Monday 15 October 2018

Alternate Best Supporting Actor 1975: Richard Dreyfuss in Jaws

Richard Dreyfuss did not receive an Oscar nomination, despite being nominated for a BAFTA, for portraying Matt Hooper in Jaws.

As with any masterpiece there is not a single factor that makes Jaws one of the best films ever made. There are several elements working in tandem to realize this achievement. As much as Jaws is a technical and directorial achievement in its creation of the horror of a shark, it goes beyond any average monster film through the characters that ground it into reality. In Jaws we have the three men who eventually become the motley crew of the boat the Orca tasked to kill the titular Jaws. I have previously reviewed Roy Scheider for his understated yet dynamic leading turn as Chief Brody, and Robert Shaw for his turn as the old haunted shark hunter Quint, which I consider the greatest supporting turn ever given. I have been remiss though to forget the third part of this triangle in Dreyfuss's Matt Hooper. The then young hotshot performer makes his presence known as a visitor to the shark terrorized island as an expert in the field from the mainland. Although Hooper has the least personally invested in the hunt for the Shark he is an essential ingredient within story.

Before the three meet up though Hooper is initially introduced as the expert sent over from the mainland to offer some insight on the shark attacks. Although all three of the men are in some form a atypical on the island of Amity  with Brody hating the water as well as not being from the island originally, and Quint being Quint, Hooper is perhaps the most obvious in this regard. This is beautifully represented in his first scene as the not particularly tall man arrives at the port, where groups of amateur shark hunters dangerously make their way out the sea. Dreyfuss is great here by very much playing into being as much of a Richard Dreyfuss as he can be. Dreyfuss in doing so perfectly embodies sort of a proper city folk who just doesn't quite fit in a setting filled with plenty of yocal locals. This is not a problem for Hooper, as evidenced by Dreyfuss's wonderful approach to really just to embrace sort of that affluent upbringing in his sunny yet rather ego driven demeanor. It would be pretty easily to make Hooper quite unlikable quickly, but Dreyfuss takes such a pitch perfect approach from the start. As like Shaw and Scheider, he simply from his first frame is Hooper.

Dreyfuss's performance is primed with this certain insatiable energy which he fashions so well. In that he makes it honest to the man who is there to do a job, and so naturally infused in his general manner as he first arrives. Dreyfuss uses this brilliantly though in the way it creates a certain passion within the character, and a humor in his interactions with others. As immediately when he arrives and asks Brody about seeing the remains of the victim his desire to do so is delivered so well by Dreyfuss's determined delivery as a man who clearly cares. This is less evident as he tries to help the chief by telling a group of men not to overload a boat, Dreyfuss's smile as he murmurs to himself "They're all going to die" with more than little bit of derisive self-satisfaction in the sentiment. Dreyfuss treads this fine line here as he is always nearly insufferable as Hooper quickly combats the townspeople, but never quite goes over it. This is through both again that passion, the humor, but also the humanity he does bring to the character. There is a great moment early on where he is performing his own autopsy on the first victim where Dreyfuss's reaction of reserved horror at the sight of it is exceptionally performed revealing a man who cares rather than just an ego.

Dreyfuss's initial dynamic actually is specifically with Scheider as Brody. The two are wonderful together in creating just this natural warmth in their interactions as each look at each other with a great mutual respect. The way the two play together in a scene though is terrific though with Dreyfuss making Hooper a firebrand of sorts against the mostly reserved Brody. Dreyfuss brings such a great enthusiasm in moments as he discusses the sharks, and his experiences. I love one moment though where he discusses his family's wealth, and Dreyfuss brings just the right touch of nearly a bit of shame on the matter against Brody's genuine curiosity. This balances so well against the moments where the two try to convince the town's mayor (Murray Hamilton) about the dangers of the shark, and that they should close the beach. Where Scheider makes Brody's disagreements passionate yet cordial, Dreyfuss provides excellent contrast, as he delivers every frustration. Dreyfuss takes it a step further than anger though with this annoyed disbelief at the stupidity, with yes a bit of an ego again, but at this point rather earned in his "I'm smarter than you" attitude at this point.

Of course all that Dreyfuss does before the film's third act is just a warm up once he and Shaw finally share the screen. The two evidently did not get along on set, and this perfectly plays into their scenes together with the young upstart against the aging vet, both in terms of the characters and the actors.  Dreyfuss is so good with Shaw, though it is perhaps in a way playing at each other than directly with each other at times in the best of ways. This is from their first great moment where Quint grabs Hooper's arms to comment on his "city hands". Dreyfuss's flustered reaction is perfection setting up the right type of antagonism, as it isn't just annoyance, but also this certain defiant spark that will help to define their relationship. This all the while with Scheider providing the perfect mid-ground as Brody. They are marvelous together in every moment by how vibrant they make every interaction as we just get to know the three men as they try to kill the blasted shark. Dreyfuss is fantastic in his part using every moment to his advantage. This is in the alliance with Quint where Dreyfuss delivers this great petulance early on always showing his bits of defiance, and competition. One moment from this is where he just makes childlike gesture insults, without Quint seeing, after being given an order, which is very funny, yet also comes so naturally within Dreyfuss's performance making just seem like something Hooper would do. One of my favorite moments though is in their competition of sorts where Quint drinks down a beer then crushes a beer, causing Hooper to do the same with his beer, the difference is it is in a paper cup. Dreyfuss's reaction is what makes this so hilarious as he stares with determination presenting Hooper's conviction to match Quint at every point. Again though this is never overdone in irreverence, as their moments of clashing over expertise or how to kill the shark, Dreyfuss again brings such a genuine passion once again. His deliveries and manner create the right color to the character, who he makes humorous yet never a cartoon. This is also found through the process of the hunt which Dreyfuss's work helps to characterize in a way by easing up the humor the more dire the situation becomes. Now one of the best acted scenes of all time is the famed Indianapolis speech by Robert Shaw, that includes what Scheider and Dreyfuss are doing. Dreyfuss is great himself first in the moment pre-speech where he and Shaw capture the right camaraderie finally as the two compare scars with the right glee. Although this is a definite shift the two make this moment of friendship feel earned as the two similair spirits come out so naturally within their interactions. Dreyfuss's best moment in the scene though is where he comments on the scar that was formerly a naval tattoo that signified the Indianapolis. Dreyfuss's shift from laughing, as Hooper makes an innocent joke about what the tattoo might have been, to seriousness is brilliantly performed. He captures so well the understanding in Hooper once he realizes what Quint's experience had been in a seconds notice with barely saying a word. Throughout the scene Dreyfuss's reactions provide all the more weight and impact to the story in his reactions that signify Hooper's own horror at hearing the first hand account as well as the right empathy as he comes to fully understand the man. After that scene the petulance of Hooper is essentially gone in Dreyfuss's performance as he shifts to a more mature presence. He also shows a greater passion in the moments of action doing so well in suggesting the man's own growing need to kill the shark, after treating it more as a curiosity at first. Dreyfuss too is great in portraying the gradual growth in desperation as they run out of options. Dreyfuss is especially powerful in his harried delivery "You got any better suggestions?" before he is going to try to poison the shark as a last resort. I also love those final moments with Shaw, as the two in the end finally exude their own respect just in the way the performers interact. Their arc to this is never spelled out in dialogue yet both Shaw and Dreyfuss wholly earn this change away from antagonism. Although Dreyfuss has perhaps the least emotional role of the three, he too gives a great performance. His chemistry with Shaw and Scheider is perfection, though in very different ways, and as they do with their characters, Dreyfuss helps to make Hooper a compelling and vivid character in his own right that goes far beyond being one of the shark hunters.

92 comments:

Tahmeed Chowdhury said...

I'm glad he got raised to a 5, brilliant work.
Louis: Ratings and thoughts on Lorraine Gary and Murray Hamilton?

Anonymous said...

Louis: your top 10 michael mando acting moments

Anonymous said...

Louis: your thoughts on the screenplay, cinematography, score and direction of the green mile

Luke Higham said...

Louis: I really hope you'll have this lineup completed by Friday, as I'm heading to Barcelona on Sunday.

Luke Higham said...

Louis: And thoughts on the cinematography of Harry Potter 4-8 and Fellowship Of The Ring, Two Towers and Return Of The King.

Luke Higham said...

Louis: Have you rewatched The Man In The Glass Booth.

Luke Higham said...

Colman's in Lead and Stone & Weisz are in Supporting for The Favourite.

Anonymous said...

Stone's a huge category fraud and putting Colman in Lead is a big mistake. She could get nominated but I think she would've been a lock to win for Supporting.

Luke Higham said...

Louis: Foster and Reilly are going Lead.

RatedRStar said...

Luke: Where did you hear that Foster and Reilly are going lead?

Luke Higham said...

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/race/oscars-campaigns-decide-lead-supporting-acting-categories-1151124

Anonymous said...

Louis: Your thoughts on the direction and screenplay in Jaws

Luke Higham said...

Louis: Your updated predictions for Picture, Director and all 4 acting categories with your reasons why.

Psifonian said...

I actually think Colman can win regardless of her placement. Yes, she almost was guaranteed the win in Supporting Actress, but she stands a very strong chance of winning in Lead. Gaga is already going to be nominated for Original Song and voters will be cognizant of that, and I think that they'll reward her there as both a makeup win for 2015 and a consolation prize for missing Best Actress. If she wins SAG, then maybe I'll reconsider, but I suspect most of the voters in that branch will want to back an actress rather than a musician dipping her toes into that pool, regardless of the quality of the performance.

Which brings me to Glenn Close, who is a seven-time loser . . . but I never got the sense there was a whole lot of passion for her in the industry. Respect, yes, but between 1988 and 2011 she was completely off the grid for the Academy, and I do think there's a lot of "what have you done for me lately?" out there. Albert Nobbs was the passion project that she'd been working on bringing to the screen for almost thirty years and it almost went nowhere, with her co-star reaping more praise than she did. The Wife may boast "career-best" reviews, but that's an easy catch-all term people like to throw around anyway to generate hype. SPC can work the "Glenn is overdue" angle, but it's not gonna be like it was with Julianne Moore, who had no real competition, or even Jeff Bridges, whose film netted another acting nod as well as another win.

Colman, meanwhile, has the role, the raves and the film. And she's not exactly a nobody; she's the quintessential character actress who finally hit it big in the last few years and attained leading lady status. She's headlined critically acclaimed series, she's won a slew of awards over the last few years so she is well-known to industry voters, she's about to be the face of Netflix's biggest show which is poised to be promoted just as voting heats up, she's almost assured to have the BAFTA on her side as well as the Comedy Globe, and the role is just that damned showy. Imagine the thinkpieces paralleling her portrayals of the regal, poised Queen Elizabeth and the daffy Queen Anne. I've seen people say she's surrendered an easy win, but Fox Searchlight aren't dummies. They know what they're doing. I think the second that they heard that A Star Is Born was running in Drama at the Globes, they pounced. Now Gaga and Close are forced to fight for a crucial industry prize (in terms of profile), while Colman claims hers without incident. With that and BAFTA, and potentially BFCA as well, all she'd need is SAG. And Colman exemplifies the sort of diligent, hardscrabble, rising-through-the-ranks success that actors respect a great deal, and if the film does as well as I think it will, she'll reap the benefits because people will want to reward not just her, but the movie.

RatedRStar said...

Colman will definately win the Globe for Comedy, most likely the Bafta, but I really think Gaga is a pretty firm favorite to win the Oscar itself at the moment.

RatedRStar said...

The people campaigning Ben Foster have made a terrible mistake having him go lead I think, same with Reilly, both should have gone supporting, supporting actor is so weak lol whereas Best Actor is too strong.

Luke Higham said...

RatedRStar: I agree with you.

Psifonian: Yeah, there's no way her work in The Wife is more memorable than Dangerous Liaisons or Fatal Attraction.

RatedRStar said...

I am hearing a lot of whispers about Rami Malek and Christian Bale, they seem to be rising on a lot of peoples predictions, I wonder if some people have already seen their films.

Luke Higham said...

RatedRStar: Well, Malek's been getting an awful lot of buzz from preview screenings and he's been considered easily the highlight of Bohemian Rhapsody.

With Bale, been nominated 3 times previously and the Cheney transformation quite frankly is more convincing than Oldman as Churchill last year.

Calvin Law said...

Well Foster going lead removes a strong case of category fraud, but just about removes all chance of him winning. And with Cooper moving to Drama I actually think Malek could win the Golden Globe.

RatedRStar said...

Calvin: Bohemian Rhapsody is going drama at the globes, so nope Malek and Cooper will compete against each other.

Luke Higham said...

RatedRStar: Where's Vice gonna go at the Globes.

Calvin Law said...

Oh right. In which case...

Mortensen or Redford?

RatedRStar said...

Luke: I dont know but surely comedy, there will be no nominees lol haha.

RatedRStar said...

Calvin: I forgot about Mortensen, Green Book could be, in the same way Driving Miss Daisy went comedy, I reckon both could, Mortensen will surely win that category if he goes in there unless Bale goes there 2.

RatedRStar said...

This is all just opinion of course until the SAG and Globe nominations occur, I feel like Mortensen is the only person that can challenge Cooper at this minute in time, Cooper looks like a dead cert to win at the moment, Dafoes film has not really getting the reviews it really could have, so he is basically flying the flag for his film on his own and needs critic awards I feel.

Anonymous said...

Louis: Your thoughts on the screenplay of Videodrome and production design of The Fly.

Mitchell Murray said...

Psifonian: As someone who recently reviewed Close for "Albert Nobbs", I too am doubting her chances this year. A nomination most likely, but I think there are more notable performances that are waiting just around the corner.

Anonymous said...

Does anybody see those mainstream dark horse nominations appearing as some seem to think in regards to Michelle Yeoh and Michael B.Jordan?

Charles H said...

Anonymous: I feel the categories are mostly locked with those that we've discussed. I don't think any one else has enough steam to make past the critic awards.

Calvin Law said...

Yeoh could get in. Jordan would be a huge dark horse.

Also, just to say loved this detailed review of Dreyfuss Louis. The writing behind Hooper is definitely the best change made through adaptation.

Bryan L. said...

This speculation is just for fun, but what if Foster campaigning for Lead is a reverse psychological tactic? In that everytime he's been in the running for a nomination, it's been in the Supporting category (though I'm not sure if he came close for The Messenger.)

And every citation he has received has been as Supporting. Maybe going double or nothing might do the trick :o :)

Psifonian said...

Just saw "The Wife."

In the midst of #metoo, the gender pay-gap and the importance of female inclusion in the creative workspace, "The Wife" comes out at the perfect time, as outrage at the injustices against women in both professional and personal settings has reached a fever pitch. And certainly, it is a film that relies on that fiery indignation to work—even the title, which reduces the primary character to a domestic label, is designed to incense.

Said character is Joan Castleman (Glenn Close), the quintessential dutiful supportive spouse. Her husband Joe (Jonathan Pryce) is a renowned author who, in the film’s first scene, gets the news that he has been awarded the Nobel Prize for Literature. The Castlemans are flown to Sweden, where Joe is feted as a genius at parties and galas while Joan quietly simmers with the other wives, listening to mundanities while their husbands are worshipped for their genius.

Joan, however, is not like them, as we find out when the film shifts to flashbacks of the early ‘60s, at the start of their relationship. Back then, Joan was a wide-eyed student who showed great promise as a writer in her own right. She draws the attention of her professor, who turns out to be the young Joe Castleman, and they begin an affair. As these flashbacks fill in the gaps, in the present day, Joan’s resentment of her husband begins to take shape, especially when a muckraking journalist (Christian Slater) eager to dig up dirt on her husband comes into the picture, and soon it becomes clear that perhaps Joe isn’t the genius that people think he might be . . . and that the title might very well belong to Joan.

The film has been bandied about as the vehicle to finally clinch Glenn Close her long-eluded Academy Award (after six unsuccessful bids). Certainly, the film spends a lot of time focusing on her face, the way that her lips press together into a grimace whenever she hears someone extol her husband’s praises or the way her eyes flash with steely irritation when she spies evidence of Joe’s philanderings (because of course, he does!). Even when Close is allowed to let loose, it still is done in a very low-key fashion. In the face of showier performances this year, I am not certain this will be the one to secure her spot on the stage come Oscar night.

For his part, Jonathan Pryce is decent in a role that lends itself to—and unfortunately bogs down into—cliche, and unfortunately the script suffers from the same issues. You can see every single plot point coming a mile off. Annie Starke and Harry Lloyd do very well with the younger incarnations of the main characters, and honestly I feel their machinations were far more interesting to watch. Elizabeth McGovern has a nice one-scene wonder as a miserable author who makes a striking impression on the young Joan. But it’s the Glenn Close Show from start to finish, in all that such a label entails. You’re going to get good work, verging on great at times, but it’s work you’ve seen variations of before, and in a project that would be rather rickety without her.

TL;DR: There is no way this film would engender any passion on its own. It'll entirely be because Glenn Close is overdue. The performance is nothing new from her.

Louis Morgan said...

Tahmeed:

Gary - 3.5(Her performance is interesting in that she is both naturally awkward, and awkwardly natural. In that there is something that isn't quite typical in both a way that works, but also is noticeable. Her performance definitely works yet stands out in a peculiar way at times.)

Hamilton - 4(I always enjoy whenever Hamilton pops up as he's got a great sleazy method with his performances. He does it with such conviction of just owning the sort of politician speak with his weak grins when trying to convince Brody about keeping the beaches open. As much as he's good at being a despicable jerk, he's also quite in his one scene of remorse portraying as a state of near shock where he naturally shows the mayor finally feeling guilt for his actions.)

Anonymous:

Mando:

1. Telling his father who he is
2. Nacho's "Fake" injuries
3. Hector coming to see his father
4. The raid
5. Hiring Mike to kill Tuco
6. Hector demanding his father work for him
7. Gus's threat
8. His father's questions
9. Switching the pills
10. The new boss

Anonymous:

The Green Mile's screenplay is Frank Darabont very much embracing Stephen King, which is fine when it is a far less loopy work of his. This is perhaps the detriment to some as the problems some have with the film are mostly within the source material. For them to be removed it frankly would just be a different story. Darabont does some minor refinements in reducing the framing device, which is better than another "old Hanks???" framing device yet still is probably the least interesting part of the film. Darabont reduces though to serve its purpose and thankfully does not interrupt the main narrative with it. The main narrative which he keeps mostly intact particularly in terms of the details towards every prison guard, every prisoner, and every situation. This of course leaves the film as a particularly long adaptation, some may say bloated, however I for love the vivid detail it grants the Green Mile in every respect, granting a far more emotional journey. Darabont to his credit also does make the right cuts here and there in the material, some in terms of a few excesses, to keep the film from becoming cumbersome. This is since we really know each and every character through those details Darabont's screenplay maintains. Plus the addition of "Top Hat" is perhaps Darabont's finest contribution beyond what was there in King's text.

Louis Morgan said...

The Green Mile's cinematography is a step down from the previous Darabont/King prison film, but that happens when you go from Deakins to the guy who shot Theodore Tex. I really shouldn't make fun though as David Tattersall does some fine work even if it is not nearly as majestic or atmospheric as what Deakins did. It is fine work though capturing sort of the general pristine look of the time, with a bit of overt styling in the realization of Coffey's powers scene that are well done. Tattersall's work is consistently fine and serves the film well. It is never beyond that, but it certainly not less than that either.

Again perhaps not quite as memorable as that other prison film, but this time with the same man behind it with Thomas Newman. Newman's score though is again beautiful finding a similair gentle melodic quality with unassuming, yet powerful use of orchestration. Here he adheres a certain southern melancholy of sorts that is beautifully rendered in his poignant work. It is lovely work that captures a certain mysticism and haunting quality in its modest methods. Wonderful work to be sure.

Frank Darabont's direction is sometimes viewed curiously, given his lack of sort catchy shots, but I would never ever call him workmanlike. In fact despite the popularity of his two first films his direction may be underrated in a certain sense. In that what he achieves here is notable in finding this delicate balance in the material. This is in terms of the emotional which he mines, but never feels overtly manipulative even when the film is at its most extreme. He manages to grant a reality to the story while directing the moments of mysticism with genuine care to adhere them to this reality. His work honestly is rather gentle sort of poetic in the way it distances itself at times, while bringing you right into the heart of it at others. He fashions with such care, and technical precision without tilting his hand unless it is needed. For example the botched execution is a truly horrifying scene thanks to Darabont's work that does not hold back from depicting the cruelty of the moment. Though the lack of fussiness of his approach may lead to some sniffy attitudes towards his work, it feels absolutely right for the material.

Louis Morgan said...

Luke:

Goblet of Fire - (Of a film with a lot of problems the cinematography isn't really one of them, except really in some instances where it is likely Roger Pratt had to deal with some terrible ideas by Mike Newell such as everything with the ball that is so bizarrely shot. The rest of the time though there is some fine work on display though certainly now aping what Seresin had done with the previous film. It's aping though isn't at all bad capturing a definite atmosphere, even if it's not nearly dynamically shot.)

Order of Phoenix - (This features a notable shift again adhering to the designs of David Yates for the series to bring it to a darker tone, which continues on today with Fantastic Beasts. Slawomir Idziak's achievement is notable as it doesn't ape Seresin but rather takes the series to an even darker place. This is definitely in terms of the lighting that is far moodier than ever before, throughout the film now. This combined though with the compositions that are often far more off-putting purposefully, and at a grander scale in general. This work well in sort of pulling towards the climax of the series, even if it is perhaps a bit less magical.)

Half-Blood Prince - (Now the very talented Bruno Delbonnel takes that aesthetic even further, perhaps too far one might argue, as the film becomes even darker, and more grandiose in the shots. I would say this approach might not have worked if it had not been for someone as talented as Delbonnel is. His work is dark here, but still visually stunning particularly the scenes of Dumbledore and Harry's quest that turn often look like a medieval fantasy painting. I would say there could been a bit more balance with just how dark every shot is, but at least every shot is well shot in that darkness.)

The Deathly Hallows - (Eduardo Serra comes in to finish the job still adhering to that Yates aesthetic of moodiness. His work isn't nearly as dark as Delbonnel, and I mean that literally, it also isn't quite as remarkable at times. It is perhaps more balanced though in a certain sense adhering closer to what Idziak did. Serra isn't quite a successful there either, but I should critique too much as it is still good work. It isn't nearly as dynamic though almost being an in-between of sorts that avoids the extremes, and the heights of his predecessors. It is well shot in both instances that each carry the same style(obviously since it is really one film.).

Luke:

Picture:

I have no idea what will win by the way. As almost every film has something to knock against it in terms of traditional or even as new winners, to which I've highlighted.

If Beale Street Could Talk (Moonlight just won)
A Star is Born (Backlash forthcoming)
Green Book (Backlash Forthcoming)
First Man (Though I'm personally passionate about it, the reaction largely seems more of respect than passion a la Dunkirk.)
Roma (Netflix and foreign language. Mudbound gained ground with Netflix but still missed on in picture. Is there next step really to the win, I don't know as there is a definite anti-streaming contingent in Hollywood)
The Favourite (His most digestible film evidently but still extremely idiosyncratic.)
Widows (Touch too populous perhaps)
Vice (Seems unlikely a film about Dick Cheney would ever win best picture)
Can you Ever Forgive Me (Support for actor(s) nod like Philomena)

Now my sort of semi-risky choice is Vice right now, which has no reviews, but McKay's last film did well with plenty of negative notices throughout the season. So unless it is a disaster I think it can get in.

Blakkklansman seems to be fading a bit (initial buzz was around it being the best reviewed contender at *that* time). It only takes a precursor recognition to change that though, however Spike Lee's never been that much of a favorite with even the critics groups (perhaps due to his prickly personal nature).

Louis Morgan said...

Director:

Alfonso Cuaron - Roma (Winner)
Damien Chazelle - First Man
Barry Jenkins - If Beale Street Could Talk
Bradley Cooper - A Star is Born
Yorgos Lanthimos - The Favourite

Chazelle and Jenkins both got the reception they needed for them to be welcomed back, especially since their work was noted for each. Lanthimos could easily get the passionate votes as well, as there has already been a vein of support in the Academy for him. Cuaron I'd say is definitely in for a nomination given how vocal the reviews have been towards Roma as this great directorial achievement. This could translate to a win, again Netflix/Foreign Language is his barrier. Cooper has the narrative, though who knows he could pull an Affleck, but I doubt it.

Lee himself I would say is his greatest barrier, as he definitely won't play ball, and could dismiss his competition as he's done in the past. Like when he got runner-up at Cannes. That could hold him and the film back.

Green Book seems like a non-director nominee even if it is beloved. Adam McKay, Steve McQueen, and Marielle Heller I think could be the ones waiting in the wings.

Actor:

Viggo Mortensen - Green Book (Winner, NGNG)
Bradley Cooper - A Star is Born
Willem Dafoe - At Eternity's Gate
Ryan Gosling - First Man
Christian Bale - Vice

With those placement switches this category has gotten extremely competitive, and with that there could always be the passion spoilers with say someone like Foster or Hawke getting despite their smaller films. Redford doesn't campaign which will definitely now hurt him. Eastwood showing up doesn't help things for him either as if the Mule's good he's definitely in the running. There's also Reilly, Malek, Hedges, maybe even Jackman or Carell floating around. It's now stacked.

So for my nominees, I'd say Mortensen is in for that nom, given he was already a sole nom twice. With support I think he could go for that win even with steep competition. The steepest in Cooper, who could win a la Clooney for Syriana, though the Academy doesn't always do this. If A Star is Born maintains its current momentum I'd say he will win, we'll see how much backlash there is for it. Dafoe is hanging around for now, but his film, though not disliked, just doesn't seem like it will have the support. He'll need full critical support, and then that still might not be enough. As long as First Man performs Gosling's in I'd say, the nature of his performance probably will keep him from any wins once again. Bale again needs Vice to be at least okay. The level of transformation and the ease he got in for the Big Short, suggests his path might not be too difficult. I doubt he can win though.

Louis Morgan said...

Actress:

Olivia Colman - The Favorite (Winner)
Lady Gaga - A Star is Born
Melissa McCarthy - Can you Ever Forgive Me
Viola Davis - Widows
Kiki Layne - If Beale Street Could Talk

Yeah no Close for me either as these "let's just give it to em" usually requires weaker competition in at least some way (not necessarily quality). Sometimes the one even misses out, when given that expectation initially, like Oprah for the Bulter. Colman on the other hand is primed to be a critical juggernaut, translation to win isn't automatic though as Gaga will definitely have support, and I can see McCarthy being more of an contender than might be expected. Davis has enough of the reviews to find her way in. Layne needs her film to perform, which I'm predicting so she's in as well.

Supporting Actor:

Daniel Kaluuya - Widows (Winner)
Richard E. Grant - Can You Ever Forgive Me
Sam Elliott - A Star is Born
Marhershala Ali - Green Book
Sam Rockwell - Vice

Ali, and Rockwell can get some nice afterglow. I'd say Ali is far more certain though as Vice, again, needs to be considered good. Elliott will be part of a potential juggernaut, and has build up a lot of good will over his recent run. My contenders for the win, at the moment, are Grant and Kaluuya. Grant has the reviews, and the film to back him up. If it over performs along the way he could go for the win. Kaluuya definitely has the reviews (Anton Chigurh comparisons after all), and the potential welcome to the club afterglow himself. I've heard some doubters but with some really nonsensical logic where they praise his performance, but still insist he won't get in. Perhaps forgetting the sweep of villainy from 07-09 in the category?

As for the snubs, Chalamet does not have the film to support him, and he desperately needs precursors. Then again I could see him get in only based on expectation then still miss out in the end. Adam Driver I don't think will be a thing unless Blackkklansman really is a thing. Jordan needs all the support possible to get in, but I really doubt it at the moment.

Supporting Actress:

Claire Foy - First Man (Winner)
Regina King - If Beale Street Could Talk
Amy Adams - Vice
Emma Stone - The Favourite
Rachel Weisz - The Favourite

Yeah going to double down on the Favourite as both have the reviews. My alternative would be Kidman for Boy Erased, however that film seems to be quickly losing steam, she's very well liked though. Again Vice needs to be good, but Adams ought to get that next nomination sometime. She could win if she does it. Or it will come down to what film the academy likes more with Beale Street and First Man with two recent Emmy winners going toe to toe. First Man probably already has the sounds, probably editing and maybe score though, so that could actually potentially help King instead.

Calvin:

Thanks.

Bryan L. said...

Louis: Do you think Robbie and Ronan could still get nominations for Mary Queen of Scots? Some welcome-to-the-club afterglow for Robbie and they LOVE Ronan.

Oh and do you think Emily Blunt might have a chance for Mary Poppins/A Quiet Place? I feel like she's been heading towards that first nomination for awhile.

Louis Morgan said...

Bryan:

If it's good yes, but right now I'm banking on it to be the flop, then again that could be Vice or maybe neither. If it is good, or even decent, I'd put Ronan in over probably Davis actually, and Robbie over Weisz.

I don't see Blunt making it past the globes for Mary Poppins. She had a very far outside chance for A Quiet Place in supporting, but since she's going lead it only hurts her chances for Poppins. If it was a less stacked category I think she'd have a chance for Poppins, but there's too much competition I'd say.

Anonymous:

Haven't forgotten about you, will get to those thoughts.

Matt Mustin said...

I hope if Green Book does well at the Oscars that the trailer is not indicative of it's quality, because I think it looks dreadful.

Robert MacFarlane said...

Matt: Same. I am so done with Driving Miss Daisy/Blind Side-styled racial narratives made to pacify white people.

Robert MacFarlane said...

Louis: Concerning Kaluuya, the main reservation I've seen people make about his chances is that he's apparently only in it for around 10 to 15 minutes. I do think the impact and overall popularity of the performance will get him in, but it would take the Academy to do something cool for once to get him to win.

Robert MacFarlane said...

I should note: I agree Chalamet's chances are dead. In fact, I've actually heard from some people he's pretty mannered and unrestrained in a way that's turning people off. Also, the movie's reception just seems to drop each passing day.

Charles H said...

Matt: I know, it looks terrible & the acting doesn't look too impressive either. It seems like typical Oscar-bait with the same racial-narratives we've seen for so long that Robert mentioned.

Luke Higham said...

Louis: Your thoughts on the cinematography of The Lord Of The Rings Trilogy.

Tahmeed Chowdhury said...

Louis: Your top ten Richard Dreyfuss acting moments.

Bryan L. said...

Louis: Now that you've seen Dreyfuss in Inserts and rewatched him here, do you think he would've been a good fit for The Joker in a 70s version of The Dark Knight? He had the right energy it seems, and maybe a sociopathic turn from him could've been something special. He was the right age as well, though I don't know if he could've pulled off the accent.

Luke Higham said...

Louis: Of all the years you've done so far in the Bonus Rounds, which did you enjoy the most personally.

Anonymous said...

Louis: what are your thoughts on the 'half measures' and 'box cutter' scenes from breaking bad

Luke Higham said...

Louis: Your top ten films of 2018 so far.

Luke Higham said...

Louis: And your rating and thoughts on Bing Crosby in The Adventures Of Ichabod And Mr. Toad, as well as your thoughts on the Headless Horseman song.

RatedRStar said...

I disagree that Green Book looks bad, I actually liked Driving Miss Daisy for what it was, a character study on 2 people from completely different ways of thinking, its a tried and tested formula that works very often and with Viggo Mortensen being one of the best actors around and Mahershala Ali who has clearly got the talent, I think Green Book will be predictable but enjoyable.

Luke Higham said...

Louis: Do you intend on seeing Halloween (2018).

Mitchell Murray said...

Luke: I mean to see it in a couple days, though I can't speak for everyone else obviously.

Emi Grant said...

So, what's everyone's thoughts on A24's position in the middle of this year's Best Picture race?

They've made it in for the last 3 years, and it seems like Mid90s might be their best chance at getting in *if* it performs well.

Anonymous said...

Louis: Do you think that Cruise will still be a leading man in his 60's or do you think he'll transition into a character actor by that point?

Luke Higham said...

Anonymous: As an action star, he should be able to carry on if his body can handle it, age didn't stop Liam Neeson or Sylvester Stallone. He can still be a leading man in smaller films if he chooses too. I don't see him fully transitioning into more of a character actor until he's in his very late 60s to early 70s.

Matt Mustin said...

Louis: What are your thoughts on the production design of The Shining?

Luke Higham said...

Guys, What are your top ten Male performances that Louis hasn't seen or reviewed yet. Only Films BTW.

Anonymous said...

Luke: I can only think of three at the moment, Robinson in Dr. Ehrlich's Magic Bullet and Chaney in Hunchback and Phantom.

Luke Higham said...

Anonymous: I know you've given Robinson a 5, but what would you give Chaney for both performances.

Anonymous said...

Luke: They're both 5's, easily. Honestly, I don't know who I prefer as Quasimodo: Chaney or Laughton, so I guess they're equally great IMO.

Louis Morgan said...

Well here are some responses.

Robert:

That's interesting then since the limited screentime is also the doubt towards Elliott potentially winning. I ponder then if there is any true dark horse since I can't see Ali or Rockwell winning again so soon. Who knows, maybe Grant pulls it off.

Luke:

Well I don't really need to separate the three as the overarching choices are the same though the exact number of "great shots" is different per film, they are all filled with them. Andrew Lensie's work is one of the great assets of the series that is essential in terms of realizing the world of middle earth. This is the general composition of shots that seems to seek to evoke the art of essentially the middle earth John Howe and Alan Lee (also the film's production designers). This is beautifully realized shots that this grandeur within the setting. This is in terms of the composition and framing of shots, that often will emphasizes the size of the world, that seems to make the story all the more epic in nature. This is though balanced with dynamic intimate works when appropriate as well, not even specific to interiors. For example I love the obscured focus shot of the ring in the snow. Lensie's choices in terms of palette are essential in terms of granting both the reality and fantasy to the images (something that sadly became lopsided with the Hobbit). This is in terms of the use of color which is fairly subdued that grants a certain reality then to the fantastical structures and settings throughout the story. It also allows his work to play with the lighting in very particular way. Now of course he thankfully just makes use of lighting in a more naturalistic way at times to help realize the beauty of certain shots, but also tips the hand to the overt when specifically related to something mystical within Middle Earth. Whether this be the shadows in Mordor, or the more intense lighting signifying the more pleasant forms of magic. The work is also remarkable in its mostly seamless use of visual effects. It is a proper symbiosis as the visual effects amplify the cinematography, and cinematography grounds the visual effects. Lensie's work brilliantly sets a singular aesthetic then effectively plays with it to both capture the fantasy proper, while also grounding it in a certain reality.

Probably 73 lead, though that final ranking still troubles me.

Louis Morgan said...

Anonymous:

Steven Spielberg's work on Jaws is simply one of the great achievements of cinema, period. In someone else's hands it likely would have simply been an animal attack movie. The way he oversaw the film is as such as I might as well write about the screenplay at the same time. This is though Spielberg is not a credited writer he was essential in his position as director to shaping the adaptation. A group of writers contributed to this of course in the end including even Robert Shaw for his re-write of the Indianapolis speech, and even Roy Scheider deserves credit for ad-libbing one of the film's best lines. The adaptation was one of technically many cooks, however the recipe turned out so well because they all had to please Spielberg as the owner of restaurant. It was his designs that led to some of the fundamental improvements to adaptation some more general, adding humor more to the characters, and some major removal the unneeded subplots, the essential choice of making it so once the shark begins the three men don't return, and of course the shark exploding. The final screenplay, which still quite a bit different from the final film (for example Shaw's Indianapolis monologue is FAR superior), is a major improvement upon its source material already, however even that it is a facet in Spielberg's vision. That goes beyond the essential re-working of the script as his choices throughout the film are genius, some created by desperation yet genius nonetheless. Although the shark not working ended up being a happy accident, his choices to "create" the shark through the camera, barrels, broken dock, or even a blurry image make a far greater menace than any fake shark could. Of course that is just in the creating tension, which he does brilliantly throughout the film with so many incredible choices. This is in terms of balancing of tones knowing when to alleviate tension, when exactly to create. The method of which, whether it be the fakes outs in the second attack, and of course knowing how exactly to handle the attack itself. The use of the Vertigo zoom as the moment of realization is again just such brilliant choice. His grasp of tone is flawless though in the film is frightening, moving and hilarious. He maneuver this tone flawlessly through performances, and his own choices. He plays with it so well whether that granting a reprieve at times, but also playing with expectation such as having Bruce's first appearance off of a joke. Spielberg use of every asset he has, even those that are not working, is mostly unparalleled in terms of achievement. The final sequence of the Shark exploding can be used as formula for a moment of pure movie magic. Every shot choice, every edit is so naturally weaved together with John Williams's amazing score towards a climax of sheer perfection (that can make one immediately forget any doubts about the actual practicality of the explosion).

Louis Morgan said...

Anonymous:

Videodrome's screenplay, by David Cronenberg himself, begins with what is already a fantastic idea in the TV broadcast you're not suppose to see. It then is kind of two films in a way compact within one. One being a straight forward thriller of sorts of man uncovering a nefarious plot, which sets really the structure of the film, which is put through the ringer of the sort of surrealism of Max Renn's mental decay brought on by the central evil. The film is fascinating in this sense in that unlike many films of this ilk the sort of mad imagery all is directly related to the plot, and is actually wholly explained even as Cronenberg only gives us this information concurrently with Max leaving us within his head space for the majority of the film. Both aspects of the film intertwine to create a lurid plot amplified within Cronenberg's subtext that leave an appropriate social commentary within the film. An aspect I love in this is the avoidance of brazen speeches in its exploration who the villains plan to exterminate, the idea of extreme content, and one become literally absorbed into the world video. It explores these relevant themes yet never does so in overt fashion naturally realizes them, and even powerfully so while resisting the urge to point them.

The Fly's production design is an effective mix between Cronenberg's typical aesthetic of sort of modern rot that makes even an "average day life" stand out, and that of a bit overt sci-fi in the transportation machine. The machine is seemingly a low key design yet essential in its creation. In that it does look distinctive yet believable enough as perhaps what a transportation machine should look like. In that it isn't too far out in the approach that would be ill-fitting to the grounded monster film that is The Fly.

Anonymous said...

Louis: I'm not sure if he ever saw the film, but how high do you think the chances are that Raoul Walsh might have liked Bonnie and Clyde a lot? I always thought that he would have loved to direct such a film.

Also, I found out that Audrey Hepburn had played Gigi on Broadway and that Irene Dunne turned down a role in the film adaptation. Having not seen the film, I suppose that not even the two would have made it worth watching.

Louis Morgan said...

Tahmeed:

1. Indianapolis Speech - Jaws
2. Last Resort - Jaws
3. Autopsy - Jaws
4. Trying to kill it - Jaws
5. Meeting Quint - Jaws
6. Boy Wonder Directs for the first time - Inserts
7. Drinking contest - Jaws
8. "discussion" with the mayor - Jaws
9. Nature of drama - Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead
10. Morbid Idea - Inserts

Anonymous:

Half Measures scene is the scene that took Mike from an interesting mystery to a fascinating character. It is such a powerful moment delivered so by Banks as this combination of tragedy, dark inspiration, and menace.

Box Cutter on the other hand is such a visceral and brutally effective scene that so well sets the record straight for the viewer on just who Gus is. This is as before that point we had not seen him kill anyone directly so when he gets his hands dirty directly we suddenly wake up to see the villain he really is.

Bryan:

Yes, in fact I'd say he would've had just the right energy, and to be honest his actual voice isn't "too" far off the brilliant Tom Waits thing Ledger did.

Emi Grant:

I find it difficult to see any of their films making it despite their past records. As Eight Grade, and Mid90's both feel more "Indie Spirit" players than Oscars beyond maybe being original screenplay contenders. I mean there lack of picture contenders might be a good thing for Hawke and Collette, as they may become their focus, and how their categories are shaping up they'll need all the help they can get.

Anonymous:

I'd say he has a good ten years at least still as the action hero, given that he looks more mid-forties at this point. He'd probably do himself a favor though to explore more opportunities again though.

Anonymous said...

Also, excellent review. He really deserved the 5. He, Shaw and Scheider are just perfect.

Robert MacFarlane said...

I saw The Sisters Brothers. Mostly liked it. Reilly definitely deserves a review, he's never been better.

Jake Gyllenhaal needs to take a break.

Louis Morgan said...

Saw Halloween, have a few nitpicks, but overall liked it a great deal.

Luke:

Let me hold off on that top ten as I'm going to watch The Old Man and the Gun, and maybe Bad Times At the El Royale tomorrow.

Matt:

As with any Kubrick really the production design is stellar, however this is very exact horror it inflicts through its use of what is mundane, and finding patterns in that. This make it curiously off-putting. The design is sleek yet with these touches that make it so unnerving particularly the all red bathroom, and of course the bar.

Anonymous:

I'd say probably so as his gangster films all eschewed interest towards the gangsters rather than an overt condemnation.

No, I will say Hepburn would've helped slightly (due her charm/ability to strike up chemistry with anyone), but she couldn't have saved it.

Anonymous said...

Louis: your top 20 emma stone acting moments

Luke Higham said...

Thoughts on Halloween and ratings/thoughts on the cast.

Anonymous said...

Louis: Back in the late 40's, Ophuls planned to direct Garbo in an adaptation of Balzac's La Duchesse de Langeais. Of course, it was never made. I do believe that the screen tests were shot by James Wong Howe.

And after completing My Fair Lady, Cukor wanted to team up again with Hepburn for a live-action Peter Pan with her in the title role and Olivier as Captain Hook. It wasn't made because Disney threatened to sue IIRC.

Thoughts on these projects?

Anonymous said...

I just watched First Man and really dug it, as well as, or especially Gosling in it. It's such a tricky role since everybody knows Armstrong but at tge same time nobody knows much about the guy. I also liked that both Chazelle and Gosling didn't beef up the role for some Oscar clips if I may be a bit cynical.

I do wonder though, how do you see Gosling's career from here forward?

Louis Morgan said...

Anonymous:

Might as well wait until I see the Favourite.

Luke:

Halloween doesn't reinvent the slasher genre again, it rather just makes a very good slasher film keeping in mind that there needs to be thriller aspect instead of making just a pointless kill fest. Now this film actually script wise isn't "that" much better than a lot slasher films. The humor from the screenplay is a nice addition, the setup of making Michael "human" again is also a nice addition, and where they take Laurie is an interesting examination of what a survivor could look like from the first film. A lot of it though is some pretty basic slasher tropes with many characters frequently acting very dumb and there is an additional plot point that honestly just feels like a waste of time. I also have one major problem with the ending, which I won't get into now. What makes the film stand out in the genre IS David Gordon Green's direction which brings a real artistry to the material, as Carpenter did, which is what makes this film truly stand out. The way he makes Michael this force of evil again, yet still a human husk, is just brilliantly done by Green throughout creating such original sequences, in usually a tired genre, as well as clever plays on some old tropes.

Curtis - 4(Her performance is very much essential since not everyone is quite bringing their a-game performance wise. Curtis though is very effective in bring sort of that Sarah Conner confidence herself, while also bringing that needed additional edge. The edge of intensity that suggests a bit of madness in herself that goes beyond even in her intention to kill Michael.)

Greer - 1.5(Her performance is a real black hole as her two most important moment are just not at all well handled. She delivers each with such little emotion that just diminishes the whole impact of her character.)

Matichak - 3(In doing her own version of Curtis in the first film, I don't think quite left as much of an impact, but she's certainly effective in conveying the fear of her character effectively throughout. She also carefully doesn't overplay sort of the teen moments keeping a needed likability.)

Patton - 2.5(Sadly just doesn't get much to do, he's fine, but just does not have much to work with.)

Bliginer - 2.5(He's not Donald Pleasence in more ways than one. If you ask me they should have gotten Angela Pleasence to replace her father, now I think that could've left more of fan impression. As it is the archival material of Pleasence leaves a stronger impression than he does.)

Gardner - 3(I have to give not Emma Stone credit in that she leaves an actual impression with her performance for being really just fodder for Michael, being even likable within the context of the horny babysitter trope.)

Anonymous:

Well Garbo in anything else likely would have been something notable, and with Ophuls she would seem a perfect fit potentially. Having Howe as cinematographer is always another plus, shame it didn't get made.

Not sure about Cukor as director, though he's talented I'm not absolutely sure about his take on high fantasy at that point in his career. Having said that Hepburn certainly would be a good fit for the classical Peter Pan performance, and Olivier as Hook? Yes please!

Psifonian said...

Saw "Galveston" last night.

This film will immediately draw comparisons to the Lynne Ramsay’s shattering "You Were Never Really Here", and certainly most of those comparisons will be more on the underwhelming side, as Ramsay’s razor-sharp precision did so much to amplify Jonathan Ames’s spare text, whereas the adaptation of Pizzolatto’s terrific novel misses on a lot of the poetic introspection that is difficult to translate cinematically. Still, director Mélanie Laurent’s bruised, pulpy style brings a certain elegance to the tale of a dying mob enforcer and a troubled sex worker on the run.

Ben Foster’s Roy is a kindred spirit to Joaquin Phoenix’s Joe. Both men are tormented, trapped in their own skulls, with more than a few screws loose. Foster, whose other performance this year showcased the life-ruined trauma of PTSD, taps into the crushing horror of imminent doom. He’s not quite as mentally unsound here as he is in "Leave No Trace", but he is no less emotionally damaged. Elle Fanning’s portrayal of the hard-scrabble girl whose life is on an unstoppable collision course with Roy’s own path is compelling, even if her character flirts more than once with cliché. The rest of the supporting cast don’t really figure much into it—Adepero Oduye, Lili Reinhart and Beau Bridges lend some weight to their scattershot scenes—because it is very much a two-hander.

There are some compelling cinematic sequences, including a few long-take shots that speak to Laurent’s potential as an action director. And while nothing she does quite hits the genius of Ramsay, they still affect a very fine experience, bolstered by Foster’s palpably powerful performance.

In short, save this one for a year-end review, Lou.

Luke Higham said...

Psifonian: I think Louis could do double reviews for Foster and Reilly though in a slot each instead of taking up 4.

Luke Higham said...

Louis: Your opinion on this upcoming Czech Medieval film that Ben Foster's leading.

Robert MacFarlane said...

Personally I don’t think Foster should get reviewed for Leave No Trace. He’s good, but is limited by his character’s lack of an arc.

Anonymous said...

Louis: And aside from that, Walsh probably would have been jealous that they managed to get away with that ending.

Thoughts on the sound editing and mixing of The Hurricane.

Robert MacFarlane said...

I just got out of The Hate U Give, and I’ll be very upset if Russell Hornsby doesn’t get a review for Supporting Actor. He’s my current winner by a long shot.

Louis Morgan said...

Saw Old Man and the Gun and Bad Times At The El Royale loved both them.

Luke:

Well it sounds like we'll at least get the chance to see what he might have brought to the Outlaw King, though it doesn't appear Jakl has much of a track record as director so far, but who knows.

Anonymous:

Fine work, for the time, for the Hurricane in terms of creating the titular event which brings sort of the proper intensity and atmosphere for it. It could seem sort of limited or tame by more modern standards, but for the time it was top of the line.

Louis Morgan said...

Luke:

Well hold off on figuring out the lineups at this point, there are always several factors. For example if say I love Reilly and Coogan in Stan and Ollie, I'd probably pair those two. Leaving Reilly's other performance as a separate review, if I feel the same way everyone else seems to there.

Or if say I love Reilly in Holmes and Watson he and Farrell would get the review.........not bloody likely. But hey you never know. Well maybe you do for that one.

Anonymous said...

Thoughts and ratings on both casts, and the films themselves?

Luke Higham said...

Louis: Thoughts on The Old Man And The Gun & Bad Times At The El Royale with ratings and thoughts on the casts.

Anonymous said...

Louis: Your thoughts on the direction, soundtrack and screenplay of the original Halloween

Anonymous said...

Louis: Your thoughts on the cinematography of A Farewell to Arms, A Midsummer Night's Dream and Anthony Adverse.

Calvin Law said...

Saw First Man which I loved, Bad Times at the El Royale which was fine, and The Wife which was okay.

Gosling - 4.5/5
Foy - 4.5
Clarke - 3.5
Hinds and Chandler- 3
Stoll - 3

Bridges - 4
Erivo - 4
Johnson - 3.5
Hamm - 3.5
Spaney - 3
Pullman - 4
Hemsworth - 3

Close - 3.5
Pryce - 3
Starke and Lloyd - 3
Slater - 3.5
Irons - 2.5
McGovern - 3

Louis Morgan said...

Anonymous:

The Old Man and the Gun you could almost describe as the feel good version of Straight Time, as it too is about a criminal who just can't stop being a criminal, but with a far different perspective on it all. Lowery manages to pull off something rather special in creating such a low key and affectionate approach to the story. He never ignores any truths of it, yet while staying so light it still manages to find a real poignancy in its examination of the aging bank robber. I especially love Lowery's aesthetic and approach that keeps this gentleness making the story more lyrical in nature.

Saving Redford.

I'll start with ratings.

Affleck - 4(Who is co-lead even though the trailers seemed to try to hide him)
Spacek - 4
Glover - 3
Waits - 4
Moss - 3

I'll admit I was probably the easiest mark possible for Bad Times, as I love the "Group of strangers trapped" plot, and thankfully unlike Identity this did not end with a double helping of stupidity. I just loved every bit of its style and embracing of really the fun of this sort of pulpy material. Goddard once again does this sort of retro-cafe style to a genre, to a genre I typically prefer in general, and I just enjoyed every minute of the affection shown in the film's luscious production design, and endearing energy. Although the film is a whole lot of style, which can be enough, I did find it managed to refine a substance within, largely through the performances, in creating depth within the "types" we meet throughout the film.

Saving Bridges and Pullman Jr.

Erivo - 4.5
Johnson - 3.5
Hamm - 3.5
Spaeny - 3
Hemsworth - 3

Luke Higham said...

Managed to get Wi-Fi at the hotel that I'm staying in Barcelona.

Louis: Really looking forward to those reviews.

Luke Higham said...

And I really hope Tognazzi's review is up tonight.