Nicolas Cage did not receive an Oscar nomination for portraying Frank Pierce in Bringing Out the Dead.
Bringing Out The Dead is kind of the middle ground for Martin Scorsese's middle of the night in NY films, between the largely comic After Hours and the very dark Taxi Driver, here in a mix following a paramedic's long nights. I found it to be a largely effective film, if especially off-beat almost set to to be "lesser" Scorsese, however I'd probably say it's his 3rd best film from his 90's output.
As much as this may be the third part of a midnight trilogy for Scorsese, it is part of a far longer list of films from writer Paul Schrader who basically specializes in film's about men on a razor's edge. It is only natural then for Nicolas Cage to portray one of his written protagonists, specializing in men on an extreme himself, although this film and performance is perhaps bit different than one may expected from only hearing the general synopsis. This is particularly within the early scenes of the film where we come to know of his paramedic, Frank Pierce's experience within his strange world of very long nights. Cage's performance in about the first two thirds of the film is rather subdued, especially for Cage, though quite effective in establishing the state of his character. Now this is of course in a physical sense where one can become a bit fatigued themselves by just looking at Cage who is able to emphasize the insomniac state of the man. This with his worn eyes, his retiring physical presence, and his whole face just wearing too many nights within it. Frank is spent, and this is obvious from seeing Cage in the first frame of the film. Of course the nature of how he is in this state isn't just because he's tired, it is something deeper, something rather spiritual.
Cage for the first half of the film almost portrays the part as though Frank is a priest with some sort of faith self-examination. This is in his moments of staring into the eyes of the dead woman he failed to save, but also in his way of approaching the various people he helps. These people in a range of smelly drunks, self-mutilating crazies, drug addicts and just dying people. Frank speaks of seeing the spirits of the dying and Cage narrates with a contemplative calm. A man trying to decipher his existence while also being haunted by it all the same. In his moments of the man on the job Cage initially carefully administers a zen like conviction who is earnest in his attempts to help others even if exasperated by them. Cage balances well though within this approach the appropriate tone for the film. This as much as he creates that sense of exhaustion, and that haunted quality, there is also a sense of the every day nature of his job. This humor within his lighter calls of a man who has been doing it for a long time and has been able to have this casual demeanor in very strange, yet not particularly intense situations. In way this leads towards a detachment at times, befitting a man who when threatened to lose his job encourages his boss to fire him, as though it would be a sweet release.
Cage's performance exists well within playing off actually whoever it is that Frank is interacting against specifically. There are the more humorous beats that he emphasizes with that more casual almost sarcasm of sorts when interacting with his three "partners" of such extreme personalities themselves or the less dangerous calls he falls on. In these Cage plays well as strangely enough the straight man, despite Frank's peculiar state, though by showing this man on his wavelength that creates a certain comedy in his ease with such disparate personalities. I especially love his "are you serious" reactions to Tom Sizemore's especially tightly wound and violent paramedic. On the other side though is his relationship with the drug addict daughter of a man he "saved", really went into a vegetative state, Mary, (Patricia Arquette). Here Cage dials into these scenes particularly effective in trying to provide solace to the woman, while in his reactions conveying the way that Frank himself is finding solace within his interactions with her. These moments of calm within his otherwise haggard state. Of course this is a bit different though with his relationship with her father, who he envisions wants to die rather than stay in his state. This Cage garners a clever intensity though again of this sort of spiritual entrancement and guilt as he sees the dead man "speaking" to him. Cage largely, and effectively downplays this part into this subdued state of the troubled insomniac. The amount of sort of "Cage unleashed" that one expects from any given Cage turn, is limited to the scene of Frank on his deepest end, compelled by a bit of drug use and a bad trip of sorts. Cage thrives with this madness however he uses it selectively, however effectively though as these moments of release in Frank as side effects from specific extremes that push him that little more off the brink. This film doesn't have as concise of trajectory as many of these types of film, as his sort final act is something he's been toying with the whole time anyways, and is less of leap. His major change really otherwise is getting a decent night of sleep. Cage's performance works within the confines and within anchoring the film. It's a compelling turn within a more subdued approach to the man on an edge narrative.
86 comments:
Louis: Ratings and thoughts on the rest of the cast. And could you review Ralph Fiennes next.
I thought Goodman was pretty enjoyable here, and I wish he wasn't only in the first third of the film.
Easy 5 for me.
Also, I think Ving Rhames is awesome in this.
Louis: Thoughts on PTA's next film idea.
Definitely adding this one to the watch list now.
You know, Cage obviously has become so infamous for his more flamboyant, unhinged turns, that its a shame some people delegate his acting to only those performances (Even I was guilty of this at one point). I say its a shame because one only needs to watch a film like "Adaptation" to see a more subdued Cage, or even something like "Raising Arizona" for an energetic turn that really works for the film he's in.
If for nothing else, Cage has achieved one of the prerequisites for a great actor, which is to create a screen presence that's entirely your own. He rides that line where you sort of know what to expected from his performances (In a good way), but he also has the capacity to stretch beyond that when needed.
Really like this film, especially the Ving Rhames sections. Agreed on the rating.
Louis; did you know Lee Jung-eun provided the voice for Okja?
As I had promised Luke and Anonymous here again goes my list of 2020 Golden Globe nominees including Brad Pitt.
PICTURE (DRAMA)
• 1917
• The Irishman
• Little Women
• Marriage Story
• The Two Popes
PICTURE (COMEDY/MUSICAL)
• Dolemite Is My Name
• Hustlers
• Jojo Rabbit
• Once Upon A Time In...Hollywood
• Rocketman
DIRECTOR
• Noah Baumbach (Marriage Story)
• Martin Scorsese (The Irishman)
• Quentin Tarantino (Once Upon A Time In...Hollywood)
• Joon-Ho Bong (Parasite)
• Fernando Mierelles (The Two Popes)
ACTOR (DRAMA)
• Antonio Banderas (Pain & Glory)
• Robert De Niro (The Irishman)
• Adam Driver (Marriage Story)
• Joaquin Phoenix (Joker)
• Jonathan Pryce (The Two Popes)
ACTOR (COMEDY/MUSICAL)
• Leonardo DiCaprio (Once Upon A Time In...Hollywood)
• Taron Egerton (Rocketman)
• Eddie Murphy (Dolemite Is My Name)
• Brad Pitt (Once Upon A Time In...Hollywood)
• Adam Sandler (Uncut Gems)
SUPPORTING ACTOR
• Alan Alda (Marriage Story)
• WIllem Dafoe (The Lighthouse)
• Tom Hanks (A Beautiful Day In The Neighborhood)
• Anthony Hopkins (The Two Popes)
• Al Pacino (The Irishman)
ACTRESS (DRAMA)
• Cynthia Erivo (Harriet)
• Scarlett Johansson (Marriage Story)
• Saoirse Ronan (Little Women)
• Alfre Woodard (Clemency)
• Renée Zellweger (Judy)
ACTRESS (COMEDY/MUSICAL)
• Awkwafina (The Farewell)
• Jessie Buckley (Wild Rose)
• Beanie Feldstein (Booksmart)
• Julianne Moore (Gloria Bell)
• Constance Wu (Hustlers)
SUPPORTING ACTRESS
• Annette Bening (The Report)
• Laura Dern (Marrige Story)
• Jennifer Lopez (Hustlers)
• Margot Robbie (Bombshell)
• Zhao Shuzhen (The Farewell)
SCREENPLAY
• The Irishman
• Jojo Rabbit
• Marriage Story
• Once Upon A Time In...Hollywood
• Parasite
ANIMATED FEATURE
• Abominable
• Frozen 2
• How To Train Your Dragon: The Hidden World
• Missing Link
• Toy Story 4
FOREIGN LANGUAGE FILM
• Atlantics (Senegal)
• Bacurau (Brazil)
• Les Misérables (France)
• Pain and Glory (Spain)
• Parasite (South Korea)
PS: someone told me that Lulu Wang's The Farewell can compete for the best foreign movie even though it's an American movie. So I decided to leave that doubt.
SCORE
• 1917
• Ad Astra
• Joker
• Little Women
• Marrige Story
SONG
• “The Ballad of the Lonesome Cowboy” - Toy Story 4
• “(I’m Gonna) Love Me Again” - Rocketman
• “Into the Unknown” - Frozen 2
• “One Little Soldier” - Bombshell
• “Stand Up” - Harriet
Luke: I'd like to see John C. Reilly play a principal/teacher/the boys' father in that new PTA film.
Ricky Gervais is hosting the Golden Globes, I really hope he does what he did in the first 3 ceremonies because he was jaw droppingly good, his most recent stint was very disappointing and safe.
RatedRStar: I love Gervais' humour, personally, so I also hope he does a good job hosting this year.
On that note, I might as well share some thoughts on this year's best actor and best actress races;
Actor:
Driver is a lock (His film is a critical darling and the ease of his last nomination hints at the respect his peers must have for him). De Niro and DiCaprio also are pretty safe bets since there in two big movies, from two renowned directors, and in two sizable enough roles. Meanwhile, Pryce will likely ride the wave of "career achievement buzz" that often follows a veteran performer like him. That just leaves the fifth spot which as much as I want to give to Phoenix (Still think its great work on his part), I have a feeling he will ultimately be dropped last minute for someone else - maybe Egerton, maybe Banderas, maybe even Pitt if the surprising love for "Ad Astra" pans out.
Actress:
Again, Johansson is another lock for "Marraige Story" at this point since she's an even more established star than Driver, arguably, with more than enough acclaim behind her performance. I could see Awkwafina stepping up to the plate, as well, due to the similarly passionate response to her movie. Then there's Ronan who like Johansson, is a noted performer in a highly anticipated film, so as long as it delivers she should make into the field just fine. Everyone else is a bit inter-changeable, though: Erivo and Zellwegger both have been singled out FAR more than the quality of their movies, so they'll really need backing if they are to be recognized. Theron's nod will be entirely decided on her film, and someone like Nyongo will need a similar enthusiastic following to her film, especially since its a genre piece, to make a stand. I don't know...I feel like we're missing something with the rest of this category...
Mitchell: I don't see Pitt making much of a play for Ad Astra (He could get a surprise nom somewhere) but honestly, I'm relieved that the lineup will be really solid on the whole.
Mitchell: All I see Ad Astra getting is a Visual Effects nomination tbh
I wonder if Sandlers' in play for the fifth slot, and if so, how much.
Ad Astra could be dark horse cinematography too I think.
I wonder if any of the actors in Avengers: Ultimate will be nominated. Johansson, if nominated in the Supporting category, will most likely be in for Jojo Rabbit (much more Oscar-baitier). I could see someone like Downey Jr. or even Hemsworth being a surprise nominee in Supporting, but it's very unlikely. For good or for worse, Ultimate has lost much of its traction ever since it got out of cinema. I'm not even sure if it's gonna get nominated for BP.
I don’t think it’ll be nominated for anything outside of the technical categories. I’m really hoping it’ll have a chance in Best Score but as Louis has mentioned before, the use of pre-existing musical scores from the franchise could hurt it.
Yeah, it'll probably be like Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows 2. Many people said that it would “sweep” the Oscars, and would get the Return of the King treatment (the Oscars waiting for the franchise to finish in order to award it), but unlike the other two LOTR movies, who were critically acclaimed and got nominated for BP, none of the HP movies got more than 3 nominations (Deathly Hallows 2 included), and, while DH2 and Prisoner of Azkaban was critically acclaimed, the rest of the movies varied from positive to mildly positive reception. To put into perspective, the whole HP franchise got 12 nominations, only one more than the number of nominations that ROTK got.
It's the same with the MCU; aside from Black Panther, none of the other movies received more than 2 nominations (most never got a single nom) and didn’t win any of them. Also, their critical reception was really uneven, even more than HP.
Anonymous and Calvin:
Technical categories aside - which is what it surely will be recognized for just as "Infinity War" was nominated in visuals - I think many of us can agree "Endgame" has multiple performances worthy of praise...
Johansson's turn was easily her finest outing as Black Widow, wherein she realized a striking amount of emotional weight in the part, despite her relatively small amount of screen time.
As Hawkeye, Renner pretty much did the same thing in again concentrating such an intense dramatic weight in his small part, while taking the character in a new but appropriately handled direction.
Hemsworth did well in essentially combining his comedic portrayal from "Ragnarok" with his more somber work from "Infinity War", and for me, the decisions made with Thor in "Endgame" mainly worked because of him.
Evans was a good as he has ever was as Cap, and really just offered a great send off to the character with all his integrity, presence and deserved moments of heroism.
Of course there was also Downey Jr - and anything positive to say about his performance really has already been said. He simply gave a terrific final portrayal of Tony, reflecting every individual turn before it, staying true to the specific nature of the role, while knocking those emotional beats out of the park. I get moved every time I watch his brief interaction with Holland - and its a very small scene - yet its made so effective because of him.
Thinking about it more, if anyone deserved to be nominated out of the cast I feel it would be Downey Jr. Nevertheless, I think the other main players give strong turns of their own, that all help to make the film a worthy conclusion of sorts, in my view.
One moment that gets me in Downey's performance is in his final voice over where he (no pun intended) marvels "God, what a world."
Luke:
Arquette - 3.5(I preferred her here than I often do, though she doesn't make as much of an impression as her sister did in Scorsese's other midnight film. Arquette though is certainly effective in the part in creating the sense of the consistent grief that weighs upon the woman, which only bears itself in moments of falling back into her addictions.)
Goodman - 3.5(I too wish there had been more of him as I enjoyed his down to earth humor he brought to the part, as the most normal of Frank's partners, this with sort of his own exasperation he emphasizes however with less of the otherworldly content associated with it. I would love to see him work with Scorsese again.)
Rhames - 4(A highlight within the film by just playing into this extreme exuberance as though he is almost this ambulance preacher. Rhames plays into this gleeful gusto that is both very funny but effective in portraying a man more of owning his position as a "savior" in the streets.)
Sizemore - 3(Over does it a touch even as the angry one so to speak. Still effective enough however I think another actor could've brought a bit more humor within the anger than Sizemore does, who finds a little bit but is mostly just intense.)
Curtis - 3(Curtis as a drug dealer...never. Curtis though is good in the role in finding this sort of ease and really ligthhearted humor, even in his final scene, that is rather winning in an unusual way.)
Luke:
PTA making a film? Sold. I mean I don't need more but a high school set film, that sounds quite interesting. I love that's another departure for him anyways.
Calvin:
I was not aware of that, but makes sense, as Okja's sounds added a lot to humanzing the superpigs.
Louis: For a 2010s Mississippi Burning, who would be your choice for director and the rest of the cast? To round out Harrelson & Plemons as the FBI agents.
Bryan:
Directed by Ryan Coogler:
Mrs. Pell: Jena Malone
Deputy Pell: James Badge Dale
Mayor Tilman: Walton Goggins
Sheriff Stuckey: Devin Ratray
The Specialist: Michael B. Jordan
Clayton Townley: Kieran Culkin
Louis: Your thoughts on Cooper's dream scene in "Zen, or the Skill to Catch a Killer".
Also, any actors that you would like seeing work with Lynch?
Louis: I forgot to ask in the last post, but were there any rating changes for the cast of Parasite for you?
Anonymous: I'd like to see Nicolas Cage work with Lynch again, since those two were practically made for each other.
Louis: Your thoughts on the screenplay for Moneyball? It appears both Sorkin and Zaillian are credited, so I'm wondering how much of the script is whose.
Also, your rating and thoughts on Chris Pratt in the same film?
Bryan: I remember reading that Sorkin mostly wanted to keep the screenplay the same and aside from perhaps a couple of changes, he just added a some of his flairs to the screenplay. Which I feel are evident (What's the problem scene, Peter Brandt's introduction, etc.)
Emi: I think you're right, because those scenes you mentioned feel more "Sorkineseque" rather than straight-up Sorkin.
Also, the "rehearsal firing" and "trade for the pitcher" scenes fall under that as well.
Bryan: Precisely
Louis: Your thoughts on the direction and screenplay of Zero Dark Thirty?
Louis: I know we still have a month to go but what are your 5 most anticipated films of 2020. I'll ask for a top 10 in January.
Anonymous:
I mean one of the most unforgettable scenes in Twin Peaks the original series. This from Anderson as the dancing arm madness, the intangible backwards talking, the ghostly owl passing the lodge, and creating the ethereal sense of Laura Palmer, as the one who is there, yet cannot be saved. Brilliant Lynch surrealism, though with a particularly long lasting impact in terms of the parts that do mean something in the series overall.
Anyone really, but Joaquin Phoenix seems tailored for him.
Tahmeed:
Let me hold on that, just as I will be visiting Parasite again relatively soon.
Bryan:
It is interesting to examine Moneyball for me, because I don't really like the film that much, though I think that boils down to Bennett Miller's direction than the screenplay written technically by two of the big names in the form. Zaillian, who I'd say is particularly good at explaining a potentially confusing or boring thing in a compelling way, particularly terms of building the structure around these things, or Sorkin who is similar though largely through making potentially boring conversations compelling. The final script seems to be mostly Zaillian as there are few, barely any, Sorkinesque flourishes nor any of his psychoanalytic morality plays elements he loves to include. What we get then are some theoretically compelling conversations of boring subjects with a film structured in revealing itself in an easy to follow and compelling enough way. I think I would've preferred more "zip" in Miller's direction of the film which he almost shoots like a docudrama and I just think there could've been more fun to it. This as Zaillian and Sorkin's work is on point in terms of offering that potentially tepid story as something compelling built around that, and built through the fundamental conversations of it.
Well I'll be honest I forgot he was in it. Watching his scene, I thought he was fine in just playing kind of a casual reality of the moment. Though watching the scene though reminds me a bit of my reservations of the film again, in that the jokes, probably Sorkin ones, are there but there's not additional punch beyond what the actors/script are bringing. Miller just lets them sit there.
Emi Grant:
Mark Boal and Kathryn Bigelow, based on that they've made three films together are not just the screenwriter and director but rather a collaborative duo. In turn the finished product of Zero Dark Thirty hones closely to what is in Boal's original work and overall intention for the story, however I'll still look at each individually.
Boal's screenplay is very much the work of a journalist, which isn't a criticism however it instead pertains to the nature of his work on the film. This is with mostly a detachment regarding the events, however just a little, which one would be more likely found when doing a profile on a subject, which is essentially Boal's approach by building the hunt for Bin Laden around the single CIA operative. Boal's work I would say find the right balance in including sort of personal snippets for the character and other character, as not to become colorless, however the focus is on the process of the hunt. This process that is shown in the glimpses of a compelling documentary that doesn't present judgement, rather presents the steps and allows the viewer take away from it what they will. Now as much as the latter created really an overabundance of controversy around the film, I must say I often appreciate a writer who can allow audiences to think for themselves, rather say throwing in some big artificial speech just to spell out morality for everyone that would've been ill-fitting in the approach. I slightly digress though. This is as what works again is making such a complicate investigation not only tangible through funneling through a protagonist, but also most compelling in crafting it as dissecting a mystery towards the final goal. The one major commentary point really is the ending, something amplified by Bigelow's direction actually, and a brilliant bit that it is.
Of course Bigelow's direction seems to hold the same beliefs as Boal's screenplay. That is presenting the facts to the viewer and letting the viewer decide. This could even be seen in the ending in a way as Bigelow lets the silence speak for itself. The rest of the film though is Bigelow presenting the facts as artfully as possible, without really tilting her hand at any point. This is as her work is quite fantastic in terms of maneuvering the scenes as the observer, yet not leaving them flat. She touches into the visceral of course, but only through the visuals that are natural to the situation. This is by firing the technical elements on all cylinders certainly, particularly in the raid, but also using them to portray the story as "news" yet the most compelling news one could possible view.
Luke:
I mean I'm still anticipating plenty of 2019 films...
But fine...:
1. TENET
2. Dune
3. Mank
4. Last Night in Soho
5. Blonde
It's not even December yet Luke haha
For me,
1. Wendy
2. Tenet
3. True History of the Kelly Gang
4. The French Dispatch
5. Mank
6. Bill & Ted Face the Music
7. Dune
8. I'm Thinking of Ending Things
9. Last Night in Soho
10. Top Gun: Maverick
Bryan: I know its too soon, but I'm struggling to talk about anything especially when work has taken a large part of my life as of late.
Calvin: Big fan of Zeitlin, eh?
Luke: Hope everything is working out. Anyways, to give you something to chew on, your cast MVP for each season of GOT? And your Top Five episodes and overall performers?
I guess I can give some of my anticipated movies too.
1. Tenet
2. No Time to Die
3. The French Dispatch (Always excited for new Anderson)
4. Dune
5. Last Night in Soho
I have to admit I don't have that much excitement for No Time to Die mainly because I'm not THAT big on Fukunaga in general. I stand by my hot take of thinking that the first season of True Detective is incredibly overrated and that Breaking Bad completely deserved to sweep over it.
Calvin: I'm not too excited for it either and can't say I'm too enthused for the future post-Craig.
Bryan: I'll give my response in the morning.
Calvin: Well, the problem with True Detective, I think, is mostly in the writing.
So I saw Doctor Sleep, and... I found it to be kind of a fascinating mess? It’s a good case study of what happens when you try to appease multiple sources for your adaptation at once. The clash of tones was too interesting for me to dismiss, but also too scattershot to call successful. Quality varies throughout. Personally found Ferguson the weak link.
Robert: What did you think of McGregor and Tremblay.
Luke: McGregor was really effective despite the film sort of hobbling him at times. Should have focused more on Danny’s arc than the True Knott nonsense. Tremblay is great for his limited screentime, because I did not expect to hear those screams come from him. (Which makes me wonder how his parents allowed him to do that scene). Of the cast, I was most impressed with McClarnon and Lumbly. The True Knott ended up being complete pushovers and were largely not scary, but McClarnon cut such a smooth, relaxed menace from Crow Daddy. Lumbly just gets points alone for “Genius Casting of the Year”.
Louis: It's odd that I don't see Schwarzenegger's performance in Commando in your list of best to worst leading performances from 1985. Considering that's one of his most famous films, I was expecting you to have seen it. Or haven't you seen it in a long time?
Louis: Thoughts on the trailer for The Way Back? Seems like it’ll be a challenging role for Affleck.
Bryan: Indeed, and from what I understand, a rather personal role as well. Whether or not the movie actually delivers, I'm just glad to see Affleck revisiting such dramatic territory, so hopefully he'll be quite strong in the film.
Louis, where would you rank this among Cages performances? Top 10?
Considering the rumours about the film behind the scenes struggle I'm worried it might end up a mess.
RIP Branko Lustig.
Oh yeah, I watched Harriet and The Mustang.
Harriet is a fairly standard biopic (as they've all been lately) but fortunately Tubman's life is inherently fascinating so the film is more than decent. Erivo is very good as expected.
The Mustang caught me off guard a bit. The idea of taking what is usually a very safe, wholesome story type and putting it in such a gritty context hit a real sweet spot for me. Schoenaerts is my 3rd place for lead actor behind Dafoe and Pattinson.
Michael: Happy to hear your enthusiasm for Schoenaerts, look forward to seeing it soon.
Your ratings for Erivo and Schoenaerts.
Michael: And what about Bruce Dern.
Michael: Thoughts and rating for Erivo?
And also, what do you make of her oscar chances at this point? She'll definitely need support, as I mentioned before, since the film itself hasn't been given that much love. Yes the academy adores biopics, but I'd imagine some voters would want to veer away from that after last year's biopic saturated field. Also she's going against another "by-the-numbers" biopic nominee in Zellwegger, so perhaps that will conflict with her chances somewhat. It's really hard to tell if she will be nominated, honestly, because there's a lot working in her favour, but there's also a lot that isn't.
RIP Branko Lustig. Holocaust survivor and Oscar-winning producer of Schindler's List and Gladiator.
RIP Branko Lustig.
RIP Branko Lustig.
I think with a re-watch Schoenaerts could easily be a 5 for me too.
Bryan:
Still deciding on a definitive #1 for some of them.
S1: Mark Addy/Peter Dinklage
S2: Charles Dance/Alfie Allen
S3: Nikolaj Coster-Waldau
S4: Peter Dinklage/Rory McCann
S5: Stephen Dillane
S6: Kit Harington/Liam Cunningham
S7: Nikolaj Coster-Waldau
S8: Emilia Clarke
Top 5 Episodes in no particular order:
Baelor
The Rains Of Castamere
Hardhome
Battle Of The Bastards
The Winds Of Winter
Top 5 performers in no particular order:
Alfie Allen
Charles Dance
Liam Cunningham
Nikolaj Coster-Waldau
Rory McCann
Louis: could you see Jessie Buckley as Barbara Jean in a 2010s Nashville?
Anonymous:
Haven't seen it. Kind of film I think you don't go back to unless you watched it when you were younger.
Robert:
The True Knot, were almost hilariously incompetent, there were about four seconds total that I felt they had the upper hand on Danny and Abra.
Bryan:
Well I have no faith in Gavin O'Connor as a filmmaker, not that he is a bad one, but he's no guarantee of quality. Affleck looks potentially good, but the film, based on the trailer, doesn't inspire too much hope. Though based on the opening, I'd love it if it were the true sequel to Good Will Hunting about Chuckie trying to make it, then Will shows up in the ending to the construction site where Chuckie proceeds to murder him.
John Smith:
1. Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call New Orleans
2. Leaving Las Vegas
3. Adaptation
4. Wild At Heart
5. Mandy
6. Joe
7. Bringing Out the Dead
8. Raising Arizona
9. Matchstick Men
10. Lord of War
Calvin:
Most definitely, though she's perhaps a little too youthful in spirit, probably making her more ideal for Winifred.
Louis: who’s been your MVP per episode of Watchmen so far?
And agreed on her being more suited to Winifred.
Calvin:
1. Don Johnson
2. Regina King
3. Jean Smart
4. Jeremy Irons (though he's always MVP of the Jeremy Irons reality show, that he seems to be starring in)
I saw Ford v. Ferrari. Thought it was alright and a bit overlong, but the racing scenes are pretty good.
Bale- 4 (Could bump him up. Also, there’s several times where he sounded like Gary Oldman lol)
Damon-3.5 (Seemed adrift through a lot of the film, although he does have a couple of good scenes)
Letts-4
McKinnon-3 (Kept thinking it was Peter Berg)
Lucas-3/3.5
Girone-3
Bernthal-3
Jupe and Balfe-2.5 (Not bad, just don’t have much to work with)
Ahh I should’ve started that off with “Speaking of Good Will Hunting...” Oh well
Louis, right now, who's your pick to be the 5th nominee for Supporting Actor with Dafoe, Pacino, Pitt and Hanks being pretty likely.
Anonymous:
Well of those four, I'd say Pacino and Pitt are the only two who seem extremely likely. Dafoe's gotten in twice in a row as the sole nomination for his film so that helps him, however The Lighthouse may be too strange for voters as the extreme stylistic genre piece that it is, with Dafoe's performance being steeped in that. He'll need the critical support. Hanks has been mostly, or completely ignored for so many baity roles of late, it could happen again. Not that I think either can't happen, but I'd put them in a similar likelihood of a few others at this point. Those being Hopkins, where Two Popes continues to win festival praise and McCarten films do extremely well with Oscar voters. If Pyrce is a thing, which I'm predicting he will be, Hopkins seems likely for a nomination. Then there's Joe Pesci, who has gotten as much, if not even more, praise as Pacino. He's not campaigning, is a second nomination for his film in the category and is a bit prickly however. I do think though the passion there is for his work could get him a la Harrleson to Rockwell.
Outside of that then there are those who need their films to over perform, Alan Alda for Marriage Story (if it pulls a Silver Linings Playbook), Rockwell for Jojo Rabbit, or Song Kang-ho.
Then rounding out are the, are there films going to be a thing? That is with Jamie Foxx for Just Mercy and Sterling K. Brown in Waves. Both I would think would need to be either crowned by the critics, or their films make more impact then it appears their films will at the moment.
Worth noting that the lineup likely is going to be slightly atypical, or very 2012, with the amount of established names in the bunch. This is that only Brown and Song aren't previous nominees, and out of the rest only Alda and Dafoe aren't previous winners.
I've said before that I wouldn't mind Dafoe missing out because I think it would make for a better review with Pattinson.
My hope is Pacino, Pesci, Pitt, Hanks and Hopkins.
Luke: It will be incredibly difficult to review one without mentioning the other constantly. And yeah that lineup will be great, provided that Hopkins is great.
2019 supporting looks like a fan fiction dream lineup, Pacino, Pesci, Hanks, Hopkins and Pitt in the lineup.
Its the equivalent of having The Rock, Stone Cold, Kurt Angle, Undertaker and Triple H on the same team lol
Jonathan Pryce =D...the man who used to be on "Whose Line is it Anyway"
RatedRStar: That sounds about right. I love how the category feels pretty up in the air now.
Louis: Could I have your thoughts on the screenplay and direction of Dog Day Afternoon? Also, did you rewatch the film during the '75 bonus rounds?
Louis: To hop on Tahmeeds' request, your thoughts on the LACK of a score in the same film? We usually ask you for thoughts on film scores, so I thought it'd be interesting to cover the absence of one this time.
Although you can include that with the director thoughts, since it was most likely Lumets' decision.
Have you watched The Mandalorian.
Clive Owen is going to play Bill Clinton.
Tahmeed:
What was shot and edited, is stronger than the screenplay as written by Frank Pierson. Although this is not to besmirch the screenplay, however every change is for the better. The most notable one being the ending that just keeps going in the screenplay, rather than extremely tight and effectively blunt ending of the film, that conveys all the same ideas however does that a whole lot better. Also Sonny in the original script says "Shoot me" rather than "Don't shoot me" is actually a lot more powerful in this different kind of resignation for the character. Every change in the final film is for the better, whether in re-writes, or through Lumet and improvisation. Having said that, it's still a stellar screenplay. That is it takes, what is already a very compelling true story, and just thrusts it into such a brilliant piece. This as it effectively works in just being a thriller, by crafting such tension in each and every interaction and through the development of the plot at every point. This giving such intricate details that creates such a fascinating exploration of it. It also works just as a character study of Sonny, and to a lesser extent Sal and Leon. This in creating such vivid people pulling off this robbery, though in a rather half-cocked way. It even works as an exploration between the relationships between the hostages and hostage takers, in those brilliant moments of sort of casual connection that forms. Then there is the overarching genius of the social and media commentary that is so eloquently interwoven within this narrative about two gun toting thugs. It is sort those extra layers that takes a film such as this to the next level as masterwork rather than just a very good film.
Lumet's direction is maybe his personal best, certainly up there. One reason being his refinements to the screenplay to a tauter and punchier narrative. He very much tightens the loose ends and the preexisting notes hit harder through Lumet's approach. This is also very much in his film, that is another, great, example of how to do a docudrama. Lumet's choices, including the lack of score, emphasize very much us just experiencing the reality of the situation. I'll say this in a way does put an extra onus on Durning, Sarandon, Cazale and especially Pacino, given that so many scenes are built around their performances. Lumet rightly has confidence in those performances, and no needless flourishes are needed as he allows the great drama that is there to unfold in such a naturalistic way. Of course, as with any great docudrama style film, there's the invisible hand of talented director who knows when to tilt it. This is specific truly cinematic scenes, even though you don't notice them in that way, are so effectively realized. Take for example the opening switch as the police appear, as the dramatic switch reveal, the finale, the Attica speech or even how the phone call with Sonny and Leon is realized. Lumet takes moments to amp it up a bit, never that it reveals itself in a way, yet makes every scene have all the greater of an impact through the simplest touches. Whether that be the quick cut to Moretti, the swiftness of the situation's end, the use of the crowd or the reveal of the other listeners. Each makes the scenes all the more potent even as it never loses that sense of reality.
Bryan:
In a way a lack of score is often a show of confidence, though any amount of score can be a good idea, however it suggests someone who is quite sure that the material and the actors don't need any musical help to convey the emotion. Again the lack here, supports Lumet's documentary approach, and does so effectively, as the film never needs it, to the point you don't really even notice it.
Luke:
Yes, and I wish I liked it more. I'll admit I wish it would truly embrace its "man with no name" ambitions, rather than getting bogged down with too much backstory and the goofier moments. The worst of them being "Silly Blue Man" and failing to ride a "space camel" scenes that pushed my patience. I did just about love Herzog and Waititi's scenes though, again they truly have a space western vibe. When it embraces that it is pretty good, when not, ehhh, aside from those scenes it's not bad, but I do wish it was a bit punchier. Not that it needs to go full Leone, but the silly scenes lean too hard into that. Also the visuals have left a little bit to be desired at times, CGI to a degree, but mostly not nearly enough directorial flair. Hopefully Waititi's episode will bring a little more to the proceedings, however I think it probably would've been better for him to direct the first episode to set the visual language. Although I didn't love it, I'll probably keep watching given its short runtimes.
Louis: Your expanded thoughts on the ending for the film? I like how you mentioned how blunt it is, as it's a great example of a film going like "This is how it ended."
Also, your thoughts on "Wyoming"?
Louis: Your thoughts on Cronenberg's direction in Scanners. Apparently, when it came to Stephen Lack's performance, he cast him because of his unusual eyes but when he published his book "Cronenberg on Cronenberg", he apparently said he regretted ever casting him in the part.
Louis: Fitting to this review, what are your thoughts on...uhh..."The Unbearable Weight of Massive Talent"?
Bryan:
Oh that ending is outstanding in every sense. This creating the sheer tension of the moment, as well as we sort of see just how inadequate Sonny and Sal, and fearful, they are in the moment as they're both playing an amateur sport while the FBI are pros. This in the swiftness of the put down from the death of Sal to the immediate surrender of Sonny, and also really just how that drawn out crime gets wrapped up in a moment. Also special mention needs to good to Lance Henriksen's underrated performance whose low key chilling, as the true killer compared to Sal and Sonny. Then the finale is great, as there is no speech or anything for Sonny or Sal, just carted off separately, particularly Sonny. I love the touch of the happy hostages, rightfully so, who aren't giving Sonny a second thought even as they spent that unforgettable time with him.
Wyoming is just a brilliant piece of acting by Cazale, and Pacino, as it is a pitch perfect moment in terms of combining something rather funny but also rather heartbreaking in the sad soul that is Sal. Side Note, the claim is that it was improvised, but it can be found, not exactly as performed, in one of the drafts of the script so I wonder if Lumet just remembered the moment incorrectly on his audio commentary.
Anonymous:
Cronenberg's direction is on point, for the most part, in that he grants reality to what is a goofy concept, that of the telekentic battle. Cronenberg not only makes it tangible he also makes it have a real grit and intensity. I mean the head explosion, while overeferenced at this point, is iconic for a reason. This is within the film as a whole which creates a captivating emotional take on a silly concept. This as he doesn't overplay an element even like that head explosion which is unquestionably brutal. He subverts ideas of genre silliness to grant a seriousness where it treats the supernatural with a striking human touch. It's a shame that it is nearly sabotaged, despite Michael Ironside and Patrick McGoohan's valiant efforts, by Lack. One can say that in that department as a director Cronenberg completely failed as he cast a bad actor, and wasn't able to pull a decent performance out of him. He should've forgotten the eyes, and gotten one of his later leads. I mean James Woods, Christopher Walken or Jeff Goldblum could've all been amazing in the part, however imagine Lack in The Dead Zone, Videodrome or The Fly, and those films wouldn't been failures. I suppose it is a great example of why actors matter big time, since Cronenberg's vision is there, but his performer cannot deliver the concept.
Emi Grant:
Well I'm all for the concept, particularly Cage as Cage, but the creative team's track record doesn't inspire much faith or interest sadly.
This was such an awesome article, Dewacintaqq gratitude for posting this mister. Ive studied many a diverse blogs connected to this study and this one right here is unquestionably in the top drawer. Delimapoker Great work and I look forward to the next posting. Kapaldomino How long do you think it will be before you create the next article on the website? Papadomino .
Post a Comment