Anthony Wong did not receive an Oscar nomination for portraying Curtis in The Mission.
The Mission follows a group of hitmen hired as bodyguards for a marked for death triad boss. The film certainly has style, potentially a compelling plot even, but sadly it is a far too thin on character.
The idea of the hitmen working together seems prime for some colorful characters and some great interactions. Well unfortunately that's is not the case with either the former or the latter. All the hit-men are painfully underdeveloped with barely even a minor gimmick to set each one apart. The most compelling of them is Wong's Curtis, not because he's written any better or because there is anything particularly different about him in terms of the scenario, rather it is because he's played by Anthony Wong. Wong's a naturally magnetic actor so that helps of course, but it is really everything about his performance that grants the slightest hint of a substance to Curtis. There is nothing in the dialogue or anything more, but Wong manages to fashion a world weariness in his manner that grants a history to him in every scene. This is as he brings the ease of the true professional but the way he maneuvers in the group he grants a sense of separation and exasperation of a man whose been through before, perhaps too many times. There is both of sense of cool that Wong brings to this, but also that sense of wear. Wong delivers so much in his eyes, in just the way he examines a situation and looks upon the other hit men. You see Curtis quietly examining the men and the situation, and again evokes the sense of the man's long time in the business. Of course none of this is actually seems to be in the script. Wong just seems to making the character up really with just some extremely perfunctory lines to go with, which are largely stand around and say one line of action or exposition. Wong though does everything in his power to make something of his part of the film, this includes the completely unearned climax where the hitmen have to face one another. Wong's emotional intensity in the scene is terrific and reflects a substance we sadly are not warranted in the film. His final scene is also a brilliant piece of acting of the face of satisfaction of the man finally being allowed to lose through the tension of the job and the situation, while being able to do so with his head held high. I have to commend Wong here, because he makes something out of nearly nothing and one can only imagine the great performance he could have delivered with an actual three dimensional character.
54 comments:
Louis: Since you've seen Uncut Gems, would James Caan or Al Pacino be your pick for a 70s version of Sandler's character?
Anonymous:
No, Jerry Lewis. Both Caan and Pacino would've been too young for the character back then.
Louis: Fair enough. Maybe they'd be better fits in future years then?
Also, your thoughts on the score and editing of the film?
I’d go higher but I see your reservations. What’re your thoughts and ratings for the rest of the cast?
*Sigh*
I wouldn't call The Rise of Skywalker terrible; just pretty "whatever" to me. I dunno. I'm not very big on Star Wars to begin with, so take that opinion as you may. I'll agree with Ridley as MVP though.
2.5/5.
Robert: You win. I'd rather watch Last Jedi over Rise Of Skywalker again.
So I watched Uncut Gems as well and agreed with you both Lous and RatedRStar. Hit me hard. I think Sandler is a lock for top 5, I could definitely see him winning.
Sandler - 5
Garnett - 3.5
Menzel - 3
Stanfield - 3.5
Fox - 4 (I absolutely loved her performance and could easily go up)
Bogosian - 3.5 (also could go up, I loved the unexpected sort of direction they took his character in and just great to see him in something again)
Louis: Without taking The Irishman into account, who do you prefer more as an actor- Pacino, or De Niro?
The more I think about ROTS, the worse it gets, since I can’t think of much that I liked besides Ridley.
I guess not everything can be Endgame or Return of the King (to sort-of-paraphrase Louis a bit)
Saw Uncut Gems as well. I quite liked it, and I’ll agree with Calvins ratings.
I don't know about you guys but I was so bored during the Lightsaber fights, I wish they brought back the Prequel choreography.
The Cinematography was much better in The Last Jedi.
And Although the Prequels deservedly get alot of flak, they had more memorable imagery and planets on the whole than the Sequels have had. (Ahch-To's the only one that stood out in any way).
Luke: I kept tuning out unintentionally throughout The Rise of Skywalker, so I hear you. Agreed on The Last Jedis' cinematography.
What'd you think of the trailer for Tenet btw?
Bryan: Good teaser but I'm sold already.
And my ratings for the cast.
Ridley - 4/4.5
Driver - 3.5
Boyega - 3
Isaac - 3
McDiarmid - 3
Grant - 3
Louis: The 1999 Lead and Supporting overalls have vanished.
Luke: I think it was probably a mistake while Louis was updating both overalls.
Louis: your cast ranking for Arrested Development and what are your thoughts on Ben Stiller in the show?
For those who saw TROS, what are your thoughts on the score?
Anyone seen Two Popes yet? Planning to at some point today. Also Louis could I have your thoughts on the Uncut Gems cast now? Thinking more about it, such a great ensemble, down to the smallest roles like the pawn shop guy.
Calvin: I'm actually not in a hurry to watch The Two Popes. I will, but whatever.
I’m skipping The Two Popes unless it gets nominated for anything. At this point I actually think it’s dead.
Matt and Robert: Same, I actually am curious about the performances but I’m also worried that it’ll get me irrationally angry. Frankly have more incentive to see Bombshell (even though that seems like it has its own set of issues).
Bombshell I'm avoiding no matter what.
For the record, these are my predictions for the categories:
Actor: Banderas/DiCaprio/Driver/Phoenix/Sandler
Actress: Johansson/Nyong’o/Ronan/Theron/Zellweger
S. Actor: Hanks/Kang-ho/Pacino/Pesci/Pitt
S. Actress: Dern/Lopez/Pugh/Robbie/Shuzhen
Anonymous: It's generic, like the film. Hell, they could've used the score from either TFA or TLJ and I wouldn't have noticed.
Saw Bombshell, which isn't particularly good or aggressively bad either, for the most part. I'll say it is a whole lot better than if say Adam McKay directed it, but it just doesn't do a whole lot with rather potent material in terms of developing the story. As with most Jay Roach films, even his best ones, it feels too much just like a progression of scene to scene to get to an end rather building up something or truly towards something. I will say though that the makeup is quite impressive and will be deserving of its eventual Oscar win. Although the most random use of CGI is one of the worst effects of the year.
Theron - 4(although her accent does take time to get used to)
Kidman - 4
Robbie - 3.5(Although she's pretty bad until her first scene with Lithgow)
Lithgow - 4.5
McKinnon - 1.5
Duplass - 2.5
Delaney - 3
McDowell - 3
The Two Popes I'd actually say is the best film written by Antony McCarten, although that isn't saying too much of course. I will say it benefits him that it is easy enough to make two distinct characters in the Popes since you have the conservative and progressive. It doesn't go too far into that, something I think a great screenwriter could've made something amazing, but here it does end up being something decent. This as it is easy enough to bounce these ideas off along with the ideas of faith, while working even though there clearly was a lot more depth to be found there. It tries to kind lampshade the philosophical debate with that of humanizing the Two Popes mainly by having them seem just like two average dudes, coming close to, but not going as far as, to have the two kicking back in Lazy Boys downing Budweisers. The film does have something in the conversations, mainly because it at least allows the performers some room to breathe with the characters more so than the traditional McCarten method of "then this happens" which doesn't take hold until the last minutes of the film thankfully. This is to the point I would've preferred if the film had excised all flashbacks and just let Hopkins and Pryce deliver the information directly to each other, as the film does work to a degree when it is left directly to their interactions. This isn't to say it becomes great or anything profound, but there is at least something worthwhile there.
I echo Louis’s thoughts on The Two Popes. As for Bombshell, I agree with Louis on the film itself, but differ a lot on the performances. I never quite got used to Theron’s vocal affectation, but her physical and facial acting was so great that it probably evens out to the same rating as Louis. I actually thought Robbie was the MVP, I didn’t like her first scenes initially either but by the end I decided that those scenes actually made her arc throughout the story even more compelling. Totally disagree on McKinnon, her performance seemed iffy in the trailer but in full context of the film I really quite liked what she did with her role, and she might be my second favorite of the cast. Also I thought Lithgow was good but I probably wouldn’t give him more than a 3.5, and I really thought they tried a liiittle too hard to humanize Ailes.
Also saw A Hidden Life today. On a technical level it’s terrific obviously but I honestly can’t say I loved it. Diehl is very strong.
Michael: your thoughts on the score?
Louis: Thoughts on the cinematography of The Hurt Locker and Captain Philips.
Will say the same for The Two Popes. I have to say though that I found both the film's direction and editing to be quite frustrating to a degree. I might not have watched it under the best conditions, but I doubt I'll go higher than a 4 with Pryce and Hopkins after a re-watch.
Louis: Thoughts on the cast for Bombshell?
Hmmm, so...Star Wars got Chris Terrio to make their own Batman V. Superman? Well Mission accomplished. Never thought they'd make a film as bad if not worse than Attack of the Clones, though bad in different ways from that film, but mission accomplished again. I am awe struck here. What's in the mystery box, a bunch of trash.
Anonymous:
I'd prefer theoretically keeping the typically comic actor in a challenging role, like Gene Wilder for the 80's and Albert Brooks for the 90's.
The editing once again has the kinetic flow to it that is just invigorating. Although I know some have complained this time for the overall length, however I'd say that would've required scene removal, which I would not support anyways, but I thought every individual scene flowed exceptionally well to me, and helped to create the film's incredible tension. I would give particular mention to the struggle to open the door scene and especially finale, as incredible bits of work in that regard.
The score is also once again fantastic in their techno, almost neo-80's synth style in that it evokes something like Tangerine Dream, but does something very new with it. I loved it here with again creating that sort of tempo to the film, but also in creating this bizarre, in the best sense of the word, spiritual quality to the proceedings.
Anonymous:
Early career both have similar heights so it is all based on their later days where it is Pacino easily, even disregarding his TV output, lesser Pacino can still be fun, lesser De Niro is downright boring. Pacino almost always tries to at least some degree, even if seemingly only to amuse himself sometimes, while De Niro in his later career just too often coasted.
Luke & Tahmeed:
No mistake, just in the process of.
Calvin:
Garnett - (Solid work actually, more than that actually when it comes to sort of the empowerment of the stone moments and some of his silent acting which is quite good. A few of his deliveries are a little stilted or could have just a bit more umph to them, but it is a fine turn.)
Menzel - (I mean mostly she's sort of there to look just indifferent, but I did love her one major scene. This is to the point I could go higher with her as she manages to deliver such a fatal blow in the moment by delivering the venom with such a sense of years of pent up exhaustion.)
Stanfield - (Strong work as per usual from him. I particularly like how he slowly builds up his character's ego in the scenes with Garnett and Stanfield is particularly good in showing how the man's head just seems to slowly be growing from the partnership.)
Fox - (I will say I will give her the benefit of the doubt here, as part of what makes her so compelling is the way you don't get a perfect read on her character the entire time. She manages to play the different sides in a way that does create a proper intentional confusion there as you guess one moment a truly loyal partner, or just a vapid, and especially alluring seductress.)
Bogosian - (Overjoyed to see him again in something and he's terrific as sort of how I expected to see him in this role. I was impressed though in his almost silent arc of sorts that I felt Bogosian delivered rather impeccably and powerfully.)
Hirsch - (Just such a wonderful bit of character from him even if so brief. Love his frustrated looks towards Sandler in particular.)
Richards - (A proper sledge hammer is I'll I will say at the moment.)
And agreed on every single bit part, and also for perhaps the most random cameo I've seen, though in a great way.
Michael:
Although I agree the amount of humanization for Ailes was not needed, I'm not going to fault Lithgow for running with it, especially since I don't think he used it to try to develop empathy rather I felt he used it to bring a particularly unnerving reality to his despicable behavior.
As for McKinnon we will just disagree here, as I felt she was a full cartoon, then a half cartoon, then did try to become a real person, though a few too many bug eyed looks even then, but just didn't deliver it for me even when fully attempting it.
For Robbie, I get her arc was to be naive then become broken, though I think the writing was terrible there anyways with the evangelical lesbian who didn't seem at all repressed instead just seemed like such a contrived screenwriters creation for the scenario. It also didn't appear she was doing the thing as an act either, the whole thing just seemed poorly written. The problem though in regards to Robbie was I felt she came off as a cartoon then became a real person, not a real naive person then a real broken person.
Note:
Actually did see Star Wars last night, roped into it, but decided to let my thoughts cool, relatively speaking.
It took me a bit to warm up to the score for Uncut Gems, but once I did, I loved it.
I did not even recognised Judd Hirsch at all. And I guess I'm a little kinder to Garnett upon seeing some of the other options that were bandied around beforehand. And yeah that cameo was hilarious, seems like rudely opening doors is the man's speciality.
And yeah honestly don't know if I'll get round to Rise of the Skywalker at this point.
Bryan:
Theron - (Her accent work takes perhaps too long to get used to in that it just is distracting for quite awhile. I eventually accepted it, but it took a long time. Her physical work though is fantastic and really so is her vocal performance beyond that accent. This in just embodying the role in multiple ways, whether it be for recreations or just genuinely slowly finding the internalized devastation in facing the facts around her existence. It is often a striking performance that does carry the film, really more than the film deserves.)
Kidman - (I honestly thought I was going to go higher with her, but then the film just kind of forgets her for a long stretch unfortunately. This is as I did quite like Kidman here particularly in her delivery which has this sort of "easy to please" voice she does that she beautifully underlies with this truly cutting venom within that. It is a terrific balance, along with also who own honest portrayal of the emotional weight of the situation.)
Robbie - (As mentioned before, she begins as sketch character. It is a parody of an idea, and it also felt a bit like Robbie going for an easy repeat as a lesser riff on her "wolf" performance. Thankfully once the switch happens she is fantastic in portrayal the sheer emotional devastation that slowly eats away her character into nothing. I just wished she went less broad in her early scenes since she is genuinely great later on.)
Duplass - (He borders on being the okay somewhat supportive husband, but not much more than that.)
Delaney - (Thought he managed to find some depth within an expository role. This is particularly in his moments of portraying the character's own concerns that he doesn't simplify.)
McDowell - (Brings the needed dynamic sort of command to make a quick impact.)
Lithgow - (Again I was quite frankly surprised by Lithgow here, as I was expecting this to be just a one note performance. Lithgow is anything but, and again I don't think he does so as a method to create empathy for Ailes either. I think rather Lithgow makes it all the more insidious by making the segues in the character so natural. This in moments where we see the sort of "Strength" of the cunning boss, that just as easily comes from the moments of casual sleaziness that become even worse. The desperation Lithgow delivers in these moments is particularly unnerving in creating the true sense of the abuse of power by also showing the man essentially revealing his worst self without real shame or hesitation. Lithgow as well though I don't think played Ailes attempting to maintain his innocence as one note either, and again I was impressed by how naturally he revealed the stress and frustrations of the man slowly seeing the walls close in around him. I have to say I'm honestly surprised he got snubbed at SAG given how much they went for the film, then again maybe they didn't want to "nominate" Roger Ailes twice since Crowe got in on the TV side.)
Lucas:
Main:
Will Arnett
Jessica Walter
Jeffrey Tambor
David Cross
Jason Bateman
Portia de Rossi
Tony Hale
Michael Cera
Alia Shawkat
Secondary:
Henry Winkler
Ian Roberts
Carl Weathers
Ben Stiller
Martin Mull
Julia Louis-Dreyfus
James Lipton
Justin Grant Wade
Judge Reinhold
Andy Richter
Bob Einstein
Liza Minnelli
Charlize Theron
Jeff Garlin
Ed Begley Jr
Judy Greer
Mae Whitman
Scott Baio
Amy Poehler
Christine Taylor
Justin Lee
Stiller is hilarious there doing a slight riff on his Dodgeball/Heavyweights egomaniac style, but nonetheless totally works, particularly when lettuce is part of the illusion. Stiller overplays it hilariously in portraying just the extreme of an extreme that already is the street magician. Worth noting also that he managed to still be funny past season 3.
Anonymous:
Ah yes shaky cam man Barry Ackroyd. Well he doesn't really do a great job for either. Phillips is nausea inducing at times, and again one can do documentary style without going overboard. This is an example of going overboard with that. It doesn't add to the film it detracts from its appeal quite frankly. I mean quite success in terms of making a film that does not look like a film, a good looking film anyways. It's not overly ugly at least, but the camera movements just do the wrong thing. The Hurt Locker is a little better in this regard, in that the movements aren't as frustrating at times, though I still don't think they add to the film's "realism". Although I think Bigelow makes some dynamic setups, Ackroyd consistently produces flat looking images in the film. This is doing nothing special with the lighting or anything else. Again, something like Collateral puts this type of work truly to shame, as it genuinely takes away from the film a bit. This is as its flat look really is one of the reasons why I don't love that film and also why I'm never really encouraged to re-watch it.
Louis: Extended thoughts on Rise Of Skywalker. Ratings and thoughts on the cast. Also, would you give it a 1.
Louis: How about just ratings right now, without thoughts?
Michael: Your ratings on Diehl, Pachner, Pryce and Hopkins.
Luke: I know you asked Michael, but I'd give Pryce a 4 and Hopkins a 4.5
Louis: What would be your rating and overall thoughts on Eyes Wide Shut as a film? And your updated Kubrick ranking?
I saw Star Wars: Rise of The Skywalker, or is it Rise of Skywalker, the title intro didn't make that clear.
I think Gene Siskels comment about Howard Hawks comes to mind when he asked "what makes a good film" Hawks said "its 3 good scenes and no bad scenes"
Star Wars ROS has two good scenes in my opinion and about 11 bad ones.
Louis: Any missed opportunites in the careers of Kirk Douglas, Burt Lancaster and Robert Mitchum?
Louis: yout thoughts on Jean Smart, Regina King, Tim Blake Nelson and Hong Chau in Watchmen? And your thoughts on the score as well?
About The Two Popes, i agree about the flashbacks, i would have kept only the fist B&W sequence. Your thoughts on the direction and the use of handheld camera style?
Louis: Your top ten Zach Woods acting moments, and can I have your thoughts on these scenes from season 6?
Jared Loses It- https://youtu.be/BRZ4NKaqGro
Jared meets his parents- https://youtu.be/rABJGfCGlUA
Just saw Portrait of a Lady on Fire. Quite remarkable, the two leads are strong, direction is understated but in a pretty strong way, and I loved the use of 'absence' of music and using it in the rarest intervals.
Haenel - 4.5
Merlant - 4
Bajrami - 3
Also guys, read this review of ROS, it is BRUTAL (And yeah I know spoilers I really shouldn’t have but oh well),
https://boxd.it/UdRnx
Calvin: Man, that review didn't hold anything back.
Welp, all the less reason to see it now.
Calvin:
Regarding the Mission's cast, it'd be basically a collective 2.5 as no one is bad, but no one is able to come with character out of the extremely thin material besides Wong.
Luke:
Let's wait on extended thoughts until everyone gets a chance to see it as it would require lots of spoilers to really dive into it, as bad as I think it is the film I wouldn't want to run someone's potential to enjoy it...as hard as I find that.
Fisher: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U58IdBjMeS4
Ridley - 4
Driver - 3.5
Boyega - 2.5
Isaac - 2.5
Gleeson - 2
Ackie - 2.5
Grant - 3
Russell - 2.5
McDiarmid - 2.5
Williams - 2.5
I will say in terms of the majority of these performances it is a matter of wasting the performers, rather than a failure to deliver.
Bryan:
I will say that the crafting of Eyes Wide Shut is impeccable and fascinating to a certain extent in itself. I will say however the Kubrikian detachment I'm not sure serves the sexually charged nature of the story. The film does still work as an atmospheric mood piece to be sure, but like where Jack was made nearly static in The Shining, Kubrick's anti-humanism I don't think serves the nature of the text. It should be a true examination of the man's journey, but it never delves within that enough to be beyond this curious distant observation. An often compelling observation mind that, but not more than that for my measure.
1. Dr. Strangelove
2. Paths of Glory
3. A Clockwork Orange
4. Spartacus
5. Lolita
6. The Killing
7. Full Metal Jacket
8. Barry Lyndon
9. 2001: A Space Odyssey
10. The Shining
11. Eyes Wide Shut
12. Fear and Desire
A considerable gap between Eyes Wide Shut and Fear and Desire however.
Anonymous:
Lancaster missed on several roles with potential but nothing major. He notably was able to segue twice, once towards stretching himself in the 60's among changing actors, then took roles that successfully embraced his age in the 80's.
Well turning down Patton was probably not the wisest choice for Mitchum, I think we all won as Scott was perfect for that role, the same goes for turning down the French Connection. Overall though Mitchum really didn't miss much in terms of also managing to find success "past his prime" by managing to keep his trademark cool, but also finding roles that played into his age later on.
Kirk Douglas's whole career seemed like a missed opportunity past the 60's. This as he seemed like he probably refused to embrace his age and in turn missed out in advancing in the was Lancaster and Mitchum were able to. He frequently got to play the lead still, but in films that have not left any impression. He probably should've just went with First Blood as well, as that could've granted him at least a minor resurgence as it did for Crenna. Although I'm sure Douglas saw missing out on One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, I will say I don't think he would've fit that part at the time and certainly wouldn't have been better than Nicholson in the part. He just never was able to rework his image remotely, unlike the aforementioned two, and never really recovered from that.
Omar:
Smart - (I mean she's terrific in portraying the sheer weariness that has infected Laurie that often comes out as this strict cynicism. A cynicism she wields so brilliantly throughout the series as he conveys the years of dealing with the nonsense of the "super hero" world. She's amazing within sort of the private moments though of portraying the very old wounds regarding her heritage and her still unfinished relationship with Dr. Manhattan. Smart grants such a strict reality to what is a character that leaves in a fantasy world technically that is something quite remarkable. She brings us the person under the hood of the comic book heroine, that the comic book promised us, the film didn't deliver, but Smart does so here.)
King - (Her performance more than anything I'd say is a rock solid anchor to the series. This in granting just the down to earth perspective consistently of the woman trying to work her tumultuous world. King is dialed in extremely well throughout the series in terms of offering this perspective and must be granted particular praise for managing to so naturally segue that into her later revealed relationship. Although I will say in part I didn't get as emotionally invested into the relationship because to me it felt a bit like Manhattan has a bit of a D.E.N.N.I.S system going with Laurie, his first wife and King's Angela, right down to the Separate entirety being part of the relationship. Nonetheless King delivers consistently in granting such a weight to it, and delivers without question on her end.)
Nelson - (For the first few episodes I thought he offered a nice weary presence of the long term law man, and I liked his low key incisiveness as the interrogator. He's amazing though in his focused episode though in exposing that weariness to a true vulnerability of a man forever defined by his life changing experience. Nelson is able to create such a powerful sense of the way this trauma defines the man both in terms of that weariness, but almost this constant underlying fear that keeps the man with this constant anxiety that is at best lying quietly dormant. It is again another exceptional work that delivers such genuine emotion to a far out concept, this time making space squids a believable scar on a man's soul.)
Chau - (Chau is just wonderful in terms of being a contrast to Irons. This in initially creating this sort of benevolent charisma within the character, and bringing this overabundance of warmth. This as though the great CEO type even as it seems to allude to something far to perfect as she speaks with such a consistent glowing quality that quickly reveals a most magnificent ego. Chau never backs down on this confidence that reveals itself as something quite aggressive and in the end quite menacing as she reveals the true nature of the woman.)
The score to me almost sounded like something by John Carpenter, and by that I mean I loved it. This almost creating the sense that it was still in the 80's in some way because of that, but nonetheless I found it created that sort of sense of atmosphere of that type of 80's dystopia combined with the sci-fi of the period. Really striking work that was one of the highlights of the series for me.
Well I will say Meirelles's direction often makes a nice looking film, well besides the handheld shots which are just awkward and take away from the otherwise pleasing aesthetic. Their recreated Sistine Chapel, which is quite impressive, in particular he loves to show off, and I'll say the general way of Meirelles working around the conversations was effective, well again other than the handheld shots. For the most part I did think he managed to let the conversations play, while not being wholly static either. Not perfect in this sense of mind you, but works for the most part. I will also that single flashback was quite striking, in its dreamlike document approach and I wish he indeed had only kept to that, as that one was effective. The other flashbacks just come off as distant and detached both through Meirelles's work and how they are written. I would say Meirelles work is a little mixed, but for the most part does his job to take what qualities there are in the script, and without going overboard, like say Joe Wright and James Marsh who seemed to throw in every possible trick they knew to "spice" up the material.
Tahmeed:
1. Jared Freaks Out
2. Pivoting
3. Anecdote on the news
4. Loving the madness
5. Attacking the blood boy
6. Jared meets his real parents
7. Low key threat
8. Half apache
9. Lips
10. Stuck in a car
Jared Loses It - (Absolutely hilarious in showing just where Jared's loyalty goes if completely tested, in pure unadulterated insanity.)
Meeting his parents - (A little too dark and cruel honestly. Woods's performance in the moment is great, and there is humor there, it is just too much though.)
My goodness, have you seen the Rotten Tomatoes consensus on Cats? It makes me laugh and want to die at the same time
Post a Comment