Agreed! I think she was trying to portray a "damaged" woman, but just couldn't pull it off. Then again, if she was going for someone who was mildly drunk most of the time, then she pulled it off, and who wouldn't be in her shoes?
Don't get me wrong...
It might be unbelievable,
But let's not say so long
thought she was good.
π²πͺπΊπΈ
I must agree after all. After watching it a third time, it hit me what she had been through and what seemed like "bad acting" was really a traumatized, fragile person who can't trust anyone. She watches every word because she has to!
Don't get me wrong...
It might be unbelievable,
But let's not say so long
I thought she was very good, too. I didn't know who she was but thought that she was striking and played the part as the damaged woman in a realistic way. Everybody in this program is subdued which is refreshing.
shareyep. agree. she was great in this, and the acting was great overall in a subdued way too.
π΄π΄π΄π΄π΄π΄π΄π΄π΄
I've been trying to figure out why what looks like a quality production would add her to the cast. I'm thinking they decided it was going to be too good and they had to dilute the quality somehow, for the masses.
shareMaybe because she once was a very good actress. Thinking of her "Little Women" performance, she had a lot going for her, so it's unfortunate that her acting career didn't produce better results. Like you, I was disappointed with her performance in the Worricker piece.
~After enjoying that movie, I figured I would drop by IMDB to read about its problems.