Acting Lessons

This message has been deleted by an administrator

She's acting all monotone and held back like everyone else.

The funny thing is, is that she was better than everyone else.

Zombie Nugget

She was better but that's not saying much. At the start of the movie she was really bad but got better throughout it :)But yea I actually thought Dev was one of the better actors...plus he's kinda hot LOL

Generally, when all actors in a movie are bad, especially when they are otherwise good in other films, it is the director's fault. A viewing of a Uwe Boll film (I don't actually recommend watching any of his work) will confirm this. Actors who are normally fine, even good, suddenly become monotone cardboard cut-outs.

The fact that pretty much every actor in this film strikes the audience as "bad," that's a clue that it is the guy who was helming the boat that steered it into the bridge. The same complaint was made about the cast of "The Happening."

It's a shame; M. Night used to know how to get a decent performance out of actors. (Sixth Sense) It's like he's been slowly unlearning how to be a good director and a good writer. He's become this self-absorbed all-knowing guy who can't take criticism.

I think of it as the "George Lucas Effect." When a writer/director starts out struggling hard, has to put in a ton of work and actually TRY to create a product anyone will have anything to do with, then he makes it huge, everybody starts telling him how awesome he is. He starts to believe it, tries less hard, his work quality drops, yet he is still convinced of his awesomeness. He becomes insulated from the actual world inside his own ego-bubble and loses connection to the audience. Heaven forbid anyone at this point say to his face, "Gee, Mr. Shyamalan, that's not really a very good script." (Remember the lady who got fired for saying the "Lady in the Water" script stank? Well, she was right!)

i may agree to some of your earlier points but bratty and selfish? thats questionable. can't generalize such things.

imo, because i dont know these people very well, is that they pick really good looking people to fill the part but who lacks talent. such as acting credibility.

it all boils down as well to how they were directed while shooting of course, but some of them are indeed plain bad at acting. nice to look at though. hence there's the mute button. just kidding. that sounds rude.

but, you know hollywood or the media is sometimes mostly about aesthetics.

p.s. i havent seen nicola's acting so this comment isnt directed at her.

it all boils down as well to how they were directed while shooting of course, but some of them are indeed plain bad at acting.
---
Sorry, I don't know how to do the quote thing on here.

Anyway, I have to agree with you on this point. There are very good actors like Dev Patel. Who, in spite of having a poor script, could still get to the heart of the character and provide a great show for the viewers (as a bonus, he doesn't sound like a selfish bratty actor. I read an interview online with him and he was just talking about how he wanted to keep his private life underwraps and that all he wanted to do was make good movies.) Then there are actors like Jackson Rathbone(or is it born?) who are usually pretty good at their roles, but because of the script he or she appears monotone and stiff or very different from the characters being portrayed. And finally, there are the ones who need more training, like Nicola Peltz. Now, this is coming from someone who has only seen her in one movie, and I suppose I should watch another one of her films before I really peg her as a "bad actress". But, if that's the case, then she should still be able to try to put on a good performance in spite of an unnecessarily suckish script.

Get what I'm saying?

exactly, as bad as she was, compared to that bald kid's performance, her acting deserves an oscar.