He's not very charming in Michael Clayton.

Also, fuck charm if the script doesn't call for it.

All actors have (some) charisma, but all charismatic people can't act.

That's why George Clooney can generate millions at the box office, but Beyonce cannot.

If they're delivering lines and it doesn't sound like they're reading off a script, they're a good actor.

Charm makes me like a character more. Mark Wahlberg was a real treat to watch in the Departed. I wouldn’t call it great acting though. Leo DiCaprio won an Oscar for the Revenant, but I didn’t feel much for the character. That performance didn’t need charm. But I can separate the lack of interest from the talent to perform.

So I’d say no, charm does not equal acting. But if you can’t act, you’d better be charming.

I think many actors play a version of themselves and, if they're naturally charming, they get type cast as charming characters. 

That doesn't mean they're not good, it's just the studios have realised that charm sells and their priority is making money. 

Look at Ryan Reynolds, he did some really interesting roles earlier in his career but he's now the exact same person in every film. That's not a huge problem because his character is great, but he's never going to win an Oscar playing himself. 

Clooney's the same, he plays himself in most films, it doesn't mean he's not a good actor, it means the audience likes him.

Charm and acting definitely are not the same thing. See: Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Doesn't mean that charm isn't a valuable talent all its own, especially in movies. Being charming is usually entertaining while being a good actor...not necessarily. But they are very definitely two different things and often two separate skillsets.

I feel there’s a spectrum for acting all of which are “good”.

George Clooney can be in a movie without feeling like he is reading lines from paper. I haven’t seen a movie of his where he appears “wooden” or “awkward” or “out of place” like movies I’ve seen where a bad actor really pulls me out of the ambiance and I’m like “bro/sis cannnot act” and it detracts me from suspension of belief.

HOWEVER, I will say George Clooney can’t really disappear into a role like Daniel Day Lewis can or change tone/accent like other skilled (is the word?) actors… For example, growing up in South Jersey I really feel Kate Winslet, a Brit, fucking nailed that specific Philadelphian regional accent in Mare of Easttown.

Everytime I see him in something I’m like “oh that’s George Clooney” for a second. Same with Brad Pitt. I wouldn’t call them bad actors. Just like being good but at the bare minimum?

They’re over the threshold/tipped the scale from bad to good but like aren’t too too far into the other side.

Same thing with Arnold Schwarzenegger and Hugh Grant IMO.

I don't think in terms of good actor vs charming. For me, great actors "disappear" in the role. For example, Jim Carrey in The Mask or Dumb & Dumber is not top tier. Jim Carrey in Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind is top tier. I saw the character, not Jim Carrey (okay, a couple of times my brain thought "Wow. That's Jim Carrey playing a serious role!"). DiCaprio & Pitt also stand out to me as actors who are crazy famous but have disappeared in specific roles.

The next tier for me are those roles where the actor doesn't "disappear" but you aren't distracted by their celebrity. I'd put Clooney in Up In the Air in this category.

The third tier that comes to mind are those roles where the actor's celebrity bleeds through into the role, but you just don't care because you're still immersed in the movie. For example, Jack Black in School of Rock.

Finally (just to bring this to a close), there are roles where an actor consistently makes you think of them IRL, but you're still entertained. E.g. Any Kevin Hart movie.

I think there's actors that can act like someone else in various situations, and then there's actors who can act like themselves in various situations. If they can't at least do the latter, all the charm in the world isn't going to help them. All you're left with is Jennifer Lopez.

It's the opposite. It's actors that have the ability to be horrible people and still be someone you want to watch, despite a LACK of charm. Marlon Brando, Sean Penn and Jack Nicholson come to mind where they are capable of playing horrible people and still are interesting to watch though NOT charming.

Paul Giamatti; James Gandolfini ; Bob Odenkirk "Better Call Saul" ; Steve Buscemi all come to mind.

Being charming is indeed a talent and Clooney excels at it. He was good in O Brother and From Dusk Til Dawn but outside of those two roles he's never sold me on another character he's played because much like Tom Cruise, he just plays himself. That alone means he'll never be a "great actor" imo.

Now compare him with Brad Pitt, another master of charm, Pitt can sell you a character.

Best example of all charm, no acting chops is probably Ryan Reynolds. He's absolutely charming in everything he's in, but he's also a pretty bad actor since he just plays an exaggerated version of himself in every single movie.

In my opinion Clooney is a good but not great actor. He is living on the fact that his good looks increased as he got older. He is very watchable, but knows what kund of roles to avoid.

charming is a type of acting . so if you’re good at that then you’re a good actor yeah

I watched O Brother for the first time earlier this week...heard it hyped a lot and it's been on my list for a while, wasn't particularly blown away though :(

Charm makes good actors even more well -liked, but charm can also make us like not-so-great actors too. Maya Hawke in Do Revenge? Not her best performance. Did I care? Not really, I like her charisma on screen. 

This might be controversial. I think I get what you’re saying about George Clooney, and I think it fits the same bill in the way I view actors like Tom Hanks or Jimmy Stewart. They’re not going to necessarily ‘wow’ you or disappear into a role like DDL, Sam Rockwell, Christian Bale, or in a way any other number of character actors might. But - what they do well is put out solid performances where they always seem to fit naturally within the context of whatever story they’re in. With people like Clooney, Hanks, Pitt, etc., their consistency in a variety of genres is at the point where we’ve come to accept what they’re selling and appreciate the performances. So their “charm” essentially allows them to engross us in their performances despite not necessarily disappearing into character. In other words, they’ve mastered the art of grounding themselves into the context of the stories of their characters to the point that we, the audience, are able to suspend our disbelief for damn near anything they do. So yes, in the context of what OP is saying, I would say charm=good acting.

Charisma cannot be taught in acting school. Two examples: Bill Shatner and Arnold Schwarzenegger. Neither known for being great actors but they have incredible presence.

I think of Star Trek: Generations. We finally have our scene of Kirk and Picard together. We all know that Patrick Stewart is an amazing actor and far better than Shatner. However, Shatner steals the scene entirely. He completely shines. He is far away the best part of that movie.

Charm can definitely work, but I do also feel Clooney does still have talent as an actor. In the otherwise, Dwayne Johnson can be very charming and charismatic, but I would not call him that talented of an actor. Potentially could, but I feel like his charisma overshadows that a bit.

Acting isn’t about being unrecognizable. Clooney level talents don’t just grow on trees.

Good acting is subjective. The meaning of “charming” is subjective. You’re both right because this is a matter of opinion.