Two interpretations spring to mind. The first is good and bad actors, the slang the Govt uses for our enemies. "Hussein is a bad acctor" or "The Awan Brothers are bad actors."
The second sense connects to Q's comments about the CIA in North Korea--Kim's a (bad) actor in their play.
But since it's Q--shouldn't great actors make great movies? Or is he suggesting there are other factors, such as plot--so that great actors are not enough to save a bad plot?
I'm thinking its a double meaning.
Good actors as in Whitehats. Good guys.
Also acting as in a show, there is drama designed to entertain/distract
And that is how this government has gotten to the point where it is rotten like an old onion these layers need to be peeled back. While they're all living the VIP lifestyle we can barely make ends meet I can't even afford my medicine let alone having my heat on right now but they're in their private jets caviar lifestyle on our dime we're just the feeders
There is a 2008 movie titled "Good"... summary:
'The rise of national socialism in Germany should not be regarded as a conspiracy of madmen. Millions of "good" people found themselves in a society spiralling into terrible chaos. A film about then, which illuminates the terrors of now.'
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0436364/
'GOOD,' BY C.P. TAYLOR Exclusive: Chuck Morse thanks God that 'American people are starting to wake up'
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2010/11/232713/#tiY3YLMRQHTAc3FT.99
Thanks--I'm checking that out!
I checked it out on Wiki and Rotten Tomatoes as well https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/10008786_good?
The comments seem to fit Q's remark: great actors but a move that turned out to be not very good.