I remember the first time I saw Moonstruck that the Nic Cage character was the weak link in an otherwise delightful movie. When he is first seen in the bakery and he bitches and moans to Loretta about how his brother ruined his life, I thought at first that he was joking, it was so over the top and ham-fisted and awful. That scene really took me out of the movie and it was hard to get back in. I never did buy it that Loretta was so smitten with him that she bothered to get her hair done all up just to meet him at the opera.
I’m somewhat hesitant to mention it, but I’m sure I would have enjoyed *Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom *a lot more if not for Kate Capshaw’s incessant screeching all the way through.
But she may not be entirely to blame for that. I recently watched a DVD featurette that strongly suggested that her performance was exactly what Spielberg wanted for the role. And, I found out that, contrary to most people assumptions, Steven and Kate were not together before he cast her in the film, so this is not eligible for Slithy Tove’s “cast my spouse/save my marriage” award. He cast her based on her acting! :eek:
90% of children’s performances make me want to punch the screen (to no avail of course).
I’ve always thought Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow needed a stronger, sharper tongued Polly. I don’t know if it was Gwyneth Paltrow’s choice to play it the way she did, or if the director wanted it that way. Oddly, Blythe Danner (in her prime) would have been perfect.
[QUOTE=Push You Down]
I hear that a lot and I don’t see it at all.
Harris’ Dumbledore seemed like a well-meaning, wise but somewhat befuddled old man. A kind of typical grandfather type. I think that worked in the early books/movies.
Gambon’s Dumbledore had a touch or sharp whimsy along with the charm. He could smile and wink at you, but then turn around and cut you down to pieces. He fit more what we learn about Dumbledore the person beyond just being Headmaster.
[/QUOTE]
I will say Harris did improve over the course of the three movies he was in, but his performance in the first two was so out of character it took me out of the movie on more than one occasion. Most memorable for me was Dumbledore’s reaction to Harry’s name being in the cup. In the book, Dumbledore immediately understands the significance of it. He knows from the start that Harry did not put his name in there. The movie Dumbledore is just as confused as everyone else and almost abusive in his reaction when he grabs Harry. It’s just not the character Rowling wrote. Maybe that’s a good thing for some, but it was very distracting for me.
He was alright in Movie 6 though and bearable in 5 (since he has much less screen time than in other movies) I’ll give him that.
I have to disagree with this. He delivers what is hands down the best line in the film:
“IT is perplexing!!! Use your god-damn pronouns!!”
Disagreeing on Paxton as well; I loved him and everyone else, and I quote the crap out of this line, among others from the film.
I used to hate Chris Tucker’s performance in The Fifth Element as Ruby Rhod, but after the second or so viewing, I think it works. He’s supposed to be that annoying; it’s the character, not the performance. (If you haven’t seen it, think Prince but hyperactive, with a nasal and high voice.)
Exactly my thought upon reading the thread title.
The scene that starts at 0:24 aways cracks me up.
Came here to mention that. He was wooden, worse than James Franco at the Oscars.
I felt the same way until later in the film when I realized the best word to describe his behavior in that scene was operatic.
Capote? No, that was the cow on wall.
I thought both Iron Man movies were really dragged down by Gwyneth Paltrow.
No way Tony Stark would be interested in a bore like her.
Moose, moose you imbecile!
Indeed. I can’t imagine the film without him.
More than that, my impression is that part of is the character, and part of it is the character the character is playing. I think Tucker did it a very good job with it–good enough that even though I normally find characters like that almost unbearable, I actually enjoy his performance. Of course, I like the whole movie enough that I might just be viewing it in a generous light.
Dungeons and Dragons may not have been a good movie without Jeremy Irons, but it would have been watchable fluff. He looked, and acted, like nothing so much as a modern day corporate vice president. Which might be evil, but isn’t very dark wizard-y!
It must be said that I’m not really a fan of Bill Paxton - he seems to give the same performance, no matter what he’s in. So it’s likely that it’s just him I’m objecting to. Obviously, YMMV.
I liked him in Aliens, but in everything else I’ve seen him in, I always think, “He’s just doing the same character from Aliens again.” So while I didn’t mind him in Aliens, I agree with your overall point.
Bram Stoker’s Dracula is not a great movie, but I enjoy it. Except for Keanu Reeves’ HORRIBLE John Harker at the beginning.
Se7en is pretty good but Brad Pitt’s reaction at the end really sours me on the film.
What’s in the box!?! Oh god!!!
In Godfather Part III I actually thought Sophia Coppola was OK (she’s a minor character anyway) but Pacino went wayyyy over the top.
Nobody has mentioned Rebecca Pidgeon yet? The Spanish Prisoner comes to mind.
When I saw the thread title, I immediately thought “Andie MacDowell” without thinking of a specific movie. That’s because her acting has crapped on every movie I’ve ever seen her in. That includes Groundhog Day, a movie I otherwise enjoy.
I see I’m not alone in my aversion to Ms. MacDowell. She’s the well-paid poster child for the concept of succeeding on looks alone.
I just rewatched Dracula last week, and I while I agree with you, the whole film is full of hammy performances. I think that’s what Coppola may have wanted.
Some of the actors are obviously doing it on purpose (Tom Waits, Gary Oldman, and Richard E. Grant), some are hopefully doing it on purpose (Wynona Ryder), and some are Keanu Reeves.