Hayden Christensen did not receive an Oscar nomination, despite being nominated for a SAG and Golden Globe, for portraying an emo punk...I mean...Sam Monroe in Life as A House.
Life As A House follows an architect (Kevin Kline), as he tries to reconnect with his family and build a house before he dies from terminal cancer. I must say this film, while watching/-re-watching films from 2001 there are some interesting dated aspects to certain films that do scream early 2000's, despite many other films achieving a more timeless quality. This is not one of those latter films with its musical interludes in particular. The film itself treads difficult material, and does not achieve greatness hoped for in attempting an Ikiru style story. I will say though I wouldn't quite call it a failure either, and is better than other overly sentimental films from the year like the cinematic abomination that is I am Sam for example.
Hayden Christensen's nominations for this film are slightly difficult to decipher given the film was not a critical nor a commercial success. I do ponder the "I got there" first mentality may have played a role, as though he had yet to debut as Anakin Skywalker, to some infamy, but at the time there was still quite the possibility that all would've turned out well. With that perhaps there was a desire to designate the "new star" early, a star that would never come as we all know how his work in the Star Wars films went. Now I've mentioned before that Christensen did eventually give a good performance in Shattered Glass, however in that film, he successfully played a man who we shouldn't believe a single word from. In that he succeeded at being phony, which isn't something to hand wave, the film also played into his weaknesses in a way. I'm going on about these other things, because really Christensen here isn't some revelation of a misspent talent, or of potential wasted talent. He's pretty much the Christensen we've all come to exist with in his middling, to be somewhat generous, talents.
Christensen is a bit of a bland performer with a stilted way of delivering lines. That doesn't make him ideal for troubled emotional teenager, though perhaps a little better off then future menacing warlord. This is to say that Christensen's work here is in a role that many a viewers will quickly dislike as we open with him moody and angry towards everyone without much explanation early on. Christensen has a hump there in that his vocal diction and voice just sound a little hollow, and doesn't suggest any truth. So when he starts whining, not only doesn't it create empathy, it also leaves him a bit overcooked all the same. Christensen when he starts yelling finally a bit of emotion does peer through his wall of seeming disinterest. In those moments he borders on being okay, just don't leave the scenes where he says "I don't like" because one has instant flash forward to lines about sand. I'm really being more sarcastic than I should be because this isn't a terrible performance, even as it exists with Christensen seemingly fighting with his own presence, which is he carries a certain anti-charisma typically.
Christensen does get better as the film goes on, as honestly Christensen does best when he's not speaking, not the best praise one can give an actor, but it is positive mind you. Christensen's reactionary moments to hearing his father's thoughts on his own father, and not all bad. In fact he at is within the scene, and manages to carry some reflective emotion well. It benefits him though that Sam's emo phase that would make Mason from Boyhood blush (okay probably not) ends half way through the film, and Christensen is allowed a more straight forward turn as a earnest teenager trying to help out his father. Here Christensen does better, if not extraordinary work by any means, in just portraying this growth as a lack of overt emotionalism. Unfortunately once Sam is told the truth of his father's diagnosis we have a return to that which is not Christensen's strong suit. Christensen's breakdown scene again teeters towards the overcooked as again acting emotional leads to a bit of a stilted mess. Having said that, his scenes of reflecting on a greater appreciation towards his father, which Sam express through finishing his father's house, is Christensen's best in the film. The unsaid sense of sorrow but love is well realized looking upon his dying father. This as we see a matured individual and a better performance, even if the whole ending of the film honestly feels a little rushed. Perhaps too little too late to save this turn as the weaknesses of Christensen as a performer are evident, but so is some talent as well.
69 comments:
Ratings and thoughts on the rest of the cast.
My first exposure to this performance was watching the scene where Kline's character tells Sam about his childhood. It wasn't 10 seconds into the scene when Christensen's delivery of "I've been using since I was twelve!" caused me to audibly cry out "oh boy"....
Really, though, we mustn't be to hard on Christensen here. Right from the start this role seem mismatched for him, and from what I have deciphered, it didn't seem all that well written either. We've seen the "drug addicted son" part played extremely well (Lucas Hedges in "Ben is Back", for instance), yet in the very same year it was also done rather poorly (you know who). There's that crucial balance of desperation, volatility, and inner conflict that must be struck for such a delicate, deeply troubling issue. And as we saw with "Beautiful Boy", when handled irresponsibly, it can lead to some very hollow and self satisfying work.
In these cases I don't think all the blame can be put on the actor's shoulders - I mean in Chalamet's defense, he has given a good leading performance with a half way decent script. It's really a collaborative effort to realize the person's struggle in your own portrayal, and having the same kind of support from your director and crew. I'll be honest, I was kind of expecting Christensen to get ripped apart here, but what I've just read is the more measured response I should've expected.
Yeah, don't expect Louis to be wholly biased against anyone. Remember, there were those that doubted he would love Denzel Washington in Fences, just because he wasn't his biggest fan.
I honestly think Christensen does still have some potential. I’m fully expecting him to have some late career push into genuinely compelling performances and maybe even awards conversations - not a fan of this performance but I’ll agree there’s glimmers of potential.
With regards to that Birds of Prey trailer, honestly my biggest takeaways are yeah, it’s a mess, and also I have a feeling Ewan McGregor could be a contender for bottom tier in the Supporting rankings. Really, THAT’s Black Mask?
Louis: I do wonder how close he came to being Oscar nominated, I reckon he was probably 7th/8th, and who you calling an emo punk? lol haha.
I saw Christensen when he played at Soccer Aid last year, and he looks no different, still looks about 22 lol. I could easily see him giving a good performance in a film with a decent director.
RatedRStar: It's hard to say for certain, since he got in at the globes over Hawke and McKellen, then at the SAG over Voight. Having seen Voight myself, I would've preferred Christensen to get in if it had to be between those two; I don't know why they couldn't have chosen another actor from Fellowship, or even a career-type nod for Steve Buscemi.
Louis: Would you say that this clip of the dub of Yu Yu Hakusho has more broadness than the English dub of Fullmetal Alchemist: Brotherhood?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e4ZTZDDFtYY
While I'm at it, here's a clip of the Japanese version.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pnaCJa7qID0
To respond to Anonymous in some form, I’m just to put this scene from the 2003 Fullmetal Alchemist on the table and say it’s better than anything in Brotherhood, even out of context. https://youtu.be/ZQ4SVVgnHbo
Robert: Oh, man, that music alone just gives me chills. Also Dameon Clarke is the best Scar. I love J. Michael Tatum, but he wasn't really right for that part.
Louis: what would be your rating for Christensen in Shattered Glass?
Lucas: He's a 4 for Shattered Glass.
Matt: To be fair, Brotherhood!Scar is also boring as fuck. I will never, ever understand how anyone can watch both series and think Brotherhood was better outside of having a better ending.
Louis: Thoughts on the Personal History Of David Copperfield trailer.
Robert: Well, the 2003 anime might be better, (yes, I'll admit it), but I wouldn't call Brotherhood bereft of emotion either. It's the only anime I know, that has made me cry from a recap episode alone. You know the one.
Louis: what film roles do you think would have been a good fit for Kevin Kline from the 80s and afterwards?
Luke:
Kline - 4(It's a good performance, even if it falls right into what seems like half of his roles during his career, which is sad middle aged family man. Again though I'm still sure it doesn't play to his strengths. Nonetheless Kline does deliver here in portraying the character's certainty towards his condition so to speak, and sort of difficult optimism regarding trying to reconnect. I do think the film kind of cuts him off early, however he gives a fine measured turn that avoids really falling into any extreme sentimentalism. He's particularly good for example in portraying the anguish of his own father in an honest and uncompromised way.)
Thomas - 3(She's fine as the ex-wife role that is more than a little standard. She delivers though in offering the heartbreak of it, and the sort of connection that slowly brews between them. It isn't amazing work, but it is more than decent.)
Malone - 2.5(I hate this type of role that is far too common I've found from films of the period, of the randomly sexual young woman. Malone tries her best to make it not too much, but the role still sinks her a bit.)
Steenburgen - 2.5(Again how many times has she played the sort of sex desperate housewife? She's fine again at it, but it is a tired role.)
Really like the trailer for "David Copperfield", as I thought it managed to both be truthful to Dickens, while bringing a modern sensibility without overdoing the latter aspect. This is as often times there is a humorous undertone to his works, that seems like Iannucci might be naturally exploiting from this snippet anyways. Still looking very much forward to it, plus nice that it seems like Dev Patel might be staying the course towards becoming a better actor.
Anonymous:
Without a doubt that is broader.
Lucas:
Michael Dorsey (Dorothy Michaels)
Aaron Altman (Broadcast News)
Josh Baskin (Big)
Osric (In Branagh's version)
Captain Shakespeare (Stardust)
Orin Scrivello (The dentist, Little Shop of Horrors)
Billy Flynn (Chicago)
Jack Hock (Can You Ever Forgive Me?)
He'd also make a great Royal Tenenbaum now (honestly he seems an ideal candidate for a Wes Anderson role in general.)
Louis: Your thoughts on any missed opportunities in the career of Guy Pearce? And what roles would you have liked to see him in instead of his heel turns (a la Travolta)?
Bryan:
It doesn't seem like Pearce made many mistakes on his end. For example he supposedly lost out on Batman for Batman Begins (a role I think would've suited him well), but that wasn't his fault. I also think he could've been an ideal George VI rather than Edward, but obviously he wasn't cast there either. The only role it seems he turned down was Daredevil, where he made the right choice on that one. He was originally Billy Bulger in Black Mass, where he definitely would've been better than Cumberbatch there, but still that was hardly a major missed opportunity since that wasn't much of a role anyways.
Anyways roles I think he would've done well with:
George IV
Batman or Harvey Dent (Nolan trilogy, any Nolan hero honestly, wish he'd cast him again)
Teddy Daniels (Shutter Island)
Max Vatan
Fletcher Chase
Louis: With that in mind, are there any reasons you think he didn’t become a star? He had all the elements required to be one for sure, and you have to think L.A. Confidential could’ve done the same for him as what it did for Crowe.
And would he be your choice for Neil Armstrong in a 2000s First Man?
Bryan:
He unfortunately fell into neither a moviestar nor an awards magnet purgatory that is difficult to escape from sadly. Whereas Crowe managed to become both, Pearce couldn't really from what I'd say are two things. He never got that nomination (despite deserving one so much for Memento, L.A. Confidential and The Proposition), which I think would've changed things immensely from him, and then he got the dreaded, one flop and you're done, with The Time Machine. Now Hollywood in general only lets him play villains, or leads in basically b-movies, lest they risk the film's "success" nonsensically. His most notable work since The Time Machine have been in "hometown" ventures, where he obviously still has it in things like The Rover, The Proposition and Animal Kingdom. It's a shame as I think it could turn around for him rather quickly if Nolan would just cast him again, or any notable filmmaker would realize he's a great leading man/actor just waiting in the wings, sadly it doesn't seem like that's going to change any time soon. Instead we'll just have some potentially great work in Australian productions and him being wasted or misused in Hollywood films.
Bryan:
Yes.
Louis: Your thoughts on the visual styles of Michael Curtiz, Howard Hawks and John Ford.
300 (1950's version, directed by William Wyler)
Leonidas: Charlton Heston
Dillos: Richard Attenborough
Xerxes: Yul Brynner
Gorgo: Yvonne De Carlo
Theron: James Mason
Artemis: Dirk Bogarde
Astinos: Stephen Boyd
Daxos: James Donald
Ephialtes: Anthony Quinn
The Loyalist: Charles Laughton
Stelios: Peter O'Toole
Louis: Thoughts on the Richard Jewell trailer.
Luke: Actually looks very intriguing and well done, at least based on the snippets we were offered.
Also, lets appreciate how Eastwood is still making movies at 89 years old - the man's got some serious work ethic.
While I’m happy to see Paul Walter Hauser getting bigger roles, The Mule kind of soured me on Clint Eastwood as a director.
Also not that this isn’t a story worth telling, but this is a very bad time to have an anti-media film from a prominent filmmaker, which I think is exactly why Eastwood is making it unfortunately.
Fantastic trailer. Even if the film ends up crap I’ll have to commend whoever cut that together (and agreed with Michael on PWH but also on Eastwood’s general attitude).
Also have you guys seen Todd Phillips' recent comments on how 'wokeness' is killing comedy? I mean, I'm still looking forward to Joker, but man did those comments smart of bitterness. There's plenty of boundary-pushing comedy that's succeeding big-time around and it's annoying that just because his 'brand' of humour isn't translating anymore that he has to blame it on 'PC culture' that in actuality actually accommodates humour of all sorts so long as thought and skill is put into its craft.
Michael: You know, I hear that, but I also think that sentiment has been applied to so many films, in so many different years. "Gone Girl" tackled that theme quite provocatively in 2014, and you could argue Eastwood has already tried to do something similar with 2016's "Sully".
Obviously, trends change and issues are held in greater focus depending on the events at the time, but for as much trust as we really ought to have in the press, we should always prioritize our own individual thoughts/critical judgement in the end.
As for Calvin's comment, I'm of the view that humour is endlessly subjective, and that people will have different preferences and limits to what they consider funny. A lot of my favourite comedies are rather dark ones IE "In Bruges", "Fargo" or more recently "The Favourite" - and none of those would be considered "PC" in many ways. That said, I still have some set restrictions in my own sense of humour, and lines that I will not cross, but I will only condemn someone else's humour if they are specifically targeting something with malice - and with very direct consequences - as opposed to showing a mutual respect/self awareness.
Louis: Your thoughts on Peaky Blinders Season 5, cast ranking and quick thoughts on anyone who really stood out.
Luke: Your ranking for Richard Burtons' performances that you've seen, along with ratings?
That latest It's Always Sunny episode was decent. Not a classic by any means, but I thoroughly enjoyed Jessy Hodges and Charlie Day playing off one another and Frank's stupid rants.
Bryan: I'll give my response to it tomorrow.
I can't wait to see Joker.
Saw Joker, an effective film though I wouldn't say it is a great one. More Henry Portrait of a Serial Killer than King of Comedy or even Taxi Driver I would say in terms of content and really approach to studying the deranged, though Phillips directs very much using the Scorsese playbook, which he does better in terms of his visuals than his song choices (for the most part). What really makes or breaks the film though is something I'm not going to get into right now, but will around probably say around January 20th.
De Niro - 3.5(Good sign for the Irishman)
Everyone else is fairly limited though good for the most part, other than Conroy who I felt was underwhelming in a role that had a little more potential.
Keeping us in the dark about Phoenix, eh? Interesting..
I myself am seeing the film in a couple of days, and as of this moment, i'm pretty excited for it.
Also, I'll be perfectly honest - "Joker" will only be the fourth movie I've seen from this year, following "Captain Marvel", "Endgame" and "OUATIH". This still leaves plenty for me to catch up on in terms of the years best, or the year's most impressive, but I'll try and make up for that.
Louis: I'm wondering if it's Phoenix's performance what you're referring to, Louis. Safe to say I'm pretty intrigued, since I'm watching it tomorrow.
Mitchell: I barely even have a Top 10, to be honest.
Anonymous
Michael Curtiz has a striking visual style this being a measured romantic expressionism. It isn't excessive but typically rather brilliantly balanced in films like Casablanca and Angels With Dirty Faces, to give the right degree of style without losing really a sense of reality either. Of course outside of his black and white he proved himself a capable visual stylist as well in his lush approach with Robin Hood. It was always a strong element of his work though as disposable as The Unsuspected or Four Daughters has a striking visual sense.
Howard Hawks one might say doesn't have a visual style, but really his method is to be as straight forward as possible. This is both in color and black and white. This isn't something though that should be hand waved, and at his best he focused on being straight forward however effectively to the point. Of course this very much meant the script really had to be there, as such to the point, even effectively so, needs the material to be worth really such a direct shot.
John Ford is someone who consistently played around with his visual style, even though his films being striking in a visual sense was typically a constant. In that he focused often on the beautiful vistas in his westerns or the romantic The Quiet Man, but even then he mixed up with his darker take later in with "Liberty Valance" or even earlier with Stagecoach. His dramas though he particularly liked to find an approach for the material. This being the very distinct but different forms of expressionistic styles of Grapes of Wrath, How Green is My Valley or The Informer. Each distinct though together in finding an appropriately potent style for its material.
Luke:
The trailer for Richard Jewell looked more than decent, other than Olivia Wilde who looked kind of terrible, and I'm glad Paul Walter Hauser will get the chance to play to show some range. Eastwood for the last ten years has been switching up between making bad and okayish films. Hopefully this will be on the latter, maybe even better, it is written by Billy Ray whose track record with true story screenplays is pretty good.
Didn't watch the new season, but I probably will, as I literally wasn't aware it came out.
Louis: So it seems Tony Todd will be reprising Candyman in Peele's remake. Thoughts?
Louis: Your thoughts on the main theme from Chariots of Fire?
Also, your reasons for casting Charlton Heston as Captain America?
Heston just had that screen commanding presence that you need for Cap.
RIP Diahann Carroll
Saw Joker. Joaquin Phoenix, take a bow. :)
Luke: Lots of people are saying really mixed things about his chances at Oscar, some saying he will win, some saying he will get nominated and some saying he will get snubbed.
RatedRStar: I hope he does but I won't lose sleep if he doesn't. I'm just really looking forward to the review now.
Louis: your thoughts on the first Edelweiss scene from The Sound of Music. I know you don’t love the film but I’d say that’s one of my favourite musical sequences of all-time.
Looks like I’ll be seeing Joker tomorrow. Here’s what’s going to go down: I will talk about my thoughts on it exactly once, and never speak of it again, whether I loved it or hated it. The discourse around it has made me long for the days of the nonsensical “Did La LaLand appropriate jazz?” arguments.
Anonymous:
I mean I hope this doesn't mean they're too beholden to the original, which was a great idea that devolved into a typical slasher. I hope they take the initial idea and go in a better direction. They could do that though, but with Tony Todd, who wasn't the problem with the original film obviously.
Bryan:
The main theme of Chariots of Fire has been parodied to death unfortunately, because it stands as an amazing piece of music. This being both in terms of the use of synth in a powerful fashion by Vangelis, but also in creating this sort spiritual/athletic mix. It feels of the havens, while not too grandiose to be believed to be the theme of runners.
What anonymous said.
RatedRStar:
Phoenix is going to be a wildcard. Obviously it got some big support in Venice, but it's a comic book film, a pitch black one at that, along with the prickly sort that is Phoenix, so it's chances are truly up in the air. His category isn't crowded though, and the praise for him is there without a doubt. So I can understand predicting or not predicting him in equal measure.
Robert:
Just wait until awards season, I'm sure the discourse will get much better.......................................................
Calvin:
Well really what doesn't pull the film through for me is the story, but it's a well directed film, especially considered against the other musical winners from the 60's. It's a gorgeously rendered scene in sort of having the hope of the song in the singer, against the darkness represented within certain men in the audience. Also worth mention is Plummer's performance, even though that's not his voice, his silent performance really captures the emotion of the moment.
I just came back from watching Joker...twice. I think I love it despite a few clear reservations. Phoenix truly lives up to the hype.
Phoenix: 5
De Niro: 3.5/4
Louis: I recall you having James Woods for Iron Man in a 90's Infinity War, but I was thinking that back in the 80's, Tom Selleck would have been perfect since Tony Stark looked like him back in those 80's Iron Man comics. Thoughts? And while I'm well aware that Justin Hammer was an old guy in those days, Woods would have been perfect as a younger version of the character IMO.
Anonymous: I’d go with Burt Reynolds for 80s Iron Man, assuming he first plays the part in 1978 and reprises it through the next decade like RDJ.
Bryan L: Oh yeah, I can also see Burt Reynolds as Stark too.
Bryan: I'll do a top 10 for Burton.
1. The Spy Who Came In From The Cold
2. Who's Afraid Of Virginia Woolf?
3. Where Eagles Dare
4. Becket
5. The Taming Of The Shrew
6. The Night Of The Iguana
7. Nineteen Eighty-Four
8. My Cousin Rachel
9. Equus
10. The Longest Day
Louis: Which films will you be able to see this month.
The Personal History of David Copperfield is a very interesting spin on a Dickens adaptation. I really liked Ianucci’s very meta spin on the storyline, amplified well by the uniformly strong ensemble and a screenplay which hits all the comedic beats beautifully. I do think the darker elements of the novel is a mixed bag, not so much in the approach as in how these elements are a bit rushed, though the film does flourish best when the comedic and the serious are integrated together, creating quite the wonderful cinematic exploration that’s funny and moving, biting and yet surprisingly heartfelt and sincere.
Seeing The Lighthouse later. Can give thoughts on the case for Copperfield for now.
Patel: 4.5
Swindon: 4.5
Laurie: 4/4.5
Capaldi: 3
Whishaw: 3.5
Barnard: 3
Cooper: 3.5
Clark: 3.5
Wong: 3.5
Christie: 3
Boyd: 2.5
Eleazar: 3.5
Calvin: Thoughts on Patel, Swinton, Laurie, Capaldi and Whishaw.
Louis: Your thoughts on Tom Cruise's monologue from the 2002 Oscars?
https://youtu.be/wb0KYB3Z8Ws
Luke:
Patel - (once again strong work, and it seems like the charismatic leading man is really his true calling. Patel is a delight here as just this likeable fellow and adds so much to the usual blank slate of the non-Scrooge Dickensian protagonist by having such an easygoing way of guiding us through David's story. His performance is often reactionary to the more colourful characters around him but he does such a good job of showing David's trait of inheriting and learning from every one of them, while having a couple of pretty great comedic moments himself, in particular some very well learnt breaks from his straight man mould particularly in his interactions with Whishaw, but also some very moving scenes as he reflects on the man's history)
Swinton - (suffice to say she has been on quite the roll. Swinton is a knockout in every one of her appearances as she makes Mrs Trotwood such an utterly ridiculous delight. She's over-the-top for sure but I thought it was a splendid approach of showing this lady who takes everything up to the highest notch of intensity whether it's dealing with family matters or intruding donkeys. What I really liked though was her gradually revealing her true compassionate colours, handled by Swinton in a way that is genuinely affecting while in now way compromising her characterisation)
Laurie - (well he's just perfect for period pieces like this to begin with, but far from being just perfect casting Laurie nails something that really went beyond the call of duty of the role. That is he is indeed very funny as the constantly oblivious Mr Dick, and whether he's the focus of the scene or just on the side makes a hilarious impact, and there are indeed few who can do endearing whimsy as well as Bertie Wooster/Blackadder George himself. What's quite remarkable though is that he in no way makes his character's condition a joke of any sort, and actually gives quite a moving portrayal of mental illness and gradual recovery that given more thought, I'm definitely raising him to a 4.5)
Capaldi - (I'll admit I probably prefer W.C. Fields' more comfy and whimsical take on the character, and Capaldi I did feel in some of the early scenes in particular had a bit too much of an intensity to Mr Micawber's optimism that while deliberate, did feel a bit out of place, as there seemed to be a concerted intensity in going for laughs that felt a bit much. I really shouldn't complain too much though as he eases up as the film goes along and that approach in the end does work in being quite funny but also quite heartbreaking in showing how Micawber never loses hope, and really given more thought I may well bump him up too)
Whishaw - (Whishaw's Uriah Heep has none of the pathos or dramatic heft behind him of the performances aforementioned, he's just there to be an utterly sleazy and despicable sort. This is an interesting take on the character to make him as weaselly and pathetic as possible, and a good approach as he plays off every other cast member so well in making this socially awkward social climber as nauseating to interact with and hilarious to watch, and I particularly loved every scene of him subtly yet none too subtly making his increasingly 'grand' achievements known to others)
Calvin: Your thoughts on The Lighthouse and non-spoiler thoughts on Dafoe and Pattinson if you could.
I should say I also saw Joker Thursday night, I haven’t shared any thoughts on it due in part to my packed work schedule this weekend and also the fact that it just made me feel...uneasy. That’s what it was going for, but normally movies don’t put me into a negative state of mind no matter how dark they are.
Louis: your thoughts on the Needle in the Hay scene in The Royal Tenenbaums
I saw Joker. It’s bad. Joaquin is great. I will not clarify or discuss. Farewell.
Robert: On the bright side, unlike Green Book last year, it won't have any chances of winning Best Picture. So, that's something...
I also saw "Joker" today and...umm.............yah..
I will certainly say it left an impression, and for what the film was trying to do, much of it was effective. What Philips has here is as much a rough homage to 1970's Scorsese, as it is a bold, decently compelling take on one of the more famous comic book villains. It's far from a perfect film, mind you; There are flaws and missed opportunities in its script, and some particularly questionable choices when it comes to its score and music interludes. Still, I will announce myself as, for the time being, one of the film's supporters, which I suppose has become more provoking to say than we predicted a couple months ago.
As for Phoenix, there's no beating around the bush on this one - He's outstanding. Like his performance in "The Master" he goes out on a big limb here, which is honestly the right call since the Joker really isn't what one might call a "subtle" character. And in my opinion, the gamble completely pays off. Phoenix succeeds in becoming his own version of the character, and hits many of the famous Joker beats, but the performance is also just an audacious, complex and sometimes terrifying portrayal of a seriously deranged man. Truly a great turn.
Okay, The Lighthouse is really, really fucking weird and I’m not sure if it makes all that much sense at this juncture. As in by the end I was still really confused, but this is done in a very deliberate way and it does come together rather beautifully.
Dafoe as Supporting wouldn’t actually be the worst category fraud in the world, since the film is almost entirely from Pattinson’s character’s perspective. Having said that they’re both very much co-leads in my books. Dafoe was incredible and if it’s between him and Pitt I’m praying he wins, and Pattinson I was a bit unsure of at first but by the end his performance makes sense and he’s great too, easy 5’s for both.
Anonymous:
I mean maybe, haven't seen much of Selleck's work to be honest.
Luke:
Obviously Dolemite is My Name and El Camino.
Also Jojo Rabbit and hopefully The Lighthouse.
Tahmeed:
Say what you want about Cruise, but you can always tell that the idea of enjoying cinema, right down to not experiencing the dreaded "soap opera effect", is absolutely fundamental with him, and without a doubt a true passion. That's revealed here as well rather beautifully and poignantly.
Anonymous:
One of the best bits of direction by Wes Anderson in his entire career. This being also a great moment for Luke Wilson, in this very emotional revelation to the character who has been guarded in his beard and sunglasses, reveals himself quite bluntly in more ways than one.
Twinpoker88
Delimapoker
Papadomino
Kapaldomino
Dewacintaqq
Dominohalo
bandar togel
Post a Comment