Sunday, 27 September 2020

Alternate Best Actor 1944: Errol Flynn in Uncertain Glory

 Errol Flynn did not receive an Oscar nomination for portraying Jean Picard in Uncertain Glory. 

Uncertain Glory is a better than average patriotic piece, which were so common in this period, here about a career criminal who decides to take the fall for a French saboteur during world war 2 rather than face the guillotine for his crimes. 

I'll admit this performance is big reason I decided to do the lineup as I felt I had to review this turn from Flynn as it is so atypical for him in a lot of ways. Although Flynn often played a lot of charming pseudo rogue we always knew they were heroes at heart from the outset. Although this character might get to that point eventually, we get a side from Flynn entirely different from his typical presence. This as the film opens with his Picard awaiting execution where we first meet him as he refuses to shave his neck for the guillotine. Flynn's snap delivery in the refusal grants a surprising intensity from the performer who typically granted a more light weight approach to his roles. Here though Flynn shows a real bitterness within the man's manner with his eyes filled with a hate for his captors, and a general derision that he naturally exudes. An ideally time bombing raid though allows Picard to escape, where again we find Flynn in unlikely waters as he finds the home of an old friend. here though Flynn plays into his usual charm however now weaponized towards a wholly different sort of man. This with his easy going manner played within a different light. Flynn is genuinely charming of course with his always dynamic presence, however his eyes grant it a different quality. There's a sneering menace even in his calm delivery as threatens his friend, while smiling. This though only followed as seduces his friend's girlfriend. Flynn of course convincing in the ease of this, but even more so remarkable here though in the devious cunning he grants the moment. Flynn not easing on the edges of the role but rather embracing the man of Picard as a truly despicable sort. 

His escape is short lived though as he is quickly caught dogged Inspector Bonet (Paul Lukas), who intends to take him back to be executed. Even in this it is interesting to see Flynn approach these scenes with a wry sort of cynicism that is quite different from his usual optimistic heroes. The thing is though Flynn wholly pulls it off here and grants an effective dynamic between himself and Lukas, who is also quite good in portraying his character's blunt righteousness. The two though are given a strange opportunity when they hear that the occupying Nazis intend to kill 100 random French unless a recent saboteur exposes himself first. Flynn's terrific in hearing this news as he suggests the idea that he take the place preferring the firing squad over guillotine as a form of death. Flynn doesn't play this as a sudden change of heart, rather layers it on top with a soft delivery of suggesting some virtue in Picard but only to try to convince Bonet in the moment. Flynn still has the slick glint in his eyes of a man trying really anything to give himself opportunities to escape his likely fate. This leads the two towards a small French town to await and prepare Picard to turn himself in for his false crime in order to atone for his real ones. Here Flynn broaches more typical material for him, as we see a minor romance, and really opportunities for him to be more overtly charming. 

Flynn though doesn't excuse his character in these scenes and doesn't suddenly shift his performance. He tempers his work towards a more insulated charm of a man with a constant secret alluding towards the man's criminal element even as he seems to change. As this goes on though there is no quick shift here actually for Flynn's performance, which is remarkable. Flynn I often found most struggled with the most purely earnest moments of selling a philosophy in his other performances, like selling the virtues of King Richard in Robin Hood for example, but he does great with them here. One of the big reasons being he wholly changes his typical approach. This as we get a scene where he has convinced Bonet that he's changed to some degree and explains it. It is with a nearly passive tone of a man recognizing his faults. This though instantly subverted a moment later where Flynn unabashedly grins showing Picard's "confession" to Bonet being no more than a lie in an attempt to escape any type of execution. Nonetheless a series of events still wear down on Picard to eventually change his mind for real, but what is great here is how Flynn plays the scene of the true change against the false. This as Flynn goes on almost an attack of explaining the whole idea of the virtues of the saboteur with the viciousness of his earliest scenes. This in a way showing the man being honestly himself even when speaking a new truth to himself. This scene presenting the man convincing himself through essentially a realization of a hatred of himself. Flynn realizing the transformation of his character with a quiet power and artfully avoiding the typical pitfalls one finds in his work. This is a wholly different performance from Flynn utilizing his virtues as a performer but through another, even more dynamic, lens.

131 comments:

Luke Higham said...

1. Cregar
2. Knox
3. Flynn
4. Cherkasov
5. Powell

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

Anonymous said...

1. Knox
2. Cregar
3. Flynn
4. Cherkasov
5. Powell

Tahmeed Chowdhury said...

1. Cregar
2. Knox
3. Flynn
4. Cherkasov
5. Powell

Matt Mustin said...

"Jean Picard"? Is that name just a coincidence, or...?

RatedRStar said...

1. Cregar
2. Knox
3. Flynn
4. Cherkasov
5. Powell

Tim said...

1) Cregar
2) Knox
3) Flynn
4) Cherkasov
5) Powell

Tim said...

your thoughts on my cast for a present-day High Noon?


Will Kane: Tom Hanks
Amy Kane: Margot Robbie
Helen Ramirez: Ana de Armas
Harvey Pell: Joseph Gordon-Levitt
Jonas Henderson: Kevin Kline
Frank Miller: Ben Foster


Director: Rian Johnson

Michael Patison said...

1. Laird Cregar
2. Alexander Knox
3. Errol Flynn
4. Nikolai Cherkasov
5. Dick Powell

Mitchell Murray said...

So I just finished the second season of "Naruto"...and had more or less the same reaction as the first. Technically speaking, the story doesn't cover as much ground as season one, which is both a strength and a weakness; It's a strength in that there's a little more depth given to the side characters, most notably Sasuke, Sakura, Rock Lee, and to a lesser extent, Hinata. That said, the show still has a lack of urgency at times, since even the dread revolving around Sasuke's subplot becomes mostly overlooked. I guess for myself, "Naruto" is one of the shows I would be more fond of, if I was introduced to it at a younger age.

Matt Mustin said...

Tim: I think it would be cooler if Rian Johnson used that cast and made his own, original Western.

Calvin Law said...

1. Cregar
2. Knox
3. Flynn
4. Cherkasov
5. Powell

ruthiehenshallfan99 said...

Finally watched The End of the Affair. Never read the novel, but it feels like something is missing that would compel me to call it good. Anyways...

Van Johnson: 3.5
Deborah Kerr: 4.5
Peter Cushing: 3.5
John Mills: 3

Bryan L. said...

1. Cregar
2. Knox
3. Cherkasov
4. Flynn
5. Powell

Robert MacFarlane said...

1. Cregar
2. Knox
3. Cherkasov
4. Flynn
5. Powell

Louis Morgan said...

Luke:

Lukas - 4(Kind of a pared down version of his Oscar winning performance, but good in the same way. Lukas manages to righteousness with an interesting reserved yet potent kind of intensity. More than anything though he does morally correct well in portraying it with an earnest, warmth laced wisdom rather than impressing it. Helps further though he has a strong anti-chemistry with Flynn both granting a sense of each second guessing the other.)

Watson - 3(More Watch on the Rhine alumnus, a better performance than her Oscar nominated one though similar. This though with a colder edge to it something that is more incisive and remarkable.)

Emerson - 3(Effectively alluring and granting a sense of complication in the relationship albeit quite briefly.)

Sullivan - 3(Effectively sweet and to the point.)

Tim:

I mean if it is Rian Johnson doing it, I doubt it'd be anything like High Noon, so sure with that cast. As an actual remake of the original, I think most are fine, though that would be a waste of Foster and as much as I can like Hanks I don't think "rugged" roles really play to his strengths or his natural presence.

Aidan Pittman said...

1. Creger
2. Knox
3. Flynn
4. Cherkasov
5. Powell

ruthiehenshallfan99 said...

Just for fun, here are my current Best Score Winners of the 1940s

40: Pinocchio (Honorable mention to Fantasia)
41: That Hamilton Woman
42: Now, Voyager or Casablanca (Bambi is a close third)
43: The Song of Bernadette
44: Double Indemnity (HM to Laura and Since You Went Away)
45: The Lost Weekend
46: The Best Years of Our Lives
47: The Ghost and Mrs. Muir
48: The Red Shoes
49: The Heiress

ruthiehenshallfan99 said...

And here is the 1930s (Also, honorable mention to Samson and Delilah and Madame Bovary)

30: Monte Carlo (Mostly for the musical melodies)
31: City Lights
32: Love Me Tonight
33: King Kong (HM to Queen Christina)
34: Cleopatra
35: Captain Blood
36: Modern Times
37: Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs
38: The Adventures of Robin Hood (HM to Marie Antoinette)
39: Gone with the Wind

Lastly, the 1950s

50: Cinderella (HM to Sunset Boulevard)
51: Quo Vadis
52: The Quiet Man
53: Peter Pan
54: On the Waterfront
55: Love is a Many Splendored Thing (HM to Lady and the Tramp)
56: The Ten Commandments
57: Peyton Place
58: Vertigo
59: Ben-Hur (HM to Sleeping Beauty)

Matt Mustin said...

First two episodes of Fargo Season 4 were tonight.

Episode 1-LOOOOOVED it.

Episode 2-Uhhhhhhh...not as good.

Cast is a gigantic mixed bag so far, Jessie Buckley stands way on top.

Matt Mustin said...

I hope they don't waste Ben Whishaw, but they probably will.

Mitchell Murray said...

So in addition to "Naruto", I also watched "The Devil All the Time" tonight, and I guess now's as good as time as any to share the following thought; I've heard people say its easier to adapt a weak novel than a strong one, given that there's less of a preconceived "greatness" to live up to when it comes to the film makers vision. I would suggest, however, that when it comes to literary sources, it's hardest to adapt a "middling" novel more than anything. This is as "average" source material could be taken in a number of directions, without as strict of an expectation when it comes to your target audience. This also means that if one were to be entirely faithful to the book, it could result in the same pitfalls that lead to the original response, and provide an even greater chance of ultimately falling short.

I say all this having not read Pollock's original novel, so I'll still have to give him the benefit of a doubt. If it's anything like the film, though, then I really won't have much to say IF I do check it out. Simply put, I was not all that intrigued by this movie, which I felt was "competent" at the very best. Unfortunately this is the lesser kind of "competent" where you can respect the talent in front of/behind the camera, while still being unfazed by the actual narrative. For some reason, I could never create an legitimate connection to the story or characters, nor could I look past the weird "artifice" of certain scenes. I'll grant that there's a certain history and sense of place found in the film's setting, but even it's portrayal of small town life becomes too "non distinct" thanks to it's lengthy runtime. In the end, I think I was most perturbed by what the movie was trying to "be about", since it's general thematic message never goes beyond "Religious extremism + Emotional Trauma = Disillusionment/Violence". I hate to be that cynical in my description, but I have to frank in expressing my overall "meh" response to the film.

Mitchell Murray said...

Oh, and as for the cast:

Holland - 3 (I'll admit, I never quite believed him/his accent in the role, but he's still decent)
Skarsgard - 3
Stan - 3
Clarke - 3
Keough - 3
Scanlen - 3
Pattinson - 2.5

Michael McCarthy said...

Matt: I watched it until the last 20 minutes or so (long story). Chris Rock seems fine if not particularly exciting. Buckley seems destined to be the MVP. Ben Whishaw, Glynn Turkey, and Salvatore Esposito all seem promising, I hope they all get substantial material as the series progresses. Schwartzman isn’t doing much for me so far, he almost seems willfully miscast, but you’d think if that were the case his scenes would be more comedic, but I guess we’ll see. Really intrigued by Jack Huston, I feel like he could prove to be outstanding or horrible, but either way I’m very curious to see where that performance is going to go.

Michael McCarthy said...

*Turman, boy that was a strange autocorrect.

Matt Mustin said...

Michael: I've got my eye on Huston too, because I couldn't quite get a read on him, and I agree that performance could go either way. My biggest worry with Rock is that he would seem awkward, but that's not the case. There's not a lot to him yet, but he's holding his own. Schwartzman is ridiculous, and I'm not sure he's meant to be, but who knows. I don't buy him that role at all, but maybe they're planning something.

Tim said...

R. I. P. Yuko Takeuchi

RatedRStar said...

RIP Yūko Takeuchi

Mitchell Murray said...

Geeze...she was simply too young if you ask me.

Rest in peace, Yuko Takeuchi.

Calvin Law said...

Louis: thoughts and ratings for Katrin Cartlidge and Lesley Sharp in Naked?

RIP Yuko Takeuchi

Matt Mustin said...

I'm thinking more about Fargo last night and how much I really disliked that second episode. Also, I realized what bugged me about what Jason Schwartzman was doing. He's basically giving the exact same performance he did in Scott Pilgrim, except it worked there, because it's meant to be silly.

Mitchell Murray said...

Matt: I'll get around to watching the new season in due time, but for now, I'm at least hoping Timothy Olyphant is good; I've liked him in most everything I've seen him in.

Mitchell Murray said...

Also, I just watched "Warrior" for the first time, and I thought it was pretty decent. Honestly, with so many "big fight" picture revolving around boxing or wrestling, it's nice to see MMA get some exposure outside of low budget, straight to video action dreck. That isn't to say "Warrior" is the most effective or best paced film of its sort, but it does deliver where it counts - namely the fight scenes and the performances.

Hardy - 4
Edgerton - 4
Nolte - 3.5
Grillo - 3
Morrison - 3

Anonymous said...

Apparently On the Rocks is only receiving mildly positive reviews, better than The Beguiled, but still not Lost in Translation. Bill Murray is MVP, too. I wonder if it diminishes its chances, but Coppola is always divisive, so probably not.

Michael McCarthy said...

1. Laird Cregar
2. Alexander Knox
3. Errol Flynn
4. Dick Powell
5. Nikolai Cherkasov

Louis Morgan said...

In regards to Fargo, loved the first episode liked the second. Buckley's brilliant so far, as to be expected at this point, Rock is okay at the moment, but it is easy to see how another actor could've been great in the part. Schwartzman is kind of terrible, not sure how seriously we're supposed to take him but even as a weasel he's underwhelming. Thankfully I felt the other gang members, of both gangs, kind of made up for their leaders. I particularly am intrigued by Whishaw, who I hope has a substantial role, and cautiously intrigued by whatever it is that Huston is doing.

Luke Higham said...

1. Cregar
2. Knox
3. Flynn
4. Powell
5. Cherkasov

Michael: Your ratings for Cregar, Knox, Powell and Cherkasov.

Louis Morgan said...

Calvin:

Cartlidge & Sharp - 3.5(Both I'll say aren't what stood with me in that film, although it is easy to be overshadowed by Thewlis there. They are good though each in portraying essentially the victims of sorts, against two different sorts of despicable as represented by Johnny and Crutwell's characters. Each finding just an honest humanity and vulnerability within these interactions suggesting the cruelty of it all, but importantly not writhing in it. Each still standing as people even within the difficult place they are in.)

Matt Mustin said...

Louis: I feel exactly the same way about Rock at the moment, imagine someone like maybe Courtney B. Vance in that role.

Bryan L. said...

Louis: Your present film roles for Errol Flynn?

Anonymous said...

Louis: Thoughts on Walsh's direction and Hickox's cinematography?

BRAZINTERMA said...

Louis: What is your TOP10 for best lead actress and support actress of 1949?

Luke Higham said...

Brazinterma: His top tens are on Howard Vernon's review.

BRAZINTERMA said...

Thanks Luke

Louis Morgan said...

Matt:

Exactly who I was thinking as well, I could think of even some other somewhat against types who probably could've brought more as well.

Bryan:

Will Turner
Major William Cage
Will Freeman

Characters named Will apparently just seem to fit him.

Anonymous:

Uncertain Glory's cinematography has kind of a minor noir feel from Sidney Hickox. In that it is a little moody in what otherwise is some general prestige quality from the time. It is that though not more than that overall. As per usual real in the period it is the expected composition and framing of shots, good examples of it, much like the lighting even if it doesn't stretch itself too much, a little but not a lot.

Raoul Walsh's direction really is what helps to elevate the film above some of the other similar patriotic films of the time, which can get hard to tell from one another very quickly. This in granting the film a grittier harder edge from the time. Whether that is the skirting the code best it can dalliance early on for Picard or just the fact that he allows his leading man to be genuinely cruel at times. Walsh's work allows moments to hit harder while also not drawing out the moments of specifying seemingly required for the material. Although Walsh is obviously working within a certain box here, he does well within that box.

Mitchell Murray said...

Question for everyone here: What would be your updated ranking for this century's best supporting actress winners?

Mine would be as followed:

1) Mo'nique
2) Davis
3) King
4) Janney
5) Swinton
6) Vikander
7) Zeta Jones
8) Blanchett
9) Connelly
10) Hathaway
11) N'yongo
12) Spencer
13) Harden
14) Weisz
15) Dern
16) Leo
17) Zellweger
18) Arquette

I still haven't seen "Dreamgirls" or "Vicky Christina Barcelona", to be honest. I'll also say that there's no performance in this list that I flat out LOVE (though Mo'nique and Davis come very close), and that I barely remember Harden or Weisz, hence there "middle ground" placement.

Robert MacFarlane said...

Mitchell:

1. Mo’Nique
2. Swinton
3. Weisz
4. King
5. Davis
6. Nyong’o
7. Leo
8. Blanchett (going off a VERY foggy memory)
9. Harden (also a foggy memory)
10. Janney
11. Spencer
12. Hathaway
13. Arquette
14. Cruz
15. Dern
16. Vikander
17. Hudson
18. Zeta-Jones
19. Connelly
20. Zellweger

Only the first 6 I have strong enough feelings about to say I enjoyed their wins.

Robert MacFarlane said...

The only one I listed that I think is outright horrible is Zellweger, which might be one of the worst performances I’ve ever seen, period. Most of these are varying degrees of “meh”.

Mitchell Murray said...

Robert: I mean...I'm no fan of Zellweger's work, but I wouldn't go as far to call her terrible; Hammy and misguided, sure, but I still wouldn't put her in the same league as Gooding Jr or Eric Roberts, comparatively speaking.

That said, I do agree on the "varying degrees of meh" statement.

Robert MacFarlane said...

Mitchell: I actually kind of liked Gooding. His enthusiasm didn’t come off as hammy to me, it came off as energetic. But Zellweger wasn’t just hammy. A lot of... choices were made with the performance that become increasingly more incongruous and obnoxious. Her accent isn’t even the tenth most annoying thing about it. I suppose the character of Ruby was written to be a “scene stealer”, but Zellweger plays right into the worst trappings. Her body language, her perpetual snarl, every acting choice just wrong. Miscalculated in a way that goes farther than parody.

Granted, I also think Cold Mountain sucks outside of Law and Portman (to my surprise on the latter!), so maybe I’m just projecting. Who the hell opens with a narration from Nicole Kidman calling herself “plain in appearance”?! That’s almost as bad as when Little Children tried to explain via visual compare/contrast that Kate Winslet wasn’t hot.

Emi Grant said...

Mitchell: Of those I've watched (which all of a sudden I realized includes none from the 2000s, oddly enough)

1. Janney
2. Hathaway
3. Davis (might have to re-watch)
4. King
5. Spencer
6. Leo
7. N'yongo

(notable gap)

8. Dern
9. Arquette
10. Vikander

The more I think about it, the more I find most of the decade's winners in this category to be pretty underwhelming.

Mitchell Murray said...

Robert: Couldn't agree more with the "Little Children" thing; As if we're supposed to forget Winslet's previous film appearances, or just her striking beauty in general. I think I even mentioned that in my own review of Winslet's performance...

In all seriousness, though, I'm in the same camp when it comes to "Cold Mountain" as a film. Of all those best actor reviews I did in the past, that was undoubtedly one of the most tedious, overlong, pretentious movies to sit through. Thankfully, Law's performance at least added something to remember, in my opinion.

Calvin Law said...

I’m only one episode in but I...kind of like Rock? Like I guess I could’ve used a bit more natural liveliness in that bank scene, for example, but he’s not been bad otherwise. Could see someone else doing better in the role (Vance, Michael K. Williams, Mahershala Ali, and as for against type turns maybe David Chappelle)...but not the disaster I was expecting.

Schwartzman definitely feels off.

Everyone feels great so far though and I’m enjoying the changing up of the formula.

Mitchell Murray said...

Calvin: Any thoughts regarding Olyphant, or has he not shown up yet?

Matt Mustin said...

Mitchell: The credits said he was in it but I didn't notice him.

Matt Mustin said...

Mitchell: Regarding Little Children, forget Winslet's past film appearances. It could've been the first movie she ever made, they are describing her in one way while she is visibly shown on screen in another.

Mitchell Murray said...

Matt: Well, that was my second point. To have your film's narration describe someone who looks like Winslet as "dumpy".....that REALLY doesn't sit well with me.

Mitchell Murray said...

I mean, it's a bit of a stretch to say this, but think of the beauty standards that's presenting to the film's audience. And at the risk of getting nit picky, it's also just an incorrect comparison to describe Sara as short and Kathy as tall, when Winslet and Connelly are practically the same height according to their internet bios.

Louis Morgan said...

Matt:

Olyphant was in the last couple of seconds of the second episode.

Matt Mustin said...

Louis: OK, I figured that might have been him.

Tim said...

Mitchell: have not seen any of the recent winners

1) Mo'Nique
2) Weisz
3) Leo
4) Swinton
5) Nyong'o
6) Zeta-Jones
7) Blanchett
8) Hathaway
9) Spencer
10)Connelly
11)Hudson
12)Cruz
13)Zellweger
14)Arquette


as of now, Mo'nique is the only 5 for me. I would need to rewatch Weisz for a specific rating, and it has also been a long time since i have watched Dreamgirls

Anonymous said...

1. Cregar
2. Knox
3. Flynn
4. Powell
5. Cherkasov

Bryan L. said...

Louis: Your Ten Most & Least Deserving Film Editing Oscar winners?

Robert MacFarlane said...

Barry Jenkins is now directing a Lion Ming sequel for Disney. In other news, Barry Jenkins just purchased a new summer home and received funding for about, I don’t know, a hundred more Moonlights if he so pleases.

Mitchell Murray said...

Robert: That might actually be an understatement in terms of Disney's funding.

Although if I'm being honest, my interest in Disney's properties/franchising has been steadily dwindling the last few years, so I can't imagine myself getting "that" excited for their future projects. That's to say nothing of some of there...questionable...business decisions; One only needs to look at the new "Mulan" to understand that.

Tim said...

Hey, Louis, i just re-read your review for Charlie Chaplin in The Great Dictator, in which you say you were not really sure about the ranking you gave. So, is he closer to a 4 or a 5?

Luke Higham said...

Tim: He's very close to a 5. The review was written 9 years ago and he's become far more assured in his opinions since then.

Louis Morgan said...

Bryan:

Most:

1. JFK
2. Mad Max: Fury Road
3. Lawrence of Arabia
4. Jaws
5. Raging Bull
6. Z
7. The French Connection
8. Star Wars
9. Whiplash
10. Raiders of the Lost Ark

Many great winners.

Least:

1. Bohemian Rhapsody
2. Slumdog Millionaire
3. Anthony Adverse
4. Dances With Wolves
5. The Towering Inferno
6. Picnic
7. Titanic
8. The English Patient (Sorry Murch)
9. Crash
10. Gigi

Tahmeed Chowdhury said...

1. Cregar
2. Knox
3. Flynn
4. Powell
5. Cherkasov

Lucas Saavedra said...

1. Cregar
2. Knox
3. Flynn
4. Cherkasov
5. Powell

Mitchell Murray said...

So apparently, Ryan Gosling was originally set to play the lead in Peter Jackson's "The Lovely Bones", before he was eventually replaced by Mark Wahlberg.

Anyone have any thoughts about that? Personally, I think we could've gotten a strong parental performance much like "Blue Valentine", but with Jackson's vision we might've also gotten solid if unexceptional Gosling ala "The Ides of March".

Robert MacFarlane said...

Mitchell: The story goes Gosling gained a ton of weight and grew a beard to look older, and Jackson took one look at him and fired him. Honestly, it was Jackson’s doom. Not that Gosling could have savaged that role, but Wahlberg has seldom been worse.

Luke Higham said...

Mitchell: I think Gosling would've been too young to play Ronan's father. Personally would've gone with Downey Jr. or McConaughey.

Robert MacFarlane said...

I want to see the Lynne Ramsay version that more or less absconded the afterlife portion and made it a dark character piece/thriller about grief.

Mitchell Murray said...

Robert: I heard about that as well, how he was apparently over 200 Lbs when he first met Jackson. I'm not sure if that would've helped the performance or not, but I've rarely seen that kind of dedication (however unneeded) from Wahlberg.

Also, little side note about "The Ides of March": It's weird how Clooney, in his small role, gave a notably better performance than his oscar nominated leading turn from that same year.

Mitchell Murray said...

Luke: Damn...its easy to forget Wahlberg's pushing 50 now. Regardless, I think there would've been ways to work around the age discrepancy, so I wouldn't say its a total deal breaker.

Michael McCarthy said...

Shit, Josh and Benny Safdie really outdid themselves with their direction of tonight’s presidential debate.

Matt Mustin said...

Michael: And that's the only comment that needs to be made about it here, I think.

Mitchell Murray said...

On a more offhand note, I watched the action movie "Homefront" tonight. Sadly, its one of those films that's just a few notches below good, and one I really wanted to like more than I did. The main problem I found was it's uneven writing/tone, as it seemed to want to be a character study as well as an action thriller, but isn't particularly effective as either. That's a shame, honestly, because it does make use of it's grimy southern setting, and has one of Jason Statham's better performances.

Statham - 3.5
Grillo - 3 (Should've swapped roles with Franco)
Ryder - 3
Vidovic - 3
Franco - 2.5/3
Bosworth - 2.5

Anonymous said...

I wonder when, in the future, they make biopics about the sham politics of nowadays what future actors they're gonna cast to portray the “main players”. I mean, imagine a then-60 Paul Dano playing Trump with lots of makeup and a fat suit, or Florence Pugh playing Hillary Clinton, or Robert Pattinson playing Biden. Certainly is fun to think about.

Tim said...

Louis: a little explanantion of your thoughts on both your editing Top 10s?
(if you already gave your thoughts on some, you can keep yourself short)

also, no The Social Network?

Calvin Law said...

Louis: thoughts on the ‘Minari’ trailer?

Mitchell Murray said...

Anonymous: Based on "The Comey Rule", I would say there aren't even waiting that long.

Also, I was initially confused as to why you choose Pugh for Clinton, but then I looked at some photos when Clinton was younger, and the resemblance is certainly there.

Louis Morgan said...

Calvin:

Looks potentially quite wonderful, and quite visually beautiful in a low key way from this snippet at least. Glad it seems Burning wasn't a one and done when it comes to roles with potential for Yeun.

Tim:

As I noted a lot of great winners, Social Network just missed out for me. Each in the top ten are just brilliantly edited in terms of creating completely cohesive films, with spotlight sequences, dramatic moments created through the editing and of course excellent pacing. I also focused on some element of a pioneering quality within the work. But a quick snippet per film:

JFK - (Never has a 3 hour film felt shorter)

Mad Max - (Greatest action editing of all time)

Lawrence - (Major strides particularly in terms of moving between scenes)

Jaws - (Best of both worlds of blockbuster with drama editing.)

Raging Bull - (Boxing scene that had never been seen before, but the whole film is a brilliant "personal album")

Z - (Creating sense to a purposeful mess)

The French Connection - (Even disregarding the masterful chase, so much of the storytelling is through the film's editing.)

Star Wars - (Watch the short doc on it, but even without knowledge of that exceptional work.)

Whiplash - (Exceptional kinetic work that creates really a specific hectic rhythm befitting of a film all about tempo. I'll admit I have extra affection for the win since it sorta upset Boyhood's nonsense win based on a common misunderstanding of that film's production.)

Raiders - (Helped to define modern action editing, and has lost nothing with age. Particularly notable though in that the film actually wouldn't be my favorite editing choice from its year, exceptional work though nonetheless.)

Least:

Bohemian Rhapsody - (I mean the scenes that are "SO" bad are largely because of the requirement that May and Taylor have equal screentime, in turn some truly bizarre cuts akimbo. The rest of the film, outside of the band talking scenes, isn't as bad as those scenes, but it shouldn't have been anywhere an Oscar nomination let alone a win.)

Slumdog - (Kinetic editing done wrong)

(The rest aren't really badly edited, but rather can't make their, for me, dramatically inert material compelling or even more digestible, however the odds were stacked against them.)

Matt Mustin said...

Louis: What's the misunderstanding you're referring to regarding Boyhood?

Louis Morgan said...

Matt:

That it had literally 12 years worth of footage (as though they had been shooting for 624 weeks) rather than the truth, which was a normal amount of footage shot very gradually over a 12 year period.

Anonymous said...

Louis: Thoughts on this little inside look at the episode "The Jacket"?

Anonymous said...

Louis: Thoughts on this little inside look at the episode "The Jacket"?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W9T7En0N2bg

Matthew Montada said...

Louis, Calvin, and Luke: Which 10 films do you think have the best editing (even though Louis might’ve said some of his)?

Calvin Law said...

Matthew: In no particular order,

Goodfellas
The Third Man
High and Low
Dog Day Afternoon
Amadeus
Alien
Z
Mad Max: Fury Road
The Graduate
Lawrence of Arabia

Anonymous said...

Louis: Not sure if you noticed it, but Norm Spencer passed away in late August. Your top 10 moments of him as Cyclops?

Mitchell Murray said...

Louis: Do you have any thoughts on the upcoming "Death on the Nile" remake? I would imagine, based on your review of Peter Ustinov's performance, that Branagh has his work cut out for him.

Also, what would be your top 10 favourite horror film performances?

Luke Higham said...

Matthew: I need to have a long think about it but it would mostly comprise of what Louis and Calvin have mentioned already.

Mitchell: I hope Woodward's still in his top 10 for The Wicker Man.

Luke Higham said...

Louis: Your thoughts on the Borat 2 trailer.

Luke Higham said...

Guys, you're not gonna believe this but Jamie Foxx is reprising Electro for the 3rd Tom Holland film.

Louis: Any thoughts on this.

Mitchell Murray said...

Luke: One word - unnecessary. The original performance was one of Foxx's worst outings, both due to the writing and his acting choices. So unless he ups his game substantially, I don't see why he needed to return, or why they couldn't have chosen another villain.

Matt Mustin said...

Foxx was next level terrible and perhaps should have been banned from acting forever for that performance, so obviously it's weird that they'd bring him back, but you know what, regardless of who plays him I don't want to see Electro again. He is a lame villain and he always been. Nobody has ever been able to make him cool, ever.

Robert MacFarlane said...

My guess is Sony is pulling some shit.

Mitchell Murray said...

Matt: To quote the "Deathbattle" episode "Miles Morales Vs Static";

Q: "...Miles and all the other Spider men fight Electro all the time, and they have no problem dealing with him. Why was Static any different?"

A: "Simply put, every iteration of Electro pails in comparison. He has no feats of power that come even close to Static and, frankly, he's an idiot."

Louis Morgan said...

Matthew:

Just to mix it up, best edited films that didn't win an Oscar for it (No order):

Amadeus (Original Cut)
Apocalypse Now (Original Cut)
Chariots of Fire
Citizen Kane (Honestly, objectively I think this has to be on any list with the strides it made)
The Conversation
The Good, The Bad and the Ugly (original International cut)
Goodfellas
High and Low
L.A. Confidential
Rashomon

HM: Murch's re-edit of Touch of Evil that is in a way a separate kind of achievement. Also Psycho would make it with ease if it were not for the accursed explanation scene.

Anonymous:

I mean the madness of Tierney goes along with any or all of his appearances it seems, though always befitting the intensity of his roles. Otherwise always enjoyable to hear David's random stories that create episodes.

Mitchell:

I don't believe it has changed from the original list, although as always gray area in declaring a film horror, especially David Lynch's films.

Luke:

Regarding Borat, I never watched the 2006 film, I've seen plenty of the segments from Da Ali G show, and have enjoyed many of them, I think Cohen might be getting too old for this honestly. Also I'll say it just might not have been ideal timing wise for his Oscar campaign for "Chicago 7" but we'll see I suppose.

Regarding that mind boggling Spider-man news....I honestly really have few words to say...odd to bring back a Razzie worthy performance...

Shaggy Rogers said...

Hey guys!
I'm going to ask a very controversial question: write "UP" for anyone who thinks that Peter Finch in Network is supporting actor. And who agrees, tell me who could be the new lead actor winner in 1976?
For me Finch is supporting and the winner lead actor is ... John Wayne in The Shootist

Louis Morgan said...

"This story is about Howard Beale who was the network news anchorman on UBS-TV."

"This was the story of Howard Beale who was the network news anchorman on UBS-TV"

The film is entirely about the unorthodox career of Howard after his breakdown, everything that happens with every other character is in reaction to him in some way. The thing is Howard is an entity onto himself, he barely interacts with anyone else, and reacts honestly only to basically Arthur Jensen. Finch supports no one. He doesn't have the typical lead screentime amount but I don't have a second thought in my mind that he is lead. Network is the story of Howard Beale, how his downfall influences his friend Max's downfall, how it empowers Frank Hatchet and Diane Christensen and gets screentime to fringe communists and urban guerrillas.

Robert MacFarlane said...

Finch is lead. Sorry Shaggy.

Anonymous said...

Hey, did anyone watch the Boys in the Band Netflix movie? I've been hearing it's surprisingly good from my friends (including one who LOVES the 1970 version). It's funny because I thought it would crash and burn. Guess maybe the Rebecca remake won’t be that bad, or so I hope.

Anonymous said...

Geez, the comment about the Safdies directing the debate is even more accurate now.

Anonymous said...

Also, in regards to Foxx, I find it funny that (so far) the only actors to return to the MCU from a previous Spider-Man movie are considered to be both the best and worst performance in these movies (Simmons and Foxx).

Matt Mustin said...

Anonymous: I suspect they may be setting up a potential Spider-Verse situation, but I really hope not.

Tim said...

Shaggy i honestly think i would put him in supporting too, but since i am not really well watched on that year, i can't really say who would be my winner

Mitchell Murray said...

In regards to Finch, I'm afraid I'll have to concur with Louis and Robert; Beale just has too much significance as a character throughout "Network", and Finch's performance just dominates the film too well, for me too even remotely considering him supporting.

Mitchell Murray said...

On a different note, I'd just like to say that my recent string of Anime viewings has really changed my view on English dubs. In my youth almost all of the Japanese cinema I watched was with the dub, including films that I really liked such as "Nausicaa of the Valley of the Wind" and "Princess Mononoke". Now that I'm older, though, I've come to appreciate the original Japanese text more and more, as they obviously feel more natural to the stories/characters being portrayed.

This even translates to opening themes, actually; For instance, even though I still can't recite every word, I do prefer the Japanese version of "The Hero" to the English version.

Luke Higham said...

Louis: Thoughts on 'The Witches' trailer.

Calvin Law said...

Louis: thoughts on this scene from Jackie Brown? https://youtu.be/9-dChVJf51w

Luke Higham said...

No Time To Die has been delayed again.

RatedRStar said...

One thought that sort of terrified me was the idea that maybe there won't be an Oscars for 2020 and it all gets null and voided, especially if Dune gets delayed, that is just my imagination I hope.

Mitchell Murray said...

So I watched "Sense and Sensibility" for the first time in many years, and it's certainly an interesting film. It's also one of those movies that, for me personally, I admired more on a technical level than as a truly moving experience. In other words, I felt the romance was pretty standard and predictable, though the romantic scenes still have an effectiveness in general, mainly thanks to the understated approach and the cast's performances.

Thompson - 4
Winslet - 4.5 (My second favourite of her oscar nominated work, behind "Eternal Sunshine")
Rickman - 4
Wise - 3.5
Grant - 3

Michael Patison said...

Mitchell: I think to a large extent, calling Sense and Sensibility predictable kind of ignores the fact that it more or less pioneered the entire genre. Anyway, I love the film and therefore take any excuse to discuss it.
Thompson: 4.5 (one of the less impressive from my favorite living actress)
Winslet: 5
Rickman: 4
Wise: 3
Grant: 3.5 (honestly my favorite non-Four Weddings bumbling perf by him)

Mitchell Murray said...

Michael: Fair enough. I mainly say that because I more or less foresaw who ended up with who, along with why.

Also, its been 4 years since his death, and I still get saddened every time I see an Alan Rickman performance.

Mitchell Murray said...

And I suppose while I'm still on the film, here's my official ranking of Kate Winslet's oscar nominated performances.

1) Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (5)
2) Sense and Sensibility (4.5)
3) Little Children (I'll still keep my 4.5 from my original review)
4) Steve Jobs (4)
5) The Reader (4)
6) Titanic (4)
7) Iris (2.5/3)

Calvin Law said...

Agreed entirely with Michael on that front, though granted it’s also one of my favourite novels of all-time. Austen was a genius.

Louis Morgan said...

RatedRStar:

I'd say Netflix is going to lobby HARD to try to prevent that, as this definitely their best chance for best picture win.

Luke:

Having not seen Roeg's original adaptation, this looks pretty bad as the strangest episode of Everybody Hates Chris I've ever seen (having seen 2 random episodes of that show), perhaps it is just an episode of the show...maybe a later season. You'd never guess that the Zemeckis of today had any relation with the man who made films pre-Polar Express, but here we are. He seriously needs to re-team with Bob Gale and be banned from the use of CGI.

Calvin:

Reminder I should re-watch the film I suppose, I will say notable in a way in having De Niro in an almost servile position in any film is a rarity, particularly this way where Louis is just kind of a loser and completely dominated by Ordell. In a scene, that is interesting in it could only exist as a Tarantino adaptation in this way, while also being a technical sequel, but engaging to see him broach the material successfully by alluding to the history of all three characters in the interactions without flat out stating it.

Luke Higham said...

Calvin: Your ratings for Reed and Eggar in The Brood.

Luke Higham said...

If the Oscars didn't take place, the only thing I'd be disappointed with is not having recommended viewings prior to it.

Luke Higham said...

RatedRStar: I understand fully how important the Academy Awards are to everyone here. The high anticipation towards the nomination announcement and the thrill we have when are favourites win but I'm at a point in my life where it just isn't important to me as it used to be. I care more about the content we get on the blog itself and if this upcoming awards season goes to shit then we'll at least still have reviews as consolation.

Mitchell Murray said...

Luke: If it comes down to it, I'd honestly suggest the oscars be completely postponed for the year, and that the 2022 ceremony includes films from both 2020 and 2021.

It would unprecedented, but then so are many things from this year.

Anonymous said...

Louis, is the next review coming tonight or tomorrow.

Luke, I think that is a fair statement, there are more important things in life than an Award show.

Bryan L. said...

Luke: Your overall thoughts on City of God, and your ratings for the cast? I’m really glad you took to it.

Luke Higham said...

A downright amazing achievement by Fernando Meirelles and its disappointing he never close to matching it with his subsequent efforts. The ensemble all-round is terrific, I especially really liked Firmino and Jorge and the editing is incredible by Daniel Rezende.

Rodrigues - 3.5
Silva - 3.5
Firmino - 4.5/5
Jorge - 4
P. Haagensen - 3.5

Luke Higham said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Luke Higham said...

Louis: Out of the 2003 Director nominees, who would be your winner. Meirelles or Weir.

Bryan L. said...

Luke: Thanks, and again, glad to hear that.

Luke Higham said...

Bryan:
*he never came close to matching it

And you're welcome. :)

Louis Morgan said...

Luke:

Weir.