TERRIBLE Acting
-
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
-
filterite — 17 years ago(August 29, 2008 11:24 AM)
Yeah the acting's pretty atrocious when it comes to Vale and the artist guy. The funny thing is, the guy who played the artist has been in quite a few Cronenberg movies. I think this was the worst performance of the lot. But you could get away with wooden acting in Cronenberg's early movies.
-
Corthier — 17 years ago(November 15, 2008 05:46 PM)
Lack's "wooden" acting is off-putting until you arrive at Revok's explanation at the climax, at which point you must completely reassess this performance in line with its character's back story. Gee, he seems vacant, unformed, and even baby-like. Could there be a reason?
Imagine that you can't even remember your childhood and have no sense of yourself as a person. Wouldn't you be a little blank, as though you were "reading off of cue cards."
A gutsy move on Cronenberg's part, to trust his audience's intelligence to such an extent. -
konitzlee — 17 years ago(December 10, 2008 08:44 PM)
I don't know. This is weird. Maybe Lack was imposed on Cronnie by the producers. But still, when you have pretty good actors playing for you, and plenty of money, how could you allow such a bad actor like Lack to work for you?