Sunday 28 October 2018

Alternate Best Actor 1987: Joe Mantegna in House of Games

Joe Mantegna did not receive an Oscar nomination for portraying Mike in House of Games.

House of Games I found to be David Mamet's best film, that I've seen, despite being his first film benefiting from a more focused narrative than some of his later efforts.

Mamet mainstay, both on stage on screen, Joe Mantegna naturally is there for the first foray into the cinematic form. A film that follows a subject matter, that being the world of con artists, that seems more fitting to sort of Mamet's mametese style of dialogue. The film explores the world of con artists through the curiosity of a doctor Margaret Ford (Lindsay Crouse) who initially comes upon the world in the belief she is helping one of her patients. Joe Mantegna appears as one of the first connections to the world seemingly as a gambler willing to help her patient wipe away a debt if she helps him play poker. Mantegna is of course a fine fit for such part fitting right into the underworld setting. Mantegna's performance though is interesting in it essentially him playing with the idea of just what type of criminal his Mike is throughout the film. At first we meet him seemingly as shady, but seemingly affable enough gambler. Mantegna captures a generalized sorta tough guy well enough that it becomes believable enough as he reveals a bit of seeming vulnerability in trying to get Margaret to help him win at poker. I will say this probably Mantegna's weakest scene as it is in general somewhat stilted, though this perhaps to show the artifice of the situation since the whole thing is revealed to be a con to try to scam Margaret.

She catches on though but rather than turning them into the police she becomes intrigued by the con men particularly Mantegna's Mike. Mantegna switches his performance accordingly to be a particularly amiable con man. Here Mantegna excels in bringing a real charm to his performance in expressing this outward warmth with an underlying attraction towards Margaret. He is particularly effective in creating the intrigue of the con by overlaying with this considerable charisma. Mantegna speaks with an energy and magnetism of a man trying not only to woo the woman but also to welcome her into the world. His whole manner delivers this eagerness to show off though in a way that captures her intrigue. Mantegna and Crouse share an earnestly sweet chemistry together even as they speak of essentially cheating other people. That mutual attraction is well realized though specifically created in the foundations of that sort of danger involving the con. Mantegna though seems to remain consistent as really her "man" even as they go along towards a more dangerous con that she invites her into. Mantegna plays these moments though with an earnest concern always towards her, almost a little too impassioned in her support to the point where one might question the loyalty based on just how selfless it appears.

The violent con ends up being yet just another con at Margaret's expense, a long con to get her money, and in this Mantegna segues towards his final turn as Mike, the real Mike. Mantegna here makes for a real proper jerk now just showing a completely callous criminal who is neither dangerous nor intriguing. Mantegna instead does well by just staying true to the nasty nature of the con and presents a man just without any scruples. Mantegna takes the approach that is pretty cold though effectively so in showing just how brutal the nature of the con is. This is as he shows not a hint of a hidden real affection showing quite bluntly instead that the Mike of all previously scenes was merely the con artist playing the part to rope her in. This made all the more evident in the final confrontation which is perhaps Mantegna's best scene. Mantegna doesn't beat around the bush brandishing the indifference of Mike right to her face with this venomous disregard in every line delivery. He leaves no moment for sentiment revealing just a small pathetic man behind all his false charm that really was just a mask. This is revealed all the more when she one ups him by resorting to violence for satisfaction. Mantegna is very good in revealing a genuine desperation while still keeping the man's vile nature intact as he captures a man clearly fearing for his life though with a pride that prevents him begging for it. It's a terrific moment as Mantegna reveals the little rat that was Mike all along. Now this though does create a structure for the character that keeps a distant type, rather than real man for much of the film. Nonetheless this is a good performance by Joe Mantegna even within that certain restriction.

66 comments:

Anonymous said...

Louis: Your thoughts on the production design of the first Back to the Future film and Blue Velvet.

Luke Higham said...

Rating and Thoughts on Lindsay Crouse.

GM said...

1. Grant
2. Elwes
3. Manasse
4. Mantegna
5. Martin

1. Rourke
2. Bale
3. O’Quinn
4. Kinski
5. Short

Bryan L. said...

Louis: Your director for a 70s, 80s, 90s and 00s version of Drive? I weirdly feel that Terrence Malick could've pulled off either the 00s or 70s version, since many shots in the film feel Malicky, and Refn isn't far off from him in the sense that they both need the right material.

Luke Higham said...

I'd like the 2 kids to come next, especially Bale's, though if Manesse is a 3.5, Louis could have a replacement that he really likes, which If I had to guess, It would either be Harris, Campbell or Nicholson (I don't think Louis has ever been a strong admirer of his Trademark Overload performances).

Michael McCarthy said...

The Witches of Eastwick is such a weird movie. It's entertaining largely because of the spectacle of it all but structurally it's kind of bizarre. Nicholson's performance is quite enjoyable if you look at it as a purely comedic turn, which is probably how he intended it.

RatedRStar said...

Michael: Its bananas lol

Calvin Law said...

Louis: could I have your thoughts on 'Heaven On Their Minds' from Jesus Christ Superstar, specifically Carl Anderson's rendition of it?

Saw Halloween and thought it was...fine? But honestly nothing special.

Curtis - 4
Greer - 1.5
Matichak - 3
Patton - 2.5
Bilginer - 1

BRAZINTERMA said...

Could someone answer me a question for kindness.

In the Golden Globes 2019, the films below will compete in the genre comedy / musical (film, actor and actress):
- "The Favourite" by Yorgos Lanthimos;
- "Green Book" by Peter Farrelly;
- "Vice (or Backseat)" by Adam McKay;
- "BlacKkKlansman" by Spike Lee; and
- "The Old Man and the Gun" by David Lowery.

And one more doubt: is it true that A Star is Born can compete for the genre of drama? Even if the actors sing?

Matt Mustin said...

Louis: What are your thoughts on the Seinfeld episode "The Heart Attack" and Stephen Tobolowsky's guest performance in it?

Anonymous said...

Louis: what are your thoughts on the direction, cinematography and score of the shining

Matt Mustin said...

Finally caught up with A Star Is Born. I pretty much loved it. Cooper proved himself a pretty great director here. In addition to that...

Cooper-5(...he also gives a career best performance)
Gaga-4.5(Could go higher, I need to let her performance settle a bit)
Elliott-4.5
Clay-4
Chappelle-4
Gavron-2.5
Ramos-3


Matt Mustin said...

By the way, I'm officially predicting Cooper to win Best Actor. This is my reasoning:

1) It's a great performance.
2) It's a very Oscar-friendly role.
3) He's been nominated already 3 times, so the Academy clearly supports him, and if they love this film as much as I think they will, he'll be hard to beat.

Bryan L. said...

Matt: I could see those points being the reasons why he wins. The only thing I'd keep an eye on is the inevitable backlash for the film, but he's the frontrunner right now I think.

Matt Mustin said...

Bryan L: The "backlash" doesn't usually affect Oscar voters, though. If it did, there's NO WAY Rockwell would've won last year.

Robert MacFarlane said...

Well I doubt Mortensen is going to win for his Jon-Stewart-doing-his-Jersey-voice performance.

Anonymous said...

Well that is what Tony Lip sounded like.

Omar Franini said...

I have finally seen all the contenders from the line ups;

My predictions with ratings:

1. Grant (5)
2. Elwes (4,5)
3. Martin (4,5)
4. Manesse (4)
5. Mantegna (4)

1. Rourke (5)
2. Bale (4,5)
3. O’Quinn (4,5)
4. Short (4)
5. Kinski (4)

Luke Higham said...

1. Rourke
2. Bale
3. O'Quinn
4. Short
5. Kinski

Luke Higham said...

Louis: See any 2018 releases lately.

Tahmeed Chowdhury said...

1. Grant
2. Elwes
3. Martin
4. Mantegna
5. Manesse

1. Rourke
2. Bale
3. O'Quinn
4. Short
5. Kinski

Luke Higham said...

1. Grant
2. Elwes
3. Martin
4. Mantegna
5. Manesse

Tahmeed Chowdhury said...

Louis: Your thoughts on the Diner scene from Mullholland Drive, and your top ten jump scares in films.

Robert MacFarlane said...

Saw Beautiful Boy. Boring as hell. Chalamet isn’t nearly as mannered as some reports, but the film itself doesn’t let him rise above good.

Luke Higham said...

Michael: Could I have your thoughts on Kinski, Elwes, Bale, Grant and Rourke.

Charles H said...

Louis: Your thoughts on Gyllenhaal in Stronger?

Anonymous said...

Charles:

Gyllenhaal - 4.5(I rather like Gyllenhaal performance here actually and I would not have minded if he had contended a bit more. Gyllenhaal delivers well in the role by properly emphasizing both the less savory and the inspirational qualities of the character. Gyllenhaal reveals a man who is definite screw up and successfully shows really the breezy attitude that not only gets him trouble but also leads him to not seek a proper recovery. His scenes with Maslany are great as they so naturally reveal this really broken relationship. In that as much as they show a genuine love between the two they also reveal such a compromised affection though. The base affection is true, but there is a real bitterness as well. Gyllenhaal nicely doesn't over do the inspirational moments rather earning them by revealing the emotional and physical pain that keeps the man constantly down before he ever attempts to recover from his injuries.)

Robert MacFarlane said...

Oh yeah forgot, also saw The Old Man and the Gun, which was... fine, I guess? I dunno, felt kind of empty outside of superficial charm. Loved the score.

Louis Morgan said...

Anonymous:

The original Back to the Future's production design is pretty straight forward though somewhat remarkable in this approach. This largely in the idea of the past/then present, and the noticeable difference in the main hill valley set. This being the somewhat idyllic against the somewhat rotten. Neither is overly stylized but nor do they to be. The differences stands out as this semi-realistic demonstration of a time shift affecting an area. There of course are some sly touches throughout such as using the Ronald Reagan featuring cattle queen of Montana as the film in town, or the change from twin pone to lone pine. The main production design is the DeLorean, which involved mostly some genius of production choosing the vehicle as the time machine. There are also though some memorable touches to add to the design such as the flux capacitor and the "nuclear" additions that helped to insure its iconic status.

Blue Velvet's production design is a glorious bit of very exact work that fines this perfect line between being both overt yet mundane in a certain way. The color choices being so exact in design, amplified of course by the cinematography, to make something both beautiful yet eerie in some way all the same. You take Dorothy's apartment for example which looks like indeed just a apartment yet the use of the slightly off color carpet and wallpaper craft such a dynamic setting.

Luke:

Crouse - 4(She's good in general in the performance in really her reactionary work. That is where she is best in terms of conveying the slow intrigue, that forms this certain lust that propels her throughout the story. She's equally effective in portraying the moment of incisive understanding or disgust. Her less effective moments are the speaking ones where she occasionally gets hung up by her then-husband's dialogue. She's never too underwhelming in this regard though and still gives a compelling turn overall.)

Calvin:

Well that song is per-existing, but its an amazing song delivered with such passion by Anderson. He not only performs it brilliantly he captures the needed intensity within the idea of Judas's anger. He plays it so well as this frustration and fear rather than any sort of hatred. There's a certain intelligence in a way he plays it that gives it such a power.

BRAZINTERMA Prêmio Fictício:

HFPA decides in the end, but they can as Bridges did for Crazy Heart despite singing there. In that film though the songs were far less a focus than in A Star is Born which is certainly a musical in terms of the focus on the songs. It is interesting that it is pulling the switch as James Mason won for the 54 version despite never singing, and not at all being comic.

Louis Morgan said...

Matt:

It is a little slow as some episodes from the early seasons can be. Having said that it is still pretty funny in its various bits from Larry David's "Flaming Gloves", to the fight of the chuckle, and Tobolowsky's scene. Tobolowsky's great by bringing such conviction in every demented line of his though still playing with sort of a hippie detachment. I'll say though what makes his part the funniest is Richard's reactions throughout as he looks on with such sincere awe.

Anonymous:

Well lets do this in descending order. The score is a fantastic example of the use of preexisting music. Choosing brilliantly such a grand series of unnerving classical pieces, and older to create the film's distinct mood. This is with just a little bit of additional material, that is itself more an arrangement, that captures this cold unease in the music itself. Marvelous work that is essential in crafting the palatable atmosphere of the film.

The cinematography by John Alcott is further essential in creating this dread that just oozes from the screen. The shots are fascinating as they creating such an unnerving focus as they both cover a wide area yet are claustrophobic in the exact framing. The slow yet particularly smooth movements of the camera work grant the hotel this certain living quality as though the camera is its viewpoint. It is essential in creating the film's exact brilliant use of space.

Now with all that praise one would wonder why it isn't in my top ten of 1980. This is interesting as it goes to Stanley Kubrick's direction of the film, which is technically brilliantly but rather thematically hollow. His use of every technical element at his hand is one of the great achievements in terms of creating such a palatable atmosphere for a horror film. He wholly succeeds in making you feel the cold, and the hotel throughout. It is with that same mind though that decided to remove this idea of the dissolution of a family. Kubrick's choice to cast Nicholson, and to in no way temper his extremes, showed a choice to making it a story about a vicious man who already is vicious. Jack, the character, doesn't truly interact with the hotel as it seems like the man had already made up his mind that he was going to kill his family long ago. It is a curious choice that makes the film one that you really need all theories surrounding as the basic story has no real meaning in terms of the characters. I still believe that technical prowess creates a successful horror film, though far from a masterpiece.

Louis Morgan said...

Tahmeed:

People like to throw nightmarish around when referring to a horror scene however this is one scene that earns it wholly. In that I find the scene actually achieves for the me feeling that I have when experiencing a nightmare. In this sort of nauseating dread that grips you in a way that is inescapable yet still horrible as the horror reveals itself.

1. Man Behind Winkies - Mulholland Drive
2. Right by Dallas - Alien
3. Ban Gardner - Jaws
4. Man behind a dresser - Twin Peaks: Fire Walk with Me
5. Roat is Alive - Wait Until Dark
6. Sloth victim - Seven
7. Ghost across the way - The Innocents
8. Top of the stairs - Psycho
9. Man in Tub - Les Diaboliques
10. Jumping blood - The Thing

Anonymous said...

Louis: What are your thoughts on the sound design of Heat? I can't tell you how many times I've seen comments saying that it should have been nominated for both sound categories.

Luke Higham said...

Louis: Your thoughts on Naomi Watts starring in the upcoming Game Of Thrones spin-off and Ewan McGregor playing Black Mask.

And good-god, Ridley Scott's going ahead with the Gladiator sequel.

Robert MacFarlane said...

Oh PLEASE tell me Scott is going with that batshit insane spec script Nick Cave wrote for it years ago.

Bryan L. said...

Luke: I'm honestly skeptical of Ridley Scott nowadays, and I'm someone who likes Prometheus.

In regards to McGregor, I'm not sure how he'll do as a supervillain, since he's at his best in leading roles where he's allowed to use his charm and/or everyman features (Trainspotting, Moulin Rouge, Big Fish, The Impossible). Although, hey, fingers crossed for an against-type performance from him.

Side note: This also means there'll be a Winstead-McGregor reunion, since she's playing Huntress.

Luke Higham said...

Bryan: I do not want to see it.

Robert: Hate to disappoint you but they're focusing more on Lucilla's son. I'd be curious about Cave's idea but I don't want a sequel, end of.

Matt Mustin said...

Luke: Not many things the world needs less than more Gladiator.

Louis Morgan said...

Anonymous:

Well as with most Mann films the sound work is stunning granting a real detail towards every gun shot. It avoids standard stock to give something far more nuanced than typical action sounds. It simply a step above most comparable work from the period. This extends towards both editing and mixing, as it uses great particular sounds, in a tapestry of a varied soundscape. I don't love the film, but I cannot fault the work at any point.

Luke:

Eh I don't see McGregor as Black Mask, a character that should be all voice, and not the kind of voice that McGregor can provide.

And WHY? to the second point. I concur with Robert in regards to the Cave script. That I'd actually kind of want to see in all its madness. plus it would bring Maximus back, without it though I don't see the point given that all the truly dramatic characters are dead by the end of the film.

Louis Morgan said...

Luke:

Oh and for Watts, I have no idea what to make of the prequel, so her casting could be good thing, but at this venture it's very hard to say.

Matt Mustin said...

Louis: On that note, who would your pick for Black Mask be?

Louis Morgan said...

Matt:

For the never gonna happen casting: Michael Wincott

For the more likely: Damian Lewis.

Matt Mustin said...

Oh, those are both *awesome* choices.

Anonymous said...

Louis: How would have you improved Heat in order to make it an excellent film?

Robert MacFarlane said...

Anonymous: Not making the characters complete bores?

Bryan L. said...

Louis: Your thoughts on the following scenes in From Here to Eternity?

The barfight
"Taps"
The ending

Luke Higham said...

Louis: What would you say, would be the 5 biggest mistakes made by Stanley Kubrick.

Luke Higham said...

And if you're seeing it tonight, could I also have thoughts on Bohemian Rhapsody and ratings/thoughts on the cast.

Calvin said...

I saw BR today actually. Thought it was pretty problematic in parts and editing was sloppy, but Malek was fantastic.

Malek - 4.5
Boynton - 3.5 (underused but I thought her scenes with Malek were actually some of the best dramatic moments)
Lee, Hardy, Mazzello - 3
Gillen - 1.5
Leech - 1
Myers - 1
Hollander - 3

Bryan L. said...

Calvin: Your thoughts on Myers? I'm glad he's in a high-profile film again at least.

Louis Morgan said...

Saw the Other Side of the Wind, won't be for everyone, but I found it to be a rather fascinating experience.

Saving Huston and Bogdanovich.

Random - 2.5
Kodar - 3
Strasberg - 3.5
Palmer - 3
O'Brien - 3
McCambridge - 3
Mitchell - 3.5
Selwart - 3
Stewart - 3.5
Foster - 3.5

Anonymous:

My problems really stem directly from the script where I don't find the characters particularly compelling, and find the whole approach oddly languid for a film built around heists.

Bryan:

The bar fight features a pretty obnoxious Sinatra, however everyone else is terrific in raising the tension of the moment, I especially love the glee on Borgnine's face at the potential for violence.

"Taps" is just a fantastic moment for Clift given the emotion he delivers in the moment frankly making me care more about the character being mourned than what the actual actor playing the character did.

The ending is notable moment for the film as it achieves something within the two characters, technically so often put to the side of the passions of men, but finding something certainly within there sort of haunted remembrance of those gone.

Luke:

I'll assume you mean in cinematic terms, however I'd say the flaws I find in his later films stem from the same seemingly personal thing. That being this misanthropy in the form of detachment.

Luke Higham said...

Louis: Your more detailed thoughts on The Other Side Of The Wind and thoughts on the cast. I'm so glad you're saving Huston.

Omar Franini said...

Louis: your thoughts on Kodar? Do you consider Huston supporting or leading?

Bryan L. said...

Louis: I too like how Borgnine shows that he can't wait for Maggio to eventually end up in the stockade ("I'll show you a couple of things...")

Speaking of Borgnine, do you think he could've been a great Thanos? He was the right physical type and could've mustered up the quiet intensity needed for the part.

Michael McCarthy said...

I think the best choice for Thanos from that era would be Robert Ryan. Hell now that I think of it, Josh Brolin's screen presence in general reminds me a lot of Ryan's.

Charles H said...

Louis: Your top 10 Steve Carell acting moments & your thoughts on him as an actor

Anonymous said...

Louis: Your thoughts on the screenplays of Nashville and The Player.

Calvin Law said...

Bryan: just a really stupid and ham-fisted cameo.

Tahmeed Chowdhury said...

Louis: Your thoughts on the following video and song from Hamilton? (if you don't mind giving thoughts)
https://youtu.be/q9iLfPP4Ps8
https://youtu.be/CzOTqnMCyec

Louis Morgan said...

I also saw Bohemian Rhapsody, I'd throw it in the exact same bin as "Walk the Line" and "Ray". In that there are plenty of missed opportunities in its cursory examination of the highlights of its subject, but it's not terrible.

Lee - 3
Mazzello - 3
Hardy - 3
Gillen - 2
Hollander - 3
Leech - 1.5
Myers - 1
Boynton - 3.5

Luke:

Well it's easily Welles's best film since Chimes at Midnight, looking forward to what he has next up his sleeve.

Any who the film itself is perhaps fitting to all its intention in its history, and state of being. That it is a film all about an old cinematic master's final reflections upon oneself. This leaves the film increasingly labyrinthine as it both provokes interpretation yet also condemns the excessive attempt to decipher meaning where there may be none. Welles's film crafts a certain madness of not only this idea, but also sort of the constant shock waves of the creative act through so many different interlopers who result in some from the original visionary. The film does this through weaving a really tapestry of thought and reaction. I will say that I don't think it is obviously incomplete as some have claimed beyond the introduction, though I quite liked the idea of the older version of Bogdanovich's character commenting on the "documentary", and I honestly wouldn't have minded an outro even though it wasn't part of Welles's vision. It rather is very much reflective of the same style Welles was also trying to realize in F is For Fake, I'd say this film is more successful as such. I have a feeling some who lobbed that claim haven't seen F is For Fake. Anyway this method forms a madness, a fascinating madness I found as this hideous tapestry, that strangely enough feels more than a little like the Welles film that should have been the biggest influence on PTA, yet PTA never saw it. It is of a similar vein though, and again though it may be too alienating for some I found it largely transfixing.

Random - (Just a pawn of Welles, as he is Hannaford, though he is that pawn properly.)

Kodar - (More than a pawn instead enigmatic with this certain power within her stoic state among the insanity both of the film within a film, and the decay of personalities in the film.)

Strasberg - (She finds the right mix between this passionate interest mixed with a reserved ego that slightly becomes more dominant when she uses her own methods to break down those she loves to analyze.)

Palmer - (Not at all a bad Marlene Dietrich impression, though I do think Dietrich probably would've brought more weight to the role. I like though how she managed to find a certain warmth somewhere within her seeming European detachment.)

O'Brien - (Nice to see him, and he adds a bit of character to his part who is purposefully just part of a group.)

McCambridge - (Nice to see her and she adds a bit of character to her role who also is just part of a group.)

Mitchell - (Does well with the bit more he has to work with bringing the right undercurrent of disdain along with depression as he just goes along working for the man who has essentially betrayed him.)

Selwart & Stewart - (Both are good in creating the unique more than a little sleazy egos of each men, who seem to have this empowerment within a lack of moral concern.)

Foster - (Just a terrific sycophant along the way, and especially love his final moment in the film where he conveys seemingly final a moment of real self-reflection.)

Note: Dennis Hopper is only in it for a few seconds.

Omar:

I consider Huston lead.

Luke Higham said...

Thoughts on the Bohemian Rhapsody cast.

Louis Morgan said...

Charles:

Well might as well wait until the end of the year since he has three performances this year that I've yet to see which will challenge him in different ways, though I already hear one isn't too successful. Carell as an actor overall though is hard to pin down, though I'd say he is a little bit in the vein of, or at least trying to be, of Jack Lemmon. In terms of his combination of the comedic, to the point of broadly comedic, with more dramatic turns. Like Lemmon, I prefer his dramatic turns. He's not consistent in his efforts I'll admit, but I will applaud the effort of trying to cultivate such a range. I will say so far he's been most successful where he can combine the two in some way more overtly in Battle of the Sexes, more subtly in Last Flag Flying and Little Miss Sunshine. It almost seems to comfort his work to bring the best out of him. Though I might say heavy mannerisms is probably something he should stay away from as I felt they detracted from the good elements of his work in both The Big Short and Foxcatcher. I'd say as an actor he's clearly someone pushing himself which is always admirable, and I am the very least bit always interested to see what he does in his dramatic roles.

Tahmeed:

Well that was splendid animation, but I'm not breaking my rule.

Anonymous:

Let me get to those on the next post.

Luke:

I will say I'll probably add Malek to my actor predictions given the audience reception to the film, and that even the negative reviews consistently praised him. I also think he might be able to get away from the Singer association problem since rumors are Malek was evidently one of the key people that led to his firing.

Lee, Mazzello, Hardy - (All three more or less hit there marks, in that manage to realize there one trait without going too far with it. They don't have much to do all things considered, but all three are fine.)

Gillen - (Doing his typical shtick, not the worst fit for a sleazy manager, but still obvious.)

Hollander - (Thinking about it, he's in some ways kind of the good version of Gillen as performers goes too. A welcome presence that manages to make his few moments stand out, even though the role is thin.)

Leech - (He's very one note, and the relationship in general feels a missed opportunity as the two central homosexual relationships of Freddie's are basically broken down to evil/good. In that I wished the film had fleshed out how the self-destruction of it came about between them, but their interactions are far too limited. It also doesn't help that Leech plays the part often as an overt villain rather than a toxic partner.)

Myers - (There for a Wayne's World reference, which just seemed an odd meta moment that I felt was honestly the nadir of the film. Myers is a cartoon and just frankly a bizarre feature in the film.)

Boynton - (A very endearing and charming turn from her. Again I wished the film did explore her and Freddie's relationship more in terms of complexity. Instead in that Anthony McCarten fashion we are thrown sort of the "essential" moments of the relationship without the foundations of them being built. Boynton to her credit though works well within this striking up the right chemistry with Malek that is both loving yet imperfect.)

Luke Higham said...

Louis: Before you move onto the next review, would you have Malek instead of Dafoe at this point.

Louis Morgan said...

Luke:

Yes, though I don't think Dafoe is out IF he can get support in the critical awards, though it might take Vice to fail as well. Right now Cooper, Mortensen, Gosling, Bale, and Malek do seem like they could be the five.

houndtang said...

Have you seen The Glass Castle? And if so what did you think of Woody Harrelson?

Louis Morgan said...

No.

houndtang said...

Film is pretty good if flawed, but his performance is excellent