5. Anthony Wong in The Mission - Wong manages to give a particularly impressive turn, as he manages to find depth in a paper thin role.
Best Scene: Relief after confrontation.
4. Gary Cole in Office Space - Gary Cole masters the art of malevolent indifference through his consistently hilarious turn.
Best Scene: Meeting the two Bobs.
3. Harry Lennix in Titus - Lennix gives a terrific turn as he revels in the insanity of his story and makes the most of his villainous part.
Best Scene: The Moor's confession
2. John C. Reilly in Magnolia - Reilly gives a beautiful turn managing
to find such a genuine heart in his portrayal of a caring but lonely
officer of the peace.
Best Scene: The date.
1. Robert Carlyle in Ravenous - Good prediction
Michael McCarthy. Carlyle gives essentially several
different brilliant performances in one. This as a haunted victim, a
rabid scoundrel, a devious fiend or as a most peculiar philosopher.
Best Scene: Calqhoun goes loco.
Updated Overall
Next: Going on semi-hiatus until the Oscar nominations, though as is becoming tradition, I'd appreciation any recommendations for films from this year, years I've already covered or animated, TV films or documentaries from any year.
334 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 334 of 334Louis: Given that he was nominated at the SAG Awards, how close do you think Tim Robbins was to an Oscar nomination for The Shawshank Redemption?
Calvin: Fair, but I took his scenes in the finale as him getting amped that he was finally going to get what he wanted, so it'd make sense that he’d ham it up and put on a show for everyone, so to speak. That’s just me though. He’d be higher in my ranking, but probably still in the lower half.
Saw 3 more films, A Beautiful Day in the Neighbourhood which I loved, Richard Jewell, which is probably the worst Oscar contender I have seen although it wasn't bad.
I saw Just Mercy as well, thought it was just fine.
RatedRStar: Thoughts/ratings for the casts in those films, and is Foxx at least better in "Just Mercy" than his previous nominated performances.
RIP Sue Lyon
Saw Little Women, loved it. The comfort film of the year.
Ronan - 5
Watson - 3.5
Pugh - 5
Scanlen - 4
Dern - 4
Chalamet - 3.5
Streep - 3.5
Cooper - 4
Letts - 3
Saw Little Women, loved it, absolutely wonderful, and genuinely surprised me with just how much it worked for me. It also boggles my mind that I saw any criticisms for the change in structure, since what's the point of adapting it again unless you are going to do something different? Well, I should note though I loved what Gerwig did with that shift in structure, in terms of hitting the emotional beats very different, yet so powerfully so. Also needs to be said it is just a luscious aesthetic treat in terms of the costumes, production design and score.
Ronan - 5
Pugh - 5
Chalamet - 4.5
Scanlen - 3.5
Watson - 3.5
Cooper - 4
Dern - 4
Streep - 4
Houdyshell - 3.5
Garrel - 3
Norton - 3
Odenkirk - 2.5
Letts - 3
Calvin:
Well the puppeteers may in fact have been MVP of the series, though again Herzog deserves a bit of extra credit by calling the showrunners cowards for potentially considering a CGI version.
Ayoade - (His vocal work is a droids, which he handles well in granting the right combination of robotics though with this slight dash of a sinister quality to it, that is rather effective.)
Waititi - (Similar to Ayoade, although there is a bit more of him, however he manages to be very funny in his deliveries of again the robotic stylings first of the ease in which he will blow himself up, then his comic menace as a protector, however finally a bit of emotion in his steadfastness in the role of the caregiver. Waititi manages an excellent mix of being able to find just enough emotion in it all to make an impression. Worth noting he and Ayoade take enough of it not seriously in the right ways that still feel of the world, unlike some terrible co-stars.)
Nolte - (Nolte is already extremely well cast as the old grizzled type who is just looking to make things easier for all. Nolte though manages to really bring a surprising degree of gravitas to every scene, and even a fascinating devotion in his work that brings such a sense of history in his character. He takes it absolutely seriously which is what gives his character a real impact.)
Bryan:
Same thoughts as Calvin's honestly.
Anonymous:
Johnson - (Johnson brings just the right degree of appropriate swagger and enough of that sort of warmth in his mentor's grace. This though with the right sort of glint his eye that suggests that he may be just may know a bit more than he may be saying. His character in many ways ended up being unimportant to the overall story, however I thought he managed to really flesh out his part effectively.)
Mison & Vickers - (Both are effective in creating the strange excessively agreeable state of the characters and do well there. This is in that both manage to bring a bit more of this bit of emotional desperation in it at times, fitting to the people whose whole existence is to please in some way. In addition though Mison is quite effective in his extra bit as the warden in portraying the man seemingly with more conviction at first, though that slowly reveals itself as that same desperate need to plead as well. Although Vickers also does well with her own just extra bit as the firm and passionate prosecutor. Limited roles to be sure, but I feel both did a lot more with them than there might've been.)
Gossett - (He's good in his part, there just isn't much of him. He is effective though in portraying this combination of weariness along with this strange sort guarded wisdom that defines the man working on an entirely different playing field. He also works just in bring the man that Adepo's character would become and vice versa.)
Anonymous:
Well in general Shawshank Redemption technically under performed as Robbins missed out, as did Darabont who had gotten the DGA nomination. Although the film itself reminds me a bit of It's a Wonderful Life, in that while it was not as appreciated as it would become, there was definitely an indication of that appreciation at its earliest point, since both were Best Picture nominees after all. Robbins was hanging on a thread anyways, since he didn't get in at the Globe, so he was pushed out by the passion pick of Nigel Hawthorne. He was probably the sixth spot though, as his closest competition would've been Hugh Grant. I'd say it was Robbins though, since Four Weddings and Funeral also under performed to a greater extent, with probably the British bloc managing to push it to the best picture nom/screenplay nom, which is a considerable decrease from its BAFTA haul of 12 noms and 4 wins.
Luke:
I will, but I just need to warm up I think a bit.
Louis: Well, before giving thoughts on TROS, your thoughts on the cast of Little Women.
And what a roll Florence Pugh's been on.
Luke:
Actually let me start with the bad.
SPOILERS to anyone who still cares until I write spoilers again.
Episode 1: The most disjointed trilogy of all time?
Maybe, as this was an intentional trilogy, I guess, however maybe don't get a guy who specializes in being a Copy/Paste artist for part 1 and 3, then someone who is at the very least that opposite of that for part 2. There is no sense to it, with set up of expectation of the first, to an extreme subversion of those, to explosion of ridiculousness as the setter tries to put his boat back on course any way possible. My point is this isn't a satisfying ending to any trilogy, because this trilogy has in the end become just a mess of extreme conflict of style and intention, given that there wasn't anything close to a singular voice.
Episode 2: A bad Star Wars Film
- Palpatine is alive, because Johnson killed Abrams's lazy Palpatine rip-off, that might as well be the plot reason as well.
- The Force is as you need it. Lucas's major expansion on force power was lighting, rest was mental telekinesis basically combined with a bit of psychic powers. Now it feels like it is whatever lazy writing needs it to be, which okay, well not okay, but not as terrible if done once. Here Abrams and Terrio uses it every time they seemed stumped about something.
- Nothing new, excessively old actually, terribly old engaging in the worst, most pandering fan servicing one can possible imagine. A bit like Ready Player One, where merely the image of a thing does not make a thing good, resonate. The worst examples of being Chewie's medal, however lazy use of Lando, Palpatine, Wedge use isn't much better.
Episode 3: It's just a bad film.
- Well we see Abrams's response to all his mystery boxes being opened, just make more and more of them. Multiple mcguffins that don't hide that their mcguffins in the least is just horrible writing. What is worse though is the whole plot is just a bunch random mushy threads thrown together. This as the whole plot of the Emperor basically is re-written every few seconds to try to keep the garbage pile moving a few more inches forward. Why couldn't the Emperor just destroy every planet uuhhhhhh they need guidance for some reason. Why does he have a fleet then another fleet, and why did he make the first and final order uhhhhh CUZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.
- The film is a pacing nightmare with so many many nonsense set pieces, just plugged into together with that nonsensical plot holding them together like a mud ship in water. Not one can you enjoy, because of how they seem fashioned truly as an amusement park ride, without a hint of an attempt at a substance to ground them in story.
- New characters are all nothings. Not one of them is anything. They are given one trait, if that, then called a day. This is where that substance should've been but the film is in such a rush, who cares once again. Let's let's go.
- Old characters are nothing. What were Finn and Poe in the end, they bicker, that's what they are they bicker. No real advancement, just bickering. Rey and Kylo are the one characters where there is any development but even they are just this strange game of rubber band. These again, might've had something but again so rushed, who cares. Rey's self-exile in particular is nonsense due to it just being on fast-forward the entire run time.
- There is no flow, no depth, but what about the action?
- Actually the action stinks too because there's no development of momentum since it is in that rush. There's no sense of geography in the majority of the scenes. Stuff just kind of happens in an explosion of noise, and nonsense.
I mean I could keep going on just listing the baffling terrible things about the film.
- Palpatine has a son? And he's just some guy? Oh now he's dead.
- Please more pointless fake outs, yest Chewie's really dead, the CP30 we know is gone, oh wait no he's not. Oh no Female Boba Fett is dead? Oh wait I don't care, because who was she even?
- Also side note on the CP30's "last look" moment, it is hilariously bad when a scene is better paced in the trailer than in the film itself.
But I won't name them all, as I could go on and on, as with any great disaster there's so many different things that add up to its destructive nature. So by that I mean to say...I didn't like it.
END OF SPOILERS
Join the dark side, Louis. Finally give in and admit The Last Jedi was great. Search your feelings, you know it to be true.
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO, I'll never join you!!!!
Louis: While we compare The Rise of Skywalker unfavourably to The Last Jedi, why not raise Hamill to a 5 for the latter? xD
Mitchell Murray: A Beautiful Day in The Neighbourhood
Rhys (4.5) Takes a very interesting approach as a cynical approach, and it worked very well as this broken man coming to turns with Rogers different outlook but also his painful relationship with his father, the gradual change works brilliantly and believably.
Hanks (5) Just absolutely winning in every scene and never corny or cheesy, always comes off completely as Rogers to a point where I just believable everything. I love all the scenes where he comes off as perfect but then shows hesitations, such as when Rhys asks him how he handles his burden and then Hanks attempts to change subject quickly.
Cooper (4) Believably portrays a loud mouth father who spits venom at his son, but is quite great in his scenes after his heart attack, in acknowledging his problems and selfishness, he and Rhys believably create a broken father son relationship possibly being mended.
Mitchell Murray: Richard Jewell
Hauser (4.5) I actually am not too familiar with Hauser aside from Blackklansman which I thought he was fine in, liked him a lot here though as sort of a sad sack oddity who attempts to remain happy but contentiously gets problems facing him as any person does, his frustrations and build up are pretty well handled.
Rockwell (4) I really liked all of his scenes with Hauser as almost like a stern cynical brother to Hausers respectful citizen, just a good meaty role with Rockwell essentially being a crusading type, easily the best other performer and the only thing aside from Hauser that kept me from skipping parts.
Bates (3) typical supportive mother role, there isn't much more to say, shes fine but, I will pretty meh if she gets Oscar nominated for this.
Hamm (2.5) tough officer type, nothing more or less.
Wilde (1) I didnt know we needed a typical cartoon villain in the film, shes awful and its easily the worst performance of the year that I have seen.
Mitchell Murray: Just Mercy
Jordan (3.5) Good solid work here, first as the believable honest lawyer which he is very watchable as, but also his scenes of the trials not happening and his confusion at the racism shown by certain people, its nothing groundbreaking but it is effective.
Larson (3) She actually handles her southern accent quite well in that it isn't distracting at all, she basically is a supportive type to Jordan, and I thought did good enough in that regard.
Foxx (3.5) If he does get Oscar Nominated, then for me its his best nominated work, his performance is quite limited in terms of what he can do, which is basically to react to all the decisions and act innocent, in his scenes with Jordan and the fellow prisoners I did think Foxx did a good enough job of being just an innocent man wanting to be freed, it helps that his reactions are fairly well done and not over the top, this is not a great performance but it is good enough one, although not the best in the film.
Nelson (4) MVP, Nelson plays the man who accused Foxx of the murder but also happens to be doing time behind bars, Nelson uses a lot of tics and tacs in his work as a rather grotesque prisoner type, for me though these worked very well as a man who isn't the sharpest tool but actually is a desperate man who just tried to escape, his scenes when he actually changes his mind about accusing Foxx are quite brilliant as it shows a man coming to turns with what he has done, and then his eventual trial scene showing his humanity is quite well done.
Morgan (3.5) He is only a small part of the film as a fellow prisoner who will be executed for death sooner than Foxx will be, I thought he was quite good as a far more sad and solum prisoner who has no hope, his big scene of him getting executed is great though as Morgan shows a terrified man coming to terms slowly with his own execution.
Did anyone hear some of these stories in the media about Little Women not getting any major awards attention and how male voters/audiences would never want to watch a film about Women. I mean, is this for real? is this really the reason why Little Women hasn't gotten attention. Surely not.
Must just be the late release date, has to be.
Man, Kylo Rens arc could’ve been something special. Finns as well.
RatedRStar: There are people who unfourtunately make those kinds of claims, and it just baffles me why they so often involve movies that, strictly speaking, aren't all that great to begin with. There were claims for that with "Oceans 8" (a pretty standard and cookie cutter franchise film), "Captain Marvel" (an equally cookie cutter franchise film), and this year's "Charlie's Angels" reboot (again, a pretty disposable film from what I hear). In the case of the later, Elizabeth Banks made almost the same kind of statements you mentioned, RatedRStar, and again, I just don't see how that could fully explain the film under performing. Maybe - and this is a sentiment I've heard from several women, interestingly enough - there just wasn't much interest in a reboot of two fairly unremarkable films, that were themselves reboots of a 70's TV show.
When I hear people make these kinds of statements, I always find myself coming to the same question: Do the many successful, female led films/franchises owe there success to purely female audiences? And the answer to that is a pretty resounding no - its a statistical improbability. We need to let go of this idea that the majority of men cannot accept strong women on screen, because in the vast majority of female led properties over the past decades, that's been thoroughly disproven. Again, you never hear these stories for legitimately interesting and effective movies ex. "Aliens", "Terminator 2", "Kill Bill", "Wonder Woman", "The Favourite", "Mad Max: Fury Road", "Winter's Bone", "The Silence of the Lambs", "Thelma & Louise", "Halloween", "Scream 1-3", "Gravity", "Mulan", "Brave", "Elle", "I, Tonya", "Roma", "An Education", "Monster", "Fargo"........do I really need to go on?
The reality is when people say those kinds of things about their films, there making excuses because its an easy excuse, and often has so little weight in the discussions regarding sexism in the film industry. Its people clinging onto to a near baseless argument to protect their credibility, while doing almost nothing to solve the problems real sexism creates.
Sorry about the rant....that's just a sentiment that really frustrates me in modern cinema.
Also, I realize that with people saying that kind of stuff about "Little Women" (a great film, from what I hear), it is a counter to what I stated. Perhaps what I mean to say is that I'm tired of people using that excuse when it comes to films they obviously made the most minimal effort on/didn't realize its greatest potential.
Mitchell: Don't worry about the rant, I strongly share that sentiment.
Will get to cast thoughts soon regarding the Little Women, but first, due to reasons nearly beyond my control, I'm off to a layer of Hell
Tahmeed:
I should clarify, ROS being abysmal in no way changed my opinion whatsoever regarding The Last Jedi.
Mitchell: I understand what you're trying to say, but to suggest that good films starring women are ALWAYS critiqued based on their objective qualities alone, is incorrect. A lot of the time, those very films are lambasted before they even come out in theatres- films like the remake of "Ghostbusters", to cite a recent example. That's a film that pissed off die-hard fans of an original classic, sure, but I had seen a LOT of toxic discourse which seemed to gloss over any actual discussion of the film, and focused on just the gender of the leads. That level of scrutiny, while understandable to a VERY MARGINAL extent, is still unacceptable and unfair on a number of levels. Also, I should probably note, that I actually enjoyed the Ghostbusters remake and "Ocean's 8 for what they were- just entertaining flicks.
Also, there may be a few reasons why Little Women didn't get as much awards attention, outside of Ronan for now. Firstly, like RatedRStar, the release date would have definitely been a problem. Secondly, a lot of the time adaptations of classic novels, unless they're released a few years after the original book is published (Gone with the Wind, To Kill A Mockingbird), don't tend to gain that much traction with the Academy Awards a lot of the time. I think those films also succeeded due to having messages that resonated with the sociopolitical climate of the time quite strongly". Although this is the same reason that I'm so intrigued by this adaptation of Little Women- from reviews I've read of it, Gerwig's atypical approach really paid off in terms of making the novel even more relevant for modern times.
"A layer of Hell"
What do you mea...oohhhhhhhhh......
Louis: Thoughts on Cats and ratings and thoughts on the cast.
And thoughts on Ridley and Driver in TROS.
For the record, I agree with Tahmeed. But I am staying FAR away from this discourse.
RatedRStar: I’ve actually seen a few tweets going round that support that, it is annoying when a portion of voters seem to be actively against something/someone/a particular kind of film. Also glad to hear that Nelson has a juicy role.
Well I’m even more excited for Little Women now, have to say though that Star Wars trilogy above was quite oddly fascinating, particularly if you read it in the voice of Anakin Skywalker.
Tahmeed: I never intended to suggest that films starring women are always critiqued based on their merit alone - and if that's what I implied, forgive me. I recognize the very real sexism in the industry, and the very real bias that exists in some circles for these types of movies. There are absolutely those who would black list a project simply based on the gender of its stars/crew, and that is quite unfortunate, of course, and its not what I'm trying to deny with my statement.
I still believe in what I said regarding men's views on women in film, though. I think the vast majority of male viewers not only accept a strong female characters, they embrace them simply as well written, enjoyable or inspiring in their own right. And I feel that the people (few in numbers, admittedly) who blame male audiences for an unsuccessful female franchise, need to recognize that it was male audiences who helped a lot of the most popular female film characters gain their success.
This is a delicate talking point and I simply wanted to make my position on a single idea known. I wanted to be as clear and concise as I could, and to not suggest that I'm ignorant or critical of the challenges female representation has in cinema. If I at all suggested such I do apologize, because it is the opposite of what I intended, so I just hope everyone knows now what I meant, and that I never wished to offend or denounce anyone's views on the matter.
If I may change the subject, I got to see 1917 today and LOVED it way more than I expected to. I may go into more detail later, but for now I'll just say that if Deakins doesn't win for his cinematography here it will be a travesty.
Michael: How about Newman’s score?
Calvin: Also terrific.
I singled out the cinematography because the film contains probably one of the most beautiful shots I've ever seen.
Mitchell: It's all good man. I didn't mean to come off as aggressive or overly self-righteous as I assume I did, and I apologize for that too.
Tahmeed: You we're neither, dude, so don't worry. If anything, me making that blanket statement about "never hearing such stories" was overly one sided, and did not reflect what I truly believe. A simple edit would've made that clearer.
You know what, its nice that we can be civil about this kind of discussion...too often the internet can seem like a hornet's nest with this sort of thing, so I appreciate that this blogspot promotes healthy and considerate discourse such as this one.
Michael: Good lord I cannot wait. I assume you dug George MacKay’s performance too?
Soooooooooo Cats. Hmm. So I was probably better prepped than many of an ill-fated viewer, as I've seen the stage musical so I knew the plot was that of essentially a musical revue, rather than an actual story. I also got the "better" visual effects, which are better than the trailer. Well Jennifer Hudson probably benefited the most there, as she looks genuinely decent, where the trailer she was a horrifying chimera. Of course that is ignoring the many horrifying chimeras that still exist in the film, or just the still unfinished effects, like a blurry Ian McKellen face, or the fact that everyone has human fingers. I don't think this was a choice either as you can see Judi Dench's wedding ring. Of course keeping things on the more less horrifying, as a musical adaptation it did manage to make the musical songs I do enjoy from the musical, Skimbleshanks and Mr. Mistoffelless, they managed to make not as good. Although even with the graphical weirdness I will say Taylor Swift and Jennifer Hudson do their numbers justice in terms of belting them out. Back to the horrifying though, as the opening scene I said "Well this is a bit awkward but not atrocious" then came Jennyanydots's scene, which is one of the worst, most terrifying things I've seen purposefully committed to studio celluloid, whether it be the sight of Rebel Wilson going spread eagle, the human faced cockroaches and mice, well really everything about it is just wrong on a fundamental level. Although I'll say that puts the bar so low, it does make the rest of the film seem less aggressively horrible by comparison. Well, I mean I could go on, with the human cat licking, he lack of sense of any direction with the actors or any creativity for the set pieces, the added dialogue scenes that mainly consist of cat puns, or the Rebel Wilson vs Ray Winstone action scene, that may need to be seen to be fully believed, but is better just not to be seen I think. Although it never recovers from the horror that is Jennyanydots, nor does it return to the glory of that horror either. So if you're going to watch one scene, or avoid one scene at all costs it is Jennyanydots, trust me on this, though you probably should do the latter for your own sanity.
Corden - 1
Dench - 2
Derulo - 2
Elba - 2
McKellen - 1.5
Hayward - 2.5
Davidson - 2.5
Winstone - 2
Hudson - 3
Swift - 2.5
Wilson - 0
Not going to lie I’m even more tempted to watch it now.
What are your thoughts on Beautiful Ghosts incidentally? I actually like it a great deal as a song, wonder how it’s used in the film.
Louis: Thoughts on Corden, Wilson and McKellen?
Calvin: Yes in regards to MacKay.
Just saw Little Women at long last and loved that too. Do y’all have Pugh in lead or supporting for it? I’m having trouble deciding, but I think if I go with supporting she’ll dethrone Johansson for my win.
Michael: Supporting for me. I felt Amys' arc was in service to Jo's story, though she does have great importance overall.
I'll admit this is also my first exposure to the source material in any way/shape/form, so I could be wrong, but that's how I saw it.
In the novel she’s very much supporting character + previous film adaptation have stuck to this, so the fact there’s a debate over this is interesting me even more.
Beating a dead horse at this point, and the last thing I want to do is reopen a discussion about this movie, but I think I just realized the major reason Joaquin's Joker performance didnt work for me and it's not at all his fault. He has no one to play off of.
Matt: What about the climax with Murray? Both Phoenix and De Niro do a good job of selling it, at least.
One problem I do have with that scene is that they're not really playing off one another in a sense, I hate to bring Ledger since it's an altogether different character but with him and interacting with other characters it always felt like his Joker was gauging them, playing off of them, striking at them but also realising the character's very minor weak points i.e. 'No I'm not'. Maybe it is the intention of Phillips but I felt like a lot of the time Phoenix was just kind of doing his own thing there, and is a big reason why I've bumped him down my list as the days go by.
On the more positive side of things I should mention that I re-watched Once Upon a Time in Hollywood earlier and while Pitt didn't really stick with me as much (might be a 4 now, I think his strong work in the final act did kind of blind me a bit to how adrift he is in some of those earlier sequences), DiCaprio's performance has aged like fine wine. Watching the whole film knowing what direction QT is taking it in definitely helped me enjoy the comedic bits more and he is, without a doubt, a strong 5 for me.
Calvin: I couldn't have put that better myself. They're in the scene together, but they're not really playing off each other. It's just Phoenix going off and De Niro not even really reacting.
Matt & Calvin: Fair enough, though De Niro reacts *just* enough in my book, but to each their own.
Matt and Anonymous: Might not have presented myself a bit unclearly, I actually do think De Niro was doing a good job in presenting Murray as gradually uneasy and provoked, I just feel that direction-wise (this is a BIG part of why I have problems with the editing of the film) there's not enough punch to it, they're doing their own thing, and again hate to bring The Dark Knight up again but that mob scene frankly does a better job of establishing the animosity between Gambol and Joker, for example, or even the Joker's self recording with the pseudo Batman, are much more effectively directed to create that sense of conflict between what the Joker represents and what he's playing against.
Calvin: I think we still agree, I worded it poorly. De Niro is good in the scene, the fault lies with Phillips.
If I watched Cats while drunk would I enjoy it slightly?
As for Little Women, I really am excited to see it now, I hope it does perform at the Oscars.
Louis: I'm curious, have you ever seen the 90's Hulk cartoon? If so, your thoughts on John Vernon's voice work as General Ross. Kind of a perfect voice for the character in my opinion.
Calvin:
This isn't quite a "The House that Jack Built" situation, but you've been warned.
Beautiful Ghosts, I thought was relatively decent on its own on a song. It sounds enough like it fits within the soundtrack, though it does sound more modern to be sure, but not to some extreme. It is basically a gentler ballad of sorts, and pleasant enough as one, particularly in terms of the instrumental work. In terms of the use of the film, as added songs go, it is less obvious than say Suddenly, though rare does the additional song in a musical adaptation not seem like Oscar bait. It still borders on that, however at least has some logic as given the expanded role of Victoria as the film's guide, it makes since to give her a solo, though its placement directly at Memory, isn't the best to have a lesser ballad after the big ballad, but out of the purely new things in the adaptation, it is probably the best thing in the film.
Matt:
Corden - (It is him doing his shtick which is grating and bad enough. I actually do think Corden can be good, particularly in a musical, but he's doing his full comedy styling which is a very bad thing. Corden's typical comic approach seems to be always to deliver his lines with the same pseudo-yelling, that is once again the case here, so not good. Although to be fair the film's form of comedy is cat puns and crotch shots, so I will say he didn't have the best material, he did not help things.)
Wilson - (A black hole, and to think I was more positive than most regarding her work in Jojo. She is atrocious here in every way. She doesn't deliver on her number in the least. She is aggressively annoying and ear grating during it however. She is worse though in her attempts at comedy which are all, "I'm fat". This which she delivers with the same aggressive obnoxiousness, that takes far too long to go away in the film, then unfortunately comes back. The worst part is Hooper seems to think she is hilarious, so we must suffer her horrible shtick for far too long. Her work is unwatchable with just how bad it is, musically to be sure, but it is the comedy that requires a mental blocking of her performance.)
McKellen - (Regarding the film's direction, we have groups of performers going in any which way regarding their approaches. McKellen took to the name of Cats to literally play his part as a Cat, with hissing, licking, and head nudging, in a way no one else does. I can appreciate McKellen devotion to the idea, he is considerably more talented than the aforementioned duo, but sadly it just doesn't come together as something that works. He also sticks out since he's the only one who takes the approach making it all the weirder. Although his bit is severely reduced anyways, so his somewhat misguided approach is short lived to begin with.)
Louis: Thoughts on Jennifer Hudson and the casts of Little Women and The Rise Of Skywalker.
Alright finally Little Women, which I won't turn into a running gag of being pushed back.
Ronan - (I mean we should all expect this at this point from Ronan, but we should all appreciate every time still. This in terms of giving once again such an assured performance, where Ronan just owns the screen in a way few actors of her age can. This also is perfect for Jo's character, in that Ronan just delivers so supremely well on that needed confidence of the character who has such a striking personal ambition. She is marvelous as sort of the "leader" of sorts of the little women bringing such a wonderful energy to her performance. She captures so effectively the tone of the material here though in terms of delivering that energetic quality, along with the right comedic appreciation, particularly in her scenes with Letts and Streep. She balances that though with such natural qualities in terms of the more directly dramatic elements of the story. This in creating a chemistry really with every other character of sorts which she excels with each time, in making each relationship unique in her own way. All four actresses though deserve praise in general though of making the chemistry work between the girls, to create such a sense of their history and family affections anyways. Ronan though thrives her in every point, in providing the anchor point to the film, as she manages to balance so well the character in terms of her making the independent heroine, while also the person seeking love, that does compromise either by supporting each. It is simply a winning turn at every point, and I'll be fine with ongoing Gerwig/Ronan collaboration, as the two are wonderful together.)
Pugh - (To first answer Michael's question, I do think it is far more a border than probably other versions, since the role is typically played by two actresses. I do think she is supporting, though the most important supporting role, because her character does support Jo's story in the end, as Bryan noted. This is though she does have from her perspective scenes, but so do Watson and Scanlen, fewer, however in the end it all feels though they defer to Jo, as the sole lead, though not a runaway in that regard. In fact I'd would almost expect pure ensemble, but I think Jo is given enough importance to clearly be lead, so everyone else is support. Anyways, how about Pugh who continues her amazing run with another performance of the same, and thankfully a film this time that is on level of her own work. Pugh is incredible here, and though I've seen some complaints about it, I was extremely impressed by her portrayal of the youthful Amy. This being quite the accomplishment given her actual age, however I thought she was fantastic in capturing the petulance of a much younger age in two wonderful ways. This in creating the sort of more extreme emotions so naturally that are quite to the breakdown, that I felt she realized in earnest. I also just loved her whole manner that evoked the childlike energy beautifully, both in the ways she directly impacted moments, but also just how she was part of the group. I especially loved though how this contrasted with her older scenes though in which she portrayed her own striking confidence, in a way that I loved how she showed an influence of Jo, but with sort of her take. I think in a way you take her as co-lead, because how well she commands the scenes herself quite frankly when we see mature Amy. She's amazing though in finding the balance though of portraying the old dreams of the child Amy, with the woman she fully becomes with such a striking power, and crafting her own fantastic, but different chemistry with Chalamet.)
Chalamet - (Alright I'm glad he had this performance, but I do think this was a case where too many where putting too much expectation on the guy too fast. It's one thing to go from a performance that plays into one's general age and strengths, then for everyone to expect the most extreme character and emotional ranges instantly. Something I do think he could eventually be capable of, but perhaps everyone needed to slow down in casting him in everything. Anyways though, he's back into his element here in a role that absolutely suits him. This creating the right sort of confidence that works so well for Laurie, as he manages to create the sense of inexperience and a certain petulance. This as he manages to balance something genuine within a real charm, but also enough of a fool hardy eagerness within the young man who may be too assured for his own good. His development of the modesty of the character is well realized, that switches well as we see the two central relationships, both that he has ample chemistry with. He is also particularly good in the, turned down, scene, as he loses all of that confidence and is genuinely moving in portraying just bluntly the heartbreak he suffers without compromise. This is wonderful work from him, and happy to see another win from him.)
Scanlen - (The quiet March, but I did love the presence she brought within this. This in creating just this sincerity in the role, as there is this modest warmth she brings just part of the group and in her smaller interactions with everyone else. She doesn't get too much of a focus, but I thought she managed to make the needed impact to leave a properly moving impression.)
Watson - (This is perhaps her most natural turn she's given. This being that she is still a little stilted at times, but only a little, again her American accent isn't *quite* there, still getting in her way. She does best in her scenes with Ronan, who seems to be bring the best out of her, as she excels within the group, and does create that wonderful chemistry as part of the group. She's genuinely good though in her scenes outside of the group though, in portraying the sort of more modest manner of Meg, that works well as this sort of sense of strict stability.)
Cooper - (Perhaps the most heartbreaking performance at times, as he gives such a moving portrayal of slowly revealing the warmth of his character. Cooper gradual delivers on making an impact by taking what seems like just the old rich man type, and just revealing the big heart of the man, that is devastating by the end of it in portraying the sensitivity within that.)
Dern - (Well it's better than her likely to be Oscar nominated, if not winning performance, of course. Dern though is terrific her in portraying the stability of the mother March, in portraying this sort of underlying fierceness that is kind of hidden within a generalized motherly warmth that she brings so naturally within the role as well.)
Streep - (Actually very good her in just bringing a comic cutting to her every line, without going too over the top, but bringing an appropriate humorousness as well to every moment she has, particularly her low key aghast reactions towards her "disappointing" nieces.)
Houdyshell - (Wanted to remember her as even though she isn't the direct focus of any scene, I thought she brought a lot in terms of portraying her own reactions in so many scenes.)
Garrel - (A charming enough performance on his own, to at least sort of deliver in a few essential bits.)
Norton - (Did like the modest charm he brought in his few moments with Watson.)
Odenkirk - (The one performance that didn't quite seem of the world in the way everyone else did. This isn't to say he's bad, it is a very small role anyways, but he definitely seemed less connected as everyone else.)
Letts - (Wonderful basically a cameo in just delivering a blunt and comical cynicism in his moments.)
Luke:
Hudson - (Hudson is clearly good at belting out dramatic ballads, that serves her well here as that is all she is given to do, and certainly delivers on "Memory". The rest of the time she just needs to look sad, or in the end hopeful. She does do that without lines, but really it is just about the song, which she carries making herself the best part of the film.)
ROS cast? Fine...
Ridley - (I mean maybe I'm not one to talk having just given the win to Carlyle for Ravenous, but after this and Cats maybe everyone should avoid hissing, though Carlyle I think is the exception that proves the rule on hissing. Anyways that is the nadir of Rey and Ridley's performance as Dark Rey with that, that was strange. Alright don't want to focus too much on that as she does once again give an energetic and charismatic performance. Although she cannot salvage the bad writing so often, particularly the bad bickering of the main trio that needed some better development. She also does attempt to portray the dramatic heft of the narrative though nothing helps her here, as she cannot portray much of self-doubt when the film wraps it up faster than you can say Deus Ex Luke. Ridley though does an admirable job of trying to hold things together, she doesn't quite succeed but I appreciate the effort.)
Driver - (Driver does seem to be going through the motions some of the time, although I would say he is a good enough actor to at least bring something even when going through the motions, as he's never say Jennifer Lawrence in the later X-Men movies for example. He's still somewhat present he just never goes for it the way he clearly was in the first two films, and it did seem he gave them the barest schedule to work with. I did like him however in his major scene in the cameo, where I did like the contrast to the "rhyming" scene, a scene I mind you didn't love in execution or concept overall, but I did think Driver managed to capture enough of the emotion there. He too is victim though of the film's abysmal pacing, which doesn't service a gradual arc.)
Boyega - (Such a waste of potential for the character, as neither Abrams or Johnson sadly seemed to know what to do with him other than make him a little bit of a goofball who runs around a lot after the first film where he was a main character before becoming just a sidekick in every way. There was more to be done as the reformed Storm trooper, but sadly we don't get it here, to the point Abrams even forgets to come back to his "I need to tell you something" bit, just to show how sidelined he is. Boyega is a charismatic guy, but he has nothing to really work with here sadly.)
Isaac - (Maybe they should've just killed off Poe when they were originally going to? This as bickering hot shot is the only thing that there really is to him. Like Boyega, he's a charismatic dude, but that can only go so far to make something out of a character who just wasn't quite there yet to be fully developed.)
Gleeson - (Some more one note yelling)
Grant - (Does the imperial officer routine as well as you would expect, I wish they had given him anything within that beyond that though.)
Ackie & Russell - (Both are working with really nothing but a single establishing line for their characters. They don't turn into anything but a supporting action runner in a way though instead. They're there, but there is no impact felt whatsoever since there isn't any time for them to really make something out of their characters.)
Nyong'o - (What the heck was the point or deal with her character??? A lazy Yoda surrogate, sure. Anyways, I'll give credit to Nyong'o trying to make anything out of some of the worst lines of the film, particularly that hideously awful one there to set up Leia's sacrifice.)
Tran - (Turned from a major to a minor, there to deliver just some exposition, which she does okay I guess, better than...)
Monaghan - (Honestly reminded me of a kid who won a "be featured in" contest with how out of place he seemed.)
Lourd - (Just wanted to note here, why not give her an actual character, rather than just have her be in it? She is an actress, so why not make something out of her role? Honestly, just so many questionable decisions.)
Williams - (He still has the swagger, but it is a shame they did nothing of note with him other than just say "be swaggering Lando). Just a waste.)
Your thoughts on McDiarmid.
Louis: Thoughts on Emperor Of The North Pole (1973) and ratings/thoughts on the cast.
Luke:
McDiarmid - (His performance is a bit strange in that he brings his expected work, but the material is just so terrible it doesn't matter. I mean this trilogy has had two scenes that are heavily influenced(or copy) the throne room scene from Return of the Jedi, right down to both of them having Rey being shown that "her friends will not survive". So McDiarmid doing it for a second time, with terrible material rather than great material, is going to lose something. He does try in a general sense of the word, but the use of Palpatine might be the laziest part of the film. This in terms of survival, his plan (which changes every two seconds), his relationship with anyone but most of all, who is this guy? By that I mean, we have no sense of the history of the character as the republican senator who seized power, the emperor of the original galactic Empire, or even the resurrected monster. The reduced him to be sort of just a generalized evil, giving McDiarmid nothing to work with except do a lesser reprise of his Return of the Jedi turn, which is what it is.)
Louis: Thoughts on the rest of the cast of Cats?
Louis: In terms of performance output, your top ten favourite/most consistent actresses of the 2010s decade.
Louis: Thoughts on the cinematography for Uncut Gems? I quite like the *slightly* more pristine look of the film, as I think it goes hand-in-hand with the "higher-class" schemer angle the Safdies took this time, like you mentioned.
Louis: Your thoughts on the cinematography of Full Metal Jacket and Eyes Wide Shut.
Louis: Your top ten Timothee Chalamet and Lucas Hedges moments.
Luke, Louis said he's considering changing his 94 Lead Win. Who do you think could possibly take the overall from Oldman.
Louis: Your top ten anticipated films of 2020 and your reasons why.
Really hope Robbins takes the win for Shawshank.
Anonymous: Not taking any unseen performances into account, there's strong possibilities for both SLJ and Ben Kingsley to be upgraded to fives. But I'll go with the latter for now.
Luke: Hhmmmm I thought you said you were going to wait until January for that request...
Bryan: I'd forgotten that I said that but we're getting it 3 days early. :)
I’m betting on Sam Jackson for the 94 win
Wouldn’t count out Freeman getting an upgrade either. But yeah I think Sam L Jackson will be winning it.
Exactly what would be the rationale for Jackson being lead in Pulp Fiction?
Anonymous: I mean, he's about as lead as Travolta is.
So, I finally got around to watching "Hustlers" tonight and I felt it was a okay enough film. Its energetic and watchable in that kind of standard "cinematic" way, and is conscious enough to show the shades of grey in the story at hand. Where the movie falls short for me, however, is in its directional style, which so obviously takes after vintage Scorsese. These include the freeze frames, the narration, the breaking the fourth wall, the musical choices, and even down to the general structure of the story in its earnest rise, excessive peak and somber conclusion. The problem isn't even that this approach doesn't work as conceived, but more in its execution. After all, in his various uses of this template, Scorsese is able to find that great balance of fun and dramatic weight, in allowing us to feel invested in the criminal's hi jinks while still wanting them to be held responsible in the end. Here, Scafaria just never finds that same impact and the results can come across as somewhat "glossy" or "going through the motions". There is less of an assured directorial hand, here, which reveals itself in some weaker scenes, and some not so great decisions in editing and cinematography. Overall, "Hustlers" is not a bad film by any means - in fact, several aspects of it are quite effective, technically speaking - yet it's still a movie that could've been outstanding instead of merely decent.
RatedRStar:
I cannot condone watching Cats while intoxicated, but nor can I condone watching Cats.
Anonymous:
Derulo - (He certainly goes for broke with enthusiasm however even that becomes a bit much, particularly when he is part of the chorus. I could see a better director reigning in his performance to work wonders as Rum Tum Tugger honestly, but this is just a bit messy in terms of an explosion of energy.)
Elba - (He hams it up royally, which makes enough sense for the part, but the problem is he only borders on entertaining. He ends up being a little too repetitive in his approach and in the end a bit tiresome.)
Hayward & Davidson - (The two newcomers here actually approach their roles with an appreciated earnestness, as limited as they are. Hayward in particular mostly just has to make the same face of "awe" of one type of another, and Davidson as an awkwardness of one type or another. A little too limited, but really fine.)
Winstone - (Technically just Winstone doing a lazy version of his brute routine, though made much strange due to the Cat coating.)
Swift - (Only there really for her number, which she belts out to proper effectiveness. She'd be a 3 if not for a strange reaction from her in her only non-singing moment. Second best performance in the film though.)
Tahmeed:
1. Marion Cotillard
2. Emma Stone
3. Tilda Swinton
4. Olivia Colman
5. Saoirse Ronan
6. Carey Mulligan
7. Elizabeth Debicki
8. Rooney Mara
9. Margot Robbie
10. Charlize Theron
Bryan:
Uncut Gems's cinemtography actually is a pretty blend of talents with the Safdies's guerrilla style being combined with Darius Khondji whose best known for more of beautiful prestige styling. Strangely enough this seems the perfect fit to represent Howard Ratner as the rat who trades in only the greatest wealth. This as we have a particularly effective combination of that kind of grunge again, with hand held, documentary type style at times, though blended with such a sense of color and lighting that is reflective of Khondji's more prestigious setting. It carries much over from Good Time, the Safdies love that neon glow in the dark and hey I'm all for it as well, but adjusts it beautifully towards its new setting to do "grungy" cinematography done right once again, though a bit prettier in general.
Anonymous:
Any cinematographer with Kubrick has a very specific role, as visually Kubrick's films have that visual consistency no matter who shot it given his perfectionism, that carries the composition and framing of shots as a matter of inherit philosophy in his films. What the cinematographer does then is working within that already typically striking view. In Full Metal Jacket's case it is shifted into two. The second half war scenes, capturing a more war photographer view than the traditional war film that is striking, particularly in the accentuated lighting by Douglas Milsome. The first half though is a brilliant piece of specific lighting, namely the climatic scene where the exact lighting in the bathroom, particularly the glint on D'Onofrio amplifies the scene all the more.
Larry's Smith work is even more strict I think given the amount of shots that are these tracking behind Cruise as we follow him through the very strange night life. It is then Smith's work to essentially make these worlds as vivid as possible. Well that certainly is achieved as his work accentuates such striking lighting, with particularly rich colors captured throughout. This whether the dramatic lit orgy, the blend of Christmas colors, or even the blue that defines the distant bed room of the married couple. All Kubrick films are gorgeous of course, but this one is a particular one of them in that vibrancy, something Smith would notably carry over to his later work.
Tahmeed:
Well let me stick just to Chalamet the moment, as I will be seeing Honey Boy at some point.
Chalamet:
1. Being rejected - Little Women
2. Elio's Apology to Marzia - Call Me By Your Name
3. Ending - Call Me By Your Name
4. Meeting Jo - Little Women
5. Seeing Jo again - Little Women
6. Conversation with his father - Call Me By Your Name
7. Apology to Amy - Little Women
8. Joining the theater group - Little Women
9. Oliver's departure - Call Me By Your Name
10. Dancing - Call Me By Your Name
Luke:
1. TENET - (I mean Nolan, that;s enough, but that trailer looks fascinating, with such a promising cast to boot.)
2. The Personal History of David Copperfield - (Still looking forward to this obviously even though it is a known quantity)
3. Next Goal Wins - (Waititi's on quite the streak in my book, so looking forward to his comic sports film. Also Michael Fassbender potentially in a good film again? You better not suddenly screw this one up Waititi, as that would be so nice.)
4. The French Dispatch - (Wes Anderson, so I'm in. France McDormand potentially in the lead or at least a central role, in a film about journalists sounds just about perfect for Anderson, so hoping it is.)
5. Dune - (I'll admit Chalamet's previous action foray does give me some pause, however still looking forward to Villeneuve's vision with such a grand project.)
6. Mank - (Return of Fincher, with Oldman in a leading role, with a potentially fascinating story of dissecting Citizen Kane? Yes please.)
7. Last Night in Soho - (I must say I'm interested by the cast of such interesting fresh faces of McKenzie, Taylor-Joy, with such a interesting mix of veterans with Diana Rigg, Terence Stamp and Rita Tushingham. Also given the glimpses of horror we've from Wright before, this could be something special. Eager too, as well to see what we get visually with Chung Chung-hoon behind the camera.)
8. Blonde - (Given The Assassination Jesse James, I'll look forward to whatever Dominick has up his sleeve next, as even though Killing Them Softly wasn't quite a winner for me, it wasn't for lack of trying. Looking forward to see what he has in store for the life of Marilyn Monroe, and though her casting doesn't seem the most obvious I think Ana de Armas could bring something special in the part.)
9. I'm thinking of Ending Things - (Yes wasn't crazy about Anomalisa, but I loved Snecdoche, so I'm interested to see what Kaufman has in store for his first adapted and directed feature.)
10. Coming 2 America - (Yes this could be terrible, however Murphy definitely seems to care again, combined with his success with Brewer with Dolemite, I'm definitely anticipating this. Although most importantly they've gotten back John Amos, he better have a big role, or else he definitely won't be letting anyone use his bathroom.)
What about Bill & Ted Face the Music? I genuinely have a very good feeling about that one.
Oh, and as for the cast:
Wu - 4.5
Lopez - 4/4.5
Reinhart - 3
Stiles - 3
Cardi B - 2
Everyone else - 2.5
Wu - (Why isn't she getting more buzz for this performance? Seriously...this is a terrific turn, and that's coming from someone who has yet to see "Crazy Rich Asians", therefor this is my introduction to her as an actress. Wu simply hits every note that's asked of her in this role, as she's believably innocent and driven at the start, and maintains that mentality even as Destiny gets swept up in the whole scheme. Wu grants her role such a genuine compassion as she shows the stress Destiny is under, the desire she has for stability, but also the real concern and fear she feels for those she and her group is targeting. One aspect of her performance I particularly liked was the juxtaposition between her early scenes with Lopez, and her interviews with Stiles later on. This being how optimistic she makes Destiny with Ramona when they first begin making money, and the bitterness and guilt she conveys later on. I really liked this performance from Wu so my score could honestly go higher.)
Lopez - (She's quite good here, and that's the view of someone who was never all that big on Lopez to begin with. This is her finest performance yet, though, and a rather interesting one in terms of the role. For starters, its easily the best use of Lopez's screen presence as she really projects here beyond the range she normally does. She brings a real sense of tenacity and extroversion to Ramona, which makes it believable that she be able to seduce her male costumers, as well as sway her fellow workers into her plans. Lopez does something rather impressive, however, in that she makes Ramona a charismatic person but not necessarily a compassionate one. She doesn't grant the same sort of empathy that Wu does in her role, and Lopez handles this well by allowing Ramona to be a bit selfish at times, and maybe a little vindictive with those who disappoint here. At the same time, Lopez still manages to show the needed emotional weight when called upon to do so. There is the initial kinship she shares with Destiny, the affection Ramona has for her kid, and the eventual despair when her actions are finally intercepted by the law. There is still the same slight vapidness as before, but Lopez allows in the right depth to be shown in the proceedings regardless. It's a good performance and should she be oscar nominated, it will be a worthy enough addition to the supporting actress roster.)
Calvin:
Well I have to say I was a bit disappointed by the name, no "Amazing Escapade", "Bodacious Quest" or "Outstanding Crusade" or some other mix of an adjective with a term for an adventure?
I am cautiously looking forward to it, though do have doubts regarding Dean Parisot, despite having Galaxy Quest on his resume.
Although I just heard William Sadler is reprising his role as Grim Reaper, so EXCELLENT *air guitar riff*
Louis: Have you ever given your thoughts on Dan Hedaya in The Hurricane?
Louis: Your ten most disappointing films of the decade.
Louis: How do you feel Robert Pattinson would fit in the following roles:
Sonny Wortzik
Christy Brown/or any DDL roles from before the 2000s
Robert Pupkin
Claus von Bulow
Marty McFly
Pattinson would be outstanding as Sonny. If a remake of Dog Day Afternoon was ever made, I wouldn't watch it unless he was cast.
Matt:
No, but here they are. Hedaya's performance I'll admit is in a role that is already ill-conceived, as while there was a detective who made potentially questionable choices regarding the investigation of Carter, he wasn't this guy whose whole life seemed built around "getting" Carter throughout his life. The writing behind the character is just plain ridiculous with how over the top the character is. Hedaya doesn't help things there though giving one his broad villain turns that would be okay for action movie, but comes off as particularly absurd in what otherwise is a straight drama. Every open eye glare and sinister line is just so over the top from him, but again the part itself is in itself absurd.
Luke:
1. Mute
2. Annihilation
3. Ad Astra
4. The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies
5. Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2
6. Avengers: Age of Ultron
7. X-Men: Apocalypse
8. John Wick 3
9. The Program
10. Rise of Skywalker (Wasn't really looking forward it, but still disappointing)
Anonymous:
Sonny - (The ideal choice in terms of bringing that hardwired energy that he captured so effectively in Good Time.)
Christy Brown - (Out of pre-00's Day-Lewis I'd say he would be most ideal for Johnny of Beautiful Launderette, and Gerry Conlon. I could see him in the more proper roles potentially as well. Brown would obviously be a challenge for any actor, but Pattinson is one I could see potentially up to that challenge.)
Rupert Pupkin - (Another one I could see, just by virtue of his willingness to go for broke, in a role that could potentially suit that well.)
Claus von Bulow - (Far too young at this point to play the part at this point.)
Marty - (Although he has charisma, I think you need some who is at the base line is naturally endearing energy as Fox did, like a Tom Holland for the part, part of the reason I imagine Stoltz didn't work. I think he'd be a better fit for George, honestly I could even see him as Biff.)
Louis: Could Benedict Cumberbatch go up in the 2014 overall ranking for The Imitation Game?
So I also got to watch "Judy" this morning - in my little game of catch up - and it was pretty much what I expected as your standard biopic structure. There is nothing too surprising or innovative here as the movie gives us essentially a straight forward retelling of Garland's last year in life. In that formula certain scenes can become repetitive, like the flashbacks where they really could've cut one or two out, or the two inebriated concert sequences back to back. This isn't an entirely ineffective approach, though, as within those sequences there are moments of power and poignancy. The control held by the studios in Garland's early career is made quite evident, as is her deterioration from both her health and personal troubles. In general the film isn't as dull or tedious as biopics can get; It's nothing that spectacular, but overall its still a fine watch.
Zellweger - 4
Wittrock - 3
Buckley - 3
Shaw - 3
Gambon - 2.5
Ramsey - 2.5
Sewell - 2
Zellweger - (Okay, she has a few moments where her physical mannerisms are a little distracting, and the performance is rather limited by the amount of purely "oscar baiting" scenes they give her. Nevertheless, this is a good turn from Zellweger and if she were to be recognized, it would be my favourite of her oscar nominated performances. Zellweger's work essentially matches what the film wants to say about Garland beat for beat; She has the right charm, the right degree of nervousness due to Garland's drug use, and as shown in "Chicago", a suitable singing voice. More over, while I never saw Garland in the performance, per say, Zellweger does come close enough to a general impression without making it strictly such. She grants pathos to every scene that requires it, and brings a notable amount of sadness behind her eyes in said moments. It's never a jaw dropping evocation of the singer, but it is a more than decent performance of this sort.)
Tahmeed:
Probably Not.
Anonymous:
Emperor of the North Pole, as with many a forgotten, but good 70's films, is a bit messy in terms of its storytelling. This as it does have perhaps a few too many random detours here and there, rather than focusing on the main struggle, which while symbolic works as a weird combination of a heist and boxing match between Marvin the train rider and Borgnine as the violent conductor. Although, as with such messy 70's film, the mess itself is intriguing, even if it makes the film far less taut, such as the random segue into turkey stealing that makes for an entertaining scene, however seems strangely placed as we're moving towards the climax of the film. Overall though it is an entertaining hidden film from the era, and appreciate the recommendation.
Marvin - 4(I mean as always your go to anti-establishment, however strangely authoritarian in his own way tough guy. Marvin though makes that possible hypocrisy work though mainly because he has that ease in his presence that manages to be tough without every trying to be tough. Marvin is that once again, and delivers on a particularly effective cool here as essentially the king bum. Marvin though plays nicely into the sort of randomness of this idea, and brings a slight bit of unpredictability with his performance that really makes his character work.)
Carradine - 3.5(Once again delivers a fine turn as the portrayal of the youth who doesn't quite have a place it seems. Carradine certainly brings the appropriate enthusiasm and charm. Although he undercuts this effectively though with just this measure of a certain posturing alluding to the wannabe "emperor" compared to the real thing that is Marvin.)
Borgnine - 3(He's a bit one note at times with just how evil he plays the part. It does have a certain effectiveness in terms of making it almost this big bad wolf that controls his train, however his work gets a little repetitive at times. It still works, particularly in making a satisfying climax, but I do wish Borgnine toned it down a bit in the earlier scenes.)
All other supporting players add a nice bit of character, albeit fairly brief and limited.
Louis: Your thoughts on this scene from Revenge of the Sith?
https://youtu.be/1B_w2s0GOMU
Louis: I'm quite surprised that The Snowman (2017) didn't make the list. I was looking forward to it for a whole year and was utterly bummed out that it completely sucked.
Louis: Your thoughts on The Sunset Limited (2011) and Evelyn (2019) if you've seen them and ratings and thoughts on the cast for the former.
And have you seen anything else from 2019 in the past month.
Louis: If he hadn't passed away in 1949, what roles could have you seen Frank Morgan play in the following years? And present roles for him as well.
Luke:
But is something a choppy as The Snowman really even a film? Seriously though I had purged it from my memory, honestly it would then be #1 along with the other promising filmmakers slots at the top.
Apollo 11 I thought was some stunning footage, though I didn't really think much of it as an actual "film" I have to admit.
Klaus is perhaps my favorite animated film of the year. It is extremely predictable however I thought it was more than decent in its execution of that fairly predictable approach. Earnest and warm, and certainly works as a Christmas fable. Beautifully animated of course, and while it takes a lot from other animated films, it does work. Not a great film mind you, but the most consistent one for me so far.
I lost My Body, was also beautifully animated, and could've been a great short film, however just felt drawn out as a feature length. This in its disparate stories of a pseudo coming of age romance, and the strange animated adventure didn't quite come together to some real catharsis, nor did they individually create something truly special. It's not a bad film mind you, but another eh, in the animated category.
Tahmeed:
Well in some ways you can see why that film is better than Rise of Skywalker as that moment in theory could be quite a moment, in that it at least giving the potential to show the essential moment for Anakin. Of course the distracting CGI setting for both characters, Portman's rather blank performance, and how it connects with the film still don't granted its intended impact. It is a moment with potential, particularly in terms of Christensen's performance shame it is off set by so much static stares, and woefully wooden line readings otherwise.
Anonymous:
Doc in Bad Day At Black Rock
Dussell - Diary of Anne Frank
Current:
Giles - The Shape of Water
Molotov - The Death of Stalin
Francis Preston Blair
Interesting on Apollo 11, I thought the editing and sound mixing was superb. But I can also see how one might not really consider it as much of a ‘film’.
Louis: Could I have your thoughts on this gem of a scene?
https://youtu.be/-RNG_tTXXcg
Louis: your thoughts on this teaser https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=kMNlyBmReKY
Finally got the chance to watch Booksmart, loved Feldstein and especially Dever's performances.
Louis: Can't wait for your Lead Actor and Supporting Actor predictions tomorrow morning but please don't call it Another Year/Another Official Lineup, It's your 10th anniversary after all.
Congrats on 10 Years, Louis.
Your opinions and reviews have been outstanding throughout. :)
Anonymous: Indeed.
Well done Louis.
Congratulations on 10 years, Louis :)
Luke: Your rating for The Rise of Skywalker?
My review for Uncut Gems and my ranking for Star Wars are now both up btw!
Bryan: A 1, the more I think about, the more I hate it.
Just saw Edward, My Son yesterday... Pretty mediocre, sadly.
With that in mind, what is everyone's current ranking of Deborah Kerr's performances?
I've seen If Winter Comes, but don't remember much of it.
1. Black Narcissus (5)
2. The Night of the Iguana (4.5)
3. An Affair to Remember
4. The King and I
5. From Here to Eternity
6. Julius Caesar (3.5)
7. Quo Vadis
8. Edward, My Son (3)
Also, a little annoyed with myself, because I've recorded Tea and Sympathy and own Colonel Blimp, but both have just been waiting...
Congrats on 10 years, Louis. That's a hell of an accomplishment.
ruthiehenshalfan99: Its not great I agree.
Yes well done Louis its an amazing achievement, I would say 90% of bloggers come and go within 5 years, so big hugs to you my friend.
RatedRStar: I'll leave my congratulatory message to tomorrow. Aside from that however, I'm not sure Louis would've gone as long as he has if not for the readership that has increased year by year, despite the incredible passion he has for Film & TV in general.
2014 was when it really picked up for him in terms of readership and comments.
Luke: Oh I will be writing a big one tomorrow as well =D
ruthiehenshallfan99: I have to say, I love Deborah Kerr in a few of her performances but most of the time I think she is just consistently OK rather than great.
1) The Innocents (5)
2) Heaven Knows, Mr.Allison (5)
3) Black Narcissus (5)
4) The Life and Death of Colonel Blimp (4.5)
5) Night of the Iguana (4)
6) Separate Tables (3.5)
7) The Sundowners (3.5)
8) Julius Caesar (3.5)
9) From Here to Eternity (3.5)
10) The King and I (3)
11) Quo Vadis (3)
12) Edward, My Son (3)
Congrats on 10 years Louis, and may the coming years be even better!
Did some catching up last night with Toy Story 4 and The Two Popes.
Toy Story 4 definitely feels like a step down from the previous three films, but still manages to be effective enough and pretty entertaining conclusion to the series. Not great, but still really good in many aspects.
The Two Popes is downright frustrating. There is an interesting narrative in there somewhere, but its overshadowed by some bizarre filmmaking and screenwriting decisions. The cinematography and editing drove me insane.
Pryce - 4/4.5
Hopkins - 4
Louis: What are the Top Ten films from this decade that surprised you the most (i.e. the films exceeded your expectations the most)?
Hello guys! Say 10 actors that you think will be "Another Year and Another Official Lineup" tomorrow.
SUPPORTING ACTOR:
-Al Pacino
-Joe Pesci
-Brad Pitt
-Tom Hanks
-Song Kang-ho, Anthony Hopkins or Alan Alda
LEAD ACTOR:
- Leonardo DiCaprio
- Joaquin Phoenix
- Adam Driver
- Jonathan Pryce
- Robert De Niro, Christian Bale or Antonio Banderas
And while you? What are your bets?
Speak!
Supporting Actor
Pacino
Pesci
Pitt
Hanks
Hopkins
Lead Actor
DiCaprio
Driver
Phoenix
Bale
Banderas
Alt. Egerton or De Niro
Lead Actor
Phoenix
Driver
DiCaprio
Bale
De Niro
Supporting Actor
Pacino
Pesci
Pitt
Hanks
Hopkins
Lead Actor
Phoneix
Driver
Banderas
De Niro
DiCaprio
Next in Line: Bale
Dark Horse: Sandler
Supporting Actor
Pitt
Pesci
Pacino
Kang-ho
Hopkins
Next in Line: Hanks
Dark Horse: Foxx
Louis: Your thoughts on Pascal, Herzog, Weathers & Burr in The Mandalorian? I too kept watching it just for some more Herzog and because Waititi directed the finale.
Darn it, now I’m starting to think Disney did that on purpose...
My guess on all acting categories:
Actor
Banderas
DiCaprio
Driver
Phoenix
Sandler
Actress
Johansson
Nyong’o
Ronan
Theron
Zellweger
Supporting Actor
Kang-ho
Hanks
Pacino
Pesci
Pitt
Supporting Actress
Dern
Lopez
Pugh
Robbie
Shuzhen
Brazinterma. For tomorrow:
Lead Actor
De Niro
Phoenix
DiCaprio
Driver
Pryce
Supporting Actor
Pacino
Pesci
Pitt
Hanks
Hopkins
Happy New Year and a Happy New Decade to my fellow brits and to everyone in the rest of the world.
Happy new year guys. May the upcoming decade be prosperous and considerate for all of you.
Happy New Years to all of you in this blog. This wouldn't be the same without everyone here, so I sincerely thank you all comment you've shared here. I hope you all have a great decade as well.
Thank you all. Again I always appreciate the discussions we can have on here, that besides the rare stray troll, has always managed to be absolutely respectful even when some of us might have some extreme disagreements in opinion. We can always voice even these disagreements, and debate them passionately while maintaining that respect.
Anonymous:
Well as much as I am horrified by that makeup, I do have to give credit to Crews's unabashed enthusiasm that does deflect that a little bit.
Anonymous:
I am entirely ready for it, as it appears to be broaching even closer to Breaking Bad both in terms of now Jimmy as Saul, but also the darkness evident in the others.
Aidan Pittman:
1. The Favourite
2. John Wick
3. Mad Max: Fury Road (I did think it would be good, but I didn't expect it to be THAT good)
4. Paddington
5. Dredd
6. Creed
7. Cloud Atlas
8. Captain America: The Winter Soldier
9. I, Tonya
10. Can You Ever Forgive Me?
Birdman
Bryan:
Pascal - (I have to say I didn't love his vocal work. It's good, but it's not great. There are times where it feels a bit going through the motions, and doesn't bring as much character as I think he could. His best moment honestly is in the finale, as perhaps he's an actor who needs a bit more than his voice to give us his all. Again though his vocal turn still does deliver enough character, I just honestly expected a bit more from him, not that he is at all bad.)
Herzog - (Again the best part of the series, even though there isn't all that much of him. He's great though because he takes it all so seriously and grounds the series magnificently the same way Cushing did to the original Star Wars. Herzog just brings that ease of menace, but also the weight of years of a war, even an intergalactic one. His role there is really just there to serve a function, but he adds so much texture to every line that he steals the entire show in just a few minutes of screentime. I honestly would've preferred if he had just been the main villain.)
Weathers - (I mean I'm always for a bit of Carl Weathers, especially with the potential for some stew on, as basically Stephen Root for the Mandalorian at least early on. Weathers though brings the same sort of needed gravitas, and weight, that is Star Wars at its best quite frankly, which is taking itself seriously in the right way. I will say I loved what they ended up doing with his character, because it let Weathers do more, and he did it well bringing out a bit more of his Apollo charisma in just an entertaining turn.)
Burr - (A step down overall, though I'd put him in with the Clancy Brown level, of a little broad, but overall works. I know some had a problem with his accent here, however I thought Burr more importantly didn't go overboard with his character overall still trying to be part of the overall reality, unlike some other guest stars. He makes his accent work in my mind, because he might as well be from the planet of Boston because he doesn't act as though he's not part of Star Wars. Again it isn't anything amazing, standard villainy for the most part, but I did think he was more than decent here.)
Post a Comment