TERRIBLE Acting
-
Chickensmoke — 16 years ago(June 18, 2009 01:26 PM)
The acting WAS terrible, and this is probably the worst David Cronnenberg film I've ever seen. Stuff like 'The Brood' was more enjoyable than this, which was surprising cos this is the Cronnenberg film everyone goes on about (apart from 'The Fly'- one of my favorites!), so I was expecting it to be good. Not scary, silly effects (bar the exploding head) and YES terrible acting!
-
-
coex — 16 years ago(September 09, 2009 11:46 AM)
sorry, this was not a mainstream movie at all! it was a b-movie made in 1981. back then, these films played drive-ins and second run houses, and Cronenberg wasn't a name anyone would hear about for years to come (unless you read Fangoria and loved B-movies!).
As pointed out in the other thread here on Lack: he was supposed to act this way. Pay attention to the story and who his character is supposed to BE. -
infidelicity — 16 years ago(September 27, 2009 07:34 PM)
Ha. It's amusing how modern viewers seem to assume that movies made in the past where somehow these splendid, wondrous, universally acclaimed masterpieces. Much was just as it is now. Most is poorly acted entertainment that does not age well with the years; with actors/starlets and directors trying to make a name for themselves.
By all means, we should appreciate it for what it is, in the context of when, how and why it was made, acting and all. As to his acting frankly it reminds me of most movies of that era I've seen where the hero is supposed to be a sullen, maladjusted loner with a mystery past. Very reserved and ultra serious. It's annoying but we shouldn't blame the actor, blame the era.
Plus I don't think they chose him for his superior acting but for his freaky eyes for all the long staring close ups.
The dubbing sucks though, I find it makes his acting seem -worse- than it appears to be.Fantasy & Reality are one side of the coin. Just dont confuse the two, it insults them both.
-
Herreken — 16 years ago(October 16, 2009 07:45 PM)
I never knew the actor who played Vale had his lines dubbed. Did he do the dubbing or was it another actor? This may explain why he came across as comatose.
Strangely enough, he had a role in Dead Ringers but I don't remember it. I saw Dead Ringers about5 years after I first saw Scanners. I think I would have recognized him. Did his acting improve or was it an unmemorable small role?
DISPLAY thy breasts, my Julia! -
Ore-Sama — 12 years ago(September 25, 2013 01:24 PM)
Ha. It's amusing how modern viewers seem to assume that movies made in the past where somehow these splendid, wondrous, universally acclaimed masterpieces.
On the whole, yes, older movies are better then current ones.
"However cleverly you sneak up on a mirror, it's reflection always looks you straight in the eye" -
K0walski — 21 years ago(June 21, 2004 05:24 PM)
I agree. I watched this with a friend the other night and we were both in awe at how shockingly bad he was. I've seen high school plays with significantly better actors.
It ruined the movie for him, but I still rather enjoyed it. I didn't rent this movie to see great acting anyway. -
tuttt — 21 years ago(July 02, 2004 09:59 AM)
we were both in awe at how shockingly bad he was.
Exquisitely bad. It was almost a relief to see his character catch fire and watch his eyeballs shoot out of his head. ka-POW!!!
Too bad he didn't BLOW UP, like that Louis del Grande character. He woulda blowed up REAL good!! -
Innsmouth_Clay — 21 years ago(August 11, 2004 09:30 AM)
For my money, I think the crazy artist may have Stephen Lack beat.
No mean feat!
He only has a bit part, but what he does with it is so astonishing it's indelibly imprinted in my mind. His mocking laugh, and then his thoughtful delivery of, "Who
are
you?" Cue cards, nothing. He performs as if someone's feeding him lines and movement through an earpiece because he has no idea what to do or say from one moment to the next. I don't know whether to cringe or laugh watching him.
Michael Ironside walks away with the film, but what does he walk away with?
The only reason for time is so that everything doesn't happen at once. -
bps3013 — 17 years ago(July 05, 2008 03:46 PM)
Totally. And I second the nomination of "Crazy Artist Guy" for Worst Actor Runner Up. When he throws his head back and does that "WHOOOO-HOOO-HOO-HOOO" laugh thing, it's all over. Yeah, I get he's supposed to be a mental wreck, but that's just damn stupid.
And poor Stephen Lack the less said about his performance the better. -
MrGKB — 17 years ago(July 09, 2008 01:14 PM)
I can't disagree with what's been said, but will note that this thread has actually motivated me to dig the daggone thing out and watch it again. I probably haven't seen it in fifteen years or so, but watched it numerous times back in the day. Cronenberg remains one of my favorite directors.
When in doubt, watch a movie!
Once certain, watch it again! -
chexmix — 21 years ago(August 13, 2004 01:07 PM)
The thing that makes it weirder is Stephen Lack is a well-known VISUAL ARTIST. Check out his IMDB bio. He sort of dabbles in acting, I guess.
I first suspected this when I saw that a "Stephen Lack" had an entry in the book What the Songs Look Like, a collection of "illustrations" of Talking Heads songs.
Why Cronenberg thought a painter would make a good lead actor ::whuff:: But Lack really is wooden in this movie, a major flaw. -
leonie — 17 years ago(August 28, 2008 12:00 AM)
patrick mcgoohan wins in this movie and is clearly the best thing about it.
everyone else blows horrendously. david cronenberg actually cast stephen lack because he had wonky eyes. no other reason!"It's better not to know so much about what things mean." David Lynch