Problem statement:

Title - hallmark actors who are terrible actors

Go over 4-5 actors/actresses who are terrible actors! Talk about each person and go over
specifically what fans don’t like about their acting!

Assignment:

Nobody can claim that there are any objective standards to decide on what's good
acting. In the end, it's all a matter of personal taste. Many people might love the actor
whom directors hate, and vice versa. But, we must all agree that an art like

So, before commenting on anyone's acting skills, it's only appropriate that one defines
what good acting means to them.

The dictionary meaning of the word ‘act’ is not ‘to pretend’ or ‘to play different
characters’ or ‘disguise oneself’ or ‘emote’ but quite simply ‘to do’. Those who aren’t
aware of this might consider it paradoxical to talk of honesty in an activity that is
naturally taken to be an artifice.

What this means is that one has to simply do, simply behave as the character would
behave, talk in the manner character would talk, etc., without letting it be obvious that
one is pretending to be someone they are not. Seeming real and believable is a
requirement, but a second requirement is that we can’t predict their every reaction
before they have them. An actor must have an element of surprise for giving a
performance that is appreciable and enjoyable. A very predictable performance is a
boring one, lacking the elements of excitement completely.

Though not giving a good performance does not mean a performance which is disliked.
In fact for people to perceive a terrible performance as terrible, the performance needs
to have some of the elements like being monotonous, over acting, stale acting, etc. In
this article, 5 such terrible performances by different actors and actresses have
beenaïven discussed ahead.
Keanu Reeves

Keanu is great as the ambitious and FBI fool in the wonderful 90s classic Point Break
and he's well loved by everyone for the role of Neo in The Matrix, but there's still no
getting away from the fact that Mr Reeves is a very limited, woodenly stiff and
monotonous actor. His performances in films like John Wick 1-3, Speed, 47 Ronin,
Replicas, Man of Tai Chi, The Lake House and The Devil's Advocate have been criticized
a lot. The most prominent of these is Bram Stoker’s Dracula, in which Reeves attempts
a British accent to disastrous results.

Keanu Reeves is mostly criticized for being wooden and fake. It often seems as if he’s
reading from cue cards rather than saying words that are his. There is a difference
between playing an undemonstrative person and being a wooden actor. In fact, playing
someone who is reserved is very difficult (because you have to act without showing very
much), and the actors who pull it off are brilliant. It should be pointed out that Anthony
Hopkins in Remains of the Day, Tommy Lee Jones, and many other actors have
managed to do the role in a much more convincing performance.

The central criticism of Reaves is that he is too robotic on the screen, without any range
for roles, which is never a good quality for an actor. He sounds very scripted. Reeves
conveys an actor who is showing up and saying his lines.. He sounds as if he is reciting
or reading something.

(Clip - https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=QqotT8iERxk)

Listening to Reeves in this clip, especially at around 10 seconds in, when he says, “I
have offended you with my ignorance, Count.” Many of his line-readings sound like He
has not fully lifted them off the page and into his own mind and body. It doesn't seem
that much else is going on underneath except maybe nervousness. This type of
performance fails to take the audience to the world of the movie, making them aware of
the discomfort of the actor.

So is Reeves a bad actor? Not exactly. It would be more accurate to call him a limited
actor. Put him in the wrong film, and he’s bound to stand out in a negative way.
However, when Reeves finds a part that plays to his strengths, audiences can’t seem to
resist.

Tommy Wiseau

It would not be an overstatement to say that Tommy Wiseau is well regarded for being
one of the worst actors of all time. He's mostly made fun of for his films The Room and
Birdemic. His over-the-top performance was so bad that some people said that they
enjoyed it!

His criticism starts with the fact that all of his characters are just him reading lines. It's
simply recitation rather than an actual performance. On top of that, he also has trouble
expressing what a character is thinking or feeling without using dialog or yelling. There's
no believable subtlety to it.

In The Room, specifically, his performance is further hindered by poor ADR and messy
editing.

The man is The Room’s writer, producer, director, star, and savant. Although The Room
played for only two weeks in the summer of 2003, reportedly grossing a mere $1,900 in
just two theaters, Wiseau continued to spend a reported $5,000 a week to bankroll the
Highland billboard. This odd and exorbitant expense was one of many examples of
apparent wastefulness that would come to fascinate fans of The Room, and help earn
Wiseau a reputation as “the Orson Welles of crap.”

The Room plays out like a Jacobean tragedy set to a sleazy slow jams soundtrack,
ultimately resolving in what it tries very hard to present as a sad ending. But The Room
utterly fails in its attempts to make us take seriously these characters and plot points,
because we’re too busy marveling at the weirdness of every single thing happening
onscreen. And bad acting skills are definitely responsible for this.

Actors cringe their way through terrible line reads, awkward staging, blurry green-
screening, and especially creepy sex scenes. Johnny’s apartment is full of framed
photos of spoons.
Since its cult success, Wiseau has tried to pass his film off as a “black comedy” rather
than an inept melodrama that’s unintentionally funny, but he’s not fooling anyone.

Madonna

Madonna is the worst actor of all time, based on the Golden Raspberry Awards.

The 62-year-old music icon has won plaudits throughout her career in the pop world, but
has often been greeted with less than positive notices for her work on the big screen as
both an actor and a director.

The pop star tried to crossover into acting in the ’80s but ended up getting six Razzie
Award nominations instead. That’s because she was in several terrible movies including
Shanghai Surprise and Who’s That Girl.

Her performances have consistently drawn scathing or laughable reviews from film
critics, and the films have usually had tepid, if any, success at the box office.

Madonna has won a record seven acting Razzies — for movies including Shanghai
Surprise, Body of Evidence and James Bond adventure Die Another Day.

She’s run a close second by six-time winner Sylvester Stallone, who holds the record for
the most nominations — earning an incredible 20 nods for the ignominious awards.

Stallone notably won the Razzie Redeemer Award in 2016, recognising his brilliant —
and indeed Oscar-nominated — work in Rocky sequel Creed.

Back in 1979, four years before the release of her self-titled debut album, Madonna
starred in barebones indie drama A Certain Sacrifice. She played a Lower East Side
resident living with three “love slaves” (one male, one female, one transgender).
Capitalising on her first flush of fame, the film-makers rushed it out in 1985, but it’s safe
to say that it wasn’t exactly acclaimed as a lost classic.
Nonetheless, for years Madonna maintained an acting career alongside her musical
one. Some of of her films performed decently at the box office and – shock horror –
even got good reviews, like the 1985 comedy Desperately Seeking Susan. More
frequently however, her efforts were widely ridiculed. Besides voicing a character in
2006’s family cartoon Arthur and the Invisibles and appearing opposite Lady Gaga on a
Saturday Night Live skit, Madonna has laid her acting career to rest after enduring a
weapons-grade trashing for her turn as a snooty socialite in then husband Guy Ritchie’s
2002 romance Swept Away.

Even though she is a bit better with acting through body language, she is most criticized
for the her poor dialogue delivery. Her dialogues have always seemed to be a bit of
overacting and have cringed the viewers and critics.

The good thing is that she was given a few opportunities to shine. The best material she
was involved with was Evita and A League of Their Own. Although Evita was well-
reviewed and won an Oscar, many still view the singer’s performance as lacking and
forced. Eventually, Madonna got the hint and stopped pursuing acting. Though we must
acknowledge, she is quite self confident and works pretty hard, and these good qualities
are rare.

Megan Fox

Megan Fox is widely percieved to be an actress cast only for her looks, rather than
acting skills, and has received a lot of comments of this from fans and critics.

She has starred in multiple action movies and some horror films, as well. She has
mostly been cast as the hot girl, which often doesn’t give her the chance to show off her
acting skills.

However, the movies she did star in were hardly well received, and part of that had to do
with her stale acting.

Fox seems almost genetically engineered to be a Maxim cover girl. But getting to the
cover of magazines isn’t quite enough to get adults to pay $10 for a film.
The post-women’s liberation era of movies expanded the kinds of parts women could
play. A lot of the female actors from the 1970s to the 1990s were definitely attractive,
but they were actors first, beauties second. They made movies where their roles, not
their looks, defined them. Look back at the collective works of Julia Roberts, Diane
Keaton, Meg Ryan, Sandra Bullock and even Reese Witherspoon, and you’ll see actors
who had honed their craft.

If you’re wondering where the next Sandra Bullock is, she’s probably in some indie film
playing in a theater at the edge of town. She’s not at the multiplex, because somewhere
along the line, Hollywood decided that hot women make for better leading movie roles
than talented female actors.

So we have a situation where female actors who might have been bound for stardom 15
years ago are now designated as “quirky” and not given a fraction of the hype that the
Maxim crowd gets. Like Zooey Deschanel and Alexis Bledel, both of whom starred in
smaller films this summer. Meanwhile, former model Fox gets the big budget roles and
the hype.

As previously noted, Jolie’s talent provided the springboard for her hype. Fox’s talent
seems to be in generating hype itself. This is why she’s becoming known more for the
continuous stream of outrageous things she says in interviews than for any of her on-
screen work.

There’s an old saying that goes “Looks get you in the door — personality makes sure you
stay.” Fox’s looks have obviously opened a lot of doors for her. But unless she shows
she can be a compelling on-screen personality, she’ll stay around only until the next “it
girl” with a hot body arrives