Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> On 10/13/2011 0:17, Bill Pragnell wrote:
> > In fact, I think that of these four jobs, the acting is possibly the least
> > important. It needs to be adequate, and good acting will of course elevate a
> > film, but I find that once the acting is above a certain quality threshold, it
> > makes little difference to my enjoyment of it.
>
> I think it depends to a large extent on the type of film, at least for me. A
> "chick flick" sort of film with bad acting is much worse than a blow-crap-up
> film with bad acting. :)

Agreed. The tone of the movie alters my 'adequacy threshold' too.

I also find movies with particularly bold examples of editing/acting/whatever
when all other aspects are weak to be quite memorable. For example, 'Crank',
which is not winning any prizes for story, dialogue, acting etc, is an
entertaining, enjoyable movie almost entirely due to the hectic editing style.

Post a reply to this message