Brandon Lee did not receive an Oscar nomination for portraying Eric Draven aka the titular character in The Crow.
The Crow, for being a superhero film pre-coup de Superhero, is a decently effective, if dated and a little rough around the edges, atmospheric film about a man coming back from the dead to seek revenge against his, and his fiancee's killers.
The career of Brandon Lee, the son of the legendary Bruce Lee, can sadly only be mentioned with the same note of tragedy same as his father. Although perhaps even greater given that it continued to the next generation and whereas Bruce was able to shine brightly, albeit so briefly, it was in this film that likely could've been his breakout sadly led to his death. His death resulting from a freak on-set accident that depicted his character's onscreen death. Lee though had completed much of the film before this enabling the film to be finished with some changes. This enabling one to see the lost potential within Lee's performance. There are a few flashback scenes with Lee pre-Crow as Eric Draven as just an average guy with girlfriend, and Lee brings a nicely lightly charming qualities to these moments. Lee playing them without overt style just rather as straight forward in showing the normal life that was broke. He takes a generally likable that rightfully distinguishes these moments from the majority of his scenes as the vicious spirit of vengeance version of Eric Draven, the white face painted, black leather sporting The Crow.
A performance that I would say genuinely surprised me in parts for the different sides Lee brings within the role that is more than just an iconic look. This though we get his opening revival which is sort of a classic creation of a monster moment, though a bit more based around emotional anguish. Although I would say this really is a warm up as Lee's anguish is believable enough it doesn't really quite hit you in the moment with the visceral need you might want, this might be in part because you barely even know the character at this point given we really get a sense of the guy after he's already dead. Lee's performance, fittingly I suppose, comes to life once he becomes the Crow. This as Lee doesn't play the part as a hero, but in many ways how a villain might be portrayed in a more mainstream comic book film. Lee though is magnetic in the moments of the true spirit of vengeance. This as he brings the real intensity needed in his eyes more so a monster than a man. He delivers a viciousness about and offers the sort of sense of the need for vengeance that fuels him. What takes his performance further though is the real grunge style he offers. This as Lee, for the lack of a better word, is cool here in portraying the moments of Draven menacing the bad guys who killed him. There's a joy in his slick smiles, but really a rocker type style just in his movements and manner that gives the character a unique sort of life.
He's not one note of dread, he is that, but there is that much needed style that Lee thrives with. As the film goes on, in kind of a Robocop sort of way, we do get more glimpses into the humanity of Draven even beyond the flashbacks. These mostly being found in his relationship with a good cop Sgt. Albrecht (Ernie Hudson), and a near orphan Sarah, who knew Draven and his girlfriend before their deaths. Lee handles these scenes well as he switches from his cutting voice of a demon, to that of a man when he interacts with both of them particularly Sarah. The switch Lee uses well as Draven basically becoming his old self in these moments represented by his voice but his whole manner. Although the scenes are relatively simple, there are genuinely affecting moments as Lee recaptures a sense of warmth in these very quiet scenes that he plays well by playing them so sincerely as the good man beneath it all. Although his arc is very rushed, there is a certain vulnerability that Lee delivers in the final climactic battle to help distinguish the final act of vengeance from the rest. This in no longer playing him really as the demon killing the men who killed him, but rather the man delivering justice. This in his final fight with the final boss (Michael Wincott), Lee in a way merges the two sides to still find a certain menace in his presence but with a greater humanity in the actions. Although I wouldn't say this is a great performance, this is a good one. Lee realizes the tricky role effectively, with that sense of style, but also just enough depth to back it up. The performance suggests a leading man in the making, and it's a true shame we never got to see it realized.
49 comments:
I guess we're getting Cruise on Halloween.
It's also a nice surprise to see that Brandon Lee did actually receive a HK award nomination which was nice to read about, this was before The Crow of course.
Louis: What did you reckon to the changes to the film that were made after Lee's death?
RatedRStar:
Well it's known that some of the action scenes had to be doubled so those, but I assume they probably changed Draven's death scene, I'm guessing it was probably less tame as originally conceived, which I'm glad they did for the matter of decency.
Really liked Fargo tonight. Ben Whishaw MVP again.
A very sad loss.
Louis: potential modern day castings for Bruce and Brandon had they lived on? The obvious ones are probably Bruce as Bill in Kill Bill, and Brandon as Neo in The Matrix.
Louis: Ratings and thoughts on the rest of the cast?
In case I don't see all I need to see before the next review...
1. Ben Kingsley
2. Ge You
3. Temuera Morrison
4. Shah Rukh Khan
5. Woody Harrelson
Also, won't be mad at all if Wincott gets a Supporting review.
Louis: Any chance Depp could go up to a 5 for Ed Wood?
Matt: Was gonna ask the same thing, I rewatched it the other day and he's definitely a 5 for me now.
Recent Fargo episode was good, though again Schwartzman is extremely underwhelming in what actually seems like a really well written role. Almost everyone else was very much on point though, Whishaw definitely the MVP and having rewatched Miller's Crossing today I continue to be intrigued what route things are going down on. I'm also starting to see the light on Salvatore Esposito's performance.
Calvin: For Brandon, maybe Chirrut in Rogue One?
Louis: Is Spencer Tracy a 3 or a 3.5 for San Francisco?
Thought the episode of Fargo was terrific, really enjoying the raising of the tensions here, MVP to Whishaw though honorable mention to that minute of creepiness from Buckley and whoever played the sad-sack Italian hit-man.
Calvin:
Great choices, Brandon would've been ideal as Neo.
Brandon:
John Wick
Adam Ewing et al. (Cloud Atlas)
Bruce:
The Emperor (Hero)
Wang Chi (Big Trouble in Little China)
Although I think the latter would've created his own opportunities as he had been doing just before his death.
Lucas:
I'll save Wincott for the moment.
Davis - 3.5(I think she's quite good actually in bringing an appropriate heart into the film. This in presenting just such a bluntly honest and earnest reactions throughout the film, and creating those genuine moments of warmth with Lee.)
Hudson - 3(Brings his typical likability.)
Kelly, Todd & Polito - 3.5/3/3(An example of why casting matters, as none of their roles are particularly well developed but each make at least some impression thanks to how memorable they are as performers anyways. Kelly being an excellent creep as usual, Todd bringing that sort vicious energy, and Polito being an enjoyable sleaze bag.)
Matt & Calvin:
I like him a great deal there, but probably not.
Anonymous:
He's exactly what his rating says he is.
Louis: I have to say this season they’ve done a great job with casting the henchmen on both sides, wouldn’t you agree? Feel like each of them has a very distinct personality and style of their own that adds a lot to the series thus far.
Louis: Speaking of Ed Wood, your thoughts on Tim Burton’s direction for the film?
Calvin:
Oh, I've loved the minor players of the gangs, just kind of some of the attention to detail that I love so much about the series in general. Also helps make up for the vacuum that is Schwartzman, and supports Rock (who I think has benefited to a degree in looking great compared to the former, though again just imagine a Courtney B. Vance, Michael K. Williams, Andre Braugher or Dave Chappelle in the role).
Bryan:
Without a doubt in my mind Burton's greatest work as a filmmaker, and a fascinating realization of kind of oxymoronic approach. This is as Burton directs the film as Ed Wood would direct the film, if Ed Wood was somehow brilliant. This is as his music choices (including direct use of Ed Wood's own stock music), production design choices (that is this amazing mix of Ed Wood cheap and tempered Burton Gothic to something amazing), and general style is of a glorious shlockfest, yet done in a way of prestige. I love it that Burton in a way makes his most personal film while in a way making his least personal film, in that he defers to that style, yet it is also his style best realizes in time of the purity of its greatness. This in taking you away to a distinct place, but here it's technically just Hollywood of the 50's, yet it isn't. Now forgetting the more technical elements, which I love. This is Burton's best work in terms of directing a given scene just in realizing the foundation of the approach. This as he has some great comic moments within the examination of the group of misfits, but doesn't stop there either. This as most importantly he takes the moments for a great intimacy, particularly those between Lugosi and Ed, where there's a real emotional poignancy to the interactions. A poignancy where Burton shows a restraint that is typically not featured from Lugosi's final scene, or the heartbreaking moment of his suicide contemplation. All the same, as dour as the material could be, the stroke of brilliance is the sense of vigor and inspiration he brings to it. Whether this be just the thrill of meeting a hero in Ed's first meeting with Bela, or sheer bliss of the young man getting to direct a film...even if it is the worst ever made. I am in general more mixed on Burton, but this seemed the film he was born to direct.
your thoughts on the direction of Edward Scissorhands and Big Fish?
Louis: Thoughts on The Midnight Sky trailer.
Louis and Luke, which Shakespeare characters would Mark Rylance be a good fit for him to play on film?
Louis. Is there any reason in particular why Geena Davis is a 4.5 for Thelma & Louise, because I rewatched it tonight and she stood out just as much as Sarandon for me this time around.
Louis: Are you planning on rewatching Shawshank for Freeman?
Tim:
I'll start with Big Fish. Big Fish honestly seemed like it could've been the evolution for Burton. This as it is a natural progression of his style, its not quite classic Burton, it's a bit more, something new from him. Sadly he devolved into self parody immediately afterwards, and yet to truly come back from it. This is that the style is kind of Burton, not exactly. There's a greater maturity in the choices in crafting the matching of a fantasy, but with something very personal and genuinely human. His choices skewing towards what works within the story, and balancing this by granting enough of the wonderment of the world, while also crafting the essential reality of the core of what the tale means. The idea being that the fantasy as it relates to the life of the father and the eventual connection to his son being paramount. I love some of the minor touches there, like the two funerals that are both special in their own ways, one being the pure emotional thrust of the purpose of storytelling against the final one which is emotional in recognition of a special life, if perhaps slightly less fantastical in having all the eccentricities of the guests being tempered a bit. Burton's work here allows his style, which again is far less samey than it eventually would become, not to overpower the story but rather exhilarate it.
Luke:
Looks potentially okay, though I have concerns given Clooney's losing streak of late as a director. This as it does look a bit derivative of both survival treks and space movies. Maybe it has something unique to do with that, hopefully.
Anonymous:
Any character from the comedies...and I mean any.
Henry IV
Richard III
Iago
Mark Antony
Cassius
Brutus
King Lear or his fool.
Menenius
Cladius or the ghost.
Titus
Calvin:
I mean I don't have anything against her performance, but that was my level of enthusiasm for it last time I watched it.
Tahmeed:
I mean I'll frequently see the film from a certain time to its ending, often the last half hour, by its showtime frequency anyways. So I'd say I'm pretty fresh, and as much as I love everything he does, he's a definite 4.5 for me there.
and Edward?
Louis: I’ve talked to someone who saw Rylance as Iago. She HATED his take. Something about taking too comical of an approach just for the sake of ingenuity alone. I suppose not all new spins can work, even from geniuses.
Tim:
I'll get there, I'll get there.
Robert:
From what I can tell, unfortunately always the limits of stage performances, his Richard III was similarly idiosyncratic as a more sympathetic rendition, though it sounds like the responses were more positive there. It sounds like that is essentially what he does, which I think does have a certain appeal given there's always straight renditions to be found. I could see how it would be frustrating however, particularly since it doesn't sound like the approach always really fits the text (Iago and Richard are pure evil as written).
Louis: Your thoughts on this scene from Barry season 2?
https://youtu.be/5zXrjeTNXJw
looks like Kate Winslet is playing a stingray in Avatar 2 ...
Tahmeed: You can find his thoughts on that scene in Anton Yelchins’ review for Hearts in Atlantis.
If anyone's interested, I've found a copy of Jan Troell's Flight Of The Eagle with English Subtitles.
https://m.ok.ru/dk?st.cmd=movieLayer&st.discId=2022981569222&st.retLoc=default&st.rtu=%2Fdk%3Fst.cmd%3DvideoSearch%26st.search%3Dflight%2Bof%2Bthe%2Beagle%26st.frwd%3Don%26st.page%3D1%26_prevCmd%3DvideoSearch%26tkn%3D4951&st.discType=MOVIE&st.mvId=2022981569222&_prevCmd=videoSearch&tkn=3913#
Louis: You should bookmark it because you won't find it elsewhere.
Bill Murray saying ‘he thinks you’re my girlfriend’ to Rashida Jones in On the Rocks, is Sofia Coppola becoming self-referential by acknowledging how fucking creepy the central relationship in Lost in Translation was? Fuck that film btw
Oh yeah and I liked On the Rocks though I doubt it will be an awards player,
Calvin:
I'd say any other year probably not. The thinness of the year though makes it quite possible in Original Screenplay, just by process of elimination. Murray I think could show up in a few random places in supporting actor, though misses out in the end.
Louis: Oh yeah, I could see if getting in there. Nothing special but there’s definitely been weaker nominees in years before plus as you say, very empty field.
Hello, people! I'm still following this page and keep enjoying it! Louis, you're doing great work, thank you for that! I wanted to ask, if anyone keeps tracks on the given requests. I remeber requesting De Niro for Frankenstein (thanks for the review, I liked the performance a bit more, but I understand your reservations), but did I request Kingsley, as well? (I remember liking the performance a lot, but can't remember if it was me, who also requested it.) I also wanted to ask, if anyone knows, if I still have some request to make? I think I didn't use one of my request, but I might be wrong. Thank you for answering my questions, have a nice day!
P.S.: Funny that I consider both De Niro and Kingsley supporting and they both make my lineup for 1994 best supporting actor. Kingsley is on border between leading and supporting, but I can't see De Nito being lead. It's not a complaint, but a fun observation.
Watched Interview with the Vampire, which I liked quite a bit, actually, and I have to say I'm kind of amazed it didn't get nominated for costume design. I don't know how that snub happened.
Pitt-2.5
Cruise-4.5(Small note that has nothing to do with the performance, he's *just barely* lead.)
Dunst-5
Banderas-3
Rea-3.5
Slater-3
Louis: Your thoughts on the score, editing and cinematography of Ed Wood
Calvin: Your ratings for:
Karl Markovics and August Diehl in The Counterfeiters
Gary Oldman and Lena Olin in Romeo Is Bleeding
Sam Neill in In The Mouth Of Madness (Which is actually 1995 by the rules)
also what do you think about the main theme for In The Mouth of Madness? Because i just love that thing
Hey guys!
Say who gets 5 in the best lineup: lead actress, supporting actress and supporting actor from 2020. For me ...
- Lead Actress: Jessie Buckley, Olivia Colman, Sidney Flanigan, Vanessa Kirby and Frances McDormand
- Suppporting Actress: Youn Yhu-jung, Essie Davis and Amanda Seyfried (I have a slight feeling that another actress might stand out more like Tuppence Middleton or Lily Collins)
- Supporting Actor: Charles Dance and Nicholas Hoult
Tim:
Edward Scissorhands's direction in a way was Burton's full step into something *almost* entirely earnest in his style. This in Pee Wee was obviously full absurdity, Beetlejuice was largely irreverent, and Batman in a way a hodgepodge of Burton/studio/Batman requirements. Edward Scissorhands is Burton doing Burton. Here as essentially his telling of Beauty and the Beast, though with the Beast being the man the whole time, and being good the whole time. In turn his approach is that of a pure romanticism for much of it, and with a touch of satire in his portrayal of suburbia and their reaction to Edward. Although I don't love the film as others do, I would classify Burton's direction as being wholly on point in realizing this careful tone and very much embracing that earnestness particularly in moments like the ice dance which makes strong use of his visuals with Elfman's score. It is pure Burton though thematically and in that sense it plays into it most strongly. This being sympathy for the monster, and in those scenes are the emotions the most potent.
moviefilm:
Kingsley was not a requested performance.
Anonymous:
The editing is pretty straight forward, good stuff to put it simply. This just in traditional drama editing and effectively so. A few sort of additions in having fun in sort of the Ed Wood use of the montage, notably the inspirational construction of Plan 9 which is very well done. Just a taut, even if that isn't the point, comedy and drama, knowing when to keep a scene playing and when to cut for the sake of comedy.
Howard Shore's work is a wonderful sort of combination of things really. This as he actually manages to create a great score out of a lot shticky sort of stock music tropes of the Ed Wood period and make them into something fantastic. This in playing with the right types of mysterioso with also a lot of bombast. It is a fantastic combination in a way kind of being the best kind of B-movie score one could ask for. This in being in far more dynamic than the typical score you'd find in an Ed Wood film, like the moment of seeing Lugosi the first time which is such a wonderful motif. This as Shore manages to make a score that literally stands next to the music found in Ed Wood movies (though nicely rearranged), yet makes a great score which is an interesting sort of achievement, but definitely an achievement.
Stefan Czapsky's cinematography kind of falls into a similar boat in that it wishes to be fitting towards the black and white cinematography found in Ed Wood films which was less than amazing frankly, though better technically than some z-grade movies I suppose, it is in focus after all. Czapsky's work though finds a nice balance though in suggesting that sort of black and white work, specifically that of Ed Wood's which isn't something like the Third Man, but not having the flaws of the typical flatness of an Ed Wood movie. This in the composition and framing of the shots are all far more dynamic, yet the spirit still is in the general lighting. Really remarkable work in finding that balance that again like Shore, suggests the feeling of it, well being a lot better than it.
rewatched it, huh?
Tim:
No, felt before Burton's direction was on point, never loved the script.
your present day cast for 12 Angry Men?
I feel like a modern remake of 12 Angry Men would have to be extremely loose. Given jury selection practices now, it's almost entirely unlikely to get an all-male jury nowadays. Keep the archetypes and message, but diversify. (Obviously it would probably have to be renamed)
Luke:
Markovics - 4.5
Diehl - 4
Oldman - 3.5
Olin - 4
Neill - 4/4.5 (and thanks for the heads up about the year)
Also apparently according to reports Dance might not even be the supporting standout for Mank, Pelphery and Howard have gotten more praise. I think Oldman and Seyfried are pretty much locks now though.
Calvin: Well, let's judge for ourselves.
And I'm fairly confident now that Seyfried is favourite to win the Supporting Actress overall.
Tim:
12 Angry Men:
1: Jesse Plemons
2: Paul Dano
3: Liev Schreiber
4: Michael Shannon
5: Riz Ahmed
6: Jon Bernthal
7: Andy Samberg
8: Denzel Washington
9: Elliott Gould
10: Thomas Haden Church
11: Hiroyuki Sanada
12: Daveed Diggs
12 Angry Women:
1: Noomi Rapace
2: Fiona Dourif
3: Toni Collette
4: Charlize Theron
5: Tatiana Maslany
6: Olivia Colman
7: Alison Brie
8: Cate Blanchett
9: Geraldine Chaplin
10: Frances McDormand
11: Joan Chen
12: Melanie Lynskey
The 12: (Mix at your leisure)
Post a Comment