Charlie Sheen is a HORRIBLE actor. I've never been blown away by any of his work, even the well received titles like Wall Street, etc. But he overplays every scene. Especially in this one. To see just how bad he is, turn off the sound and just watch his facial acting. So over the top and so one dimensional.
It's gotta be the coke.
"He's not Judge Judy and executioner!"
You may have a -bit- of a point there, but let me point ouf a few things, please.
1) Charlie Sheen is an INTENSE actor - he plays most of the roles with intensity. But watch Two and a Half Men, and you see that he can be very mellow fellow as well.
2) This role actually benefits from his intensity, and keeps things interesting, energetic, and flowing forward. You really sympathize with him, because the things that happen around him and to him are completely ludicrous and out-of-this-world (pretty literally, sometimes). So if you want to curse Charlie Sheen's intensity, this is the exact -wrong- movie to use for that.
3) Charlie Sheen is actually a good actor, if you give him a chance. He can be completely believable in whatever line he is delivering. I doubt anyone else could credibly deliver: "I feel like a can of smashed ássholes" (I am paraphrasing), for example.
4) Watch "The Wraith" and "No Man's Land", and you'll see a -very- 'cool and composed', plus also 'slick and smooth' Charlie Sheen. Not intense, not overplayed, just completely 'calm' down to almost being a bit 'wooden' in 'The Wraith'. This should prove your assessment at least mostly wrong about him overplaying 'every scene'.
Plenty of scenes, where he isn't 'overplaying' anything, or being too 'intense' at all.
5) I've seen much worse actors, that should never have been accepted into movies or TV shows. Such horror that watching ol' Charlie makes you feel like you are watching the best actor on the planet. Even if we find scenes, where Charlie's performance is needlessly 'powerful', 'intense' or whatnot (it is still better than 'no energy'-type acting or 'wooden' acting - I rather watch someone, who can at least display emotion), can can agree about some of your estimations, compared to the actually bad actors, it becomes obvious that you are being completely unfair and inaccurate about your judgment, and wrong in many of your statements.
6) I actually like Charlie Sheen's onscreen-charisma. He at least HAS onscreen-charisma, unlike most actors, and unlike especially the really bad actors - or even some good actors, that just don't 'feel like anything' on screen. Charlie always feels like something, and his features make him a pleasure to watch for some reason. Maybe he looks 'friendly' or 'interesting to look at', like some people do. Some actors I can't stand to even look at, but Charlie isn't one of them. Besides, he looks a lot like young Charlie Sheen, who also has sreen-charisma.
The last point is more like my 'personal preference' than anything universal, though.
Still, I think I made my point about your post being unfair and inaccurate.
P.S. Your post is like criticizing Brad Pitt in 'Twelve Monkeys' - - the role REQUIRES intensity, and the intense performances make it perfect.
Agreed, avortac. If his personal life hadn't become such a disaster, I think he would have had a much better career. I think he was really good in this for the reasons you point out. Just MO.
shareAvortac, I basically agree with all of your statements.
I would like to add one point, My personal favorite Charlie Sheen movie is "Beyond The Law". One of the few movies that is fairly accurate about "biker life", at least back in the 90's. A story/movie that needed a good level of intensity, as you pointed out.
One other Charlie Sheen flick stand out in my mind, "Cadence". It definitely did not make a big splash. Most people are not aware of it. But another movie that needed a level of intensity. He also got to play off of his father. I have never been a fan of Martin, but he has made a true mark as an actor so we have to give him that.
So... my 2-pennies...
I don't know what was going on in my brain back in the day, but geez. I don't even know what I meant to say with 'can can', and I definitely meant to say 'young Martin Sheen' and 'onscreen-charisma'. Maybe I was typing correctly, but some kind of lag ate my characters, who knows.
In any case, I've seen enough of Charlie Sheen's performances to confidently state that he is a good actor that can fit into many kinds of very different roles/characters, situations, etc. He can express a wide variety of emotions and other things. His reactions are very good, and he is believable and credible. 'Overacting' certainly fits this movie and character, but he has been 'underacting' in other roles, as I mentioned. 'No Man's Land' is probably the best example of a 'smooth, slick Charlie'.
He's not a bad actor and he played very different and more relaxed characters in other movies very well. Wall Street, No Man's Land etc.
His acting is indeed intense a lot of times. In this movie too. I can see how someone can see this as overacting, but it's not inappropriate for this movie.