I'm not sure I need to even talk about Butler, Fraser, and Farrell, although the last's film has the most buzz overall, all three have been consistently touted as the three main contenders on their own, and any indicators so far have supported that notion all the more, to doubt any of them just seems silly. They'd have to miss SAG, which I seriously doubt for all three, for me to second-guess any of them. Bill Nighy is the only one I think could miss SAG, but even then I still think he'd bounce back with the British bloc, and even then his SAG nomination seems very likely still. I think the only question with him is will his film overperform or not, but I think his role, reviews, and just general position as a very well-liked character actor suggests he should be comfortable within the five. That leaves the last spot, in which historically there should be one prior nominee, and unless I'm missing a year, I don't think there's been a five without a prior nominee since before there were five nominees. So that brings us to Tom Cruise, who has that going for him, the fact that he's the prominent face of the biggest film of the year box-office wise, and just seems on a career-high at the moment. Against him, is that it's a role in an action film, and many may argue that it isn't the biggest acting stretch for Cruise. But Cruise has been nominated for a movie star turn before with Jerry Maguire, though that stretched his acting more many would argue, but still Cruise playing into his known presence has led to a nomination before, so it can again. If he gets SAG, I'd say it is probably a done deal. What helps him is beyond the first four, everyone else seems unlikely in one way or another. You have Hugh Jackman in a film that is either hated or given as muted of praise as possible. He could happen, by virtue of the laziness of the acting branch (which one should never underestimate) but really seems unlikely this time. You have a series of unknowns (Oscar wise) Diego Calva, Jeremy Pope, Paul Mescal, and Daniel Giménez Cacho. That is already against them, but worse is none of their films look likely to be major contenders, or in Mescal and Pope's cases, even minor contenders. Mescal seems the most likely of this set just in terms of general buzz, however I'd say SAG is beyond essential (I'm sure he'll get BAFTA, but that no longer matters when it comes to predicting nominees). I'd have more faith in Mescal if he was making a bigger name with the critical wins but he hasn't gotten a single one yet. Out of blue nominees, usually are bigger names with "bigger" performances, so I just don't see it at the moment. You also have Park Hae-il and Song Kang-ho, who probably cancel each other out (if Park had been the one to win CANNES, I might consider him a bit more). As is, I'm not even 100% sure Decision to Leave is going to make it into International feature. Maybe Ralph Fiennes for The Menu? I mean really why not? Seems like one though where the acting branch would need their hand held and told "it's okay to nominate him" for whatever reason. Maybe Hanks for A Man Called Otto, looks very standard as a film but you never know. Honestly if anyone else is going to happen, I think they really HAVE to appear at SAG, but if the pictured five are the SAG five, that's the five, I'd be truly surprised if it wasn't.
So onto Supporting Actor, where I think SAG could go many ways, and regardless of what SAG does, I think Oscar could do its own thing from there. The one thing I think I do know is that Brendan Gleeson and Ke Huy Quan are pretty much guaranteed. I think even if the latter's film falls short of presumption (which the shortlist showed just a hint of weakness) he might be the most guaranteed facet of the film. Beyond that...I do think Barry Keoghan seems very likely. McDonagh's done it before, and Keoghan's shown up enough with Gleeson to see that he's not being forgotten so far. That could switch quickly potentially, but at the moment he seems like a more than decent bet. Now...I struggle because Judd Hirsch and Paul Dano, are both showing support for the likely top fiver, The Fabelmans. Will this be like 49 supporting actress with only three films for one acting category? I don't entirely doubt it oddly enough. Both have praise, Dano has the larger but quieter role, Hirsch the smaller but louder role. Hirsch having a great vet story, Dano having a prominent year. I think both can make it, if The Fabelmans performs as well as it can. It helps because beyond that, things get trickier. Ben Whishaw was touted early, but he's missed more than he's shown up, and his film looks like it could go either way at this very moment. Brian Tyree Henry would NEED Jennifer Lawrence to be a thing, and even then he could miss. Eddie Redmayne I think is a legitimate spoiler, I think he's likely to get SAG, and a prior nominee particularly a winner can get in as the sole nominee, particularly with a juicy role, which he has. So I won't discount him. Pitt's film is going to do some techs but I think will probably struggle for more...probably. He also isn't having his best moment press wise, so I think the academy could pass on him this time. Beyond that no one seems terribly likely, even if they pop up at SAG, so as odd as my five seems historically, it's my prediction at the moment.
78 comments:
It's a little strange (and at the same time, not really strange) that of these proposed line ups, the only performance I've seen is Cruise.
If leading actor goes through, I predict the following ranking.
1) Farrell
2) Nighy
3) Fraser
4) Butler
5) Cruise
I really, truly, SINCERELY hope Cruise doesn't get in. I love the guy, but come on.
Though 3 films taking up all 5 Supporting Actor does feel weird your arguments in favour of it all convince me.
Speaking of International Feature, I do have the same anxiety as you with regards to Decision to Leave, but I guess we'll see. There is probably going to be some chaos in International (and Documentary, for that matter) categories where things might not go as anyone expects.
As for Cruise, we've had much worse choices in this category in recent years, but it would be terribly uninspired especially with the other options there are out there.
It would just be be a waste, I think. It's not even the best example of Cruise being Cruise. He's better in Fallout.
as somebody who considers himself as a big fan of The Cruise and who really enjoyed TG:M (despite hating the original): given this year and the alternatives that are in contention, i think i could live with it. Given his career, i think it would be quite the waist.
Despite what one personally thinks of them, his 3 nominations prior are among his most acclaimed turns ever, but considering what kind of films he has made the past 10 years, it really doesn't stand out, since he wasn't nominated for either Collateral or Edge of Tomorrow
Happy New Year guys.
Louis: Ratings and thoughts on the casts of Black Mirror: White Christmas and Don't Worry Darling.
Happy New Year, guys.
Idk how I feel about Cruise possibly being the fifth. Currently I'm neither for it or against it, since I did not watch TG:M, but I do agree that the Academy has done much worse before. I love the idea of Fiennes for The Menu, though.
As for Supporting, I will wait for SAG before I even consider double double nominations happening. If it took the Academy over 25 years just so that two nominees from the same movie could happen, I refuse to believe they'd just do that twice on a year. Someone has to miss.
Personally, I'll ride the Tyree-Henry hype train all the way to the nominations day, even if it may not result in much celebrating to be done.
And Jan 11th can't come soon enough.
Still have hope for Fraser getting a 5.
I think Fiennes could very easily take the fifth slot if he were to run in supporting
Happy New Years, everyone.
Louis et al: Predictions for Best Actress, as well?
I am not as against Cruise being nominated as some of you are. At one point, that spot was going to be Jackman, and my rating for Cruise is higher than his. Regardless, I actually think it's going to be Mescal rather than Cruise.
I'm hoping it's Mescal rather than Cruise, but it is true that nobody has been guaranteed for that fifth slot for a long time. Which is a shame, because even beyond Mescal, there are so many deserving performances.
As for Supporting Actor, I would love for that top 5 to materialize (Hirsch is the only 4.5 for me). That being said, I still think Fabelmans is less likely than Banshees to double up in terms of momentum.
Luke:
Hamm - 4(Does sleaze quite effectively and is able to do it with such confidence in his own particular way that makes it all the sleazier. There is a bit more to it than that and effectively does bring a bit of honest desperation as his character takes his turns for the worse.)
Spall - 4(Thought his scene of initially finding out about his wife was way overplayed, but otherwise I think this is the most I've liked him. Creating the right sense of just kind of an average man growing more desperate and creating the honest emotional need that grants a real sympathy for his character. Making his later desperation so potent as he shows a man truly broken by his experience.)
Chaplin - 3.5(Doesn't have too much to do however I think she was successful in realizing the intensity of the visceral state of horror of her character.)
Pugh - 4(She is really working with a pretty weak generalized character who really just largely reacts to stuff and just gets slowly anger, you never really get any depth beyond that or in her relationship with Styles's character. Pugh though gives an authenticity to every bit of attempted horror and her reactions are on point consistently even if it doesn't add up to much. She's trying to sell a much better film every step of the way.)
Styles - 1.5(When he's just kind of standing around he isn't terrible, it is just when he needs to convey any kind of emotion that things get into trouble. It is all hot air and forced feeling every step of the way. He just seems like playacting especially in his "other" role where he is particularly comical. His big emotional moments though in general are laughable as his setting seems to be yelling without a hint of depth.)
Pine - 2.5(There was some potential here though the role itself is so repetitive that it really doesn't do him any favors other than just generally smug in a generalized sinister way.)
Emi Grant:
I actually think SAG is very unlikely to be this lineup, I think Redmayne, Henry or even a surprise like say Edward Norton or somebody are very likely to show up. However remember Supporting Actor went 2/5 last year from SAG to Oscar (and for some reason in general is less accurate). I will also say as much as there was a drought on doubling up, the academy has shifted greatly with it now having happened three years in a row, to the point I almost forget it happened last year with Plemons and Smit-McPhee. Again is this an easy scenario, no, but if there is a time for it to happen, it would be this year.
Bryan:
Actress:
Cate Blanchett - Tar
Danielle Deadwyler - Till
Michelle Yeoh - Everything Everywhere All At Once
Michelle Williams - The Fabelmans
Naomi Ackie - I Wanna Dance With Somebody
The top four all seem fairly reasonable. I think Williams could still switch for the win (though I really hope she doesn't so we can get a far more deserving victory for Condon or Buckley). I still have an uneasy feeling that Yeoh could get snubbed somewhere along the way, however the other contenders are weakening enough that I do think she's probably safe now. Deadwyler's globe miss I do think is meaningless and she'll be there regardless if she's a sole nominee.
That leaves #5. Staying with Ackie strictly for the McCarten factor still, however she'll need to show up somewhere soon for me to stick to this one. This could be Davis (and I'm sure she'll get SAG), but I think her film could be the one to get PGA then miss Oscar. Robbie's film seems shaky outside of techs, but it certainly is a big role that they could still sneak her in. Colman's film will probably only get cinematography at this point, if that, but she is a new favorite (no pun) so I wouldn't discount her until nomination day. Lawrence I think has missed quite a lot so far, seemingly should've been an easy Globe nod, and her film is small, however I do think she's in it still. Beyond that I don't see anyone as particularly likely.
Supporting Actress:
Hardest set to predict in mind, out of all the acting categories.
Kerry Condon - The Banshees of Inisherin
Jessie Buckley - Women Talking
Jamie Lee Curtis - Everything Everywhere All At Once
Hong Chau - The Whale
Nina Hoss - Tar
Condon is the only one I'd say is locked in, as she's basically been a guarantee everywhere, and I must say, I LOVE that fact. Buckley seems the best bet from her film even if Women Talking underperforms she could still get in. Curtis I think will be the first to go if EEAO underperforms, however I think there's probably enough "first nomination" good will to get her in. Chau prediction might be some personal bias, however she has a banner year, and I could see The Whale doing The Wrestler plus makeup, so it makes enough sense. Honestly Hoss's nomination or not will determine my Best Actress winner prediction. If she gets in Blanchett's winning.
There's PLENTY of other legit choices. Foy if Women Talking is big (I think her time has probably passed however). Bassett maybe could do it, though again Wakanda Forever I think will wane as we get closer to nominations. Dolly De Leon could be the passion pick, however she hasn't made as much of an impression with the critics groups as I would've thought, however a Globe nod of all things, shows she's on the radar beyond the expected places. Monae could happen if Glass Onion can maintain its current momentum. As much as I'd personally like to discount Mulligan (as I'd really hate for her to have a bad nomination to her name), she could definitely make it.
Despite her missing out in places, having now just seen the film (with which I share your disdain for its pitfalls but I think I appreciate what merits it has more), I'm somewhat more confident that Chau is getting in, despite her missing in places, owing to how I think the film is going to play out with voters. For those who are fully on the Fraser train/dig the film I find it hard to imagine they wouldn't vote for her too, and also (and I think this is crucial for someone like Quan too), it's the kind of performance where I can see someone hating/not caring for the film as a whole, yet still loving her performance.
I have also seen Ackie and I think you can safely rule her out (though I imagine if she misses SAG you'll do that anyway). Despite Babylon's critical underperformance I do think it will probably be Robbie for that 5th spot.
Not to be pedantic, but weren't only 3 films recognized in Supporting Actor in 1954, 1972 and 1974 already?
Marcus: Those were cases of one film getting three performers in a single category, which has also happened in Lead Actor and Supporting Actress. It's a lot rarer for two films to get multiple performers in, which is why Louis mentioned 49 Supporting Actress.
Happy New Year guys!
I almost hit the supporting image.
Well if these chosen names by Louis were the Oscar nominees then my rankings are:
1. Dano
2. Gleeson
3. Keoghan
4. Quan
5. Hirsch
1. Farrell
2. Fraser
3. Nighy
4. Cruise
5. Butler
Louis: Can you also give us a quick list of Picture and Director predictions?
Right now I'm at:
Butler/Farrell/Fraser/Mescal/Nighy Alt. Cruise
Blanchett/Deadwyler/Lawrence/Williams/Yeoh Alt. Davis
Dano/Gleeson/Henry/Keoghan/Quan Alt. Hirsch
Buckley/Condon/Curtis/Hsu/Monae Alt. Hoss
I know it got stiffed by a lot of the tech shortlists, but I still think EEAO is going to do a LOT better than we think.
Anonymous:
Picture:
The Fabelmans
The Banshees of Inisherin
Top Gun: Maverick
Tar
Everything Everywhere All At Once
Avatar: The Way Of Water
Women Talking
The Glass Onion
Living
She Said
Confident in the first 6 less so, in the bottom 4 which I think could go a lot of different ways. Women Talking I'm not sure if the passion is there or not, we'll find out sooner than later. The Glass Onion I think could benefit from the full 10 where Knives Out came short. I think Living in the right circumstance could find a place, via being the sole British representation. Not to be overly cynical but I think She Said could get just on perceived importance. You could easily sell me on a completely different bottom four however, and I probably wouldn't argue much.
Director:
Steven Spielberg - The Fabelmans
Martin McDonagh - The Banshees of Inisherin
The Daniels - Everything Everywhere All At Once
Todd Field - Tar
James Cameron - Avatar: The Way of Water
The only one I'm 100% on is Spielberg. McDonagh I do think gets in this time. The Daniels are definite if EEAO is a top fiver, which I think it probably is. Field I think probably shows up here for the appreciation for his ambition is quite evident and should translate to the director's branch. And Cameron because $$$. Polley is probably hanging around but again I think her film could go either way. Then I think there is the potential for a big passion push. I might've said Rajamouli but it's degree of tanking on the shortlists gives me a lot of pause. Park I do think is still in play and could pull a Vinterberg/Pawlikowski (as I don't think Cold War or Another Round would've made the 10 even if they had been full ten years).
So on another animation note, I watched 2017's "Teen Titans: The Judas Contract" this afternoon. I'll cover my issues with the film first; Namely the lack of sufficient run time/narrative exploration, certain forced scenes between Beast Boy and Terra, a boring central villain, the animation style abruptly changing in the last 10 minutes, and the ending feeling like a bit of an anticlimax.
Other than those quibbles, though, it's solid entertainment overall. I would've certainly benefited from knowing more about the Teen Titans (haven't seen most of their properties), but I feel you can get a basic understanding here. They're a fun bunch, and the specific dynamics within the group - particularly the relationship between Nightwing and Starfire - are enjoyable. I will say the addition of Terra could've been realized further, but she functions well enough and Christina Ricci gives a fine voice performance (though her final scenes are her weakest). It also helps that Deathstroke is properly threatening, and makes up for the less than memorable Brother Blood cult.
Side note: I only learned after watching the movie that this was the final film role of Miguel Ferrer, the voice of Deathstroke. He definitely created a sizable career for himself and portrayed Slade quite well, so I hope he's at peace wherever he is.
Happy new year, everyone.
Louis: Why do you think Rooney Mara and Claire Foy have been struggling to get better buzz for Women Talking? When you look at the Wiki page for the film's awards and nominations, Buckley has been getting the lion's share of the nods, often in places where Foy and Mara are not even nominated.
Tim: Why do you think that, re: Fiennes? He hasn't been getting many critics' nods for that movie, which is what he'd need to be nominated for a genre film of that kind.
Tony:
Personally I feel Buckley is unquestionably MVP, others may feel the same way, beyond that it helps that she's on the hottest streak film wise of the three, coming off an Oscar nomination always helps. Additionally Mara's role is very subdued, Foy's isn't but the film overall, at the moment, isn't so buzzed about to push for multiple nominees.
Louis: James Corden claimed recently that he was originally meant to star in The Whale with Tom Ford as a director. Your thoughts on, uhhh...how this version could've looked like if they went through with this concept in mind?
Tony:
Additionally though the question was to Tim, Fiennes has gotten a few nods including the Globes/Satellites, so he is on the board, I would argue he might not be getting more because there might be slight category confusion (there shouldn't be), and sometimes vet performer's (who have often been recognized) are taken for granted, I think you could argue that might be the case here.
Ytrewq:
AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
Ytrewq:
Excuse me for the horrified scream, suddenly the version we got seems like a masterpiece.
Ytrewq:
And mostly forget the Corden of it, I don't think he's incapable of a good performance, it just can be a bit difficult, and in Ford's hands probably nearly impossible. The Tom Ford is so horrifying by how glossy, how campy and just how poorly I'm sure he would've approached it.
Louis: Ratings and thoughts on the Fantastic Beasts cast.
And Palm Trees and Power Lines.
Louis, have you still yet to see Thirteen Lives.
BTW, random question for everyone here; What's one instance of a dubbed performance that you feel wasn't as good/didn't fully complement the original "on screen" performance?
Just for some context, I'm still trying to bolster my understanding of french. Something I've tried recently is revisiting some of the video games I like, but switching the audio from english to french. I'm already familiar with a lot of those games' dialogue, so it's been relatively easy for me to fill in the blanks - especially since I already have decent knowledge of french vocabulary, verbs and tenses.
Anyways, one of the games I've been replaying is 2013's "The Last of Us". As an ardent fan of that game, I think my love for Troy Baker and Ashley Johnson's performances is comparable to many. Hearing different voices as the characters, though, has been...interesting, to say the least. I won't go as far as to say whoever dubbed them in french didn't do a fine job. Nonetheless, Baker and Johnson really were so integral to that game's impact, so I can't help but miss them regardless.
Happy new year everyone.
May 2023 be a great year of many achievements and great films.
Louis: Could I get your thoughts on these scenes from Ted Lasso season 2?
https://youtu.be/WDt_k3ovjFo
https://youtu.be/2A9l7Mm6AUQ (I could watch an entire season of Goldstein doing sports commentary, or coaching kid's football)
https://youtu.be/6XVlr34rj0k
Tony:
Several reasons. First of all, i agree with Emi that there won't be two double-nominees. Given how estasblished all the other contenders are (meaning how long their careers have been going) i personally think Keoghan is not going to make the cut. "He's young, he will have many other chances in the future ..." yada yada yada
Second, like Louis said, he's definitely already got some kind of traction (Indiana Film Journalists even put him in Supporting)
Third, he has been a steady feature in the film lanscape for 30 years now, and for a character actor, he even is relatively famous among general audiences, to a degree that i would argue many would want him to get recognition. Kind of like Cruise, the fact that his last nomination was in the 90s may seem kind of odd for such a well reputed actor. For comparision: last year's nomination for J.K. Simmons to me seemed like "he's a winner and therefore should at leasat have more than one nomination". An Academy voter might as well say "He deserves a third nomnation after all this time"
And fourth, category tactics. Slowik is very much the focus of the film, but Margot is the POV character throughout. So like Mahershala Ali in Green Book or to a lesser extend Viola Davis in Fences, If i were Mark Mylod or the studio boss, i would have send him in for Supporting. I personally do put him in lead, but that would simply give him better chances
MItchell: Several. In Germany we have the biggest dubbing culture in the world (we literally invented that shit).
My general rule is, most dubbings before 1970 are practically worthless, and even then, only from, like, 1990 onwards do they tend to be pretty much similar to the originals.
My thoughts and cast ratings i give in here are not at all representative of how many movies i actually watch. It's just that i watch a lot in german and don't want to give my ratings for that then. Like i said, most of the time it will be a pretty good representation in recent years (for good performances at least, with the bad ones you often cannot be sure). I've done it once or twice, and don't feel completely comfortable with it.
There are many performances that physically are goood but are horrible from a vocal perspective, that will seem completely saved in the dubbing. (looking at Hayden Christensen and Sofia Copppola)
Some i do in fact dislike though:
- J.K. Simmons in Whiplash (just don't like the voice in general, but they also can't recreate the sound of an orchestra studio in post)
- Melissa McCarthy in Can You Ever Forgive Me? (a really high voice that works for her comedy turns, but not for drama)
- Humphrey Bogart in Casablanca (wokrks fine for most of it, extemely wooden in the last scene though)
- Jerome Flynn in Game of Thrones (the dubbing in that show is mostly really good, but you just can't replace that awesome voice)
- Every single person in Friends. Okay, i can live with Matthew Perry since he also had that voice in all his movies. All the other ones are unbearable, especially David Schwimmer's makes me want to kill myself. In general that dubbbing is utterly awful; the wording is odd, the timing is off, the characters seem to have no chemistry with each other and they take many jokes that worked on several levels and often were two hilarious jokes in one and turn it into cheap oneliners that aren't even funny on one single level. NOBODY likes it.
I can't come up with many more really (performance-wise). I tried searching for some, and most complaints i found were only on the translation and wording, not the actors. Even those stuck-up pretentious twats that say they only ever watch the original version admit that our voice actors themselves are actually doing a really good job
Tim: Looked up a few clips of the German dub of Friends out of morbid curiosity, and wow, you weren't kidding.
I hope Jeremy Renner's okay
Mitchell: Most of the Polish dubs outside of animated movies and TV ahows are reserved for "lightweight" stuff like MCU/some sitcoms and there the stakes don't feel as high compared to producing the voiceover when dealing more prestigious media like the movies Tim mentioned. Generally though most of these dubbing-oriented actors are very consistent in their line of work and lifeless or painfully miscast performances are rare to come by.
Having said that, I can think of a single case of dubbing that completely butchered any hopes of a performance being somewhat good: Johnny Depp in Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales.
The screenplay already is awful by completely stripping him of any hidden depths and cunning nature he displayed previously and reduces him to a drunken court jester. Then you have to endure Polish Sparrow's cartoonishly tipsy way of talking combined with his barrage of sex jokes for the entirety of the movie. It's incredibly frustrating to listen to and the fact he's dubbed by one of the most recognizable and beloved Polish actors makes it even worse (then again said actor's recent output has gotten pretty awful and he has kinda fallen on hard times, so I guess it's pretty ironic in hindsight).
Tim and Ytrewq: I was not aware of those dubs from your home countries were so bad. Thank you for the responses.
On another note, I've been thinking more and more about if Cruise gets nominated for "Top Gun: Maverick". As much as I think there would/should be other performances to recognize, I can't deny that it's a genuinely good star turn, the sort that's been generally overlooked by the academy.
It would be easy to look at TGM and see it as not the biggest challenge of Cruise, or frankly his best performance from the last 10-15 years (Edge of Tomorrow still takes that for me). At the same time, though, to use an expression Louis likes, he shouldn't be hand waved for the performance either. Much like the film itself, which beyond it's technical achievements was undoubtedly helped by nostalgia, it does serve as a big "huzzah" from one of Hollywood's bonafide leading men. People like Cruise, Pitt and DiCaprio, I mean...performers who in an era before social media, could sell out theatres on name/reputation alone. If anything, "Maverick" is a testament to how much Cruise has improved over the years. His performance in the original film, while not without merit, still struck me as him "trying" much of the time, and coming off as grating in spots. In the sequel, however, there was none of that visible effort; Cruise found an ease in his reprisal that he doesn't always utilize the best, but does so in "Maverick". He's charming, funny, has screen presence, and at the same time a grounded sense of emotion and character - basically all the boxes you would ask for.
Like I said, I'm positive there are other performers who would better qualify in the "best leading actor of 2022". But since I'm playing devil's advocate, if we do get Cruise, it will be far from the absolute worse choice in the category. It's a good showing through and through, and particularly compared to Bardem of last year, I'll take that as the fifth slot if needed.
Side note: The fact that Cruise's character has my first name as his last name in no way influences my position.
Eh, I'm very much in favour of moving past star turns being nominated if they're not offering anything new to the table. Many performances that involve utilising an actor's presence that are leagues better than what Cruise does in Maverick.
Luke:
Redmayne - 2.5(I think the real problem with this is that they don't have a proper straight man dynamic for him to work against because of just how sloppy the films are making it just kind of all over the place.)
Mikkelsen - 2.5(Even when phoning it in, he's still okay, I do think this is far from Mikkelsen giving it all just kind of doing a generalized menace, which still is something given it's him but also the most "eh" I've ever seen him.)
Law - 3.5(Trying so hard to give some emotional honesty to the storyline and I wouldn't say he fails within his own work. There is a sincerity that he does bring while also bringing this dramatic gravitas still needed for Dumbledore. It's a shame the film's are so broken because he was well cast when it is all said and done.)
Fogler - 3(Is completely wasted a character, maybe make the deer who will bow before the most purely good person have it be Jacob and make there an actual reason why he would've been recruited. Anyway rant over, he is charming and also does bring some honest emotion even in the mess that are these films.)
Sudol - 1(If you thought she was too much in the first one, one hasn't seen anything yet, her bug eyed acting goes to great and absolutely ridiculous heights here.)
Everyone else wavers between serviceable and forgettable.
McInery - 4.5(Gives an honest portrayal of teenage energy that manages between these moments of just kind of going with the moment and greater desperation. Giving a particularly authentic feeling quality in key moments that makes them particularly painful because she's so natural within them. Creating the moments of getting swept along with the man's "charm" but just the same being as convincing in the moment of great realization and hesitation when it seems to fall apart. Her work creating a wholly genuine feeling authentic state that makes the particularly visceral moments as visceral as they are.)
Saving Tucker, although I should note that this is a 2023 film by my rules.
If it were up to me, I would put Daniel Craig and Edward Norton for Glass Onion instead of Cruise and Hirsch, but I know there's no chance of it happening.
Tahmeed:
A scene that naturally shows really the whole "why" of Jamie from the previous season, and earns the catharsis of the earned embrace between who had been the opposite sides the last season.
Speaking of Goldstein, great work in terms of delivering the harshness of Roy in his dismissiveness but with now genuine emotion in connecting with his true calling while doing the repetitiveness of predictive commentary, though with the ending being the romantic comedy sudden break to get there "in time".
The final scene is interesting in the juxtaposition of two very different emotions though of bitter anger, versus intense sadness of traumas articulated for different reasons one father essentially dying metaphorically against literally dying.
Louis: What are your thoughts on the other long take in Touch of Evil, the one where they interrogate Sanchez in that apartment?
Louis: Your category placement for Jonathan Tucker.
Louis: Your thoughts on the screenplay of Yi Yi.
Luke: He's 100% supporting.
Louis: Your past and present roles for Sacha Baron Cohen?
Mitchell: I agree. It's a really good star turn in a brilliant movie and the biggest box office success of 2022. I wouldn't find it to be a problem, if he gets nominated. I also would like to think that Cruise being nominated might inject some energy into the show.
The list of presenters of the Golden Globes has been released.
Is it possible for us to see some redemption? Which category will Tarantino present?
Louis: Ratings and thoughts on the cast of Return To Seoul.
Glad you liked it, Louis. Hard to believe it's Park Ji-min's acting debut.
8000's:
Brilliant choice by Welles as it keeps the setting very much alive and claustrophobic, where multiple angles would've diminished that. It's also just extremely impressive how well composed every moment of it is despite also seeming just like the natural development of the scene.
Oliver:
Yi Yi's screenplay is a blending between structure and the structureless. In that, the scenes themselves seem to be just moments in life and are written as such with very naturalistic dialogue and equally natural scenarios. It would seem we are just going from family member to family member, and perhaps if not paying close attention, without obvious purpose other than we are covering each of these different members of the family. There is purpose though within each family member and even the progression of the scenes of each member as we witness their lives going on as they do. The challenge is to simultaneously seem so simple and just part of life, while actually accomplishing a very specific purpose with each, while balancing each story at the same time, which Yang successfully pulls off while also being quietly insightful into life and family from so many different angles.
Ytrewq:
Freddie Mercury (still would've rathered seen his version.)
Luke:
Park - 5(A fascinating performance because it really goes in a direction you wouldn't expect, with a confidence you wouldn't expect, and a success that becomes quite the expectation when it is all said and done. Her performance is surprising as a debut given how well constructed it is in terms of realizing the character. Her performance is essentially some fashion of control throughout the film and so many different facets of what that means. There are moments where she's just getting what she wants in a more playful way where she is endearing and likable in ways where you could see why she gets others to help or go along with her. In other moments though we see this realize itself in rather callous ways where Park shows still confidence however now controlling in a way that is unpleasant with how blithe it is. Meanwhile what she alludes to is this woman trying to control her life due to the basic fundamental break of not having a choice in her own parents at a young age. There she finds a complex vulnerability that informs her strength essentially, both in good ways and bad, that define who her Freddie is. It is a consistently compelling performance by how well it articulates this very unusual journey yet how natural she makes it while often playing the truth to the chest, while so often dominating her space.)
Oh - 3.5(Gives I think an interesting combination between distance and an attempt at emotional connection. He creates this sense of a fatherly desire while making it awkward in the lack of natural connection with his technical daughter.)
Han - 3.5(A good performance if limited, as basically providing a needed straight woman to what Park is doing throughout the film.)
Louis: Do I have any spare requests I failed to use?
Louis and to everyone else who makes Oscar predictions: What case would you make for continuing to follow the Oscars despite their many faults?
Louis: Assuming you keep track of that, same question as Robert.
Tony: It's fun. The key is to not *actually* care, though.
Tony: In recent years have leant towards focusing what impact they can have outside the awards themselves - leading to career resurgences, increase in representation especially with wins for demographics previously unrewarded/ostracised, giving a spotlight to films that wouldn't have been granted it otherwise, etc.
Probably the healthiest way to look at them.
Tony: I tend to be more excited about finding out what everyone's year-end top tens are, their choices for the acting categories, which just happens to coincide with the Oscar nominations. Honestly the ceremony and winners themselves have become of secondary importance to me, unless of course history is being made (like Parasite's nomination and win).
To add onto Calvin's point, I think incremental changes and progress should be celebrated in and of itself. The Academy is flawed in many ways (especially the actors' branch, which remains the laziest part of it by far), but I think the structural changes that have started to occur (greater diversity and number of members) have already had a noticeable impact. While I don't think the Oscars will ever be completely meritocratic (if such a standard is even possible), there has definitely been an uptick in the quality of nominees as there are more and more films being seen and recognized in general. I just hope the trend keeps continuing in that direction.
For me personally my interest has gone up over the last couple years. Parasite winning the awards it did felt like a big step in the right direction. It's great to see foreign filmmakers and actors get recognized when they deserve it, or just underrated stars in general. Sam Rockwell finally getting recognized for his work in Billboards, Vinterberg and Hamaguchi getting attention brought to their work, etc. This year it will be nice to see Brenden Gleeson finally be nominated. I would've loved to have seen either Park Chan-wook or Kore-eda finally make their Oscar breakthrough this year but it is what it is.
Tony: It's all about the hope for me. The ceremonies themselves have become less popular and renowned judging by the ratings and many opinions expressed online, but I still wish to see if the Academy will make a full turn towards nominating and giving awards to those that truly deserve it, instead of carelessly handing them the statues based on their popularity, age, juicy type of a performance/movie etc. These cliches may not disappear altogether, but as others here noted, we've been witnessing a gradual turn in the right direction.
Loved Turning Red, my favorite Pixar film in quite a while.
Louis: Your thoughts on the second ritual scene, and the song "Nobody Like U"?
Michael & Robert:
You have at one unused request each.
Tony:
I can echo most of the thoughts here, it's fun as long as one doesn't take it *seriously*, it can grant recognition to films/performers/filmmakers that might not get it otherwise. And while many might argue their irrelevance that most nominees aren't box-office hits, I'd say the opposite is true, as very fundamentally, studios/producers still care about the Oscars, helping to ensure that such films get made, furthermore when nominated, does grant a potential second wind of recognition for often deserving films that were overlooked in the theater because they weren't a franchise blockbuster.
Tahmeed:
I think the scene itself is a proper climax, something I don't love in a lot of pixars, because it keeps everything centralized and pulls together the disparate elements (like the friends and boy bands) to actually naturally realize the action oriented moment on a character level that works. It stays focused on everyone trying to solve the problem of the out of control Panda, but each helping in a different way that speaks towards their roles within the story. And of course the essential facet being the battle of the two pandas that is less so a real fight but rather the daughter setting off her mom by expressing her freedom over her mom's very specific confines of expectation.
Louis: Do you think Turning Red has any chance at winning the Oscar? I know the consensus prediction right now is Pinocchio, which makes sense in some ways, but I think it's far from set in stone and behind that, it seems like Marcel and Turning Red could have something of a shot at it.
Louis: My request is Ralph Fiennes in Strange Days for 1995 Lead
Tony: To add to everyone's good points, at the end of the day; movie buffs, film nerds, whatever we should be called, only have awards season. It's not the best and it's not always the most pleasant due to Hollywood's antics, but it's all we have.
For better AND for worse, that's our Super Bowl, our World Cup or our Wrestlemania. Unless one has the money to go to Cannes, VIFF or TIFF, that's the only sort of grand event outside of movies themselves that we get to look forward to.
Tony: I'll basically second Louis' thoughts on this. They do offer a great opportunity for allowing films to get recognized and I just find it fun in general. I'll admit that I've been guilty of taking it too seriously in the past, though the older I get the more I feel that its just some friendly competition and a chance to root for some of your favorite films of the past year. There are times where we should genuinely criticize some of the moves they make (aka basically the entire way they set up the show last year), but all in all I don't think there's anything wrong with watching the show and enjoying the ride to it.
I also agree with Emi in that its really the only big event film buffs tend to have thats universally accessible since most people don't have the time/money to go to a film festival.
Louis: Since others are asking, how many requests do I have that I haven't used yet (I am pretty certain I have at least one but thought there might've been a second and just want to make sure)?
Louis: It seems like apparently Cameron briefly considered Michael Biehn for Lang's role in Avatar.
While I'm not fond of the film, think Biehn's career would have been revitalized by being in the film or not?
Louis: Thoughts on Cate Blanchett in Tar.
Louis: Ratings and thoughts on the cast of Two-Lane Blacktop and where would you rank Oates.
Luke:
Taylor - 3(He has kind of a presence but it doesn't add up to all that much beyond that. I think as sort of a central protagonist he falls short but could work as an off-beat side character.)
Oates - 4.5(Honestly this whole performance just seems like Oates trying to make something work by just how fascinating he is as a performer. He brings his sure-fire off-beat energy here quite effectively with this sort of internalized crazed manner. He presents the respectable citizen yet within the edges of the respectable he seems completely mad. Oates has the right kind of fun in this presentation of the man who presents himself as this oddly civilized sort even when at the same time seems constantly at odds with whatever it is that he is claiming. Oates is consistent in that he's always engaging in presenting this particular madness that is still held together in his Oates way. He creates a pivotal dynamic presence that carries the film throughout, even when he's not onscreen honestly, because his oddball energy brings a needed compelling surprise.)
Blanchett - (Watching this performance twice is all the more rewarding, much like the film, as you can see really just how much she is doing here. On the surface, this is just a great performance because she is so dominating in her presence here. There isn't a scene where she doesn't hold your attention and the immense power of her personality is unquestionable. Blanchett cultivates that kind of charisma here as just a given and makes Tar larger than life in the exact way Tar would like to be seen. Her performance has at least three layers of Tar, to put it one way, as the most surface is the public persona we see in the opening scene. Blanchett's enunciation in that scene is at its most intense as are her performative physical motions, particularly in her hand movements. The trick with Blanchett's performance is as much as it is performative, it is performative in a way that is appealing and you can see how engaging Tar is. As she rattles off her theories to the answers, with her impressive lexicon, Blanchett is captivating but she is also showing essentially the play of the genius playing the genius. Tar isn't this woman by any means but she has crafted herself as such. Blanchett even differs in the Juilliard scene where she is presenting a sort of "ultimate Tar" is essentially weaponized a distinct sense of satisfaction that Blanchett presents within every unlikely vocabulary word or every chance to emphasize her own talent. Her other facade is along with her moments with her peers, though those who are still below her in some way, Blanchett eases back on the voice, though it is still regal to a degree and her performance is a bit more reflective of Tar being more honest with these people though not entirely. Blanchett still emphasizes certain word use that seems to reinforce her perceived intelligence though there is a bit more directness. We put that layer back on with the orchestra where Blanchett's physical performance is great in bringing that over-the-top, yet true to life, conductor energy where can there is something very performative about her even as she does have real power as she conducts with her specific decisions and choices. Blanchett shows Tar as the pretender but there is real power in that pretending. The seeming final layer is with her wife and daughter, the two which are not equal in any presentation of vulnerability however in each Blanchett seems to present honesty in Tar's manner towards them with moments of warmth, mostly so with her daughter. And there her talking is at its least speechifying and the least emphasis, she's being seemingly herself. Of course, that is in contrast to the private moments where Blanchett brings more neurotic energy so naturally, as we see the fixation upon those elements that support her genius or the intensity as she looks upon those elements that break her self-construction. Her portrayal throughout the downfall is a mix of where we see her fashioning her new "choice" that she presents as this fascination that entices her, against the moments of her seeming haunted by something where there is the broken sense of any kind of humanity in just the sense of fear, and just, which Blanchett, of course, excels with, is her complete mental breakdown. In that, though you see that there is a final layer to be peeled as her voice is all that bit less refined particularly when she talks to her brother and we see the person beneath the constructed "genius". There Blanchett is particularly in the moment of watching the Bernstein tape because as low as Tar is in the moment we also see the purity of the truth of her dream and her success in watching it, even as we see what monstrous creature she eventually made out of that original inspiration. It is outstanding work that is a showcase for Blanchett ability to play big, and the best of that instance I might say, however there is so much more going on than that in her realization and deconstruction of everything that makes up Tar.)
Louis: Someone pointed out that her assistant was filming the Juilliard lecture in the far background and was probably the one who let it leak. You notice that the second viewing?
Robert:
I had noticed the one filming, in the top row, who I think was her.
Calvin:
I think Turning Red could win, as Pixar is the default choice the just need to lose that spot (evidenced by Brave's win). Personally I think "Red" is strong enough to maintain it.
Post a Comment