I suppose, as you are suggesting, it depends on the type of movie or genre in question. Like you said, if you mainly watch B movies then "bad acting" is going to be less notable unless it is really bottom-of-the-barrel bad. If like me, you hardly watch B movies then terrible acting is going to be more noticeable when you do come across it. It doesn't bother me in those type of movies because I go in expecting it, but of course I would not expect to see it in a bio-pic with A-list actors about, I don't know.. Winston Churchill or Donald Trump (can't wait to see that one in the future).

I feel that acting is one of those things that is on a fine line between being subjective and objective.. most of us would generally notice good or bad acting when we see it.

So in answer to your question, because of the kind of movies I generally watch, yes it is rather important to me.

I'll admit, watching a lot of b-movies has numbed my concerns and sensibilities over the quality of acting I watch. Then again, it also gives you a great perspective on what acting should and shouldn't be.

There are some renowned actors that people love, and I just don't get it. People like Denzel, whose characters are all exactly the same. That's because Denzel can only play Denzel. Sure, he may know how to play the game, but it doesn't necessarily make him interesting. He's good at acting the part, but he's got such a dry personality.

So rant aside, it shouldn't be hard to act. Just don't look at the cameras, and try to drown out the rest of the world around you, and convey a scene. As long as you can do that, you're an actor.

Take a movie like Blood Feast, or any other HG Lewis movie for the matter, and think about the acting. There are good actors AND bad actors in those, and perhaps it's the good acting needed to contrast the ultra bad acting. Bill Kerwin (one of HG's regulars) wasn't necessarily a bad actor. Just a boring actor.

Then, you gotta wonder about Troma movies... everyone in the Lloyd Kaufman movies are probably playing characters where the bad-acting is intentional, so all of their acting is bad, regardless. If they're good enough at acting, then are they doing a good job at being bad actors?

Some people focus in on the acting too much. Like the others have said, it only gets to me if it's really really bad. Like... freeze-up and look directly at the camera kind of bad. Which, of course, can be hilarious if done intentionally (as in with really stupid characters). Sometimes, it's also hilarious if a movie with awful acting will have one really good actor, like that gunman in "The Room".

I know what you mean about actors like Denzel Washington. They can still put in a fantastic powerhouse performance (Training Day, Man On Fire, etc.) but at the end of the day, he is just playing another version of Denzel. You could say the same for actors like Clint Eastwood, Tom Cruise, Arnie, and to an extent even Robert De Niro, fabulous actor though he is (was?). Whereas actors like Gary Oldman and Daniel Day-Lewis can mould themselves into being the characters they are playing without just playing themselves.. although appearing in bio-pics does tend to help as they have to play another real-life person anyway.

So rant aside, it shouldn't be hard to act. Just don't look at the cameras, and try to drown out the rest of the world around you, and convey a scene. As long as you can do that, you're an actor.

I don't agree with this at all though. That's a bit like giving someone a piano and saying.. look at the keys and notes, can you do something with them? Sure they can hit the notes and try to convey something meaningful, but it doesn't make them a pianist..

A pianist needs a lot of training. Acting needs common sense.

Sure, you need a bit of insight to your character's motives, but acting is also about reacting. It's all about how you react to the plot devices around you. If you're being chased by a killer, you can act freaked out and try to get a weapon to defend yourself... or you can flail about and scream and say, "Don't kill me!"

In other words, some people get it, some people don't. I guess a lot of it can depend on how well a director directs.

An actor also needs a degree of training/practice. Why do you think they have acting coaches and acting schools if it were so easy for anyone to pull off, straight off the bat. It might not require the same sheer virtuosity of playing the piano or any musical instrument, but it is still a skill that requires almost constant refining. And think about stage acting for instance.. you can't expect to put a bunch of people on stage, give them a scene/plot device and some character insights, and watch them all pull it off convincingly - yeah you are right in the sense that some people will get it, others won't. This is why, going back to the OP's post, you have terrible acting and great acting.

I tried acting once.. not for me. But I was pretty good at the piano .

I dont think acting is nearly as easy as you're making it sound. Being there, in the moment, eyes and cameras on you, expected to deliver an expression, line, a certain tone of voice, without it seeming contrived, or forced, without cracking a smile when you're supposed to be serious, etc. etc.

We all "act" in real life. How many times have you lied, played dumb, or tried to tell a humorous story and been unable to stop laughing? For myself, plenty. And that usually only lasts seconds to a couple minutes. Imagine giving long monologues and making your audience believe you're the King of an ancient empire or a hardened, recovering alcoholic detective? Or someone with a mental illness? Or using a difference voice or dialect even?

If I had to act in front of anybody, I'd shit my pants. It ain't the easiest thing in the world, but some people just do it so badly, you know you could do it better. Some people think acting means over-acting, when you can get away with being subtle about it.

Say what you want about the difficulty of acting, but it's definitely not something you should pay millions of dollars for. Most high paid actors don't deserve that type of coin.

Oh, I definitely don't think actors should be paid millions and millions of dollars. Nor should athletes. Especially not athletes. Fuck those over-worshipped fuckfaces. How many of them end up beating their wives and/or are convicted of rape? And millions of Americans worship these clowns cuz they can throw a ball well.

You know how much Vanna White makes a year? Something like 8 million/yr to turn a letter. To turn a fuckin' letter! That bitch is livin' the good life!

Lloyd Kaufman has said that when he has bad actors, he pushes them to overact, because it's going to be bad either way, and overacting is a lot more entertaining than underacting.

I think Kerwin is definitely an above average actor, he actually had a decent career. However I agree with you he isn't memorable in the characters he plays. I'm thinking about Jeffrey Allen he is memorable to me as the mayor in Two Thousand Maniacs and than again a likewise role in Moonshine Mountain and even in This Stuff'll kill ya (even though the last is not a good movie IMO). He is just never boring, that guy is sheer joy to watch. Another one from HGL movies is Elizabeth Davis as Mrs Pringle in The Gruesome Twosome. She was in few movies but that one performance just wow. And in Blood Feast 2 pretty much everyone is doing a good job as they all play such fitting roles IMO.

Acting good, as in, acting technically accomplished and well by most normal folks standards - no. Hell no.

Acting memorable, however you want to distinguish that, does sorta matter, I guess. All my favorites have memorable characters, actors and acting in it. Not everyone, mind you. But the majority of the players gotta stick out in my mind, even if it's because they're doing an unintentionally hilarious job.

Cheers to that matey, couldn't have said it better myself

The acting has to be pretty bad for me to specifically count it against a movie. It's not that I don't notice so much as it's just that I don't care.

Yeah, I'm a little oblivious to bad acting, too. To me, bad acting can be found in 80's SOVs like Criminally Insane 2 and Blood Lake. With a few exception, everything else is just average, unless it's something noticeably great like Midnight Cowboy or Kramer Vs. Kramer.

I'm pretty positive that the majority of the people complaining about bad acting can't fucking act to earn a living, so what do they know? It's probably the same people who think good acting is movies with 'strong dialogues' but are overall boring as shit.

So obviously I don't rate movies on bad or good acting. A movie has to entertain me whether that is by good or bad acting is irrelevant to me. Bad acting can be entertaining, good acting can be ultra boring.

I like how your taste has evolved over the last few years, Johan. One time you use to love kids horror especially horror involving little girl protagonists, to now, horror with tits-and-ass. It is like we are seeing a natural progression in your tastes

Well my friend, as they say standing still is same as going backwards. I still like what you would describe as kiddie horror even though child protagonists does not always mean the horror is child friendly IMO.

I will probably always prefer movies with female protagonists, male dominated flicks it doesn't really float my boat. If not a female protagonist offer some kind of nice female sidekick or at least good eye candy to me. That's probably why I didn't care about a movie like Martin. I mean he thinks he is a vampire and does weird stuff, don't care.

So if I tell you I watched much more psychological stuff, the movies you tend to like about 10-15 years ago. Now they can only fascinate me once in a while. So can we expect a natural evolution with you to to some real gorey and TA flicks on a more reglar basis. think about that professor