Tim Robbins was bad in this.


The movie was written well enough to overcome his bad acting, but after watching enough times, you can see it and it's bad. The part when he was being ominous talking to Red is just really bad. He can't pull it off without seeming real hokey. And the part where he starts withdrawing his accounts, anyone would have been extremely suspicious with the way he was smirking like a weirdo. It's almost like he was winking to the audience watching. There was no subtly to any of his acting in the movie at all.

Gil Bellows is also a bad actor and it's why neither of them have much of a career to speak of.

reply

Not bad, but I don’t find him very interesting or charismatic here, one of this good film’s biggest failings for me, in fact.

reply

[deleted]

No, no way. I'm not a Tim Robbins fan in any way, shape or form. But in this role, he was just right. History has proven it. Kevin Costner turned it down. Tom Cruise took a look, and then walked. This left the #3 choice, Tim Robbins. It was a stroke of luck for everyone involved (including us fans) that Robbins ended up playing Andy.

reply

I agree.
I always kinda chuckle when someone says an actor's performance was "dull", "wooden", etc.
Who's to say that's not simply the personality of the character??? If I was in the joint for 30 years for a crime I didn't commit, I too would be stoic, (which can be perceived as dull or wooden). I KNOW people with personalities like that.

Not every film has big "STELLLLAAAAA!" moments in them. Some roles call for underplayed stoicism. I'd argue those performances are every bit as difficult as the ones where people go over the top, for dramatic effect (which to me seems less than authentic).

In short, Tim Robbins was perfect in this movie. I can't picture anyone else in that role doing a better job.

reply

No argument from me Ripkens. I don't think the other two possibilities (Cruise and COstner) would have done as well with the role as Tim Robbins did.

reply