Scenery-chewing Cranston

Definitely agree. Although I enjoy Cranston's on screen presence, He did play the cliched villain, especially the smooth talking criminal that likes to entertain by talking in parables and metaphors before he does something violent.
THAT scene mentioned was so trite is reminded me of a bond villain.
Apart from that, I thought everything else about the show was well-done, even if the third act was predictable to a degree.

'You need chaos in your soul to give birth to a dancing star' - Nietzsche

HONESTLY!

I'm glad I wasn't the only one who thought so, I loved Cranston in BB but I just found him so dull in this. His character could have been played by anyone else and it wouldn't have made a difference or had any affect on the show. Besides I started watching this show because of Ribsi and not Cranston. Didn't even know he was in it(when it first came out with only 1 episode that was).

Well, he's an actor, not the writer of Breaking Bad so chances are the writing helped him tremendously there.

Sneaky Pete is a fun watch but it's not a masterpiece by any means and the fact Cranston was a producer didn't help. Any other actor would have been told to tone it down and wouldn't have been given loooooooong winded scenes for him to strut. But he was a producer so...

For every lie I unlearn I learn something new - Ani Difranco

Maybe it was intentional - even as a fan of Bryan Cranston, I found him surprisingly annoying as well in this show but by the end of season 1, I thought it all came together and the over-the-top performance actually served the story well. I guess he is a big enough star he can play a genuinely unlikeable character for a season and not suffer too much.

The show did a good job of showing he was really insecure and someone who could not easily fit in with others or establish real friendships. He had to keep rubbing his success in people's faces even when he had the upper hand. Hence keeping Karolina with him, and not spotting the con until it was way almost done. One of the characters calls him an unlikable hovering vulture or something like that and I think that he played that role pretty well.

Really liked this show and glad I watched the first season.

Well, I've only watched 4 episodes, but I don't know what the @#$% you people are complaining about. Cranston is doing a fine job so far.

Thought the over acting was pretty clearly part of his character. Everything has to be a big show as the main man leading his underground poker room. Very rat pack look, most important guy in the room, power hungry, etc. Think the idea of him playing himself up, too is to point out that he isn’t as big as he makes himself out to be.

If I am honest with myself I'll admit: at times it's difficult to distinguish whether it's the acting that's annoying or how the character acts = behaves. The actor is playing a character who likes to gives *performances*. So what is annoying? The portrayal the *performance* or the *performance*?

I know right? Even though I had no issue with his acting, his character is really just a wannabe character, which is copied from many, more awesome villains occured in movie history. Especially with his long stories, they weren't that necessary to be there really. I always expected something really big at the end of his stories, but they just ended up being some "wannabe's-scary-and-not-so-deep" lame speeches.

But maybe that was his part, being a wannab, the plot kinda reflects on that.

Being a critic is not a real profession, and it sure as hell is not rocket science either