Those two have a limited acting range. They just didn't sound believable in their line readings in this film. In particular, I don't understand how Ethan Hawke keeps getting big roles like this. Pratt, despite his limited range, has the looks as well as a certain screen presence and charisma.
shareI'd have to disagree on Ethan Hawke. I think he's great. Chris Pratt on the other hand, was awful. I think he's a funny and seemingly nice all around guy in real life, but he sure as hell cant act worth a damn. At least not in this movie. The entire time, he looked as though he was about to burst out laughing. I kept thinking his scenes were part of the "behind the scenes" laugh track or blooper reel. Not good.
He plays Chris Pratt.
He is a trickster and can't shut his mouth. He's not pretending. It's just him. He pretends in other movies but he's just playing himself.
Watch his hands. The whole character is about his hands. Watch the hands. They're good.
Chris Pratt played Chris Pratt.
But i thought Ethan Hawke was amazing. His lines and accent seemed natural. He was more than just Ethan.
I completely agree. Chris Pratt kept breaking into his own goofball mannerisms, while Ethan Hawke really became his character. Even though I always knew he must be good, I was genuinely surprised by his performance.
shareAgreed.
Pratt is fun to watch on-screen but he's always Chris Pratt.
Ethan Hawke's character had the most depth (and development) out of everyone else in film next to the widow. So I wholeheartedly disagree with OP about their criticisms of Hawke.
Ethan Hawke was okay. Unfortunately Chris Pratt's heart wasn't in this performance"
share