2

Poll

Who's performance was the worst?

Samuel L. Jackson
1 (1.4%)
Ewan McGregor
0 (0%)
Natalie Portman
17 (23.6%)
Jake Lloyd (the kid)
47 (65.3%)
Liam Neeson
1 (1.4%)
Kiera Knightly
6 (8.3%)

Total Members Voted: 70


Author Topic: Why did the acting in this movie suck so bad?  (Read 27577 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Yarg

  • Disembaudio's Squadio
  • *
  • Posts: 19
  • Liked: 0
Why did the acting in this movie suck so bad?
« on: November 16, 2006, 10:13:32 PM »
I just watched the Star Wars Episode 1 Rifftrax for the first time and holy crap is the acting bad. I didn't remember it being this bad. When I saw it in the theaters I didn't notice as much because all those long talky scenes put me to sleep and then the explosions woke me up and I only saw the action.

Anyway, I vote for Natalie Portman, although she was thoroughly upstaged by Hayden Christensen in the other two Star Wars prequels, who invented new ways to suck at acting. Seriously, what the heck is with the acting in these movies? Samuel L. Jackson is not a bad actor, it's like they were directed to give wooden and robotic performances. Why can't they put good acting in this CGI Monster-filled enviroment. Troll 2 has better acting than these movies! Compare the kid in Troll 2 to the kid in Episode 1.


Offline Sharktopus

  • Ephialtes
  • *****
  • Posts: 7584
  • Liked: 3
  • May the Porkins be with you.
Re: Why did the acting in this movie suck so bad?
« Reply #1 on: November 16, 2006, 10:41:36 PM »
I was going to vote for little Jake Lloyd, but at least he has the excuse of being 9 years old. Natalie Portman, on the other hand, is an Oscar-nominated actress. And you can't argue that Amidala's worst lines were delivered by Keira Knightley, because Natalie sucked in the next two movies as well.


Offline 6079SmithW

  • Big Montana
  • *****
  • Posts: 911
  • Liked: 0
Re: Why did the acting in this movie suck so bad?
« Reply #2 on: November 16, 2006, 10:58:55 PM »
What's amazing is that Portman was actually a pretty good child actress (see Leon, in which the 5th Element guy made a much better movie) yet seemed in this movie as though she'd never seen a camera. I'd say at least half of it is the awful script and a big chunk of the rest is that fact that I bet everyone halfway competent in this movie realized how stupid it would be and stopped trying.


Offline kodiakthejuggler

  • Dragon Ryder
  • ***
  • Posts: 6056
  • Liked: 0
  • >Insert Obscure Reference<
    • It's All Geek To Me
Re: Why did the acting in this movie suck so bad?
« Reply #3 on: November 17, 2006, 04:26:20 AM »
I was disappointed with Portman's acting and delivery in TPM, so she got my vote. Plus, after seeing her in The Professional, she has no excuse.

p.s. "Leam" is actually spelled "Liam"   ;)


Offline PsypherPunk

  • Big Montana
  • *****
  • Posts: 563
  • Liked: 0
    • PsypherPunk
Re: Why did the acting in this movie suck so bad?
« Reply #4 on: November 17, 2006, 04:39:49 AM »
i read somewhere (on the internet, so take with a barrel of salt) that Lucas was so worried about script-leakage that he didn't let anyone see it until just before shooting began. I'd like to think that this is true if only to justify why some fairly decent actors came off looking like they were in a daytime soap opera.

I remember watching the Lord of the Rings bonus features and seeing exactly how much input Peter Jackson had into the actors' performance. From the look of it he told them how to do everything, they just had to do it over and over. Something tells me George just said, "Action!" and was done with it.
« Last Edit: November 17, 2006, 04:42:23 AM by PsypherPunk »


Offline mrbasehart

  • Steals from Casinos
  • *****
  • Posts: 16364
  • Liked: 2112
  • Movie-Watching Machine
Re: Why did the acting in this movie suck so bad?
« Reply #5 on: November 17, 2006, 06:08:33 AM »
While I was disappointed with Portman's performance (I've always found her to be a good actress), Jake Lloyd has utterly no business in front of a camera.  When I watch him in this movie, it's like someone's rubbing sandpaper on my brain.


Offline David

  • The FBI Pays Me to Surf
  • *
  • Posts: 2169
  • Liked: 48
Re: Why did the acting in this movie suck so bad?
« Reply #6 on: November 17, 2006, 06:38:31 AM »
What about Kiera Knightly? She was the one who actually played the decoy queen... pretty great for her career that everyone thought it was a camera trick with Natalie Portman instead.
« Last Edit: November 17, 2006, 04:21:18 PM by david »


Offline LadyKenobi

  • Big Montana
  • *****
  • Posts: 652
  • Liked: 1
    • BlondeChampagne
Re: Why did the acting in this movie suck so bad?
« Reply #7 on: November 17, 2006, 08:55:48 AM »
Portman.  Just atrocious.

I thought Ewan McGregor did as well as he could with the material, though.


Offline SaucyRossy

  • The FBI Pays Me to Surf
  • *
  • Posts: 2637
  • Liked: 0
Re: Why did the acting in this movie suck so bad?
« Reply #8 on: November 17, 2006, 11:21:29 AM »
can you add George Lucas to your choices?

www.rifftraxfan.com - Check out Gammers RiffTrax Fan page!


Offline PlayMSTie

  • Not Hurt By Pain
  • ******
  • Posts: 1839
  • Liked: 4
Re: Why did the acting in this movie suck so bad?
« Reply #9 on: November 17, 2006, 11:37:52 AM »
Seriously, what the heck is with the acting in these movies? Samuel L. Jackson is not a bad actor, it's like they were directed to give wooden and robotic performances. 

I thought they were! Seems to me I heard somewhere that Lucas wanted them all to act in a certain way to get the effect he wanted. It just happened that the effect he wanted resembled a bunch of automatons.

I like Portman and Christensen, but she was terribly wooden. Christensen I actually didn't think was all that bad. (Ducks rotten tomatoes) I mean, he was supposed to act like a sullen, smart-mouthed teenager, and that's pretty much what he did.
« Last Edit: November 17, 2006, 11:40:10 AM by PlayMSTie »
"There are no ordinary people. You have never talked to a mere mortal." C. S. Lewis

Bring back Bridget!


Online Pak-Man

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 17287
  • Liked: 3180
  • Insert $0.25 to Play!
Re: Why did the acting in this movie suck so bad?
« Reply #10 on: November 17, 2006, 11:45:01 AM »
The arguement could be made that Ahmed Best did a really great job of portraying Jar-Jar Binks. SO good, that everyone thought the character was as annoying as Lucas wanted him to be!

I'll be quiet now. :^)


Offline Sharktopus

  • Ephialtes
  • *****
  • Posts: 7584
  • Liked: 3
  • May the Porkins be with you.
Re: Why did the acting in this movie suck so bad?
« Reply #11 on: November 17, 2006, 11:45:23 AM »
While I was disappointed with Portman's performance (I've always found her to be a good actress), Jake Lloyd has utterly no business in front of a camera.  When I watch him in this movie, it's like someone's rubbing sandpaper on my brain.

I'm adding that phrase to my vernacular.


Offline PlayMSTie

  • Not Hurt By Pain
  • ******
  • Posts: 1839
  • Liked: 4
Re: Why did the acting in this movie suck so bad?
« Reply #12 on: November 17, 2006, 12:00:51 PM »
The arguement could be made that Ahmed Best did a really great job of portraying Jar-Jar Binks. SO good, that everyone thought the character was as annoying as Lucas wanted him to be!


Yeah, that's a point.  :D
"There are no ordinary people. You have never talked to a mere mortal." C. S. Lewis

Bring back Bridget!


Offline 6079SmithW

  • Big Montana
  • *****
  • Posts: 911
  • Liked: 0
Re: Why did the acting in this movie suck so bad?
« Reply #13 on: November 17, 2006, 12:11:06 PM »
i read somewhere (on the internet, so take with a barrel of salt) that Lucas was so worried about script-leakage that he didn't let anyone see it until just before shooting began. I'd like to think that this is true if only to justify why some fairly decent actors came off looking like they were in a daytime soap opera.

I remember watching the Lord of the Rings bonus features and seeing exactly how much input Peter Jackson had into the actors' performance. From the look of it he told them how to do everything, they just had to do it over and over. Something tells me George just said, "Action!" and was done with it.
I watched all of those features, and I'm pretty sure Jackson did what good directors do- he told the actors as much about their characters as he could, and let them figure out how to act. I'd bet money he wasn't trying to give Ians McKellen and Holme or Christopher Lee acting lessons. Lucas, on the other hand, probably told his actors exactly how to perform. Most actors look less wooden improvising than these guys did on script.


Offline mrbasehart

  • Steals from Casinos
  • *****
  • Posts: 16364
  • Liked: 2112
  • Movie-Watching Machine
Re: Why did the acting in this movie suck so bad?
« Reply #14 on: November 17, 2006, 12:22:54 PM »
Lucas, on the other hand, probably told his actors exactly how to perform. Most actors look less wooden improvising than these guys did on script.

I think you can be exacting and still come up with a great performance: Woody Allen and Stanley Kubrick are known perfectionists.  Perhaps it was a culmination of the Director, the script, the pressure, and all the CGI they had to cope with that marred everything...?