bad acting
-
mcclurestephen — 19 years ago(December 09, 2006 09:07 PM)
i dont think so! however ill indulge you with this fact. consider the fact that it was 1933 for crying out loud! maybe you just have to be a big fan of the old classic horror films, but i found the entire film fantastic.
-
steve-brink — 18 years ago(April 09, 2007 06:18 AM)
The movie was made in Hollywood and many of the actors were American. My grandfather was an extra in the movies during that time, and you can see him in one of the scenes as a "bobby." He lived in Hollywood and later Westwood for his whole adult life.
Bear in mind, this movie was made during the Depression, and no one travelled much, so much of the movie was made at Universal Studios' sound stages. -
ryanyarb — 19 years ago(July 19, 2006 08:49 PM)
I think the acting in The Invisible Man is incredible although Claude Rains's performance is a bit dated. But Rains still manages to create a terrifying character. I write more extensively about the Invisible Man on my website www.skeletontree.net
-
hachmom-1 — 18 years ago(July 05, 2007 05:10 PM)
Una O"connor annoys me, though not as much as she did in "Bride".Remember this was Claude Rains first film.I think he did quite wellIm always surprised to look at this film after Dracula and Frankenstein and realize how much technical advancement had taken place in 2 years (i feel the same way when I watch the Mummy)
-
jquirk-1 — 18 years ago(August 06, 2007 12:07 AM)
Una O'Connor was annoying in this film and in "Bride of Frankenstein," similar to Jar Jar Binks in "Star Wars: Episode I The Phantom Menace." Outside of that, this movie was great. Claude Rains was superb. This ranks somewhere in my top five of the classic Universal monster movies. The special effects were great for the time.
-
mixza737 — 18 years ago(October 05, 2007 06:36 PM)
Yeah, the only acting that really bothered me was Jenny Hall, screaming throughout every scene, and sometimes for no reason at all. I mean, woman in the 1930's were usually portayed as screamers who fall all over the place when anything bad happens, but Mrs. Hall was over the top even for that period. She seemed like she had some sort of mental disorder.
-
critic-2 — 16 years ago(June 12, 2009 12:21 PM)
Gloria Stuart is beautiful, but, frankly, not too good in this film. I thought her acting in "Titanic" was better.
The actor who plays Dr. Kemp is not very good either.
But Claude Rains and everybody else are excellent. -
nascentt — 16 years ago(September 17, 2009 05:53 PM)
It has theatrical acting. Don;t forget movies are still relatively new at 1933, and theater is a much more commonplace and practices format. The over the top shreaking and cheesy hand over face sobbing etc are brough over from theater simply because they didn't know any better. The dramatics are needed in theater as there were large theaters and the further away you are sitting the harder it is to make out what is going on.
Sadly, this still happens today in daytime tv movies, where the actresses over do emotions because they aren't used to subtlety.
Saying this, I still enjoy the movie, the sadistic, manic psychosis of it all keeps it more than just an interesting movie with the effects that would have been amazing at the time.