I personally don't care that he may of had to be a bit broody in this movie too. I think if an actor wants to play a certain character thats up to them. Perhaps if this was still happening years later I might think, oh I wonder if he can play something else for a change. I think it is premature to put him in him a box, label it, and be reluctant and stubborn about taking him out of it. But thats just me. 

Out of curiosity, what do you think he could have done to give a better performance in this particular role? What would take it from okay to really good in your eyes?

I mean why bother defending him when his performance did nothing to prove his critics wrong? Now if he gave an amazing, unforgettable performance and critics are still ripping him apart, THEN you should be defending it. But giving an "okay, plain, or simple" performance is not going to silence his critics any time soon, and defending such a performance kinda makes you come across as defending him out of pity.

I actually think your analysis in the last post is a much more objective and credible synopsis than some I've seen from people.

I still maintain he did exactly what was needed for the character but perhaps the character itself isnt strong enough for people to really take him seriously yet. But like I say its early days for him and I wouldnt write him off just yet.

I'm not looking for miracles here. I'm not saying it was the most amazing thing ever, just that it was good and most certainly not bad.