Daveed Diggs was nominated for a SAG award for portraying Marquis de Lafayette & Thomas Jefferson in Hamilton.
Now here I go about another set of reviews of performances that I know will not be Oscar nominated, although for different reasons than my previous one. Well it was placed in the TV categories for whatever reason at SAG, though it had an intended theatrical release originally, but that really isn't the main point of conflict. The main conflict is the film is essentially a filmed version of the play, though with specific added cinematic touches, and not just a recording for posterity's sake. Now I have heard the argument since it was presented to an audience on stage, though not the entirety of it, that it should preclude itself from being considered a film. Well I would counter, why can't a filmmaker say "my cinematic version of Hamilton is the stage version, with audience reactions"? If it were static, and only shot for posterity, without any additional touches, I would agree, but as is, the exclusion isn't something I can agree with. Furthermore precedent has been set by the Academy, when they nominated James Whitmore's filmed stage performance for Give 'em Hell Harry!, which frankly had fewer cinematic touches than were added to this rendition of Hamilton. It is finally worth mentioning that I don't think it gives any advantage, rather it is a disadvantage in a way, as stage performances are attuned differently. I only think it is fair though then it look at these performances as I would any film performance, which I guess it makes sense then I'm covering my favorite performances of the musical in the form, which are likely the performances that would be the most similar if they ever do make an entirely cinematic version.
This starting with the very talented Daveed Diggs in the dual roles of French liaison to the colonial army Marquis de Lafayette and founding father, writer of the Declaration of Independence, the third president, Thomas Jefferson. Now no historical character in Hamilton is played entirely straight, George Washington comes pretty close, which makes sense it's a musical so there naturally is going to be some riff. Most of these are slight riffs, particularly with the roles of the Schuyler sisters, Aaron Burr and of course the titular Hamilton. They are largely taken seriously as the historical person even within the modernized lens granted to it by Lin-Manuel Miranda. That is less so for Diggs's performances, in both of his roles. The first being, I'll say from the outset his lesser role, though don't take that as a criticism, as Lafayette. This as early on he is nearly the chorus as just part of the group of revolutionary buddies of Hamilton (Miranda). His most noticeable feature being his fairly over the top, not out of the realm of Clouseauesque (though not quite far), French accent that is obviously not meant to grant any strict reality to the Marquis. Diggs's delivery in that way does make him stand out in little beats in the group scenes, such as his dismissive "you are the worst Burr" when regarding Hamilton's frenemy Aaron Burr (Leslie Odom Jr.) as a bit of a random aside. Lafayette's one highlight moment certainly is not wasted though during the song "Guns and Ships" were Lafayette goes about rapping his endeavors. Diggs's fantastic rapping skills are not to be dismissed and the swift ease of the run down is simply wonderful.
Watching the film the first time though I will say just watching the first half, I was surprised that Diggs was chosen as the supporting actor to win the Tony for the musical, not that he's not good as Lafeyette, but it felt like just a warmup for him....which is the case. This as he comes in to quite the fanfare as Thomas Jefferson in the second half. The most prominent historical figure who is the least like the actual man in any way, the fact that he was played by the ever cold Stephen Dillane in the miniseries John Adams should give a sense of how far from that Diggs is from that. All intended of course, and so brilliantly so. We instantly get a sense of the character, which Diggs plays as a bon vivant celebrity in his outstanding introductory number "What'd I miss". This of course is visually established by his costume, the most over the top out of the main cast, as he wears a purple frilly suit that is sight all on its own. Diggs though does as much visually himself as his whole manner is just pitch perfect in crafting this take on Jefferson, particularly in contrast to the driven Hamilton. Given that Hamilton already has one foil in Burr, we get a new path with Diggs as a man as successful, but who just makes it all look easy. Diggs comes in as THE life of the party. This as the grin on his face is a man who loves how everyone love him, but also just loves his life. Diggs rarely stands up straight, or walks normally. There's almost always a little perk in his step. This just as he brings so much energy that in turn though is perfect though as setting up a guy who just seems to walk on the air of life. The man whose achievements come naturally, and doesn't need to be "Non-stop" he just is.
Naturally then Hamilton and Jefferson then come to blow in two rap battles, which the script say Hamilton wins, and perhaps he does logically, but one has to admit in terms of actual rap precision...there's no question. Diggs runs away with it in both battles. This just his running down with his rap with it as though it is just as though he would indeed speak. I love that Diggs doesn't copy how he rapped as Lafayette either. He does it with as much ease, but seemingly less effort. By that I mean Jefferson just runs out each word without a care in the world, and a complete belief, because how could a man so overflowing with confidence ever be wrong. I think what needs extra mention is Diggs's performance during Miranda's raps, which I have to say kind of steal the moments from the star each time. This as Diggs is absolutely hilarious in every split second of hearing out Hamilton's arguments. This with moments of a kind of respect, but also a bit more annoyance, and little reactions towards the crowd of either indicating that what Hamilton saying isn't true, or trying to react as he doesn't care, even if does. Diggs I suppose makes Jefferson cheat a bit by taking the spotlight even when he's not owning his portion of the rap arguments. Diggs just literally doesn't stop and it again is fantastic, because again isn't in the non-stop Hamilton way, it's in the Jefferson way, where his drive is with a joyful grin and a loose gait. And the greatest trick of it, is Diggs's charisma makes it so you don't hate him for a moment for his shameless grin, there's just something about him that makes you love every minute of it.
Now what that is exactly is part of Diggs's whole demeanor in the role. His energy is indeed endearing but just so is the way Diggs plays up every scene for all its worth, even for how much Jefferson might even feature in a scene. In fact I have to say, Diggs kind of just literally makes something out of every second he's onscreen, as he just keeps that unabashed style of the man. Take after the first cabinet argument where Jefferson laughs at Hamilton for not having the votes. This is a completely childish move, but can't help but love Jefferson because Diggs is just so playful about it. Diggs just moving around the stage is something to behold as he makes this basically cocky slide than even can be described as a walk. Diggs though importantly does strike a balance even in his largely comic performance. This as in the second cabinet rap battle he brings a more directed passion even within that ease still that is impressive. Diggs though conveys that the subject, of the French revolution, is meaningful to him and even his dismissive attitude towards Hamilton has a more genuine anger. Diggs even as he's just being incredibly entertaining does craft the arc of Jefferson from a friendlier rival to Hamilton to a more antagonistic one. This eventually leading to the exceptional scene where Jefferson and his little cabal force Hamilton to admit to a crime, though an affair rather than embezzlement as they believed. Diggs is great in his hectoring manner as he makes his little accusations, but the cherry on top of the scene, is Diggs is hilarious "Whaaaat" when finding out the truth. This perhaps only equaled by his slightly annoyed, still comic and confused "My God" towards Hamilton's confession that wasn't quite what he hoped. This still leading to a partial downfall by Hamilton as he writes and releases his own confession anyways. Leading again to another amazing scene for Diggs. This in the sheer bliss and really gluttony in taking in all the schadenfreude. My personal favorite line delivery in the show being perhaps Diggs "Never gonna president now" as strict jubilation while dancing and making Hamilton's pamphlet "rain". Of course everything Diggs does is a little gem of its own. His reaction to Burr, after Burr runs against him, as a "you kidding me dude", comic gold, even his final line as Jefferson remarking about Hamilton's legacy while still recognizing his attempt to dismantle it, is pure gold. That's the entirety of Diggs's performance. It's comic masterwork of the piece that finds just the right tone and truly runs with it. His Jefferson is broad in the best possible way and works from any perspective. A comically genius performance, that is a proper different kind of foe for Hamilton to be sure, while also just being a joy to behold all on its own.
Jonathan Groff was not nominated for any visual recorded media acting awards for portraying King George III in Hamilton.
Now Jonathan Groff's performance I think owes a debt, fundamental to Lin Manuel Miranda's inspiration for the inclusion of the King, to Tom Hollander's performance as King George in the miniseries John Adams. A one scene wonder to be sure, but here we get Groff as a 3 scene and a eighth wonder as the musical's version of George that skews closely to Hollander's. This as the intention is not a humane portrait of the man a la Nigel Hawthorne in the underrated Madness of King George, like Diggs's performance there is a more than a degree of flamboyance in this representation of a historical figure. George here being a series of interludes as the King's reaction to various going-ons in America, each of these being highlights within the musical. Now of course Groff has a beautiful voice, and delivers "You'll Be Back" and its pseudo reprises wonderfully. What I want to highlight though is the greatness of his work beyond that. This right from the way he enters the scene with his aggressively proper and regal manner of walking. This in specifically aligning every foot step. Each movement though, even just the way he carries his royal baton there is a grace and manner wholly befitting a monarch. That is all fantastic, but there is more. Now it must be said that Groff's comic timing is impeccable of course. From his over the top pouted lip one remarking on the sadness of the colonies, his petulant stomps at accepting his eventual defeat, and of course his glee at hearing John Adams as Washington's successor, Groff is comic gold. Of course as fun as this performance is what I love most about it is how it strongly it does call back to Hollander's performance. This as much as Groff is a comic presence, he's not just a goof. This as he brings those piercing eyes of a mad man that were so prevalent in Hollander's portrayal that gives a sense of the genuine menace within the King's power. I especially love the way that Groff's voice becomes aggressively more threatening in his declarations about how the colonies will be returning his love. Although Groff admits to his spitting while singing, and even perhaps accidental, the burst of spittle at the most threatening part of the song is striking in creating George as a bit of a drooling mad man. This as that only back ups Groff work that has a bit of a vicious psychopath just behind the regal surface. This of a man who is more than willing to use violence to retain the love he believes he deserves. Is he mostly to be taken a joke, yes, but it's fantastic how Groff finds a real sense of something more sinister in George. Although naturally his later appearances, which are essentially encores, and really just comic returns, yet each is most welcome as Groff is a hoot each time....And one must mention the one/eighth moment where George does some free-styling around Hamilton at one of the latter's lowest moments. Now these are completely silly movements from Groff, and utterly hilarious. Small bit, but worth mentioning. Otherwise this just is a delight of a performance, as sheer comic relief, but also with just the right ounce of villainy.
355 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 355 of 355I honestly just feel bad for Ziegler since she apparently was uncomfortable doing this. Also, I get really weirded out vibes from her relationship with Sia and have... suspicions.
I know right? She was a minor when filming the movie, but apparently Sia "can’t do anything without her".
It's interesting that Ziegler's performance is so terrible considering that when she was called out for not casting an actual person with autism (or an actor at all, come to think of it), Sia's BS excuse was "Maybe you're just a bad actor."
Matt: And one of the letterboxd reviews said "Maybe you're just a bad director." Lol.
Louis: thoughts on Duricic in Quo Vadis, Aida?
Yeah I’m gonna pass on Music, I know all I need to know now.
Might be a bit early from this side of the world, but Happy Birthday Matt!!
Happy Birthday Matt
Louis: Thoughts on anyone from the international feature contenders that stood out to you.
Louis: Your top ten Anya Taylor-Joy acting moments, and your thoughts on her as a performer?
Happy birthday matt.
Happy Birthday Matt
Louis: When 86' rolls around again, is there any chance of you checking out the "Fist of the North Star" animated film? I just watched it tonight and...it's not half bad; Rather rough and condensed in terms to story, but still decently entertaining when it comes to the over the top violence the series became known for.
And if I can find it, I implore you seek out the subtitled version. The dubbed audio, which I was watched, is pretty brutal.
And of course...happy birthday Matt!!
Happy birthday, Matt!
Happy birthday Matt.
Omar:
Duricic - (A moving and powerful performance. What she does so effectively though is showing the way she kind of contains it for so long. This as in the moments of translation and constantly running around, she shows the present needs while always keeping that potent underlying anxiety that is pressing. This while also combining the key brief moments of a sense of her love for her family, as she becomes increasingly stressed over what is going on around her. This in this elegant balance of portraying essentially her attempting to keep this certain active manner of trying to save her family while also having the circumstances constantly pressing upon her. This leading though to heartbreaking earned bigger reactions one fittingly louder with another that is just quietly somber.)
Luke:
Two of Us:
Sukowa & Chevallier - 4.5/4.5(Interestingly the latter performance actually makes less of an impact when she is initially verbal. Sukowa is good as the more active member of the relationship. This portraying the more upfront frustrations of her meeker partner. As the film progresses though what is notable is the chemistry found within their silent interactions. The growing sadness but also earnest care in Sukowa's performance is remarkable. This creating a real sense of the history of their relationship in her moments of guilt but also concern. Chevallier's work becomes notable later on in some purely silent moments of reaction however the smallest work in her eyes is quite incredible at times.)
Night of Kings:
Lavant - 3.5(Not enough Lavant to go around, his reactions though are fantastic throughout. There's just that highly physical work of his still present just in his oh so expressive face here that gives a certain wily but also empathetic quality to it.)
Tahmeed:
At this point just an incredibly remarkable performer, that so far has shown such a dynamic presence and energy to her work. This as she's managed already quite the range from the more internalized with The Witch and Thoroughbreds, but is equally effective in overly expressive work like Emma, or The Queen's Gambit where she fittingly runs the gamut of emotions. She can do naturalism and overt style, which is quite the impressive combination particularly for someone of her age. This as she has that supreme confidence while also never seeming aggressively artificial in her best work either. With only some very minor missteps at this point (Peaky Blinders where she was miscast and apparently New Mutants, which sounds like that was par for course for that film), she's always established an incredible resume that bests most in her age group and even rivals some older than her.
1. Ending - Thoroughbreds
2. Confronting her "dad" - The Queen's Gambit
3. Making the plan - Thoroughbreds
4. End of first tournament - The Queen's Gambit
5. Everything goes to Hell - The Witch
6. Friends coming to Beth's aid - The Queen's Gambit
7. Emma insults to much - Emma
8. Turning down the money - The Queen's Gambit
9. How to lie - Thoroughbreds
10. Emma admits fault - Emma
Mitchell:
Sure, I'm always game for off the beaten path animation.
Louis: Rating for Duricic
Continuing my David Lynch catch-up with Wild at Heart. By far my least favourite Lynch that I've seen so far, but it's not awful and there are some moments of brilliance in it still.
Cage-4.5
Dern-4.5
Ladd-2(Did not work for me at all)
Stanton-4.5(Mainly for his last scene)
Dafoe-5
Freeman-4
Zabriskie-4.5
Thanks for the birthday wishes, but it like *just* turned midnight, so the day has barely even started.
Oh, a couple more I forgot from Wild at Heart.
Fenn-3.5
Glover-2.5
Nance-3
Lee-3
Happy birthday Matt!
Luke:
4.5
Happy Birthday Matt!
Louis: Thoughts on the big reveal scene from "Prisoner of Azkaban" IE when Harry confronts Sirius and Remus, and learns that Peter killed his parents instead of the former...
Looking back, it's one of my favourite dialogue scenes of the franchise, simply on the grounds that they got Rickman, Oldman, Thewlis and Spall in the same room.
Mitchell: Peter sold out Harry's parents but did not kill them directly.
Mitchell: Prisoner of Azkaban is easily the best HP movie, but that scene is actually where my only criticism of the film lies. Mostly it has to do with Oldman's delivery of 'I DID MY WAITING, TWELVE YEARS OF IT', which just felt a little too overwrought even for an intense moment.
But yeah, I'll always be astounded how Harry Potter seemed to exclusively employ British legends for its adult cast. It's just a shame that the vast majority of them didn't get a chance to show off their chops, especially Oldman.
So,I've been thinking about it, and I think I have to call Viola Davis supporting for Ma Rainey. I can't justify calling her lead there while calling her supporting for Fences.
Matt: As it turns out, someone did a screen time count for the film.
Davis has just over 28 minutes (less than 30%) of screen time, while Boseman has nearly 45 minutes. While that isn't surprising itself, even Domingo has more screen time than Davis does.
Tahmeed: I saw that.
I think that another reason Davis feels more Supporting is that she doesn’t make *that* much of an impact even when she’s on-screen. I can’t think of much more to say about her performance other than “she’s good.”
I believe that one of the main ideas behind her character was that we were supposed to sense her presence at all times, and I didn’t get that from her performance.
^That might’ve sounded a bit negative, but to clarify, I would still consider her performance “good.”
Anonymous: Forgive me...it's been quite a long time since I've the films in full.
Tahmeed: I don't entirely disagree with that one Oldman line. I do agree on the pedigree of talent in the movies, and that several of them certainly didn't get to show off their best work.
Also, when it comes to Davis in "Ma Rainey", I've of a similar mind as Bryan to be honest; I liked her, and would absolutely be fine with a nomination, but it's completely Boseman's film.
*since I've seen*
*I'm of a similar mind*
Damn, I need to remember to proof read.
Mitchell:It's more his film than it even should be though, I think. Ma Rainey should feel like a force of nature and she doesn't.
Matt: I'll at least give some leeway to Davis in the sense that I'm not that familiar with the source material. From what I understand, Ma is primarily seen as this dominant, uncompromising force who either gets her way or walks out.
Just knowing that, one can certainly understand why Davis was cast. And she does deliver on that bluntness to a degree, but I'll say it was never to a point where I felt she equaled Boseman.
Watched Nomadland last night, which I thought was great. Not quite in love with it as others are but I still very much appreciated it, especially just how great the atmosphere and Zhao's direction are.
McDormand - 5
Strathairn - 4
Everyone Else - 3.5/4
Louis: Not sure if you've given them before, but could I have your thoughts on NoHo Hanks's bus confession scene from Barry season 2?
Louis, what is your rating and category placement for Davis in Ma Rainey.
Tahmeed: You can find his thoughts on that scene in Bill Nighys’ review for About Time.
Louis: What are your thoughts on the Seinfeld episode The Dealership? I honestly think it's one of Alexander's best episodes.
Louis: Roles that you think Madeleine Stowe would have been great in if she had been more active after 2003, even if I understand why she rarely appeared in film, she was raising her daughter.
For anyone who's seen "Mob Psycho 100" and "One Punch Man", what would be your thoughts on this?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8pkwAMRHc_4
Personally, I really like the accompanying musical track, and think they nail the characters involved.
Mitchell:
Just as the reveal happens, great. The start of the buildup though I think is a touch overdone to overly setup the switch from Sirius being the bad guy to not being one. I 100% believe it to be a direction choice, given Oldman never acts like that as Sirius for the rest of the time as the character or even the film. The actually fallout, plus the design of the room, and particularly the reveal of Spall are all fantastic however.
Anonymous:
Same rating as I originally gave her, she's supporting to me, though I do think the category placement is a rare circumstance where it is on the performance, as a more dominating performance I think would've been lead even with less screentime. I will say part of this might even be her being dubbed, as you don't get any might from her singing because well it's not her singing, although I do think Davis is good, I think a greater performance was possible with a performer who could've delivered the musical goods as well.
Matt:
Love it. From the particularly bizarre Thelma and Louise tale of Kramer and that other guy. To Jerry the relationship counselor and Puddy as the constantly shifting salesman. George though is the highlight in his hilariously ultra specific quest for Twix and satisfaction not just for a perceived stolen Twix but more so his expertise on what makes a Twix a Twix. Every one of Alexander's scenes are pure gold in the episode, especially love his paranoid "they were all against me" at the end with his proposed, and poorly thought out Twix sting.
Anonymous:
I mean sadly with the nature of Hollywood she pretty much dropped out once the good roles become scare for a woman at that age to begin with, and with the rare plumb roles that did come up, they were usually taken up and well performed by her peers.
Louis: Imagine maybe Cynthia Erivo in the part instead. Or Queen Latifah maybe.
As someone who's probably the most positive on Ma Rainey's here overall, I actually still put her in Lead and give her a 4.5. I felt like what she did worked for the film perfectly, I can see there being a greater take on the role which adds more to the film but honestly I'm pretty content with t as how it is.
Continuing the unexpected shortlist, Love and Monsters, actually is a fairly entertaining creature feature. Although definitely derivative of Zombieland in some particularly obvious ways, but generally enjoyable, with enough of a genuine heart in there to create the needed basic investment. Also by far the most I've liked Dylan O'Brien.
Short List: The effects are very much Ray Harryhausen style, which is the intention is not realism but rather extravagance. In this I thought they were pretty good and more than anything quite a bit of fun just to look at the different creatures. The bugs in particular were especially well done.
Rating and thoughts on O'Brien.
On a related note to my last comment - and really because my curiosity was burning too strong - I decided to give "Kill la Kill" another chance.
This is the same show I tried to get into 3 months ago, and gave up on after only 2 episodes, so....wish me luck???
Louis: Ratings/thoughts on the cast of Love and Monsters.
Louis: The screen time data website did a screen time for clue and apparently curry is in the movie for 50% of the movie. I asked the guy who made it on twitter and he says he considers curry supporting. Thoughts on this?
Anonymous: I've always kinda thought Clue was an ensemble.
Matt: So did I. But I was curious because louis considered curry leading.
Louis: Your top five Sophia Loren performances to date.
I finally caught up and *really* loved Emma. Taylor-Joy is a lock for my final ballot, and honestly I'm pretty sure Johnny Flynn will make my Supporting Actor lineup.
Robert: Let me ask you this, seeing as how I didn't inquire about it further a few months back...
Seeing as how you watched "Kill la Kill" in it's entirety, can I assume you at least found enjoyment in the show?
Mitchell: Well... it wasn't boring, I guess. It's sexed-up to a degree I found uncomfortable, but I also admired the weird sci-fi vibes and the animation. It can be filed under "not my thing".
Robert: Noted, and without giving too much away, I'll have my own thoughts on the series soon enough.
I don't know about you guys but this extended wait is really starting to wear on me.
Louis: Have you been working on any new content for the next 3 weeks. Another category top 5 perhaps.
Luke, I don't blame you. I'm sure we'll get some excitement soon enough.
Luke, your top five Hugh Laurie performances
1. The Night Manager
2. Blackadder
3. The Personal History Of David Copperfield
4. Peter's Friends
5. 101 Dalmations
Haven't seen House, Veep or Jeeves and Wooster.
Luke:
O'Brien - 4(A rock solid endearing lead. Not as good as Michael J. Fox in Back to the Future, but in that kind of vein for me in terms of where the success of the performance lies. Where there is that kind of likable lightness to his work. This as he does tip toe on a bit of more deeply emotional stuff, but it is mostly there just to be a sympathetic lead. He balances the two well to make just a hapless hero that is very easy to follow.)
Anonymous:
Henwick - 3(She's fine but I didn't find she managed to make her own impact beyond what O'Brien is doing.)
Rooker - 3.5(Basically the not overtly comical version of Harrelson's character in Zombieland. This as Rooker brings an endearing quality in his character's lessons that are funny, but more so there is a real sense of precise conviction in it. This as he brings the right presence in creating the man who lies through the tough stuff with ease and knowledge. Rooker finds a good balance between tough love style but with a genuine warmth in there.)
Greenblatt - 3.5(An effective balancing act with Rooker in managing to not overdo the wise beyond her years little girl. There as she finds the right sort of dogged smarts about her, but with a certain degree of petulance to make her still fitting to the character.)
Ewing - 3(Does what he needs to as an overly confident seeming Australian chap.)
Anonymous:
Curry I always envisioned as the ring master to the affair, much like Poirot in the Agatha Christie films. This as the film isn't about him, but he does really lead the investigation and in turn much of the action. I have no objections to those placing him in supporting however.
Bryan:
1. Two Women
2. Sunflower
3. Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow
4. A Special Day
5. The Life Ahead
Luke:
Sorry Luke, this is all I had planned.
Louis, why are Welcome to Chechnya, Collective and 76 Days "out of competition" for you? You might've explained it, but I didn't catch that.
moviefilm: The explanation he gave was that those types of documentaries are difficult to objectively critique owing to their subject matter. He did say he found Collective compelling in exploring its themes though.
Well, at least the Golden Globes are next sunday, and the Critics Choice not long after that. SAG is almost a month after that which is just crazy.
moviefilm:
To clarify slightly more, it is also the technique with the subject matter. In those three, the film's are essentially straight forward testaments of different incredibly difficult situations where the documentarian's "hand" is limited or entirely invisible in the presentation of the information. To treat it as a dramatic piece then, as I do think most documentary's can be looked at, feels inappropriate to me. I honestly would put those films in a different category where they don't compete and instead just receive a special accomodation for highlighting humanitarian causes.
Also watched "I Care a Lot" where that comedy/musical placement for Pike at the Globes is a STRETCH even as a supposed dark comedy (Promising Young Woman has FAR more laughs, which is underselling that great film, as that has several laughs where this film has none). As for the film, the villain protagonist is a tricky maneuver, a tricky maneuver that this film does not pull off. For a few reasons I think, perhaps it is being so despicable as this exploiter of the especially vulnerable, perhaps Pike isn't charismatic enough here as say Linda Fiorentino was in her even more merciless leading role in The Last Seduction (which did work), but what I think the real problem is the film seems to want us to actively like her with her multiple "I'm a badass woman" speeches in that endeavor, which is an odd approach to take. Of course even with that fundamental flaw, the film's plot is more ludicrous than compelling, especially in the last act with multiple unbelievable survival moments. While having a film "set in a sewer" can work, it best be lurid, not just unpleasant, which is the case for this film.
Louis: Watched it last night and I agree. I’m starting to think the HFPA just assumes all bad dramatic films are comedies. I still enjoyed Dinklage’s performance however.
I actually thought the performances were all fine, Dinklage, Pike, Wiest, Messina I all thought did well, the material was just so incredibly shoddy and unpleasant. Quite frankly this is one film I would've liked a Wild Bunch style ending to of all films, not cause it would have earned it but I just found them all so tiresome by the end.
Louis: terrifying prospect though of this film being so close to the Globes and getting some hype is that Pike could potentially upset Bakalova, which would be an absolute nightmare.
I watched The Little Things, and while I can now justify my rage at Paul Raci’s unfair snubs, Leto is nothing compared to catastrophe of Rami Malek’s work. Good lord. I’m not even sure I can fully chalk it up to miscasting, he was capable of playing normal during his supporting roles days of the early 10’s (The Master, Ain’t Them Bodies Saints), but his work is so miscalculated. Complete void of charisma, the same wooden expression and monotone voice, no internalization, just a failure of the craft.
Malek was definitely disastrously bad, I was even initially kinder on Leto previously because he fares better than Malek in their final scenes together.
Maybe I’m reading it the wrong way, but I interpreted the “girlboss” moments in I Care a Lot as satire towards neoliberal feminism and its idea that equality is obtained by simply including women in oppressive power structures instead of challenging those structures themselves. Also I have to say I thought the movie was pretty good and I loved Pike’s performance.
Giuseppe: I can definitely see that might've been an intention, but I just felt like the film played everything pretty 'straight' rather than satirical.
Giuseppe:
Hey Giuseppe good to see you.
Anyways, I struggle to see that element as satirical because those moments come mainly in the scenes between Pike and Gonzalez, where that relationship I felt was played as essentially earnestly as possible.
Been a Long time Giuseppe.
Louis: Rating and Thoughts on Pike and Dinklage.
Louis, thanks for the explanation. I have only seen Welcome to Chechnya from these 'out of competition' picks and I have to say I liked it a lot, but it was mostly caused by its subject matter. The style of the film was quite convensional, the storytelling was pretty straightforward and it actually brings nothing new to the genre, expect from the use of visual effects, which wasn't actually a directing choice, but a much needed safety precaution. Not to mention that the the quality of them is not too strong. Yet I still found the film to be very strong, as mentioned before, mostly because of its subject and the stories of the protagonists.
Louis, your thoughts on Ebert/Roeper's reviews for all 3 LOTR films and do you think Siskel would've liked them.
Anonymous: I have a feeling he would've liked them alot more than Roeper did. The themes of family and companionship were his cup of tea.
Louis: I remember how you felt Storaro should stay away from Woody Allen. Wouldn't it have been awesome if he had worked on Villeneuve's Dune since he was supposedly the DP Jodorowsky wanted for his version of the source material? I mean, Villeneuve and Storaro would be a perfect combination, right?
your thoughts on the screenplay and Direction of The Sixth Sense?
@Louis: I haven’t been commenting in a while but I always kept reading your reviews! Always a pleasure.
Louis, do you intend to watch all of the international feature film nominees and winners from 1947 to 2020.
Just watched an unjustly overlooked Peter Bogdanovich film, Saint Jack. Highly recommend it and Ben Gazzara's charismatic performance as an American pimp in 70s Singapore. Denholm Elliott also a possible nod for Supporting Actor.
So I finished "Kill la Kill" tonight, and I'd probably echo Robert's thoughts to a degree - especially with regards to it's infamous fan service. This is as the show is so completely shameless and excessive in this aspect, and I'm sure that tested the patience of viewers both then and now. Personally, it always kept me at a distance due to it's ridiculous, and occasionally creepy nature.
If one can fully separate that quality from the series, however (which I admittedly can't), what's left is honestly pretty decent. There is a good deal of merit to be found in the fight sequences, animation and refreshingly brisk pacing. It also should be said that Ryuko is a cool character, and it's easy enough to get involved with her story despite some questionable elements. To the show's credit, I was never bored, nor was I able to predict where it was going much of the time. I guess you could say I enjoyed "Kill la Kill" in a technical sense, but never enough that I'd defend it's "artistic choices".
Also, and I'm sure this goes without saying, but "Don't Lose Your Way" is still hype as hell.
Luke:
Pike - 3.5(I prefer Pike greatly, despite I think the most popular perception of her is as an ice queen, in her warmer roles. This is more in the expected camp, and I won't say is entirely ineffectual in the part. I do think she hits the general beats of the character in a up to a point kind of way. She is cutting enough, she conveys the later more emotional reactions in an objectively convincing way. I don't think she creates the needed charisma in her nefarious behavior that was essential for the part however. The script I do think make it a bigger struggle, but nonetheless, I do think there was a way for the performance itself to ease the problem, like Fiorentino's performance in The Last Seduction, where she makes you oddly love her, as horrible as she is. That is not the case with pike. )
Dinklage - 3.5(Dinklage is somewhat working in one of his routines, I'd really like to see him do something entirely new at this point, this being a variation in his curmudgeon energy, which he does do well here, and hits his final emotional moment effectively.)
Anonymous:
I mean the Fellowship review is quite infamous. Roeper's review, which typical for him, is questionable and thin. Calling Wood and Astin's casting as "curious" without comment. He describes things in the film without actually saying what he thinks doesn't work about them. Ebert, who while not the most intense supporter of the films recognized their obvious merit, is almost comically baffled by Roeper's lack of actual arguments beyond "I don't like the movie for what it is", especially on the bit of the film not having a true ending with Ebert's perfectly exasperated retort "It's a trilogy so it doesn't end."
Two Towers, I think you see Ebert's objection, which is not a true negative, but almost a wishing it were "his version" of the material, which is a much better objection than Roeper's blathering on Fellowship. Although I disagree with it, as I think it would be a better criticism of what Jackson did to the Hobbit (LOTR is dark and less whimsical in book form as well) but you can see the greater critic he is than Roeper by clearly recognizing the merits of the film. Roeper recognizes his mistake still, though even his praise is not particularly insightful.
Return, we see what I saw with a few people I knew at the time of the contemporary release, where they kind of had to throw up their hands and just recognize the trilogy for the grand achievement that it was.
Anonymous:
Would love to see Storaro work with Villeneuve, rather than on any more chamber pieces (that are particularly pretty looking thanks to Storaro) with Allen.
Tim:
Well, I'll start with the screenplay which is the one truly great screenplay by Shyamalan. This as he does such an artful blend here in terms of creating a suspenseful film with the different developments involved with the central ability, and crafts that dynamite twist. This is on top of just well written and honest scenes that craft engaging character within this supernatural situation. On top of that though is the texture of the work, this so powerfully examining the idea of dealing with grief in so many different aspects of it, without seeming repetitive. This in the central story of Cole, his mother, of course Dr. Malcolm's own story, even in the story of the "sickly" dead girl. Each show a different side of dealing with death, and each powerful in their own way. This of course funneled through that dynamic structure that is fueled by the twist, with Malcolm helping Cole, while also coming to terms with his own mortality in quite the blunt fashion. An exceptional layered work, that I think was the one great screenplay Shyamalan had in him.
Anonymous:
Uhhh, no promises, but I do intend at the very least intend to watch the noted ones(or there is at least a noted aspect), sometimes there are mediocre films nominated, which hurt my general motivation the most, more so than outright bad films even.
Houndtang:
I'll keep that in mind.
Anonymous:
I think so, as he always seemed to appreciate inventiveness (Who Framed Roger Rabbit was his #2 in 88 for example) and it was thematically up his ally.
Louis: Now I'm very curious to see your reaction to "The Village" - assuming that you haven't seen the film beforehand.
I'd describe it as an interesting misfire, since it's really an unexpected attempt by Shyamalan to venture into a more "period" setting. I wouldn't even say it's a wholly unsuccessful attempt in regards to set design, costumes and cinematography (obviously, having the great Roger Deakins as your DP never hurts things). That said, there's still a clash between his writing/performance style and the themes of the story that never completely gels.
When it comes to "The Village", I guess I'm more in the camp saying "I admire this, but..." than in either the negative or positive extremes.
Mitchell: You can watch the subbed version of the FOTS movie on Gogoanime. Fun fact: Gene Hackman's voice-over actor in dubs of his films voices the narrator.
Louis: Your thoughts on these scenes from Silicon Valley?
https://youtu.be/oFd_b7hQV-g
https://youtu.be/YYe0EMQz3ow
I'm going to say so much about The Village: It had two twists near the end, one which we find out along with a character, and one that we find out but the character never does.
The first one works, as it has emotional impact on the story, just like the twist for The Sixth Sense.
The second one does not.
Anonymous: Thanks for letting me know.
Tim: Completely agree. I really like the second twist as a concept because of it's implications, but to put it politely, the film muddles it's execution.
At the risk of spoilers, though, the main reason I submitted Hurt for a review is because of his big scene; Not only is it the best moment of the film by far, he also plays it as someone who's been eaten away by their...umm..."secret".
Louis: Your top 25 scenes in Disney films.
Louis: Some great news, Michael Fassbender is the lead in David Fincher's next project. Thoughts on this.
Tim:
Now on his direction, it is something that gets less impressive with examination of his later work. Now, this isn't detrimental to the Sixth Sense, rather the brilliant instincts here for the material, in fact are his only tricks it appears overall. They work here though. This with the sort of almost monotone quality in some of the performances and the way he plays out scenes, is terrific for creating the sort of "funeral parlor" quality that makes the ghosts scenes particularly effective. Of course this would be less so later on, when all his films would have a similar style no matter how ill-fitting to the material. His excesses though aren't here, like bizarre humor attempts of his other films. Here his direction stays with the characters and is a remarkable balance between drama and genre. This as he lets moments play out quietly, like the scene between Osment and Collette in the car, but also does have striking moments of pure horror like seeing the gallows. He never lets the latter disregard the former, and really shows the right restraint here just as he does show his inspiration.
Tahmeed:
An example of Silicon Valley at its best where the plot is compelling in itself, in the dynamic fighting of the mind between Richard and Gavin is genuinely intense, however also hilarious with Richard's poor attempts at mocking Gavin and the "Please stop" to Richard.
Now just a purely hilarious classic scene of a Jared overkill, and instant switch from "badass" to rather pathetic in a moments notice.
David:
1. Monstro - Pinocchio
2. "Hellfire" - The Hunchback of Notre Dame
3. The horseman appears - The Adventures of Ichabod and Mr. Toad
4. Clocktower - The Great Mouse Detective
5. "The Bells of Notre Dame" - The Hunchback of Notre Dame
6. Night on Bald Mountain - Fantasia
7. Fire - Bambi
8. Climax - Beauty and the Beast
9. Pink Elephants - Dumbo
10. Final Battle - Sleeping Beauty
11. Final Escape - One Hundred and One Dalmatians
12. "Be Prepared" - The Lion King
13. Mad Tea Party - Alice in Wonderland
14. Training Montage - Mulan
15. Donkeys - Pinocchio
16. "Well set the trap off now" - The Great Mouse Detective
17. Fighting Maximus - Tangled
18. Italian Restaurant - Lady and the Tramp
19. Baby Mine - Dumbo
20. Witch Transformation - Snow White and the Seven Dwarves
21. Opening - The Lion King
22. Race for the Key - Cinderella
23. "Gaston" - Beauty and the Beast
24. The Walrus and the Carpenter - Alice in Wonderland
25. Climax - The Hunchback of Notre Dame
Luke:
Well as long as Waititi and Fincher, don't suddenly royally screw up (which Alfredson did somehow), Fassbender might be on the rebound. Also sounds like the material is ideal for Fincher.
Louis: What do you think of this scene from Silicon Valley? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hDUdD3ADGJM
Robert: Louis gave his thoughts on that in Anthony Wong's review for The Mission (99 Alternate Supporting).
I’m not gonna lie, Mank has really soured me on Fincher and Fassbender’s recent output doesn’t exactly encourage me. But good combination I guess.
Come on Calvin, even if you apparently hate Mank that much at this point, Fincher's track record is pretty good.
If this new Fincher film is tonally similar to "Seven", "Gone Girl" or "TGWTDT", then I would at least interested in seeing it. On the whole, Fincher is really a director who thrives with thrillers, or at least his attempts to explore the depraved, ambitious or twisted (The Social Network being the BIG exception and his magnum opus hands down).
It's for this main reason that "Mank" is my 7th or 8th favourite film of his, even though I seem to be fairly neutral on it overall.
Louis: What do you think Kubrick would have thought of digital cinematography? I personally think he would have embraced it.
Anonymous:
If he found a specific innovative use for it, he would've, I have no doubt about that.
Louis: Your thoughts on this scene from Guns at Batasi?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kW9qTz9EOLY
Louis: Hypothetically, if you considered Peck to be supporting for To Kill A Mockingbird, would he be your win.
Picking your brain here, Louis: would you consider Charles Dance lead or supporting in “Fanny Lye Deliver’d”? I am of two minds on this one. I feel like he’s certainly got the screentime to be considered co-lead, and certainly he is the most thunderous and loud of the characters . . . but he also feels like he undergoes the least amount of character development, and exists to sort of be diminished as Maxine Peake’s Fanny undergoes her transformation. Where would you fall?
Louis: In terms of performance output, which actors do you think had the best streaks of great performances in particular years/decades (ie Courtenay in the 60s, Mifune throughout the 40s and 50s, or the five acting giants of the 70s).
Anonymous:
Attenborough greatness, and one of the reasons I love the performance as much as I do. This as Attenborough re-writes his own presence here, this as this short firebrand. His stature doesn't matter, he dominants the scene. The sheer will conveys by Attenborough not only makes the successful stand of Lauderdale convincing, he's also just absolutely mesmerizing to watch as he both states his bona-fides while also dressing down his opponent to nothing. Attenborough never leaves a question to the outcome and this is masterclass work from him.
Anonymous:
Probably.
Psifonian:
I see him as co-lead, yeah he doesn't really change, but he is the "static" lead that works as the foil to the influx Fanny. Oddly enough, if we didn't get his final sort of reaction shot I might be more open to a supporting argument, the film though consistently "checks in" with him to maintain the perspective befitting a lead. The film never forgets John even when it seems like Fanny might be moving beyond him.
Tahmeed:
Give me a little time to consider.
Louis: Your thoughts on Fanny Lye Deliver'd and the cast.
And do you consider it 2019, 20 or 21.
And if you've seen it, thoughts on Possessor and the cast.
Louis, what are 10 movies you feel is completely carried by a single performance?
Thoughts on the Luca trailer?
R.I.P. Alan Robert Murray
R.I.P Alan Robert Murray.
Tahmeed:
There's quite few really but here are some particularly impressive streaks or near streaks:
Charles Laughton - 1930's
Jean Gabin - 1936-1939
James Stewart - 1946-1962
Takashi Shimura - 1947-1955
Toshiro Mifune - 1947-1967
Laurence Olivier - 1948-1960
Claude Rains - 1933-1949
James Mason - 1947-1962
Tom Courtenay - 1962-1968
Richard Attenborough - 1960-1971
Tatsuya Nakadai - 1959-1968
Hackman, Duvall, Pacino, De Niro, Nicholson - 70's
James Woods - The 80's
Day-Lewis - Post-80's
Oldman - Mid80's to Mid90's
Morgan Freeman - 1987-1995
John Cazale's career
Tom Hardy 2009-2015
Joaquin Phoenix 2008-current
Luke:
Let me hold onto that for the moment, as I'd like to give the film another chance. Anyway it was a 2020 release for me, until that Brazil release date suddenly appeared, although I'd like some actual proof of that given its sudden appearance.
Anonymous:
Hmm...a few different ways to interpret that, but I'll say films where the single performance is perhaps overly important to the film's success (or at least gets it over the barrier to be considered good, or perhaps even helps to make the film very good), rather than the film being strictly bad or anything.
True Believer (James Woods)
Save the Tiger (Jack Lemmon)
Bulldog Drummond (Ronald Colman)
Interstellar (Matthew McConaughey)
The Reckless Moment (James Mason)
The Grey Fox (Richard Farnsworth)
The Swimmer (Burt Lancaster)
To Sir With Love (Sidney Poitier)
Nightmare Alley (Tyrone Power)
The Passionate Friends (Claude Rains)
Anonymous:
Well I honestly didn't see that coming. Although what I did see coming is it definitely looks like it is two companions on a journey, looks like it could be fun though.
Louis what are some directors you'd like to tackle a specific genre?
Anonymous:
Musical (full on):
David Lynch
Thomas Vinterberg
Celine Sciamma
The Coen Brothers
Horror:
Quentin Tarantino
Spy:
Wes Anderson
Kaiju:
Robert Eggers
Sword or Sandal Epic:
Sam Mendes
Louis: that note, are there specific musicals you’d like to see those filmmakers (or others) direct? I’ve mentally cast a Noah Hawley directed “Assassins” and a Mike Flanagan directed “Next to Normal.”
Michael:
Mind you I foresee all as Bob Fosse's Cabaret style, where the filmmaker definitely does their own thing with the material.
David Lynch: The original musical Orbison.
Thomas Vinterberg: Les Miserables (The much better version)
Celine Sciamma: Although my knowledge of the musical is limited, I'd for some reason want to see her do make Wicked instead of Jon Chu (though we'll see how his In the Heights is).
The Coen Brothers: Oklahoma
David Lynch could do something really cool with Pippin, I think.
Louis: I really don't buy that 2019 release date in Brazil when it's dated the same time as its festival premiere.
Louis and folks
Sunday will be Golden Globes, so say your final predictions of the winners ...
SONG: "Speak Now" - One Night in Miami
SCORE: Mank
FOREIGN LANGUAGE FILM: Minari
ANIMATED FEATURE: Soul
SCREENPLAY: The Trial of the Chicago 7
DIRECTOR: Chloe Zhao
SUPPORTING ACTRESS: Glenn Close
SUPPORTING ACTOR: Daniel Kaluuya
LEAD ACTRESS (COMEDY/MUSICAL): Maria Bakalova
LEAD ACTRESS (DRAMA): Carey Mulligan
LEAD ACTOR (COMEDY/MUSICAL): Sacha Baron Cohen
LEAD ACTOR (DRAMA): Chadwick Boseman
PICTURE (COMEDY/MUSICAL): Hamilton
PICTURE (DRAMA): The Trial of the Chicago 7
I'll lose my rag if Close wins.
Oh Jesus, is there really a 2019 Brazil release for "Fanny Lye Deliver'd" on the table? This is why I can't ever refine my video lineups. If you find out something more concrete, keep me informed?
Brazinterma:
Picture (Drama): The Trial of the Chicago 7
Picture (Comedy/Musical): Borat Subsequent Moviefilm
Director: Chloé Zhao
Actor (Drama): Anthony Hopkins
Actress (Drama): Carey Mulligan
Actor (Comedy/Musical): Sacha Baron Cohen
Actress (Comedy/Musical): Maria Bakalova
Supporting Actor: Leslie Odom Jr. (Anything could happen here. I wouldn't even be shocked if Murray won. I'll just go with my predicted Oscar winner for now, though)
Supporting Actress: Glenn Close (Sorry, guys)
Screenplay: The Trial of the Chicago 7
Score: Soul (Wouldn't be surprised if News of the World upsets though)
Song: "Speak Now"
Animated Feature: Soul
Foreign Language Film: Minari
Music will win Best Picture and that will be how Film Twitter starts an actual riot
Robert: If music wins I will stop pretending the globes have value.
My Golden Globes prediction:
Cringe.
Anonymous: the Globes have had zero value for awhile now. It’s propped up by its history
Calvin: I'm sure you'll be the most accurate of us all, especially given how different the presentation is going to be this year.
Luis: I am pretty sure I already know the answer, but Bryan Cranston was considered to play Lex Luthor in batman v superman. How do you think he would have been under a better director and writer?
Anonymous: I mean...I'm sure the groundwork for that casting was laid the moment he shaved his head for "Breaking Bad". In all seriousness, though, Cranston could've certainly delivered on the presence and menace needed for Lex. For it to fully work, though, you would really need a reigned in Cranston performance, since his louder turns suggest more of crazed, middle tier Batman villain than a cold, calculating business mogul.
As for an alternate choice, Mark Strong might have played the part very well just based on his minor bad guy role in "Shazam".
Mitchell: Wanna hear a joke? Several people actually said they thought Billy Zane would be a good Lex Luthor.
Anonymous: Maybe an animated Lex Luthor but a live action portrayal, hell no.
Luke: Are you talking about Bryan Cranston or Billy Zane?
Zane
It shows the lack of imagination behind a lot of these fan-castings though. "Hey, that guy looks good bald! He should be Lex Luthor!"
Matt: That's definitely a part of it. When it comes to a lot of fanbases, though, I think they would just be happy to see their favourite game or series get the live action treatment. Case in point; "The Witcher". A fairly decent-ish to slightly underwhelming series, in my opinion, but the fan reaction from those who played the games/read the books - friggen nuts!
And to respond to Anonymous and Luke's comments - yah, Zane as Lex Luthor would've been memorable for all the wrong reasons.
As for myself, however, I guess I'm still salty we'll never have Jensen Ackles as Redhood or Nathan Fillion as a "live action" Green Lantern (Even though Ryan Reynolds, theoretically speaking, is an ideal choice).
Mitchell: Reynolds isn't really an ideal choice though.
Matt: Perhaps I give him more leeway than most, but with his recent output, I imagine Reynolds could've been good in the part with a much better film/script.
And heck...he already rebooted one of his superhero roles with Wade, so why not Hal?
Apparently WB is looking for a black Superman for its new reboot, and now I really, really want Aldis Hodge in the role.
Luke & Psifonian:
Yeah after some cursory research, it seems that is probably bunk. I'll say due to imdb's recent and sudden procuring of the most random of release dates, I'll admit the first release by country of origin might be the better way to go overall, though I think I'll stick with my old standard for the sake of my own sanity.
Brazinterma:
My predictions have not changed.
Anonymous:
Actually due to a lot of his post-Breaking Bad work, my view of Cranston overall as an actor has been tempered, as he's got a hammy tendency in him that is pretty bad (most recently seen in The One and Only Ivan) so it in no way would be a slam dunk in my view. He could be good, but I will agree that even that is a lazy casting (Mark Strong even lazier) because...guys....anyone can shave their head.
Louis: I slightly resent the idea of Strong being a lazy choice; He's been more than fine in his villain roles, and he's of the exact stature and presence as most Luthor portrayals, and he's someone who it couldn't really hurt to give more high profile parts to.
But well enough, I guess: Who would you cast first in the part, Louis?
Louis: You're absolutely spot on about Cranston and his haminess. It's frustrating because even in what's otherwise a good, grounded performance, he'll have these moments where he just can't help but go a little bit too far.
Louis: Your thoughts on Siskel and Ebert's Baby's Day Out review.
5 minutes into French Exit and I wanna quit
Louis: If you've rewatched Promising Young Woman, could I have your thoughts on the film's ending, and your ratings and thoughts on Greenfield and Lowell.
Mitchell:
Well first off I wasn't really referring to your own choice necessarily and meant no personal attack, rather I was referring to the widespread general fan-casting during that time for both Cranston and Mark Strong. I would say though BECAUSE Strong has so often been cast as the villain, and is known to be quite bald, it makes it a bit lazy. Honestly I felt that way about his casting in Shazam, even though I liked his performance, and in that case he very poorly resembled his comic counterpart, other than being bald, (although Sivana was oddly reworked into a kind of Black Adam anti-Shazam).
Anyways Leonardo DiCaprio I think could've been a meeting of the worlds as kind of amalgam of classic Luther, Mark Zuckerberg and Jordan Belfort, which could've been a treat. For someone perhaps more immediately attainable, and more classical Luther, William Hurt or Ralph Fiennes.
Luke:
A hilarious review, I love Ebert's intensity for what is really dumb movie with his "You should be ashamed of yourself" (no doubt inspired by his childhood trauma involving the Mickey Rooney movie) and Siskel's pride in owning his position on those ground, with his own memorable "They'll turn into Roger Ebert". A great example of why their reviews were so good, because they could be entertainment all by themselves.
Tahmeed:
Haven't yet though I intend to soon.
Louis: No offense taken, in that case. And I got to admit - not many people would've said DiCaprio, so it would be interesting to see at least.
Speaking of this topic, are there any comic book characters you would still like to see in their own live action film? I've brought up Booster Gold a while back, but I also wouldn't mind seeing the likes of Raven, Static or Spider Gwen as the leads of their movies.
Denzel was apparently on the shortlist for Luthor, and that would have certainly been interesting.
Mitchell:
Booster Gold & Blue Beetle (But really just Justice League J.M. Dematteis Keith Giffen style)
Hit-Man (Easily Garth Ennis's best work, I don't care what anyone says)
Bishop
Swamp-Thing (Though by someone by like Robert Eggers)
Robert:
That could've been interesting, of course we're all talking about a movie we know was going to be terrible. Side note, I do rather like the rumored idea of him being the MCU Magneto.
Post a Comment