What Kind of Acting is Worst for a Film?

[InformationGeek]

Good acting in a bad film or bad acting in a good film?

While good acting is fine and all; it seems like a complete waste on a bad film, out of place with the other acting, or kind of bad if no one else is taking the film seriously and having fun with it.  On the side of the coin; bad acting can be distracting in a good film, take us out of the film, or take away from the quality.

What of those two do you find worst?  It's hard for me to decide.

[zombie no.one]

I know what you mean. some examples would be good. not sure I can think of many though, off hand

[Jack]

Good acting in a completely stupid bad movie is rather out of place, but for your garden variety "we didn't have any money or talent but we still tried our best" type bad movie, I think good acting is a huge plus.  Having characters that I care about in a movie is just about the most important aspect of it to me.

Really lousy acting in a "good" i.e. big budget movie is just a joke.  It takes me right out of the film and starts me contemplating how these sorts of people get jobs, much less maintain high levels of popularity.

[Flick James]

Hmmm.

Not quite as black-and-white as I thought it would be before I started thinking about it.

If we're talking about a bad movie, one we all like to make fun of, well then good acting is almost a distraction. "Get this guy/girl out of here, he/she is ruining a perfectly bad movie."

Jack brought up a point I was thinking about with low-budget films that are trying to be good, really going for something, good acting can be an asset. There are plenty of low-budget Hammer films that have some good performances in them.

However, in the big scheme of things, bad acting in a "good" movie, that is, one with a budget and high production values, is just plain insulting and inexcusable. I'm not interested in seeing some "face" marketed for reasons other than their ability to turn in a performance or convey a story. So, I would say bad acting in a "good" film is definately worse.

[Olivia Bauer]

Bad movies are funnier when people chew up the scenery. Actually Boondocks Saints was a pretty good cult classic, but Willem Dafoe chewed scenery like it was bubblegum.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ff5DlpZiMZ0	Small | Large

[Flick James]

Bad movies are funnier when people chew up the scenery. Actually Boondocks Saints was a pretty good cult classic, but Willem Dafoe chewed scenery like it was bubblegum.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ff5DlpZiMZ0	Small | Large

Boondock Saints is an interesting phenomenon. Personally, I think it's an atrociously bad movie and don't care for it much. Bad writing, hokey dialogue (but then again I like Quention Tarantino, who writes volumes of it), cardboard cutout mobsters, and yes, Willem chews some serious scenery. Anyway, I talk to plenty of people who adore Boondock Saints. That's cool. It's not a boring film so I understand the attraction. But, and this is my opinion, of you look at it from a critical standpoint, it's a pretty bad movie. Entertaingly bad to some, no argument there, but ultimately, a bad movie.

[AndyC]

Good acting in a bad movie is not a bad thing at all. One of the things I really respect about actors like Christopher Lee or Peter Cushing is that they would do their very best in any hunk of cheese you put them in.

In a way, a good performance sticking out like a sore thumb often adds to the fun badness of a movie. Take a movie like Starcrash, where everything is cheap and totally b-grade, but they splurged and hired Christopher Plumber to walk on and say a couple of lines. You can tell he's just there for the paycheque, he was cast for the sole purpose of having an impressive "name" actor as the emperor, and they could only afford to put him on screen for a couple of minutes. To me, that's funny. Having him walk in with a real air of majesty and beautifully deliver a line as dumb as "Imperial starship, halt the flow of time!" is priceless. It just emphasizes how cheesy the movie is.

[ChaosTheory]

I agree w/Jack, I don't consider a movie to be a complete waste if I can care about at least one character, and the acting usually contributes to that.  Good acting in a bad movie might be jarring but it helps you get through it. One example, the truly awful & tedious George Hamilton flick MEDUSA, has an awesome (if somewhat hammy) performance from Cameron Mitchell. 
Bad acting in a good movie tends to ruin the flow for me. Example: in District 9, the military Steve Austin-looking guy really took me out of the movie whenever he was on screen.  (It didn't help that the character was a major stereotype either.)

[Rev. Powell]

Good acting in a bad movie is not a bad thing at all. One of the things I really respect about actors like Christopher Lee or Peter Cushing is that they would do their very best in any hunk of cheese you put them in.

In a way, a good performance sticking out like a sore thumb often adds to the fun badness of a movie. Take a movie like Starcrash, where everything is cheap and totally b-grade, but they splurged and hired Christopher Plumber to walk on and say a couple of lines. You can tell he's just there for the paycheque, he was cast for the sole purpose of having an impressive "name" actor as the emperor, and they could only afford to put him on screen for a couple of minutes. To me, that's funny. Having him walk in with a real air of majesty and beautifully deliver a line as dumb as "Imperial starship, halt the flow of time!" is priceless. It just emphasizes how cheesy the movie is.

I agree.  I think of William Marshall's dignified, almost Shakespearean performance as "Blacula."  Giving a serious performance in an exploitation movie about black vampires makes it all the stranger. 

[voltron]

For me, good acting can make or break a film. ie: Just Before Dawn - good acting, somwhat routine storyline = GOOD; or A Blade In The Dark - REALLY lame dubbing, good film = GOOD. I have no idea of what I'm trying to say. 

[bob]

Over acting/hammy acting like Travolta in Battlefeild Earth.

[66Crush]

While I enjoy the humour in bad acting, good acting is never a out of place. We don't have many good actor's anymore. No personality. TOO REAL. WHO GIVE'S A DAMN ABOUT REALITY IT'S A MOVIE! I miss over the top acting. Go for it! But being a ham doesn't make you a bad actor. There are good actor's who are hams like William Shatner, and there are terrible actors who are hams like David Hasslehoff. Johny Depp is great because he is very low key in real life. But on camera his personality is electric.