Poor acting and a poor script
Which is a shame because this is an excellent concept...
shareYeah, Liev Schreiber, John Malkovich, James Cromwell and Roy Scheider; what do they know about acting??
shareI just thought they were disappointing, and bar Schreiber, not really committed to their respective roles. I thought it showed, once again, bar Schreiber, that they didn't do much research or put much effort in. One of the worst performances I've seen from Cromwell in any film.
shareI agree but I'd blame the script more than the actors. James Cromwell as Hearst was practically a cartoon supervillain, cackling maniacally between antisemitic slurs and threatening to publish pictures of FDR in his wheelchair. In fairness, he didn't drown any kittens.
I'm afraid that you underestimate the number of subjects in which I take an interest!
Funny, I thought the film actually went to great lengths to humanize Hearst without covering up his actual views. I thought it Welles, on the other, who was reduced in the film. He came off seeming very petty and petulant, and they didn't capture Orson's charisma or talent.
sharei'm with you 100 percent. i completely agree.
Last movie watched: Wall-E 7/10
Really now? Liev Schreiber and James Cromwell were nominated for an Emmy for their acting. John Logan's screenplay was also nominated. What's not to like?
"Oh, *beep*! I picked a cute one!" --Penguin, "Batman Returns"
Actually very good acting and strong script.
Its that man again!!
agreed Prism10! All the actors did a great job...even Melanie Griffith! ;D ;P
sharefunny OP...you should go through life saying and thinking the opposite of what you wanna say and what you do think..you'd be a superstar.
it is better to have a gun and not need it, than to need a gun and not have it
The script was weak. It's been a while since I've seen this, but the wholly fabricated scene where Welles gives an inspiring speech to the heads of the studios (and the cringe-worthy inclusion of Walt Disney in said fictional scene) just invalidated the entire movie for me. Being nominated for an Emmy (or, hell, for an Oscar) doesn't mean it's suddenly bullet proof. A lot of crap has been nominated for those awards along with the great stuff.
I remember this came out around the same time as Tim Robbins' Cradle Will Rock. I remember because I worked at a local media outlet when they were both doing their press junkets. I was so psyched at the time. It was like the year of Welles for me. I attended a preview of Cradle and thought that while it wasn't the greatest (I wish somebody would film Orson's screenplay which you can find at your local library instead) I thought Angus McFayden and Cary Elwes were pitch-perfect in their portrayals of Welles and Houseman. Before Christian McKay came along I thought McFayden's portrayal of a young Welles was the most accurate. (I won't even get into D'Onofrio who only ever looked the part)
Schreiber is a good actor. A seasoned pro. But the script just didn't have enough of the real Welles in it. It was more of a scathing gilded-Hollywood tell-all partly based on fact. Definitely only a television-worthy movie.
A tip: [*URL][/URL](remove the asterisk) for all your linking needs. spread the word Use this sig!
I concur, Wellesradio, that the script was quite weak. It was never able to transcend its overall made-for-TV feel. I did think most of the acting in the film was quite good. Had they had a better script, the film could have been quite incredible. I also thought James Cromwell and Melanie Griffith were miscast. The film would've been much more effective if they'd cast unknowns in those two roles and gone for actors who looked just like the real historical figures. All in all, I liked the film better than you did, but it certainly wasn't great.
"You can dish it out, but you got so you can't take it no more." - Caesar Enrico Bandello
anyone who criticised the acting in this film is a fool
http://www.mickey-rourke.com/
[deleted]