I find that we all grow up hearing our parents tell us that this or that is not acting, that in their day sew-n-sew was X and he did Z
This movie...seems to be an actual representation of that view. Sure when you see a movie that is a lower budget you will find that 1 lone guy usually is the movies only draw, that he/she carries it. It reminds me of how many BAD MOVIES were bearable, to me at least, if Luke Goss played the main roll.
This is NOT one of those films.
In the movie, hand to heart, everyone UNDER 40 sucked per acting and delivery and everyone OVER 50 owned each specific role. I have to ponder a reality where geriatric actors are able to "own" a role, even if it is a bit part with 30 seconds of screen time, yet the lead actor and the co-lead struggle to deliver ANYTHING that can be compared to genuine.
I assume it is simple experience....except I can hardly, for the life of me, think of an actor that was BAD in his late 20's and early 30's, that morphed into a PARAGON OF ACTING SKILL !
So, either you have it or you don't. Bad writing can only cover so many of the excuses before it falls onto the actors.
There ARE some WELL acted scenes in this movie....but NONE of them relate to anyone who is not of Social Security.
The rating, at the time of this writing, is a LOADED and FIXED 8.5. I assume a "family and friends" rating :) The movie is to comedy fans what a low budget zombie flick is to zombie fans. Bearable but leaving them trying to explain to other's why they should have enjoyed it......
Solid acting and delivery from Hal Linden,Al Sapienza, John Aprea...sadly they were NOT the focus of the movie and only allowed this to move from a potential 2 to a 4.
Good acting can only fix so much as well :)
