Wolverine" (a.k.a. The Prestige).

Both Strangers On A Train and Rope were great films despite---not because of---Farley Granger, who was the Keanu Reeves of the late 40's and 50's.

Can anybody think of anything else?

Pacific Rim with Charlie Hunnam.

At the risk of incurring Jay's wrath, I'll say some of Clint Eastwood's early westerns with Sergio Leone where he played "Blondie." Although Clint Eastwood of 1967 deservedly became a star, I don't think he was as good an actor as he was later in his career.

There's another example I thought of, although it doesn't quite count because despite this film's massive box office, it wasn't a great movie, but Revenge of the Sith comes to mind. In The Phantom Menace, most of the cast---many of them veteran actors---looked a bit lost acting against green room effects and characters that they couldn't see. But by the last film, most of those same actors had recovered and gave great performances with one notable exception. Unfortunately, that exception was Hayden Christensen, upon whose shoulders the film rested. In fact, I'm scratching my head to figure out how he got casted, and I think he picked a young actor who most closely resembled what George Lucas looked like in the 60's. It's a shame, because this film and the prequel trilogy had so much potential.

John Carter comes to mind. While it wasn't a great movie, the lead was definitely the worst part of it.

This thread just crashed and burned in an all time way.

Couldn't disagree with this more. I found Bale to be magnificent in all three films, particularly the first and third.

For my own suggestion, I'll jump on the Keanu train and go with Speed. Still a great film but I think it would be regarded as one of, if not the best action films of the 90s if it had a Bruce Willis as John McClane-type charismatic lead performance.

Charlie Day should have been the lead.*

*applies to all movies, not just Pacific Rim

Take it to the "Terrible Lead Actor In A Movie That Should Have Been Great But Wasn't" thread...

How could you consider anybody but Jimmy Stewart to be the lead in Rope?

Take it to the Every Film Sucks Except Marvel Studios Movies and Chick Flicks thread...

Good point. I should have just said Strangers On A Train where Granger WAS the lead role.

And although I know this is exactly what Kubrick intended, I think both Keir Dullea and Gary Lockwood are too bland in the lead roles in 2001: A Space Odyssey. He wanted to show that man had lost so much of his spark compared to the machines they had created. I think that as great as 2001 is, you ought to care more about Dullea and Lockwood's plight.

January Jones in X-Men:First Class

I know what you mean. "2001" is a fantastic visual experience, but it suffers greatly from the lack of sympathetic characters who have any sort of charisma. It could have been so much better if there had been more of an effort to make audiences identify with the two astronauts.

***Ah HELL! Wrong thread. Nevermind, Nothing to see here.***

Hunnam is a good actor.