it merely guarantee's that one element in said movie, namely his performance, will be stellar. I'm trying to think of good forecasters of quality and the only one I can come up with is Philip Seymour Hoffman. Tom Cruise also has very few lemons in his filmography.

It is ironic that this article appears alongside another on Lord of the Rings.

It is rumored that Daniel Day Lewis turned down the role of Aragorn in LOTR. However, alls well that ends well. His decision brought Viggo Mortensen well deserved stardom.

He is the perfect example of a highly talented and acclaimed actor who will take any role for a buck. Godsend, anyone?

Daniel Day-Lewis may be a fine actor, but I prefer Christopher Walken, who says he never turns down a role and is always ready to test and extend his limits in either comedy or drama. Walken has had over a hundred roles since beginning his career in the late '60s, while Day-Lewis has only had 25 or so since his career really got underway in the early '80s.

It was JAWS 3-D. And the quote is:

Well you know I haven't seen that film so I couldn't tell you. But I have seen the house that it paid for, and it's a beauty.

Just an FYI, Stephanie.

It try to be (wince) kind to film critics because I know being a critic is a profession, but if I wanted a status-obsessed gossipfest about the image-management strategies of the stars I would go to Entertainment Tonight. Good critics enrich their audiences by enlightening them as to aspects of artworks they may have missed, misunderstood or of which they would otherwise be unaware; historical perspective, technical insight, and so on. This is true whether you're considering the creative judgments made within a musical score or an oil painting, by a lone hobbyist or the collective and commercial art of globally consumed films. This sort of "If he does too many movies he'll be yesterday's news" Who's Hot and Who's Not stupidity brings absolutely nothing to the table. Nothing. Conversing about somebody's reputation for good work is what film consumers and film enthusiasts do. Critics are supposed to tell us something we don't already know.

In fact, this notion that professional actors' primary motivation is fame and wealth is a notion more appropriate for the judges of American Idol and is EXACTLY the sort of unhelpful and disrespectful construct that any serious film critic would work to dismantle rather than promulgate.

I have a friend who is a spectacular artist with food, but she rarely does large, full-course meals for more than her family -- so dinner invitations are prized. I know that even her worst attempt will be better than what I'd be served at a restaurant I can't afford.

I don't know if I'd appreciate what she does as much if it were available more often -- maybe, or not. Her mutual friends half-joke that she should actually turn pro (she's that good), and another friend has offered to make that a possibility, but she's said no.

Lewis' talent is spare and subtle enough that I'm glad when he appears; I know it's a dish I'll like. He doesn't appear as often as Walken -- but, then, Walken is a different actor with different talents. For some, craft is constant work, appearance and experimentation; for others, it's long pauses and intense, brief flowerings of a role here and there.

Is being an actor about taking every role? Is being a cook about doing it regularly for as many as you can stuff around a table? Is acting about making as much money as possible? Is cooking about testing yourself in a pay-for-play arena and cashing in on an innate talent?

I think it all depends on the actor, or the cook.

Daniel Day-Lewis has missed out on a lot of fun. Sure, we respect him, but do we love him? I know I don't. I'll take Walken tap-dancing in a music video over Mr. "Has he even done anything since Last of the Mohicans?" any day.

Comparing Daniel Day Lewis to Christopher Walken is like comparing a chocolate sundae to soup. The first is a treat; something you have occasionally; is a secret pleasure, something you savor and delight in. The latter something that nourishes you and hearty. Both are required.

I want to second what skyview satellite said. Just because Daniel Day Lewis isn’t making a lot of movies doesn’t mean he’s not working. Maybe he’s perfectly happy doing stage work. I bet his choices are more complex and interesting than most of what film offers these days. To paraphrase Peter O’Toole from My Favorite Year, Daniel Day Lewis is an actor not a movie star.

Bill the Butcher had to be played for laughs. Either that or it was the worst thing he's ever done. Certainly the dialog was.

Salon used to put the most interesting clips up in this section. Now every time I log on it's your writers talking like they set up a camcorder at their desks. It's not that they're bad, but I'd rather read what they have to write than listen to what they have to say. What happened to all the really interesting clips, Salon? With the exception of Scott Bateman most of the stuff I've seen here has either been fairly boring in either the delivery or the subject. C'mon, go back and look at video dog about a year ago - some really fun stuff!

It's been interesting seeing Stephanie Zacharek and Matt Singer in their little micro-spots, and it will be interesting to see where Salon's ongoing foray into video takes it (and us).

I will say, though, the clips would be twice as interesting with half as much Singer. He's clearly more experienced in front of the camera, but confidence without content ends up just being glib. The contrast with Zacharek, who's soft-spoken but clearly accustomed to actually saying something thoughtful about film, borders on painful.

If the goal of a pairing like this is to get Salon's writers more on-camera experience, it won't be soon enough for me when they're ready to strike out on their own. Or, if it's an "I've got the brains, you've got the looks" thing, let's hope it's making them lots of money.