He's entitled to his opinion. I don't know why being an actor would make his opinion any better than someone else's.
His isn't the most unfavorable opinion about the Wii, nor are his statements the most judgmental. Again, I don't see why him being an actor would make anything different.
I don't like to play the Wii because either I have bad hand-eye coordination or the sensor is never properly aligned. I still find it fun, but I suck at it.
Why do we give actors/actresses so much attention? They aren't artists, they're acting out art that someone else wrote. Writers and directors are the artists, actors are their puppets. We can appreciate how well they emulate emotions and personalities,their skill at portraying a role has no bearing on whether or not anything that they say or do off-set is worth anything.
He can say he's played such and such games, but that doesn't make him right about the Wii. Is he a professional game critic on the side?
He says the new game should be better because the better effects in the movie will carry over? So he bases how "good" gaming is on graphics alone? I mean, calling the Wii amateur seems odd to me. It actually has, until Natal launches, a pretty advanced way of interacting with the game. This is, again, unless he defines "good/bad" "amateur/pro" on graphics and processing power. There's more to gaming than those elements, in my opinion anyway.
While he's entitled to his opnion, he doesn't like the Wii, he doesn't have to be so harsh about it. Refusing to play, "I'd rather eat glass", "it's ameteur". That's not exactly a mature way to express your thoughts.
Bottom line; I don't really agree with his opinion. I don't agree with how he expresses his opinion. I don't understand why anyone cares what his opinion is.
In my opinion.