Eh, I don't think this is fair. Samuel L Jackson is an actor that imbues every bad role he has ever done with charisma and likability, but was terrible and bland in the prequel trilogy. Does he need the script and direction to be on point?
You can't tell actors to deliver the worst, lovey dialogue in existence, in front of a green screen, with AWFUL direction and expect it to come out well.
And I actually agree with the Nostalgia Critic's take on the Hayden Christensen performance. He actually delivers a pretty good physical performance in Sith, it just falls apart when he delivers the dialogue.
Maybe I emphasized my statement in a false manner. I am not saying Christensen or Portman are bad actors, merely that they are like most actors for me: at the mercy of the material and direction they are given.
For the record, I really like Sam Jackson for the reasons you mentioned, but I don't think he is a fantastic actor, not for me personally. In this instance, I think he was fighting a bigger hill than ever: terrible script and a role that essentially requires him to be uncharismatic and cold, two things I don't usually associate with Samuel L. Jackson.
I would argue he was outright miscast to begin with.
And for the record, I do think Hayden Christensen was actually good casting. Don't know if he has a great performance in him, but physically he looked the part, agreed on that.
On a side note, I think the casting of the main characters has mostly been on point throughout the entire series. I would have preferred Keira Knightley instead of Portman if I am being frank, but that is another matter.
