Thursday, 14 February 2019

Alternate Best Actor 2018: John Huston in The Other Side of the Wind

John Huston did not receive an Oscar nomination for portraying Jake Hanneford in The Other Side of the Wind.

John Huston as a director in a film by Orson Welles about a director making a film he cannot finish in a film that was never finished is a setup enough to make one's head spin. I'll admit Orson Welles's final film is more fascinating in an outward examination of all that went in around it, than the film itself, though I should say the story is more fascinating than a great deal of films so that is no major criticism. The casting of Huston, rather than Welles playing the part of the director, is one of the more potent aspects of the material. Of course the two's connection actually began when the two became directors. Both premiered their first films in 1941, both making legitimate classics, Welles with his groundbreaking Citizen Kane, and Huston with the exceptionally entertaining The Maltese Falcon. The two's connection went beyond that with their matching multifaceted talents as writers and eventually actors as well. A third connection though is also their schism in a sense as the two despite making two of the most influential and acclaimed directorial debuts of all time, had far different careers. Welles having a troubled history in Hollywood for the rest of his career in his difficulty in finding consistent funding for projects, and also his own personal choices that frequently edged towards self-sabotage. Huston on the other hand found consistent success throughout his career seemingly through his ability to play the game, knowing when to sacrifice in order to fulfill his passion projects. Of course this is fascinating in that despite his success Huston was never seen as the studio's pageboy but also as a maverick, just a far more successful one.

This leads to this most bizarre of projects that Welles called upon his fellow actor/director to play the part of the maverick director. Of course both men were that, yet very different. Welles essentially framing his whole life as one big con or magic trick that he performed on the public. The legend of Huston, that by all accounts he was without the frequent alienation of others unlike Welles, was that of essentially the ultimate man's man. The casting then here is perhaps one more trick it seems that Welles wanted to play, though he perhaps struggled to pull it off on the worthiest of opponents that was Huston. This is as many have figured that Hanneford is a stand in for Welles, perhaps that it is true, though maybe Welles wished it to be a stand in for Huston, and accidentally made it about himself. But before I get too much into theories I probably should introduce this performance a bit. Huston as an actor was essentially a guarantee. Huston didn't seek roles, roles looked to find Huston as he was guaranteed to give that impressive if not oppressive presence to any film he would appear. One could not seemingly ask for a better choice then for the godlike, in the eyes of his legions of followers and fans, director that is Jake Hanneford. One would like to assume the voice of God might approach Huston's in its ease of force and gravitas that is evoked from a single word from his mouth.

If one examines this performance simply as the all powerful director, well one could not ask for a greater force of presence than that is Huston. Huston is only really glanced at for the first half hour of the film yet one takes note of every word from the man. There is that conviction of one's own aura essentially that is remarkable, and frankly only possible for someone like Huston in the role. The idea of the man supposedly in his element is upon the film set where he is the word of God. We witness Hanneford's film within a film, called fittingly the other side of the wind, where the film is series of observation and slowly growing interaction of a young man played by a young star, with the enigmatic femme fatale played by the enigmatic actress played by the enigmatic Oja Kodar. One scene of the film still features the voice of Hanneford during a sex scene where he continually implores the actress to emasculate the actor as much as possible. The voice in this scene is striking as performed by Huston's deep baritone. The sense of control though is certainly evident in the moment of course, as almost this ghastly unseen monster though trying to inflict a humiliation upon his victim. Again that is a given but what is so notable is how unpleasant the situation becomes in the way there is this lustful need within even the voice, a sense of a god wishing to destroy his creation, or at least abuse it as he pleases.

Back to my theory though as this film is not about the greatness of a director, but rather the downfall of one. As we follow the director on a very long night of his birthday party where his friends, followers, fanatics and collaborators gather to screen his film, and supposedly for a night of celebration. Although ostensibly Huston is the lead of the film, everything must takes second place to the designs of Welles, as the perspective of Hanneford is often a distant one. Hanneford is not obviously a Welles stand in precisely as we find him to not be a trickster Welles, but rather the macho force, that has drawn comparisons to John Ford and William Wellman, but I'd argue is perhaps closest to Huston. After all Huston, like Hanneford, did attempt to stay relevant within the new wave of his directors in many of his later efforts, much we see Hanneford in his impossible to decipher piece. Of course a film like Huston's Wise Blood was not impossible to decipher, and the titular film in the end is naturally far more akin to Welles's later work. Of course why not be Hanneford it seems in the early party scenes where Huston makes for quite the man of the hour. When Hanneford speaks within the platitudes of art, and his visions of power, Huston could not speak with a greater charisma or satisfaction. This is a man wholly within his element, even as he screams to high heavens of his own godhood while also explaining the womanhood of god all the same time, to which Huston delivers a devious glee of satisfaction. A pure unadulterated ego so fitting to a legend.

One criticism that has been lobbied against this film is that it is misogynistic, which couldn't be more wrong for multitude of reasons, the least of them being that Kodar co-wrote the film. Of course anyone lobbing the complaint to me shows a surface examination upon the film, as there is clear distinction between the view of women in Hanneford's film, against Welles's film. In Hanneford's film the women are objectified, though actually everyone is, Welles's film on the other hand focuses on the destruction of the male ego. The main target being Hanneford that seems to be peeled away at both the loving theories of his success, and the pointed critiques of the auteur. Huston's performance, though distantly framed, is a compelling one where that fierce presence becomes all the more intense as he seems to soak in every moment of it. Huston plays this in part with a snide passive aggressive venom to his onlookers, but also growing discontent in his eyes as he seems to wish the death of all those around him. This becomes all the more evident as Hanneford partakes in a bit of gun play to shoot off the heads of all his friends, in mannequin, form. This is the one moment where we see Hanneford in his greatest joy, as Huston exudes a delighted sneer upon his face as "kills" every single one of his pawns. His destruction of his creation perhaps being his greatest love. A compulsion that again feels far closer to Welles, than Huston, who by nearly all accounts was simply a legitimate legend, rather than the frustrating one that was Welles. Now this whole film again seemed a bit of a trick, that probably never even gave Huston a second thought as he found a resurgence if anything after the filming, as Welles attempts to destroy the macho director in Hanneford. Huston fails to fit the bill of Welles's criticism as a man and a director, however he is more than game to realize a personification of Welles's own self-destruction.

A self-destruction that is different from the anguish that stems from Hanneford's latent homosexuality that he tries to hide through sheer machismo, but in a similar painful state of mind within Welles who almost seemed as though he could never leave the idea that his initial success in the world of art that involved, according himself, conning himself into a theater group. Huston realizes though this as quite potent through the bruised ego that he depicts in such a violent display of hate as he lashes out at his most ardent critic, a female one, who seems to know exactly how to strike towards the heart of him. Huston's thrashing of the man's masculinity being destroyed is earth shattering as a reveals the desperate man being all the bravado with all his insecurities on full display. The final thread of the man's sanity though comes at a quieter place, just as Welles's downfall was not that of a thunderstorm of excess but rather whimpers of fulfilling roles and duties that seemed far below his talent. Both men though seem to succumb some truth they seem to believe in themselves that they hate, Welles as the fake magician where all his sleight of hand became too well known, that he was left with only the cheapest tricks to get by. Hanneford's on the other hand is left greeting his final guest, his leading man who quit his film, just before he will go to die in a car accident most likely a suicide. In this moment though Hanneford tries to come onto the actor failing miserably, as Huston portrays this as this most unnerving display of a man not embracing his true nature, but rather giving up on the illusion he had crafted for himself. Huston's little slight sleazy smile, hides this horrible glint of dissatisfaction of self. A film gasp of a man who cannot live with not being a god among men. Welles claims he was giving Huston this great part, as a gift that he took away from himself. A trick one gain, perhaps to try to make Huston culpable as a target of the criticism, but in the end Huston gave up nothing, delivery just a compelling turn perfect for what seems to be some confession by Welles. Not a confession of homosexuality, but of this inability to maintain his ego. Mind you Huston without a doubt had a powerful ego, something he could wield, as even shown in this performance and in his state of mind that never seemed burdened by the troubled production. Welles perhaps was trying to destroy such an idea there, but failed with the indestructible Huston. Welles's ego on the other hand ended up being the seeds of his own destruction as a filmmaker, and this film seems to be his final testament of that belief. This is as finally seeing the film after so many years, one can find such vulnerabilities within the mind of the man that made it, meanwhile finally seeing the performance of John Huston is merely a testament of the man's immense talent.

53 comments:

Robert MacFarlane said...

The funny part is Huston was apparently a raging homphobe in reality.

Tahmeed Chowdhury said...

This was an absolutely amazing breakdown of both Huston's performance and the development hell the film went through. I'm glad Huston's a strong 4.5 for you, Louis.

Bryan L. said...

1. Hawke
2. Cedergren
3. Considine
4. Reilly
5. Huston

Charles H said...

I loved the highly detailed review, Louis. This is such a magnetic performance from Huston. I can handle the strong 4.5.

Tahmeed Chowdhury said...

Louis and everyone else: Your top ten favourite directorial efforts of this decade. Mine are-

1. George Miller, Mad Max: Fury Road
2. Nicolas Winding Refn, Drive
3. Paul Thomas Anderson, Phantom Thread
4. Martin Scorsese, Silence
5. Damien Chazelle, First Man
6. Makoto Shinkai, Your Name
7. Christopher Nolan, Dunkirk
8. Alejandro Gonzalez Innaritu, Birdman
9. Dennis Villenuve, Blade Runner 2049
10.Damien Chazelle, La La Land

Razor said...

1. Hawke
2. Reilly
3. Cedergen
4. Considine
5. Huston

Bryan L. said...

Tahmeed: This list was difficult to narrow down btw

1. Nicolas Winding Refn, Drive
2. George Miller, Mad Max: Fury Road
3. David Fincher, The Social Network
4. Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu, Birdman
5. Denis Villenueve, Blade Runner: 2049
6. Martin Scorsese, Silence
7. Christopher Nolan, Dunkirk
8. Damien Chazelle, La La Land
9. Paul Thomas Anderson, Phantom Thread
10. Thomas Vinterberg, The Hunt

Emi Grant said...

Tahmeed: Let me try...

(In no particular order)

Denis Villeneuve - Blade Runner 2049
David Fincher - The Social Network
Nicolas Winding Refn - Drive
Damien Chazelle - Whiplash/First Man
Alejandro G. Iñárritu - Birdman
Christopher Nolan - Dunkirk
Sam Mendes - Skyfall
Todd Haynes - Carol
Paul Thomas Anderson - The Master



Emi Grant said...

Also, just re-watched The Favourite today an it's now completely solidified as my Best Film of 2018.

Charles H said...

Tahmeed:

1. Martin Scorsese - Silence
2. Damien Chazelle - First Man
3. Nicolas Winding Refn - Drive
4. Alejandro Gonzalez Innaritu - Birdman
5. Dennis Villenuve - Blade Runner 2049
6. George Miller - Mad Max: Fury Road
7. Christopher Nolan - Dunkirk
8. Sam Mendes - Skyfall
9. David Fincher, The Social Network
10. David Mackenzie - Hell or High Water

Bryan L. said...

Emi: That makes two of us :D

Bryan L. said...

Louis: Are there any actresses whose your perception of them has changed vastly since you've started the blog? A la Burton and Brando for worse, and Cruise for the better

Robert MacFarlane said...

Thameed:

1. George Miller for Mad Max: Fury Road
2. Terrence Malick for The Tree of Life
3. David Fincher for The Social Network
4. Nicolas Winding Refn for Drive
5. Paul Thomas Anderson for The Master
6. David Robert Mitchell for It Follows
7. Christopher Nolan for Dunkirk
8. Makoto Shinkai for Your Name.
9. J.C. Chandor for A Most Violent Year
10. Alfonso Cuaron for Gravity

I still haven't decided on my Director choice for 2018, so I left any choices from there. Some of these aren't even in my top 10 for the years they were released, I just found them directorial achievements.

Bryan L. said...

Robert: Would The Tree of Life be one of those directorial achievements? No offense, but I don't peg you as a member of the fan club for that film, if you know what I mean.

Emi Grant said...

Bryan L: Glad to hear that.

Robert MacFarlane said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Robert MacFarlane said...

Bryan: The Tree of Life is my #1 film this decade and one of my favorite films in general. I was actually referring to Dunkirk and maybe It Follows.

Bryan L. said...

Robert: Ah, I see. My mistake. It's definitely a visual splendor, I'll acknowledge that regarding the film.

Robert MacFarlane said...

Bryan: I've never had a more visceral emotional reaction to a film in my life. I'm wreck whenever I watch it.

Charles H said...

I don't love The Tree of Life like i do most of Malick's films but Brad Pitt was phenomenal.

Robert MacFarlane said...

It's the only Malick film I 100% love with no reservations.

Matt Mustin said...

Tahmeed: Not gonna rank 'em:

George Miller-Mad Max: Fury Road
Nicholas Winding Refn-Drive
Martin Scorsese-Silence
Damien Chazelle-First Man
Guillermo del Toro-The Shape of Water
Paul Thomas Anderson-Phantom Thread
Damien Chazelle-La La Land
Christopher Nolan-Dunkirk
Kim Jee-woon-I Saw the Devil
David Fincher-The Social Network

On the outside looking in: Alfonso Cuaron for Gravity

Still haven't seen Blade Runner 2049, I gotta get on that.

Robert MacFarlane said...

Matt: 2049 is SO up your alley.

Matt Mustin said...

Robert: I KNOW. I want to rewatch the original first, and for whatever reason I just haven't yet.

Robert MacFarlane said...

Matt: Actually not that necessary.

Bryan L. said...

Robert: That Malick film for me would be The Thin Red Line, but to each their own. I wouldn't mind revisiting The Tree of Life in the future though.

Matt: BR:2049 explains the events of the first well enough in the opening title, so you could just jump right in.

And it did pain me to omit Del Toro for The Shape of Water from my list.

Charles H said...

Jee-woon for I Saw The Devil slipped my mind, he would around the top 5 for me.

Luke Higham said...

1. Cedergren
2. Hawke
3. Reilly
4. Considine
5. Huston

Luke Higham said...

Louis: Your updated top ten Russell Crowe acting moments.

Ratings and Thoughts on:
Hilary Swank & Blythe Danner in What They Had
Matthew McConaughey, Richie Merritt & Bel Powley in White Boy Rick
The cast of Bird Box
Jovan Adepo, Mathilde Ollivier & Pilou Asbaek in Overlord
The cast of 22 July with thoughts on the film
Charlie Hunnam and Rami Malek in Papillon

Thoughts on the Frozen II trailer.

And have you seen They Shall Not Grow Old.

Bryan L. said...

Merritt was terrible in White Boy Rick. They couldn't get Tye Sheridan?!

Powley was bad as well, although "less" bad.

Calvin Law said...

My top 10:

Paul Thomas Anderson - Phantom Thread
George Miller - Mad Max: Fury Road
Benh Zeitlin - Beasts of the Southern Wild
Alfonso Cuaron - Roma
Damien Chazelle - First Man
Ryan Coogler - Creed
David Fincher - The Social Network
Joel and Ethan Coen - Inside Llewyn Davis
Juho Kuosmanen - The Happiest Day in the Life of Ollie Maki

Calvin Law said...

Louis: your thoughts on this late 1990s/2000s cast for The Sisters Brothers, directed by Jim Jarmusch?

Eli Sisters: Tom Waits
Charlie Sisters: Gary Oldman
John Morris: Johnny Depp
Hermann Warm: Isaach de Bankolé

Techno said...

1º Cedergren
2º Reilly
3º Hawke
4º Huston
5º Considine

1º Gosling
2º Foster
3º Coogan
4º Fonte
5º Dillon

Mitchell Murray said...

Just a heads up, my final review for 2018 best actress has just been posted. Took a little longer than predicted, so I apologize for that.

Luke Higham said...

And Calvin's Actor/Actress Top Tens are up now if you want to read them.

Tahmeed Chowdhury said...

1. Cedergren
2. Hawke
3. Reilly
4. Considine
5. Huston

Tahmeed Chowdhury said...

Luke: Where do you think Gosling might rank on Louis's decade-best list? I'm predicting it to be his second favourite performance of Gosling's as of yet, even though I personally think it's his career best.

Luke Higham said...

I do think Cedergren, Hawke or Reilly will win this lineup and Considine will get a five as well though I'm really curious as to what you thought of Jodie Whittaker, (The 13th Doctor) Louis since I recall you being really unimpressed with her in Venus and the majority of critics felt she stole the film from Considine.

Luke Higham said...

Tahmeed: 1st or 2nd in terms of career though I personally think this is Louis' favourite of his so I'm gonna go with 2nd best of the decade since Gosling and Stanton were neck and neck last year.

Bryan L. said...

I'm not sure if Gosling will be the clear winner, since Hawke also has a good chance at taking the Overall, in my view.

I thought Whittaker was pretty good in Journeyman. I'd give her a 4.5.

Luke Higham said...

Bryan: What did you think of Considine.

Luke Higham said...

Bryan: I know this really shouldn't matter much, but what hurts Hawke's chances of winning is that Louis had a very mixed opinion on First Reformed whereas Gosling's First Man, I assume is in Louis' Top Ten films of the decade.

Matt Mustin said...

Luke: For what it's worth, I'm not crazy about First Reformed overall and I think it's probably Ethan Hawke's best performance.

Bryan L. said...

Luke: Oh Considine was definitely great, and I'm still thinking about his rating. I think he excelled with the mannerisms needed in the second half of the film, as he made them seem natural, as well as bringing some lowkey charm in the beginning.

And I see your point, however, I also think Hawke managed to somehow ground Schraders' heavy-handedness, if that makes sense. We'll have to wait and see.

Charles H said...

Yeah, i don't think Gosling is going to be the clear winner of the line-up. But if he is it'll be interesting to see possibly 3 Gosling performances on Louis' best of the decade list.

Calvin Law said...

Luke: cheers for the plug. Have also updated it with my full rankings for lead (will do so for supporting too)

Louis Morgan said...

Tahmeed:

Disregarding 2018:

1. George Miller - Mad Max: Fury Road
2. Nicolas Winding Refn - Drive
3. Martin Scorsese - Silence
4. Paul Thomas Anderson - Phantom Thread
5. Alejando G. Innaritu - Birdman
6. Christopher Nolan - Dunkirk
7. Paul Thomas Anderson - The Master
8. Dennis Villeneuve - Blade Runner 2049
9. David Fincher - The Social Network
10. Alfonso Cuaron - Gravity

Luke:

1. Budd in bed with Lynn - L.A. Confidential
2. Before the battle - Master and Commander
3. Interrogation - L.A. Confidential
4. Ford Dealership - Boy Erased
5. Arguing with Stephen over the floggin - Master and Commander
6. "My Name is Maximus" - Gladiator
7. Story of his mother - 3:10 to Yuma
8. Hotel scene - The Nice Guys
9. Deposition - The Insider
10. Being Shown the pictures - L.A. Confidential

Swank - 3(I suppose this one of her performance I like more, as it isn't perpetuated with the iffy moments that I usually find in her performances. She's more than decent here in a general sense of being believable. She however doesn't really find much meaning in her work, in turn doesn't find much meaning in the film either. Her performance mostly just lies there in wait for the other actors to do something interesting as she maintains just a very basic consistency.)

Danner - 3.5(A rather limited performance as a woman who is in the deep throws of dementia without even moments of a clarity to reflect upon her condition at any time. Danner instead depicts a woman just constantly lost in her thoughts all the time with no real proper connection. She's good though in this is making this a natural confusion with the character, and manages to avoid becoming too much of a caricature given the lack of grounding within the writing.)

McConaughey - 4(White Boy Rick as an overall film has a lot of interesting ideas at its disposal and wastes all of them by never really devoting much to a single element. It also a serious problem that I'll get to momentarily. McConaughey does his best to try to salvage the material though through his devoted turn as he manages to convey convincingly the strict love of the father for his family. This being though with a properly unwieldy madness that makes sense of the character's poor choices throughout the film.)

Powley - 2(Not a great turn her in the least, and shows something of merit in say like Juno Temple in Killer Joe in comparison. Her work becomes pure caricature as the "trashy Daughter" archetype. She's not abysmal by any means but she never rises above the caricature.)

Louis Morgan said...

Merritt - 1.5(Nothing has been more mind boggling to me than those who praised this performance as naturalistic and effective in any way. He is downright awful and this is an example of non-actor casting that was simply the wrong decision. Merritt's performance comes off as a punk not in the film, but a punk of a guy going "eh yeah I'll act in this sure nuff". Merritt couldn't seem more out of it the entire time and just kind of stares then says his lines. He has no real connection to the material, to the actors, or even the setting at any point. One of the most hilarious instances of this being when his character is shot and Merritt just looks frankly bored in the scene. He's atrocious and it's a shame since a better performance could've at least given a bit more vibrancy to some of the elements of the film. Merritt though is just a blank slate the entire time, to the point I feel almost like the director gave up by using the recording from the real Rick to try to elicit some sort of emotion in connection with the character. This is because there you see something that come from his experience, with Merritt he is the same disinterested punk the entire time.)

Bullock - 4(She gives a fine performance even if I think the arc of her character is weakly realized. She does the tough survivor thing pretty well here and does her best to bring a presence to the film. She's consistently effective enough to carry the film through its often ridiculous and contrived sequences.)

Malkovich - 3(I love that his character while shown to be a villain of sorts is shown just to be right again and again. Any way with Malkovich in the role, and the nature of the character he could have gone super over the top. He doesn't actually and I appreciated the certain level of restraint he brought here which is rare for post-early nineties Malkovich)

Hollander - 3(A fine bit of kookiness from him.)

Adepo - 3.5(Adepo gives a fine sort of average dude performance here. He's really there to be overshadowed by Russell quite honestly, and he definitely is. Even with that though Adepo is good within the limitations of his character largely in his silent acting where he manages to bring a convincing emotional quality to the film no matter how ridiculous it gets.

Louis Morgan said...


Ollivier - 3.5(She has a very specific role that is a cliche to a WWII film of any sort however she delivers in the cliche by bringing a real honesty to it. She plays it with a strict earnestness portraying such a powerful emotional undercurrent in her work that is a consistent and needed grounding for the film.)

Asbaek - 3(Yeah....I'm thinking he's not a very good actor. His absurd over the top style though definitely works here in the film John Carpenter style tone. His mad dog setting, that seems to be his only setting at this point, works and even fact becomes all the more proper as the film goes on and his character becomes more grotesque.)

22 July is obviously dealing with some very harrowing subject matter, and the depiction of that titular sequence is chilling. It sadly doesn't really know what to do with itself past that sequence as it offers no real insight within the monster and though the other story of the survivor is certainly moving it too doesn't become anything too notable. It is not a bad film in the least though, but just doesn't achieve the greatness it is aiming for.

Lie - 3.5(His performance certainly is chilling in portraying the sheer hollowness of the man in his act, and then the rather pathetic fanaticism he portrays afterwords. The film doesn't really scratch below the surface much though, but Lie's performance certainly meets the needs of the film's limited view of the character.)

Gravli - 4(He gives a very moving portrayal at every point of the film. In first portraying the direct visceral fear of the immediate situation. Then the pain of recovery and survival afterwards. Gravli brings the appropriate vivid detail to the sense of survivor's guilty along with simply the physical pain the character faces. This though naturally explodes which Gravli reveals in authentic writhing of the young man's anguish. He then though is quite good in bringing the palatable but muted by pain passion of the character's emotional testimony in the end.)

Øigarden - 3(He gives a fine performance as sort of this restrained conviction of a man who stands by his specific principals as a lawyer no matter the public outrage.)

Hunnam - 3.5(He actually seems to be growing as an actor as I expected a disaster, when compared to McQueen, here. Hunnam isn't McQueen in the role, but he actually acquits himself fairly well. This in just portraying the appropriate charisma needed for the role along with the moving portrayal of the man quietly facing his own demons and his position in life. Hunnam's performance doesn't hit the heights McQueen did with his work, but he certainly finds some powerful moments throughout his work even if he never gives the film a purpose so to speak. He'd perhaps be higher but he's a little iffy in his final pointless scene, that was not in the original, where we see the aged Papillon selling his memoir.)

Malek - 3.5(Although Hoffman in this film was less of a wall to climb so to speak, I don't think Malek reaches those heights either. Malek still acquits himself well enough, though he is touch mannered in the early scenes of the film. As the film progresses though he nicely portrays the changes in the man and manages to hit the more emotional moments of his work rather well. He is especially good in his final scene where he and Hunnam do develop a real chemistry that adds a nice poignancy needed for the central friendship.)

Calvin:

Sounds just about perfect, especially Waits and Bankolé who are perfect choices.

Calvin Law said...

Lol Malkovich in Bird Box was actually a pretty great subversion of that usual trope. If they’d all just followed his lead they’d probably all make it through.

Bryan L. said...

Louis: Your 80s cast and director for Overlord?

Bryan L. said...

Louis: Also, what I think makes White Boy Rick even worse is that Meritt kind of even looks like Tye Sheridan, but he ain't no Tye and he ain't fooling anyone.

Louis Morgan said...

Bryan:

Overlord 1980's directed by John Carpenter:

Private Boyce: Dennis Dun
Corporal Ford: Kurt Russell
Chloe: Emmanuelle Seigner
Private Tibbet: Bruno Kirby
Private Chase: Robert Carradine
Private Rosenfeld: Griffin Dunne
Sergeant Eldson: Isaac Hayes
Dr. Schmidt: Donald Pleasence (expanded role)
Captain Wafner: Peter Stormare