I mean there are some solid actors in there but they all look like they have no idea wtf they are actually doing. i didnt had any major problems with cgi or story except the obvious ''wait for the sequel third act'' but it was really hard to stand on that acting, especially that young guardian wannabe mage with stupid face... ugh...
shareYep, acting was the problem in the movie. Not necessarily a big one as the pacing for an example, but it's one of the movie's negatives.
sharei think acting affected pacing. if the actors could hook us on the story some people maybe wouldn't feel the pacing was slow. idk maybe it was because i had bigger problem with acting than the pacing.
shareNo, quite in contrary.. pacing was fast. It's the studios who're responsible for editing of the movie, actors had nothing to do with it. When it comes to acting itself, I too think it's mediocre, but I blame more writing than the actual actors.
shareHonestly, in CGI heavy movies such as these, it's a wonder that the acting is as mediocre as it is. Just imagine, wearing a silly costume, acting in front and around green screens all day. Must be hell for an actor. I, for one, shall never expect great acting in a movie like Warcraft.
On that basis, I found the acting to be satisfactory, with a few slip-ups of course. And I do agree about Khadgar though. He was a key character and played a major role in the movie, yet the actor they chose to go with simply didn't seem to have the appeal and talent of a .. well James McAvoy comes to mind.
"If you want to improve, be content to be thought foolish and stupid."
the human side was indeed miscast and the actors were also bad, but as long as there isn't something entirely wrong with the story, or another elemental flaw, I normally enjoy every movie I see.
The only 3 movies I watched recently I had major problems with were
Interstellar: horrible third act twist so bad that I couldn't take it anymore
Jurassic World: Although that's more my problem - I wish the movie would be more about the awes and wonders of the theme park (something we never saw before) but instead the whole premise of the movie was how boring dinosaurs are and that no one goes to the park anymore.
Suicide Squad: Horrible portrayal of established characters in a pointless story. Horrible cuts, no original music, subpar comedy and lack of action. I vastly prefer Fant4stic over this. At least Fant4stic had better action and comedy, even though I heavily disliked the military aspect.
My biggest problem with film making nowadays and the past few years is killing random people on adventure like movies just to show that a particular scene is dangerous. There are much better ways to show tension.
Just about everything except the CGI was awful in this movie. Writing, acting, editing all sucked.
Hell throw in a random gratuitous sex scene in there and this would have been a high budget Uwe Boll movie.
They had top notch actors yet the acting was very stiff, I agree. Maybe it was what happened to George Lucas, Jones had too much on his plate with the CGI, script, and etc that he didn't focus on the actors too much. It's surprising because so many of the actors here I admire and expected more from but the one playing the soon-to-be-guardian was the worst offender.
shareYeah, the acting was pretty weak, but the script was weaker. I don't think it's possible to turn that mess of genre cliches into a great performance, no matter how prominent or talented you are.
At least the actors all kept from smirking, which is more than I could have done.
Considering the movie was announced in 2006 and then took a decade to arrive, literally, the acting was a lot better than I figured it would end up being.
shareI don’t think Duncan Jones is very good at directing actors.
If you look at his films with large casts, the acting is generally sloppy. His films that are carried by a single actor, different story.