Bella Heathcote - Beneath Hill 60 (2010) Discussion

[–] sidstemandilive 14 years ago

Well, i would call it at descent performance. Not great but not bad either! Probaly mostly notice her, for her looks, she reminds me extremly of Heather Graham. Maybe a little critic, would be the prank scene, thought she overacted just a bit, i didnt really feel natural.

Pretty Girl, Okay Actor!

reply

[–] blaircam 13 years ago

THIS

When I was watching I kept thinking, "She looks like someone". Funnily enough just after the movie I saw an ad or something with Heather Graham in it and I thought 'Eureka" - that's who it is.
She's a pretty girl and did ok with the role. A little silly, giddy and awkward, but that was what she was supposed to do.
I think she needs a bit more polishing as an actress but suspect she'll do well.

"They who... give up... liberty to obtain... safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

reply

[–] coco-ange 14 years ago

Yeah I had problems with her performance lol, like the person above me said she really didn't seem natural at all, it kind of sounded like she was just reading the lines or something :\

reply

[–] megatosspot 14 years ago

Awkward, but she is playing a gawky teenager, so it works.

reply

[–] spookyrat1 11 years ago

Yes I reckon she had the right looks and appearance for the role. As you say she had to play a 16 - 17 year old teenager. Apparently IRL the age difference between the couple was pretty much as depicted in the movie, so well done on that count.

reply

[–] claudecat 10 years ago

"Apparently IRL the age difference between the couple was pretty much as depicted in the movie..."
Oh, i thought Brendan Cowell looked way older than 25! (The character's age in the dialogue.) I figured he was 35 at least, and I thought that part of the movie was annoying, because Heathcote really looked about 16, and the difference seemed huge. I just looked up Cowell, and it appears he was about 34 at the time of filming. That was one of weaker parts of the movie for me. They probably should have just cut the line that specifically stated he was 25.

reply

[–] spookyrat1 10 years ago

Oh, i thought Brendan Cowell looked way older than 25! (The character's age in the dialogue.) I figured he was 35 at least

May be you misheard the dialogue. He was 35 when he married his wife not 25. I don't have a copy of the movie with me, but I'm sure it wouldn't say he was 25, when he was actually 35. Obviously he's younger when he first meets her, but I don't think the movie is suggesting that early meeting with her was in 1910. I think it was supposed to be (from memory) shortly before he enlisted.

reply

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] spookyrat1 10 years ago

The story could have done without the romance...

In this case the romance was probably warranted because it did happen IRL. It was also done to probably just add some back story to the main character and break up the war scenes (which I think it succeeded in doing). Let's face it; it wasn't a major part of the film. I guarantee if they hadn't done it, other posters would complain about the characters being ciphers and having no development.

reply

[–] Glucojel 10 years ago

Not to mention, the romance scenes took us away from the trenches for a bit back to picturesque sunny Queensland, which was like a brief breath of fresh air before being thrust back into the mud and claustrophobia of the Western Front.

Her performance seemed to be the most common criticism I heard about hte film. Quite a few of my friends couldn't stand her performance. Initially I saw it as just the role she was playing but the more I see it the more I feel inclined to agree with them. She really did seem to be simply reciting lines sometimes.

reply

[–] spookyrat1 10 years ago

Not to mention, the romance scenes took us away from the trenches for a bit back to picturesque sunny Queensland, which was like a brief breath of fresh air before being thrust back into the mud and claustrophobia of the Western Front.

Yes, I obviously agree with that.

...and break up the war scenes (which I think it succeeded in doing).

I personally think she did a reasonable job with the fairly limited onscreen time she had.

reply

[–] maximmm (3041) 3 years ago

It was fine, but the lead casting was the bigger problem. His acting skills were not the issue, but the age - he was playing a 25 year old, but he looked as old as the girl's father, even though he was supposed to be only 8 or 9 years older than the girl (he mentioned in passing that he was nearly a decade older than her).

PS. I looked it up, apparently the actor is 11 years older than the chick - I must admit, either the girl looks extremely young for her age, or the dude looks extremely old for his age - in terms of their appearance, it's like there's a 20 year gap between them. Either way, at no point in the film does he look like he is 25 years old.

reply