Tease-porn
This series is hardly more than a string of simulated rutting scenes for people who need vicarious whoopee, tons of overacting, blood-and-gore spilling, and interspersed with bits of faulty history. 1/2 star.
shareI’m NOT a fan of “The Borgias” but seriously, you’re way too harsh. In my opinion the show is pretty mediocre and surely not without merit; just another pseudo-historical soapy melodrama targeted, in the first place, at a very wide, rather ignorant and not particularly smart audience. The worst part of it is the writing which is imo boring, predictable, uninspired and absolutely unhistorical.
However, the music is good, the costumes are breathtakingly beautiful, the visuals are rich and impressive. And anyway I wouldn’t trash the performers; I believe the most of them are good (and some are VERY good) and they are trying their best with what is given to them. No actor can save a weak script and a lame plot.
“Overacting” is a pretty vague and subjective term I think… often people call one’s acting “bad”, “wooden” or “overdone” for a simple reason: they are not interested in the character and his development/ his plotline. And sometimes you know it’s even simpler: people don’t like one’s face, or nose, or accent and here we are – “what an awful performance!” LOL
“"Overacting” is a pretty vague and subjective term I think… often people call one’s acting “bad”, “wooden” or “overdone” for a simple reason: they are not interested in the character and his development/ his plotline. And sometimes you know it’s even simpler: people don’t like one’s face, or nose, or accent and here we are – “what an awful performance! LOL ""
You're totally right there, over the years I've seen a number of actors labeled as "bad, boring, wooden, over the top" when it transpired it was the character the viewer didn't like, they couldn't get emotionally invested in the character.
I think the acting in The Borgias was pretty good all round, though some actors were stronger than others of course.
Indeed. And sometimes a wooden actor gets cast onto the right role and it fits almost magically - like Tom Cruise in Eyes Wide Shut or Keanu Reeves in Matrix.
It is very difficult to take a production apart to the degree that one knows whose fault it really is. In Episode I of Star Wars, there are some of the finest actors and they fail entirely - due to an extraordinary bad screenplay and George Lucas unbelievably bad directing.
If you think Tom Cruise's acting is wooden you need a head check. Seriously. He's one of the few good actors of his generation that still makes good movies, not lame family comedies like others. He also doesn't play himself, like some legends ended up doing: De Niro, Pacino ...
Hollywood is run by small-minded people who like chopping the legs off creative people T.Gilliam
Well, maybe you should bother to check out your eyes and ears, if you seriously cannot see the limits of Tom Cruise.
The fact that you judge his acting by the choice of the genre of the movies he picks already says pretty much all about your expertise. In fact after a short venture into character roles ten years ago, he has become a classic aging action hero, who indeed just plays the same role over and over again. And don't get me wrong - he does this perfect, as this role fits him like a glove. But in no way he does something different from how De Niro and Pacino cash in on their names, which btw does not mean that they play themselfs. Because - and that might surprise you - they are acting and so their image is much different from what they are like in reality.
I judge his acting by his roles and how he plays them. I bet you're one of the people hating him for his religion and other silly reasons. He played a wide range of roles during his career and he was good in all.
Also, if you would have bothered reading my post you would have noticed that I said De Niro and Pacino are playing themselves since they got older. Playing themselves means they're both aging mafia guys in any role. I love them both but this is the sad truth.
It would be nice if you would stop taking things out of context to make them fit your narrow view. If you want to discuss use logic and arguments instead of silly nitpicking.
Hollywood is run by small-minded people who like chopping the legs off creative people T.Gilliam
I bet you're one of the people hating him for his religion and other silly reasons.And this is what I wrote before:
And don't get me wrong - he does this perfect, as this role fits him like a glove.
And you complain about me not reading your post...
Playing themselves means they're both aging mafia guys in any role.And Cruise keeps playing the marine/agent type in every movie.
Playing themselves means they're both aging mafia guys in any role.So you dislike how old people play old characters. Interesting. Why don't you simply say that you dislike old people?
If you want to discuss use logic and arguments instead of silly nitpicking.If you would bother to bring your arguments into any kind of context instead of blabbering out your opinions as self-righteous as possible, maybe there could be a discussion. But as it seems you never learnt that. share
Let's see what you do here:
Here is my original post in it's context:
I judge his acting by his roles and how he plays them. I bet you're one of the people hating him for his religion and other silly reasons. He played a wide range of roles during his career and he was good in all.
Here is what you chose for nitpicking, completely taking my words out of context:
I bet you're one of the people hating him for his religion and other silly reasons.
What you conveniently missed on:
He played a wide range of roles during his career and he was good in all.
I said he played varied roles, not only action hero ones, yet you answer me as I never stated this. If you have a problem with his roles I invite you to check his filmography and tell me how these were action hero roles:
Rainman : Charlie Babbitt
Interview with a vampire: Lestat
Eyes Wide Shut: Dr. William Harford
Magnolia: Frank T.J. Mackey
Here we go again:
What I said:
De Niro and Pacino are playing themselves since they got older. Playing themselves means they're both aging mafia guys in any role. I love them both but this is the sad truth.
Let me translate this to you: they talk/act like mafia guys regardless of the role. Capisci? Below is your hillarious attempt at an answer.
So you dislike how old people play old characters. Interesting. Why don't you simply say that you dislike old people?
My arguments are well placed in their context, your attempts at picking words and taking them out of context are pathetic though. Try harder. Before you rant at someone have the decency to actually read all their reply.
I have one word for you: ignoramus.
Hollywood is run by small-minded people who like chopping the legs off creative people T.Gilliam share
I bet you're one of the people hating him for his religion and other silly reasons.Well, if you can explain how your sentence was actually part of any context. But I doubt you can do that, since it is just one statement with no causal connection to what comes before or after. It just happened to be between two sentences which have nothing to do with it. Even if I would have quoted them as well, the fact, that you forgot what I wrote just one message before, remains.
I said he played varied roles, not only action hero ones, yet you answer me as I never stated this.Yes, because I did that in the previous message, the one you did not read: "In fact after a short venture into character roles ten years ago, he has become a classic aging action hero, who indeed just plays the same role over and over again."
So just repeating the same statement, I already refered and agreed to, again is just silly, which is why I prefered to ignore it. He has played a certain amount of different characters, sometimes even well, sometimes it did not work out, but the last years he stuck to the one thing which fits his style of acting (which is not different from Pacino or DeNiro, who hardly break out of their genre). Listing roles which he had clearly more than ten years ago does not change that, as the statement in question was not "Did Tom Cruise have a wider range of roles in his career than DeNiro in the last few years?"
It is even rather pointless, as it does not reinforce anything about your message other than you obviously did not bother to read the messages your are answering to. Perhaps try harder. Before you rant at someone have the decency to actually read all their reply.
Let me translate this to you: they talk/act like mafia guys regardless of the role. Capisci?Well, first of all: Don't write "They are just playing themselfs" if that is not what you mean. Because if you would mean what you had written, you would have said, that they just play old guys. Which in turn brought me to the conclusion that you dislike that fact.
Good you cleared that up and wrote that you did not mean what you actually have written. Maybe you should do the same with the remaining parts of your posts as well.
Oh, and for your information - neither De Niro nor Pacino talks like a mafia guy in his private life unless doing a mobster impersonation. You really should learn to keep characters and roles apart. Then maybe your crush on Tom Cruise would not keep you from judging his acting (yes, just a theory, but in the light of your posts it makes sense).
My arguments are well placed in their contextYou don't know what the word "context" means, right? share