Scenery-chewing Cranston

looks like as a producer he gave himself a lot of unnecessary footage. long speeches that mean nothing

omg yes! That story was sooo long and boring!

especially considering he could have just handed the dude the bolt cutter and said 'you broke it..you bought it' with no further explanation. the audience would have understood

i was transfixed to the screen during that story


Lee's Daniel's' THe Butler'

Boiler Room is great. I think my favorite performance of his is from Sam Raimis' The Gift.

The whole show was formulaic (Especially around the last two or so episodes. And I realize it wasn't trying to be anything spectacular overall. A tried and true formula etc. We're reverting back to the days of almost sitcom-level implausible scenarios and flight of fancy,..and I guess that's fine. Hyperrealism can grow old even though I prefer it.) and Cranston's character was among one of the most formulaic (the 'zany' cop brother was probably the most cookie-cutter of all), but oddly enough he was the only character other than Pete that actually held my interest. Probably just because it's Cranston and I even found the character jovial in his menace. Guy's likable in everything. I'd enjoy his presence even if he were crushing elderly invalids' spirits.

Overacting? Sure. But it's strange to me that people just now are catching on to Cranston's overacting. I felt like he overacted more in episodes of Breaking Bad than anything - turned in uneven, but good-all-the-same performances. Also, of course plenty of his acting bordered on stellar as well, in BB; the crawl space scene is probably one of the most evocative scenes in television, in recent memory, based on acting alone. Hell, his earlier comedic roles hinged on overacting, so this was never a shocker. How people missed this in Breaking Bad early on is beyond me: I believe it may have been season 4 that was most rife with this evidence, yet I'm fairly certain that's the critical darling season.

I concur 100% with the long speech(es). I was uncertain whether this would be praised for realism and 'amazing' acting or bore others tremendously like it did for me. For once, I feel reassured. But Cranston the least interesting part of the show? Not even remotely. Why single out that character specifically when they're all cut from the same uninspired cloth? If anything it'd be the character of Audrey. Banal, and so one dimensional as to be forgettable. Can't say much for the grandfather either. Even Eddie. Julia was properly annoying; I was rooting for her death by the end of it--her playful banter with Pete felt so forced and cringy you could momentarily believe you were watching a show on the CW network. I suspect many people will like her though, for whatever reason. Victor Williams was good in it as the virtually monosyllabic crony with mild empathy. Ah, and Malcolm-Jamal Warner stole the show. I forgot about him. Sure we've seen the whole juxtaposition of characters in positions of authority with eccentric sides where they like to proffer T.D. Jakes-like platitudes they cull from dimestore garbage, but his flourishes with the *beep* or an eagle' talk were used to the point of absurdity where it actually became amusing. He did a good job with that character.

It may sound as if I didn't like this show, which would not be the case. I thought it was okay, and saw it to the end. At times I even enjoyed it a lot. But it was, again, very erratic, and the phoned in melodrama of the last episode almost killed it for me. It also played out with the same structure of a bad heist movie. The conclusion was ham-fisted, and, to me, discredited all the decent buildup up to that point.

"My boy Giovanni Ribisi is killing it so far in Sneaky Pete. I love that guy!"

You would be an SP to him. Better hop on the Dianetics train if you want his mutual love.