Tuesday, 15 May 2018

Alternate Best Actor 1991: Joe Mantegna in Homicide

Joe Mantegna did not receive an Oscar nomination for portraying Bobby Gold in Homicide.

Homicide follows a Jewish detective while he tries to solve the murder of an elderly Jewish woman, and while he tracks down a brutal drug dealer.

Homicide, yeah homicide, that's the name of an act and film. It's two things, right, maybe a metaphor or two. What the hell do I know. It's like a movie where everybody talks. Talks with this way of speaking. You know what I'm saying? Well do you? There are spaces to make sure you hear what I'm saying though. Make sure you here it right clear like I'm talking to someone else, but instead I'm monologuing. Monologuing like I'm a stage actor, but hey I'm suppose to be here talkin up a film. A film performance that is. A film where everyone talks a little strange. The plot seems a little convoluted. You know the type of film? Ever see Redbelt? A bit like that, although at least here, in this film, you can see at least some connections to the complications. If you know what I'm saying. All the supporting characters though they still all seem strange in their weird way of speaking through monologue, that isn't at all cinematic. David Mamet. Ever hear of the guy? Well it seems he could use another set of eyes to adapt his words on film, even just to direct em if you know what I'm saying. You see his words. His words, yeah, they're just a too thick, too thick for their own cake, like bad bunt cake. Ever have a bad bunt cake? Hopefully not, I wouldn't inflict you with that disease of the guttural intestines. This film, even as is, isn't terrible, not great, potential there you know. Doesn't come together. Also how are you suppose to believe Ricky Jay could physically impose Joe Mantegna, not the easiest pill to swallow, maybe he was using some slight of fist.

Okay, I'll stop writing like that and focus on once again the element of Mamet's film that manages to overcome the burdens from his way of directing his own work. Once again it is in the lead character who is the only character who seems to come to life. This again comes partially from the storytelling which doesn't effectively intertwine its elements partially because it doesn't quite develop them enough. The one element it does develop though is the central character who is given life by Mamet's frequent collaborator Joe Mantegna. Mantegna does need to contest with bit of Mamet's stylized dialogue, often overly stylized, however Mantegna is able to ease this a bit. One he is one of the better actors in terms of delivery of it anyway that makes it at all sound natural. He is helped further though by thankfully the character of Bobby Gold only needing a bit of it. He thankfully gets to be a bit more grounded and frankly more cinematic. Mantegna in turn is able to give a far more cinematic turn here that is the center of the film even beyond the lead. In that he is the true cohesion of the film as Gold deals with the two wildly contrasting plots, and has to connect them essentially by creating the personal journey of Gold in how it connects with the mystery and the manhunt.

Mantegna from his first scene is effective in establishing really this duality of the character. In that on one end as he discusses police procedure, and his procedure as detective in a most personal way, as in just specifically speaking of his own methods Mantegna brings this confidence and control of a true professional. He has the right calm and intensity of his eyes of a man who is well reasoned and well seasoned in his position. This is against the moment where he loses this comfort from either a hostile colleague or even a captive prisoner physically attacking him in order to try to steal his gun. Mantegna reveals this considerable unease even beyond the attack itself. There is this discomfort that reveals a greater anxiety in his reactions. A palatable desperation of a man who is not just uncomfortable in the situation, but also in terms of his sense of place within his profession. Mantegna naturally affords the character this duality by creating this sense of calm when only there can be a detachment. Even when he fawned over by his hero-worshiping partner (William H. Macy) Mantegna shows an appreciation only through his delivery that emphasis a courtesy, while physically reflecting this unease even in processing this type of support. Mantegna reveals a detective who has fashioned his place through his work as a detective, but as a man still is lost.

Mantegna uses this setup well then to explore the two avenues that reveal themselves as he tries to track criminal as a typical detective, and tries to solve the murder of the Jewish woman that forces him to examine his own, lost, heritage. We initially see this as he succeeds in the interactions towards the tracking with that same detached confidence, but with the murder investigation Mantegna portrays so well this pained forced connection. A way as he reacts with such unease to any sight that forces him to think about his own place as a Jew and what it means to him. Mantegna is able to bring the appropriate humanity to this struggle, which is a bit too academically worded by the supporting characters within this plot line. Mantegna successfully captures far more nuance in his portrayal of how this investigation in a inflicts him with his true sense of a lost identity. This is something he finds so well early on in his reactions that Mantegna shows in his eyes clearly reach him on a deeper level as he sees Jewish custom around this murder. He initially seems to try to hide this, by the same way he himself is dismissed by others, by self-hating antisemitism which Mantegna delivers so well as this specific yet hollow outrage as though he is simply aping others that seems ill-fitting to Gold.

Mantegna develops gradually this loss of distance as the reactions begin to also bring a greater depth into his direct delivery in the moments of trying to uncover the truth. This leads him deeper into his own culture/religion and Mantegna delivers this emotional connection through showing almost a relief when he stumbles upon a Zionist organization in his city. Briefly Mantegna reveals still hesitation but finally some comfort as he speaks more openly with the group, and even aids them in the arson of an anti-Semitic group's headquarters. Homicide being a Mamet film though quickly reveals this to be ruse by the organization to try to use Gold's connections in the police force to their benefit. Although this rushed Mantegna manages to at least bring a genuine emotion to this in his realization of the heartbreak of the moment of again being lost in his own identity. This quickly rams Gold into his other plot line following the crook which is connected only through Mantegna's performance. Mantegna does deliver though in realizing the emotionally spent state of Gold in every harried moment and exasperated work spoken as a man who really is fed up with life. He only speaks dripping with a caustic hate and cynicism that he essentially tries to bring down the criminal (Ving Rhames) to his level of thought. This is more or less where the film leaves us, and the film itself doesn't quite come together towards something wholly remarkable. Mantegna though does overcome the material, and in some ways makes it digestible by giving a moving portrait of a detective trying to come terms with his own self through his investigations. It doesn't make the film itself wholly successful, however Mantegna at least offers a stable emotional center through his successful performance.

62 comments:

Emi Grant said...

Louis: Which would be your Top 10 Ensemble casts of this decade thus far?

Alex Marqués said...

As stylish as the dialogue is (which I admit it's an acquired taste), I don't know how this movie is less cinematic (in terms of direction) than, say, anything by McDonagh. The opening raid alone and the scene where he destroys the store suggest a much stronger formal style than you're giving him credit for imo. And I'm not even a big Mamet fan.

Matt Mustin said...

Alex: I think he specifically meant the dialogue isn't cinematic.

Calvin Law said...

Just caught up with the season premiere of Westworld. Some of the dialogue for Dolores is painfully on the nose, though not bad exactly. Quaterman was actually really funny and I thought played off well against Newton (phenomenal as always). Visually impeccable as always of course, and Ed Harris is killing it.

Anonymous said...

Louis: Do you agree or disagree that your problem with these films is that they are directed by Mamet himself? Because you love Glengarry Glen Ross, so maybe in the hands of another director who understands your material, Mamet's work in the movies will look better cinematic in dialogue than in your own hands.

Anonymous said...

These films I talk about Homicide and Redbelt

Anonymous said...

Louis: And that's funny because I do not even think James Foley is a good director. He is not. So maybe Glengarry Glen Ross is one of those cases that the director is perfect for that material specifically and the material for it. I do not know if I'm right. But it's a funny thing to think about.

Luke Higham said...

Deadpool 2
Reynolds - 4.5
Brolin - 4
Dennison - 4
Beetz - 3.5

Tahmeed Chowdhury said...

Luke: Could I have your spoiler free thoughts on the film when you get the time.

Luke Higham said...

Tahmeed: I'll just say that it's a more polished film than the original and the cast outside of Reynolds get more time to shine. It's funny on the whole though its constant use of Breaking The Fourth Wall can be an issue for some.

Louis Morgan said...

Emi Grant:

1. Silence
2. Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy
3. Birdman
4. The Death of Stalin
5. The Wolf of Wall Street
6. The Master
7. I, Tonya
8. Inherent Vice
9. Phantom Thread
10. Of Gods and Men

Alex:

I was not referring to his visual technique/precision as a director, though I imagine he was helped with both this and Redbelt by working with great cinematographers, Deakins and Elswit. Things Change is less visually dynamic, however he knows how to direct a film visually with a cinematic sensibility, what I mostly take issue with is really his direction of actors. He seems to purposefully enforce a lack of extreme interactions/interruption, to ensure every line of dialogue is heard as clearly as possible, something that can be needed on stage but is distracting in a film. He seems to direct everyone to give all these quick monologues rather than trying to create a more dynamic atmosphere, fitting to a film, of interaction between the actors as found in Glengarry Glen Ross.

My problems with his "auteur" work go beyond that. I actually think in terms of his writing he might go too far in terms of trying to exploit the cinematic form, as Redbelt's scattershot form of storytelling would have been impossible on stage though is possible, if not entirely sensible, through film. His dialogue is another issue, partially due to the performances, but also with his direction. This isn't because his direction is not cinematic, but rather because in a way it isn't stylish enough to support the stylized, stagy, dialogue. Lynch, the Coens, Tarantino all have stylized dialogue, but they make it "digestible" by making the "world" fit the that dialogue through their direction. Mamet goes for a realism in terms of his overarching direction, particularly in terms of that visual direction, which doesn't fit with his dialogue which is so obtuse at times.

Anonymous:

I think it is less so that they're directed by Mamet himself, though that is part of it, and more so that it is Mamet's vision from conception onward. I don't think his particular form of idiosyncratic storytelling *quite* works for film. He definitely has something to offer, Glengarry is great, as is his screenplay for The Verdict. I think it's best if he's a collaborator though rather than the sole voice for a film whether writing or directing. Honestly I'd kind of like to see him direct someone else's screenplay.

Anonymous said...

Louis: Interestingly enough, when casting the voices for the X-Men characters in TAS, the producers had in mind the voices of these actors: Fredric March for Professor X, Clint Eastwood for Wolverine, Donna Reed for Jean Grey, Robert Redford for Cyclops, Robert Mitchum for Cable and John Vernon for Magneto. How do you think these actors would have fared in live-action if these characters had been created in their prime (well some of those actors)?

Luke Higham said...

Louis: Your top ten ensemble casts of the 80s, 90s and 00s.

Also, I'm really surprised The Hateful Eight is not on your list.

Louis Morgan said...

Anonymous:

March in Seven Days of May mode, both in terms of appearance and performance would be kind of perfect.

The man with no name clearly heavily influenced Wolverine so of course Eastwood would've been great.

Reed doesn't seem like an overly obvious choice, but I could sort of see it, I guess.

Mitchum quite honestly would be the only choice for a classic Cable.

I can see their sense in terms of Vernon's voice for Magneto however physically he doesn't seem right for the part. Unless of course we are just having Magneto as the neighbor to Xavier's school where he is constantly getting flustered by the students' antics, then he'd be perfect.

Luke:

Blame it on Zoe Bell's performance. Sounds like an extreme nitpick, but eh it's the small players that really determine the placement on the "best of the best" ensembles.

00's:

1. The Assassination of Jesse James By the Coward Robert Ford
2. Zodiac
3. In Bruges
4. No Country For Old Men
5. Master and Commander
6. The Proposition
7. The Royal Tenenbaums
8. Kiss Kiss Bang Bang
9. Before the Devil Knows You're Dead
10. The Two Towers

90's:

1. JFK
2. Glengarry Glen Ross
3. The Thin Red Line
4. Fargo
5. Goodfellas
6. Boogie Nights
7. Barton Fink
8. The Shawshank Redemption
9. Schindler's List
10. The Big Lebowski

80's:

1. Clue
2. The Princess Bride
3. My Left Foot
4. Back to the Future
5. Chariots of Fire
6. Blue Velvet
7. The Right Stuff
8. A Fish Called Wanda
9. A Christmas Story
10. Amadeus

Luke Higham said...

Louis: Have you seen any new releases.

Charles H said...

Louis: Your top 10 ensemble casts of the 70's and 60's.

Calvin Law said...

Louis: you finding anything weird with Westworld's sound mixing this season?

Anonymous said...

Louis: Your thoughts on the cinematography of Inception and The Dark Knight.

Matt Mustin said...

Saw Infinity War again. Still love it. All ratings remain the same except Vaughn-Lawlor who's definitely a solid 3 now.

Also, thinking back to Black Panther, Winston Duke is a 3.5 for that film now if he wasn't before.

Robert MacFarlane said...

As much as I loved Jordan in Black Panther (AKA the actual best MCU villain and not that CGI purple thumb), the performance I think about the most from the film is Sterling K. Brown's. He brings so much in such a little amount of time.

Tahmeed Chowdhury said...

Louis: Could John Candy go up to #1 or #2 for 87 Lead.

Louis Morgan said...

Charles:

70's:

1. Alien
2. The Godfather Part II
3. Apocalypse Now
4. One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest
5. The Deer Hunter
6. Chinatown
7. The Godfather
8. Dog Day Afternoon
9. The Friends of Eddie Coyle
10. All The President's Men

60's:

1. The Hill
2. Lawrence of Arabia
3. Doctor Zhivago
4. High and Low
5. Dr. Strangelove
6. Once Upon a Time in the West
7. The Innocents
8. A Man For All Seasons
9. Hud
10. The Wild Bunch

Anonymous:

Pfister's work with both film is fairly similar in both in terms of technique and success. It is actually rather interesting that in both films there are some very dynamic, and stunning individual shots however it is rare either film ever lets them sort of "soak" in. They are there and they are gone particularly quickly for shots at such grand scale. Obviously that has more to do with the editing, but it is important to note that there are standout shots in both films (Batman after the explosion, Joker in the police cruiser, Joker with the burned money, Joker's entrance...a lot of scenes with the Joker, and in Inception with Mal and Cobb near the water, the flooding mansion, the hallway fight) even if the films themselves don't really like to show them off for the most part. This is a good representation of his work in the films though. In both examples his work tends to be low key brilliant in a way. The framing and composition of any given scene tend to be rather remarkable in terms of creating dynamic visuals, however again rare does it bring attention to itself. Pfister's ability to maneuver, and realize grand VFX shots as part of the particle frame are always particularly streamlined, nearly flawless in their execution. The same is true for the lighting and color grading of both films. Both films he chooses a similar palette that emphasizes dark blues and browns. This successfully gives both films a definite vibrancy while maintaining that sort of general prestige (no pun intended) picture photography. It again is definitely stylized however once again in a way that amplifies the film without raising much of a fuss about it.

Calvin:

I haven't really noticed beyond the Bernard scenes which I'm pretty sure has been intentional.

Tahmeed:

Probably not.

Giuseppe Fadda said...

What are your ratings and thoughts on Alexis Bledel and Brittany Murphy in Sin City?

Anonymous said...

Louis: Think Gable could have worked in Newman's roles in The Hustler and Hud back in his prime?

Bryan L said...

Louis: Speaking of Blue Velvet, could Brad Dourif go up to a 3 for that film? He really is just window dressing, but I find it amusing how he goes from "Here today. Gone tomorrow..." to "It's right here Frank...do you want me to pour it?"

Calvin Law said...

Saw Deadpool 2, actually really enjoyed it besides the pre-credits sequence scenes, and a few jokes got a bit too indulgent but overall, what a hoot.

Reynolds: 4.5
Brolin: 4
Baccarin: 2.5
Dennison: 4
Beetz: 4
Miller: 2.5
Hildebrand: 2.5
Kapicic: 3
Soni: 3
Uggams: 3
Marsan: 2.5

Anonymous said...

Louis: Your thoughts on the Angels with Dirty Faces scene where Rocky kills Frazier and Keefer.

Anonymous said...

Louis: And also your top 10 ensembles of the 30's, 40's and 50's.

Luke Higham said...

Calvin: The mid-credits sequence may have been my all-time favourite credits scene.

Calvin Law said...

Luke: my bad, I was referring to the scenes preceding the first opening credits.

Luke Higham said...

Calvin: What did you think of the mid-credits scene. Good? Great?.

And I agree with your cast ratings.

Calvin Law said...

Luke: I had to leave before them unfortunately. But I'll probably be rewatching it.

Bryan L said...

Louis: Oh and your reason(s) for James Woods being your choice for Tony Stark in a 90s version of Infinity War? I would've guessed either Michael Douglas or Harrison Ford.

Michael McCarthy said...

90’s Tony Stark has to be Mel Gibson.

Calvin Law said...

Holy crap you guys were right about Harris on Westworld this season. Him, Simpson and Mullan killed it. Easily my favourite episode of the season.

Calvin Law said...

Also special mention to Jonathan Tucker who was pretty phenomenal.

Anonymous said...

Just out of curiosity, do you like stand up, Louis? If you like, do you have favorite stand up comedians? Who they are?

Louis Morgan said...

Saw Deadpool 2, rather it enjoyed it once it got going, basically once Cable showed up.

Reynolds - 4.5
Brolin - 4
Baccarin - 3
Dennison - 4
Beetz - 4
Miller - 3
Hildebrand - 2.5
Kutsuna - 2.5
Kesy - 2
Kapicic - 3
Marsan - 2.5(kind of wasted)
Uggams - 3
Soni - 3
Crews - 3
Delaney - 3.5

Giuseppe:

Bledel - 3
Murphy - 3.5

Anonymous:

Classic Cagney gun down which he always played with a certain glee, even with the somewhat sympathetic Rocky. It's great moment though in terms of being a bit of cathartic kill, notable for the code era, done with a bit style in that mirror shot when he takes down Bancroft. Plus you get a memorable "please down kill me" moment from Bogart who is always interesting to think of in weasel form.

50's:

1. Rashomon
2. On the Waterfront
3. A Streetcar Named Desire
4. Anatomy of A Murder
5. Stalag 17
6. Tokyo Twilight
7. The Quiet Man
8. Seven Samurai
9. The Ladykillers
10. Scrooge

40's:

1. It's a Wonderful Life
2. Rebecca
3. The Maltese Falcon
4. Children of Paradise
5. The Best Years of Our Lives
6. Odd Man Out
7. The Heiress
8. The Treasure of Sierra Madre
9. Quai Des Orfèvres
10. Stray Dog

30's:

1. The Wizard of Oz
2. Grand Illusion
3. Gone With the Wind
4. Angels With Dirty Faces
5. The Hunchback of Notre Dame
6. Mr. Smith Goes to Washington
7. The Awful Truth
8. Dinner At Eight
9. The Informer
10. You Can't Take It With You

Anonymous:

Yes for both as he could certainly match the charisma needed for the roles, and was capable of that darker edge. He never completely mixed them together, at least from what I've seen, but I'd say it was certainly possible.

Bryan:

Sure.

He had the right wry energy, however Michael is correct, the right choice was Gibson.

Calvin Law said...

Thoughts on the Deadpool cast Louis?

Calvin Law said...

Although maybe leave off a few just for the sake of those who haven't seen the film

Louis Morgan said...

Calvin:

Reynolds - (I'll admit I had some concerns coming in as it is easy to become tired or a caricature of your original performance in this sort of situation. Reynolds though managed to not only continue selling the most out of every snarky line, even the ones that don't quite work, some of the meta-references, he gives it his all to make them work. A great deal of them do work and again his energy, and timing here is great. My favorite comedic moment of his though is actually something in the mid-credits scene, which I won't get into. What really made the performance work though, which was also the case in the original film, was the dramatic element. Reynolds once again not only delivers in these moments to make some surprisingly moving scenes, but also so artfully bridges them with the rest of his irreverent work. A great reprise that surprisingly didn't lose any of the magic, which is a notable achievement as usually something is lost, but that's not the case here. There's actually more I could say, but I won't for the sake of spoilers.)

Brolin - (He's having quite the year in one of his three films as a man on a murder mission this summer. Brolin is essential to the film's success in my mind as he offers the needed alternative to Deadpool. This is in part being a straight man, and a fantastic one at that. Brolin's performance would work in serious Cable movie through the sheer intensity of his work, that also can be comical how it plays off of Reynolds. Brolin brings a real emotional investment within that though which is quite palatable in its power throughout particularly when he explains his motivation. Furthermore though Brolin goes a bit further though as I love the bit of wry humor he slowly fashions not to so much show a changing Cable, but rather as though he is finding his way of working around Deadpool.)

Dennison - (He is in many ways doing a reprise of Ricky Baker, but not quite. He actually manages to take Ricky little darker, and does so successfully. His work, while certainly amusing, does deliver the needed emotional intensity himself especially near the end of the film.)

Beetz - (Quite enjoyed her performance as she played it well by finding her own comedic path in a way by always emphasizing her Domino as just kind of it in it for the ride. She takes the right breezy approach that is rather enjoyable how she works off of Reynolds's more overt comedy and Brolin's overt intensity.)

Miller, Kapicic, Uggams - (All fine reprises for the most part although fairly limited, but still funny.)

Hildebrand - (A little too limited perhaps as she didn't really even get a chance to make an impression this time.)

Delaney - (The earnestness he brings to every single second he is onscreen is absolutely hilarious.)

Also glad to hear you also loved that episode.

Anonymous:

It isn't something I follow too closely, but I like Todd Barry.

Emi Grant said...

Louis: Thoughts on Beautiful Boy's teasers?

Mitchell Murray said...

Anyone have thoughts on the Shock and Awe trailer? Here's mine:

I'm both surprised and not that it took this long to get a movie about the Iraq War cover up. Its a sensitive topic, and if they pull it off the film could be excellent. As of now, it seems solid, and its great to see Rob Reiner behind and in front of the camera again. There's still a few iffy choices, Jessica Biel primarily, but from whats in the trailer it look particularly amazing nor anything terrible.

Louis Morgan said...

Emi Grant:

Can't tell much about the film itself however I will say Carell looks promising. Chalamet looks like he's giving a performance that needs more context, from the brief clips though he is reminding me of Shia LaBeouf (which is neither explicitly a good or bad thing, but it did make me think perhaps LaBeouf should have cast Chalamet as himself rather than Lucas Hedges.)

Mitchell Murray said...

Emi Grant: Well we've obviously haven't the last of Chalamet just yet, and I must say I'm really liking the choices Carell's been making lately.

Robert MacFarlane said...

I thought Chalamet and Carell both looked incredibly promising.

Anonymous said...

Louis: Your thoughts on this scene from The Strawberry Blonde:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Im11p4VN2A

Luke Higham said...

Louis: Your thoughts on The Man Who Killed Don Quixote's Cannes reception.

Luke Higham said...

Did anyone see the Royal Wedding.

Alex Marqués said...

Luke: no, but could I have your ratings/thoughts on the cast? :D

Luke Higham said...

Alex:
Hardy - 5 (My personal favourite actor working currently)
Mulligan - 5 (Nothing less for one of my crushes)
Clooneys - 4.5 (Amal looked really nice in Yellow)
The Beckhams - 3 (Does Victoria ever smile)
Corden - (I don't know why he was there)
Elba - (Didn't see him in the chapel)
Markle - 5 (I'll give it to her, she handled the occasion very well)

Special mention to the American bishop who caused quite a stir.

As well as the gospel choir with Stand By Me. :)

Calvin Law said...

Louis: your thoughts on the screenplay of Revanche. Was just re-watching it and boy did the simplicity yet complexity of its execution astound me this time round.

Anonymous said...

Louis: Your thoughts on the voices of Laura Dern, Veronica Cartwright and Lee Remick.

Bryan L said...

Louis: How do you think each of these actors would do in the title role of a 2018 version of The Swimmer?

Brad Pitt
Hugh Jackman
Jim Carrey (In dramatic actor mode)
Guy Pearce

If not any of these, who would be your pick?

Anonymous said...

Bryan L: Louis thinks Mel Gibson would add a new dimension to the story of The Swimmer, so he would go with him.
Louis: If both films had been made, which film do you think would have had the better cinematography: Kubrick's Napoleon or Leone's Stalingrad? Or do you think they would have been equally excellent?

Anonymous said...

Louis: What are your more detailed thoughts on Deadpool 2.

Luke Higham said...

Anonymous: I'm inclined to go with Kubrick's Napoleon. Barry Lyndon was already a starting point for what would've been even grander in terms of composition. Leningrad would've been amazing as well with its more uncompromising, stark depiction of a war-torn urban landscape.

Louis Morgan said...

Anonymous:

Wonderful scene with some particularly artful dancing around the Hayes code so to speak. Cagney and de Havilland having such great chemistry, with that wink of hers to sell the innuendo being one of absolute perfection.

Luke:

Well I quite liked Zero Theorem, which split critics, so I'm still hopeful even with the mixed reception. Doesn't seem like the well established directors did so well in Cannes though, aside from Spike Lee.

Calvin:

The screenplay is brilliant through that complex simplicity you mention. In terms of a more traditional quality sense it is well written in its unassuming, yet effective realization of the characters particularly Alex and his motivation from the opening to how it changes throughout. The way it is structured is particularly artful through the way it actually plays with a viewer's knowledge of really revenge tropes to realize a certain frame of thinking which it then subverts through its alternative approach/revelations. The realization of that subversion though is so special in that it creates the possibility of the more traditional revenge narrative but then using it for an alternative purpose and result. What's really rather special about this though is as written it never paints itself as a purposeful switch in an overt fashion, but realize as this natural progression through the growth of the characters.

Anonymous:

Dern - (Just a truly sweet natural voice, though I do no some who cannot tolerate her Jurassic Park mumbling, I don't mind.)

Cartwright - (Well technically that all time great scream/crying is part of her voice, which is worth noting all in itself for being something just so very special. Otherwise her voice is just something rather purely authentic.)

Remick - (Vivacious and alluring as any of them, though her voice manages to do this in a particularly unassuming and natural fashion.)

Bryan:

Brad Pitt - (Uh don't quite see it, even he has the right physique. Perhaps with the right director but there certainly would be a risk for bland Pitt at any time.)

Hugh Jackman - (Can see him, also the right physique, though also not a guarantee of greatness. Seeing charming Jackman fall apart though would be something to see if he pulled it off.)

Jim Carrey - (As a straight remake I don't see it. However if you reworked it as a standup comedian, who had gone big time in Hollywood, and is going around visiting his old comedy clubs there could be something there.)

Guy Pearce - (He'd be great, as Pearce with any decently written leading role.)

Anonymous:

I imagine they would've both looked great.

Anonymous:

Well as mentioned before I enjoyed it. I did think though it struggled a bit in the "pre-credits" scene in maneuvering between the comedic and dramatic tones. I think both worked separately well enough they just weren't quite cohering all that well. The madness once Cable showed up though I think is what made it all come together by so embracing the extremes both in terms of the comedy, which rightly became the overarching tone, with the dramatic spurts within that. Those dramatic moments all hit I felt, and then comedy which was rapid fire enough that I laughed enough to forgive some of the jokes that didn't work, since it moved right on. Also I will say the addition of David Leitch was certainly noticeable with the action that I would say was one clear upgrade over the original film. The original overall is more cohesive in all regards, however I felt the sequel succeeded in making the "bloated" nature of this type of sequel work by embracing the craziness of it all in the right way, while still maintaining a heart somewhere in there.

Luke Higham said...

Louis: Is the next review coming tonight or tomorrow.

Robert MacFarlane said...

I saw Disobedience. I actually really liked it. All three central performances are great (yes, including Weisz).

Calvin Law said...

Just looked it up, I hadn't heard of this but seeing as it's from the director of A Fantastic Woman, which was fantastic, I'm all the more interested now.

Mitchell Murray said...

Thoughts on the cast, Robert?

Also I just watched "Deadpool 2" and completely enjoyed it.

Reynolds - 4/4.5 (Truly perfect casting here and Reynolds avoids simply repeating his original performance. His charm and humour have only been increased as well as the new found emotional depth within Wade.)

Brolin - 4 (Solid deadpan work from him thats appropriately funny, as well as quietly affecting in certain scenes.)

Beetz - 3.5 (I could definitely go for more of her Domino as she's quite fine in the part.)

Hildebrand/Miller - 3 (Decent reprisals and thats pretty much it.)

Dennison - 3 (I don't think he nails every comedic beat but he has his moments, particularly in the God of War inspired revenge sequence.)