Outside of extremely bad porno acting, I can't tell the difference between good acting and bad acting.

I just nod along when someone tells me that x is a good actor. Is this autism or everyone else the same way too?

Confession: I don't know what good cinematography means but I use that term here frequently.

>>213611522 (OP)
Autism, especially if you're into film. You should just have an instinct for good and bad acting without having to think about it too much.

>>213611522 (OP)
Did they sell the character and the scene? Did they avoid throwing in unnecessary quirks and mannerisoms? Did they resist the temptation to over-act when uncalled for? If the answer is yes to all of the above then it's good acting

>>213611560
It means it looks pretty and not boring and also doesn't waste your time

>>213611560
Serves the mood and tone of the movie above all, shows technical expertise, and overall just looks nice

>>213611522 (OP)
I don't think I often watch films or TV-shows with terribly bad acting, aside from children actors, so I suppose that's a good reason for it being hard to discern. In the same sense, it's very rare that I consider an acting performance to be superb, but I'm glad to have those few moments. I suppose getting touched by a film is a good metric for whether an actor has done a bad or a good job.
Aside from pic related, a fairly recent film in which I really appreciated the lead actress, was Midsommar

>>213611522 (OP)
Do you see who you are watching as their character or as the actor? That's it.
Most people complaining about acting want over the top exagerated caricatures making wacky faces that nobody in real life does. Best example is Cara Delevigne. People bitch about her acting like a normal person.

>>213611829
That all just depends on what type of movie it is. Also it's all dependant on your personal preferences.
There's really no good or bad acting. It's all circumstancial.
Only guy who can really decide it is the director. If he was fine with the scene then it's good acting for the movie

>>213611522 (OP)
>>213611560
Watch some d-grade slop and you'll understand

>>213611966
You're not wrong about actors being in service of the director, but ultimately a movie's quality isn't based on how much the director likes it, it's based on its audience, be they critics, academy voters, or ticket buyers generating word of mouth. And they're the ones who'll decide if a performance is good or not.

>>213611829
>throwing in unnecessary quirks and mannerisoms
But that's Jack Nicholson and Daniel Day Lewis in a nutshell

>>213611522 (OP)
>Is this autism
Yes but you just have shitty, middle of the road autism.
A normal person, or a turbo autist can differentiate good/bad acting, but a midwit autist can’t

>>213611560
It means the technical aspects of the shots, the camera angles, movement, pacing, details in the scenery, costumes, make-up. Everything not sound, acting and editing.

If you want to see bad acting, The Lobster has the worst acting ever done.

>>213612512
I disagree, you just didn't understood the characters

>>213612568
I understand that the director doesn't speak english so the dialogue is stilted as fuck. He hid it in the Emma Stone movie by making her retarded.

>>213612403
Cinematography has little to do with pacing, production design, costuming, or makeup. Kind of insane to post all of these and miss lighting…

>>213612512
Isn't that Lanthimos schtick (or auteur decision)? I felt like the characters did the same thing in Killing of a Sacred Deer, but I haven't seen his other films

>>213611560
It looks pretty and or it looks real.

Good acting makes you invested, it momentarily tricks you into forgetting you're watching an actor recite lines. Bad acting is the opposite, it will never for a moment make you suspend your disbelief.

Good casting is just as important as the acting itself

>>213611522 (OP)
When I was watching Star Trek: TOS I wasn't being able to tell that William Shatners acting is bad or something before I learned all memes about it on the internet.
I had to rewatch "Room" clips on youtube several times, after 10th times i thought 'well, maybe people are on to something', but still it wasn't THAT bad. Its almost like normal people talk in real life.
The only scene were acting seemed obviously bad to me is dialog with nurse in 'Samurai Cop'. All other scenes in that movie were pretty normal.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D6gk04xzN3U

>>213611522 (OP)
Think about it this way: Do you buy them as the part they're playing? Do they look genuinely happy, sad, angry about what's happening around them, or do they feel like they're putting on a show?
It really is that simple, how much they make you buy the part they're playing.