I’m assuming the good scenes are good because they’re funny. ;)
Just got finished with one. John Carpenter’s Assault on Precinct 13. Lots of tense action pieces thanks to the great direction, but when they get to the talking – hoo boy!
Metropolitan was a huge letdown. I think the Screenplay was one of the most beautifully written I’ve ever seen. The acting was really terrible, for the most part, though. Not all, but some, of the Actors sucked ass.
I think Jean Renoir’s The River is a great film with just not good enough acting performances by the actors. In fact the acting was lousy and uninspired.
The cinematography of the film was amazing and I would have so much liked it to be a documentary instead. Probably in the lines of Baraka.
by the time i see the title of this thread,one film that appear in my head is GRAN TORINO.
and i’m surprised that that film is this thread conversation starter.yeah,that korean is awful
Gary Oldman was great in Leon and Polanski likewise in The Tenant. Sid & Nancy however, was a terrible film.
Kunam88: I agree about GRAN TORINO.
I have been outspoken about my dislike for that film. Upon reflecting, I realize I only hate it because of the acting. The camera work is pretty good, the supposed symbolism in the film is interesting, and I would have enjoyed the (cliche) story if I could have been pulled in. But that acting was God-awful.
BOUND by the Wachowski Bros.
I do not think this is really a “great” film, but I like it a lot. Upon watching it a second time, I realized how bad Jennifer Tilly and Gina Gershon’s acting was.
Coppola’s version of Dracula!!!! Reeves, Ryder & even Hopkins were all deplorably bad. Great visuals, some scary moments but the acting is sooooooo damn bad I can’t watch the movie!!
A film can never be great if the acting is terrible, they can’t meet half way. Now sometime a film can be less interested in the acting and thats a different thing.
As must as I love Hal Hartley’s films, and “Trust” being my absolute favorite. The first 10 minutes of the film are just painful, performance wise, but then it gets in to a groove.
That, and Renee Zellweger in “Cold Mountain.” How that won an Oscar, I’ll never know.
The obvious answer is “I, An Actress.”
All great Dario Argento films.
I totally agree Dracula…especially Wynona Rider and Keanu Reeves…such a shame cause the movie is great!
Renee Zelleger worth her oscar in Cold Mountain…but I agree that sometimes her face is not the best advantage for her for a good acting…sorry…I am rude.
last point…Gary Oldman was more than amazing in “Léon” (the professional)…maybe cause I saw it in french…but also in english…his character is dangerous because is unpredictable, without soul, heartlessly, drug addict…he played that marvelously!
Is anybody have seen The English patient…I really like her usually ( in “Paris”!) but in this movie Juliette Binoche has broken all my feelings!
I have to say that Candy Clark’s role as Mary Lou in Nic Roeg’s The Man Who Fell To Earth has got to one of the most god-awful performances I have ever seen in a movie I really liked.
Every time she was on screen I was horrified…the way she delivered her lines was probably the hardest thing for me to handle…that sort of whiny, really lazy, high pitched peevish impartment of words…it was terrible!
I don’t know that I really buy into the idea of ‘good’ or ‘bad’ acting in a film any more than I do making value judgements on specific colors in a painting. Performances are either appropriate or inappropriate based on the context of the film, and the fault generally lies with a director and with casting when an actor gives a performance that is jarring and doesn’t fit well with the film. Plenty of talented directors have used ‘bad’ actors to great effect, and plenty of very talented actors have given terrible performances under directors who were unable to communicate the vision of the film to them, or who let them take over their own direction after cowing to their ‘star-power’.
you can probably tell by who gets the oscar for best actress, who sucked the most. examples: julia roberts in erin brockovich, reesse witherspoon in walk the line, HALLE BERRY in MONSTERS BALL.
Briepark said, “As must as I love Hal Hartley’s films, and “Trust” being my absolute favorite. The first 10 minutes of the film are just painful, performance wise, but then it gets in to a groove.”
I love Trust, too. The only other Hartely film I’ve seen is The Unbelievable Truth, and based on those films I almost feel like Hartley’s writing and directing is impervious to amateurish acting (although there are some moments of fine acting in both films); in some ways the films almost thrive from it. Perhaps, “amateurish” and “impervious” are the wrong words. The acting fits though. I want to see more of his films.
I thought Reese was excellent and deserving for her role in Walk the Line. Sometimes an Oscar goes to an actor who creates a really likable character (not always easy) and this is one of those examples. (I thought her singing was solid, too.)
As for Halle Berry, I don’t think she’s a good actor—and I get annoyed by the Academy trying to give awards to beautiful, but mediocre actors ( i.e. Sharon Stone, Jennifer Connelly)—but I thought Berry had some nice moments in that film.
I must agree. Candy Clark’s performance is rather grating and almost matches Bowie’s for woodenness, however, that is part of what makes this a special film. The aura of strangeness surrounding the movie is not only reinforced by Roeg’s direction, the cinematography and the editing, but by the acting of Bowie and Clark. Rip Torn seems almost out of place with his well-honed acting skills. The same may also be said of Performance – the central character of Chas, played by professional actor James Fox, spends much of the movie dealing with the appalling acting of Jagger, Pallenberg and Breton. Yet, through Cammell and Roeg’s direction, the meeting of some of the most lazy 1960s non-acting becomes a classic surreal gangster movie.
>>All great Dario Argento films<<
I can’t think of even a single good one …
I can. Suspiria is in my opinion a classic horror movie, done in a style that one rarely sees from any other director. And it includes its fair share of bad acting and terrible dubbing, but that’s two of the ingredients that make it a Great Film.
“I can’t think of even a single good one …”
Acting style changes over time. I find it a little unfair to go back and diss performances from yesteryear. That said, Jimmy Stewart in The Spirit of St. Louis and John Wayne in The Barbarian and the Geisha make me double over with laughter when I’m sure that was not Wilder or Huston’s original intentions.
Not sure if I would call it a great film per se, but Scanners would have been damn good if it wasn’t for some of the worst acting I’ve ever seen. Just ghastly stuff from those amateurs.
I always thought the stiff performances in Hal Hartley movies were intentional, and essential to his style, like Antonioni. Maybe I’m giving them too much credit.