worst acting in history

For one thing, that's not even near to true... The acting was good... maybe it's the characters that you didn't like.... plus there has been farrrrrrr worse acting in many movies.
Secondly, if you make a claim like that, you should back it up. At least make it credible...

The Durango 95 purred away real horrowshow. A nice warm vibraty feeling all through your guttiwuts

You have never, ever been around native americans, have you? I grew up on the Eastern Band reservation in Cherokee, NC. You had any expose at all, you would know the way in which the characters speak is, in fact, a true reperestentation of native americans. Go watch something like "Loggerhead" if you want to see some true, baaaaaaad acting in the year 2006.

Wow...you are so blind to this. This movie is a work of art, not because if its sometimes awkward acting but its MESSAGE. Maybe you don't know any Native Americans, maybe you're even a hater...I dunno. There were so many messages freely given to you tongue-in-cheek by Native American culture and where it is today, that they are too numerous to mention. They all have to be taken in a totality of sorts and breathed in like air and then exhaled slowly. The director is painting a magnificent picture of life on & off the res.

Maybe you'd be better off to watch Final Destination 4,5,6,7 etc....

You want to see bad acting, go see Tom Cruise act in movies.
Now, that, is bad acting. And, he gets big money for it too. Go figure :-/

I agree. I did not like this movie and I did not understand whatever "message" they attempted to send.

The (my) Review of Smoke Signals:
I did not find the film (1) poignant in any way or (2) entertaining for entertainments sake. I found Smoke Signals to be rather uninspiring, there was a lot of hype, and not a lot of substance. The storyline is disjointed and the acting is well below average and unfortunately, the sad performances from the actors did nothing to propel the extremely weak plot. I found Sherman Alexie's story to be lackluster, trying to prove a point which is quite unclear. I wasn't sure if this was a comedy about two opposites thrown together (because there were very few humorous moments, this film certainly was not the sidesplitter that reviews boast it to be) or if it was a drama about a man discovering who his father really was. Too many themes are attempted to be covered, leaving the viewer confused and uninterested. Unfortunately, because of the poor script and unskilled actors, this film was not moving or compelling at all, no emotion was evoked, except disdain for everyone involved in the making of this film. Additionally, the Native American accents sound incredibly bizarre to me and resemble a strange mix of Irish, Indian (from India) and American English dialects. In addition to the film’s disjointed feel, many scenes felt rushed and contrived. The somewhat interesting dynamic and contrast between Victor and Thomas seemed to resolve itself just in time for the end of the film. Also, Thomas' fascination and appreciation for Victor's father, (as the father he never had) is hardly explored or discussed by either character. Conversely, the relationship between Suzy and Victor's father feels completely unbelievable and seems to work only as a means for Victor to better know his father, although I am never convinced that happens. Because of consistent plot holes, or rather underdevelopments, the audience must take great leaps of faith throughout the entire film, hardly any of which pay off.

I loved the acting, love the whole movie. Every time I see it I get something else from it. The humor is brilliant.

Kevin Costner in Dances with Wolves. I used to like that movie, then I was rewatching it and realized how incredibly bad Costner was. Especially when he was narrating/writing in his journal. Painful.

This is relevant because of the reference to it in the movie. Ironic, too.

Well, the film WAS made on a very low budget. I will admit, as much as I love this film, there were maybe a couple of scenes here and there that make me cringe a little. But I think the reason so many people love this movie, and will rightly defend it, is that it has something very few of these types of movies has-a real heart and soul that somehow makes up for whatever it may be lacking in production values or A-list actors. In fact, maybe it's the absence of the latter that enables it to have so much more of the former. (Because as we've all seen with disasters like, say, Alexander, just for example, a big budget and big production values do not always translate into good movies). The heart of this movie is its very simple story, and I think it hits just the right note, being neither slickly overproduced nor overacted.