Wednesday, 8 November 2023

Alternate Best Actor 1958: Danny Kaye in Me and the Colonel

Danny Kaye did not receive an Oscar nomination, despite winning the Golden Globe, for portraying Samuel L. Jacobowsky in Me and the Colonel. 

Me and the Colonel, is not a flawless, but overall an effective comedic thriller about a Jewish Polish refugee escaping the Nazis along with an antisemitic Polish officer (Curd Jürgens). 

What makes the film IS Danny Kaye, an actor I don't think I've given enough credit to it seems, and perhaps should seek out more of his work, because as much as I got a kick out of him in The Court Jester, this performance here suggests a greater talent than was already on display there. This is against type, though not entirely against genre for Kaye. In that so much of this has the elements of a dramatic performance and it is a dramatic performance in many ways. Kaye doesn't play the Kaye persona of the hapless, though likable, hero, but rather very specifically this Jewish man trying to escape the Nazis with his life intact during World War II. Kaye purposefully reduces his physical manner into a much quiet quality of a man who modestly makes his way through life. it isn't a put on though it is just something you wholly believe. Kaye's accent work is subtle, but terrific in just helping to establish this man, while also successfully taking you away from the expected Kaye. You believe Kaye as this Jewish man who had quietly been living in Europe before he had to flee. He is just Samuel L. Jacobowsky, and with such a specific presence that is like Kaye's, that is an impressive achievement all on its own. 

Kaye's performance is kind of a challenge though in already readjusting himself to be a different man than you know him for, there's more than just the surface of the man. Kaye's eyes are not the eyes of the hapless hero, but rather the man who has been through much. Early in the film he discusses having gone from one place to another to escape persecution, and only found in each situation that he had to run to escape the Nazis. There is a genuine quiet sadness in Kaye's eyes that speaks to the struggle he's been through, even as he delivers this speech with a certain comedic undercurrent of someone who can't quite believe the situation he's found himself in. And that is the true brilliance of this performance. Kaye clearly before this film was someone who knew how to be funny in such a big way, with his patter songs, and just his outgoing energy that is larger than life. This is a subversion of that even though it is so specifically connected to that idea, but Kaye reworks it to be down to earth, yet still so endearing and often so funny. Because what Kaye does instead of portraying a man who exists in a comical world, in an overtly comical way, he shows instead a man who deals with the real world, and is in the real world, but treats it as a comedy. 

Kaye's portrayal of Samuel is with a wry wit, and switches in form, as someone who sees the world as it is, and can't help but laugh a little at his predicament. Kaye is pitch perfect in the way he works the tone because his performance is very amusing, but it is specifically with this quiet observational manner of someone who sees the absurdities of the world and merely points them out. He's not absurd, rather in some ways he's the one thing who is not, but he sees the world for the absurdity it is. And Kaye masters this approach in just being able to cut through every scene by making every line of Samuel's this sharp knife of wisdom that often are comedic, but also always feel absolutely honest to this man's nature. His observations throughout make him so endearing because you see the wisdom in the words right along with the humor of the specific observation each time. Kaye is just so natural in making this lower key comedy just work with such ease. And it is this ideal he achieves because he's comic without comical, and he's also kind of dramatic without being dramatic. He's both and neither, and just is wonderful I think is probably the best way to put it. 

Now the film works because of Kaye, if it wasn't for Kaye, and there was just a slightly less deft performance in the role, the film would fall flat because Jürgens is so inconsistent in his performance, that swings between okay dramatic moments and completely over the top moments, that it would've been easy to lose the stakes, or seem almost too perfunctory in its execution. Kaye though comes in with this unique hero brought to life by his talents. We follow him as Kaye gets to do so much, while still being reserved. In that Samuel is extremely intelligent, and while he won't be violent to win, he can use his mind to find things he needs to keep going. And Kaye brings to life this keen eye in every moment and the sense of the man who thinks through his situation and finds the work around. One such way is through his charm, where Kaye is so naturally sweet in the role, that you believe him in conning out a resource, or winning over the love interest of both men, a French local Suzanne (Nicole Maurey). In both instances, Kaye doesn't ever force a moment, he rather glides, and you believe the ease of the glide in Kaye's hands. He convinces you of the change in the relationship with the Colonel, more so than his co-star, because Kaye's sincerity, even when often showing how dumb the Colonel is in his comments, is impossible to resist. Yet even more than that, when the film builds its tensions towards the end, and it seems like both men might be caught by the Nazis, Kaye alters his performance just enough and just again so naturally, to convey the rise in tension as the sense of possible real loss comes within his eyes. This is fantastic work from Danny Kaye, that suggests maybe we just skimmed the surface of his talents, or at least maybe I have. 

81 comments:

8000S said...

Louis: Your thoughts on the voice of Ernie Anderson, PTA's father.

Matthew Montada said...

Hey everyone. Hope you all are doing well. Over the weekend i went to the Miami GEMS Film Festival (had a blast there) and i saw the following movies:

The Boy & The Heron
Saltburn
All Of Us Strangers
The Holdovers

My reviews for each movie are right here:
The Boy & The Heron - https://boxd.it/577d4n
Saltburn - https://boxd.it/57uqnX
All Of Us Strangers - https://boxd.it/57JhH5
The Holdovers - https://boxd.it/580vyl

My ratings for the casts:

The Boy & The Heron:
Soma Santoki - 3.5
Masaki Suda - 4
Aimyon - 3.5
Yoshino Kimura - 3
Shōhei Hindo - 3.5
Ko Shibasaki - 3.5
Takuya Kimura - 3
Jun Kunimura - 3
Kaoru Kobayashi - 3
Keiko Takeshita - 3
Jun Fubuki - 3
Sawako Agawa - 3
Shinobe Otake - 3

Saltburn:
Barry Keoghan - 4.5 (verging on 5)
Jacob Elordi - 3.5
Rosamund Pike - 4.5 (same as Keoghan)
Richard E. Grant - 4
Alison Oliver - 4
Archie Madekwe - 3.5
Carey Mulligan - 3.5
Paul Rhys - 3.5
Ewan Mitchell - 3

All Of Us Strangers:
Andrew Scott - 5
Paul Mescal - 5
Claire Foy - 5
Jamie Bell - 4

The Holdovers:
Paul Giamatti - 5
Dominic Sessa - 4.5
Da’Vine Joy Randolph - 5
Carrie Preston - 3.5
Brady Hepner - 3
Ian Dolley - 3
Jim Kaplan - 3
Michael Provost - 3
Naheem Garcia - 3

I have also seen the following 2023 movies these past few days or so:

Priscilla (short review: https://boxd.it/56ARPd):
Cailee Spaeny - 4
Jacob Elordi - 3

Nyad:
Annette Bening - 3.5
Jodie Foster - 4 (verging on 4.5)
Rhys Ifans - 4

Anatomy Of A Fall (Review: https://boxd.it/58i75b):
Sandra Huller - 5
Swann Arlaud - 4.5
Milo Machado-Graner - 5
Antoine Renartz - 4
Samuel Theis - 4

Fingernails (just finished this a few minutes ago):
Jessie Buckley - 4
Riz Ahmed - 4
Jeremy Allen White - 3.5
Luke Wilson - 3

Tony Kim said...

Louis, your thoughts on Vishnevetsky and Lemire's review of Film Socialisme. https://youtu.be/C9NgR0o7hyI?t=572

Luke Higham said...

Louis: Thoughts on the direction of The Curse Of The Were-Rabbit and thoughts on the Church Meeting scene.

Ytrewq Wertyq said...

I've seen Wonder Man nearly a month ago and I can guarantee you'll get a kick out of Kaye's performance there as well.

RatedRStar said...

Louis: I was very tempted to suggest Kaye a while ago, but since Jurgens performance was so bad I actually thought it would bring Kaye down a little.

RatedRStar said...

Ytreq Wertyq: So I requested that performance as a rather risky choice, I am kinda glad I did because I actually think that performance is a lot of fun.

what did you reckon to the visual effects that it won the Oscar for?

Mitchell Murray said...

Hey guys...this comment got buried earlier, but I'm thinking about looking at some Anime OP's for my next blog discussion. Anyone have suggestions/openings you particularly like?

8000S said...

Mitchell: I've always liked this OP.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6oNFpVOfxp4

Mitchell Murray said...

8000s: Silent Mobius, eh...

Admittedly I haven't heard of or seen the show, but the OP was solid, and very 90s.

8000S said...

Mitchell: You talked about Clancy Brown in the previous page.

Here's a fun fact about him. He had a grandfather who was a conservative congressman from Ohio. Although he disagreed a lot with JFK and LBJ's agenda, the man still was a key figure in getting the CRA of 1964 and the VRA of 1965 passed.

Even when he was very sick in 1965, he still went out of his way to get out of the hospital and vote in favor of the VRA.

Ytrewq Wertyq said...

RatedRStar: A well-deserved win in my book, as the special effects effectively show the powers of Buzzy's ghost in a way that must have been cutting edge for the time and they still hold up to this day. It's all done in a very cartoony way that wouldn't seem out of place in a Looney Tunes short, but it goes well with the jovial tone of the film.

Mitchell Murray said...

8000s: Very interesting. Brown was born in 59', so the era adds up there.

8000S said...

Mitchell: Here's another thing you might find interesting. All of these Republicans supported a universal health care bill from Ted Kennedy, JFK's and RFK's younger brother.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clifford_P._Case
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Sherman_Cooper
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacob_Javits
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_B._Saxbe
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seymour_Halpern
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F._Bradford_Morse
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Adams_Mosher
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ogden_Reid

Emi Grant said...

I liked The Killer. I wanted to love it, but couldn't really get there. I'm blaming te source material (or poor adaptation of).

In the grand scheme of his filmography, it's lower-tier, but more than enough proof he still has it.

Fassbender: 4
Charlotte: 3-ish
Pernia: 3
Polanco: 2.5
Parnell: 3
O'Malley: 3.5
Baker: 3
Swinton: 4.5 (Makes you question why the film is not about her instead)
Howard: 3

Emi Grant said...

("his filmography" being Fincher's, obviously)

Ytrewq Wertyq said...

Louis: From what you've seen of them, what do you think are the absolute worst performances of these actors and actresses?

-Adam Sandler
-Stephen Lang
-Ron Perlman
-Arnold Schwarzenegger
-Judi Dench
-Natalie Portman
-Jessica Lange
-Annette Bening

Louis Morgan said...

I for one loved the Killer, slick, stylish and wonderfully to the point. The plot is straight forward, however I think it serves the real intention, which is all about the vivid details befitting our detail oriented protagonist, and our detail oriented director. Although in the vein of Day of the Jackal, Le Samourai, I'd say it most closely resembles Murder by Contract, in being about depicting all the specific steps, filtered through nihilism and accentuated with moments of the darkest bits of humour, which I absolutely adored.

Saving Fassbender.

Howard - 3.5
Parnell - 2.5
O'Malley - 3.5
Swinton - 4
Baker - 3
Charlotte - 3
Polanco - 3
Pernia - 2.5

Luke Higham said...

Saving Fassbender, Music to my ears. :)

Thoughts on the cast.

Calvin Law said...

Yeah, I already liked it a lot at Venice but The Killer grew on me even more with a rewatch. And I guess I need to watch Murder by Contract now.

Bump Swinton a 4.5 Louis...you know you want to! One scene wonder of the year. Have to say I disagree with the 2.5 for Parnell though, I thought he played the role perfectly.

Emi Grant said...

GLAD you loved it, Louis. Here I was expecting another Asteroid City situation, lol.

Mitchell Murray said...

hey guys. There's two things I wanted to share with you all...

Firstly, I have a new post on my blog. It's a shorter review than usual, but I've been wanting to talk about it as I've stated.

And second, thoughts on this scene from "Frost/Nixon"?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pT9GPloXjA8&ab_channel=Movieclips

Given what I know about the ex-president, I'd say the writing here is pretty on point with his character/insecurities. I'll admit, though, that over the years, I've grown less enthuasiastic with Langella's performance, as he simply neither looks like nor sounds like Nixon that much. If anything, he should've worked harder to heighten the pitch of his voice/delivery to match him; Not a typical task for an actor, I'll concede, but entirely do-able (see PSH in "Capote").

With all that said...this is a monologue that would entirely fit a stageplay, just as Frost/Nixon was. I could see this scene and even Langella's performance working better in that context.

Michael McCarthy said...

Never thought there would be a year where I was less moved by Martin Scorsese’s film than Alexander Payne’s but The Holdovers got me.

Giamatti: 5
Sessa: 5
Randolph: 4.5
Preston: 4

Michael McCarthy said...

Also Louis, could I by chance get your top 11-20 films from 1966 and 1981?

Luke Higham said...

Louis: Thoughts on Winnie The Pooh And The Blustery Day.

Glenn said...

Luke, would How To Train Your Dragon 2 be worth recommending to Louis.

Luke Higham said...

Glenn: I think it's a good sequel, certainly better than 3. I can recall it having some quite poignant moments in the last act. It would be worth it from a completionist point of view.

8000S said...

Mitchell: I always think of Nixon the same way I look at Johnson. Both corrupt and bigoted, but also did some good things.

Bear in mind that despite his flaws, Nixon was a very intelligent man.

Mitchell Murray said...

8000s: More or less, yeah. Watergate has consumed all of Nixon's legacy - and deservedly so, one might argue - but the man had a rather accomplished resume before hand. He was Eisenhower's VP, after all, and actually was given praise for some of his foreign diplomacy. Even in office, he oversaw the establishment of the EPA, racial integration in southern schooling, and America developing relations with China - at the height of the Cold War, no less.

The man obviously had distinct look/voice, and I think many media portrayals have run with him being a human cartoon. In reality, Nixon was a great many things; Insecure, paranoid, vindictive, pathetic even, yet undeniably smart in the world of politics. He spent so much time railing against the wealthy and upperclass, about how they screwed over Blue Collar men like him. Yet after Watergate, he never faced true legal reprocussions, and was even regarded as a sort of mentor by the subsequent presidents. Does that amount of leeway sound like a humble working man, or a priveleged elite?

8000S said...

Mitchell: Did you ever check out those Wikipedia links regarding those Republicans that supported Ted Kennedy's universal health care bill?

Mitchell Murray said...

8000s: Regretably, no...I was busy at the time. I'll make a note about reading them.

Tony Kim said...

Mitchell: A bit random, but how much of "classic rock" do you listen to? I'm thinking mainly of The Beatles, Rolling Stones, The Who, Fleetwood Mac, etc.

Louis: As I couldn't find your thoughts on Ed Begley Jr. in BCS, could you give your take on him again?

Mitchell Murray said...

Tony: Nowadays, not a whole lot. I'm certainly familiar with those groups and others, but I mostly listen to them on my car radio going to/from work. Even then, I have my own playlist on Spotify that I usually play instead, which is comprised of a lot more modern rock/gaming and anime tracks.

Ytrewq Wertyq said...

I just learned that Darren Aronofsky intends to make an Elon Musk biopic...who asked for this?

Mitchell Murray said...

Ytrewq: From one contreversial project to another, I guess....which sort of describes Aronofsky's whole filmography to an extent.

RatedRStar said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Marcus said...

Louis: Your Beatles album ranking, and your favorite song from each album?

Matt Mustin said...

I loved everything about Killers of the Flower Moon. The fact that it somehow isn't the best film I've seen this year merely speaks to what a triumph Oppenheimer is. That said though if I was an Oscar voter and it came down to Downey vs. De Niro I'd vote for De Niro without so much as a second thought.

DiCaprio-5
De Niro-5
Gladstone-5
Plemons-3.5
Cardinal-3.5
Lithgow-3(Slightly distracting only because he comes in so late, but he's fine.)
Fraser-3(Makes the exact kind of impact he's supposed to, don't at all understand the hate for him here.)
Myers-3.5
Isbell-3.5
Belleau-3.5
Cancelmi-3.5
Shepherd-3.5

Basically everybody else is a 3-3.5 as well.

Michael McCarthy said...

I’m at about a 2.5 for DiCaprio, otherwise my ratings are the same as Matt I think.

Louis Morgan said...

8000's:

I mean a great booming, classic announcer voice that is equal parts commanding and oddly comforting.

Luke:

The direction of any Aardman is always very similar in terms of the overall approach which is crafting comical animated action essentially, because there is a very real specific notion of making any little thing the pair does have just a bit more to it by doing it in a way that is only possible in the world of animation. The extra wrinkle beyond their shorts is the were rabbit, where the direction brings a, I'll say, garnish of Universal horror stylings, that is a nice addition particularly in the transformation scene. To say "scary" would be inaccurate, but there is a nice "spooky" additional styling .

Tony:

Well I haven't touched Film Socialisme, given my views on Goddard's universally praised films. But I'll always take Kermode's review on this one. Anyway, kind of the debate though I was looking for more consistently on the show, and really post-Ebert & Siskel period. Where both are passionately trying to defend their take, and I do love Lemire's final statement on if it was any filmmaker would Vishnevetsky like the film.

Ytrewq:

-Adam Sandler - Jack and Jill (I saw enough)
-Stephen Lang - Maybe the Amazing Panda Adventure (again I saw enough...maybe)
-Ron Perlman - I guess Don't Look Up.
-Arnold Schwarzenegger - Hercules in New York.
-Judi Dench - Cats
-Natalie Portman - Lucy in the Sky
-Jessica Lange - Blue Sky
-Annette Bening - Life Itself

Luke:

Howard - (A punchline performance that worked for me, as there's no great gravitas or mystery to him, he's just a dude bro investor definitely no more than that, and I liked how Howard played it 100% as such.)

Parnell - (Eh for me a bit stiff, and I think someone would have suggested a great mystery of the character in one scene, but he didn't do that for me, though overall thought he was not bad still.)

O'Malley - (Quite effective in just showing the visceral fear and heartbreak, but mixed in with this certain cutting within her performance that suggests her attachment to the same world as Fassbender even if she's obviously out of her depth at a certain level.)

Swinton - (She was always intended to be a 4.5 for me, and yes a great one scene wonder particularly if you look at her performance in terms of contrasting from Fassbender's killer in that they're both the the same thing, yet there is fundamental difference is because of how has the gun. Because what Swinton's performance is shows someone who is always calculating still, particularly as the way she plays it shows someone who is always underplaying her potential threat at every turn, always making herself seem harmless, and having given up. That's one weapon, her second is her attempt at the psychological game, which might've worked on someone who wasn't a soulless husk. But where Swinton's performance excels is showing that she's playing the game, but also showing her attempting to reach from a similar position as she regales her story of the hunter in such detail, portraying weakness, to try to create weakness. By showing the person she assumes the killer is, because she is in revealing her specific pseudo regrets, if they are even that. Wonderful work.)

Baker, Carlotte, Polanco - (All straight forward but do the job.)

Pernia - (Straightforward but definitely thought he could've brought just a bit more.)

Michael:

Have to say The Holdovers is staying with me wonderfully, to the point I actually want to watch it again when it hits wide, which isn't something I thought I'd say about a Payne film.

Soon.

8000S said...

Louis: Who would you say were the American counterparts of Setsuko Hara, Hideko Takamine, Machiko Kyo and Kinuyo Tanaka?

Tahmeed Chowdhury said...

Louis: Your thoughts on whether Swinton's character was lying about not wanting to harm Magdala the way 'the Brute' intended? Also thought she was great, easily the best scene of the film for me.

Also, your thoughts on the use of the music of The Smiths?

Tony Kim said...

Louis: Do you have any more specific thoughts on how Lemire and Vishenvetsky's tastes differed, and do you think the latter answered the former's question at the end well?

Anonymous said...

Another pick for 1958, what are your thoughts on Kim Stanley and Lloyd Bridges in The Goddess?

Mitchell Murray said...

Well, I wanted to say that I started watching "Chainsaw Man" of all things....

Not since episode 1 of "Invincible" have things gone from 1 to 100 so fast.

Also, would you eat a cigarette for 90 cents? Because that's what Denji does, if I converted yen to CD correctly.

Mitchell Murray said...

ALSO...at the risk of sounding as crude as Denji...the man's down bad. God damn!

Louis Morgan said...

Luke:

I will admit I've only ever watched it in the film compilation version, however regardless, enjoyable playful short, with the appearance of Tigger of course being memorable, the Hufflelumps a great change of pace, albeit definitely Pink Elephants related, and then a nice bow on the end with just a bit of the right type of heart with what happens with Pooh and Piglet...though Piglet still got hosed.

Tony:

I've never really seen Begley do a wholly "different" performance, I'd say his most emotional work is his great vocal performance in Batman TAS honestly, but usually it is a variation on his type of "respectable older professional", however he certainly delivers on that accord even if it is essentially a less comedic version of his Arrested Development performance. It works though in showing that he's probably reasonable enough, and if Jimmy had just been patient, he wouldn't have been that bad of a boss.

Tahmeed:

My take on the character was everything she was doing was trying to get him into her planned killing, trying to get an emotional reaction out of the killer to try to make him connect as much as possible with her in order to eventually convince him to "help her" when she'll pretend to trip. Even the drinks I think were intended with her to show "hey look I'm getting drunk and probably will trip when I get tipsy". Her mention of the suggestion of killing her where she sat, again to basically say "you'll get a better chance" which is in fact her better chance. So I think playing on his potential sympathy by presenting herself as the "better one" would fuel into the delay and allow her to take her chance. She's trying to work him the whole time, and I think if the killer was just one degree less nihilistic it would've worked. Having said that, based on her way of life, personality, and even manner of killing shown, I do think she honestly probably didn't like the brute or his methods regardless, but even then I think she was using even that honesty to help lie.

I loved the use of the Smiths, which felt very much like what the Killer's playlist just is, and was a great choice I think to not be someone trying to "sound cool", but genuinely that's just what he likes, that allows him to calm down a bit.

8000's:

Hard to really say as Japanese actresses were very different in comparison to the Hollywood starlet in types of roles at that time, the prolific nature of their careers, but also just representatives of obviously rather different cultures. So I wouldn't say there are obvious 1:1's.

RatedRStar:

I actually would've been willing to comment on that one, just due to the unique circumstances, however I will say that song I do think is a bit falsely represented as such, instead it is more of amalgamation of styles of solo-Lennon, with Solo-McCartney, working with others to create a retrograde classic Beatles style on it, which I think that it is what it sounds like as well, which mean though I like it, but don't think it is near a Beatles classic.

Anonymous:

Stanley - 2(I'll give her credit for reinventing her performance throughout the film, however that's all I can give her credit for as the consistent factor between her naive country girl, to starlet, to jaded starlet, which is being completely melodramatic and overwrought. Every line delivery just being the most intense of emotion every time makes it all extremely ridiculous, but after a while also just dull. There's no genuine humanity and it just feels like an acting exercise after a certain point.)

It says something that I can't remember Bridges, after having watched the film not long ago at all.

Louis Morgan said...

Tony:

Well in terms of perception I think it was clear that Lemire thought it was a meaningless series of images intended to frustrate particularly with the phony subtitles, where Vishnevetsky felt it was profound series of images, though they both agree it was abstract. Lemire describing I'd say more specifics in his failures, particularly by mentioning the Llama, where Vishnevetsky's concession on that one does weaken his entire argument.

The final question, I don't think he does himself favors again by essentially a agreeing with her at first, before backtracking to try to make it about context. And just my own views, I think context of the artist can be overused regardless, and I don't think it should ever support the quality of the film itself, as it should be able to exist, as that could be the first film for anyone from that artist, though it can be included for more in depth analysis, it should never make or break a film by itself. So i don't think he quite argues successfully back on that one. Though again, that type of debate, so common in Siskel & Ebert, shows where the dueling critic dynamic totally works.

Lucas Saavedra said...

Louis: your ratings and thoughts on the rest of the cast of Me and the Colonel?

Tahmeed Chowdhury said...

Louis: Do you think recency bias/backlash to GOT sabotaged House of the Dragon's chances at acting Emmy recognition? Just recently revisiting Considine's scenes from the show reminds me of how terrible his snub was in particular.

Louis Morgan said...

Lucas:

Jurgens - 2(Missed opportunity in so many ways, and in general I hope he's amazing in German films, because I have not been impressed by his English language efforts in the slightest. And so weird that that "dramatic" actor is so ridiculous meanwhile the comic actor is so dialed in...while also being funny. Here he's too big from the get go and in most scenes, I mean when Akim Tamiroff seems subtle compared to you, you best pull back a bit. And mismanages the whole idea, because you can't buy the colonel at all, the idea of him accepting Jacobowsky is lost because he's too much of a cartoon to believe his hate. He's okayish later in a few moments where he finally plays a human, however all too briefly. Kaye was really setting him ideally, but Jurgens bungles it entirely. The worst of it though is his "romantic" scenes, because uh he's about as appealing a dead fish. I think another actor could've made a great scene partner with Kaye, but this is case where Kaye I think in each scene was setting up his scene partner, however Jurgens picks the worst choice in most cases.)

Maurey - 3.5(Although again, half of her romantic aspect is woefully weak, I did like the general warmth she brought her and particularly her chemistry with Kaye. Again though limited by how bad Jurgens is in most scenes with her, where you just ponder what she sees in him at any point though she certainly tries to sell it.)

Tamiroff - 3.5(I mean he should've been the one being over the top in the trio and it would've worked I think. But instead he's more subdued than Jurgens, and he does work. Again Tamiroff is always at least a little over the top, it just depends on if the role is fitting for his style or not. This time it is, and he does more or less work well here in bringing the goofy sidekick energy.)

Tahmeed:

I think it probably slowed it down, though it had enough to get in drama series still, but I think it unfortunately got a "been there" attitude, after they foolishly awarded some of the worst of the series. I also think they were just being a bit lazy with the acting nominations, as while I'll go to bat for all the Succession actors (except some of the guest actors), having finished season 2 of the White Lotus, that nomination haul for the actors is utterly ridiculous.

Anonymous said...

Louis: Your cast ranking for The White Lotus season 2?

Louis Morgan said...

Anonymous:

1. Aubrey Plaza
2. Will Sharpe
3. Simona Tabasco
4. F. Murray Abraham
5. Jennifer Coolidge
6. Theo James
7. Beatrice Granno
8. Michael Imperioli
9. Meghann Fahy
10. Jon Gries
11. Sabrina Impacciatore
12. Tom Hollander
13. Federico Scribani Rossi
14. Adam DiMarco
15. Haley Lu Richardson
16. Leo Woodhall

Anonymous said...

And if you finished Loki season 2, thoughts/cast ranking.

Luke Higham said...

Louis: Thoughts on Plaza, Abraham and Hollander.

Louis Morgan said...

Anonymous:

A series of poorly executed ideas/plots/character arcs, that seemed very jumbled together and underdeveloped, many resolved uneventfully (particularly the villains), however I did think it came together for an effective last two episodes (which is the polar opposite of most of these shows), where they managed to create a proper arc for Loki which was very well delivered by Hiddleston. However, I'd say that arc was only really figured out/properly introduced by the writers in the last two episodes and resolved in the last two episodes, almost to the point, it could've been just the two episodes and not all that much would've needed to be changed, showing just how worthless the first four were on the whole. But hey, Disney+ endings are typically the worst part, so being the best part for once is a change of pace at least...

1. Tom Hiddleston
2. Ke Huy Quan
3. Owen Wilson
4. Tara Strong
5. Sophia Di Martino
6. Eugene Cordero
7. Rafael Casal
8. Gugu Mbatha-Raw
9. Kate Dickie
10. Liz Carr
11. Wunmi Mosaku
12. Jonathan Majors

Luke:

Plaza - (I mean Plaza's just terrific actor anyway, as she's shown with all her Indie work, and that falls in line with this, where she can have such a specific personality and act wonderfully within that while expressing other personalities. Here technically the role plays on her main expectation of the cynical deadpan, which she of course nails, but she does so much more in terms of revealing the vulnerability and eventual manipulations of the character. Balancing the two sides in such natural realizations that are particularly effective and in moments even affecting because they are so dynamic coming from her within her presence. And her in a way just giving both her expected presence, but also doing so in a way that is so specifically human and natural.)

Abraham - (I was actually surprised with how little he actually has to work with here in portraying his "cad" old man, who is a bit wistful. And basically it is playing different minor variations of those two notes. And well he does nearly the most with often the least within the performances, because I did think he was a dynamic presence regardless as he specifically never plays the character as creepy, even when he is being as such, and instead portrays sort of his learned manner without hesitation however Abraham wisely leaves the judging to the viewer. Because he takes away any over the top overtures about it, instead making him feel natural, and not a single note even as this is often the note he plays. And more fascinatingly he manages to find a surprising degree of warmth in the character because of his approach. And while he only really has one emotional moment, Abraham delivers it beautifully just as he does every moment, where he tries to bring a bit more character to the part than seemed to be on the page. And as much as I was a little frustrated that he didn't have a great part to work with, as his storyline in particular is EXTREMELY limited, it reminded me of the shame that it basically took the fans of Amadeus to grow up to give him proper roles again.)

Hollander - (I actually thought everyone except the bottom 3 fell into the "good" category, though Hollander isn't really asked to do too much other than be vaguely mysterious while also being slightly purposefully campy and eventually vaguely menacing. He does all well enough but it really isn't much of a stretch for him at any point. I liked him but wouldn't go further than that.)

Luke Higham said...

Louis: Thoughts on Hiddleston, Quan and Wilson.

Matt Mustin said...

Louis: Also thoughts on Majors?

Calvin Law said...

Louis: thoughts on Sharpe and Tabasco from White Lotus

Calvin Law said...

Also I agree on Majors, overly mannered and not effective whatsoever. And while I will say I hope Quan gets a bit more variety of roles in the future, this was a fine showcase for him and was glad whenever he popped up onscreen.

Anonymous said...

Louis: Thoughts on #6-9 and Impacciatore from the White Lotus cast and #4-8 for the Loki S2 cast.

8000S said...

Louis: So it seems like Scorsese had thought of directing an adaptation of "Who Dreams of Electric Sheep?", with Jay Cocks writing the script. This was before Scott eventually directed his own adaptation of the novel.

Oh, and he also apparently thought of doing his own version of Scarface with De Niro.

Thoughts?

8000S said...

Sorry, meant to say "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?"

Tahmeed Chowdhury said...

Louis: Your thoughts on this Spanish-Hindi track called 'Senorita' from Zindagi Na Milegi Dobara?

https://youtu.be/yDv0WSgXJVg?si=JZQBBj3nKhqB7Xn4

Tim said...

this weekend i got convinced to go see Five Nights At Freddy's. I actually didn't have much interest in seeing it, but ... i wanted to HAVE seen it, you know?

Anyway, it sucks. Hard. It sucks hard. But it was so bad for me that i could thoroughly laugh at it, in that way i had a blast.

It tries to be a campy kind of creature feature, which i had hoped. It's an inherently silly idea and would have comletely crashed if it had taken itself seriously. But that's the thing. It has some legit good humor, but whenever it tried to be scary it didn't take itself seriously enough, which is why those scenes didn't work at all.

Also, the little girl is unlikable, Matthew Lillard's character is written in a hilariously dumb way and the only good scenes, Hutcherson's backstory flashbacks (which weren't great, but i was invested enough) lead absolutely nowhere and in the end were just a waist of time, just like several whole side characters were.

All the time, i was thinking about Gremlins, which isn't just a far superior film, but also was what i feel like this movie was trying to be. It also never took itself too seriously and embraced how campy it was, but those green little shits could also be legit unnerving.

But then again, fnaf can go down as a so-bad-it's-good kind of flick

Ytrewq Wertyq said...

Tim: I've watched it as well 11 days ago. I found it semi-serviceable and I may have enjoyed it more if I was a die-hard fan of the franchise. Elizabeth Lail is easily the MVP, even if she wasn't amazing or anything.

I'll admit the main reason I've watched it was the premise of Lillard going against type and he absolutely sucked. He can be good as villanous characters, so what happened here?

Emi Grant said...

Louis: Uhhhh.... Your thoughts on this?

(https://twitter.com/DiscussingFilm/status/1724164760567214368)

Louis Morgan said...

Luke:

Hiddleston - (A natural continuation of the more empathetic Loki, though he is forced just a bit to turn his wheels a bit in the early episodes, he ends up delivering some of his best work as the character in the final two episodes. Hiddleston delivers naturally a now fully invested Loki into caring about others creating a real sense of the personal drive now to protect those he cares about, making this more emotional Loki not only feel earned but also actually moving. As he effectively creates that sense of frustration, both in a comic way at times, but also the real urgency of wanting to make everything right. Bringing the right sense of the personal and existential crisis internalized effectively as the man trying to contemplate what his "glorious purpose" actually is. And in his final acts, Hiddleston gives it greater meaning through his reactions in every moment of it, showing someone now with this conviction, but a conviction now to do the right thing and help save the world rather than conquer it. In this performance, he essentially puts the bow on the self-actualization of Loki and manages to successfully go beyond what we might've thought was the limit of the character. What we see in the finale shows perhaps the potential of what the Disney+ series should've been doing instead of what we got.)

Quan - (A role that isn't all that much more than constant exposition, however Quan is delightful at just bringing so much character to every bit of that exposition. He sells every line of the pseudo science beautifully, and does make it engaging just because he's such an engaging performer. He is always fun even when what he's doing throughout is pretty repetitive, he manages to find variation just by being so engaging. Additionally his extra bit he gets in the second to last episode, allows him to do just a bit more and he runs with what he has. Not an amazing role but he makes the most out of it. I do hope he gets cast more than just in multi-versal stories though in the future.)

Wilson - (No real new ground, but an effective reprise in bringing out the character as the investigator defining trait is his warmth and care. Bringing the right innate empathy, and I'm glad Wilson had this role that pushed him a bit while also using his expected presence. And I guess I'd just add that his and Hiddleston's chemistry was probably the best thing after Quan of the early episodes, even if it wasn't always perfectly exploited.)

Calvin:

Sharpe - (A performance that doesn't seem like much as just kind of the nerdy friend who's a little frustrated but also too often deferring to others. He is very effective though in portraying the increasing emotional desperation of the character once the turn happens. He delivers on little bit in showing the suspicions, paranoia and anger that naturally bring out this darker side. Creating this sort of fall from, well not grace, but sort of the man, he was to bring out this greater intensity that effectively matches what Plaza is doing every step of the way.)

Louis Morgan said...

Tabasco - (Well SPOILER ALERT, as there's no way to discuss the performance without it. I mean has a grand presence that delivers just a potent energy every moment she has on screen and presents the allure of her character with complete ease. What is more notable though is portraying the very two different sides, though in reality one side and a facade As half of her performance is playing into the perfect cliche of the prostitute who is everything one wants her to be, while also being vulnerable and just needing a "good man" to "save" her. Creating the image perfectly, then of course that's all just a lie, and we see the truth throughout whenever not with a certain character, where she presents this dogged conviction, but also sort of sense of almost the thrill of the hunt in her performance expressing someone always very much in control even within her profession.)

Matt:

Majors - (This is kind of the opposite of his Ant-Man performance, where I think has some decent moments briefly near the end, and is pretty bad the rest of the time. His whole construction of Victory Timely is aggressively mannered and cartoonish. His whole performance is built on stuttering and mannerisms. He comes off as a sketch character rather than even a sci-fi character. Everything about his performance is focused on accentuating the skittish nature of his character. There is no sense of anything more to him, other than just the most surface facade, and it is much like his over the top Kangs from the Mid-credits scene in Ant-man. But unlike those performances which were less than a minute long, this performance was extended and I got tired of it as soon as it began. His reprise late in the series worked for me, but it was far too little too late to make up for his misguided work as Timely.)

8000's:

I mean would've been interesting because Scorsese has never touched sci-fi, and I think it would've been something entirely different. Have no idea what it would be in fact, but would be something special most likely.

Scarface with De Niro/Scorsese would've I think been probably more serious minded and frankly less like the original Scarface, which as much as I think that film is very much flawed, in many ways played into the same type film as was the original, which perhaps is also a problem.

Tahmeed:

Quite liked it and kind of fascinating as the cultural fusion of Latin musical style mixed in with all of the instrumentation which is very straight forward and as such you might think it was indeed a flamenco song. Beautifully done as such in creating the pleasant party style atmosphere with its gentle repetition. However, in the lyrics, and the singing of the chorus you see the Hindi influence, in more ways than once, though with sort of the intensity of the way the singing can be, however found it remarkably balance that it doesn't break sort of the flamenco style, even while still being both.

Emi Grant:

Well I'm glad Scorsese seems to have a good relationship with his daughter, and is willing to do such silliness with her I suppose. And...I agree with most of his choices.

Luke Higham said...

Louis: Your top 5 Hiddleston performances.

Tony Kim said...

Louis: That's not quite what I meant with regards to Christy and Ignatiy. What I'm asking is, how do you feel they differed in terms of their general tastes in films overall? Personally I thought Ignatiy was slightly akin to Siskel in (to oversimplify) often playing the role of the snobby aesthete, while Christy was comparatively more the Ebert-like populist.

Also, the clip is sadly no longer online, but do you recall their review of Shame well enough to have any thoughts on it? If you ever saw the review, that is.

8000S said...

Louis: You talked about Yoko Tsukasa having a pleasant voice. Much like Yamamoto, would you say that her voice is as beautiful as her looks?

There's honestly something so lovely and elegant about Tsukasa, which you can find in many Japanese actresses of the period.

Louis Morgan said...

Luke:

1. Loki
2. The Hollow Crown
3. The Night Manager
4. Thor
5. Thor Dark World

Tony:

I wouldn't say I saw enough of their reviews total to fully gauge their tastes, other than a few key reviews like Film Socialism, though I think part of that you could chalk up to Goddard fanboyism. Not sure I entirely agree on that being the divide being the same for Ebert and Siskel, as I think both skewed more towards the middle overall, with a blend of arthouse and more general entertainment.

The only thing I remember about the review is comparing Fassbender to Christian Bale in American Psycho, which while they both play corporate NY guys of questionable morality, I don't think it was particularly apt as Fassbender's performance isn't at all heightened like Bale's was.

8000's:

Sure.

Tony Kim said...

Louis: Well again, I was oversimplifying, as their tastes could indeed be a mix of both, but if a non-viewer made me describe how differently they approached films that would be what I'd say. Their reviews of stuff like Cliffhanger, A Cop and a Half, Home Alone 3, Benji the Hunted, Curly Sue, etc. would be examples of what I mean - where Ebert is more willing to embrace populist crowdpleasing entertainment compared to Siskel.

Also, your top 5 written reviews of Ebert's?

8000S said...

Louis: Your thoughts on Ebert's review of To Kill a Mockingbird.

Mitchell Murray said...

Hey guys. Wanted to say that I'm floating between two potential reviews for my next blog post, but one choice is last year's "Chainsaw Man" anime.

I have 4 more episodes to go on the series, and it's been...interesting thus far. Part of me thinks the show has some very intruiging concepts and effectively over the top action scenes. There's another part of me, though, that wishes it would grow up a little/if it's fulfilling a writer's fantasy or something.

Mitchell Murray said...

*thinks it's fulfilling a writer's fantasy

Luke Higham said...

Louis: Any thoughts on Napoleon's reception so far. It's more or less what I expected. I've got higher expectations for the 4 hour cut.

Luke Higham said...

Louis: When you do see Napoleon, could you please save your thoughts on the cast until you've seen the longer version.

Anonymous said...

Luke, Thankfully the overall reception is substantially better than Kingdom Of Heaven's theatrical version so that longer cut shouldn't be any less than a great film.

Louis Morgan said...

Tony:

North
Raging Bull
Bonnie and Clyde
Hoop Dreams
Mad Dog Time

8000's:

An example where he doesn't take the advice he sometimes gave Siskel, which is review the film that was made, not a completely different film that you wanted the filmmakers to make. As the majority of his complaints are built on perspective that wasn't ever the design of the focus of the film, though I think you can also just disprove his claim that the shifted the focus to Atticus from the book, as while there's even more childhood memories elements in the book, the film is still very much from Scout's perspective. His focus is fixed on relatively brief moments of the film, and basically ignores the majority of it to make his overall point. It isn't that he he doesn't give credit to what the majority of the film is doing, he almost ignores it.

Luke:

Mostly what I expected, except many noting the humour in it, though obviously that was evident in both of his last films. I tend to like his "mixed-positive" received films, so here's hoping that's the case again.