MovieChat Forums > Gods and Monsters (1998) Discussion > Brendan Frasier did a horrible job.

Brendan Frasier did a horrible job.

posted 18 years ago by unlimiteddevotion
61 replies | jump to latest

Watch early on when he gets in the fight with the waitress in the parking lot. The acting is laughable and ruined the movie from then on. Frasier sounded like a 10 year old doing a school play. Granted it was poorly written as well, but that take was just unacceptable. While it never gets quite so bad again, another moment where Frasier completely fails to sell the emotion is when he snaps at Whale and calls him a fairy. The lines are badly delivered and throughout the movie he jumps awkwardly from one mood to another; no fluidity, no characterization, no acting even. Its just Brendan Frasier.

The writing was no treat either. Clayton Boone was a non-character. His actions are so predictable. After an uncomfortable conversation with Whale, Boone must return to the bar and reassert his manhood. Cut to cliche standing sex scene, three pumps, cut, cigarette. This was total amateur work. In the final scene the angle of the water is so obviously a hose that it doesn't for an instant look like rain. The only saving grace in this film was watching Ian McKellen perform, as he is, quite clearly, a fabulous actor. Oh, and Lynn Redgrave was lovely as Hanna.

Please watch it again with a critical eye and look at the parts I mentioned before leaping to the defense. This was certainly not the best picture of the year.

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] gitan-leger 18 years ago

totally agree with you! A good (and real) story, good script, but the whole thing is ruined by the laughable Brendan "muscle"Frasier. A pity!

[–] Louisville88 18 years ago

The screenplay won the Oscar and Fraiser wasn't that bad. Infact I'd say it's his best performance ever.

[–] muscle_waterloo 18 years ago

i agree, i dont think he did that bad of a job.. i think the percieved mood swings are just his character coming to terms with homosexuality. His friends classify Whale as an 'dirty old poof' but frasiers character sees something else in him.. i think its a reference to finding himself and the confusion hes going through as he goes beyond the discourses of his homophob friends..

[–] bigbadwolf666 (4707) 6 years ago

Me too. I agree. There's just something about it that feels so deep unlike anything else.

[–] tltl2 18 years ago

Get to the meat of the matter... Fraser was not given enough to go on, in other words, not well-directed. Period.

[–] tsukamo-chan 18 years ago

I didn't think it was Frasiers acting at fault in this movie. His character was supposed to be a certain way, inexperienced in certain areas, ignorant, a sort of buff, tall dark and brooding figure. The movie begins with his leaving his trailer, it begins by showing where hes from, the sort of life hes used to. I believe Brendan Frasier was rightly casted in this role, and that he portrayed his character accuratly.
Part of his character involved showing the difference and contrasts between himself and Ian McKellens character. He also appears somewhat emotionally inexperienced, or unable to really communicate his thoughts articulatly. Whales is this man whos lived a thoroughly eventfull life, hes seen alot, done alot, is educated and able to express himself freely and is well spoken. Boone has had it rough and is used to it, but he hasn't experienced very much in life, being as it is that hes still very young. He showed the different aspects of his character. he can be somewhat naive, and somewhat rough or vulgar, because of what hes surrounded by. Like John Travolta in Saturday Night Fever.

[–] ijones-9 18 years ago

I could not disagree with you more regarding Frasier's performance...I think it's the best of his career...granted the early scenes in the bar and everything he did in the film prior to meeting Whale were not terribly interesting but his work with Sir Ian was solid...the sudden tension that Clayton displays during his lunch with Whale after he learns from Hannah that Whale is gay was well-played and never over the top. This was the first serious role I had seen Frasier in and I, for one, was pleasantly surprised.

[–] jmccarthy469 8 years ago

Brendan Fraser' performance was quite good, in fact, as the years went on I kept expecting Fraser to show this acting talent but I think this may have been his best work.

[–] bigbadwolf666 (4707) 6 years ago

I agree. Being a huge fan of his I have never seen such a performance and was very impressed by it to this day.

[–] pichote 18 years ago

Fraser's best performance... ever.

[–] Isaac5855 18 years ago

I think I would agree with that.

[–] BernardHermann 18 years ago

I thought he did great job.

Women love bass players, but only the ones who know how to use their fingers.

[–] other-wise-wise 15 years ago

Granted it is his best performace, and a decent one at that... but it's not really saying anything good about brandon if this truly is his best performance lol.

"We are surrounded by worn-out images, and we deserve new ones"
- Werner Herzog

[–] SkaterDave 14 years ago

[ Granted it is his best performace, and a decent one at that... but it's not really saying anything good about brandon if this truly is his best performance lol ]

I was wondering if someone would say exactly what you did after someone posted that it was his best performance. I'll change it to not only was it his best performance but it was an excellent acting job that many actors would be proud to have on film.

[–] bigbadwolf666 (4707) 6 years ago

One of his best. He should've at the very least been nominated I think.

[–] mrjayberry 18 years ago

I am curious as to what social circle of people you know? Yes the Clayton Boone character was a bit predictable but he acts just like many people I know would.

[–] sewiltz 17 years ago

I am in complete agreement with 'tsukamo-chan' about Brendan Fraser's performance; it was nearly pitch perfect. Boone is supposed to be awkward for a number of reasons. However, I agree that his character could have been developed more. When I watched the 'making of' section of the DVD, I believe someone mentioned that the film was made for $3 million, which goes a long way toward explaining the absence of character development and back story; I thought the movie was excellent, but would have benefitted from more of both. It makes me want to read the book to know more of the story.

I agree with you about the angle of the 'rain' in the final scene. I thought, "oh my goodness, couldn't they have tried to make look less like a rain machine?!"

[–] cpetr13 17 years ago

I too believe that Fraser is an amazing actor--he could not have stood up to McKellan if he were not. His inability to express his emotions was precisely correct for a man growing up in that era with his lack of sophistication--he was taken from his "comfort zone" and suddenly entered a world he never really understood.

The "posing scene" near the end was the only way he could show his affection and respect for Whale--on a physical level. It was extremely powerful and touching.

As for the rain--I thought it was a great "cinematic" touch--Whale like using rain for his movies and it was never his concern that it looked fake or not. It was exactly the way Whale would have filmed it. I think it was an homage, not a flaw.

[–] bigbadwolf666 (4707) 6 years ago

I agree had he known be a top gamer he wouldnt have had been able to stoop to McKellan. The film felt like it was too gladiators going at it and rightly so.

[–] rondine 17 years ago

I think he nailed his part perfectly. As someone else noted, his character was a person that was a bit stunted in the growth category. Here we have 2 very contrasting persons, one very polished and smooth - made so by experience & time and the other young, inexperienced and rough. Stragely enough, they share a common back ground as commoners and they currently share loneliness.
It's Fraiser's best performance and the whole movie is a masterpiece to me.