I totally agree OP, but I think it was also influenced by the director. An actor doesn't just walk onto a bleak, humourless $200 million studio production and produce a performance like that: everything is calculated and approved. I'm guessing the director realized how dark and depressing the film was (and strangely devoid of any intentional humour) so he had to rely on Sheen's performance to add some life.
Only problem was that, tonally, the performance doesn't fit the film at all and comes across as parody.
I would say the writing was also worse than his performance. I'll just pretend that Sheen realized what a crap movie he was making and decided to add a layer of camp that was needed to catapult the film into epically awful territory.
reply
share