bad acting
-
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. -
Kammurabi — 14 years ago(October 26, 2011 04:34 AM)
I find Gloria Stuart to be a very poor actress from what little I've seen of her. Particularly this movie. I also have The Old Dark House and that role wasn't as annoying.
Claude Rains could not be considered bad, as he is one of the best ever. The rest of the cast was solid.
. -
chipe — 14 years ago(November 06, 2011 02:38 PM)
I liked Raines a lot, over-acting or not fun part, well-done.
But I found many of the others guilty of poor acting, lines or direction. I posted this elsewhere:
too many of the other characters (cops, townspeople)were just like her [the amusing innkeeper's wife]: funny faced, silly acting boobs. It got tiring (and silly) after a while, too many buffoons. ..I wish I had time to document this, but it seemed to me that the movie had lots of director flaws in it! A lot of scenes ended abruptly when there were great opportunities to milk them for more. And Travers (the father of Stuart), who is a great character actor I suppose, seemed very weak here. He delivered his lines without any enthusiasm, as though he were bored!
Raine's "partner" seemed pretty poor acting-wise. Take, for example, the scene where he is bound in a car and told he would go over a cliff in it. The actor seemed stiff and bored, no emotion at all. I couldn't believe it.