Main Menu

Movies you like because of the acting

Started by LordGraal, July 08, 2025, 02:23:24 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

LordGraal

I recently watched 'Off the Grid' starring:

Josh Duhamel
Greg Kinnear
María Elisa Camargo
Peter Stormare
Ricky Russert
Michael Zapesotsky

It's a lower budget film and the editing is pretty bad.  But the cast are trying.  Greg Kinnear gives a very good performance.  Ricky Russert is OTT sometimes but his scenes with Kinnear are enjoyable.  María Elisa Camargo also gives a good performance.

So are there any movies you enjoy based mostly on the actors performances?

indianasmith

Believe it or not -

ABRAHAM LINCOLN VS. ZOMBIES.

A-list performances in a cheap mockbuster from the Asylum.  Love this movie!
"I shall smite you in the nostrils with a rod of iron, and wax your spleen with Efferdent!!"

M.10rda

I watched ALvsZ when it came out and I'll second that nomination. I thought everyone involved was trying to do their best w/ a low-budget Asylum cash-in assignment - both in front of and behind the camera. I'd call this a candidate for "Best" Asylum Release but I've only seen a small handful and have little interest in watching many more.

So are we nominating movies that we like only "because of the acting"? I like most movies that I like because of the acting (as well as other factors), which is also to say there aren't a lot of movies that I like in spite of uniformly bad acting.

bob

Quote from: indianasmith on July 08, 2025, 02:34:49 PMBelieve it or not -

ABRAHAM LINCOLN VS. ZOMBIES.

A-list performances in a cheap mockbuster from the Asylum.  Love this movie!

The guy playing Lincoln really impressed me & elevated the movie for me a lot
Kubrick, Nolan, Tarantino, Wan, Iñárritu, Scorsese, Chaplin, Abrams, Wes Anderson, Gilliam, Kurosawa, Villeneuve - the elite



I believe in the international communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids.

LordGraal

Quote from: M.10rda on July 08, 2025, 06:27:19 PMI watched ALvsZ when it came out and I'll second that nomination. I thought everyone involved was trying to do their best w/ a low-budget Asylum cash-in assignment - both in front of and behind the camera. I'd call this a candidate for "Best" Asylum Release but I've only seen a small handful and have little interest in watching many more.

So are we nominating movies that we like only "because of the acting"? I like most movies that I like because of the acting (as well as other factors), which is also to say there aren't a lot of movies that I like in spite of uniformly bad acting.

The acting is the main reason you like a film. It could be poorly plotted, edited etc but the cast or some of the cast are the draw.

Rev. Powell

BLACULA, maybe? I might have liked it anyway, but William Marshall really takes it to the next level.
I'll take you places the hand of man has not yet set foot...

HappyGilmore

Odd choice here, but the Nightmare on Elm Street remake.

Jackie Earl Haley shines as Freddy Krueger. The make up wasn't great, script wasn't great (not terrible either) but it's worth a shot for him.
"The path to Heaven runs through miles of clouded Hell."

Don't get too close, it's dark inside.
It's where my demons hide, it's where my demons hide.

Trevor

An odd choice for me, especially as I detest foreign made anti South African films, is CRY FREEDOM where the acting is first rate, especially by the three leads.

Other films in this genre are just plain blah but this one is different only because Denzel Washington, Kevin Kline and Dame Penelope Wilton bring it and John Thaw as the evil Jimmy Kruger also does but to a lesser extent.
We shall meet in the place where there is no darkness.

zombie no.one

I like bad acting and good acting, so basically every movie I have ever liked.  :twirl:

LordGraal

Transit (2012)

Low budget road movie worth it for Jim Caviezel and particularly James Frain.  Frain is way above the rest of the cast as the main bad guy.  Bad camera work let's it down a long with annoying other characters contrively written as dumb to create tension.  Some good atmosphere and Frain make me go back to it occasionally.

M.10rda

#10
I had a different answer teed up to go but I suppose this is a more topical place to remark that Michael Madsen passed away last week, on July 3rd, at age 68. Too young. (I honestly thought he was 8-10 years younger, though, so at least he made it that long.)

In other threads, users have been dunking on Madsen as an apathetic or bad actor. I'd argue it's in quite poor taste this week, but it's nothing new. To be a Michael Madsen fan - and I am unequivocally among the biggest - is to constantly have to defend the man's work or learn to ignore his detractors. Like the similarly disrespected Bela Lugosi, Madsen was capable of giving outstanding performances, but tragically spent most of his career working in low-budget films unworthy of his talent. I will argue to  my own death that Madsen wasn't lazy or apathetic about his work, and certainly wasn't untalented. He did have, like Lugosi, substance dependency issues - but both men kept working as much as they could, even if that meant showing up to work in an altered or impacted state. (Madsen leaves behind seven children, and made no attempt to hide the fact that he would take any paying job to support them.)

Perhaps Madsen's most relevant similarity to Lugosi is that both men played an indelible role early in their career, and then were stuck playing variations on the same role for the rest of their lives. Once the world got a load of Toothpick Vic Vega, that's all anyone wanted Madsen to play - and play squinting, hissing, menacing tough guys he did........ better perhaps than any other living actor of his era. Remember that Lee Marvin and Ralph Meeker were dead by the 90s and Robert Mitchum was an old, old man. (Mitchum passed in '97.) No one else could fill those legend's shoes as well as Madsen - and few could do it at all. (James Gandolfini could - and did, as the 3rd V. Vega in TRUE ROMANCE - and maybe Tom Sizemore could, and both of them preceded Madsen into the afterlife.)

Of all those late Great actors, Madsen remains my favorite. Yes, I've watched as many of his films as possible, and (fortunately, now) I have many still to see. Most of those films, it's true, are Bad. But, in the spirit of this Thread's title, watching every single one of them has made me happy, and for most of those Madsen is the single factor producing that happiness. Ralph Meeker is one of the baddest guys ever in KISS ME DEADLY and is great in other movies but he could disappear in a nothing role (like in DIRTY DOZEN, where he is wasted). There are plenty of Robert Mitchum films where Mitchum has done little for me (besides the handful where he is amazing). And even Lee Marvin is pretty dreadful in CAT BALLOU (which I believe was his only Oscar!).

Michael Madsen? Never gave a performance that didn't make me grin. Rest In Power, big guy.

(He also wrote some extremely badass poetry!  :thumbup: )

LordGraal

Glad I started the thread just for M.10rda's post  :thumbup:

M.10rda