Paddy Considine did not receive an Oscar nomination for portraying Morell in A Room For Romeo Brass.
This film marks the film debut of Paddy Considine, an actor who is fascinating in that he both seemingly can fit into a many different sorts of roles with ease, yet also is extremely idiosyncratic in his presence. This debut pretty much speaks to this truth and honestly this is a stunning debut. The idea of his presence is part of the greatness of this performance as Considine easily makes you believe one thing when his character first appears. This as the film follows largely two teenage friends "Knocks" and the titular Romeo as they go about their lives, Considine's Morell first appearing as he helps the two boys by chasing off two of their bullies before giving the boys a ride home. Everything about this creation that is Morell is already just amazing work by Considine. This in his unique manner that speaks towards some sort of lack of mental normalcy. These mannerisms are truly just consistent and part of his performance. This in his way of speaking that is almost as he's making these little specifying moments, and speaking in a way as a man who needs to focus quiet a bit into a singular thought before speaking towards others. This though with his physical manner though that is entirely his own and as successful in creating Morell. This difficult posture of his performance where the man stands with a discomfort and awkwardness. A tightness in Considine's performance that shows this sloppy way of a man who is never sure how to stand, and also cannot be sure where to look.
Considine's mannerisms here are brilliant and his performance though goes much further than in crafting that initial perspective of Morell, who despite helping in a violent situation, at first successfully seems like this older, imperfect, mentor type for the boys. This as Considine is quite endearing in expressing his friendship to the boys, and even more so in his random way of suddenly speaking his affection for one of their sister's. Considine's quite amazing in that he finds this perfect balance between being completely awkward in his manner but also being kind of strangely charming in how pure this awkwardness seems at first. When he initial tries to flirt with said sister by basically saying if it would be okay to instantly ask someone to be with them. Considine's delivery is perfection as he is so sincere in the statement while also creating the complete sense of the obliviousness of the awkward potential creepiness of it. This is followed by the boys "helping" Morell by dressing him up in a ridiculous costume to ask out the sister to which almost immediately causes Morell to get laughed out. Considine is great in again as he approaches this scene with such a lack of understanding of the moment initially, and speaks so generously his lines of attempted flirtation. His moment of realization then is genuinely heartbreaking because there is this innocence about the situation in Considine's reactions. He shows a man who really had no idea what he was doing and in turn shows the cruelty there is in bringing such a man, with such a lack of self-awareness, to a situation of overt mockery.
We seem to get over this and again Considine creates some truly excellent scenes that are hard to watch, but in the right way. This as he makes Morell so believably consistent whether that seem some of the possibly warmer moments of speaking to the boys with his attempts at friendship, or his more overtly awkward moments to continuing to romance the sister in his own way. Considine's delivery is always in that way of these specific statements where in each he shows the man speaking with his unique way of realizing the words as they come out of him. This also while also showing the sort of difficult understanding of comprehending those around him. Considine is great in showing the attempt but also the failure in this creating this curious and fascinating combination between bluntness and real a timidness. This creating a powerful sense of a man who can't naturally interact but also really wants to. The mental lack of wellness of Morell though begins to realize itself more darkly particularly a moment where Morell inquires why Knocks had played the previous prank upon him. Considine begins the conversation with this that same blunt awkwardness in his delivery however at first this just seems inquisitive. The sense of hurt is under surface but mostly the man seems to be prodding for understanding. When Knocks can't come up with something Morell would accept he brings a knife and overtly threatens the boy. Considine is downright terrifying because how equally honest he is in this moment in showing the same time of lack of understanding. This though fashioned through a threat that Considine delivers with such shocking intensity.
Considine's work then becomes not even a ticking time bomb, but rather just explosive that are always primed, being able to be set off maybe by anything. This as Considine shows that Morell can swing back towards a more genial manner, however all of it he delivers in this same way of showing the man who is always drifting between different edges of his personality and mental difficulty with handling the reality in front him. This as moments of delivering military like monologues to the titular Romeo, or completely failing with the sister, after seemingly making some progress, Considine emphasizing this all in the state of man who has no idea of how to interact with the world. When this failure to interact though comes to ahead it is with violence that he responds. Considine makes this so natural feeling in the moments of swinging towards this violence. There is such a visceral power in Considine's work as he shows it to be this sort of instinctual defense of Morell's towards handling anything that doesn't make sense or work for him. Considine's work effectively becomes quite disturbing by expressing this kind of a man who can seem harmless in one moment then nearly a killer in the next. Considine portraying all the behavior, whether it is awkwardly attempting to seduce the sister, or attempting to murder a man with hammer, Considine shows it to be on the same broken wavelength that is Morell's mind. Considine making sense of this mess of a man, which does more than creating just a striking character in this film. It creates this particularly potent realization of this one of a kind type of character who feels so tangible. Crafting this broken personality that manages to be both heartbreaking and terrifying, and this simply is an incredible debut turn.
89 comments:
KNEW IT. So glad you loved him, one of the great debuts methinks. Thoughts and ratings for the rest of the cast?
Your top 10 debut performances?
Does anyone know how I can watch this?
Calvin:
Shim & Marshall - 3.5(I think both deliver on giving natural performance that have a low key but believable energy to them. They're work is often taking things in stride, or the under reaction towards something, however they are performed well as a teenage kind of way of bottling up tension or trauma.)
McClure - 3.5(Liked her performance as I felt she balanced a nice very specific chemistry with Considine. This as she grants the sense of an overt sympathy in just a feeling sorry sort of way, but also possibly more at times when Morell is finding the right things to say for once. This against though naturally reacting into moments of just disbelief at his extreme reactions.)
Hall, Harper, Ford & Higgins - 3(All are good in showing different sides of the adults struggling in their own ways, while also just being sensibly down to earth in an effective low key way.)
Hoskins - 3(I'm guessing he was doing some sort of favor given how little there was of him, however I did like his warm supportive presence as brief as his appearance was.)
Marcus:
You can find it on youtube.
Remember when you had no fives for 2000 Supporting Actor?
Extraordinary work from one of the best British actors working today.
I went ahead and watched The Harder They Fall. It’s certainly more than a little entertaining, I think I wish Jeymes Samuel had been a little bolder with his stylizations.
The cast is good, standouts are Stanfield, Majors and Beetz.
Michael: ratings for the cast (if you do rating)?
I've always liked Considine, and since this film is available on youtube, there's a good chance I'll end up checking it out.
On a different note, I recently watched two "Dragonball" films back to back - "Battle of the Gods" and "Ressurection F". They were both fine, and I'll say the former really benefited from a fun and interesting villain (Beerus). To be perfectly honest, though, I do prefer the "Broly" movie over both.
Just wanted to say that my review for Mulholland Drive is out and those who want to read it can!
Sean: If someone said that they think O'Toole in LoA should have won over Peck in TKAM, people would go on and on how Peck's performance was objectively better.
Seriously though, both performances are legendary, but I can see why some would prefer O'Toole over Peck, maybe because he plays one of the most complex characters ever. I do prefer O'Toole myself.
Chris Pratt is voicing Garfield. Meh, generic choice again.
Louis: Your top 25 favorite cinematographers, in no particular order.
8000S: I swear the jokes are writing themselves with all these Chris Pratt voicovers
Matthew:
Majors-4.5
Elba-3.5 (Though possibly has rewatch value)
Beetz-4/4.5
King-4
Stanfield-4.5 (possible upgrade in the cards, it felt like even the film itself was begging for more of him)
Cyler-3
Gathegi-3.5
Lindo-4
Cole-4
Forgot Deadwyler, who’d be a 4.
Sean: I think it's usually more a case of "common consensus" as opposed to straight up objectivity. For example, I've seen a number of Jessica Chastain performances and I'm of the opinion that she - like so many performers - is talented but not infallible. Now I couldn't say for certain, but if someone did a poll during the 2012 best actress field, I'd imagine Chastain and Lawrence would be the two most popular picks; That would likely be the consensus based on them being rising stars, and being in two profitible and generally well received movies. And even though I would disagree with the camp supporting Chastain (Watts is my choice), I can't objectively say they're wrong because theres no quantifiable metric to gauge an actor's performance; It's a matter of exposure to their body of work, and a whole host of personal preferences ranging from the rational to the absurd.
The important thing is film isn't a scientific field where there are concrete methods and analyses about why something works or doesn't. By it's very nature, film is a communicative medium telling a story, and as such, it's inherently subjective from both the film maker's and audience's perspective. There are movies that are near universal in their acclaim, of course, but again that's a matter of a collective agreement within the masses rather than an irrefutable law of nature.
Louis: your Top 10 Oliver Stone directing moments?
Louis: Have you decided how you'd rank Lee Byung-hun's top three performances?
Also watched Nine Days, a film I don't think quite reached its admirable ambition, though when it works it is rather effective and affecting. It is a film more of moments though I feel rather than completely working on a whole.
Will save Wong and Duke however.
Beetz - 3.5
Skarsgard - 3.5
Hale - 3.5
Ortiz - 3.5
Robert:
Dark times.
Sean:
I can speak at length about objectivity/subjectivity when it comes to film. Short answer, film is mostly subjective. Sounds like you might've been dealing with misuse of the term objective anyways, which sounds like it was being used as an adjective for emphasis, which it should not be used as in most circumstances. Anyway, I say "mostly" because there are some objective elements, mostly technical, but you can say it about some storytelling elements however the latter is typically highly specific. What is certainly not objective, is when it comes to "best of the best" and there you get what is a certain wannabe "top brass" internet film "critics" who jam down a singular opinion and become pugnacious when it is questioned. Some such opinions I personally can't advocate for and sometimes I think speak to a limited view of film and even more limited view of film discussion.
8000's:
Michael Ballhaus
Russell Boyd
Robert Burks
Jack Cardiff
Tonino Delli Colli
Stanley Cortez
Roger Deakins
Bruno Delbonnel
Caleb Deschanel
Robert Elswit
Freddie Francis
Conrad L. Hall
Robert Krasker
Emmanuel Lubezki
Kazuo Miyagawa
Asakazu Nakai
Sven Nykvist
Vittorio Storaro
Robert Richardson
Gregg Toland
John Toll
Haskell Wexler
Gordon Willis
Freddie Young
Vilmos Zsigmond
Tim:
1. X - JFK
2. Zapruder Film - JFK
3. Garrison's breaking down Oswald's story - JFK
4. Opening - JFK
5. Examining the Plaza -JFK
6. Examining the gun - JFK
7. Clay Shaw's Testimony - JFK
8. Elias's Death - Platoon
9. Final Battle - Platoon
10. Final Monologue - Talk Radio
Anonymous:
1. A Bittersweet Life
2. I Saw the Devil
3. Joint Security Area
Louis: Your thoughts on the scenes from the original Cape Fear:
"Cady beats up Diane Taylor"
"Cody and Bowden at the bar"
"Cady threatens the Bowden family on the phone"
Louis: You could say a bullet was dodged given that Mitchum got the role of Cady and not Steiger.
Louis: If different actors played each of Peter Seller's individual roles in Dr. Strangelove, how would that change each character's category placement? (the doctor would obviously be supporting of course)
Louis: Are you seeing Spencer today?
Louis: Thoughts on the Nine Days cast?
Saw Eternals. Have to say, the most eventful thing that happened was someone leaving the theater with the door open and a guy closing it after like, 5 minutes of the outside light ruining the movie, and everyone thanked the guy by clapping really loudly.
I guess I liked the movie though, for a MCU film it was very different tone and looks-wise.
Watched Spencer, definitely a huge fan and largely loved it.
I saw The Harder They Fall. Fun pulp. King and Stanfield MVP's.
Calvin: ratings for the cast of Spencer?
Anonymous: ratings for the cast of Eternals (if you do ratings)?
i just saw The Rose Tattoo, whoch i really enjoyed. A Williams story with James Wong Howe giving his all, what's not to like?
Magnani - 5
Pavan - 3.5
Lancaster - 3.5
Tim: 1955 was a pretty damn good year for cinematography. Night of the Hunter, The Rose Tattoo, Bad Day at Black Rock, Les Diaboliques, The Big Combo, All That Heaven Allows..
Everybody's opinions on the following 1988 cast of Barton Fink?
Rick Moranis as Barton Fink
John Candy/Robbie Coltrane as Charlie Meadows
Charles Durning as Jack Lipnick
Meryl Streep as Audrey Taylor
Nicol Williamson as WP Mayhew
Eric Bogosian as Ben Geisler
Bob Hoskins as Lou Breeze
Directed by William Friedkin/still Coens
Ytrewq Wertyq: Honestly, I could easily see Hoskins and Durning swapped in those roles.
Friedkin directing Barton Fink sounds odd to me.
Watched Spencer...hmmm...well I definitely liked it more than several of my fellow film goers "I came here for Kristen Stewart, but this is the worst movie ever" was yelled out as some mainstream moviegoers clashed hard against the art house.
The aesthetic is amazing, that must be distinctly understood, and there were many moments I loved, those honestly that were the smaller less grandiose swings within the off-kilter approach, like the scenes with Diana and her kids I really liked. Largely I liked it via absorbing the atmosphere, though I wouldn't have minded a bit more of a tangible sense of the royal family here depicted as one note cold fiends, even if it was a tangible sense as one note cold fiends. When Steven Knight's script veers into unexpected directions, I honestly thought is where the film suffered the most, particularly one extremely labored idea that felt forced to me, and then a big moment fell flat as it came off as goofy rather than haunting(I hope it works better for everyone else). A separate unexpected moment also was just frankly felt completely unearned, and just kind of random given how little the character was in the film. Still its virtues are most virtuous, particularly its central performance, which I said I was more than willing to wait and see if Stewart went to the next level, and we have arrived.
Saving Spall.
Stewart - 5
Farthing - 3
Harris - 3.5
Hawkins - 3
Gonet - 3
Louis: Thoughts on the cast.
I liked the film overall more than you but I do agree Knight overplayed his hand a bit at certain points. Beginning to realise he’s a bit of a wildcard kind of guy than I’d previously imagined, between this and Serenity, and while I thought it paid off I can definitely see why some might not have for you.
Not gonna lie - it's rather satisyfing to see Stewart get her first 5 on this blog. I've never been as enamored with her as some, but she's been trying her damndest to escape the "Twilight" infamy, and it's been paying off for a good half decade now. As a performer, she's in the sort of Ben Affleck vein for me where I recognize her weaker work, but am still more than willing to support her strongest outings.
8000's:
Quite vicious for the time in particular, but just fantastic acting from Mitchum in the scene as the pleasure he exhibits seems entirely wrapped around the act of violence.
Again why Mitchum is so great, and such great casting, is what is so great about him in the scene is how much ease he brings into it, and in turn how much he gets under the skin about it. He shows all this comes easy for Cady.
Ooooh, the phone scene is just amazing in every thing about his delivery in just the sheer joy of the threat that Mitchum brings, and is terrifying by showing it all as fun for him.
Yes, though to be fair to Steiger, pre-Oscar win he was usually good if not great, like Forest Whitaker though the win seemed to have turned him into a near permanent ham. Mitchum though was just better casting, and I think made the part far more skin crawling because he's outwardly charming something that isn't the case for Steiger.
Marcus:
All supporting, Mandrake would be the closest, however Sellers becomes lead because of the three roles.
Anonymous:
Well all four of the listed cast members, all play interesting one note variations in a way, and I think well in that variation. Each are playing on a different idea and doing it well, because I like that each create a sense of the emotional force within it. Whether that be Beetz's life loving manner, Skarsgard forceful spirit, Hale's sardonic reactions or Ortiz's quietly fearful ones. Each create a sense of different sides of really what a human can be quite remarkably.
Ytrewq:
A 3 year premake seems a little weird to me, I mean all of the 91 players would still be appropriate.
Luke:
Start with the easy ones.
Farthing, Gonet - (Both are largely playing a note of intense coldness, and do that well enough.)
Harris - (Interesting to see him as someone not playing an intensely cold or vicious note, nor is he actually being the regal one in these proceedings. I liked the humanity that Harris brought bringing a warmth within his performance even in the moments where he delivers a word of caution in each moment. Harris finding a natural kindness within his performance and works particularly well in contrast to what Spall is doing.)
Hawkins - (I mean I think she's fine, however the whole notion that is given her character is so out of left field, I don't know what to make of its inclusion. Hawkins I'll say is more than fine with what she does with it, but again, definitely felt more like Steven Knight of Serenity there, than of Locke or Peaky Blinders.)
Calvin:
I'll admit a couple of his choices here, a lot of choices in A Christmas Carol and all of his choices in Serenity are that of a screenwriter who believes he can do no wrong...so maybe it was better when he was a bit lesser known.
Luke:
Stewart - (It is rather interesting that both her and Portman's performance in Jackie seem to start from a very artificial point that being the extremely distinct accent of the titular character, however in both circumstances that is a side effect of accuracy, and a credit to both performances you quickly accept this as the character as distinct as it is. Stewart's performance is so much of the humanity of the film, and I think often gets over some of the limitations of the often clinical feelings style of the film-making. This as Stewart beautifully embodies this quiet of anxiety and manages to so powerfully modulate it throughout her performance. This as she grants consistently such a palatable sense of Diana's experience as this constant state, and in turn there are better moments, worse moments, and also just the constant sense of a mental kind of torture within the situation. Honestly my favorite moments are the ones where she is with her son, because of how great Stewart is showing the genuine joy she has in her moments of motherhood, while still in these scenes giving a sense of the pain she is going through, she is also smoothing over this anxiety in moment. She finds the fantastic layers in these moments. Of course this is along the scenes of her full moments of despair and desperation that are brilliantly performed in bringing such intensity towards it and showing it as something that is penetrating her natural state in such a painful way. This while just also creating the "image" of the character as well in fashioning that certain style, while portraying the required modesty as well. I have to say, she even was a shining part of the scenes of the film that I don't think worked. Whether it be the overly calculated ending, that seems out of a different movie honestly, or that scene with Hawkins, or even the random nightmare scenes. In every one of these scenes, no matter how forced or absurd they may seem, Stewart maintained a sense of humanity and character in them that was most impressive. Even when the film wasn't working for me, her performance was, and along with the technical elements, she carried me through the rougher patches. While I have thought other reactions towards Stewart's dramatic turns were just a little overstated, though they showed promise, this is true fulfillment of that promise, and I'm all for any praise that it gets.)
Louis what do you think of Spencer's Oscar chances?
Anonymous:
Honestly I think it could get the same exact nomination haul as Jackie (Actress, Costume Design and Score). I don't foresee it, at the moment at least, being a picture/director nominee, as frankly Jackie was more accessible in some ways. It should be in the running for production design and Cinematography, however those categories have the potential for being quite stacked, with potential best picture nominees. I do think Stewart can go the distance, even if I don't think the reaction I heard will be an isolated incident.
Anonymous:
Avoid lists that would comment on potential ongoing rankings.
I tok saw Spencer. Can’t fully speak to the aesthetic quality because the screen/projector at my theater was fucked up, but I definitely agree it doesn’t land too much outside Stewart’s immaculate performance. (She’s 110% winning, we all know this.)
Do we?
I mean a lot of people said the same for Portman and we all know how that turned out. Is there some additional factor that I am overlooking?
Kind of a random question, but of the remaining films we have left for 2021, which performances in Lead Actress & Supporting Actress have the most potential to receive a 5?
You can also mention films that have came out earlier this year that you guys haven’t seen yet with a lead actress or supporting actress performance that has a strong possibility of scoring a 5.
Anonymous: Kristen Stewart does have the ingenue/welcome-to-the-club thing going on in her favor, compared to Portman, who already had already won before and was more established.
Louis: As you mentioned Sellers becoming lead because of the multiple roles, what's the reasoning for Alec Guinness being supporting for Kind Hearts and Coronets.
Anonymous: I’m not saying she *will* win, but she’s already on strong enough ground to at least get her first nom.
Anonymous: You need a lot more momentum and an 'undeniable' narrative to win a second Oscar in the same category.
Anonymous:
Well I always knew Stone was winning that one anyways...
Regardless Portman was a previous winner though anyways, so they're not quite in the same box, plus Stewart isn't going against a Stone here, she is the "ingenue" as the awards analyst types like to say. Stewart checks many boxes, even if her film might not. She has the ink, the role, the narrative.
Marcus:
Well Sellers has the roles that are most lead in Mandrake and Muffley, they "lead" their sections, one guy playing both makes him lead, along with Dr. Strangelove just supplementing that a bit.
Not a single one of Guinness's characters leads a single section of the film, they are all supporting characters. Also Dennis Price is there being unquestionably the lead of the film.
What makes the difference between Carey Mulligan's race and the one Kristen Stewart is having here?
Mulligan really seemed to have all these narratives in her favor but it somehow ended up being such a divided race. I never would imagined Mcdormand to win her third over Mulligan at the start of the awards race
Anonymous:
McDormand was the star of the best picture winner, that seems very unlikely to be a factor this time around. Also McDormand benefited HEAVILY from the lack of most of the traditional campaigning last year, since Mulligan couldn't really do much more than McDormand's zero campaigning anyways. Also let's not forget, we jumped on Mulligan only after Promising Young Woman was being accepted at all, at first her nomination seemed like an outside chance. Spencer probably will do worse overall that PYW, but the role actually is friendlier for the win than Mulligan's was. I'm not saying the race is done, but Stewart's in a good position at this point.
Saw the French Dispatch. LOVED every glorious Wes Anderson moment of it.
Murray-3.5
Wilson-3.5
Del Toro-4
Swinton-4
Brody-4
Seydoux-3.5
McDormand-4
Chalamet-3.5
Khourdri-3
Wright-5
Amalric-3.5
Park-4
Schreiber-3
Norton-3
Dafoe-3
Really liked Eternals, even though I get the issues, but hey, I was a huge fan. Ma Dong-seok and Barry Keoghan MVPs.
Louis: Your thoughts on Miyagawa's cinematography and Kurosawa's editing in Rashomon?
I've also heard nothing but great things about Miyagawa's color work in Ozu's Floating Weeds. The man sure did work with some great directors. Make sure you watch that when you get to 1959 bonus rounds.
You could also say that aside from being one of the greatest directors and screenwriters of all time, Kurosawa was also one of the greatest editors.
Calvin: Your ratings for the cast of Eternals and Spencer?
I can only imagine the reactions if Stewart wins the Oscar for Spencer, lol.
Anonymous:
Chan - 3.5
Madden - 3.5
Jolie - 4
Hayek - 3
Harington - 3
Nanjiani - 3
McHugh - 3.5
Henry - 4
Ridloff - 4
Keoghan - 4
Ma - 4
Patel - 3
Stewart - 5
Spall - 3.5
Harris - 4
Farthing - 3
Hawkins - 3.5
Check out "Old Henry," which is basically Tim Blake Nelson's "Unforgiven."
I’d actually put Brody and Chalamet over Del Toro and McDormand myself. I will agree that the film was delightful and might be Anderson’s best shot film.
Thought the French Dispatch was simply wonderful. I feel it is exactly what you'd expect as a film about three stories of various French interests through the lens of journalism from Anderson, and that is entirely the joy of it.
Saving Wright.
Murray - 3.5
Wilson - 3.5
Del Toro - 4
Swinton - 3
Brody - 4
McDormand - 3.5
Chalamet - 3.5
Amalric - 3.5
Khoudri - 3
Park - 3.5
Seydoux - 3.5
Past that I'd categorize the other performances as cameos, though I pretty much enjoyed just about every one of them.
Also saw The French Dispatch last night and thought it was wonderful as well. Pretty much agreed with Louis' cast ratings and I'd give Wright a 4.5.
Louis: Without Peaky Blinders, do you think Murphy would have stayed in the 'Guy Pearce' zone of being a great actor without a breakout.
Anonymous: Well, at least he had Batman Begins, and unlike Pearce, at least Nolan kept casting him.
I actually think Murphy's performance in Blinders is strangely underrated, given that it gets derided as being a 'fuckboy show' online.
Tahmeed: I'm guessing the dapperness of the cast's wardrobes and haircuts is the main focus of such derision.
Speaking of Nolan, Emily Blunt, Matt Damon & Robert Downey Jr. are joining the cast of his Oppenheimer biopic.
Especially stoked about the latter working with Nolan.
Luke:
Murray - (Appropriate curmudgeonly type you'd want from him, although largely there for presence, liked his scene with Wright a great deal where he brought some great low key sort of hidden warmth in it.)
Wilson - (There to do his thing, which works great as basically playing the part as a television presenter.)
Del Toro - (If someone thinks his wolfman growl is a little much, completely understand, however I loved it, and frankly felt it was a much better wolf-man portrayal than his actual portrayal of the wolf-man. Del Toro otherwise I think brings the ideal wild man energy here that is both kind of matter of fact, and properly deranged all the same.)
Swinton - (More or less what you'd expect, nothing wrong with that though.)
Brody - (Probably the biggest surprise performance wise, however really enjoyed his exasperated comic energy he brought here and thought he worked as a great foil to both Del Toro and Seydoux's performances. Brody bringing the right sort of annoyed straight man quality while also conveying this kind of sense greed in him through every bit of it.)
McDormand - (Like Swinton pretty much what you'd expect, though I thought she got to a little more. And I guess a reminder, though not really necessary, that she can still do her lighter style presence of a performance entirely.)
Chalamet - (I mean his look does a lot of work for him, but I thought he made quite the achievement in that he was not completely obnoxious in a role that is written in a way that could've been. This largely through bringing this sort of lack of conviction along with his sense of conviction at every point, especially love his little reactions towards a comment made by McDormand's character that is subtly hilarious. Actually think I'll raise him to a 4.)
Amalric - (Mostly there just for a series of reactions that are most expertly done.)
Khoudri - (Essentially the female version of Chalamet's performance, but doesn't land as much, though fine.)
Park - (He has to have one of the most random filmographies in a way,
though he typically makes an impact. Here in bringing this sort of stoic quality though, then wonderfully though bringing this certain passionate vulnerability as well.)
Seydoux - (I am a touch suspicious of Seydoux as I do feel her performances all are a little too similar, having said that her presence certainly works here in bringing this blunt deadpan energy here however.)
8000's:
For some reason I believe I've given those thoughts before.
I will most certainly be checking out the Floating Weeds remake in 59.
Anonymous:
Hmm, even with it, film wise he still is though maybe just a little more prominent at this point, and Oppenheimer (since apparently he is playing the lead role) could do a lot for him.
Psifonian:
I'll certainly check it out.
Park’s final scene with Wright is one of the most quietly devastating scenes I’ve seen all year.
Brody is actually the MVP for me after sleeping on it. His line reading of “I think it stinks!” might be my favorite of the year.
Jeffrey Wright gave my favourite performance, but the biggest laughs I got came from Wilson and Chalamet.
Louis: Have you watched any TV lately?
Something pretty bad for my confidence in Actor's knowledge happened to me today. I saw Zodiac, for the first time in what must be 5 or 6 years. My parents were looking at the actor of Sgt. Mulanax and said "He was in Shooter, right?" I have not seen Shooter in years either, so i wasn't sure; so i looked up the actor (i thought) finding out that something must be wrong, as he apparently wasn't in Zodiac either.
Long Story short, my parents we're right. And i had been watching the film, looking at Elias Koteas and *facepalm* believing the whole time it was Mark Strong ...
Tim: When I was younger, I used to get Sigourney Weaver and Susan Sarandon mixed up for some wierd reason - these things happen to everyone, dude.
oh, I'm sure it does, but as someone who spend more time with that movie than withsome relatively close friends, i might need to get my Thin Red Line fan ID removed
Tim: If it makes you feel any better, I've had much worse brain-farts of that sort. Here's the worst of all of those...
Before I properly got into movies, I remember going to the cinema with my Dad and watching The Big Short. I thought the poster looked cool and since I saw Brad Pitt's name on it, I decided we should check it out, since I had never seen a movie with Brad Pitt. (which at the risk of losing my privilege of being on this blog, I actually really liked and still do.)
A couple of years later I wanted to get my mom to watch the movie with me, and I kept telling her that Brad Pitt was great it in. So, we watch it; and for a fair chunk of the movie, my mom thought it was odd how Brad Pitt hadn't showed up yet. That really confused me, as I pointed out to her that we had been seeing Brad Pitt this whole time. My mom didn't believe we were seeing Brad Pitt, however, which led to me checking The Big Short's wiki page to figure out what she was talking about.
Long story short, I thought Steve Carell was Brad Pitt the entire time.
Emi: In fairness, Pitt did look notably different in "The Big Short" from most of his other roles - it's not often you see him with a beard and bangs.
Louis: Your thoughts on the last two Succession episodes, your MVPs for each, and your thoughts on the scene where all 4 siblings discuss Kendall's actions?
Louis: When you get to the 1941 bonus rounds, could you also review Robinson in The Sea Wolf and Cagney in The Strawberry Blonde? Cagney is easily a 5 for me for that performance. He really shines in that scene where he reunites with Amy and in the scene where he visits his dying father.
Mitchell: Not gonna lie, I would love a film where Sarandon and Weaver play sisters.
Anonymous:
Finished What We Do in the Shadows, which I sadly thought was altogether a disappointment this season, the performers did what they could, but the material just wasn't there.
Finished Scenes From a Marriage, which has strong performances from Chastain and Isaac, however pales in comparison to the original, and at a certain point it seemed like the showrunner just gave up on trying to pave his own path with the material, though it is entirely fine on its own.
Also Curb Your Enthusiasm, which is what it always is.
And of course Succession.
Tahmeed:
Thought both episodes were fantastic. The second episode I felt properly gave the fallout among the siblings, with the sequence you spoke of being the absolute highlight in that we get see them are their best and at their worst in a single scenes. In that you get moments where you think they could work it out, but then you get Kendall as fully petty kid angry at his siblings with lashing out at his lowest blows each time. Episode 3 I think rightfully wasted no time, and took the table setting of the previous episode, and properly shook it up by showing the moves. The moves here with the fights between Kendall and Shiv, being fantastic, also loved the moments of Tom and Greg, hilarious as always, trying to calibrate themselves as the inside/outside players they are.
MVPs
Episode 2: Jeremy Strong
Episode 3: Matthew Macfadyen (Especially for his scene with Strong, and his reaction towards Greg's watch remark.)
8000's:
Those reviews seem quite likely.
Louis: What are the chances of you watching Squid Game? Seeing it's so popular and all, lol.
Anonymous:
I probably should watch it, but it has been a little irksome hearing from so many people how great it was, some of the same people I couldn't have paid to get to sit down and watch Memories of Murder.
Post a Comment