With the recent release of Hardball (The Mighty Ducks with baseball instead of hockey. Wait -- wasn't The Mighty Ducks just The Bad News Bears with hockey instead of baseball?), I am forced to once again face the mystery of Keanu Reeves: why does this guy who can't act get to be (bad) in so many really good movies?

Yeah, sure, plenty of talentless pretty boy actors do art movies -- and their directors let them because of the added box office revenue -- like Brad Pitt in 12 Monkeys, or Tom Cruise in Eyes Wide Shut. And the number of pretty girl actresses who can't act is staggering. (Those who support Keanu in a sort of "turnabout is fair play" kind of feminism forget that most men would be flattered if you objectified them as a piece of meat.) But look at Gene Hackman -- he's a good actor. He's got bad taste in scripts, but he's still a good actor. Still, he hasn't been in anything good since... I don't know, The Conversation? So why does Keanu get all these great roles?

Yes, he was good in Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure -- a little too good, if you ask me. Has my impression of him been so cemented by that role that I can't see him as anyone else? I don't think so. I haven't trapped Sean Penn in Fast Times at Ridgenmont High. I just think Keanu really was Theodore Logan.

Speaking of (in a way), whatever happened to Alex Winter? Why isn't he a star as well?

But I digress. Some movies like Parenthood and I Love You To Death try and take advantage of that natural Ted-ness. And that's fine, 'cause those are stupid movies. But what about The River's Edge and My Own Private Idaho? Sure, they kinda have the same zoned out characters, but he also really needed to show a sort of feeling or emotion underneath that idiocy that he completely missed, therefore ruining otherwise great films.

And anytime he's in a period film -- Much Ado About Nothing, Bram Stoker's Dracula, or Dangerous Liaisons -- it's just ridiculous. Even when he's not talking with that Valley dude twang, the look on his face just seems to say, "Dude!" It breaks whatever reality they're trying to establish.

Plus, he's always horribly miscast: as Denzel Washington's brother in Much Ado, as Buddha (yes, that Buddha) in Little Buddha (ranking up there in bad casting history with John Wayne as Genghis Khan in The Conqueror), and then there's his turn as a rocket scientist in Chain Reaction. Sure, I believe that. Almost as much as I believe Darryl Hannah as an astronomer in Roxanne. (Actually, Darryl Hannah is only good at playing cro-magnons, mermaids and other sub-human species. Sorry.)

He doesn't even make a very good blank sheet of paper in movies like Johnny Mnemonic or The Matrix (which -- I'll admit -- I haven't seen. I also haven't seen Titanic, Jurassic Park, a couple of the Star Wars movies or Casablanca. I have, however, seen all of Pia Zadora's films.)

So what's the deal? He can act as badly as he wants in movies like Speed -- what do I care? (Admittedly, he did win points with me for not doing the inevitable Speed 2.) But why does that mean that so many good directors should put him in their movies? He's not that much of a draw. How much did Sweet November gross? Exactly. He just can't act. At least, I've never seen it, and I've given him plenty of chances. Is he really that attractive? My sweetie thinks Oliver Platt is a hottie, so she might not know, but maybe you can explain it to me -- this inexplicable Keanu appeal.