Marcus Thomas has the charisma of...a really bad actor. I was waiting for the moment where he would stop being an actor portraying a bad actor, yet he never did, so I am to conclude they that simply cast a bad actor performing as a 'bad actor'. In all seriousness, is he autistic?
This film somehow made community actors appear even more annoying than they are in reality.
[deleted]
I saw part of the movie. Really no point watching this movie. It is not even silly bad,just self indulgent in the writer's own pathos about community theater.
shareWell I thought it was pretty good.. Uniquely sweet. I would have gone for the Uniquely Bitter sweet ending if I had been the writer but whatever.
sharei totally agree
my GI Joe has more charisma than this guy
I just watched this movie. It was on one of the "cable" stations, hbo or cinemax, starz.....who knows. I am a big John Corbett fan, which is why I hung in there. I actually liked it a lot - so much that here I am reading the entire message board and other actor bios. I have never done this before. In my opinion Marcus Thomas was perfectly cast for the role. I found it to be a sweet, funny, little movie. It was refreshing. Next up was one of the Pirates of the Caribe sequels. If I was a kid I would have been scared s__less. Big movie, big actors. What a contrast!
shareI don't know that I'd describe this movie as awful. Mediocre is a more fitting description. I just watched it and couldn't help thinking I'd seen something very similar that was vastly superior.
If anyone has seen the excellent Canadian series Slings & Arrows (it ran in the US on the Sundance channel), you'd know what I mean. Of course that was a series not a movie, and it was about a large Shakespeare festival (think Stratford, Ontario) rather than a small community theater, but they had several scenes or situations that were suspiciously similar. I couldn't help but wonder if the creative powers behind this movie had seen Slings & Arrows and tried to adapt it in some way.
There is a great need for a sarcasm font
Yeah, on first viewing, I thought 'This is awful.' It was the opening theme that brought me back to the story and got me curious. Marcus Thomas does such a good job of being 'that boring guy nobody has time for' that it kind of backfires in this movie. The irony, for me, is the sentiment (or is it really taught?) that acting is reacting. Reacting is the Achilles' heal of this project. The audience seems to hate this movie. Why? If you dissect it, there is nothing wrong with the story; the acting (which is truly great); the production. I think that Al Corley and Rodney Patrick Vaccaro get persecuted over this venture, and that is tragic. After six viewings I have come to the conclusion that this is a movie doing an exposition on community theatre; it is professional; it is fun; the characters are real. In the end, I am actually forced to like it a lot. The only problem is that this movie is not 'commercial' -- apparently that is a problem. Well, I can only sympathize. Remember Peter Rooker's boss? In a way, he is symbolic of the negative reviews.
Oh, and there is no need for a sarcasm font, italics is fine.
To Be is not to be: it is to exist with confidence in sublimation.
I think Thomas did a great job of playing a very bad actor, completely out of place on a stage. With no ability to project his voice, and adding a little lisp that would have made any efforts at projection even less effective, he portrayed a nails-on-the-chalkboard acting performance whether as Cyrano or Peter.
I guess the portland community theater crowd is very polite and gives standing ovations for everything. Otherwise I couldn't see why there would be a standing O for the play we saw, and especially the performance of the Cyrano character.