awful acting


I just saw the movie and could not believe how bad the acting was.

The characters in "bright star" were simply not believable as actual human beings. The dialouge seemed fake, not one second did the actors make me believe to actually BE the characters. I was so disappointed and I honestely tried to like the movie (the story was not that bad by the way) but the way the actors struggled to remember their just memorized lines was too much. The lack of flow within the conversations reminded me of school plays, where everybody tries to get their lines out with hollow voices.

I sat through it, others left the theatre.

However, I have to give credit to Antonia Campbell-Hughes as the maid Abigail, I liked her performance.

reply

The final credits just have rolled, and I feel compelled to comment. Are you tripping out!? The performances were uniformly fantastic; understated, naturalistic, totally credible blah blah blah etc. I am intrigued to know what the OP considers fine acting. Please, name a role, a film, an actor, and tell us what you liked, so I can understand our disagreement. x

reply

To put it plainly, people who like big, fat, cheesy, action-packed, gun-toting, car-chasing, sex-oozing, CGI-bloated entertainment will not like Bright Star. It's only natural that people who live off a steady diet of the film industry's equivalent to fast food are going to slump back in the theatres, observe the gentle, poetic, intimate, subtle quality of this film, and get upset. Upset because they cannot comphrehend why films like this exist.

The OP is completely missing the point. I read a very similar post on Girl with a Pearl Earring not so long ago, where the OP claimed the movie was pointless because it was so deeply subtle. In my opinion films like Bright Star are the closest thing we have today to film as art, as a pure and emotive experience, a thing of utter finery. The acting in this film is exquisite, as is the portrayal of love, as is the expose of poetry. It's simply beautiful.
While it manages to transport us back to a time distinctly different to our own, there is also a remarkable, familiar, contemporary aspect to it that makes it very modern and engaging.
If people can't quite understand this then they're missing the point entirely.

"A film is-or should be-more like music than like fiction..." Stanley Kubrick

reply

[deleted]

"I have a master in culture studies"

.... And?
....Does that make you some kind of authority?

"A film is-or should be-more like music than like fiction..." Stanley Kubrick

reply

[deleted]

I'm just saying don't be so bloody stuck up. You're trying to make it sound like you know better then everyone else or something. Ego is just written all over your post...this is why academics irritate me.

"A film is-or should be-more like music than like fiction..." Stanley Kubrick

reply

[deleted]

Ohoho, *beep* you too GABY. Pretentious arse hole.

"A film is-or should be-more like music than like fiction..." Stanley Kubrick

reply

There's so much pretentious talk in this thread. If the OP or anyone else didn't like the film (or even one aspect of the film), it doesn't automatically mean they only like "action-packed, sex-oozing" movies (which, by the way, there's absolutely nothing wrong with). It's just a matter of taste. It's subjective. If you did like the movie, then that's great; I'm happy for you; enjoy it. But if someone disagrees with you, that's fine, too--it's allowed. It doesn't make them inferior to you, and it doesn't mean your taste is better than theirs. So I think (and you may disagree; that's your right) that certain posters here should get off their condescending high horses.

[/internet police]

On topic, I just saw the movie for the first time last night, and I found it stunning. As someone else mentioned, I found Abigail (the maid) a bit awkward, but a lot of that may have just been the character, not the actress. Beautifully shot, beautifully acted, deeply passionate and emotional. While some may see the slow pace and lack of flow as a problem with the acting, I just saw it as making the scenes and characters more realistic, not perfect actors with perfect pitch and timing, but real people working through real feelings.

But again, to each their own.


God damn these electric sex pants!

reply

I love being a pretentious film snob and so do others on here. We are happy about it and only feel sorry for those who like mainstream Hollywood crap. yes there indeed IS something wrong with action packed,testosterone induced film: there's too much of it in Hollywood along with CGI, stupid romcoms, insipid films that are supposed to be for children but have an element of sexual innuendo and 'inside adult jokes' in them that I find appalling, lame bathroom and boob joke oriented films that are geared towards teenage boys, etc. etc. How many mainstream films that come out of Hollywood are for the mature adult viewer? Very few. Most of them insult adults. So I'm glad that apparently a great deal of good films are coming out of the foreign and indie markets.
We can be just as condescending as we want and there's nothing anyone can do about it. I'm glad you liked the film by the way.

I think she's the saddest girl ever to hold a martini.

reply

So...people who like very fine, intelligent, meaningful and evocative films of a mainly indi or foreign origin are PRETENTIOUS??
Jesus, whats the world coming to? Would we be considered as sane,normal, healthy human beings if we all loved Pirates of the Carribean or Megamind or Fred-The Movie??

"A film is-or should be-more like music than like fiction..." Stanley Kubrick

reply

According to Stargazer's post yes those of us who enjoy fine and meaningful films are pretentious...lol...Oh well, I take it as a compliment when it comes to film myself!

I think she's the saddest girl ever to hold a martini.

reply

Right you are Tigerbos!

In my opinion and experience, I can't see why anyone would get all jumped up about modern American film-making, i.e Hollywood and such. It's all ridiculous, corporate sell-out, commercialized, hackneyed rubbish, and all it ever does is repeat itself, repeat itself, repeat itself.

When I see all these glossy, shiny, preened, groomed, "perfect" looking celebrities like I don't know...just off the top of my head...Johnny Depp, Reese Witherspoon or Megan Fox, I often wonder what exactly they are paid stupid amounts of money for.

Most of the time it has nothing to do with talent. I mean, I used to like Johnny Depp for instance, but since he became "the highest paid actor in the world" I just can't stand him. THEY'RE the pretentious ones if you ask me, swanning around pouting, money flowing out of their pockets just because they can behave like characters in a panto (Pirates of the Carribbean). I still believe that women like Megan Fox are only accredited for their physical attractiveness or sex appeal. But I was under the impression that acting has little to do with being sexy. For those who disagree, you may be confusing acting with prostitution.

"A film is-or should be-more like music than like fiction..." Stanley Kubrick

reply

Not pretentious for liking a film like Bright Star, just pretentious for thinking it makes you better than someone who likes Bright Star as well as action movies or romantic comedies.

But whatever, it's not worth internet-arguing about it, I guess.


God damn these electric sex pants!

reply

If having a keen eye for good films and taste for films that don't insult my intelligence makes me pretentious then I'm happy about that. I never said I was better than anyone else. As far as action films or romantic comedies, they are a dime a dozen and if someone wants to be entertained in that manner, then so be it but I think eventually it's a good idea to attempt watching something that doesn't insult your intelligence and if you watch enough of things that don't insult your intelligence you'll eventually wonder why you wasted your time watching the mindless drivel that Hollywood churns out.




I think she's the saddest girl ever to hold a martini.

reply

[deleted]


I respectfully disagree. I thought the acting was great and appropriately understated, Ben Whishaw was dashing and compellingly misty-eyed especially, Paul Schneider brought a slight touch of menace and realism and Abbie Cornish was sometimes stern but at other points such as the final twenty minutes she was heart-breaking. I found it a lovely movie overall, while the pace is slow and some of the less-poetic dialogue a tad stilted, I loved the setting, the music and the way the story was told.









"Life after death is as improbable as sex after marriage"- Madeline Kahn(CLUE, 1985)

reply

I agree with you Felix. The movie was just plain bad. For example: what Regency-era mother would allow her daughter to wander, UNESCORTED, into the private rooms of unrelated adult bachelors, especially when their door was closed, and there to lounge around whilst they worked! You just have to read Jane Austen to know this would've been the kiss of death for the reputation and marriage prospects of a proper young 'lady.' The gossip alone would've destroyed her. I'm not making this up. These were the social norms of the times and they were unforgiving.

Indeed, within the context of the movie, we were shown that EVEN the young scullery maid (herself from the lowest servile class from whom such moral lassitude was to be expected--how else to explain why 'these common sorts' always found themselves as street urchins, workhouse dregs, common drudges, trollops, stableboys and servants??), who had compromised her virtue, was quickly wed to Mr. Brown in order to redeem her, redeem the child from the scandal of bastardy, and to KILL THE GOSSIP. He didn't care about her, he wouldn't even acknowledge fathering the child, and he certainly couldn't afford the expense of his new family. He had to ditch his support of Keats thereafter. You can see it in Brown's face: he knew he'd ruined his life, especially since the girl brought no status and NO WEALTH with her. But, propriety was maintained--that's how important it was. Yet, his situation was the only one given an honest treatment by the filmmakers.

It's a violation of logic to suggest that Fanny Brawne, a supposedly proper and well-raised gentry 'lady,' would somehow be exempt from the moral strictures that obviously bound the lowly maid and Charles Brown. But this is exactly what the movie's suggesting! That Keats, a man of absolutely no income (which meant that he'd either have to sponge off his friends or else go get a real job which itself was stigmatizing since it virtually screamed that he wasn't of the 'leisure class') and with no right even to consider recommending himself to anyone, can actually proceed to carry on a dalliance with Fanny. He takes her into the woods unchaperoned, he kisses her, and he even lays on the bed with her! And he's enough of an unprincipled cad that he even presents her with a ring of sorts and allows Fanny to think of herself as engaged to him! He has NO MONEY!!! She has NO BRAINS!! HER MOTHER HAS NO CHARACTER!!!

And that's another aspect to this--her mother would've been roundly ostracised from civil society for her scandalous weakness in permitting this flirtation! So, it's not just an "aww, how sweet! a couple o' kids just falling in love and wanting to be together..." ~*sigh*~ Mrs. Brawne would've been censured as an unfit parent. Her entire social standing would've collapsed for having permitted the degradation of her daughter and there'd be nowhere for her to escape the gossip of it. People weren't atomised as we are now; we'd think just move somewhere else--who cares?? There were REAL social consequences to bad choices. No one would've spoken to her again. Again, who cares? Well, she had two other children. If she wanted them 'well placed' for a secure and respectable future, she would have to considered the consequences of her disgraceful mismanagement of her silly, wayward daughter.

This movie is ridiculous because it lacks a sense of historicity. It dares to believe that the asinine romantic reasons one gets married for today must've been the same ones that guided previous generations. In Keats' era, one's marriage was, first and foremost, an economic contract between coequal families. Coequal status. Coequal wealth. Coequal prospects. As Tina Turner would sing "what's love got to do with it?" Nothing! Every decision undertaken in the lengthy marriage negotiations was for the purpose of safeguarding and perpetuating the families' wealth and status. Keats had none of these things. No wealth. No status. No prospects. Which meant, no future. No mother would entertain a charlatan like Keats making such ruinous advances toward her daughter.

Dumb movie. Illogical drivel. Same preposterous romantic bunkum that undergirds trash like Twilight.


"I say we take off and nuke the entire site from orbit...it's the only way to be sure..."

reply

Awful acting? I don't think so. I even think Abbie Cornish gave a very impressive performance.

reply

It touched me very much.

It wasn't the greatest film ever made but different with some lovely moments and I cried when Keats left, then died. Overall I thought it was lovely.

The performances were fine also I thought. The only thing that jolted me a bit is Ben Whishaw's skinny frame. He looked like he'd break at any moment, hehe.

I can see why it's disliked by others though but as a romantic, I loved it. Just purchased the DVD actually.

reply

I usually love period movies, but I feel like this was 2 hours of my life I'll never get back, waiting up to the very end to feel something good about this film, but it never happened. Morose, depressing, boring.

reply

The two leads were fantastic. I didn't much notice anyone else.

reply