Oh, so that's why Seconds won ensemble.
1) Geer2) Hamilton3) Randolph4) Pleasence5) Meurisse
I’m going to watch Seconds first before making predictions.
Louis: Ratings and thoughts on Burlyayev/SergeyevHackman/Harris - HawaiiThe cast of The BibleSupporting cast of War and Peace Parts I and II.
Louis: Will Randolph/Hudson's review be separate from Hamilton and Geer, or will you review all of them together.
Louis: Rating and thoughts on Toshiro Mifune in Grand Prix.
Louis, how come The Kids Are All Right & The Theory of Everything are both on your 10 Worst Best Picture nominees of the decade? I don't recall you ever disliking them much. I would've expected to see Manchester by the Sea and The Descendants on there instead, for example.
Films To WatchMademoiselleAu Hasard Balthazar (Bresson)Funeral In Berlin (Michael Caine)King Of Hearts (Alan Bates)La Grande VadrouilleTorn CurtainOur Man FlintDracula: Prince Of DarknessDaisiesThe Taking Of Power By Louis XIV (Roberto Rossellini)For Love And Gold (Mario Monicelli)The War Is OverKill Baby, Kill (Mario Bava)Woman Of The LakeThe PornographersMasculin Féminin (Leaud/Godard)The Chase (Marlon Brando)Tha Appaloosa7 WomenRed AngelCathy Come HomeTokyo DrifterCairo 30Black GirlThe InterviewSilence Has No WingsThe Priest And The GirlThe Round-UpMy Sister, My LoveA Fine MadnessViolence At NoonCome Drink With MeFather (Istvan Szabo)Carriage To ViennaTime To DieThe Shooting
1. Geer2. Hamilton3. Randolph4. Meurisse5. Pleasance
1) Geer2) Hamilton3) Randolph4) Meurisse5) Pleasance
Calvin: Same here because I have no idea.
1. Geer2. Hamilton3. Randolph4. Meurisse5. PleasanceI don't think any of these guys can get Lee Van Cleef off the rank.
1. Randolph2. Geer3. Meurisse4. Hamilton5. Pleasence
Luke: Another 1966 Brazilian film that also deserves to be seen is "The Big City" by Carlos Diegues
Luke:Burlyayev - 4(A performance that is essentially the lead of his little section that he plays so well in performing sort of this eagerness and bravado. This bravado though with the hints of desperation within it as portraying this kid with in the moment a sudden ambitious dream that is built upon his very real hardship. He portrays each moment as though he has a sudden burst of inspiration though in the same way alludes to the near mania of this as technically someone who might have no idea what they're talking about he's just caught up within his lie. This is in great contrast to his final moment where he presents it basically as the kid sobering up as he reflects so nervously on his gamble with the desperation now out in the open with no claims to smooth it over.)Sergeyev - 4(An interesting performance as the mentor type and is good in providing the sort of dynamic against the more staid Rublev. Sergeyev's performance delivers this greater outpouring of a dynamic passion that he grants this certain intensity. This intensity that he portrays a fervent belief within as this sort earnest master. This portraying a man with a certainty against the conflicts or jealousies of those around him, providing the right type of stability, at least initially, as the mentor.)Hackman - 3.5(One of his earliest performances and honestly at first I pondered if Hackman hadn't found himself as a performer yet, though he obviously would just the following year. This as Hackman is just kind of there for the majority of the film. This is until his character takes center stage, albeit briefly, and Hackman doesn't waste it in bringing his noted ferocity though here appropriately in its gracefulness as a good doctor. The film needed more of him.)Harris - 3(Hawaii again I found to be a bloated film, where its message was vague at best, and even then didn't earn ambiguity of its examination. I mention this as it is hard to say what the film even wants to look at Harris's character as the violent man of action against von Sydow's preacher. Harris is fine in delivering the bluster and sort of virile charm of the character. What there is to the role though never is properly developed, despite its length, and there lacks in a particular a proper denouement on his and Andrews or von Sydow's characters' relationship. He's fine with what he has, but that's it.)
Regarding the Bible's cast, Parks, Harris, Scott, and Gardner are all fine, in their roles that are almost portrayed as sort of like museum exhibitions in the presentation of them. This in Huston keeps you always clear away from any potential connection within the actual stories telling it with a curious detachment.Huston - 3.5(His performance as the narrator/God, has the appropriate force to it as to be expected. He allows himself to honestly act the most out of the cast, as he grants his Noah an almost comic energy, which I suppose I'll appreciate that it allows for a bit of variation within his approach as a director.)O'Toole - 3.5(Kind of a character that earns the detachment and in turn is most captivating as such. O'Toole bringing the needed stark gravitas to his Three Angels, bringing the needed intensity to one of the more captivating moments within the film.)Bondarchuk - 4(His performance again is made up of briefer moments here, however he is terrific again in the aforementioned reactionary moment, then in turn in his final sequence where he delivers such a powerful sense of emotion as he tries to improve an extremely delicate situation in calm yet commanding yet also very emotional way.)Tikhonov - 3(His performance is really the two sides of his arc from part I in part II, he hits those two sides once again, but obvious it is more limited.)Lanovoy - 3.5(Brings an effective combination between a genuine sort of charm in his bravado along with just more genuine sleaze. He finds the right sort of careless manner in his romantic moments in granting the sense of lust within it, but also the lack of any genuine quality of love within it.)Skobtseva - 3.5(Appropriately horrible in creating the sort of alluring presence though with the quality of quietly putting down her husband in this manner all the same.)I refuse regarding Mifune, he's terribly dubbed in addition to be completely wasted. Honestly why cast Mifune as a boring businessman to begin with, then why dub him when he did learn to say his lines in English? He'll have a heavier accent, so what? His voice is an essential part of his presence. Eh, forgive the rant but I hate how most western directors used Mifune. Tahmeed:There will be two separate reviews. Anonymous:Well I briefly existed in a world where the Descendants didn't exist, let alone was a best picture nominee when I constructed that list. As for Manchester By the Sea, I actually never hated the film, I more of am just very passionate about my reservations towards it.
on another note, i recently watched A Bigger Splash, and i really didn't like it. The directing choices were obnoxious, the story was boring and ,ost of the really good actors had nothing to do, except for Fiennes. It further solidified my doubts about Guadagnino directing Scarface.Swinton: 3/3.5Schoenaerts: 3Fiennes: 4Johnson: 2 (really, REALLY dull)
From what I've seen, at least, I feel Guadagnino is a better with visual direction than he is with dramatic intrigue. The landscape scenes of both "A Bigger Splash" and "CMBYN" are rather beautiful, but I just wish it was enough to override the glacial pacing in those two films.As for the cast of "A Bigger Splash", I still remember everyone being fairly decent, even Johnson.
OK I saw Seconds, really good actually and the acting is all great from everyone.
1. Geer2. Randolph3. Hamilton4. Meurisse5. Pleasence
Rating predictionsGeer - 5Randolph - 4.5/5Hamilton - 4.5Meurisse - 4.5Pleasence - 4I'm predicting a 5 for Hudson.
Louis: Can I have your thoughts on Andersson and Ullmann in Persona. I don't recall you ever giving them. If you have, they had to've been fairly short.
Louis: Lastly, your thoughts on the direction, costume design, cinematography and production design of War And Peace I and II.
Bryan: In response to your latest blog spot, Dr. Strangelove is my favourite Kubrick as well but If I had to judge on technical merit alone, Barry Lyndon wins quite easily for me with 2001 in 2nd.
Luke: You don't have to comment on here to let me know, I've already seen your reply :)Also, I finally saw Amorres Perros in its entirety last night (had seen parts of it back in the day). Emilio Echeverria HAS to be considered for a review, though category placement is a little tricky, since the films' structure is Pulp-Fiction-like.
1. Geer2. Randolph3. Hamilton4. Pleasence5. Meurisse
Bryan: I have him in my 5 as a co-review with Bernal for Lead in 2000.If he's Supporting then you'd potentially have 6/7 reviews for 2000 Supporting (He's planning on reviewing McDowell and we'll see how well received Ogata in Yi Yi and Sutherland in Panic are)
Louis: Rating and thoughts on Joan Hackett in The Group, seeing as she got a BAFTA nom, out of all the women in the film.
1. Geer2. Randolph3. Hamilton4. Pleasance5. Meurisse
1. Geer2. Hamilton3. Randolph4. Pleasence5. Meurisse
chances that Hal Holbrook in Into The Wild might go up?Just a bit?*sad dog eyes* Please?
Louis: your ratings and thoughts on Claudia Cardinale in The Professionals?
And shouldn´t Simone Signoret - The Deadly Affair be on the supporting actress ranking for 1967 instead of the one for 1966?
1. Geer2. Randolph3. Hamilton4. Meurisse5. PleasenceLuke, who do you think will take Louis' Lead Actress win for 2002.
Anonymous: If I had to hazard a guess, either Moon So-Ri in Oasis, Oksana Akinshina in Lilya 4-Ever or Anne-Marie Duff in The Magdalene Sisters. Diane Lane will get a 4.5 for Unfaithful.
Just finished watching Seconds, so as for predictions:1. Geer2. Randolph (although I am rather curious about his category placement, he is undoubtedly lead when he is on screen) 3. Hamilton4. Meurisse5. Pleasence
Tahmeed: Your ratings for the cast of Seconds.
Luke:Hudson- 5 Geer- 4.5Randolph- 4.5Hamilton- 4/4.5Jens- 3.5Reid- 3.5
I saw Seconds as well, and of the three in the lineup, I was most impressed by Randolph actually, though Hudson would be the overall MVP.
1. Geer2. Randolph 3. Hamilton4. Meurisse 5. Pleasance
1. Will Geer2. John Randolph3. Murray Hamilton4. Paul Meurisse5. Donald Pleasence
1. Geer2. Randolph3. Hamilton4. Meurisse5. Pleasance
1. John Randolph2. Will Geer3. Murray Hamilton4. Paul Meurisse5. Donald Pleasence
Michael: Your ratings for this lineup and Hudson.
1. Randolph2. Geer3. Hamilton4. Meurisse5. Pleasence
The reason I think Geer is higher than Randolph is because in the one key scene where Randolph is breaking down and having second thoughts, I was actually was paying more attention to Geers creepy fake smiles and fake warmth.
I’m sticking with Geer as #1, although everyone in the cast made a big impression on me.
For me Randolph and Geer are mostly on an even keel. I guess I didn't expect Geer and Hamilton to have as little screen time as they did, yet that says a lot about the impact both of them had.
Luke:Maybe later. I think the direction of both parts is really the remarkable nature of each film. This in the first part he devotes himself to the war, and in spectacular fashion depicts. This in both granting it as this grand scale, but also with time within the idea of a personal view within it. He is as impressive though in creating an examination of just one woman basically moving into adulthood into her society. This in the emotional sense he grants to a scene, like the ballroom scene, which feels so lurid, as he grants it through the experience the character is having rather the more traditional way such scenes are depicted. Although you could argue it seems traditional in just the aesthetic greatness of so much of it, it is the risks Bondarchuk takes within creating the sort state of the character where he breaks from the historical epic prestige. He delivers the novel in the terms of visualizing but also bringing us essentially within the minds of the characters. That not only in using the narration, but also how he chooses his camera movements, or even if brilliant editing, such again can't praise enough his own brief reaction shot in part II that says everything about a character's motivation in a moment. Costume Design in both parts are beautiful, part II though I think goes further naturally due to the extravagance of the "peace" period. They are again marvelous in creating a sense of the characters within the costuming, while also just being rather visually stunning at times. The use of the red dress in part II is particularly remarkable. The sheer ambition of the cinematography is what is perhaps the most remarkable. This in those battle scenes, where one ponders how they did that, in how the scale, but also atmosphere is captured. This in the stunning combination of such a sense of color and lighting that creates such painting like images, while also having the movement and composition to give them remarkable life. The production design is astonishing at times. This just in creating a period detail for one thing in the interiors, or the stylized, yet still tangible appearance of the outdoor sequences. There is such a lurid quality in the designs, a most notable one being the blue of the room the calculating men, against the red of the woman defined by her passion. Absolutely stunning work in both films. Anonymous:Hackett - 3.5(The film oddly forgets about her at a certain point, however before that she manages to bring sort of this low key humor that is a nice touch to her part. This in some technically perfunctory scenes that she grants more life to just through her slightly off-beat delivery. I wish she wasn't basically just completely thrown to the side, as she is endearing early on, but it feels incomplete.)Tim:Not out of the realm of possibility.Lucas:I feel I've given that before somewhere. Obviously, but my old list was built on before that revelation was made known to me.
Post a comment