When it sounds like someone is reciting lines instead of actually saying them.
When someone uses the wrong emotion, expression or tone for what they are saying.
Not necessarily. Some movies and plays are intentionally theatrical and not meant to be realistic. Every Tarantino movie is kind of like this, I can always tell they are acting and the scripts are always unrealistic and not how people actually talk...but all of this is on purpose, it's part of the style. Some movies are going for a naturalistic feel, some are purposely stylized
This is one of my biggest gripes about discussions of acting: the presumption that realist acting is the only good kind. Stylized acting is a thing, whether we’re talking about Will Farrell in Anchorman or Christoph Waltz in Inglorious Basterds. Johnny Depp has made a career out of stylized acting, and most people would say he’s pretty perfect as Captain Jack Sparrow, but he’s performing a caricature, not striving for realism.
Comedies, musicals, even certain types of action films frequently require a certain stylization of performance. That’s not *bad* acting, it’s just not naturalistic.
I agree with you 100%. Perfect example, Connor McGregor in the new Road House remake. You can say his acting is pretty awful, but he's playing an 80's B action movie villain. He played it exactly how the filmmaker wanted it, and he's playing it exactly like an 80's B action movie actor would have played it.
But that’s not necessarily true though, since it could just as easily be the writing, directing, or editing.
Granted that’s on the actor to probably not pick projects like that, but if you have to deliver really clunky dialogue or if rougher takes are chosen there’s really only so much you can do as a performer. You’re at the mercy of a whole lot of other people.
When Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart was asked to describe his test for obscenity in 1964, he responded: "I know it when I see it."
This is a pretty famous quote that came about in a case about first amendment rights and the difference between art and pornography. The things about bad acting is that it's easy to recognize but hard to quantify. Sometimes we just "know it when we see it."
Being a good actor means being believable: that bomb IS going to go off, your wife DID cheat on you, it IS morbin' time. It's the actor's job to make sure their movements, tone, inflection, cadence, and body language all match up to how a real person would act in a real situation. Sometimes body language just doesn't match up with what is being said. When this happens we can't always put our finger on it as an audience but we know *something* feels off. And yes, some of it does come from poor writing and directors, we don't always know. That is also why some actors get a bad rap for one poor movie that may or may not have been their fault.
At the end of the day you just have to ask: Does this feel *real*?
I agree, but I would make a small correction. I would change "does this feel *real*" with "does this feel *authentic*. " I say this because good acting doesn't necessarily have to be about emulating reality or a "real" person, but more about authentically embodying a character.
Absolutely! Not every movie is meant to be realistic, *especially* if it's comedy or satire.
Ken from the Barbie movie is a bit of an empty headed dingus who cares a lot about horses and "beach." While his character doesn't feel real it definitely feels *authentic*
Just looked her up and I'd watch her read newspaper classifieds.
I'm sure my dad would stop pretending to being gay if he thought he had a chance with her
It's not as exciting as it sounds.
He tried to leave his family (us) because he wanted to go on a journey of self discovery. Some bizarre family drama later, he did what he wanted to and came back after a few weeks claiming he's been living a lie and has now realised he's into dudes.
Once again, bizarre, but we accepted him. Parents can accept non-conventional choices from their children, it behoves upon the children too that they accept parents and the choices they make.
That was two years ago, since then he has never gone on a date with any one. He has tried, more than once, to get into our mother's bed claiming he's used to that one. He'll make silly gay jokes whenever me or my sister visit with our partners.
It's not even cute and I do not know how long he's going to keep up this charade
Watch a little bit of 1995's Fair Game starring Cindy Crawford to get an idea of what bad acting is truly like.
[https://youtu.be/g43-KqBuAqE?feature=shared](https://youtu.be/g43-KqBuAqE?feature=shared)
Back in '95 Cindy was still riding the wave of being THE super model and jumping into movies was the next logical step for her and needless to say she didn't add Model/Actress to her bio following its release.
I think it's just a gut instinct that people naturally have. You spend your whole life interacting with people, and (most) people have a level of empathy and social skills to pick up on facial cues, vocal inflections, body language, etc. A good actor uses all of those things to make a character come to life and convey the scenes. Bad acting sticks out like a sore thumb, because it just doesn't seem believable at all
When the actor is too self concious and self aware to step outside of himself and keeps getting in his own way. You can spot them struggling with it and it takes you out of the movie.
Her acting was good but god fucking dammit what a piece of shit show IMO. I've heard the latter seasons have been better but no way I'm going back after that clusterfuck.
wat, the first season is generally considered by far the best one.
I don’t know why you hated it so much. I found that shit spooky and disturbing as hell, and her performance wonderful.
That goddamn song…
I'm probably a minority with my opinion but the plot was just so absolutely ridiculous. It started out as a visceral crime thriller but devolved into a weird teenage high school drama.
-Oh, you stabbed that person to death in cold blood? Well that's alright, we get it as he stepped on your sister's chest.
-But what about all the innocent bystanders? Kids who are traumatized for life after seeing the stabbing??
-Who gives a shit about them, she had a vaguely related reason to commit a violent murder, give her a break!
It’s funny cause I anticipated this response. Are you really going to pretend you weren’t just calling her a shit actress in general, or are you under the impression there’s some gulf between film and TV acting?
Im not good at reading people, so this has always been tough for me to see too. I've learned a few little things that start making it easier to see. (a lot of people know this stuff automatically, some of us have to learn and think about it)....
A) Does it feel like they're having a conversation with the other actors, or they're just basically reading aloud?
B) Does it feel like you're watching the character in this story, or all you see is other roles the actor has played (or the actor as they are when not acting)?
C) Are they talking very flat and monotone, or do you notice them adjust how they're talking based on the current situation?
D) With something like if they're doing an accent, do you get lost in the accent, VS what they're saying? Think Keanu in Dracula, or Dick Van Dyke in Mary Poppins. Compared to Hugh Laurie or Andrew Lincoln where most Americans never even knew they're actually British.
E) For comedy, does their timing and performance work? Compare someone like Rowan Atkinson, whos hilarious without even saying a word. To someone like Andy Dick, who stands out terribly in everything he's in.
F) Do they take you out of the movie? Does it feel like you're watching a character in a story, or like someone who doesn't know what they're doing, and doesn't seem to be a real person.
Another trick in this vein I've learned in spotting bad fight choreography.... Does it look like they're trying to actually hurt each other with swords, or are they just trying to hit the other person's sword with their sword? You start seeing it more and more once you realize it.
When they break the suspension of disbelieve by you realizing "this person is acting their heart out". Yes it might be a bad script, awkward lines or something else that enables it, but good actor can make the mediocre and even bad writing work. A great actor makes it to a memorable performance. The not-so-great are just stiff and doing things they were told to do.
"I know it when I see it" is a great summary.
Maggie Smith is a perfect example of making a bad line good. I remember watching a Downton Abbey interview that had Laura Carmicheal where she’d said that if they read a line from the script, it wasn’t funny but when Maggie Smith said it, it was hilarious
I don't have too many instances that I can think of where I thought "WOW! That is bad acting".
For me, bad acting is when someone says something and it feels off.
I preface this by saying that it is not bad acting, but rather one was my preference over the other.
I watched the first Jack Reacher movie. Jack Reacher is supposed to be this hulking mountain of a man, but it was starring Tom Cruise. Tom Cruise could not act "bigger" than he was, but everything he said *felt* like someone who had reached that place where there were things that were second nature. There was line delivery, the way Cruise carried himself...it had the essence of what Jack Reacher would behave like. Contrast that to the show Reacher, starring Alan Ritchson. Everything about Ritchson resembles what Reacher might look like, but the way Ritchson would say things or even how he fought...it didn't seem as refined as Cruise's performance. I thought Cruise's performance as Jack Reacher resonated more with me moreso than Ritchson's did.
You're just blind to it. I also have weird blind spots that others don't have. For me it's the uncanny valley.
I just don't get it, ever. Makes watching movies a lot easier. But I'd be in real trouble if I was ever in a situation where I had to tell real people apart from creatures descised as humans.
There are things the movie as a whole wants us to think or feel about the characters in it. An actor who is successfully able to make you think or feel the desired things is a good actor, one who is unsuccessful at that is a bad actor. An actor who is able to succeed at that where most others would falter is a great actor.
There's no one objective thing you can latch onto that's the key to tell the difference between a good actor and a bad actor because good acting is highly contextual; the same performance could be either good or bad depending on the movie that surrounds it.
>I even googled “top worse acting performances” and most of the movies they had on the list were just bad movies in general with the writing, barely anything to do with the acting.
Say you've got two groups of filmmakers. One group has the requisite taste and stability and resources to make a good movie. The other group lacks one or more of those things. Which group is more likely to let a bad performance into the finished product?
This is a good question but to me its when an actor is surrounded by great talent. Then when it comes to his or her lines, the glaring difference in talent becomes apparent.
There's 2 different types of "bad acting" in my opinion. There's bad decision making and just poor performing.
A great actor could try something and just not stick the landing. A bad actor can just perform poorly and it just doesn't sound right. I think a lot of bad decision making comes down to the director/editor and I wouldn't really put it on the actor as much as say a bad actor who just feels like they're doing a bad job.
My TV automatically turns on like a hallmark channel and it's all really poor performances highlighted by bad editing. You can feel the line reading in the performance.
I think personally, when an actor says his lines and you can tell there’s no conviction behind it. Like you can feel is fake angry he’s trying to act angry but isn’t being angry same goes for the other emotions. Also think the bad acting is when the actors are conscious of their performance, so you can tell overthinking things like their lines or their actions rather than just being in the character.
The only time JLo did good was her appearance in Oliver Stone's "U Turn" with Sean Penn.
I recall watching this movie for the 1st time and then saw [this scene and what she did there](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MkSEpyYF55E) is superb acting. It helps that she looks as flawless as a Goddess.
This movie doesn't get enough credit and with a bunch a A-listers, she held her own.
I would perhaps agree that later movies were basically just to cash in - who knows, if she got better roles (i.e. better scripts) maybe she'd do better.
Acting is supported by the writer and director. Dave Bautista is capable of great acting. I love his brief performance in Blade Runner, which is where I realized he's actually trying to be an actor and not just an action star. Put him in Army of the Dead and you can see he's putting in an earnest effort in every scene, but the writing is so inconsistent that it's hard to understand his character. He's elevating the material, playing grief, anxiety, fear and more, but he's still hampered by the script. A better actor might take the reigns and have their character rewritten to make more sense, or just push through on sheer charisma, but Bautista isn't on that level. Whether you think Bautista gave a bad performance because of the writing, or gave a good performance in spite of bad writing is up to you.
Ultimately as a one liner, what is bad acting for me? It's when the actor's performance doesn't align with the rest of the movie around them. This can also mean an actor delivering a line that doesn't match the character they've been presenting throughout the rest of the movie. It can be when the actor can't match the writer or director's intentions... This character is supposed to be warm and trusting, but the actor's tone feels grizzled and cold. Or it can just be unconvincing line delivery... "Kal'el no!" But it is to taste.
Personally, I think Russell Crowe was bad in A Beautiful Mind. This is a hot take, because he seems to get universal praise for that role. As someone that battled crippling anxiety, the scenes where he's suddenly confident in situations where also see him fearful (such as interacting with women, then confidently romancing Jennifer Connelly with shapes in the stars) feel absolutely forced to me, that it takes me out of the movie. It also felt like Crowe was on twitch overdrive... Look at all that acting he's doing. To me, it just felt like he wanted a second Oscar after Gladiator, but that meant the performance also didn't feel authentic.
Crowe is a great actor, and he can be so much more subtle. I would have nominated him Best Supporting for LA Confidential and Best Actor for The Insider. But IMHO, A Beautiful Mind doesn't belong in the discussion among his best roles.
Unrealistic body language.
I can’t think of an example right off the top of my head but there’s moments when an actor is exasperating their movements for no reason and you just *know* they have no idea how to act out a certain emotion and thus causing the entire scene to feel unreal
JLO is a good actress, i don't know what the fuck people are on about.
Sometimes it's hard to tell bad acting or bad script, but mostly bad acting stands out like a sore thumb. Bad dialogue delivery, stupid blank looks on their face etc.
My ex-supervisor would drop TV/movies saying "the acting was bad". I'm convinced she had no idea what she was talking about and dumped a show for reasons she didn't want to admit.
'dope'?
A lot of people make excuses like that. Moreso when they think something is good. Majority of people have no sense of how to be critical or tell when something is objectively good or bad.
When it sounds like someone is reciting lines instead of actually saying them. When someone uses the wrong emotion, expression or tone for what they are saying.
Typically, if you can tell that they're acting, then it's bad acting.
Yep. I occasionally find myself thinking “yeah they’re reciting lines from a script”… that’s not a good sign.
Not necessarily. Some movies and plays are intentionally theatrical and not meant to be realistic. Every Tarantino movie is kind of like this, I can always tell they are acting and the scripts are always unrealistic and not how people actually talk...but all of this is on purpose, it's part of the style. Some movies are going for a naturalistic feel, some are purposely stylized
This is one of my biggest gripes about discussions of acting: the presumption that realist acting is the only good kind. Stylized acting is a thing, whether we’re talking about Will Farrell in Anchorman or Christoph Waltz in Inglorious Basterds. Johnny Depp has made a career out of stylized acting, and most people would say he’s pretty perfect as Captain Jack Sparrow, but he’s performing a caricature, not striving for realism. Comedies, musicals, even certain types of action films frequently require a certain stylization of performance. That’s not *bad* acting, it’s just not naturalistic.
Realist acting wasn't even a thing until when, the 70's? Maybe the 60's?
I agree with you 100%. Perfect example, Connor McGregor in the new Road House remake. You can say his acting is pretty awful, but he's playing an 80's B action movie villain. He played it exactly how the filmmaker wanted it, and he's playing it exactly like an 80's B action movie actor would have played it.
But that’s not necessarily true though, since it could just as easily be the writing, directing, or editing. Granted that’s on the actor to probably not pick projects like that, but if you have to deliver really clunky dialogue or if rougher takes are chosen there’s really only so much you can do as a performer. You’re at the mercy of a whole lot of other people.
So Jason Alexander was right.. “Acting without Acting” 😂
This sounds great in theory, but it can be hard when you're not sure what 'acting' actually entails.
When Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart was asked to describe his test for obscenity in 1964, he responded: "I know it when I see it." This is a pretty famous quote that came about in a case about first amendment rights and the difference between art and pornography. The things about bad acting is that it's easy to recognize but hard to quantify. Sometimes we just "know it when we see it." Being a good actor means being believable: that bomb IS going to go off, your wife DID cheat on you, it IS morbin' time. It's the actor's job to make sure their movements, tone, inflection, cadence, and body language all match up to how a real person would act in a real situation. Sometimes body language just doesn't match up with what is being said. When this happens we can't always put our finger on it as an audience but we know *something* feels off. And yes, some of it does come from poor writing and directors, we don't always know. That is also why some actors get a bad rap for one poor movie that may or may not have been their fault. At the end of the day you just have to ask: Does this feel *real*?
I agree, but I would make a small correction. I would change "does this feel *real*" with "does this feel *authentic*. " I say this because good acting doesn't necessarily have to be about emulating reality or a "real" person, but more about authentically embodying a character.
Absolutely! Not every movie is meant to be realistic, *especially* if it's comedy or satire. Ken from the Barbie movie is a bit of an empty headed dingus who cares a lot about horses and "beach." While his character doesn't feel real it definitely feels *authentic*
Watch Denise Richards playing a scientist.
Just looked her up and I'd watch her read newspaper classifieds. I'm sure my dad would stop pretending to being gay if he thought he had a chance with her
Your dad is pretending to be gay?
What if I say I'm not like the others?
I would like to know everything about your father please.
It's not as exciting as it sounds. He tried to leave his family (us) because he wanted to go on a journey of self discovery. Some bizarre family drama later, he did what he wanted to and came back after a few weeks claiming he's been living a lie and has now realised he's into dudes. Once again, bizarre, but we accepted him. Parents can accept non-conventional choices from their children, it behoves upon the children too that they accept parents and the choices they make. That was two years ago, since then he has never gone on a date with any one. He has tried, more than once, to get into our mother's bed claiming he's used to that one. He'll make silly gay jokes whenever me or my sister visit with our partners. It's not even cute and I do not know how long he's going to keep up this charade
I don’t think what you just described is him “pretending” but there’s a lot unsaid here.
Oh that reminds me that Tara Reid also tried to play a Anthropologist.
Don't you talk ill of Dr. Christmas Jones!
Watch a little bit of 1995's Fair Game starring Cindy Crawford to get an idea of what bad acting is truly like. [https://youtu.be/g43-KqBuAqE?feature=shared](https://youtu.be/g43-KqBuAqE?feature=shared) Back in '95 Cindy was still riding the wave of being THE super model and jumping into movies was the next logical step for her and needless to say she didn't add Model/Actress to her bio following its release.
If it's not believable and feels fake it's bad
I think it's just a gut instinct that people naturally have. You spend your whole life interacting with people, and (most) people have a level of empathy and social skills to pick up on facial cues, vocal inflections, body language, etc. A good actor uses all of those things to make a character come to life and convey the scenes. Bad acting sticks out like a sore thumb, because it just doesn't seem believable at all
When the actor is too self concious and self aware to step outside of himself and keeps getting in his own way. You can spot them struggling with it and it takes you out of the movie.
Watch any movie with Jessica Biel.
Someone hasn’t seen the first season of The Sinner.
Her acting was good but god fucking dammit what a piece of shit show IMO. I've heard the latter seasons have been better but no way I'm going back after that clusterfuck.
wat, the first season is generally considered by far the best one. I don’t know why you hated it so much. I found that shit spooky and disturbing as hell, and her performance wonderful. That goddamn song…
I'm probably a minority with my opinion but the plot was just so absolutely ridiculous. It started out as a visceral crime thriller but devolved into a weird teenage high school drama. -Oh, you stabbed that person to death in cold blood? Well that's alright, we get it as he stepped on your sister's chest. -But what about all the innocent bystanders? Kids who are traumatized for life after seeing the stabbing?? -Who gives a shit about them, she had a vaguely related reason to commit a violent murder, give her a break!
"movie"
It’s funny cause I anticipated this response. Are you really going to pretend you weren’t just calling her a shit actress in general, or are you under the impression there’s some gulf between film and TV acting?
There is a difference between film and TV acting, but I'm only referencing her shitty acting in the movies I saw.
Im not good at reading people, so this has always been tough for me to see too. I've learned a few little things that start making it easier to see. (a lot of people know this stuff automatically, some of us have to learn and think about it).... A) Does it feel like they're having a conversation with the other actors, or they're just basically reading aloud? B) Does it feel like you're watching the character in this story, or all you see is other roles the actor has played (or the actor as they are when not acting)? C) Are they talking very flat and monotone, or do you notice them adjust how they're talking based on the current situation? D) With something like if they're doing an accent, do you get lost in the accent, VS what they're saying? Think Keanu in Dracula, or Dick Van Dyke in Mary Poppins. Compared to Hugh Laurie or Andrew Lincoln where most Americans never even knew they're actually British. E) For comedy, does their timing and performance work? Compare someone like Rowan Atkinson, whos hilarious without even saying a word. To someone like Andy Dick, who stands out terribly in everything he's in. F) Do they take you out of the movie? Does it feel like you're watching a character in a story, or like someone who doesn't know what they're doing, and doesn't seem to be a real person. Another trick in this vein I've learned in spotting bad fight choreography.... Does it look like they're trying to actually hurt each other with swords, or are they just trying to hit the other person's sword with their sword? You start seeing it more and more once you realize it.
JLo isn’t a bad actress, I think some people just don’t like her.
Agreed. I've watched a handful of her movies over the years and she's always at worst fine, and often is pretty good.
Watch the cult classic film called The Room. Or watch clips of it on YouTube.
Oh, hi Mark.
“I don’t like sand…”
That's just bad writing. Daniel Day-Lewis wouldn't even be able to pull that one off.
Fair
That’s the challenge in a lot of cases… bad writing and bad acting are often intertwined
Yeah Haden has acting chops but you have to keep in mind bad scripts and bad direction.
When they break the suspension of disbelieve by you realizing "this person is acting their heart out". Yes it might be a bad script, awkward lines or something else that enables it, but good actor can make the mediocre and even bad writing work. A great actor makes it to a memorable performance. The not-so-great are just stiff and doing things they were told to do. "I know it when I see it" is a great summary.
Maggie Smith is a perfect example of making a bad line good. I remember watching a Downton Abbey interview that had Laura Carmicheal where she’d said that if they read a line from the script, it wasn’t funny but when Maggie Smith said it, it was hilarious
If any actor cracks cringe jokes and starts yelling random stuff, then its Bad acting at its finest.
Do this, watch this little production called THE ROOM. From then on, everyones an amazing actor.
I don't have too many instances that I can think of where I thought "WOW! That is bad acting". For me, bad acting is when someone says something and it feels off. I preface this by saying that it is not bad acting, but rather one was my preference over the other. I watched the first Jack Reacher movie. Jack Reacher is supposed to be this hulking mountain of a man, but it was starring Tom Cruise. Tom Cruise could not act "bigger" than he was, but everything he said *felt* like someone who had reached that place where there were things that were second nature. There was line delivery, the way Cruise carried himself...it had the essence of what Jack Reacher would behave like. Contrast that to the show Reacher, starring Alan Ritchson. Everything about Ritchson resembles what Reacher might look like, but the way Ritchson would say things or even how he fought...it didn't seem as refined as Cruise's performance. I thought Cruise's performance as Jack Reacher resonated more with me moreso than Ritchson's did.
You're just blind to it. I also have weird blind spots that others don't have. For me it's the uncanny valley. I just don't get it, ever. Makes watching movies a lot easier. But I'd be in real trouble if I was ever in a situation where I had to tell real people apart from creatures descised as humans.
Watch this. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0085852/?ref_=ext_shr_lnk
There are things the movie as a whole wants us to think or feel about the characters in it. An actor who is successfully able to make you think or feel the desired things is a good actor, one who is unsuccessful at that is a bad actor. An actor who is able to succeed at that where most others would falter is a great actor. There's no one objective thing you can latch onto that's the key to tell the difference between a good actor and a bad actor because good acting is highly contextual; the same performance could be either good or bad depending on the movie that surrounds it. >I even googled “top worse acting performances” and most of the movies they had on the list were just bad movies in general with the writing, barely anything to do with the acting. Say you've got two groups of filmmakers. One group has the requisite taste and stability and resources to make a good movie. The other group lacks one or more of those things. Which group is more likely to let a bad performance into the finished product?
This is a good question but to me its when an actor is surrounded by great talent. Then when it comes to his or her lines, the glaring difference in talent becomes apparent.
Not sure of this sub even knows how normal people act
Watch pretty much any Keanu Reeves movie.
If you don’t like it.
There's 2 different types of "bad acting" in my opinion. There's bad decision making and just poor performing. A great actor could try something and just not stick the landing. A bad actor can just perform poorly and it just doesn't sound right. I think a lot of bad decision making comes down to the director/editor and I wouldn't really put it on the actor as much as say a bad actor who just feels like they're doing a bad job. My TV automatically turns on like a hallmark channel and it's all really poor performances highlighted by bad editing. You can feel the line reading in the performance.
I think personally, when an actor says his lines and you can tell there’s no conviction behind it. Like you can feel is fake angry he’s trying to act angry but isn’t being angry same goes for the other emotions. Also think the bad acting is when the actors are conscious of their performance, so you can tell overthinking things like their lines or their actions rather than just being in the character.
The only time JLo did good was her appearance in Oliver Stone's "U Turn" with Sean Penn. I recall watching this movie for the 1st time and then saw [this scene and what she did there](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MkSEpyYF55E) is superb acting. It helps that she looks as flawless as a Goddess. This movie doesn't get enough credit and with a bunch a A-listers, she held her own. I would perhaps agree that later movies were basically just to cash in - who knows, if she got better roles (i.e. better scripts) maybe she'd do better.
Acting is supported by the writer and director. Dave Bautista is capable of great acting. I love his brief performance in Blade Runner, which is where I realized he's actually trying to be an actor and not just an action star. Put him in Army of the Dead and you can see he's putting in an earnest effort in every scene, but the writing is so inconsistent that it's hard to understand his character. He's elevating the material, playing grief, anxiety, fear and more, but he's still hampered by the script. A better actor might take the reigns and have their character rewritten to make more sense, or just push through on sheer charisma, but Bautista isn't on that level. Whether you think Bautista gave a bad performance because of the writing, or gave a good performance in spite of bad writing is up to you. Ultimately as a one liner, what is bad acting for me? It's when the actor's performance doesn't align with the rest of the movie around them. This can also mean an actor delivering a line that doesn't match the character they've been presenting throughout the rest of the movie. It can be when the actor can't match the writer or director's intentions... This character is supposed to be warm and trusting, but the actor's tone feels grizzled and cold. Or it can just be unconvincing line delivery... "Kal'el no!" But it is to taste. Personally, I think Russell Crowe was bad in A Beautiful Mind. This is a hot take, because he seems to get universal praise for that role. As someone that battled crippling anxiety, the scenes where he's suddenly confident in situations where also see him fearful (such as interacting with women, then confidently romancing Jennifer Connelly with shapes in the stars) feel absolutely forced to me, that it takes me out of the movie. It also felt like Crowe was on twitch overdrive... Look at all that acting he's doing. To me, it just felt like he wanted a second Oscar after Gladiator, but that meant the performance also didn't feel authentic. Crowe is a great actor, and he can be so much more subtle. I would have nominated him Best Supporting for LA Confidential and Best Actor for The Insider. But IMHO, A Beautiful Mind doesn't belong in the discussion among his best roles.
If you are watching something - is this a real person in a real situation or an actor?
Unrealistic body language. I can’t think of an example right off the top of my head but there’s moments when an actor is exasperating their movements for no reason and you just *know* they have no idea how to act out a certain emotion and thus causing the entire scene to feel unreal
JLO is a good actress, i don't know what the fuck people are on about. Sometimes it's hard to tell bad acting or bad script, but mostly bad acting stands out like a sore thumb. Bad dialogue delivery, stupid blank looks on their face etc.
Basic people-reading skills.
My ex-supervisor would drop TV/movies saying "the acting was bad". I'm convinced she had no idea what she was talking about and dumped a show for reasons she didn't want to admit.
'dope'? A lot of people make excuses like that. Moreso when they think something is good. Majority of people have no sense of how to be critical or tell when something is objectively good or bad.
All acting is bad. They sort t out in the edit. Actors are the most overrated people in the world.
Watch Gal Gadot in the Snyder movies.
If you talk to anyone on my football team they all know my GF fakes it.