TERRIBLE Acting
-
ClintJCL — 10 years ago(May 05, 2015 11:50 PM)
Since when was being a cult classic and being preposterous mutually exclusive?
-ClintJCL
http://clintjcl.wordpress.com/category/reviews/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/clintjcl -
ClintJCL — 10 years ago(May 06, 2015 12:06 AM)
No, not really.
You're free to like the movie all you want. I'm glad I watched it, but consider it barely passable badfilm. If I had to watch badfilm, I'd probably want to watch something more ridiculous and lighthearted. This is a bunch of staring, and then shaking your head. Over and over. The acting is terrible. Staring at someone isn't great acting. It's just ridiculous. And not in the good way I just described, haha!
-ClintJCL
http://clintjcl.wordpress.com/category/reviews/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/clintjcl -
miser42 — 10 years ago(May 06, 2015 12:12 AM)
Well I disagree. It is not a bad film. Not in a bad but good way and not in a bad but bad way either. It has loads of atmosphere and presents interesting theories on the idea of telepathy and empaths. Cronenberg chooses to direct his actors in ways that make it unsettling and unnerving for the viewers. Yeah, Stephen Lack isn't the best actor in the world and his role is stiff and disjointed but I believe that is what was needed for the role. How is the films ideas any more ridiculous than say "The Wizard of Oz"?
-
ClintJCL — 10 years ago(May 06, 2015 12:14 AM)
It's generally not, except, well Telepaths being able to read a computer's "mind". Because those are so similar.
I guess they can simply read their car's mind to know if they need to purchase more gasoline.
-ClintJCL
http://clintjcl.wordpress.com/category/reviews/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/clintjcl -
miser42 — 10 years ago(May 06, 2015 12:18 AM)
It is a science FICTION/ Horror film. Hence, the word fiction. It isn't reality, nor is it supposed to be. It is just supposed to be an interesting story to get lost in for a few hours. Movies are entertainment, you are either entertained or not.
-
ClintJCL — 10 years ago(July 07, 2015 07:01 AM)
What's your point? Are their nonfictional telepaths? No? Then it doesn't matter. We have a concept of what telepathy is. The ability to "Read" a computer's "Mind" (which doesn't actually exist) is nothing at all physically or logically like reading a person's mind. It's not what telepathy is. It's bad writing.
-ClintJCL
http://clintjcl.wordpress.com/category/reviews/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/clintjcl -
RobBase086-1 — 15 years ago(April 27, 2010 06:21 PM)
Ironside always plays a very good villian in any movie or TV show to be honest with you. That is why he always gets the bad guy roles in movies or pretty much anything you can think of.
Dedicated to USA UP ALL NIGHT and the fans of the show!
www.deefilmroll.com/usa-uan/ -
RobBase086-1 — 14 years ago(July 15, 2011 03:46 PM)
Well that is where I have seen him mostly play is a bad guy and very seldomly do I see him play a good guy though.
Dedicated to USA UP ALL NIGHT and the fans!
http://www.usaupallnight.webs.com -
RobBase086-1 — 15 years ago(April 27, 2010 05:29 PM)
What could you expect that is how films are still being done today. Some people have experience and others do not. I thought the movie was good and I did not have anything to complain about it at all.
Dedicated to USA UP ALL NIGHT and the fans of the show!
www.deefilmroll.com/usa-uan/ -
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!