bad acting
-
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. -
Darwinskid — 14 years ago(January 28, 2012 06:31 PM)
I think Gloria Stuart was a tad over the top in her delivery, same with the old woman in the bar. Besides that, everybody else was exquisite.
Make IMDb a better place, ignore The_Sound_of_Glaciers_Moving. -
Yogami — 10 years ago(November 29, 2015 09:16 PM)
Much of the acting in this film is played for intentional laughs. It was James Whale's style. Of the four classic horror films he directed, only the original Frankenstein is almost played completely "straight". Whale himself and his friends giggled uncontrollably during a screening of Bride of Frankenstein.
-
Sewaat — 11 years ago(October 05, 2014 08:22 PM)
No, not at all. It's just you. I can understand if you're talking about some of the extra's. But certainly not Claude Rains. If he does come off as being a little over the top, it's only because this was his first sound film and having been trained as a stage actor (where you literally have to SHOUT all of your dialogue so the audience can hear you) he was at a disadvantage due to inexperience in front of a camera. But for me, his acting is the highlight of the film. And of course, the outstanding special effects share a part of the spotlight.
Real is good. Interesting is better.