James Mason in Lolita
Toshiro Mifune in Sanjuro
Montgomery Clift in Freud
Robert Mitchum in Cape Fear
Tom Courtenay in The Loneliness of the Long Distance Runner
Rank Those Five or These Five:
James Stewart in The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance
Tatsuya Nakadai in Harakiri
Laurence Harvey in The Manchurian Candidate
Oskar Werner in Jules and Jim
Patrick McGoohan in All Night Long
Or both.
64 comments:
1. Courtnenay
2. Mason
3. Mifune
4. Mitchum
5. Clift
1. Mason
2. Mitchum
3. Courtenay
4. Clift
5. Mifune
1. Stewart
2. McGoohan
3. Nakadai
4. Harvey
5. Werner
1. Stewart
2. McGoohan
3. Nakadai
4. Harvey
5. Werner
1. Mason
2. Nakadai
3. Clift
4. Courtenay
5. Mitchum
6. Harvey
7. McGoohan
8. Mifune
9. Werner
10. Stewart
1. James Mason
2. Tom Courtenay
3. Robert Mitchum
4. Montgomery Clift
5. Toshiro Mifune
Just saw Spotlight. Absolutely terrific. Best ensemble performance in a long time.
1. Mason
2. Courtenay
3. Mitchum
4. Mifune
5. Clift
1. Stewart
2. Nakadai
3. McGoohan
4. Harvey
5. Werner
1. Courtenay
2. Mason
3. Mitchum
4. Mifune
5. Clift
1. Stewart
2. Harvey
3. McGoohan
4. Nakadai
5. Werner
Set I:
1.Mason
2.Mifune
3.Mitchum
4.Courtenay
5.Clift
Set II:
1.Nadakai
2.Harvey
3.Stewart
4.Werner
5.McGoohan
1. Courtenay
2. Mason
3. Mitchum
4. Mifune
5. Clift
1. Nakadai
2. Stewart
3. McGoohan
4. Harvey
5. Werner
1. Mason
2. Courtenay
3. Mitchum
4. Mifune
5. Clift
1. Stewart
2. Nakadai
3. McGoohan
4. Harvey
5. Werner
Louis: So what are your thoughts and ratings on these films?
The Lost Patrol
Manhattan Melodrama
The Great Ziegfeld
The Story of Louis Pasteur
The Life of Emile Zola
Rembrandt
1. Mason
2. Courtenay
3. Mitchum
4. Mifune
5. Clift
1. Nakadai
2. Harvey
3. Stewart
4. McGoohan
5. Werner
1. Mason
2. Courtenay
3. Mifune
4. Mitchum
5. Clift
1. Nakadai
2. Stewart
3. Harvey
4. McGoohan
5. Werner
1. Mason
2. Mitchum
3. Courtenay
4. Mifune
5. Clift
1. Stewart
2. McGoohan
3. Nakadai
4. Harvey
5. Werner
Louis: I know you've said that the only good performances in Ship of Fools belong to Werner and Signoret. But what are your thoughts and ratings on Leigh's performance?
1) Tom Courtney
2) Toshiro Mifune
3) James Mason
4) Montgomery Clift
5) Robert Mitchum
1) Laurence Harvey
2) James Stewart
3) Patrick McGoohan
4) Tatsuya Nakadai
5) Oskar Werner
Anonymous: I'm scared to know. I loved her performance there. I think she was one of the best parts of the movie, along with Signoret and Werner. She actually won an award for her performance. My heart breaks knowing she would be dead two years later.
ruthiehenshallfan99: I have to say that while I'm not a fan of the film, I liked her performance as well.
Anonymous:
The Lost Patrol - 4.5(A rather effective film in the way Ford really builds a sense of dread through the atmosphere created through the isolation of the desert, as well as the fear from an unseen enemy. It also takes its time to develop its characters through some fine performances from McLaglen, Ford and Karloff, while maintaining the tension of the story throughout its running time)
Manhattan Melodrama - 3.5(As the story of the two friends separated by the law it would be far better realized with Angels With Dirty Faces. Not that this itself is a bad film by any measure as the three leads are good, though Loy does feel a bit miscast, and the story is decently told. It does feel a bit sanctimonious at times though, and neither the friendship element nor the criminal element is ever made that compelling. It does have its moments, such as the final confrontation between Powell and Gable, enough to make this a fine attempt at telling the story)
The Great Ziegfeld - 2(The film actually I feel works well enough when it actually focuses on Ziegfeld the man, and is interesting when it focuses on his schemes or ideas to get ahead as a showman or his personal relationships. The film gets completely bogged down by showing one act after another. It obviously wants to give a Ziegfeld show while telling its story, but it just loses any potential in terms of the personal story because of how often it is interrupted by yet another song or dance sequence that never involve Ziegfeld directly. Even this might have not been so bad if there just weren't so many, that it becomes a three hour film just because of its need to give you one Ziegfeld act after another. This might have worked if they had been filmed in any way that was compelling, but they come very bland due to the way Robert Z. Leonard films them. There's no life to them and they never connect with Ziegfeld the man leaving the film as a bloated mess.)
The Story of Louis Pasteur - 3(The film basically is a series of showing just how great Louis Pasteur is, and there is not much more to it, than critics deny him, then Pasteur runs a test that proves them wrong. William Dieterle's a talented enough director though that it does not become quite as banal as you'd probably expect it to. Not that it becomes anything too noteworthy, but it certainly could have been worse with a lesser director at the helm.)
The Life of Emile Zola - 3.5(The film's first two thirds are much like Louis Pasteur in that it basically hits the marks on what makes Zola so great, and again Dieterle does give a bit of life to the reading the wikipedia article approach to telling about a man's life. The film though goes beyond that once it reaches the Dreyfus affair. The film finally finds some the grasp onto as it depicts well the passionate defense of Zola along with the emotional personal devastation of Dreyfus. It becomes rather gripping and I only wish the whole film actually had focused more closely on just that aspect of Zola's life)
Rembrandt - 4.5(The film smartly narrows its view to cover Rembrandt's later relationships, and avoids just trying to hit every check mark the way other biopics of the period did like Zola. It does not canonize or demonize Rembrandt giving the man an actual complexity, aided by Laughton's great performance, but also does not simplify his relationships either. It carefully avoids the pedestal allowing you to see the man, not just a series of accomplishments. On that note though I also love that it actually bothers to involve you at all into the creative process of his painting, rather just having scenes of him working without any connection. It's a strong film, and one from the period that I actually think could have been longer than it was)
Anonymous:
I think I've given my thoughts before, but anyway I don't hate her performance. I don't think she's really even bad, but I do feel she has almost nothing to work with becoming just a muted part of the scenery.
See any new movies?
Robert:
Unfortunately no Spotlight or Brooklyn in sight(well there is a Spotlight playing over an hour away), though I actually forgot to mention I did finally watch Crimson Peak last week.
Ratings and thoughts on the film/performances?
Robert: The film had an advantage for me personally to begin with in that I really like the dignified haunted estate genre. The film though I don't feel quite capitalizes on that. I find it odd that the ghosts could be so easily removed from the film, which I suppose the film kind of admits whenever it mentions Edith's own story. I think they are the film's greatest weakness, and at times almost feel perhaps like a studio demand to make more obvious moments of horror.
The problem is that they aren't scary because of the poor choice to make them such absurd CGI creatures. It's disappointing because of how scary ghosts can be when used in a more subtle fashion such as in The Innocents for example. They stick out in such poor fashion not only because they are the worst looking element of the film, the production design and costumes are great, but the ghosts actually undercut the atmosphere that's rather well realized by del Toro otherwise.
Now past that the main story is also flawed because of just how telegraphed the twist is before it happens. The film oddly breaks its tension by making the Sharpe's so obviously sinister from the get go. That being said there were things I liked, some which I will mention in a moment, but del Toro does have some effective scenes that probably would have made a scary film if it weren't for once again those ghosts. The murder scene early on for example is very effective, and I quite like the final set piece, while again besides the ghost. It does not add up to a great horror film by any measure, though as a mark for this type of horror film I did derive enjoyment out of it, though as a whole it feels like a missed opportunity to make something truly memorable.
Wasikowska - 4(I rather liked her performance as she reminded me a bit of Joan Fontaine, which always a good thing, though I won't say she hit her heights. She did do well though to make the strengths of her character well realized without making Edith seems excessively one note either. As the horror comes she very good in giving some very honest reactions to some ridiculous notions, once again she certainly tries her absolute best to sell those ghosts. She makes for a compelling heroine who I wish was inserted into a stronger film to work with)
Hiddleston - 3.5(The film does undercut him as it would have benefited if it made him seem completely innocent from the start. Hiddleston though is appropriately charming in the role, and handles the sinister parts of his performance well too though because he does not get to build to them it undercuts a character a bit. When his character has a change of heart I think Hiddleston pulls it off, though the film makes it less meaningful because of the way the film jumps around with his character to begin with)
Chastain - 3(The early scenes I found her performance slightly awkward, and no she doesn't really pull off the accent which is noticeable all the more so with Hiddleston right there. When she gets to the point of her character I enjoyed it but as some have said I don't think it would have hurt to have gone a bit bigger than she does. She never creates that visceral impact you want from a character like this, though I don't think her performance is a complete failure.)
Hunnam - 2.5(He works well enough as the bland other guy. Yeah he's bland, but it really doesn't hurt the point of the character or the film)
Beaver - 3.5(Really liked his work as I felt in just a few scenes he developed a heartfelt and believable father/daughter relationship with Wasikowaska. I liked how he found just that undercurrent of warmth in his performance, the needed command he brought for the strong willed side of his character. I particularly liked how he properly ruled the scene where he cuts the Sharpe's down to size. )
Oh yeah...
1. Laurence Harvey
2. James Stewart
3. Tatsuya Nakadai
4. Oskar Werner (can't give up on him)
5. Patrick McGoohan
Robert: So glad you liked Brooklyn, what did you think of Ronan and Gleeson? I agree that Cohen was incredibly strong, I loved every moment of his performance.
Also regarding The Innocents, what are your thoughts on that film? It's my all-time favourite horror flick.
Ronan is pretty easily my win at the moment.
Loved Ronan, so glad she finally got another great role after years of squandered potential. Gleeson was fine, though honestly short shifted. Didn't have a chance to make the impact Cohen did.
Calvin:
Kerr is outstanding and the kids are both terrific. It creates such a genuine spine chilling atmosphere of a house actually being haunted while so artfully keeping the mystery of whether or not it is real or merely that of imagination. The moments when the ghosts are appear are so effective because of how sparingly used they are, and even though sometimes it does not even involve a special effect you feel as though you've seen ghost. It's one of the greatest horror films of all time.
Michael: Same.
Robert: Agree that Gleeson was given the short sjrift but thought he did a lot within those limits.
Louis: pretty much agree with you.
Also the entire ssupporting cast of Brooklyn was pretty outstanding as a whole, from Walters to Broadbent, the family, the sisters at the boarding house, etc.
*girls
Robert MacFarlane : Yes i do believe that Sturridge was charming enough to be able to sway Mulligan (:
How? In what way?
Damn it... I have to explain (Might contain spoilers)
When i give him a 4.5 i don't give it to him only based on his interactions with Mulligan. I also rank him based on his scenes with his fiance which are great and i also rank him that way based on the way he acts showing his negative sides that comes out during the wedding when he embarrasses Mulligan with his drinking. I also enjoyed the way he showed his addiction to gambling in his small scene. The character is all in all an asshole but he managed to make me sympathies with him during the scene when he is in the chapel, when he meets with his fiance a second time, when he sees the funeral chest and it's content and his scene by the water.
Mulligan was swayed because she mistook his ego as confidence, mistook his recklessness as blunt honesty and as well a part of his charm. He showed these sides quite well and I think Mulligan was drawn to someone who did not really think of the consequences a quality he showed during the entire run of the movie.
Damn... I'm not good at explaining things...
I gave him 4.5 for his entire performance. Not only based on his interactions with Mulligan.
John: I think you explained yourself just fine, but here's where I (and I think I speak for a lot of us) disagree:
Troy is not meant to be a one-dimensional bully. Have you seen the original version? Because I think Terence Stamp's portrayal of the character really highlights where Sturridge went wrong. For example, in the scene where Troy shows Bathsheba his tricks with the sword, Stamp plays it like he's just putting on a show to excite and entertain her, and you never feel like she's in any real danger. On the other hand, Sturridge just played it like he wanted to scare her, and never once in his performance did he seem like he liked her. Bathsheba is flawed, but she is strong and smart enough not to fall for someone who clearly has no respect for her. In fact, the only reason I didn't give Mulligan a 5 was because try as she might, Sturridge's performance made it impossible for me to believe the relationship those characters had.
I understand what you mean.
When i get time (Have MANY movies to watch) i will watch the original. I loved Stamp in The Collector, a great performance...
Louis your thoughts and ratings on Julis Christie in the moviel Darling
John: He hasn't seen Darling.
Louis: Overall, what do you think of Ship of Fools as a movie? What rating would you give it?
A lot of people in the general public think that Christoph Waltz is the best Austrian actor, for me its no question.... I think Oskar Werner is Austrias greatest actor =D.
Waltz is great, but Werner definitely had more range. Shame we never got to see how much more he'd go onto due to his early death.
Calvin: I won't argue with that. Werner was certainly a much more versatile actor.
If I was to make a bold guess about the top 5 for 1962 lead:
1. O'Toole
2. Mason
3. Lemmon
4. Peck
5. Courtenay
6. Harvey
7. Mitchum
8. Stewart
9. Mifune
10. Sinatra
Actually wait:
1. O'Toole
2. Mason
3. Lemmon
4. Peck
5. Courtenay
6. Nakadai
7. Harvey
8. Mitchum
9. Stewart
10. Mifune
I think Harvey will make the top 5. And I think Lemmon and Peck were great but I'm not as sure as everyone else that they'll both be up there.
Anonymous:
Ship of Fools - 2(It would be lower if it weren't for the strength of Werner and Signoret's story which suggests a much stronger film as a whole. The rest of the film though is the worst of Stanley Kramer though amplified by having it spread through several stories. The other stories are all very thin and melodramatic only defined by just one element, whether it is a troubled marriage, antisemitism, aging I guess with Leigh's, and for say Marvin's nothing really. The interactions, save for the obvious one, never become honest like it's an actual ship of people instead it is just a set of over the top caricatures)
Louis I don't know if you've given them before (and, if you did, I can't find them) but what are your thoughts on Looper and Emily Blunt's performance (with rating)? Because I've just seen the movie and I was totally blown away by it, and I think Emily Blunt's performance was just fantastic.
I don't know about Louis, but Blunt is my Supporting win that year. LOVE LOVE LOVE her work there.
Louis: You made a little mistake. Instead of saying your choices for cast and director for 40's Sin City, you said 30's Sin City. So what are your choices for the cast and director for the 40's version?
1. James Mason
2. Robert Mitchum
3. Tom Courtenay
4. Montgomery Clift
5. Toshiro Mifune
1. James Stewart
2. Laurence Harvey
3. Patrick McGoohan
4. Tatsuya Nakadai
5. Oskar Werner
So I just saw Room...and if Brie Larson doesn't get that Oscar there will be a reckoning.
(Also, it's pretty easily my Best Picture win now.)
I'm actually pretty sure she'll win. She'll walk away with it unless they push Mara lead (which, surprisingly, is looking likelier).
Hey, guys, did you see that Richard Jenkins was nominated for the Spirit? I remembered of you here, because little time ago you were just talking - pretty well - about him.
And Michael: what are your ratings on Joan Allen and Jacob Tremblay?
I know Larson will probably win, I just feel very strongly about it.
Tremblay: 5
Allen: 4.5 (though I'm tempted to go higher)
Saw Mockingjay Part 2. It was alright I guess, good enough conclusion to the series which I thought was solid overall.
Lawrence: 4
Hutcherson: 4
Hemsworth: 2.5
Harrelson: 3.5
Banks: 3
Moore: 3
Hoffman: 2.5
Wright: 2.5
Claflin: 3
Malone: 3
Tucci: 3
Dormer: 2.5
Sutherland: 4 (my MVP actually as I thought he was really entertaining here and that final reaction of his was perfect)
SO looking forward to Room, though it'll take a great performance by Larson to usurp Ronan. I also moved Vikander in Ex Machina to supporting...even though I'm not 100% sure on that placement.
1. Ronan
2. Mulligan (Far From the Madding Crowd)
3. Mulligan (Suffragette)
4. Theron
5. Vikander
Hon. Mention: Wasikowska
Anonymous:
I liked her just fine, though I did not love her when I saw it though a re-watch could potentially improve my view.
Anonymous:
Alright then:
40's directed by Otto Preminger
Nancy: Jane Adams
Senator Roark: Lee. J Cobb
Cardinal Roark: Melvyn Douglas
Gail: Rita Hayworth
Goldie/Wendy: Virginia Mayo
Becky: Ida Lupino
Jackie Boy: Robert Ryan
Dwight: Burt Lancaster
Marv: William Bendix
Yellow Bastard: Vincent Price
Det. Hartigan: Clark Gable
Kevin: Peter Lorre
Anonymous:
That nod was inspired, and well earned.
John Smith:
Guys, how would you cast Five Easy Pieces for the 2010's?
Director: David Gordon Green
Bobby:Joaquin Phoenix
Rayette: Brie Larson
Catherine: Carey Mulligan
Elton: Dwight Yoakam
Paritia: Sally Hawkins
Carl: Woody Allen
Nicholas: Max Von Sydow Or Erland Josephson
10 - McGoohan
9 - Mitchum
8 - Clift
7 - Harvey
6 - Werner
5 - Courtenay
4 - Mifune
3 - Nakadai
2 - Manson
1 - Stewart
Yet who will be first of all the year is Peter O'Toole in Lawrence of Arabia. Will confess ...
5 - Clift
4 - Mitchum
3 - Mifune
2 - Courtenay
1 - JAMES MANSON
5 - Werner
4 - McGoohan
3 - Harvey
2 - Nakadai
1 - JAMES STEWART
I'd love for you to write something about Toshiro Mifune and his brilliant but lazy samurai in 'Sanjuro'.
Frank Sinatra in 'The Manchurian Candidate' deserves a mention as well.
Post a Comment