MovieChat Forums > The Natural (1984) Discussion > Is Kim Basinger Always This Terrible?

Is Kim Basinger Always This Terrible?


I've seen Kim Basinger in a few things over the years, and she never really stood out for me actingwise, one way or the other. But I thought she was absolutely, world-class horrible in this movie. Is she always this bad an actress, or was she just off her game here? She was pretty bad in all of her scenes, but in the scene where she's in the hospital room with Roy trying to convince him to throw the game, she's so bad that they really should have just cut out the scene entirely.

Or am I missing something in her performance here?

reply

by nsainradio » Fri Nov 26 2010 09:21:52 Flag ▼ | Reply |
IMDb member since July 2005
I've seen Kim Basinger in a few things over the years, and she never really stood out for me actingwise, one way or the other. But I thought she was absolutely, world-class horrible in this movie. Is she always this bad an actress, or was she just off her game here? She was pretty bad in all of her scenes, but in the scene where she's in the hospital room with Roy trying to convince him to throw the game, she's so bad that they really should have just cut out the scene entirely.

Or am I missing something in her performance here?

I'm guessing you're a female.

She was actually quite good in this compared to some of the other roles she's been in.

reply

Pretty much

The last ten years, she's done much better, playing a woman her age.

That boxing movie with Stallone, and DeNiro

Something called The Burning Trailer/Bush, something??? With Charleze Theron


You don't have to stand tall, but you do have to stand up!

reply

http://lebeauleblog.com/2012/02/05/what-the-hell-happened-to-kim-basinger/

Never Say Never Again, the Playboy shoot (and maybe even the Burt Reynolds movie) caught the attention of Barry Levinson. When he was looking for a femme fatale to seduce Robert Redford in The Natural, he called upon Basinger.

Basinger was perfect for the role conveying the glamour of the era as well as the necessary sex appeal. She was rewarded with her first Golden Globe nomination for Best Supporting Actress.

reply

As an actress, Kim Basinger made a great model. She wore her wardrobe well in "LA Confidential" and apparently the Academy agreed. There are many talented actresses who could have aced both "Confidential" and this film (e.g., Julianne Moore), and IMO, Basinger wasn't one of them.



 Some movies are released; others sneak out. 

reply

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/profile-skinned-alive-by-hollywood-kim-basinger-fading-sex-goddess-and-dollars-10m-loser-1404181.html

The early Basinger was rough-hewn, awkward and prole. She did TV time on Starsky and Hutch and Charlie's Angels, but she never looked fetching; she looked liked a treasure ship you'd have to board and tow home. Her problem then and now (and sex symbols are doomed to stereotypes) is a lack of come-on. She did her skin-flicks and turned thousands on, but it wasn't because she really wanted it; it was because, like Everest, she was there. In a remarkably sympathetic recent portrait, Julie Burchill put her finger on the difficulty: Basinger was woman, not girl. That is, she was that illusion- destroying thing in a world of fantasy: she was real.

And sometimes she just couldn't act. There are plenty of examples of that, from The Natural with Robert Redford (1984) through My Stepmother is an Alien and Nadine, with Fool for Love and 9 1/2 Weeks along the way. These flicks were the natural result of posing in the buff for Playboy (which got her sacked from her Revlon contract) and doing a stint as a James Bond girl in Never Say Never Again - the ultimate humiliations for any woman with an aspiration to be human, or at least no genes to be anything else.

reply

I thought she was great in Blind Date. That's all I got.

reply

https://www.datalounge.com/thread/25968944-kim-basinger-s-acting

She looks nice enough but was actually quite bad in a lot of films to me. I'm surprised at how generous this thread is by DL standards! I mean even in better roles and better films she really had zero actual screen presence. No effect on the audience whatsoever, monotonous and wooden line deliveries, and no ability to transform or show any range or modulation. Even though the character descriptions are different, all her performances are largely the same.

She WOULD go down in history as one of the least talented women to win an Oscar but she's so boring and unmemorable that i'm not sure she will go down in history at all.

I did like her okay in 8 Mile and The Burning Plain, but even then she didn't do anything that umpteen better actresses could have done much better.

—Anonymous
reply 55 Yesterday at 12:55 PM

reply