Tuesday, 28 July 2020

Alternate Best Actor 2002: Greg Kinnear in Auto Focus

Greg Kinnear did not receive an Oscar nomination for portraying Bob Crane in Auto Focus.

Auto Focus tells the life story of Hogan's Heroes star Bob Crane.

Auto Focus is one of the many films by Paul Schrader depicting a man living on a kind of a razor's edge, This being unique in the story is built around a at one time particularly public figure in Bob Crane. At the center of it we have some brilliant casting in Greg Kinnear in the lead role. This is as Greg Kinnear is a particularly earnest performer which is an ideal match for Bob Crane who was much the same. This creates an ease in creating really what is first the public persona that Bob Crane was initially known for. This being sort of the 50's easy going any man. Kinnear has this done pat of course as his own manner and delivery is with that same casual seeming sincerity. Kinnear from the outset does something important in creating the right hint of nuance in creating Bob Crane the star and Bob Crane the man even in a wholly public situation. This as Crane wasn't exactly a great actor and in the brief performance scene Kinnear emphasizes just the breezy easy going quality. This is similar, though not exactly the same, as we see Bob at home with his first wife (Rita Wilson). Kinnear emphasizes a sort of straight forward gee whiz early 60's straight forward sitcom dad. He doesn't overplay it though finding the right sort of place as this being the guy in a way in the way he speaks and his general manner. This as basically his foundation as a person in terms of his behavior, affected to a degree, though not to the degree as Hogan. This in showing the man created by expectation which Kinnear plays well with that earnestness of his as is basically who Crane technically is, but only as a sort of general presentation of self.

Kinnear handles this setup well creating the right balance in giving us the sitcom guy, from a certain sitcom era, though with enough of a sense of reality beneath the surface, that beneath that the film will come to explore. This begins as Kinnear meets video equipment specialist John Henry Carpenter (Willem Dafoe) who introduces him to the world of strip clubs...as a starter. I think the exploration of is where the essential element of Kinnear's performance, that really twists the film in a certain way, an effective way for this story. This as Kinnear doesn't portray his typical manner as this facade, but rather the way the man goes through life. This in not being overly charming, or overly anything else. Rather he presents a man who just gets by at being likable enough. Kinnear playing the part earnestly as this, that in turn actually creates a particularly disturbing quality as Crane begins to engage in this underbelly. This as Kinnear plays this with the same earnestness despite technically the extreme contrast it holds against the seemingly wholesome image his presence suggests. This is to the point he even recounts these initial visits to his priest, not as a confession, with the same wry smile. Kinnear portrays it appropriately in turn as this compulsion within Crane. Although moments of hesitation are there, Kinnear depicts these moments not as breaking exactly a facade but rather the man experiencing life as himself. The disconnect being found between the values of the life and the way the man seems to present himself. Kinnear makes it unnerving by portraying just as the public saw him, but in turn we see what he was doing outside of that public life.

Kinnear in turn shows as Crane goes further into the life, which involves affairs, orgies, pornography and sex tapes, we see a man who largely isn't battling against himself, more of the image we have of him. This in presenting the confidence of self in any of these scenarios, and makes the juxtaposition created by this quietly disturbing. This amplified by Kinnear's performance as he plays Crane so purely this even as the man names every euphemism for breasts and how he loves him, he delivers as he would selling a commercial in a carefree commercial. Crane's descent then is a little atypical for a Schrader film, though it still shows a man falling off that edge as expected, the nature of it is a bit different as realized in Kinnear's performance. This as Kinnear strictly portrays Crane as lacking in self-awareness regarding the duality of his life. This as his compulsion pushes him, which Kinnear as earnestly depicts as a fixation towards sex, however at the same time without the sense of what this really means for how others perceive him. What we see though is the sort of separation becomes all the thinner. Again though in Kinnear's performance it never is as two men, but rather his fixation bleeds into his persona. Kinnear delivers with this the sense of desperation in the man both in granting a sense of exasperation in his eyes but also a frustrated physical manner. This as Kinnear still projects a man who thinks he can get by that casual confidence of his though even as his vices become all the more apparent. This as Kinnear's performance becomes grotesque for a lack of a better word. Not grotesque in way that breaks the reality of the man, but rather expresses the oddity of this guy who thinks he can just give an easy smile, while everything else about him expresses an intense anxiety and dissatisfaction with his life. "Hogan" merges with the sex crazed man in Kinnear's work that again is unnerving by granting something genuine to the seeming contradiction. Again this has a particular power through Kinnear's own presence, that makes a man who complains about dirty jokes and talks about editing sex tapes in front of son in the same sentence honest. In turn his descent doesn't involve a revelation rather the lack of one. This as we see Crane belittle his partner-in-crime Carpenter, it is with that same unshakable confidence in Kinnear's even as the rest of the man seems in a state of deterioration. Kinnear delivers a terrific performance here not by only subverting his presence or even Crane's, but rather merging that contradiction that creates the unusual downfall of the man. 

82 comments:

Luke Higham said...

Louis: Ratings and thoughts on the rest of the cast.

I think it's a guarantee we're getting 4.5s or higher from here on out.

And pleased to see Kinnear do well.

RatedRStar said...

Louis: Did you ever watch Hogans Heroes? I remember when Gene Siskel unfavourably compared Charles Durnings performance in "To Be or Not to Be" as being similar to Werner Klemperers performance in it.

Mitchell Murray said...

1) Ejiofor
2) Sanada
3) Cheung
4) Paxton
5) Kyung-gu

1) Hoffman
2) Gulpilil
3) Spall
4) Kinnear
5) Gourmet

I'll be honest, I only really know Kinnear from "As Good as it Gets" and "Little Miss Sunshine". Of course, I liked him well enough in both, so perhaps I should check out the rest of his filmography.

Luke Higham said...

Louis: Your thoughts on the Two Towers scene where Viggo Mortensen broke his toe.

Michael McCarthy said...

Luke: In answer to your precious question, I thought he was quite good as usual but Kinnear was definitely stronger for me. Dafoe could also be argued as co-lead

Luke Higham said...

Michael: Thanks, I can rest a little easier now for both Fiennes and Mikkelsen.

Aidan Pittman said...

Louis: How do you rank what you've seen of Schrader's filmography?

Luke Higham said...

Louis: The one remaining Schrader Lead performance you should really consider reviewing is George C. Scott in Hardcore. I've heard he's brilliant there.

Louis Morgan said...

Luke:

Dafoe - 4(Won't save him as I don't have too much to say about this performance though it is a good one. The performance is largely reactionary beyond his early moments of being a tempter, where I liked that Dafoe actually underplayed it a bit. Afterwards though he is good in portraying the sort of satisfaction he gets from being in Crane's orbit, along with an underlying sort of jealousy within that. The latter element that are the moments that challenge from being a hanger on. I liked though that Dafoe again didn't even portray this as nefarious, from his later desperation to his moment of attempting to have a more intimate relationship with Crane, he presents with the right degree of vulnerability.)

Wilson & Bello - 3(Both are effective enough in their slight riffs on two women who each of their own degree of putting up with Crane's behavior. Each presenting it well though in just putting it up in a pretty naturalistic fashion.)

Leibman - 3.5(Does a fine job at the agent routine in general in bringing that sort of combination of enthusiasm and attempted persuasion. This seguing naturally to frustration. His scene that moved him up a .5 is his final one where he's terrific in presenting so earnestly that the man does care about Crane even with the frustrations about his career.)

Fuller - 2(Lame Klemperer impression.)

Rodgers - 2(Lame Richard Dawson impression.)

I mean a moment of kismet, though Mortensen might disagree, with the head rolling angle and that scream that matches the moment even if not quite as intended.

RatedRStar:

Yes I've seen a few episodes, an enjoyable enough, though definitely not great, sitcom from the period, as a goofier and not nearly as good Stalag 17 essentially. I mean Siskel's comparison was appropriate however the negative emphasis I'd disagree with as both are entertaining as incompetent German commanders.

Aidan:

1. Blue Collar
2. Affliction
3. Mishima
4. Light Sleeper
5. Auto Focus
6. First Reformed
(gap)
7. Adam Resurrected

ruthiehenshallfan99 said...

The day after Olivia de Havilland's passing (who I absolutely adore and share a birthday with), I ordered Hold Back the Dawn and Dodge City on Blu Ray. They are here now and I can wait to rewatch them the day after tomorrow to celebrate her life.

Rest in Peace, Miss de Havilland

Anonymous said...

Louis: Who would have been your choice for Biehn's role if he had played Sporleder's role in The Rock? Also, thoughts on Woodbine's performance in that film? For whatever reason, I always think he looks a little too young to buy him as a gunnery sergeant.

Calvin Law said...

So um guys if you’re going to watch Lilya 4 ever be warned it is super depressing. Definitely a good film but yeah.

Louis: Thoughts on Ken Leung in The Sopranos?

Anonymous said...

1. Hoffman
2. Gulpilil
3. Gourmet
4. Spall
5. Kinnear

Luke Higham said...

1. Hoffman
2. Gulpilil
3. Gourmet
4. Kinnear
5. Spall

Bryan L. said...

Louis: In hindsight, would you say that Joker is in some ways similar to Alien: Covenant/Split? As in, the director for the film essentially bets all of their chips on the lead actor to try to make the film work without little help from their end.

(Though Ridley Scott is far better than those other two in general.)

Also, your full thoughts on De Niro in that film?

Bryan L. said...

*with little help from their end

Lucas Saavedra said...

1. Ejiofor
2. Sol
3. Sanada
4. Paxton
5. Cheung

1. Hoffman
2. Gulpilil
3. Gourmet
4. Kinnear
5. Spall

Michael Patison said...

1. Chiwetel Ejiofor
2. Bill Paxton
3. Hiroyuki Sanada
4. Leslie Cheung
5. Sol Kyung-gu

1. Philip Seymour Hoffman
2. David Gulpilil
3. Olivier Gourmet
4. Greg Kinnear
5. Timothy Spall

Luke Higham said...

1. Ejiofor
2. Sanada
3. Sol
4. Cheung
5. Paxton

houndtang said...

Greg Kinnear always feels like one of those actors who is just there. He is not bad, he's not great, he's not particularly famous, he's not obscure, he's not in particularly notable films, he's not in trash either.

Mitchell Murray said...

Bryan: I don't really see the comparison, honestly. You could argue Shyamalan had a certain direction he wanted for "Split", as he'd been thinking about the film ever since "Unbreakable", so it kind of goes beyond McAvoy or Taylor-Joy in that way.

Similarity, you could also argue "Covenant" has a large enough cast and importance to the "Alien" franchise that it takes some importance from Fassbender. I think David being the most celebrated part of both it and "Prometheus", generally speaking, falls onto Fassbender's performances more than Scott's overall vision.

Bryan L. said...

Mitchell: Even if Shyamalan did plan on it before Unbreakable, it still led to a film that really doesn’t have anything going for it besides McAvoy & Taylor-Joy. More so in Covenants’ case, since when you break it down, it’s a generic-as-it-gets Alien sequel outside of Fassbender (and even with him). Both of those actors have to do a LOT of the heavy lifting.

Mitchell Murray said...

Bryan: True enough, but I still think both directors intended to do more with each film than simply let McAvoy and Fassbender cut loose - even if that's what they ended up doing.

As for the movies themselves, I could honestly see myself watching "Split" again despite it's flaws, whereas I have a far more visceral, infuriated memory of "Covenant".

RatedRStar said...

Detective Louis: Are you ready for another case to solve lol?.

Luke Higham said...

Michael: Your rating for Timothy Spall in All Or Nothing.

Louis Morgan said...

Anonymous:

I think you could've just swapped them.

Woodbine's performance is pretty limited to mostly reactions but he does make the most of his final moment through them. That is in it he conveys the conflict of the character in the power struggle, and his final reaction is great as moment of sheer disbelief as though he's been killed by his own hero.

Calvin:

Leung's performance is a good one episode wonder largely through the pseudo chemistry he strikes up with Dominic Chianese as his pseudo "right hand man". Leung's performance is effective in portraying sort of this inspirational quality in the interactions without the sense that he's being abused. Leung bringing though in that the mental unwellness within even the intensity of that, naturally segueing then to the moments where he then lashes out at such an extreme.

Bryan:

Not exactly. Phillips is a director who thinks he's saying something with Joker, he just doesn't know what it is. I will also say the aesthetic of Joker is considerably better than those two films.

Alien Covenant is a perfunctory commercial exercise by Scott in revisiting his original success, David just happens to be the only real character in the film.

Split is basically a rather low budget film, and it shows, hence why it makes sense all the scenes with McAvoy, since you don't need a lot of sets or prep, just keep the camera on him. Its problem though is more than M. Night Shyamalan is pretty much a terrible director/writer, who had three decent ideas, now has run out of them.

All three the central performance is one of the good things about the film, the best part in two (Joker, I'd say the cinematography is the best part). I would say how each film got there is different however.

I feel my original thoughts on De Niro covered it.

Louis Morgan said...

RatedRStar:

Send the case file my way.

RatedRStar said...

Louis: One of the reasons I asked Luke about 1964 and 1977 is because I was struggling to pick between the two for the winning request.

I have done this once before a long time ago when I requested that you see Memories of Murder about 4/5 years ago I think, so I will do another in that vein.

RatedRStar said...

Louis: 1977 is a year that I criticised once upon a time, Calvin might remember this when I called it a "shit" year for films and I was totally wrong about that when now I think it is hidden gem city.

When one looks at the Oscar nominations that year, some hidden gems appear like The Late Show or a film can appear like Equus which is totally bonkers in the worst way.

This film was also nominated that year for Adapted screenplay along with Equus and I think could be either a hidden gem or a total turd.

My winning request is that you see - I Never Promised You a Rose Garden (1977)

RatedRStar said...

Louis: Oh and if you were wondering what I would have had in store for you if I had chosen 1964, look at the Golden Globe for Best Actor in a drama and you would have immediately known lol.

Tahmeed Chowdhury said...

Louis: Your thoughts on Lin-Manuel Miranda as a musician and lyricist?

Luke Higham said...

RatedRStar: I personally don't really find any year aside from maybe 1942 (With one very notable exception) that I would consider an unmemorable year. As long as one looks hard enough, you'll find something worthwhile.

Luke Higham said...

RatedRStar: And from what I've researched, Franciosa is Supporting in Rio Conchos.

RatedRStar said...

Luke: I didn't choose Franciosa simply because from the footage I saw, Franciosa seemed quite similar to John Saxons work as a dastardly hispanic so I thought maybe another time.

RatedRStar said...

Luke: For 1942 I am very excited about Leslie Howards potential final turn.

Anonymous said...

Luke, are there any years you think Louis will just do a quick update instead of a lineup? A la ‘52 and ‘43.

Luke Higham said...

Anonymous: Including whether or not we'll still get a writeup or 2 from these years
20s
28
29

30s
30
31 (Karloff will be reviewed for The Criminal Code)
32
33

Not too sure about 36.

40s
41 (Robinson in The Sea Lion)
42
44 (Knox)
46

I think there's a strong enough lineup for 50 and 53. I have one prepared for 56 but not sure whether Louis would find it appealing enough. 55, 58 and 59 are all safe in my opinion.

The latest year I'm quite doubtful we'll get a lead lineup for is 1961 because all I have is Nakadai in A Soldier's Prayer and Calvin has Melvin in Supporting.

RatedRStar said...

Luke: I think all of the 40s have a lead lineup, 1946 has probably a better supporting lineup than lead funnily enough.

1956 has one, I have 3 foreign language performances for that, 1 leading role in a horror classic and 1 english speaking role in a foreign film.

1961 has one as well, again I have 4 foreign language performances and the Bafta winner that year for Best Actor.

Luke Higham said...

RatedRStar: You don't mind giving me a list of those particular lineups.

Luke Higham said...

Also again, it really depends whether Louis will find those 40s years intriguing enough because he doesn't want to review only 4s potentially.

Luke Higham said...

I think there has to be at least 3 potential 4.5s or higher for him to consider doing them.

Omar Franini said...

1. Sanada
2. Sol
3. Ejiofor
4. Paxton
5. Cheung

1. Hoffman
2. Gulpilil
3. Kinnear
4. Spall
5. Gourmet

Anonymous said...

Day-Lewis is now a five for Gangs.

Luke Higham said...

I love you Louis. hahaha :)

He's on 9 fives now. He's joint 2nd with Olivier on the all-time list.

RatedRStar said...

Luke: To keep some semblance of secrecy I will only give you their last names =D.

1940 - Robinson, O'Brien, Powell, Harrison and Wolbrook.
1941 - Robinson, Cagney, Montgomery, Fields and Flynn
1942 - Howard, Redgrave, Ryu, Colman and Grant.
1944 - Knox, Price, March and Laughton x2.
1945 - Livesey, Karloff, Kaye, Flynn and Cregar.
1946 - Redgrave, Richardson, Howard, Lorre and Greenstreet
1956 - McCarthy, Duchesne, Perier, Yasui and Kitzmiller
1961 - Nakadai, Finch, Sordi, Citti and Mifune.

Matt Mustin said...

Is Day-Lewis actually lead in Gangs of New York or does he just feel like he should be?

Aidan Pittman said...

Daniel Day-Lewis having 5s for all of his nominations now. Love to see it.

houndtang said...

I just watched Colossal and I thought Jason Sudeikis' performance was noteworthy. Starts off seemingly as a nice guy but reveals himself to be a self-hating, alcoholic, control freak. Quite a believable type.

I note Louis that you didn't rate him too high on that year's alternative actors list but I thought he was at least a 4 - and probably a supporting actor as Hathaway is very much the central character.

Louis Morgan said...

Tahmeed:

Well having not heard In the Heights (and have no intention until I see the film as I always prefer to listen to musicals in context). I can go off of Hamilton and Moana. Both showing incredible range as a songwriter and lyricist. This as Moana shows he can excel in basically the Disney format. It definitely has his voice in there, but he succeeds in adjusting to the format. This is as "You're Welcome" is very much his sort of mixing genres a bit. Most of it though is pure Disney, and strong renditions of the "More" song in "How Far I'll Go", the villain song in "Shiny" and of course the flamboyant sidekick song in "You're Welcome". Hamilton is obviously the greater achievement in the sheer ambition, and success of that ambition. In frankly on paper none of it should work with how many genres and styles he mixes within the musical format. Yet he excels in not only tackling all those different genres, he does so with such creative and brilliant combination of lyrics and music. A notable in that excels wholly with both in terms creating such memorable lyrics and unforgettable motifs. So far, his work has been incredible can't really say more than that...well I guess I can in that special accommodation has to be given as rap definitely is not typically my bag, but love it in Hamilton, so well done good sir.

RatedRStar:

Can't say it will be solved soon, but consider me on the case.

Matt:

Well having just re-watched it, he seems to become lead by sheer force of will.

Louis Morgan said...

houndtang:

Eh, for me it was a weaker rendition of what Jason Bateman did in The Gift.

houndtang said...

Fair enough - I can see the similarities. The nice guy turning out to be an undercover asshole. Bateman was good.

Robert MacFarlane said...

On my rewatch of Gangs the other day, I came to realize that I think we all just accept Day-Lewis as co-lead because DiCaprio is so overwhelmingly boring in it. Open question to everyone: Who would you all have cast as Amsterdam and Jenny? A friend recommended Joaquin Phoenix and Kate Beckinsale, so I think they’re my answer.

Louis Morgan said...

Robert:

I don't disagree, as I noted in my review update we'd probably just say Amsterdam were lead and Bill was supporting, if whoever was the former was great, and particularly if the latter was weak. In a way, I think he probably is most like Gene Hackman in Unforgiven in terms of placement, though he has a little more screentime, in that he's dominating force though his story is supporting that of the main character. The difference being Eastwood and DiCaprio's impact respectively, but on paper, yeah he's really supporting.

I can definitely see those two. Others who I'd think would've worked:

Amsterdam:

Christian Bale
Cillian Murphy
Colin Farrell

Jenny:

Charlize Theron
Uma Thurman
Emily Mortimer

Bryan L. said...

Robert: I would've loved to see Christian Bale as Amsterdam. Joaquin as well could've been good.

As for Jenny, I think Gwyneth Paltrow could've been a good shout.

Robert MacFarlane said...

Apparently Sarah Polley was supposed to be Jenny, but Weinstein wouldn’t have it.

Calvin Law said...

Polley would've been perfect. And glad to see Day-Lewis went up to a 5 although I'm not sure what category I'd place him in myself, if in Supporting he'd definitely be my win.

Louis: What are your thoughts on the score, and the sound editing/mixing of The Sword of Doom? Just saw it and have to say that outside of Nakadai's amazing performance, those were the elements that impressed me most (loved the film even though the plot felt a little unfocused at times).

Matt Mustin said...

I thought Love Liza was pretty tedious. I know it's not an Alexander Payne film, but that's what it felt like,which is not a good thing, if you ask me. Hoffman is great, but I mean, of course he is.

Mitchell Murray said...

This might be a short sighted answer, but for Jenny they probably should've chosen an actress who's actually - you know - Irish? Or if that wasn't an option, than a performer with a better grasp of accents; Diaz didn't do anything for me in the role, and frankly, I don't feel Polley would've been that good of a fit either.

As for my own Amsterdam and Jenny, I could definitely get behind Cillian Murphy and Kate Winslet.

Calvin Law said...

Why don’t you think Polley would’ve been a good fit? Right age range, good actress and there’s no guarantee that for example Winslet would’ve done a good one.

Calvin Law said...

Also one thing I am glad about Day-Lewis possibly going supporting for Louis is that Leung has more of a chance of staying in the top 5.

Robert MacFarlane said...

Louis: Full ratings and thoughts on DiCaprio and Diaz?

Emi Grant said...

While I am glad Day-Lewis got upgraded, I'm gonna go ahead and quietly appreciate the beautiful sight of Nicolas Cage being ahead of Day-Lewis on the original Best Actor 2002 results one last time, for it might not last any longer.

Anyway, loved the re-write.

GM said...

1. Sanada
2. Ejiofor
3. Sol
4. Cheung
5. Paxton

1. Hoffman
2. Gulpilil
3. Kinnear
4. Spall
5. Gourmet

Luke Higham said...

I wouldn't mind Day-Lewis being moved to Supporting so he could get a 2nd win.

Anonymous said...

Louis, I've been looking back on some of your old reviews and Paul Muni was an actor you felt prevented himself from realizing his full potential, are there other examples you feel the same way.

Luke Higham said...

Louis: When we get to 79, could you possibly watch Caligula and Time After Time back to back before McDowell's review for the latter because his two roles are so far apart from each other in terms of morality that I think it would make for a more interesting/entertaining writeup.

Tim said...

my favorite Daniel Day-Lewis performance is a 5 now?!

*screams and cries in happiness*

The only thing that would make sure i can die happily now is a high rating for David Thomlinson in Mary Poppins.

Luke Higham said...

Tim: Rest assured, I believe Tomlinson will get a 4.5 there.

Tim said...

also, i recently noticed that in Alternate Best SUpporting Actor 1976, Carl Waethers' review has a 4.5 but the ranking has him at a 5. What is it now?

Luke Higham said...

Tim: He's a 5, Louis just didn't get around to changing it on the review. Same thing with Karloff in Bride Of Frankenstein and Ben Johnson in The Last Picture Show.

Louis Morgan said...

Calvin:

The score is striking particularly as it works within the sound design, and fairly unique for the time in its often ambient approach. This int he sound itself crafts a certain sense of dread around Nakadai's character, along with the way the cinematography emphasizes his darkest of black clothes and of course his performance. The sound though offers a brutality for the time in the visceral qualities within the sword slashes, that are lot rougher to say the least than equivalents, particularly in the sound of the damage with. There are specific sound scenes that are just altogether brilliant individuals moments particularly the ambush in the forest or in Nakadai's final breakdown with the ghosts speaking in the lonely room.

Robert:

DiCaprio - 2(I'll admit I was too generous in my original ranking of his work, and I was tempted to go with your suggestion through a beat by beat review of why he works as Frank Abagnale yet fails wholly here. I think its a performance that is wrong in a lot of little ways, though also fails in the overarching ways. This is that he is very boring here, and there's just obvious things like his accent where I'm never quite sure what he is trying to do. His performance though fails from the outset as he sets himself to be one note as just the "angry" young man. This is a problem multi-fold though as he doesn't allow himself to utilize his own charm because of it, but also his attempt at intensity here comes off as petulance. He though goes further in the failure as he honestly never finds any complexity in the little moments throughout the film. His interactions with Bill for example, he never conveys any real sense that he might actually be liking Bill to a degree, or any sense of complexity in the relationship. He allows Amsterdam to frankly be a dullard. Although I think the part as written required a lot of "in between the lines" work, but DiCaprio definitely doesn't do anything between the lines. This just being an one note of angry revenge, that in itself isn't at all compelling or even entirely convincing.)

Diaz - 2(Okay her performance is from the outset severely miscast, where I don't think DiCaprio necessarily was. She just doesn't work in period, some actors don't, and comes off even worse than say Julia Roberts in Michael Collins. Feels very much like dress up, made worse where I could never tell whether or not she was actually trying an Irish accent at times. Does it help when she's against the sheer brilliance of Day-Lewis's accent, no, but still it's not good. Her performance though goes beyond that in it's hard to tell really what she is going for exactly. She's like trying to be vivacious at times, scrappy at times, broken at times. I mean theoretically Jenny could be all of those things, but Diaz doesn't create an internal logic in these changes. She's just kind of these different things randomly, though worse because she's not particularly good at any of these notes either.)

Anonymous:

There are many but here are two.

Brando is always an easy choice where his ego prevented him from giving interesting work post-On the Waterfront until the Godfather, where basically he had to prove himself again so he tempered his ego, but he basically just fell right back into it.

John Malkovich is another who based on Matt Damon's story on Rounders, it sound like he saw that he could just be over the top and people would be cool with it, so that's basically mostly what he does. Essentially losing any of that potential his 80's work suggest, and largely just being kind of a parody of his own presence.

Luke Higham said...

Louis: Do you intend to rewatch Catch Me If You Can in case one of the non-requests gets a 4.

Louis Morgan said...

Luke:

I will be reviewing the lineup.

Bryan L. said...

Louis: Your thoughts on Cory Finley as a filmmaker so far?

Luke Higham said...

Louis: No problem. :)

Agen Slot Online said...

Salam Admin, bagus informasinya sangat bermanfaat. Lanjutkan terus artikel penuh wawasan seperti ini.
Kami Dari Agen Betting Online Terpercaya QQicon188.
Agen Slot Games
Agen Casino Online
Agen Bola Terpercaya
Bandar Bola
Agen Poker Terpercaya
Agen Poker Online
Hormat Kami, Terima Kasih

Agen Slot Online said...

Salam Admin, bagus informasinya sangat bermanfaat. Lanjutkan terus artikel penuh wawasan seperti ini.
Kami Dari Agen Betting Online Terpercaya QQicon188.
Agen Slot Games
Agen Casino Online
Agen Bola Terpercaya
Bandar Bola
Agen Poker Terpercaya
Agen Poker Online
Hormat Kami, Terima Kasih

Agen Slot Online said...

Salam Admin, bagus informasinya sangat bermanfaat. Lanjutkan terus artikel penuh wawasan seperti ini.
Kami Dari Agen Betting Online Terpercaya QQicon188.
Agen Slot Games
Agen Casino Online
Agen Bola Terpercaya
Bandar Bola
Agen Poker Terpercaya
Agen Poker Online
Hormat Kami, Terima Kasih

Agen Slot Online said...

Salam Admin, bagus informasinya sangat bermanfaat. Lanjutkan terus artikel penuh wawasan seperti ini.
Kami Dari Agen Betting Online Terpercaya QQicon188.
Agen Slot Games
Agen Casino Online
Agen Bola Terpercaya
Bandar Bola
Agen Poker Terpercaya
Agen Poker Online
Hormat Kami, Terima Kasih

Slot Games Online said...

Regards Admin, good information is very useful. Continue on with insightful articles like this.
We are from the Trusted Jud1 Onl1ne Visitorbet Game. Do not be refreshed to join us.
Agen Slot Games
Agen Casino Online
Agen Bola Terpercaya
Bandar Bola
Agen Poker Terpercaya
Agen Poker Online
Thank A lot

Agen Slot Games said...

Salam Admin, bagus informasinya sangat bermanfaat. Lanjutkan terus artikel penuh wawasan seperti ini.
BAgi yang mau bermain sihlakan kunjungi inplay888
Ada banyak permainan yang pasti belom anda cobak
Agen Slot Games
Agen Casino Online
Agen Bola Terpercaya
Bandar Bola
Agen Poker Terpercaya
Agen Poker Online
Agen Tembak Ikan
Hormat Kami, Terima Kasih

Agen Slot Games said...

Salam Admin, bagus informasinya sangat bermanfaat. Lanjutkan terus artikel penuh wawasan seperti ini.
BAgi yang mau bermain sihlakan kunjungi inplay888
Ada banyak permainan yang pasti belom anda cobak
Agen Slot Games
Agen Casino Online
Agen Bola Terpercaya
Bandar Bola
Agen Poker Terpercaya
Agen Poker Online
Agen Tembak Ikan
Hormat Kami, Terima Kasih