I mean, to use the characters/actors in these pictures as examples:

Emma Rigby was hammy as The Red Queen but that was intentional to show that it was meant to be part of her persona as a queen but when she's acting like her real self (Anastasia), she is more natural because that's the point. Her character wasn't being herself and she portrayed that amazingly well with her being hammy as the queen so she would be more genuine when she reformed.

Michael Jordan was playing himself, so he was acting like himself (Which isn't too expressive) so it was technically a good performance.

Kristen Stewart as Bella Swan was what made many think she couldn't act. However, this is how the character was written, so she can't add anything, so she comes off as lifeless.

I think sometimes it does depend on the character the actor is playing but sometimes that's not enough.

If something is supposed to be a part of said character then they shouldn't be criticized on that fact but rather how well they did ithe performance.

^ Exactly. If the characters is drab (like Bella Swan) and was always written that way then the actor/actress can only do so much.

Bella Swan is the obvious example.

An actor should be criticized only for their acting skill, not on the writing or the directing of the character. That's a criticism for the writers and directors and only for the writers and directors.

Plus, the performance quality of some actors can really depend on the director they're working with. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing, it just means they're good at following the director's instructions. Which is kind of their job.

That being said, sometimes it can be difficult to tell if the writing is bad/supposed to be that way or if the performance is bad. Especially if it's a cast/crew of actors/writers/directors whose work you're unfamiliar with. Sometimes all of them can be bad at once or just one of them.