Can a Great Performance Exist In a Bad Film?

No, I get your point. I just don't see eye to eye with it. You're saying that bad is opinion and I am saying that bad is about quality. You are saying that if one dislikes something then it is bad. I am saying that just because one dislikes something, that doesn't necessarily make it bad. We're butting heads for no reason. Let's just agree to disagree. No offense meant.

No problem. Thanks for no insults, flaming, etc. :up:
 
Yes! The Power of Walken has changed my opinion!!!

So if a "bad" movie has "good" performances what makes it "bad?" Fat-ass Roger Ebert and queer-bate Gene Shalit? I mean, most actors capable of giving good performances aren't going to attach themselves to any old piece of crap.

Also, whoever said the thing about 'most movies that are labled bad by crirtics are viewed as okay by fans' couldn't be more right. Nearly all movies are okay. I have seen very few movies in my lifetime that I can honestly say 'That is a BAD movie.' Any movie that can keep people entertained for 1 1/2 - 2 hours iis okay.
 
So if a "bad" movie has "good" performances what makes it "bad?"

Because there are literally thousands of factors that make up a film -- story, characters, performances, music, cinematography, costume design, main title font design... do you want me to keep going?

A good performance can exist in a bad film.

I mean, most actors capable of giving good performances aren't going to attach themselves to any old piece of crap.

Well, of course not. Not intentionally. I doubt there's anyone who willingly signs onto something with the intention of making "a piece of crap." Maybe they were disappointed with the end result (very likely), or better yet, maybe they actually WERE happy with it, despite its critical and box office failure.
 
I definitely think it's possible. Sometimes one actors good performance is the only good thing about that particular film.

For example in X3 I feel it's a horrible film that had the greatest potential and was ruined by studio politics. However, I feel Famke Janssen, James Marsden, Ian McKellen, Ellen Page, Patrick Stewart, Shawn Ashmore, and Kelsey Grammer were the only good things about the movie. Other than that it doesn't really have a true highlight for me in terms of concept or the execution of its ideas.
 
John Fav was funny and fun in Daredevil. You might have found the Toph a riot in SM3. Those little performances arent the main driving force of those movies. And while title screen fonts and set designs and everything do contribute to making a movie good or bad and I consider them, the main factors that usually make or break a movie for me are the story and the score. Not that good acting isnt neccessary too, I just know myself well enough to know what usually makes me like a movie. Therefore, someone can have a good performance in a movie that I think is bad.
 
I think it can but unfortanetely i cant think of any movies at the time right now.
 
The Rock in Be Cool was a good performance IMO.
 
Oh yes. I loved The Rock in Be Cool. The overall movie sucked, but he was the best part of the film and every scene he was in was hilarious. Vince Vaughn was hilarious, too.

"Sprinkle, sprinkle."
 
To be honest I think he is one of the only wrestlers turned actors that can act, plus he can do comedy and thats always a plus. I like Walking Tall too that was a decent fil but him and Johhny Knoxville were great.
 
Dwayne Johnson just needs that one role to make him a Megastar. Hell, Schwarzenegger needed to do Terminator to get Platinum.

And outside of Southland Tales, every movie the guys released has made a profit, even the ones I didn't think would be big (Gridiron Gang, Game Plan).
 
yeah but i think that Dwayne can act better than Arnold can, IMO Arnold's strength lies in his understanding of nutrition and such. If you ever read his Encyclopedia of BodyBuilding you will know what im talking about. Back to Dwayne though, I think he has alot of potential and just needs, like you said Niveck, that one movie that people just Flock to. He needs to be teamed witha big start or something so its not all just on him.
 
Dwayne Johnson is a fantastic actor. Even when he was a wrestler, his acting ability made him special. His acting and charisma is what put him above the other wrestlers (of course, people always like Stone Cold better), and why he got the opportunity to become a name in Hollywood. I do hope that he gets that definitive role that makes him being a prominent A-lister.
 
nah, he was only bareable (sp?) in TPM. Now, in ROTS, as much as I dislike the movie, I have to admit he was great (appart from a couple of lines).

I agree with that

Also Will Smith did an aweome job in I Am Legend, its just a shame the movie wasnt good, i blame it on the writing
 
nah, he was only bareable (sp?) in TPM. Now, in ROTS, as much as I dislike the movie, I have to admit he was great (appart from a couple of lines).

What's funny is I originally just said 'the prequels' but changed it to simply Episode 1. You're right, he was best in the craptacular Episode 3. He showed a full range of emotion in Lucas' acting style of hit your mark and speak your line.

But Episode 1 was so horrible on every level, I simply thought he was like a rare gem in a pile of dog crap. The kid and Jar Jar made that film so laughably bad that he stood out so much as a good actor to me. But maybe just being mediocre in that horrible movie made it seem like he was great.
 
I actually thought Episode 1 was the best all-around movie of the prequels, oh i know it sucked but you had liam neeson who put up an overall good performance, if you just look past the kid and jar jar, its the best of the prequels because they actually used real set pieces and yoda was still a puppet, plus darth maul was the best villain in that series. Anyways back on topic, i believe that the only character that stayed cool throughout the whole 6 movies was obi wan, Ewen did an awesome job especially in episode 3 with Lucas's terrible terrible actor direction, he was the only character that didnt act like a cardboard cutout standee
 
I'd say the actor that stole the show in ROTS was Ian McDiarmid (Palpatine/Sidious).
 
I'd say the actor that stole the show in ROTS was Ian McDiarmid (Palpatine/Sidious).


yeah he was good too, there was good acting in that film but it didnt matter because it wasnt where it counted, anikan skywalker to this day i believe was the worst film character besides jar jar, anything he said i wasnt convinced. He was no darth vader
 
Dwayne Johnson just needs that one role to make him a Megastar. Hell, Schwarzenegger needed to do Terminator to get Platinum.

And outside of Southland Tales, every movie the guys released has made a profit, even the ones I didn't think would be big (Gridiron Gang, Game Plan).

By far the Gridiron Gang is my favorite movie with The Rock in it. He gave a realistic powerful performance and showing he's getting better with each film.
 
Last year was a fine example of great performances lost to poor stories or flat out bad movies.

Halle Berry and Bruce Willis were good in Perfect Stranger but the movie itself was terrible.

The Ocean's 13 cast was as slick as always but the story just dragged.

I loved the cast of Ghost Rider but that action light drivel was awful.

We Own The Night had Duvall, Phoenix and Wahlberg in good form but it was as average as a movie can get.

Speaking of average, American Gangster took phenomenal performers like Crowe and Denzel and made people yawn.
 
I'd say the actor that stole the show in ROTS was Ian McDiarmid (Palpatine/Sidious).

Y'know, I would agree with you if it wasn't for his laughable faces the second he got a lightsaber in his hand.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
200,537
Messages
21,755,823
Members
45,592
Latest member
kathielee
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"