was Guy Pearce IMO. i'm not saying he gave a bad performance, but he didn't 'interalise' the conflict to a sufficient degree IMO, and this is his main problem as an actor as far as i'm concerned.
In other words, i never believed he was conflicted about the decision he was forced to make. I get that he wasn't meant to be scrutable, but the character is played far too broadly to be truly effective.
Good movie overall though.
I agree with you. I blame this on the lack of screen-time his character actually received. They seemed to be trying to do a lot with other characters while not even having two hours worth of film. Needed to be longer, IMO.
share[deleted]
[deleted]
^^i agree with you guys that the part was underwritten, but i still think a better actor could have been suggestive with the limited material he was given and make something out of it.
perhaps it's the director's fault.
And rbelzer, i agree the film should have been longer. it's rare for me to say that nowadays, because movies tend to overstay their welcome, but this one actually had room for further character development.
[deleted]
Did anybody stop to think that maybe Charlie wasn't as conflicted as you wanted him to be because of the Hopkins Incident?
We learn very early that Charlie parted ways with his older brother because of this and "took Mikey with him". Charlie even visits the Hopkins place before setting off for Arthur.
[deleted]