Can you think of any truly good films that had average acting?

[Matteo]

Acting is, of course, such an integral component to a film. At its core, it can make or break a work. It's what can divide the line between good and bad. Can you think of any truly great films, however, that have largely mediocre/average acting in your books? There's a few for me.

Halloween - cringeworthy acting aside, it's a technical gem. The framing, direction, and editing rank up there as some of the best 1970s American cinemea spawned. This can be applied to most of Carpenter's work - he doesn't seem to pursue much of a grasp for screenwriting or casting, unfortunately, but he's one of the most visually impressive filmmakers in his respective genre.

A Man Escaped - even though Bresson's deliberate hire of non-professional actors was supposed to spawn a sense of 'humanistic authenticity', I thought the acting in this film was particularly low-key. With that being said, Bresson simply was a wizard with the camera and knew how to put a film together. There is a reason Bergman, Tarkovsky and Kubrick spoke so highly of him.

2001: A Space Odyssey - the acting is hardly anything to ride home about, but the rest of the work surely is. It's probably the single greatest artistic and technical achievement in the history of the medium.

Night of the Living Dead - the mostly substandard acting should have been a huge detriment to this film, but Romero somehow managed to overcome that with his incredible skill for storytelling.

Elephant - this is one of my very favourite films. I can't say that the acting is too impressive, however. With that being said, this was a 'directors film'. Long takes, orgasmic tracking shots, and some incredible use of sound. Editorially, it's remarkable, too. Van Sant was at the top of his game with this one.

The Texas Chain Saw Massacre - typical horror movie acting in this one, but Hooper still managed to create something truly perturbing as a whole. It's probably the most radical and extreme of horror films that employs a lot of 'art-house' conventions.

Mirror - this is one of those rare films where the acting actually seems secondary. It's strictly a visual experience, and the acting, whilst far from bad, hardly spawned anything memorable. I can not say the same about Stalker or Ivan's Childhood - Tarkovsky exceeds in all facets there.

White Dog - The acting is rather choppy in this one, but it's saved by Fuller's amazing technical direction and his adept ability to tell a political film without speaking of politics at all.

Those are just a few. Your additions?

[Everlong]

Basically any of the original 3 Star Wars movies. Not known for their acting or writing, but they're great movies regardless.

[Kirbi]

I was going to say Inception, but I'd have to except Cotillard from that.

[Hanley!]

I'm not a big fan of Kubrick's work in general, but The Shining deserves a mention here. Despite being an acclaimed movie with intriguing imagery and a creepy setting, the acting brings it down. Nicholson was a bit over the top; I don't think it's one of his finer roles despite how iconic it has become. And Shelley Duvall was not good at all. But then Kubrick is more famous for torturing his actors than getting good performances out of them.

You could list a whole bunch of blockbusters here too: where the films are entertaining, but without the acting ever really impressing all that much. One of the more famous examples of this would be the Matrix. Nobody was particularly good in that film (I'm only talking about the first film because the sequels were not good films). Particularly not Keanu Reeves.

There are some Nolan films that would fit the bill here too. I think the Batman trilogy had some good acting from the supporting characters (Michael Caine, Gary Oldman, Heath Ledger, Aaron Eckhart), but a lot of his other older films don't focus enough on character and the acting never has to rise to the challenge. I quite like Guy Pierce but even in the thrilling Memento, the acting wasn't really anything worthy of praise.

[Matteo]

The Shining deserves a mention here. Despite being an acclaimed movie with intriguing imagery and a creepy setting, the acting brings it down. Nicholson was a bit over the top; I don't think it's one of his finer roles despite how iconic it has become. And Shelley Duvall was not good at all.

As much as I value all of Kubrick's work, The Shining has always been lower-tier. Strictly from a cinematographic viewpoint, it's unparalleled in its adeptness. Kubrick's use of the then (new) Steadicam, the dolly shots, the incredible composition and framing, the art direction, the lighting, the list goes on. However, the acting, as you said was a bit too overblown. Many can easily assert that Kubrick did this 'intentionally', but I don't think that is the case. Duvall was borderline laughable at times, and the pacing very uneven. I feel as if Kubrick had a lot to say, both thematically and visually (it seemed like an experimental film at times with its aesthetic approach), but he ultimately lost his guide with his actors in the process. I can appreciate the work, but I can't really enjoy it. The acting felt a bit too cartoony and Kubrick just failed to meet basic storytelling conventions. The best word I can use to describe my feelings towards the film is 'incomplete'. It did remarkably well in certain aspects and remarkably poor in others.