Great acting


I like Jeff but John was great in this movie.

reply

Yes I absolutely agree. He was the most interesting character in the film. His scenes stole the movie. He was so bitter, caustic, sarcastic, self-loathing and self-destructive. He brought suffering and misery to his wife and friends by constantly dumping his agony and hate onto them. Yet I felt sorry for him because he was suffering too. He was perhaps a better person before he fought in the war. He was like Lt. Dan from Forrest Gump. Heard delved and submerged himself so deeply into the role. He was riveting and unpredictable. Jeff Bridges is very good too. he's such a subtle and natural actor.

reply

heard's perf is classic. when he crashes his car & then gets out of going to jail is an insane piece of acting.


The circulation of confidence is better than the circulation of money.-James Madison

reply

You're not the only one who freaked out on this. Heard is a sick actor. Where the hell is he???

reply

Yeah---but this was Heard's film & his career doesn't reflect it.

Eichorn's either.

Of course, the Dude abides. No complaints.

Carpe Noctem!

reply

"His scenes stole the movie"

Agreed. Nuff said. So-so movie but he rocked it and elevated it.

reply

You stole my post! I was about to post the same exact comment.

Bridges dials in a good performance, but Cutter is Brando worthy. Can tell he has done a bit of "the method" or else came up with his own method. I would call him "multi-dimensional." What a range. From drunken crazy, loose canon, to somber, rational, and introspective.

Who is the guy? And why isn't he one of the most respected actors in the world?

reply

John Heard stole this film.
Hollyweird should have utilized this man's talent.He was/is better than 90% of
male actors around then and now.

reply