MovieChat Forums > The Shawshank Redemption (1994) Discussion > Tim Robbins was bad in this.

Tim Robbins was bad in this.

posted 8 years ago by Citation_Needed
20 replies | jump to latest

The movie was written well enough to overcome his bad acting, but after watching enough times, you can see it and it's bad. The part when he was being ominous talking to Red is just really bad. He can't pull it off without seeming real hokey. And the part where he starts withdrawing his accounts, anyone would have been extremely suspicious with the way he was smirking like a weirdo. It's almost like he was winking to the audience watching. There was no subtly to any of his acting in the movie at all.

Gil Bellows is also a bad actor and it's why neither of them have much of a career to speak of.

[–] RichardBlaine (303) 5 years ago

Interesting. For my money, you're overstating it. Robbins wasn't bad. He wasn't bad at all, actually. That said, I've always wondered how much better this film could have been with someone with a little more screen presence. Robbins makes a good supporting actor, like in Bull Durham. I just never thought of him as a leading man type. There had to have been someone else around in 1994 that could have carried this film just a little more compellingly.

[–] degree7 (821) 5 years ago

Tom Hanks was initially interested in the role. Although if you think about it, the main character was really Red. Morgan Freeman carries the film.

[–] Mattc164 (618) 3 years ago

Shawshank is my favorite movie of all time. I liked Robbins as Andy and think he did a fine job, but i can’t help but wonder how much more amazing, if at all, it would’ve been with Hanks as Andy.

[–] Mattc164 (618) 3 years ago

I could safely say though that if Tom Cruise was cast as Andy and Robert Redford as Red that it would not have anywhere near as endearing and timeless as it is. It would’ve been a mediocre 90s film that nobody watched anymore. Despite both actors being iconic themselves i don’t think the movie would’ve captured the same magic that it did with Freeman.

[–] partydjz (424) 5 years ago

Have you ever seen The Hudsucker Proxy ? Robbins is a top notch actor, you're mistaken regarding his "smirking" for a grin of confidence, don't forget he was a banking executive and knew exactly how to handle identification processes for banking procedures.

[–] manwithoutaplan (227) 5 years ago

Dude!!!!!!!! Hudsucker. Thanks for bringing that up. Quality movie. Good job.

[–] partydjz (424) 5 years ago

"you know, for kids."

[–] manwithoutaplan (227) 5 years ago

"yessir i developed myself, yessiree this is my ticket upstairs."

Circle

[–] partydjz (424) 5 years ago

Coen brothers, best cynical comedy

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

I don't think he's a bad actor, but he just feels like a poor man's Kiefer Sutherland to me.

[–] snepts (11123) 5 years ago

I like Tim Robbins in a lot of ways, but I agree that Shawshank is not a bravura performance for him. Some of it is his own doing, but the film in general has a very pedestrian feel to it, which I blame on the director. But yes, it's not one of Tim Robbins' finest moments.

[–] strntz (12346) 5 years ago

Robbins is good enough, which is all you really need in a role that doesn't have a high degree of difficulty.

[–] rudeboymurray (3278) 5 years ago

He's solid enough but I always found his character and performance a shade dull. Morgan Freeman's beautiful performance is this film's saving grace.

[–] stickman38 (3354) 5 years ago

To this very day, Mystic River is still Tim's best performance. He'll never come close to topping it. But he did a commendable job in Shawshank.

[–] captainbucky (15252) 5 years ago

You’re bad in this