...in this movie he was way WAY beyond bad.
He felt so out of place, the acting he delivered was horrendous.
No feeling for the type of scene that was playing out.
Just completely off with his character.
I don't know...
His performance almost made me give this 5/10 instead of 6/10.
Not just me then, I like him as an actor but this quite bad, almost Van Helsing levels.
shareYES indeed. Even more so than the annoying and despicable gangsters, Hugh Jackman had the WORST performance in the film for me. He might as well have been playing a CARTOON character. He's the very definition of a cliched villain to the point that you can call what his character is gonna do in a scene LONG before he does it. No subtlety.
shareThat's what the director wanted. Go watch an interview before you start putting the blame on an actor for doing what the director asked him to do. This was supposed to be silly, cheesy, and fun. If what he was wearing wasn't a dead give away, I don't know what is.
That's what the director wanted. Go watch an interview before you start putting the blame on an actor for doing what the director asked him to do. This was supposed to be silly, cheesy, and fun. If what he was wearing wasn't a dead give away, I don't know what is.
You said Hugh Jackman's character was cartoony. I tell you that is what the director wanted. And then you say "what was supposed to be silly, wasn't silly." Aren't you contradicting yourself a little? You thought his character was basically a cartoony, cliched character. You're right, and it seems at the very least, you can admit his character was ridiculous aka silly. The character was supposed to be ridiculous and feel like a 1980s cartoonish, cheesy, cliched villain. So as far as I can see, using your logic, the director actually achieved his goal in that department - you just didn't like the end product, which is fine. That is all well and good. I can see why some people wouldn't like the movie. I can see why people would dislike Jackman's performance.
Personally, I enjoyed the movie, I enjoyed Jackman in it, I thought it was consistent enough, I did laugh at Jackman's character, I understood the jokes, and I thought the movie was fun. So did every single person I have ever talked to about the film in real life and despite critics bashing this film, it somehow manages to still be rated 7/10 on imdb. I'll take it! I'm sorry you didn't like it. Maybe Neil will make another film that you do like someday.
If you have to explain a joke or a theme as such, usually means you dropped the ball on it. And no matter what the director said he wanted, if the paying audience doesnt like it they have every right to comment.
Jackman's character was terribly done and added no value to the movie
-only uneducated minds are not open to any ideas other than their own.
Except every person I know in real life who saw the movie did get it, did like it, did think it was fun and funny, and had no problem with it. And that includes everyone from colleagues at work to people I've talked to in video stores to friends to people I make video shorts with. The only hate I have seen for this film has come from select people on imdb and critics. The fact that it is still rated 7/10 on imdb despite critics completely tearing it apart and so many online people bashing it says a lot. What it tells me is that most people did actually enjoy the film. Most people did get the jokes. Most people didn't take it more seriously than it was intended to be taken. It flopped at the box office because the movie was bashed by critics before it came out. When people actually saw it later on - not in the box office, they liked it, and the movie has done well on DVD sales. So the director didn't drop the ball. I don't think he was trying to make an Oscar worthy movie. This was just a passion project for him about a theme he is very interested in. I doubt he is putting it on his list of failures. Your point that the jokes were bad because the director had to explain them in an interview is not a good one, in my opinion, because a lot of people did get the jokes. You just didn't like them. It's not your type of humor. That is fine. I respect that. You have every right to comment about how much you think the film sucked, but just keep in mind that the fact that more people liked the film and the humor than not is telling me that the director did just fine regardless of your viewpoint. Generally, he achieved his goal - at least to some degree. All movies that came out the weekend Chappie did, did poorly at the box office, but globally, the film has even been able to recoup its costs. And honestly, nobody had to explain the jokes to me. At the time I saw the film, I thought they were pretty obvious.
shareSorry I probably shoouldnt continue the conversation, you are obviously cemented into your opinion. Box office mojo and rotten tomato would differ with your opinion on people hating this film but you keep living the dream bro! Don't give up the fight! I got Al Sharpton on speed dial if you need him...
lol I know I said I would continue but while writing I got a burst of energy and wanted to share it with you. Glad you enjoy the movie
-only uneducated minds are not open to any ideas other than their own.
Exactly, thank you.
Hugh did exactly what was needed for the role. Some people just do not understand film and act like snooty, pedantic critics. Not all films are identical, so not all roles are supposed to be played the same way. In this case, all of the things that people are complaining about in this thread are exactly why he did a great job on the role.
He was supposed to play an un-subtle, heavy-handed brute who makes the audience hate him. That was exactly what the character was supposed to be, and that is precisely what Hugh delivered.
Some people just do not understand film. The people complaining in this thread should go join AMPAAS so that the can give awards to more clones.
(Response notification is off.)
He was like religious anti AI zealot. Moose was like god. He fit right into the world were everyone is completely corrupt self interested sociopath, from gangsters on the street to executives on boardrooms. On Neill Blomkamps movies world is a jungle.
shareHis character was written way over-the-top to the point where I didn't recognize that he was Hugh Jackman because I didn't think that he would be in such a movie playing such a character.
I just thought he was a "B" level look-a-like.
And you know why I have a hard time believing that, because I've seen Real Steel;
Chappie is like the Sistine Chapel compared to that abortion. Talk about B movies, B for boring.