I personally love the story but I thought the acting in this movie was absolutely horrible, all around. I think the best actor in the movie was Billy's dog. I don't know, great story, great cinematography, but crap acting: 6/10
"There ain't no devil, it's just God when he's drunk"
I agree except the guy who played Edgar Derby was good in his role. All the others were off the mark, especially the female roles who were all over-the-top and annoyingly cartoonish. Michael Sacks was serviceable, albeit stiff with his delivery. But you're right, the bad acting underminded the whole movie for me. Too bad, because it is a great story and the book is great as well. I'm a film lover first and foremost but this is one adaptation I'll skip in favor of its original source.
shareMaybe it's just me, but I was really moved by Sacks in this film. I just finished reading the book last weekend, and saw the film today for the first time--I was floored. I agree some of the characters were "over the top," but true to the story. There's a degree of camp in the way Billy's domestic life is portrayed in the book, so I thought it was adequately translated into the film. That being said, I agree that the two or three dogs playing Spot were great as well :-) Simply adorable.
shareRight. It is (hopefully) not just you.
It's just that people are used to a certain style of acting. That's the sad thing about the art of filmmaking. No-one would look at a painting and say 'hey, the way he portrays people is not the way it should be!'
Great film.
I think that Michael Sacks did a good, workmanlike job with the part, though he was nothing spectacular. The rest of the cast was poor, they could have found far better actors for most of the supporting roles.
I agree with the other poster about the actor portraying Edgar Derby being the best in the film - he came across exactly as Vonnegut intended him to be, as a likeable but extremely naive and foolishly idealistic man.
[deleted]
maybe i'm wrong, but billy pilgrim didn't have much of a character in the book, so although annoying, I think Michael Sack's portrayal of pilgrim is appropriate.
shareMichael Sacks was actually a very bland actor to begin with, but then again, Billy Pilgrim was a pretty bleak, passive, and unremarkable person bored with everything in life. Even if you see his later works such as The Sugarland Express and Amityville Horror, there's not much to him and his acting is pretty restrained
sharewasnt that the point though? sort of like a typecast i guess.
shareWell, I respectfully disagree with you. Sacks portrayal of Billy Pilgrim was right on the mark and true to the character. Just because an actor does not portray a character in a dramatic way does not mean it was bad acting. A low-key, understated portrayal of the Pilgrim character was more appropriate and that is exactly what Sacks provided.
I thought Ron Leibman was outstanding as Paul Lazarro and that he captured his always-present psychopathic nature just perfectly. In fact, I was thinking that this was perhaps the first and best psychopathic portrayal to be seen in a major motion picture. Well, perhaps not the first, but I could argue one of the best.
The guy who portrayed Edgar Derby was good and so was the actor who portrayed the German commandant. I saw nothing in these performances that was unconvincing or "over the top".
The only point you may have is the actress who portrayed Billy's wife. Yes, she was over the top emotionally and even hysterical, but wasn't she supposed to be? As "over the top" as it was, I really enjoyed the scene where she was driving her car like a maniac and terrifying everyone. I think it added to the film in its own strange way.
I felt this was an excellent film that some choose to criticize for very nit-picky and dubious reasons.
I'm on your side.
I always adored CATCH 22, because even 30 year ago I felt that nothing like it would come out of the industry again. And it was one of the films that made me want to become a filmmaker.
SAme with SLAUGHTERHOUSE. I watched it again yesterday. Superb. Gained soo much after I last saw it. THe difficult thing about (such ambitious) filmmaking is to have a harmonic movie in the end. With that subject matter not the easiest thing to achieve. For my money Hill succeeded in a big way.
THat car scene might offend the readers (or 'fans'?) of the book, but it was sooo good. I couldn't believe my eyes.
Maybe it is still like in the 60's: directors are still looked upon in a different light over here in Europe.