Jul '18
Oftentimes I'll read reviews for a movie that I've seen, and see that most of them complain about how terrible the acting is. And I have to admit, at least 95% of the time, I have no idea what they're talking about. Maybe it's because I mostly watch B movies, but I very rarely notice bad acting. For me to be distracted by bad acting, it has to really really bad. Like grade school play level bad. Like "Flesh Eating Mothers" bad. Does bad acting make much of a difference to you?
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".