sunday256 said:
Lastly, I disagree about Hayden's acting ability. He was hired primarily for his role in "Life As A House" which I thought he did quite well in.

Before you burn him at the stake at leat check that film out if you haven't and then come back and say he's a terrible actor. And for that matter, we all know Natalie Portman is a better actress than what people say she was in Star Wars. The Professional comes to mind.

I saw a bit of Life as a House. I found Hayden's performance annoying and unimpressive in it. But his performance in Life as a frikkin House isn't relevant for judging his performances in the prequels. Those performances should be judged on their own merits (or lack thereof), not based on that Life as a House film.

Chewy72 said:
Guys like Harrison and Clint Eastwood knew they weren't great actors and never really tried to stretch themselves, as they knew their limits. Ford stuck with Jack Ryan, Dr. Kimble, and Indy, and branched out to roles in Witness, as he was very good in that. Eastwood was the same way, as always played the same tough guy Dirty Harry character, and both never won an oscar.

I wouldn't go underestimating Harrison's Ford's acting ability. He hasn't done a lot of flashy roles of the sort people like to give oscars for, but he's incredibly good at bringing characters to life and giving them depth and texture. Star Wars would have been a lot weaker without his work on making Han a person rather than just a stereotype, and Indiana Jones depended utterly on his ability to make a character feel like a human being. As for his other roles, there's splendid performances in films such as Witness, Mosquito Coast and Regarding Henry. He has not always stuck to the same sort of character - see Regarding Henry, Widowmaker (his accent was bad but otherwise his performance was great), Mosquito Coast, or even his murdering husband in What Lies Beneath.