Paul Bettany in A Knight's Tale
Mark Addy in A Knight's Tale
Ian Holm in Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring
Justin Theroux in Mulholland Drive
Anthony Hopkins in Hearts in Atlantis
James Gandolfini in The Mexican
Bettany for prediction purposes.
And a review of:
Hayden Christensen in Life As A House
100 comments:
1. Holm
2. Bettany
3. Hopkins
4. Gandolfini
5. Theroux
I came fairly close on the last line up, so I'm feeling somewhat confident on this one:
5) Gandolfini
4) Theoroux
3) Bettany
2) Holm
1) Hopkins
I'm also..um..interested in Christensen's review. The movie I don't think was very well received outside of some nods for him and Kline. Even then, I haven't seen there performances come up on many "worst oscar snubs" lists, so... yah, tempered expectations.
Speaking of Louis, what would be your thoughts on Kevin Kline as an actor? He has one great comedic performance under his belt in "A Fish Called Wanda", but everything else I've seen of his hasn't been to that same level. He's a performer I could consistently describe as "fine"; He was fine in his subtle dramatic turn from "The Ice Storm", he was fine in his small role from "Beauty and the Beast", and he was fine in the clips I've watched from the movie "Dave".
From my experience, he's seemingly a capable actor - not much more, and not much less. Not infallible, but of a certain charm and ability to be sure.
1. Holm
2. Hopkins
3. Bettany
4. Gandolfini
5. Theroux
By the way, watching the Emmys with no context or knowledge of the nominees is pretty fun. Happy for Michelle Williams.
I really appreciate your evaluation of Santoro (Behind the Sun). Selton Mello and Raul Cortez failed ratings for To the Left of the Father.
And come more reviews of Brazilian actors. Because Brazilian cinema is in danger of being extinguished by the current government.
And my bets are:
5º Bettany
4º Theroux
3º Gandolfini
2º Holm
1º Hopkins
Ratings and thoughts on the cast of Bridget Jones and The Others, Louis?
And your thoughts on those 2 movies too?
Game of Thrones won “Best” Drama Series at the Emmys! Yay...
Happy for Fleabag, though. Very well deserved awards.
1. Holm
2. Gandolfini
3. Bettany
4. Hopkins
5. Theroux
Louis: Rating and thoughts on Ronit Elkabetz in Late Marriage.
Louis: And if you've seen them, Your thoughts on Band Of Brothers and the cast, Anne Frank: The Whole Story and the cast, Conspiracy with Ratings and thoughts on the cast and the cast of James Dean with James Franco.
And your thoughts on The Others.
1.Holm
2.Hopkins
3.Gandolfini
4.Theroux
5.Bettany
1. James Gandolfini
2. Paul Brittany
3. Anthony Hopkins
4. Ian Holm
5. Justin Theroux
Oh, I'm so glad you're reviewing Holm.
3 years ago I remember sitting next to Jharrel Jerome while we were both doing homework in the Ithaca College library, and I just watched him win an Emmy tonight. Wow.
Huh you know what, I’m really happy with these Emmy wins overall, especially Waller-Bridge and Jerome.
Also, holy fuck Julia Garner won! Very happy about that too.
1. Bettany (Louis, include that extended scene in his review)
2. Gandolfini
3. Hopkins
4. Holm (I'm hoping both Bean and McKellen will go up on this viewing)
5. Theroux
Rating Predictions
Bettany - 4.5/5
Addy - 4
Gandolfini - 4.5/5
Hopkins - 4.5
Holm - 4.5
Theroux - 4.5
Christensen - 2.5
Oh yeah and Hader too that’s very pleasing.
1. Bettany
2. Gandolfini
3. Hopkins
4. Holm
5. Theroux
1. Holm
2. Bettany
3. Hopkins
4. Theroux
5. Gandolfini
Louis: thoughts on Zelwegger in Bridget Jones. I’m glad you loved her, it’s a great performance.
1. Holm
2. Hopkins
3. Bettany
4. Theroux
5. Gandolfini
Louis: Your thoughts on “Who Shot Mr. Burns?”, both part I and II?
Louis: Aside from Sabretooth, think Clancy Brown could have also worked as Cable back in the 90's or even now? Someone also once said that his portrayal of Captain Hadley was the closest portrayal to depicting Judge Dredd on film. What do you also think of Brown portraying Dredd back in the 90's?
1. Hopkins
2. Holm
3. Gandolfini
4. Bettany
5. Theroux
1. Hopkins
2. Bettany
3. Theroux
4. Holm
5. Gandolfini
Man... I just revisited Holm's big scene opposite Wood, in anticipation for his review, and it hit me much harder than I remembered.
McKellen would likely be my favourite performance from Fellowship, but Holm isn't far behind.
Regarding the Emmys other than those two needless GOT wins, those are some more than fine choices from what I've seen. Seems like most of the voters had buyers remorse with GOT as even the drama win, seemed like eh we'll just give it to them, as they lost everywhere else where it was easy for them to lose. Shame the Better Call Saul Boys couldn't have upset Dinklage.
Mitchell:
Kline I actually would say has a great ability but it is difficult to tunnel through the right role. Otto West was the perfect role for him as it played into all of his strengths and turned in one of the greatest comedic turns ever given. He typically has a bit of broadness in all his roles which frankly was a little bit ill-fitting to the "average man" roles he'd later be given. In that although he's more than decent in many of those roles they really don't play into his abilities as performer which are bigger and broader. Quite frankly his style was more fitting to another era as it would be easy to envision him as a contemporary of Cary Grant, as his larger than life approach can work brilliantly, he rarely was allowed to fully embrace the idea. Otto was an example where he was allowed to and in turn he was brilliant.
Anonymous:
Zellweger - (I mean rather impressive on just a technical front in that her accent work is very impressive as she fits right into to the born and bred Brits without a second thought. It also allows Zellweger to interestingly give a turn that is very different from her usual presence, in playing a more outgoing sort of role in her portrayal, mostly comic, portrayal of the mess that is Bridget Jones. She is an absolute delight beyond her technical precision though as she makes the most out of every bit within the film. This with effortless comic time and doing awkwardness quite so effectively. She also finds the balance though in creating a sense of the more dramatic desperation that compels her character towards some questionable decisions. Quite honestly it would have been easy to make this film intolerable for me in its specific tone, but the film ended up working because of how well Zellweger's performance worked.)
Grant - 3.5(It is interesting to see him rework himself towards an overt sort of sleaze rather than fumbling and bumbling likable. He does so effectively though and is properly despicable sort. This also deserves mention as so often these types of roles are dull, but Grant brings the right sort of sly sinister glee that makes him stand out in the right way.)
Firth - 3.5(Does his pseudo Darcy well in combining a bit of low key distance along with the sort of affable charm that he slowly reveals. He balances it well here and is a properly likable "Mr. Right".)
Some of the supporting case can be a bit much, but I did rather like Broadbent in his short bit.
Now as for the film, I'm always a bit suspicious of any Richard Curtis film, as they turn me off quite quickly. In this instance though the main cast makes it more than tolerable, even if there are definitely some moments that are a little too Curtisy. Still the main cast, Zellweger in particular, makes the material work.
Kidman - (Although the film itself I had issues with as a sort of an attempt to recreate The Innocents as admirable as that is, Kidman does deliver in her attempt to replicate the sort of performance that Kerr brought. This in finding so much within the concept of the horror. Kidman is fantastic in not only creating the sense of place within her work, but also very much realizing the horror through her portrayal that does two things in creating the terror. This in one just being present in every scene and powerfully realizing with this honest detail, but also creating the sense of growing anxieties that push that character further down into mental instability from the experience. Her performance is captivating in creating the deterioration in her relationship both to the situation but also her relationship with her family. Kidman in every turn elevates the film, which isn't as good as The Innocents, not even close by my measure, however Kidman is pretty great here in delivering a performance worthy of comparison to Kerr's.)
Flanagan - 3.5(A bit underused however she is effectively low key creepy at times combine with a bit of warmth at times, then also a bit of dark humor. She manages to create enough of a balance to give a compelling turn even if not fully exploited.)
Eccleston - 3(Particularly wasted however more than decent in portraying the haunting quality within the man, of a thread that seemed more than a bit wasted.)
Mann - 4(An effectively creepy little girl performance right along the way, particularly in her voices scenes that she does quite well. This is balanced though in effective moments of just portraying a scared little girl in a situation she herself doesn't quite understand.)
As noted the film I liked however it didn't quite get under my skin the way I want this sort of horror to, like The Innocents. Having said that is is still a good entry into the haunted house genre with some notable sequences in there, and certainly helped along by Kidman. There just seem a few missed opportunities however particularly involving the husband, the dark humor of the servants and the ending which just felt like a rush rather than a proper climax.
Luke:
Elkabetz - (Her performance is an interesting turn of specific sort of reactions within particularly intimate moments shot as such. She's compelling within portraying the sort of connection but also distance in these moments. This creating the sense of the relationship both the power of their passion and their troubles in their interactions. She's particularly good though interacting with the anti-her, family by just realizing the awkwardness of the situation as she attempts to ignore while being clearly distraught over the treatment of her.)
Currently watching Band of Brothers.
Conspiracy is quite frankly one of the most disturbing films I've seen that doesn't have an ounce of blood split, just through the uncompromising depiction of this essentially bureaucratic evil, through the story that is rather compelling even as it is disturbing in portraying the story of it as basically 12 Evil Men. This with the most sympathetic person still being pretty terrible.
Branagh - 4(It's definitely a little Branaghy and I don't mean in terms of his accent. His performance though still works in creating sort of this smiling devil effectively. This as he dismisses and threatens every person with the same blithe certainty of his position as he destroys each person in turn. Branagh delivering each threat with the ease of a true mass murderer and is quite effective in this sense, though not as effective as...)
Tucci - 4.5(I feel he takes the idea Branagh is working on and takes it further as a man who just lives within the idea of mass murder. Tucci's performance is so effective as he is so matter of fact about every element of dealing with the "proposition" as though it is something he is just going to make work without a second thought. This combined with sort of the calm of this host of this evil non-debate of sorts. Tucci doesn't play up the villainy but is fantastic by just showing as something his Eichmann that he lives without a second thought.)
Firth - 4(Very effective here in portraying the more passionate sort, that he plays without second guessing it, showing a man who is essentially passionate about committing genocide the way he thinks will be most effective. He captures this sort of particularly disturbing certainty of beliefs while placing it as though he's discovered some essential truth in his abhorrent mind.)
McNeice - 3.5(Effective as this bit of grotesqueness at every point, as he emphasizes a man there basically to exist off the despicable "spoils" of war.)
Threlfall - 4(He's very good as the closet character to a moral compass, and even his compass is rather broken to be sure. Threlfall though is terrific in his largely reactionary moments as he slowly becomes more and more reserved and really defeated as the man's attempts for a less extreme action are obviously going to be ignored.)
Everyone else is strong even in their more minor bits.
Bryan:
Both are great episodes because they're hilarious in and around the mystery, which really is secondary after you know it. There's so many great bits though in both parts. From Homer's rage from Burns continually failing to learn his names, to Burns turning to Cartoon Super Villainy, and the moments of revenge seeking of each person "Yeah let me get one thing, ahhh now's there's the inflated sense of self-esteem". Or Krusty arriving back in town when no one is particularly happy. Part 2 is also hilarious. A underrated joke for me is the reporter trying to get the whole story with "Who are you and where are you going". Of course there's Speedway Squad dream sequence, and of course every single bit of interrogation. Whether it be Skinner's makeup mixup, the true detector for Moe or Tito Puenta's revenge song.
Anonymous:
I certainly could've seen him as Cable in the 90's, and that would be a most extreme Dredd, but I definitely could've seen it working.
1. Hopkins
2. Holm
3. Gandolfini
4. Bettany
5. Theroux
Louis: Rating and thoughts on Gandolfini in The Last Castle?
Louis: what are your thoughts on the episode Pigmalion from king of the hill
Louis: Just wondering, have you seen any episodes of Jerry Seinfelds “Comedians in Cars Getting Coffee”? If so, any thoughts?
I just read that Matt Reeves’s “The Batman” is courting Jeffrey Wright to play Commissioner Gordon. Anyone else psyched about that?
Louis: I recall how you said if you wondered if all of the budget for the animated G.I. Joe movie was used for the opening scene. If you've seen the entire movie, could I have your thoughts on Don Johnson and Burgess Meredith's voice work in that film? I have to say, with the way Johnson's character is portrayed, it's hard to buy that his character is even a first lieutenant (who outranks his brother of all people). Meredith is quite honestly, the best part of the film.
Other films to watch:
Anne Frank: The Whole Story (Ben Kingsley)
James Dean (James Franco)
Life With Judy Garland: Me And My Shadows (Judy Davis)
The Man Who Wasn't There (Possible Upgrade for Thornton)
Werckmeister Harmonies (Bela Tarr)
The Deep End (Tilda Swinton)
Legally Blonde
Hannibal (Ridley Scott)
No Man's Land
Lagaan: Once Upon A Time In India
Last Orders (Caine/Hoskins/Courtenay)
Millennium Mambo
Pandaemonium (Linus Roache)
Under The Sand (Charlotte Rampling)
Vanilla Sky (Re-Watch for thoughts)
Enemy At The Gates (Re-Watch for thoughts)
Atlantis: The Lost Empire
Spy Kids
Kate & Leopold (Hugh Jackman)
The Devil's Backbone (Guillermo Del Toro)
Pearl Harbor
Waking Life (Linklater/Hawke)
Tape (Linklater/Hawke)
Millennium Actress
Brotherhood Of The Wolf
Ichi The Killer (Tadanobu Asano)
Wit (Emma Thompson)
The Lady And The Duke
Read My Lips (Audiard/Cassel)
Intimacy (Rylance)
Liam (Stephen Frears)
Pulse
The Grey Zone
Nowhere In Africa
Charlotte Gray (Cate Blanchett)
Enigma
Shaolin Soccer
Cowboy Bebop: The Movie
Session 9
Trouble Every Day
K-Pax
Serendipity
The Affair Of The Necklace
Suicide Club
Jimmy Neutron: Boy Genius
Visitor Q
Lovely & Amazing
Joy Ride (Paul Walker/Steve Zahn)
What Time Is It There?
Behind Enemy Lines
He Died With A Felafel In His Hand (Noah Taylor)
The Son's Room
Heist (Gene Hackman)
Manic
To End All Wars
Fulltime Killer
Invincible (Tim Roth)
The Parole Officer (Steve Coogan)
Greenfingers (Clive Owen)
Monsoon Wedding
Louis: Have you re-watched The Man Who Wasn't There.
Michael: that’s a fantastic casting choice. Though I could also imagine Wright as say, Mr Freeze which would be amazing too.
Louis: And a re-watch of Sexy Beast.
1. Holm
2. Hopkins
3. Gandolfini
4. Bettany
5. Theroux
Louis: Thoughts on the Uncut Gems trailer.
Louis: will the theatrical release of El Camino be enough to secure it a spot in your rankings of 2019 films?
And Sandler looks VERY promising.
I think Jeffrey Wright would be a great Commissioner Gordon, but the more important question is what role do they have Jonah Hill in mind for?
Very promising, indeed.
Sandler looked pretty creepy in that trailer lol, especially the way he says "yes" when asked if he was enjoying himself.
RatedRStar: Agreed, this doesn’t seem to be playing off his usual persona which is pretty intriguing.
I think Ian McKellen (The Fellowship of the Ring) finally wins 2001. A great actor like this and hasn't won a year on this blog yet, Louis should be ashamed.
Give McKellen 5 Walter Brennans or 5 Robert Shaws!
Anonymous: I'd like for him to go up but to say that Louis should be ashamed for not giving him a win is abit much. He gave him the Oscar win though.
1. Theroux
2. Holm
3. Gandolfini
4. Bettany
5. Hopkins
Robert:
Gandolfini - 3(He's the highlight of the film, but that isn't saying much. As mentioned before, the original concept where it slowly turns out the warden is a good man and the imprisoned general is an egomaniac sounded a lot more interesting. Anyway the standard evil warden bit Gandolfini does more than decently, bringing an expected menace even though the role really is a waste of his talents for the most part. This is as there just isn't anything to the warden other than he's a jerk, but at least he makes for a proper jerk.)
Anonymous:
A strange episode that isn't like any other episode in the series, from its actiony climax, its villain, and its rather bloody finale. It almost plays the concept for a King of the Hill movie in some ways just by how different it is. Having said that it is an enjoyable episode though weird within the series. It is a strange enjoyable detour into weirdness for no reason, but it works as an episode as executed even if it is one of a kind within the series.
Bryan:
No.
Michael:
Great choice.
Anonymous:
Not in some time, Meredith though I recall bringing an appropriate menace, while Johnson was a touch annoying there.
Luke:
No.
Love the look of the Uncut trailer, though I'm really a mark for "protagonist on a high wire" act movies to begin with. Sandler looks promising and is giving a John Turturro vibe to me, though in a good way. This type of role really could play well into his sort of unhinged qualities, so I'm more than intrigued.
Calvin:
Yes, as long as it is at the same time or first.
Bryan:
I could see Hill as the Penguin, based on War Dogs.
Louis: Your thoughts for the cast of Ad Astra? Figured I'd wait a little to ask just in case anyone wanted to see it over the weekend
Fire Away, I'm in no rush to see Ad Astra.
Luke: Your rating for Joaquin Phoenix in Gladiator? If I'm not mistaken, it seems you like the film a great deal, so I'm wondering what you think of him there.
Louis, do you still stand by your rating of Jeff Bridges in True Grit? Or has a rewatch changed your mind?
If the rumor that the new Batman is adapting The Long Halloween turns out to be true, then I would bet Hill’s role would be either Calendar Man or Alberto Falcone. Both of which would be great fits for him.
Louis: Could Dev Patel go up for Lion?
Bryan: I'd give him a 4.
Managed to nab tickets for David Copperfield and The Lighthouse, on that note regarding Patel.
Calvin: Really looking forward to getting your thoughts on them as well as ABDITN and A Hidden Life.
Louis, your thoughts on The Red Badge of Gayness from South Park.
Louis: thoughts on Geoffrey Owens on It's Always Sunny? His scenes never fail to crack me up.
Has anyone there ever seen David Mamet's Heist (2001)?
Brazilian Cinema: Yeah, it's decent. Good cast, but a bit lacking in style and the dialogue gets a bit much.
Louis: thoughts on the latest IASIP episode? Surprisingly enjoyed it.
Really hope Bettany/Addy's review is first.
Tahmeed: Me too. I wonder whether his speech defending William could make the difference for him getting a five.
Calvin: I liked the IASIP season premiere as well, and seeing Frank & Charlie interact with their European counterparts was amusing.
Louis: Thoughts on this fancast for a 60's The Rock?
The Rock (1960's version, directed by J. Lee Thompson)
Mason: Laurence Olivier
Goodspeed: Paul Newman
Hummel: Robert Ryan
Womack: Edmond O'Brien
Baxter: Dana Andrews
Paxton: James Garner
Anderson: James Coburn
Carla: Claudia Cardinale
Hendrix: Gene Hackman
Frye: Robert Blake
Darrow: Charles Bronson
Crisp: Robert Redford
Since no one's mentioned yet, really liked the look of that second Irishman trailer. Deaging is still noticeable to be sure, but didn't look distracting at all besides the Army De Niro shot. Also Pacino looks like he's going full TV Pacino, and I thought De Niro looked at a lot more promising in this trailer.
Bryan:
Well there's not much to give away anyways, other than don't expect anything to happen.
Pitt - (I have to say, now that I've looked closer at the reviews, that I am absolutely baffled at the high praise Pitt has received by the very same critics who hand waved what Gosling did in First Man. Anyway Pitt's performance is a good way to show how brilliant Gosling was in that film. In that Pitt's performance while fine in the moment portraying moments of emotion and the general idea of the sort of directness of the man, he doesn't convey the internalization needed for the role. You get a sense of the character, but he doesn't pull you into the struggle. The emotional moments are not these peaks but just moments. He doesn't create these outbursts as a natural moments within the internalized logic of the man. Pitt just is very quiet with some moments that are semi-emotional. He's fine in this but it doesn't have a hint of that weight needed for a truly great internalized performance like Gosling in First Man, Blade Runner and Drive. So he's not Gosling here is what I'm saying, even though he's not bad.)
Sutherland - (Just wasted. There for a bit of exposition which he delivers well enough, but there's not point for him to even exist.)
Negga - (Same as Sutherland. Although side note I don't think it was ideal for her to use her Preacher accent again, just felt like a point where she could've mixed up a bit, even though it wasn't bad.)
Jones - (Just does old tired and angry again. Seems like he only truly cares in rare instances, or if he directs himself. Now it does sorta work for his character here, but it still doesn't amount to much.)
Everyone else is both bland yet sort of overacting at the same time.
Anonymous:
Haven't seen it again recently.
Tahmeed:
No.
Anonymous:
A funny episode to be sure with some trademark bits of Cartman being introduced first, particularly going to such an extreme to be proven "right". Repetitive to be sure but enjoyable in its ridiculousness as pushed forth by extreme revisionism through alcohol.
Calvin:
Need to get on the new episode, as I didn't know it was coming out honestly, so a treat for me.
Owens is very funny in his appearances through the unabashed laziness of his "performances" where he doesn't come close to who he is suppose to be playing but has no shame in this.
Anonymous:
Some fine choices across the board, and believable in those big actors in bit parts based on the era.
Is the first review coming tonight, Louis.
Louis: Your thoughts on the space monkey scene in the film?
Louis: What are your thoughts on the train scene in Lawrence of Arabia (ie, the scene that provided my display picture)
Louis: did you hate the voiceover as much as I did?
Having just got out of Ad Astra, I must say: You’re all crazy, it’s mostly great and Pitt is a total 5.
I wouldn’t go as far as Robert but I was also mostly positive on Ad Astra. Although I didn’t think of it as much as an Apocalypse Now story and was a lot more focused on the father/son relationship.
Meh, it’s only sitting less and less well with me. There’s still stuff I liked of course, but really even that father/son relationship was utterly lacking imo.
Saw Ready or Not. It's pretty dumb but deliberately so I think, and even though I think it could've been a classic with more directorial flair and a more daring screenplay, it's got a fantastic lead performance and is a lot of fun.
Weaving - 5
Brody - 3.5
MacDowell - 3
O'Brien - 3
Czerny - 3
Guadagni - 3.5
Louis: So, apparently James Cagney met Michael J. Fox a year before his death in 1986 and felt that Fox was ideal to play him in a biopic. Thoughts on this?
Also, Stallone was to star in an adaptation of The Executioner, a book series that inspired the creation of The Punisher, with William Friedkin directing.
Irishman reviews are coming out and seem to be pretty glowing, apparently Pacino is the highlight.
RIP Rob Garrison.
Bryan:
I thought it was pretty dumb to be honest, and out of a different film.
Matt:
An absolutely stunning scene to be expected on every front. From the attack itself and capturing the spectacle. It's also just a brilliant scene for the interactions between each of the character. From the bickering between Tayi and Brighton. Ali discussing his intentions and Bentley's observations. The highlight though is the man that is Lawrence full embracing his "invincibility" and "hero of god" both through the train walk then especially the stare down with the wood be assassin.
Calvin:
Didn't care for it either, and in full agreement. More I think about it, the less I think of it.
Side note, I don't view it as Apocalypse Now thematically, it is structurally that though.
That's good to hear, no surprise regarding Pacino based on the trailers, though Pesci and De Niro also seem to be getting a lot of praise.
Anonymous:
I could see that in terms of the sort of charisma and presence, within the smaller stature. Fox has that in the way Cagney did. Although unconventional otherwise I would've been interested to see if he could've pulled it off.
I mean Stallone with a competent director but out of his comfort zone is typically interesting, so that likely would've been the case. Maybe a good version of Cobra.
RIP Rob Garrison, didn't know that his Cobra Kai episode seemed to be based on reality, I imagine it hits harder than it already did now.
Louis: Speaking of Fox, what are your thoughts and rating for his performance in American President?
RIP Rob Garrison.
Louis: What are your overall thoughts on the production design of Springfield itself in The Simpsons?
And the same question but for the titular town in South Park? I love how it just looks like a quaint little town, which goes against the exact opposite of what usually goes on in the show.
Louis: your thoughts on this cast for a 2010s The Elephant Man? It's just a slight variation on one I've done before.
2010s The Elephant Man directed by Yorgos Lanthimos
John Merrick: Nicholas Hoult (him + makeup = great performance guarantee?)
Dr Treves: Tom Hiddleston
Madge Kendal: Emily Mortimer
Carr-Gomm: Stephen Dillane
Mrs Mothershead: Olivia Colman
Jim: Michael Smiley
Mr Bytes: Jermaine Clement
Ann Treves: Ruth Wilson
RIP Rob Garrison.
Louis: Your rating and thoughts on Jamie Robinson's performance as the young William Wallace in Braveheart.
Also, could I have your thoughts on the scene that depicts Wallace's father and brother's funeral? (https://youtu.be/C68y8pSX3FI)
Louis: Your thoughts on the cinematography of The Killing Fields and The Mission.
Calvin: I think Hoult might be a little young for the role, although he indeed is great when he has makeup.
Bryan: John Merrick died at the age of 28, so I don’t think his age would be a problem.
Saw Judy, which is as standard as it looked, a little substandard honestly. Zellweger though does deliver at least.
Zellweger - 4.5
Wittrock - 2.5
Sewell - 3
Buckley - 2.5/3(wasted)
Anonymous:
Haven't seen it in recently enough.
Bryan:
Well the the classic Simpsons art direction is wonderful in creating character in the town through how iconic the locations are through their bits of idiosyncrasies. Though this later became a bit lifeless when the art direction became far too stilted and lifeless in its digital form.
Uhhh, for South Park I honestly think we've just gotten all used to its rough animation due to the success of the humor. I mean what it does for works, but I wouldn't describe it as "good" in a traditional sense.
Calvin:
Finally got around to the IAS, really enjoyed the episode, though the Dennis/Mac/Dee went a bit expectedly, still enjoyable moments particularly Mac's revulsion at Dee's support, but I thought the Frank/Charlie stole the show particularly with the romantic comedy realization/finale.
Perhaps so regarding Hoult, it's worked two times.
Tahmeed:
Robinson - 3.5(A moving if fairly brief performance. He though definitely hits the marks regarding the enthusiasm, fear and sadness that all hit the young William in short succession. He's particularly good in that funeral scene which is just a beautifully poignant bit of work. This from the comfort of the flower and of course Horner's score that just delivers home the poignancy of the moment that is combination of grief and love.)
Louis: Thoughts on Zellweger and is the review coming tonight.
Louis: Thoughts on the rest of the cast?
Louis: Frank and Charlie was definitely the highlight this time round.
Luke:
Zellweger - (Her performance manages to move past from impersonation as she becomes quite comfortable in a role as a woman who isn't at all comfortable in her own skin. Zellweger realizes this in effective measure as a woman who is just on the verge of a breakdown at any point and portrays this sensitivity so effectively. This with this bordering mania that is played well as this sort of attempted eccentricity that peels away in moments of a real distress. This is of course against the scenes where we see the performer that was Garland in her prime. Zellweger owns these scenes properly, right down to the vocals which he manages to really deliver on. What takes the scenes further for me is that she shows even in these moments of the "star" we see how much of a highwire act it is, with this sort of intensity within the moment still alluding to the trauma that burdens Garland at all times. It is terrific work as she makes for a proper mess, though with those fits of revealing that real talent that won over so many hearts. Zellweger meets the challenge, even if the film she is in doesn't do enough with her success with the part.)
Wittrock - (He's finish but the film doesn't do anything that interesting with the role. That being is he another exploiter or someone who genuinely loves her. The film just sadly explores this in just a quick switch rather than a real development leaving Wittrock's performance too rather underdeveloped.)
Sewell - (I'll commend him as I think it would have been easy to overly vilify the character. Sewell though I thought managed to not overplay the character's exasperation towards Garland, portraying well as this burden of years of frustration not just a random hate.)
Buckley - (Charming as usual, but she doesn't really have a character other than to show up, say a few basic things, and be charming.)
Post a Comment