Nawazuddin Siddiqui did not receive an Oscar nomination for portraying Ramanna in Raman Raghav 2.0.
Reviewing Nawazuddin Siddiqui for the third time, and a rather different performance as an affable co-worker or a nearly defeated gangster, he now explores one of the most sinister sorts one can depict on screen that of the serial killer. Although the film has a lot of flash to it in terms of the direction, that could theoretically grant a pseudo-romanticized vision of such a figure, Siddiqui's performance eschews such notions. Siddiqui as Ramanna has a dynamic presence that dominates the screen when he is the central focus of a given scene. He has this innate intensity within his performance that carries with it the killer's intention, to the point the whole notion of it is something that he reflects as a kind of ease. When he speaks upon his personal philosophy, Siddiqui is captivating by making the demented statements wholly logical in Ramanna's own mind, he presents them as what is just a truth to him and is quite effectively disturbing by making it all something that hardly even crosses his mind as difficult.
Siddiqui's performance is consistent in this depiction as we follow him on his route of terror where he goes and kills his sister and her family. Siddiqui's performance throughout this sequence is effectively chilling by how matter of fact he plays every moment of it. When he questions what his sister has spoken to him, Siddiqui's voice is calm and almost in a strange way satisfied as he discusses his violent nature even when he was younger. When he suddenly begins the killing Siddiqui doesn't portray it as a frenzy rather is eerie by the way he just physically performs it as this innate action from the man. He shows the man just doing something he does and that is what is so unnerving about it. There isn't a hint of hesitation or even concern, even as he speaks to his nephew before he is about to kill him. He rather has kind of a casual joy about it all as a man who just lives as he does, and murder is merely the way he expresses himself.
The film isn't a crime thriller or a character study of this killer alone. It rather focuses on the connection between Ramanna and the equally morally onerous inspector Raghavan (Vicky Kaushal), and I'll admit this whole aspect I found less engaging. The film depicts both committing crimes with the revelation being essentially their connection in being amoral killers that we see in the climax as Ramanna speaks this to Raghavan. I will say this is compelling as performed by Siddiqui, he is not compelling in this film, more so than I think the whole scenario is as written. I'll admit it is very easy to turn me off a serial killer story when he takes a certain turn, and that was the turn here. It is part of an overarching issue being that when it is away from Siddiqui the film in general is a whole lot less engaging. The reason for being engaging is Siddiqui's performance which is consistently so in the visceral power of his portrayal of the serial killer without a hint of scruples. To the point, I likely would've preferred if it has just committed to a character study all the way, rather than this attempting at some more profound merging that I'll admit I found a bit clunkier. Even though Siddiqui isn't always the focus, he is always striking whenever he is and is the reason to watch the film.
101 comments:
Louis: ratings and thoughts on the cast of Amsterdam?
PS: I hated it too.
For me:
Christian Bale - 1
Margot Robbie - 3
John David Washington - 2
Chris Rock - 2
Anya Taylor-Joy - 2.5
Zoe Saldaña - 2.5
Mike Myers - 1.5
Michael Shannon - 2.5
Timothy Olyphant - 2
Andrea Risenborough - 2.5
Taylor Swift - 2
Matthias Schoenaerts - 2
Alessandra Nivola - 1.5
Rami Malek - 1.5
Robert De Niro - 3
Also, RIP Kevin Conroy
Louis: Ratings and thoughts on the Amsterdam cast.
Just read the news about Kevin Conroy...what the hell? I never would've expected to hear this now, not only because he's not "that" old (66), but also since I had no idea of his cancer diagnosis.
It goes without saying, honestly, but rest in peace Mr. Conroy. You have left an unquestionable mark on voice acting and Batman lore, and I will forever cherish your legacy.
Matthew:
Bale, Myers, Olyphant, Nivola, Malek - 1.5(Those who kind of embrace the weirdness but in turn that just means they embrace the badness of the piece and are just awkward as all hell. All attempting some comic idea and utterly failing to realize it in a way that isn't just tiresome to witness.)
Washington, Rock, Shannon, Swift - 2(Those who are just kind of lost it seems to the point that "blah" best describes their contributions. They are awkward, but in a way where you can practically hear O. Russell's lack of proper direction.)
Schoenaerts, Riseborough, Taylor-Joy, Robbie, Saldana - 2.5(Also mainly lost but there is occasionally at least a second or two of their performances where it seems like they might be almost onto a genuine moment of any kind of reality. Not enough to be good, but less bad.)
De Niro - 3(I'll give him credit in not only does he not sleepwalk he is the only cast member who seems to know what the hell he's actually saying with his lines. It isn't enough to call it anything special from him, but kudos in managing not to fall into the mire here as badly as everyone else.)
RIP Kevin Conroy.
A 1.5 for a Christian Bale performance just doesn’t seem right, though I guess that illustrates how BADLY David O. Russell dropped the ball here.
Siddiqui's terrific here, glad he got a 4.5
Louis: Ratings and thoughts on the rest of the cast?
If you haven’t read this, I recommend it: https://www.dc.com/blog/2022/11/11/read-finding-batman-by-kevin-conroy-j-bone-and-aditya-bidikar
RIP Kevin Conroy. Just devastating.
RIP Kevin Conroy
Louis, your top 10 nawaz acting moments. I would recomend his roles in Talaash, Photograph, Kahaani and Manto.
Okay, today i watched Saving Private Ryan, a movie i always hesitated to call a masterpiece as easily as half the internet does. I could never figure out what to do to actually make it better though, but tonight i think i got it.
I'm just saying this out of principle SPOILERS; but come on, you've all seen it.
So, the problem is in the climactic battle in Ramelle. In that, Jeremy Davies is the only one actually telling us a story there. The other characters are there to fight, then die, and that's it. Before that, one thing i actually like about the film is that the characters are very critical of the mission, saying that it doesn't make sense to possibly sacrifice 8 to safe 1. Tom Sizemore at first is sceptical, but then tells Hanks that maybe this mission is the best thing they will ever do and urges him to keep fighting. That works, let's keep that. Barry Pepper is happy as long as he can pray and kill people, let's keep that. Adam Goldberg didn't have any character traits anyway, so i can use him as i wish.
Edward Burns is the one who urks me. He is the most vocal about how unfair the mission is and even has a fight with Sizemore. When they meet Damon, who doesn't want to go with them, he gets angry and tells him that 2 of his friends died for him. And ... that's it. The biggest opposition in the group has nothing to say about the whole affair afterwards. What, is he just suddenly okay with Damon? I don't get it. He is the second billed actor in the credits and what i just described is his second to last line of dialogue, i sewar to god.
So, this is how i woul re-write it: the first two hours stay basically the same, except for 2 or 3 scenes giving us a little friendship between Burns and Goldberg (and maybe Pepper too).
Then, as they meet Damon, Burns doesn't settle. He gets angry and calls him an ungrateful little brat for wanting to stay, getting up some more friction in the group. Then it's Goldberg who begs him to stay and fight. Not as a threat like Sizemore did, but as a favor among friends.
Then the battle happens, again basically the same. But Burns then sees the dead body of Goldbergand get both sad and angry.
As the germans begin dominating the battle and our characters retreat behind the bridge, it's not just Hanks who stands up, but Damon along with him. The german who was saved by Upham then shoots both. (that, i believe, would also give Davies' Arc a bit more of a punch).
Burns then goes over to both, hiding behind a truck and saves Hanks. Then he looks over: Damon looks at him, begging and pleading for help. Burns thinks, hesitates. A little too long. Another salve hits Damon (granate or bullet, does not matter).
Then the troups come to help, and in his dying breath, Hanks' and Damon' roles are reversed.
Yes, the old man from the bookend is Hanks, not Damon, as that was the definition of cheating in filmmaking anyway.
Then it's Hanks' character who gets the last scene. HE asks his wife wether he was a good person and had lived a good life. and most importantly, repeats his speech from the church scene. That no matter how many he may have saved in his chareer, he remembers the exact number of people he lost ...
Normally, when i do a thought experiment like this i try to stay as close to the original as possible. With this though i arguably changed the entire point of the movie and maybe villafied Burns' character a bit too much.
I don't know, what do you guys think?
Louis: Your thoughts on these scenes from Chinatown.
"Spying on Mulwray at the reservoir"
"Jake takes a photo of Mulwray and the girl"
"Jake and Evelyn at the restaurant"
"Jake tells Evelyn about what happened in Chinatown"
Louis: I know Mads Mikkelsen was the choice for a UK BB/BCS Gus equivalent, but how do you think Christoph Waltz would fare in the part? I could practically SEE him wearing the yellow shirt/tie/khakis in an uptight manner.
Found that while Wakanda Forever has some definite flaws, on the whole found it to be rather compelling and far more powerful than the majority of Marvel's efforts of late.
Wright - 4.5
Nyong'o - 3.5
Gurira - 3.5
Duke - 3.5
Thorne - 3
Coel - 3
Huerta - 3
Freeman - 2.5
Louis-Dreyfus - 2.5
Bassett - 4
? - 3.5
Tim: You have reminded me that I still haven't watched "Saving Private Ryan" (Sacrilege, I know), and that out of 1998's best actor line up, I've only seen Nolte.
Louis, thoughts on the Wakanda Forever cast.
Tahmeed:
Kaushal - 4(I think he is effective enough in his side of things but it is limited by being far less interesting. I think the character needed more of a descent in ways, as he's too amoral from the get go, and I think more so an Insomnia (Nolan's version) could've made this more effective as the whole. He's more than fine in being kind of the slick brute in contrast of Siddiqui's work, the man who can hide in better by just kind never exactly being less than psychopathic himself.)
I thought the cast was fine otherwise, but I think it is a weakness of the film that the other parts are so limited.
Unknown:
1. Early Speech - Raman Raghav 2.0
2. Final speech - Raman Raghav 2.0
3. Interrogating his sister's family - Raman Raghav 2.0
4. Final message to his nephew - Raman Raghav 2.0
5. Random murder - Raman Raghav 2.0
6. Somber victory - Gangs of Wasseypur
7. Being chewed out - The Lunchbox
8. Trying to make a good impression - The Lunchbox
9. Dealing with losses - Gags of Wasseypur
10. Trying to help - The Lunchbox
Tim:
Personally I've always felt they should've just excised the framing device altogether. As someone who doesn't love the film, particularly from a writing standpoint, I will defend some of the final action, as I think not every death can be poetic, for example I think Sizemore's just works as part of the carnage effectively. I think what happens to Pepper's character feels right as basically God's instrument of death, as he sees it, coming face to face with an instrument of war that shuts down such a belief quite bluntly. Goldberg's character is limited to begin with, in turn I think his particularly visceral death is the most memorable part of it, and key to Upham's story. I don't think you can really kill Damon, because it becomes too much of a lie of the promise of the premise, unless Burns's was more so a true protagonist as well. I do agree his character isn't particularly well served, but I guess I never cared as much because I've always felt his performances was the weakest of the case.
Bryan:
I mean I could see it potentially, though his attempt at subdued evil in No Time to Die left much to be desired. He can be subtle, Zero Theorem, so it would be interesting to see.
8000's:
Both of the spying scenes I think are where you see the strength of Polanski's direction because he grants you a sense of the procedure in the right way, and makes it captivating in the act. A procedure that usually was given less focus in old film noir, here showing you specifically what the PI actually does.
The restaurant scene is great acting from Dunaway and Nicholson, the latter of whom you see just how much his early work was about being subdued actually. Nicholson though is doing expository work, but he tells you about Jake in the scene. He tells you that he can be precise as a PI and does have technique. There is also though the sense of guilt for the death in his performance, even as he is business in speech, Nicholson shows a hidden empathy as the man who really does want to know why the man died. Dunaway on the other hand is perfectly mysterious while also still showing the edges of the truth of Evelyn, particularly in her hesitation in pronouncing Cross, which on initial watch (and what Jake sees) could be hiding culpability, whereas on second watch it's hiding her very painful connection there.
The Chinatown scene, which becomes the cruelest strike on Jake by the end of it, is again great acting from Nicholson as he's so quiet in revealing what is such a sincere wound the man has over it all, and you see beneath the callous swagger there is someone who cares. In this instances the man speaking of the his failures just as he's moving towards making the same mistakes.
Anonymous:
Wright - (I'll just say that she delivers on the promise and the challenge of needing to take over. Not through what I would say is easy substitution but rather alteration of the task. This including a severe alteration of character, however something I think Wright naturally realizes from still having shades of the happy go lucky snarker, but now hidden away by the weight of tragedy and the world.)
Nyong'o - (A fine reprise and presence as to be expected I think.)
Gurira - (Consistently good once again, even her major plot point was slightly muddled, she is always good in bringing the right charisma and intensity in equal measure.)
Duke - (While I think they kind merged two characters in one, as he goes from comedic to very stoic from scene to scene almost randomly, I will say Duke certainly delivered on both aspects quite effectively even with the slightly confusing writing for him.)
Thorne - (She is enjoyable enough even if I think the film would've maybe benefitted from re-working things to take her out of the film.)
Coel - (A fine addition but doesn't really get too much to do.)
Huerta - (I'll say my score is actually low for him because I think he does deliver on enough innate intensity here for Namor. He's fine when he's being on Namor's good side, but I think he needed more of an innately intimidation factor to his work. Someone you are genuinely fearful of just by his mere presence before he does anything. Huerta's a little too light about the role at times, and falls a bit short because of that.)
Freeman - (Should've been cut and his American accent here is still wonky.)
Louis-Dreyfus - (I don't know what she's going for in this role exactly but it is not working for me.)
Bassett - (It was fortuitous for Coogler that they had a rather powerful actress with Bassett in this role that was really pretty functional at best in the first film. She delivers though on a genuine intensity here that she balances well between a sense of emotional empathy and just a genuine ferocious command.)
Louis: Have you ever watched Exosquad or Reboot? I've read many things about how the former was quite mature for its time, even having a lot of characters die, and Reboot was animated by the same people behind Beast Wars.
I have not.
Kinda agree on Huerta honestly, I liked him more but definitely think he was overshadowed by Bassett and Wright in their scenes together, for example. And yes, Freeman and Louis-Dreyfus could've been cut out altogether and the film would've honestly benefited (I do think Thorne serves a bit more of a purpose but again the new introductions were mostly my least favourite part of the film whereas its strengths lay in building off the foundations of the first).
How are we all feeling on the category placement for Gleeson in Banshees? I *guess* he's co-lead, but pushing him supporting makes sense too.
Matt:
I'll be interested to see how his screen time stacks up against Condon actually, as I don't think anyone would argue she's lead, but obviously has a substantial amount screentime including scenes without Farrell like Gleeson. One can argue the central idea is the friendship between the two men, which would make Gleeson co-lead, but I think you can as easily say it is about Pádraic's relationships with everyone really. The more I'm thinking about it the more I'm leaning towards Farrell being sole lead, because I think it really is Pádraic's story, though his sister and his friend are big parts of that story. Similar to the way I think Yeoh is the sole lead in EEAO, despite Hsu and especially Quan having a lot of screen time. They're big parts of that film too, but again, their stories are strictly in service to the central, truly leading, character.
I'm thinking Farrell might be sole lead too, because the Condon factor is what was confusing me.
Having just seen the film, to me, it seemed like Gleeson is the main catalyst in the films emotional thrust and what gets it going (Padraics’ relationships with everyone). As in, he’s supporting to Farrell in that sense.
Yeah, I've been seeing some people put Quan in Lead for their personal ballots and I don't get it.
Also (and I know I'm so behind but it's not coming out here) but please no Inisherin spoilers yet if we can avoid it (pains me that I have no idea when I'll be able to see it)
Calvin:
Of course, vague discussions only, until it can be easily seen by all.
*raises pint in gratitude*
Calvin: Absolutely, no plot discussions at all, just something that was needling me.
Also Barry Keoghan's performance has been really sticking with me, I think I'm gonna go ahead and call him a 5.
No worries at all, I find this talk interesting, because Inisherin unseen I'm also thinking about another McDonagh turn, Sam Rockwell in Three Billboards, where he has plenty of screentime and even some individual focus, but we all pretty much agree he's supporting.
So in light of the news we're all aware of, I've been going over some of the vocal performances of Batman I'm quite familiar with.
There's Bruce Greenwood in "Batman: Under the Red Hood", which I think is a fine single outing, personally. Greenwood naturally has a harsher sounding timbre, and that really sells the bitterness and guilt within Bruce, given his failure with Jason.
There's also Peter Weller in "The Dark Knight Returns", who's similar to Greenwood in projecting the character's age and jaded nature. Where his voice is distinctive is with it's nasality, and that really lends itself to a battle hardened, vigilante Bruce, and the sheer coldness in his famous lines IE "I'm the surgeon".
But then we get to the late Conroy and...as if this needs to be said...he stands well above the rest. He of course was in so much Batman media (series, movies, games, etc.), and with that came the opportunity to show an incredible vocal breadth. Just narrowing in on JL/JLU, for instance, there's already so many tones that Conroy found in that performance. You have Bruce's smooth charm when he's flirting with Diana, his angry cynicism when he's talking about his past, his earned confidence as he outsmarts a bad guy. Most enjoyably for me, though, Conroy found a way to portray Bruce's comedic lines as both intimidating, and at the same time really funny. I'll never forget the scene where Wally almost blows Alfred up with a blaster, which is followed by Conroy's teeth grinding delivery of "that's...not...helping." Conroy really found that balance with his varied vocal performance, one that showed many different shades through only the most minor and most needed changes. And frankly, you could say that for all of his revered Batman appearances, including the animated films and Arkham games. Conroy for me epitomized VA's appeal; you don't necessarily have to be a physical match for the role your playing. For someone who was always tall and lanky, and didn't have a stereotypical "superhero's physique", Conroy unquestionably proved that it was never a factor or a hinderance. He channeled every ounce of depth and power that was asked of him, and through his signature role, likely paved the way for his fellow voice acting peers in their respective turns.
Like I said, a lot of this is self evident, but Conroy's legacy is one I'll always admire. He left a true mark on contemporary culture, and I'm still saddened that we'll never get to hear another performance from him. May he rest in peace, and may his body of work continue to spark joy and inspiration.
Mitchell: Greenwood played him on Young Justice too.
Luke, your acting overall winner predictions.
Actor - Colin Farrell
Actress - Cate Blanchett
Supporting Actor - Brendan Gleeson or Mark Rylance (Bones And All)
Supporting Actress - Jessie Buckley or Michelle Williams
Who saw Banshees tell me is Gleeson lead or supporting?
What are your thoughts on Julianne Nicholson, David Denman, Joe Tippett, James McArdle and Phyllis Somerville in Mare of Easttown?
Louis: Do you know when you'll get the opportunity to see The Fabelmans.
Shaggy:
Please refer to our previous conversations a few comments above.
Lucas:
Nicholson - (Whenever Nicholson is going for straight-up naturalism, she's one of the best from her age group in terms of conveying that. She's great at being just someone so purely and honestly, yet in a way that is captivating. For me, she has a Spacekesque quality to her work, and that is an example of such here. There is such an innate richness of character in her performance that she realizes with such ease, and I really loved her chemistry with Winslet where you completely felt the relationship between the two of you over many years. Of course where her characters go changes a lot of that, and I thought Nicholson was consistently great in delivering an increasing emotional intensity. The intensity speaks towards more than just turmoil but also speaks towards a frustrating complication of loyalty to her family while also being burdened by the betrayal that connects with that technical loyalty. She brings a real reality to the more technically melodramatic revelations with appropriate ease.)
Denman - (I thought he did a lot for what is a thankless role as a personal red herring and as the ex-character. Both can kind of run an actor into pitfalls but I thought Denman was consistent in creating a real sense of the man's decency even in frustrating circumstances, while also consistently creating a deeper sense of his relationship with his family. Delivering a real quiet emotional power to his work by always showing what he's going through despite being a quieter more reserved sort.)
Tippett - (Effectively hiding in plain sight, and properly doesn't overplay his early scenes to make too much of an impact or too little. When he becomes more important it works. More importantly, though I like that he never suddenly switched his character towards suddenly sinister in a one-note kind of way. Rather he conveyed the real emotional stress of the situation, but still coming from someone who is deeply flawed rather than evil in an obvious way. Delivering on the idea of the character's downward spiral is not an easy thing at any point, showing the real desperation in his acts throughout.)
McArdle - (Another red herring but again I thought he managed to play that aspect well. Toeing the line between potentially creepy with some sense of potentially being just fearful. Finding the right line to step between the two creates suspicion but does not make it obvious or ridiculous when the truth is revealed. While also not seeming just vague either giving a better sense of the character as a person even beyond the technical plot point she is serving.)
Somerville - (I mean just a properly intolerable old biddy in every sense, and I thought did well in being too much without being truly too much.)
Luke:
I mean whenever it decides to show up near me, I'll be seeing it, which sounds like it will probably be around the middle of next week.
Louis: Tell your rankings of the Oscar nominees 2008 (year of Slumdog Millionaire) in the categories of screenplays, director and picture.
Mitchell: I always preferred Michael Ironside's performance as DKR Batman in the Legends of the Dark Knight episode to Weller's, honestly.
While we're on topic of Caped Crusader, how would you all rank all the voice actors for Batman you've heard based on their best performances (so to not include them multiple times)?
For me it would be:
1.Kevin Conroy
2.Will Friedle
3.Bruce Greenwood
4.Diedrich Bader
5.Roger Craig Smith
6.Kōichi Yamadera
7.Peter Weller
8.Adam West
9.Rino Romano
10.Troy Baker
Oh yeah, also throw in Ben McKenzie kilometres below Baker.
RIP Kevin Conroy.
For anyone else who's seen Decision to Leave - would you consider Tang Wei supporting or co-lead?
Ytrewq Wertyq:
1. Kevin Conroy
2. Bruce Greenwood
3. Adam West (Return of the Caped Crusaders)
4. Will Friedle
5. Diedrich Bader
*Big gap*
6. Rino Romano
*Gap the size of the grand canyon*
7. Ben McKenzie (truly horrible)
Louis: Your cast & director for...
1990s Arrival
1950s La La Land
1980s Eveybody Wants Some!!
1970s American Honey
Tony: Co-lead. Key to the film's brilliance, I think, is she starts off almost as a supporting character but gradually grows into a co-lead. Which is just a brilliant touch that falls in line with the film's themes.
Shaggy:
Picture:
1. Frost/Nixon
2. Milk
3. Slumdog Millionaire
4. The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
5. The Reader
Director:
1. Ron Howard
2. Gus Van Sant
3. David Fincher
4. Stephen Daldry
5. Danny Boyle
Original Screenplay:
1. In Bruges
2. Frozen River
3. Milk
4. Wall-E
5. Happy-Go-Lucky
Adapted Screenplay:
1. Frost/Nixon
2. Doubt
3. Slumdog Millionaire
4. The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
5. The Reader
Tony:
Lead.
Bryan:
1990's Arrival Directed by Ridley Scott:
Louise Banks: Geena Davis
Ian Donnelly: Bill Pullman
Colonel Weber: Joe Morton
Agent Halpern: Bob Gunton
1950's La La Land directed by Billy Wilder:
Mia: Shirley MacLaine
Sebastian: Jack Lemmon
Keith: Nat King Cole
1980's Everybody Wants Some directed by Barry Levison:
Jake: Val Kilmer
Finn: Tom Cruise
Glen: Kevin Bacon
Charlie: Frank Stallone
1970's American Honey directed by Alan Rudolph:
Star: Debbie Allen
Jake: Keith Carradine
Krystal: Geraldine Chaplin
Louis: What do you think of the Angela Bassett Oscar nom talk? I personally don't think she'll be getting one for Wakanda Forever (though there is a case to be made with *that* scene) BUT I have a feeling she is en route to a second nom at some point, as I feel like her work here is reigniting conversation about how she's not being really given roles befitting her talent as of late, so I can definitely see her nabbing a role soon that puts her in the convo.
Also, Ron Howard as number one in that lineup is pretty amusing until you look at the rest of the nominees...one of the worst director line-ups ever I think?
Still pisses me off to this day that Harvey Weinstein essentially robbed The Dark Knight Picture and Director nominations.
Louis: Regarding Decision to Leave, what are your thoughts on the film itself, Park Chan-wook's direction, and Park Hae-il & Tang Wei's performances? I'm not sure if many people here have seen it yet, so feel free to be vague with regards to spoilers.
Also, are there any films you didn't like, but felt were well-directed?
Park's being saved for a review.
Calvin:
I'm not buying Bassett, because Michael B. Jordan couldn't do it with a meatier role, likely a bigger Oscar contender overall and in pretty weak field in terms of overall contenders. Wakanda Forever I think will get some techs but won't get the best picture nomination this time around. Additionally her category is starting to look pretty thick with Buckley, Foy, Condon, Hsu, Chau, Mulligan and Hoss all being better sells in my mind at this moment. That's even not including potentially someone from Babylon or Williams going to supporting to gurantee the win.
It's certainly up there.
Tony:
I'd rather dive deeper on his direction when I have a chance to watch it again, and I can get into a bit more into the details.
Left off musicals because there'd be several.
Speaking of Park: Sympathy for Mr. Vengeance, Stoker
The Most Beautiful
High Noon
Fearless
The Tenant
A Tale of Two Sisters
Talk to Her
Louis: What do you think are the chances of Sink/Chau both making it in for The Whale? Chau will most likely be the one singled out in the end judging by reviews, but Supporting Actress is also the one category where younger performers seem to be more readily recognized (although it's still tough).
Tahmeed: Honestly, I think it has to massively overperform for anyone but Fraser to get in.
Louis/Everyone: What would be your thoughts on the voice acting from this scene? It's from Book 3 of "Legend of Korra", and I'm singling out Henry Rollins (Zaheer) in particular. It's also a bit spoiler heavy, so for anyone who wants to explore the series organically, do be warned.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hXmSyp48GI0&ab_channel=Avatar%3ATheLastAirbender
My two cents is that it's an effective bit of exposition overall, and fine work from Rollins, who's probably the last person you'd expect to play a composed and collected. You can almost hear him pushing back his natural intensity, which I will say is quite fitting for Zaheer's character.
Tahmeed:
Even if it over performs, I can't see it, particularly with Women Talking already trying to double up. Chau seems the shot given she has the reviews, got the Gotham nom, and also was in close contention previously for Downsizing.
Chau is also having a banner year with The Menu and Showing Up which she got rave reviews for both, so that always helps.
Louis: Your past roles for Mandy Patinkin?
Greta Gerwig is going from Barbie to Narnia. I never thought I'd say that.
Louis: I once read about how about Raymond Chandler apparently thought that Cary Grant would have been the perfect Phillip Marlowe. Eddie Muller of TCM on the other hand believes William Holden would have been the perfect choice.
What do you think? Can't really see Grant, but Holden would have been fantastic.
Still, in my opinion a younger Robert Mitchum would have been the perfect Marlowe, and I would have loved to travel to an alternate universe where he got to play him in the 50's.
Louis: I randomly thought the other day about how Burt Lancaster was never really pigeonholed at any point during his career, but his friend Kirk Douglas had one of the most extreme dichotomies of typecasting, going from playing smug villains to paragons of virtue. Can you think of any other performers like Douglas who went from one extreme to another in terms of the roles they took?
Ytrewq:
Hubert (The Court Jester)
Fagin
8000's:
Yeah I can't see Grant either, too smooth and not gritty enough. I can see Holden but I agree young Mitchum seems the ideal.
Robert:
The only ones I can think of at the moment that are remotely close:
Anthony Perkins (Delayed slightly but went from the boy next door to the psychopath next door.)
Humphrey Bogart (From the pathetic gangster, to the coolest man in the room.
Also watched Cha Cha Real Smooth...whenever you pan an Indie like this...I really should just take that as gospel at this point.
Louis: Ratings and thoughts on the cast of that movie who's title I don't even want to write out?
Hoping for a 1 for Cooper Raiff!
Also on the note of Cary Grant, while I couldn't really imagine him as Marlowe, I think Gould kind of took the idea or concept Chandler would have had of comedic Grant as Marlowe and had shades of it in his performance.
Louis: Your thoughts on this video regarding Hitchcock's later decline in the 60's.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s2slAVLjxgY
Louis: What are some of your favorite films/performances that deconstruct masculinity in some form?
Louis, have you rewatched Godfather 2 recently. Is there a chance a Pacino could end up higher than Nicholson and Carney?
Marcus: Not a movie, but I think Ray Donovan does a brilliant job of that.
Marcus: Honestly, I've been a big champion of The Art of Self Defense in that regard.
Marcus: Burning, Bullhead, Moonlight, The Power of the Dog, Beau Travail, Midnight Cowboy, Wake in Fright, As Tears Go By, Raging Bull, Casualties of War, Onee Were Warriors, Mikey and Nicky.
Perfectionistt_ad: Not for this year.
Marcus: Fight Club and Christine are the two that come to mind.
Calvin: I meant 2021's actually... Cause when I checked out your rankings for it, it were just movies that were ranked and it's been that way for a while. I haven't seen your nominees yet.
Perfectionist_ad: Have partially updated it now, still figuring out a new system for my nominations.
Matt:
Raiff - 1(I mean he has no one to blame other than himself for the nonsense the character is. There's nothing that feels authentic in the least for this character as written, Benjamin Braddock is not. Forgetting all that, he's just not a good actor. He comes off as a complete amateur in his settings of just kind of the same slight smile regardless of the situation or moment. His verbal delivery is the same as I'm talking to a Kindergarten class no matter the situation or moment. The only time he changes from this is his emotional moment with Johnson near the end of the film, and there he is atrocious in his attempt to naturally show emotion. His reaction is about as phony and false as I've ever seen. It is just atrocious in every regard.)
Johnson - 2.5(This character is atrociously written with kind of some half ideas put in a blender of a Mrs. Robinson type but doesn't exactly stick to this idea either. Johnson gives any sort of authenticity to some of the emotions so I guess that's a minor victory of sorts, but I still her work in no way was able to overcome the flawed nature of the role.)
Mann - 2(Can we talk about an idea of not being explored at all? Her manic depressive episodes basically have no real basis on anything other than to give our central character "depth". Mann certainly doesn't allude to it in her performance in any particular way.)
Garrett - 2(What's a bad Indie without a cartoon character or two, he fits the bill here.)
8000's:
I more or less agree with the major points, though I would disagree a bit on Family Plot's overall take, though it is less interesting visually than most Hitchcock's films, there is plenty to be enjoyed in the performances. Frenzy after all did suggest the way forward theoretically and basically can be seen as a bridge between Hitchcock and De Palma films.
Marcus:
Nicol Williamson - The Bofors Gun & The Reckoning
Paul Newman - Hud
Russell Crowe - L.A. Confidential
Mathias Schoenaerts - Bullhead
Malcolm McDowell - Gangster No. 1
Richard Harris - This Sporting Life
Robert Mitchum - The Friends of Eddie Coyle
Benedict Cumberbatch - The Power of the Dog
Robert De Niro & Joe Pesci - Raging Bull
Tom Cruise - Magnolia
Unknown:
I re-watch the Godfather Part II all the time.
Sheesh, Bale gets a 1,5. Not his finest hour, it seems.
Louis: What are your thoughts on the scenes with the police officer in the original Psycho as well as rating and thoughts on Mort Mills' performance.
I have to admit, I'm always surprised that the cop never showed up later in the film.
8000's:
Well, an example of brilliant directing is the choice of sunglasses and the intensity of the close-up. He's soulless and penetrating. That's in contrast to what the cop is actually saying. He's asking legit questions of concern, and Mills plays the part with the right ambiguity. His face barely registers any emotion whatsoever, that goes along with the sunglasses. His verbal delivery is key though as it wavers between the book, genuinely concerned, suspicious as a lawman, and nefarious. What is so impressive is it doesn't feel disjointed, it rather feels like we are seeing the man as Marion does, almost impossible to read and most certainly very concerning.
In terms of not showing up he's a perfect red herring that also serves a purpose. In terms of the practical plot he ratchets the tension by causing Marion to want to change cars and forces her to go off the road to the hidden away Bates Motel. He's the red herring though as his notice of Marion doesn't lead to her arrest but also, watch the trailer, we have no idea who the titular Psycho is in any context. It would be easy to imagine a version of the film with a psychotic patrol officer who goes around murdering innocent people, and everything about his setup could be that, just as he could be an innocuous cop just genuinely trying to do his job.
Louis: Could you register a request I made? It's in the comments under Jarkko Lahti's review.
To everyone aside from Louis who's seen Banshees: how does Farrell's performance compare to his work in In Bruges?
Louis: Thoughts on The Hollow Crown cast. Where would it rank in the careers of Cumberbatch, Okonedo, Bonneville, Hawkins and Sturridge.
Tahmeed: At least as good, quite possibly better.
Louis: Ratings and thoughts on The Wonder cast.
And since they're tv movies, what would be your ratings for the Hollow Crown casts?
Gonna start writing longer reviews on Letterboxd from now on. Here's one for Beetlejuice: https://letterboxd.com/koook160/film/beetlejuice/1/
Watched She Said. Very mixed bag and have a lot of issues with its approach and inherent problems, but I did appreciate it willing to go into prickly complicated territory and Samantha Morton's scene is absolutely fantastic.
Calvin: ratings for the cast of She Said?
Mulligan: 3
Kazan: 3.5
Clarkson: 3
Braugher: 3.5
Ehle: 4
Morton: 4.5
Judd: 3
Luke:
Bonneville - 4.5(The best that I have seen from Bonneville as I thought he artfully conveyed the sense of conflict within the man. Portraying effectively the sense of the man's duty and even his grace at first in attempting to be the proper protector, though while doing so still presenting a degree of weakness within him. A bitterness still. Bonneville balances a properly flawed but not wholly flawed man. As he presents the ambition but just as he does the duty. He's particularly powerful in his scene with Hawkins being taken as you see him trying to maintain the straight face of the protector while being emotionally broken by it. This before being cast down himself where he loses wholly his stoic power and is heartbreaking in realizing the man losing all sense of his old stature.)
Hawkins - 4.5(Another impressive performance in terms of hitting the extremes inherent in the text effectively. Being a way innocuous enough at first as just the proper lady, but then is terrific in her scene with Bonneville in the confiding in each other with both a sense of familiarity and conspiracy. She's great in the scene of accusation and delivers the blunt intensity of her frustration and anger that builds quite powerfully towards her moment. Portraying well someone who really isn't holding themselves together in the moment of lashing out. Particularly effective and quite moving in showing her state of basically being broken by the condemnation of all particularly her husband. Portraying the sense of emotional turmoil fully as just someone lost in her emotions.)
Okonedo - 4.5/5/4(I mean I'd say MVP of the entirety of the series of films. She is fantastic in every moment we get of her character. Starting as seemingly the defeated royal just looking for a way out then claiming the way out with this sense of ferocious power to her manner. She continues with a brilliant combination of qualities that create the perfect sense of manipulation. Having her moments of just full-on femme fatale as she collaborates in her power schemes, while also presenting this nobility of the proper Queen just questioning the loyalty of her subject. Playing so well the penetrating deviousness of her that she fashions quite brilliantly because she both manages to play the facade of the Queen doing the right thing and the true cutthroat. This is only amplified further in Part 2 where she is just amazing in going only further with each idea and being so powerful in the moments of her particularly ruthless scenes. She brings such a potent intensity and sense of ambition to every moment. While also showing so well the moments of manipulations of Henry where she switches from a kindly warmth to a questioning coldness in equal measure but always showing the ease of her manipulations. She is captivating every moment she is onscreen and just creates such a brutal and brilliant figure here. Then even her reduced role in Richard is still great in bringing the sense of hate even in defeat, and bringing this haunting quality as she seems to curse everyone even as she is a relic of sorts.)
Sturridge - 4.5/5(Easily the best I've seen from him, and I thought him altogether great here in what really is a tricky role as in some ways Henry VI makes Richard II seem strong-willed by comparison. In his earliest scenes, he's excellent by bringing this sort of childlike naivety into the interactions and kind of pageantry. The pageantry of a man playing a being King rather than genuinely being King at any moment, and brings this lack of seriousness. I loved what he did there in particular because it isn't though he's making a joke of it, rather he presents someone who hasn't come to terms with what being a King actually means treating everything too lightly for his own good. He's great in moments of indecision because he never plays it simply. Rather he suggests this emotional connection and protection towards everyone who is forcing him to take sides, and he shows that it causes such paralyzing anxiety to try to put his foot down. He makes you wholly believe the scene of the first banishment than of complete reversal in a moment. In both acts, Sturridge presents as the man essentially trying to say what others want and conveys so well his actions of trying to be peaceful no matter what, despite this in fact is what is causing the war. His work in the second part is great by being so consistently and perfectly pathetic in the role. His earliest moments of trying to take charge are given such weak passion each time and again his eyes show a man looking to others for leadership instead of presenting himself. I especially love his timid way in particular when trying so weakly to lay his claim in the reaction to the revolt after others have already done so far in front of him. Presenting effectively the descent of the decent but weak-willed man who should never have been King. Sturridge is heartbreaking in the role by showing his decay, which he presents both mentally and physically, as this particular loss of sanity because of the violence that springs forth from his rule, which is what he never wanted. Sturridge articulates so powerfully every single moment of the man trying and failing to reckon with the insanity of it all, and showing essentially what is left of a decent man who could never exist in such an indecent time.)
Dunbar - 4/4.5(I liked his performance by in a way bringing a less obvious manipulative quality and giving empathy to the usurper. In every instance, you see his frustrations that develop from the ineffectiveness of the king and portray well the build-up towards the moment of just having enough of the king's inaction. Playing the part well by always emphasizing the purity of his humanity in every instance, and never showing him actually as a callous manipulator. Rather he presents a man who just wants to see justice done but sees a King who will never do it on his own.)
Frances-Morgan - 4(Certainly brings the right needed intensity to her performance for Joan. Obviously doesn't have too much time to work, but excels in creating the sense of this version of Joan that Shakespeare depicts with a bit less reverence than usual. Rather she is kind of a prophet of doom, which she certainly does portray with the right kind of mad intensity.)
Townsend - 4(Have to say in general loved his presence as again a force within the world of manipulations, that almost seems to act as a force of nature at times. His delivery has such a tremendous power behind it as he presents a man of such intense convictions even in the moments of suddenly forced allegiance switches.)
Miles - 4(Though he differed so well from Dunbar in bringing the sense of a smug manipulator whose actions are far more purposeful in terms of creating discord. Bringing the right smarmy manner that does have a certain charisma to it, while also always showing the man's true colors as a callous player for power.)
Lesser - 4(I don't know if I've seen a completely dissimilar performance from him, but I have to give him the credit he's just great at playing the scheming type. Although technically here we get a slightly different shade of a more hesitant man who changes allegiances Lesser always gives the sense of weight upon each and every choice.)
Cumberbatch - 4.5/5(I'd put it behind The Power of the Dog, Sherlock, and Patrick Melrose. Cumberbatch's Richard is an example where his more histrionic tendencies not only are allowed they actually often are quite befitting the part. Notable though is he does bring it appropriately as the younger Richard. Although obviously, he looks the same he brings in the right sort of youthful hesitations and even emotional care at times. He's particularly effective by granting a sense of Richard from moment to moment given many of his lines in Henry are functional. In that function you see ambition, you also see growing psychopathy and sadism that segues towards greater confidence in his Richard, building essentially to his first soliloquy and properly owning as the man basically embracing his evil. Cumberbatch is the embracer of evil more so than even McKellen and Olivier, who both are plenty evil. Cumberbatch, I think in a way plays into his younger status, though not young, bringing kind of that type of scheming exuberance into the role. Take his fourth wall break after seducing Anne, Cumberbatch's performance is brimming with loving disbelief in his success and every laugh is the man fully indulging in his form. Cumberbatch is having a lot of fun with it in a way that invites you into his evil to have fun with him with every soliloquy in particular, but also the moments of scheming with Buckingham, particularly his hesitant moment of taking the crown. Cumberbatch fully plays the moment as a comedic scene and it wholly works. In-kind of the stricter reality, he makes for the appropriate ferocious tyrant in every sense as he attacks all with a certain paranoia and intensity of a man who brandishes his sin. Cumberbatch is not a snake in the grass but a King Cobra openly imposing his evil. It is a wholly entertaining take, and most importantly remarkably carries the film that otherwise again plays it a little too safe.)
Fox - 4(Found she did what is always difficult which conveys her strange acceptance of Richard, but pulled it off rather well as almost being confused to the state of accepting it as something. This while maintaining appropriately horrified humanity as we see reactions towards the dastardly evil caused by her chosen husband.)
Daniels - 4(As Buckinghams go I thought he was effectively straightforward, particularly in terms of some of his eye acting with Cumberbatch, in conveying the sort of meetings of their minds each time the two of them are scheming together in their way.)
Hey Louis and guys
Today Martin Scorsese is turning 80! As a tribute, say your Top 10 of his movies.
1. Goodfellas
2. The Wolf of Wall Street
3. After Hours
4. Ranging Bull
5. The Irishman
6. Silence
7. The Last Temptation of Christ
9. The Age of Innocence
10. Taxi Driver
Love that you gave Sturridge a 5 for part 2.
Post a Comment