Poor acting... - London to Brighton (2006) Discussion

Seen this at a festival, it is a low budget movie, so get off its ass, whatcha expect robert de nero??

reply

[–] chuffster2002 17 years ago

I've seen far better acted low budget films,mate.

reply

[–] boydy56 17 years ago

The thing is, is that you are used to, "acting", and the acting here is so, so good, is that you think its bad . But in reality it is utterly realistic.This is as close to the real thing as it gets, and you are not up to it, sorry.

reply

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] nibblitz 17 years ago

Agreed, I thought the acting was very very realistic, coupled with the camera work which sort of went "Fly on The Wall documentary" style at times just added to the grim realism..

A fine movie (apart from the Shotgun in the Brighton Flat scene)

reply

[–] david-cummins1 17 years ago

Chuffster - Unfortunately you aint got a clue mate.The acting is top quality from all involved especially the main 3 parts.Did you watch a dubbed version or something?? ;-)

reply

[–] lumocolor 17 years ago

I don't know how anyone can say the acting was poor in this. Evidently someone who normally watches nothing but American $50m budget blockbusters and so has very low standards and can't separate a realistic portrayal from wooden puppet acting!

reply

[–] swivelhips 16 years ago

I'm with you, David. I thought the acting was of the highest quality and, as someone who works in the business, I think I know what I'm talking about. You just have to accept that there are people in this world who will always be determined to take a negative view. I think it says much about their lives.

reply

[–] Droogie952 16 years ago

And because you work in the business your opinion is superior to everyone else's? There's a hell of a lot of pretentious elitism on this board, that if peopel don't enjoy this movie it's because they don't understand it. I simply thought the acting lacked true emotion. Derek's character was overacted, Stuart is not nearly imposing enough (the cigarette story, followed by him smoking had none of the poignancy that was intended), and Kelly and Joanne seemed to fall flat for the most part. True they did have some good scenes together, but the script certainly didn't help them. All in all, the film came accross as a shaky Shane Meadows imitation.

reply

[–] shark-43 12 years ago

Relax, mate. The majority of critics and people loved this film. You have yr opinion about he acting - fine. But many disagree with you.

reply

[–] saskia-sch 16 years ago

I agree,

Im sorry to say, but many blockbuster movies have VERY poor over the top acting, this was Very realistic. I saw many low budget films, or what you call independend films, and most of them have acting like this, the real deal.
I tought they did a very good job, they had me going nuts with fear.

reply

[–] stu_humphreys2 16 years ago

Couldnt agree more...
I watched this film last night and was blown away by the gritty realism, locations and excellent acting....this aint no hollywood pop-corn paint-by-numbers..this is british cinema doing what it does best with some quite dark and disturbing subject matter...this is British Realism cinema a la' Alan Clarkes Scum or anything by, Ken Loach or Mike Leigh..
Everyone involved should be proud for taking part in this landmark British film - especially the main leades..Johnny Harris is superb...hope we see more of him soon..

reply

[–] samblack-37388 8 years ago

Bad but not the worst!

reply

[–] stupid_mansuit 17 years ago

poor is harsh, adequate is about right. I tend to find low budget 'gritty' films with poor lighting and grainy images seem to lend extra credibility to the acting.I know that's a bit ambiguous and possibly a tad pretentious but I can't be bothered to articulate the point. Having said that I thought Groome played the little girl well although she is 14, and lots of 14 year olds can act. Anyone know why she has a midlands accent without refference to it in the film? or did i miss it? I'd have to agree with assnick about it being nothing new and good cheap entertainment but I didn't find it at all boring.

I'd like to see more low budget British drama's, I find them a lot more watchable than mostof the c##p that comes out of hollywood. Mind I doubt they will make many people rich.

reply

[–] chrisrankin1 17 years ago

the reason she's got a midlands accent is cos that's where Georgia's from. lol! it's not mentioned, but as she's run away from home she could quite easily have made her way to london - alot of runaways don't stay around the area they're from. I thought she did extremely well. I worked with her on a stage performance a few years ago and was most suprised to see her in this film!

reply

[–] stupid_mansuit 17 years ago

I know she's from nottingham and I know she could quite easily have got the train and this would fit with her trying to get to devon to see her Gran. Just thought it might have got a mention. My southern mates have taken the piss out my Leicester accent since I moved down here.

No real criticism though, just wounderd if it had been mentioned and I missed it.

reply

[–] raymondoedwards 16 years ago

"Anyone know why she has a midlands accent without refference to it in the film?"

I thought it was refered to in the film. It is a while since I watched but does Jo say to Kelly, shortly after they first meet, that "I came from Nottingham"? [not an exact quote]

Can anyone with the DVD confirm this?

reply

[–] tom-1514 17 years ago

i think Chuffster is one of those people who likes saying the opposite, just to get a response. And you've all fallen for his little trick, .. and i have by replying to this thread.. damn you Chuffster!!!!!

reply

[–] coldfuse-aaron 17 years ago

Well to be honest trick on not, the guy has some truth. I mean we can equally all play the game of, well you're completely wrong, and because i say so... but pure and simple fact the acting in this at times was rather wooden. I thought the film was gritty, and at time's got me right where the emotional cord hit's. I hate rape and find the idea of it unsettling, even though that didn't quite happen in this, Williams did a great job of portraying a really heinous act of prostitution which could mimic rape.

I thought the three main characters (not the villain)did a great job of trying to give this a realistic London/British feel (being from there my self)but the main villian was pretty terrible. I thought his scene in the car where he started crying, was probably his most honest of acting in the piece, otherwise his character was really a little out placed for the feel of the film.

Acting realistically wise, i think OI this is england, captures it perfectly, this film as low budget as it maybe, did a great job and i would recommend a watch, i found it more of a thriller then dead man's shoe's, so that to me means it did a great job.

reply

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] bahamutzero-1 17 years ago

i met the two girls in the making of this film, i was an extra! (hah!) and i can honestly say they done really well for themselves considering the little acting experience they both have (this was Georgias first ever role)

reply

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] william.murray 17 years ago

The Stuart character in this movie is totally miscast, badly acted and not believable. The acting in the movie in my opinion is ok, that's not the problem with it. But if someone thinks the acting is poor he's not clueless he just has a different opinion from me.

reply

[–] ageispolis_mookid 17 years ago

Yes, some of the actors were very self conscious. I definatley noticed it more with Derek and Chump. Chump's facial expression didn't actually change at all throughout the entire film. It got on my nerves a bit because it really added to the 'stiffness' of some of the scenes...

But all in all I think the acting of most of the major characters was good enough to overshadow the weaker performances, with some great stand out moments mostly revolving around Kelly and Joanne.

reply

[–] wordbug 17 years ago

I thought it was a really naturalistic and brave performance from the actress playing Kelly. Very good work. The basic warmth and decency of the character shone through.

The stupid thugs were stupid thugs. People like this don't have much depth in real life. They are not usually very expressive or articulate.

The head villain was too mannered for my taste, but at least it was a try at something different.

If you haven't seen the film, I'd give it a go. The story is gripping from the start.

reply

[–] colin-willmott1 17 years ago

i have just watched the film and found it very good and totally realistic. i know a fair bit about the murkier side of London and can tell you the reason some of the villains acting seemed one dimensional was because a lot of the people who frequent the part of London depicted are just like that,there is not a lot to them under the surface and they really are just as they seem,thuggish and not too clever.the acting by the two female leads was extremely good and realistic, all in all a film very much worth seeing.

reply

[–] graham3k 17 years ago

I thought all the actors were flawless, never once did i think of them as actors playing the characters, they WERE the characters.

reply

[–] declan-murphy 17 years ago

The acting in this was very good indeed.
You might say the thug characters were a bit bland and there expressions barely changed and what not. but generally people in the real world don't go round acting like there in a phantom of the oprah.
the acting was subtle and very well directed.

Also the gansters son was one of my faverite characters in the film more or less because of the whole cigarette thing.

reply