Wednesday 27 December 2023

Alternate Best Actor 2012: Paul Dano in Ruby Sparks

Paul Dano did not receive an Oscar nomination for portraying Calvin Weir-Fields in Ruby Sparks. 

Ruby Sparks falls into another film where my tendency not to pre-read synopsis strikes again, as just a glance at the poster, I thought it was your typical two quirky people meet Indie film, but instead it's about a writer inventing said dream quirky woman. 

Paul Dano plays the writer, and it is rare that Dano isn't playing a character with some degree of neurosis. So he seems fitting enough in this role as he just brings that type of energy. A bit different here though is that Dano's character isn't suffering some truly extreme psychological insanity, he's rather a writer suffering writer's block is a bit too isolated. Dano though is effective in playing this lighter note, in again bringing that expected energy of someone always just slightly on edge with his emotions, and never quite seemingly comfortable within himself. Dano's work is a nice modulation of his expected presence here in playing the slight riff to this kind of character. He has an ease at unease, and manages to make it less heavy than usual in a way that does make Calvin likable, enough, when it would've been easy to be too much with his eccentricity, or just too little to the point of blandness. Dano hits the right balance in giving us the starting point of his romantic lead, which is a bit more straightforward than many Dano roles, but also properly distinguishes himself as a somewhat atypical romantic lead, if still very much within that kind of genre. 

Eventually the turn to establish the film's intention comes in when he becomes inspired to write about a woman meeting his dog, who has all her own little bit of written business. Where we first meet his creation of Ruby (Zoe Kazan), who comes on strong in about every regard as the pseudo dream woman. And here you see the chemistry between Dano and Kazan, which is considerable between the two, and being real life partners actually is not a guarantee of onscreen chemistry however in this case the two have it in spades. And what I think works the most in terms of that is actually what it changes in Dano in their interactions, which when truly romantic with one another, Dano's neurosis becomes more limited. There's a greater ease to Dano's performance and it comes together to create the sense of connection between the two by the way we see his Calvin suddenly become more comfortable in general. Of course things get complicated when the real supernatural turn comes, as not only does he create the character in his mind Ruby comes to life in reality, where everyone can see her. This is where the film switches more than a bit to absurdity though played with a certain sensibility of someone trying to deal with the unbelievable with some kind of reality. 

We get this phase of the film where Dano gets to briefly play the note of the comedic surprise of the situation, particularly when he is interacting with his brother (Chris Messina, who is playing the "best friend" romcom trope to quite the extreme himself). And we get a bit of well tuned mania in his performance that works in just conveying the mix of surprise, disbelief but also a kind of wonder as he discovers his invented woman in reality. Then the film hits, for me, its snag as it doesn't quite know fully where to go with the idea, as we enter the relationship going into the doldrums as he goes to visit his eccentric mom and eccentric boyfriend, and she becomes less dependent on him. All of this is all okay, but not quite as remarkable as it seemingly could be. Dano himself has to go through the motions a bit, particularly in the parents scene of being just slightly annoyed. Then as Ruby becomes more independent, his frustrations are also portrayed convincingly, particularly the darker streak as we see him become jealous and truly unable to deal with her behaviors. And the film quickly though runs him to the extreme of continuing to write and change her, to giving her up all in one long sequence. One long sequence which in terms of Dano's emotions he does effectively portray the shifting frustration, to fear, to mania, to a kind of sad contentment, but I would be wrong to say that it doesn't feel a touch rushed. And the move to Calvin becoming enlightened, isn't something that I think the film entirely earns, though Dano gives his best efforts to be sure. And this is a good performance from Paul Dano, however one that I don't think quite carries the impact of his best work. But as a mostly lighter fair, it is largely effective work albeit a bit held back by the certain limitations of the film. 

87 comments:

Emi Grant said...

I'm definitely a little higher on the movie and Dano himself, but I'm just content to see the review finally happened. Thank you, Louis.

Your thoughts on Kazan and Dayton & Faris as directors?

Emi Grant said...

Oh, well, and the rest of the cast.

Luke Higham said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

Louis: Your thoughts on these scenes in terms of acting https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=U79Uy_o9HmE https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=rvpTHQyDBR8 https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=VT3S-9srAn8 https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=cTequUODI2I

Louis Morgan said...

The Color Purple:

Mpasi - (Carries the film for her portion actually quite effectively, in bringing the sense of that initial fear that defines the character early on, while also creating the striking sense of that connection between her and Bailey. Bringing the sort of life that is unquestionable in their interactions creates the right sort of backbone that will be essential as something that carries throughout the film. And must be said absolutely commands her big musical number as such, to the point I would say she theoretically could've continued the part in terms of the strength of her work.)

Barrino - (I would say in a certain sense the part has a challenge involved with the part, because in a way Goldberg was working with really the approach that made more sense for the meek retiring character of thoughts and narration, where if your singing your lungs out the idea of meekness is a little bit of a harder sell. Having said all that, one can really ignore that, even if it makes the standing up moment to mister not quite as impactful as in the 85 film. Having said that she makes the part her own, without seeming to need to copy what Goldberg did in bringing this combination between this kind of immediate life of the character, by portraying such an overt sense of joy towards the things she can find joy in and the sense of discovery when others presents her with ways to find it. While also of course bringing the needed intensity within her anguish towards the constant abuse and building naturally that sense of being completely fed up with the behavior towards that essential moment. And of course the songs, where she delivers every time, in every respect though, and her performance most certainly goes beyond just singing, as there is emotion within every one of them.)

Henson - (I find Henson in general has a tendency to go big, and sometimes not always at the right time. But in this instance this part, and this format is an ideal pairing with her, to the point I'm surprised she has been consistently ignored so far. Henson absolutely shines here, as her very overt performance style completely fits the character who is as big, but also kind of selling to the back seat is the larger than life performer in the larger than life format of the musical. And she owns her musical sequences, but also just bringing all the most overt kind of full on life to each moment as the sort of earthy manner but also wisdom of the character. And as much fun as she is, what I found particularly winning in her work was just how much warmth she brings in her character, and has exceptional chemistry with Barrino in conveying this sort of sense of the constant empathy and care between them. Henson here consistently basically fills the room, and it works every time, which again she too runs with the musical numbers, but really every moment in just making the impact befitting the buildup her character gets.)

Louis Morgan said...

Brooks - (Brings more so a knowing quality in the early scenes than I feel Oprah did in the role, though again different tone to begin with, and regardless is very effective in bringing this candid comedic bluntness to the part. And carries herself to really stand out in each scene in presenting just the woman who loves life and is going to fight for every inch of it when she needs to. Her performance balances that, though in song form, of explaining really the more dramatic motivations to all of this, which Brooks also delivers with a real power and definite emotion. The second half of her performance though then is effective in showing instead the opposite state and does make an impact of showing the suddenly withdrawn version. Until the breaking point, which in this version again is done in a more broadly comic moment, though still with certain passionate drama, and it is again to Brooks's credit that she absolutely sells both even the switch rather magnificently.)

H.E.R. - (She's fine, though her bit is pretty brief but perfectly fine.)

Bailey - (Thought she was quite effective in creating the essential chemistry with Mpasi, but also bringing just so much life to what she does have. Granting the sense of this innate power within her personality, that is helped along by her spirited song delivery, and makes the needed lasting impact needed for the character.)

Gossett - (I think he's completely fine, though he doesn't make the decisive impact you get from Adolph Caesar, then again Caesar was just SO good at portraying venomous hate, Gossett you get the idea of it, but you don't feel it. When Caesar browbeat Glover you felt the menace, you don't quite get that with Gossett.)

Grier - (Brings a good enough preacher's energy in his few scenes, and I did like his moment with Henson late in the film due to the actors managing to carry the moment that is entirely dependent on them.)

Louis Morgan said...

American Fiction:

Ross - (Has a nice chemistry with Wright, that establishes the family's dynamic well. Bringing the right impact I think in creating the sense of a lot of the role in terms of creating this quiet passion but also considerable sense of concern beneath it all. Creating the right quick impact needed for the part.)

Rae - (I mean there for a quick comic bit, then a quick drama bit, and I think she delivers on both sides well in just playing each straight yet each work as such.)
Ortiz - (Fully comedic, and plays well off of Wright in playing the scenes as somewhat ridiculous as such.)

Alexander - (Very much a supporting performance, however very well realized as such in terms of creating the right dynamics with Wright, in terms of the warmth but also the sense of the moments of a certain dogged conviction in the moments of challenging him.)

Uggams - (Effectively portrays the mix that is disjointed, but with intention as such. She's good though in jumping around those moments of completely being lost or the brief moments of actual cogency that comes out in moments of warmth and even tension that are both naturally realized.)

Brody - (Enjoyable pompous bit, though the inability of filmmakers to pitch believable bad movies continues in his previous film he's working on that doesn't sound like anything that exists. Anyway though enjoyable in doing a kind of Ron Howardish sounding impression almost.)

Taylor - (Works as basically an uncomplicated and direct amount of unquestionable loving warmth in every scene she's in.)

Louis Morgan said...

Eileen:

McKenzie - (Again not the role I would've pegged her for in terms of going to these random extremes, in a character who is all over the place, and I would say there are probably too many missing puzzle pieces within the narrative itself. Having said that, found McKenzie quite captivating regardless of her sort of covert intensity, which was particularly effective and impactful given it comes out of her usually seeming very passive if not calming frame. Her short moments of sudden great intensity McKenzie delivers on, and it works in a particularly potent way because it is so unexpected from her. Now I would've loved a more coherent narrative overall to perhaps take her to even greater heights, but just as I found her performance compelling in sort of presenting all the raw materials of an even greater performance that would've required a better script.)

Hathaway - (I will say since finding her a fairly forced actor early on her career, she continues to actually impress me in taking on many difficult roles. This role included her own riff on Carol essentially, though with a very different intention behind it all. A role earlier in her career I might've said there was no chance she'd be good. But she's actually quite convincing in owning the style of the role of this knowing constant kind of seductress, where she wields an innate power to her work while also having this glint in her eye denoting a secret, though whatever that is might be difficult to decipher...even after watching the film. Again would've loved to have seen her explore this character even more but liked what we did get.)


Whigham - (All over the place, which is the role, but also all over the place in terms of when I found him convincing. There were times where I thought he worked, but just as many where it felt like actorly hot air.)

Ireland - (I'm not sure why the film became about her monologuing like she's Monique at the end of Precious, but boy does Ireland absolutely own it. Owns it even while working with the thickest of accents, yet doing that in a convincing way, but even more convincingly delivering on every scattered emotion she brings. She's going through every facet of a relationship in about a few minutes while at the most extreme heightened emotion. And she manages to do it without losing the intensity, but accentuating the different aspects of the character including a sense of horror, shame, a vulnerability and really more. It is a magnificent bit of performance from her, and she in turn is the best part of the film.)

Matt Mustin said...

Yeah, I kinda saw a 4 coming.

Matt Mustin said...

You all should check out Conduct Unbecoming (1975). A hidden gem, strangely underseen considering the cast.

Michael York-4
Attenborough-4
Howard-3.5
Keach-4.5
Plummer-4.5
Susannah York-4.5
Faulkner-3.5
Culver-3.5
Donald-3.5

Tony Kim said...

Louis: As asked by Luke on the last post, your top 10 Ebert quotes from At The Movies.

Also, your thoughts on Frasier's The Good Son, The Show Where Lilith Comes Back, A Mid-Winter Night's Dream, and My Coffee with Niles.

Luke Higham said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Luke Higham said...

Louis: Is this your current Supporting Actress top 5 for 2012.

1. Doona Bae - Cloud Atlas
2. Amy Adams - The Master
3. Linda Bright Clay - Seven Psychopaths
4. Priyanka Chopra - Barfi!
5. Sally Field - Lincoln

BRAZINTERMA said...

Hello Louis!
Tell me from the year 2012 which are your Top 7 with ranking of:
- Song
- Score
- Poster
- Editing
- Screenplays (adapted and original)
- Cast
- Blockbuster Films

Emi Grant said...

Louis, everyone else: Here's a prompt I'm curious about, would you guys be interested in seeing a particular song or concept album adapted into a film? Kind of like in the vein of Tommy? (though not necessarily having to be a musical)

It's something I've thought about for a dozen songs or albums by now, but I've been recently particularly struck by Cattle Decapitation's Terrasite. Might not be everyone's cup of tea here musically, but it does provide one of the most interesting post-apocalyptic settings I've seen.

I think it's really just a single tweak or two away from working as a basic premise for anyone to expand on. I'd like to see Cronenberg take a crack at it just for the potential prosthetics alone.

Robert MacFarlane said...

Emi: Screen Violence by CHVRCHES could easily be turned into a horror film. My own idea was making it about an actress shooting a cheesy slasher slowly convinced the director is deliberately trying to harm her.

Jonathan Williams said...

Louis: Is Stellan Skarsgard's monologue in Andor the best scene of his career and your favourite from the show.

8000S said...

Louis: Your casts for Kurosawa and Olivier-directed versions of Coriolanus.

Louis Morgan said...

Ferrari is a dull drama that has some decent, though not overly noteworthy, racing scenes that are stakeless. You might've had something in the story of Ferrari, but he's just largely a stoic cipher, who loves racing, though even that passion is quiet and has a bitter wife (where Cruz is probably the most interesting thing about the film) and a dull mistress. It could've been about building the ultimate race team, but all the racers are non-characters. One has an attractive girlfriend, one is  British, and one is Patrick Dempsey, is about all the detail you get. Worse though is the race's stakes are only vaguely drawn for Ferrari himself, and worst of all is it really horribly sets up how the race works, or who is winning or not. It just has some literal verbal checks-ins removing any genuine intensity or investment to the whole affair. Mann's visual direction is more or less fine, but I have no idea for the life of me, why this script is the one that brought him back to feature film making in over half a decade. 

Driver - 3.5
Cruz - 3.5
Woodley - 1.5

Sarah Gadon, Jack O'Connell and Patrick Dempsey - (are in the movie)

Luke Higham said...

Louis: Thoughts on the Ferrari cast.

Tony Kim said...

Louis: Have you by any chance been watching A Murder at the End of the World.

Also, is it possible for me to belatedly recommend you a short film or two at this stage.

Tony Kim said...

Louis: Are you changing any of your Oscar predictions now that you've seen more of the contenders?

Luke Higham said...

He'll be posting his updated predictions on New Year's Day.

Calvin Law said...

Oooh, oof, did not expect you to dislike Ferrari to that extent, but I get it (and to be honest I don't even entirely disagree with the thoughts).

I saw All of Us Strangers which I had a few issues with, especially the ending, but overall it's really powerful stuff. Andrew Scott is brilliant and can definitely see him getting a surprise Oscar nom.

Matthew Montada said...

Calvin: i’m glad you loved All Of Us Strangers, Calvin! I saw it at the MIami GEMS Film Festival and i absolutely adored it! And yes, i would be extremely happy if Andrew Scott got nominated for Best Lead Actor this year. I actually have him in my personal top 5 for lead actor (2023)

How would you rate the cast btw? I would give a 5 to Scott, Foy, and Mescal and a VERY strong 4.5 for Bell (who had one of the most emotionally powerful scenes of the year for me)

Tony Kim said...

Luke: My bad, I'd forgotten that.

Louis Morgan said...

All of Us Strangers, certainly has a conceit that you either buy into, or don't. Which, other than a few minor quibbles, I did. Those quibbles were a couple of horror style edits that seemed ill-fitting to the material, and there was a potential major quibble however that was cleared up by the ending for me. The rest of it was finally the Haigh film that worked for me, that is very specifically the idea of attempting to reason with memory almost literally and trying to come to terms with it. And in this approach it is both beautiful and heartbreaking in equal measure. Filmed with a dreamy and potent aesthetic, where it brings such a power to the idea of finally getting to hear what you always wanted to but was denied. And as much as that is a fantasy, what is so powerful here, is the way it shows the way such an idea is so poignant while being tragically painful since it can never be the truth. 

Foy - 4.5

Calvin Law said...

Louis: those weird little horror style edits were also some of my nitpicks (I assume you're referring to the bed scenes/dream sequence bit). Glad we seem to be on the same page about it being a beautiful and powerful experience and that you finally liked a Haigh.

What do you make of its awards prospects? I think it will do very well with the BAFTAs but unfortunately a bit less so with the Academy, with Scott and Adapted Screenplay being its best shots.

Calvin Law said...

Matthew:

Scott - 5
Foy - 4.5
Bell - 4.5
Mescal - 4

The supporting cast could all go up.

Luke Higham said...

Louis: Thoughts on Foy.

Louis Morgan said...

Emi Grant:

Kazan - 4(Like Dano, I thought much came from the chemistry with him, which certainly worked. And otherwise I think she tipped her performance just enough into overactive in a way that was believable while also being type. Of course then the way the film unravels, her performance is all about big swings, where I think Kazan played each sort of singular note effectively enough, even if I think in some ways the film could've had more fun with this idea. Regardless, Kazan was whatever Ruby needed to suddenly be, even if that note was often a fairly quick one.)

Messina - 2.5(Having seen more and more of him, I must accuse him of being a serial over actor, as there isn't a time where I haven't seen him going to the back rows, though I guess there's at least some roles suited more than anything. Messina here is playing up the "best friend" even if brother is as broey as possible, and just a bit much. I found him slightly amusing in moments, but still think more subdued reactions at times might've been funnier. Additionally the character himself seemed as created as Ruby in a sense because of how big he was, and how much he seemed straight out of a romcom.)

Bening & Banderas - 2.5(See here's where I think the film suffered from eccentricity overload. Ruby can't stand out as created if everyone already seems out of a romcom, which was the case here, which I think both were fine, but again felt more so out of said romcom than any kind of actual reality.)

Gould - 3(I liked his bits, also because I think he actually went a little smaller to create a bit of needed contrast.)

Dayton & Faris I find are just *fine* directors though I wouldn't say they really are filmmakers that are going for a unique vision. And where they excel most is just kind of having actors working off one another, as the best moments in their films are that. Their sort of more overt moments are not necessarily their best, and less failure, and more there isn't that extra bit of inspiration. For example the final game in Battle of the Sexes, is directed very passively, and just comparing it to your typical sports movie final game, they don't quite hit the standard, not that it is bad, it's just a bit blander than usual. Where their direction is effective, is just sort of actor centric, and in turn it's not surprising that Little Miss Sunshine is their most lauded film because that is where the focal point of the film.

Louis Morgan said...

Anonymous:

I will say I can raise Fishburne's original score a little, not that my feelings changed at all to his performance, but as written, I do think he does what he can with the note they give him to play, I just find it to be a very limited note. All three scenes are well acted, even I find the note looked at it somewhat limited as just nearly visceral terror each time for Fishburne in particular. The first two in the intense physical aggression feels completely believable. The third scene, well played by Bassett in just projecting the confidence Turner has in the moment, and more than anything showing that Ike holds no power over her.

Tony:

Famed North Rant

"Just think Gene, that's three hours between the two of us, if you multiply that by the thousands of the people who will see this movie, it adds up to months, years, even centuries lost forever to the human race."

"The Quickening what a title"

“ I did not laugh once. I thought this movie was awful, dreadful, terrible, stupid, idiotic, unfunny, waver, forced, painful, bad."

"It uses too many scenes where the characters incessantly cry out for one another. Carol-Ann! Carol-Ann! Bruce! Bruce! Patricia! Patricia! Carol-Ann! Bruce! Finally, the night I saw it, even the audience was joining in! Carol-Ann! Carol-Ann! Bruce! I must have heard the name Carol-Ann about a thousand times!"

The Good Son effectively establishes the characters in short order, and as first episodes go, manages to get down to business in quick order that completely works.

The Show Where Lilith Comes Back, is easily the best use of the cheers alum, not surprising, though effectively so because it builds on the idea of not just Frasier's relationship with her but also where Niles and Martin fit into it.

A Mid-Winter Night's Dream, is a great hijinks episode that plays to classic romcom in the right way, and also shows that was irrevocably lost when Niles and Daphne got together.

My Coffee With Niles proved basically the ability of the series based on the chemistry of the cast and the writing behind it. As it is the two just talking about various things, and it is funny and captivating the whole time. Showing just how greater Grammer and Pierce were together.
Luke:

Yes.

Jonathan Williams:

Yes to both accounts. And it is the key of that show, as you could transplant that monologue almost entirely as delivered by him, to a series about a resistance fighter during World War II, and it would work just as well.

Louis Morgan said...

8000's:

Kurosawa:

Coriolanus: Toshiro Mifune
Tullus: Tatsuya Nakadai
Menenius: Masayuki Mori
Volumnia: Kinuyo Tanaka
Virgilia: Kyoko Kagawa

Olivier:

Coriolanus: Laurence Olivier
Tullus: Christopher Plummer
Menenius: Ralph Richardson
Volumnia: Gladys Cooper
Virgilia: Claire Bloom

Luke:

Driver - (I mean maybe no more Italian roles for him, and the whole film is absurdly curious with the amount of actual Italian actors to have the obvious non-Italians there. Regardless, Driver brings his typical conviction to the role, the role just isn't very interesting as just this man of quiet, well, conviction. Driver delivers on more or less what is expected of him, it just doesn't ask terribly much from him other than to dust off his House of Gucci accent again, which I think technically was better when everyone was doing a faux accent, but I still think doesn't stick out too sorely regardless.)

Cruz - (She really only gets to play variation on the single note of fed up bitterness, but she certainly delivers on that note. I wish the film had developed this more because Cruz is certainly game and brings a real intensity that makes her the most captivating part of the film. And she does make the most out of a couple of moments that suggest more such as a flashback or her scene where we see a bit of romance between her and Driver. She naturally shows the latter in particular within the bitter grief most effectively, if again I think the film should've explored a lot more.)

Woodley - (Kevin Costner school of accents, as she horribly tries it at some points and forgets it entirely at others. In any way, she is just awful here. She just carries the same bland expression in every scene she's in and fails to convince you why anyone would make Penelope Cruz upset in order to pursue an affair with this character. Woodley's work here is utterly lifeless.)
Tony:

I have not. Feel free to recommend, but I can't guarantee I'll get to them.
Calvin:

I think nothing at SAG, much at BAFTA (though I think Mescal and Bell probably cancel each other out since I haven't seen a clear consensus on preference between the two), then it maxes out at Living's nods of lead actor (I'll get to my reason on this in two days) and adapted screenplay, the latter though will be very tough if Barbie, rightly, gets sent to adapted. If the academy buys Barbie's category (which hopefully they don't just because that'll be a bad precedent), I think it definitely could get in. If Barbie is adapted, I do think it has a chance, though no guarantee, to knock out American Fiction of the category.

Luke:


Foy - (All the performances, other than Scott's, are purposefully working within a kind of specific style, which Foy I wouldn't say is entirely a person, rather it is the idea of a person, both the idea as frustrating as possible, and ideally as possible. Foy's wonderful thought is firstly just crafting this sort of style of woman of this earlier period, fashioning the manner and accent of her character very effectively in terms of convincingly being of this period. Her performance though is in turn particularly effective in creating sort of at first this unburden truth where Foy's delivery is particularly striking because she presents it as thoughtless, in a completely convincing way. The other side of her work though, which is ideal in a way, she brings this potent warmth, though I think excellent in the way she looks specifically at Scott is specifically the love towards a child not anyone nor even a grown son. And there is something very special in the way she presents it as such.)

8000S said...

Louis: Thoughts on this?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wVrQHWT9eMI

Luke Higham said...

Louis: Ratings and thoughts on The Starling Girl cast.

Luke Higham said...

Louis: And Monica.

Tim said...

R.I.P. Lee Sun-kyun

Tim said...

Emi: obvious choice of course, but American Idiot by Green Day

Marcus said...

Louis: Your thoughts on this amazing Ebert moment defending Better Luck Tomorrow?

https://youtu.be/LSzP9YV3jbc?si=eI8cfVY1trBQaeYm

Tony Kim said...

Louis: I'm sure you're aware that Some Enchanted Evening was originally meant to be the pilot for The Simpsons. How well do you think that episode would've worked as an introduction to the series, ecspecially compared to Simpsons Roasting on an Open Fire?

Also, your top 10 Xmas/holiday-themed TV episodes?

Luke Higham said...

Louis: Thoughts on the cast of Ode To My Father.

Louis Morgan said...

Close Your Eyes is fascinating on many levels, and one can appreciate the meta elements of Victor Erice kind of rediscovering the art of cinematic storytelling much like our protagonist who also only made two films, one being technically unfinished. But that knowledge of Erice's career isn't necessary I believe to love this film, as I do. As it is a remarkable film, that is actually quite the departure for Erice's previous films, as this is very much story and often dialogue driven opposed to the sparse visual based nature of his first two films. Although where they are similar is that this film is also gorgeous with such vibrant cinematography, while also being captivating in unraveling this mystery of an actor who disappeared. And through this mystery being able to explore so much in terms of dealing with the past, enjoying the present (one sequence of singing a western ballad is one of my favorite of the year), but also the way film is a constant ever present emotional memory. I was captivated for every second of its nearly three hour runtime. I'm so glad Victor Erice decided, after 40 years to return to narrative feature filmmaking, and deliver us this gift. 

Solo - 4.5
Coronado - 4
Torrent - 4
Leon - 3.5
Vilamil - 4
Pardo - 4
Pou - 3.5

Anonymous said...

Thoughts on the cast.

Mitchell Murray said...

Louis: Relating to a 2012 film release, have you had the chance to watch the two part adaptation of "The Dark Knight Returns"?

Like many people, I have a certain reverence for that original comic series, given how much it influenced Batman lore and the direction writers took with the character.

From a film standpoint, however, I have some less favorable takes on certain choices made with the narrative/character work- Part 2 more so in that regard. Moreover, the Cold War elements of the second part especially are perhaps more distracting/outdated than intended. Still, I like Peter Weller's performance, and Batman's fights with the Mutant Leader and Superman are some of my favourite in any DC animation.

Ytrewq Wertyq said...

Mitchell: Even though I still liked Weller, Michael Ironside left a bigger impression on me as that version of Batman in single episode of TNBA compared to Weller in a 2,5 hour film.

Luke Higham said...

Louis: I'm turning 30 next June and I've wondered whether if you don't have the time to see The Wrong Trousers, could you watch it then (15th) as a gift.

Mitchell Murray said...

Ytrewq: Fair enough. I always liked the casting of Weller, in the sense that "The Dark Knight Returns" is heavily reflective of 80s America, and Weller's best known role involves a parody of 80's capitalism. So it's sort like one icon of the 80s is voicing another, though you could also make that connection to Ironside, admitedly.

8000S said...

Mitchell: I'll admit that I've never liked Superman's portrayal in TDKR. Him being a puppet of the government has never sat well with me.

Shaggy Rogers said...

Hey guys
Name 10 actors who will be in Another Year and Another Official Lineup on the first day of 2024. I want to leave you with a challenge: leave links to images or frames that will be used by Louis for each actor.

Supporting Actor

Lead Actor

RatedRStar said...

RIP Tom Wilkinson, great actor.

Luke Higham said...

RIP Tom Wilkinson, I'm very sad about this.

Anonymous said...

RIP Tom Wilkinson

Louis Morgan said...

RIP Tom Wilkinson, gone too soon.

Ytrewq Wertyq said...

RIP Tom Wilkinson

RatedRStar said...

I will always love the fact that when he got that one chance of a major leading role in a film (In the Bedroom) he was amazing.

Louis Morgan said...

8000's:

Fun little insight into the style of the sessions, and perhaps shows why group sessions probably help to create better performances.

Marcus:

An amazing moment, and he's of course 100% right as well. But what's great, and perhaps great training form his constant sparring with Siskel, Ebert's not afraid to confront that limiting statement head on.

Luke:

Scanlen - 4.5(Convincing with the accent and manner which in itself is already quite the challenge to be sure, but she nails it with ease. You never second guess her performance for even a moment which is an accomplishment within the type of character. Scanlen's performance though goes much further though in managing to create this convincing mix between confidence and insecurity that becomes a particularly dangerous combination with what she gets involved with. Her performance manages to make a natural exchange between the moments of the strict sort of personal conviction, that come about as often as the moments of showing just how young she is in creating the sense of the anxiety and lack of confidence in other respects. Her performance is pitch perfect in showing sort of the certain agency she does have though but how that is co-opted and exploited by Pullman's character.)

Pullman - 4(He has now fully shed his boyish qualities, which I think will open him up to even greater opportunities, because he's really just a truly dynamic performer. This performance is an example of this because this showing a very different side of him from all his previous work. In that he very much is exuding now this certain kind of innate confidence and the sense of the character's purposeful putting on this certain allure. He's very effective in showing sort of the darker shades of the character's more knowing choices in terms of the exploitative, creating the right dynamic as the man who falsely earnest in many regards though completely false in what is behind him all.)

Simpson - 3(Thought he was a little under served by the later scenes of the film, though I did more or less like what he did with the role in terms of creating this sense of desperation within the attempts at a fatherly warmth. I think the film loses the path with his character at a certain point, but I did like what he did largely.)

Louis Morgan said...

Schmidt - 3(Kind of felt she moved closest to caricature, which I was impressed by the film largely avoiding given the evangelical setting which often is the cheap shortcut for such a story. Schmidt made up for it in her last scene though where I thought she was terrific in showing sort of the actual concern beyond sort of the facade of the pious woman, and for the moment just showing the genuinely concerned mother.)

Lysette - 4(I think the character is a limited a bit by the film's insistence on being so unemotional and distant for most of the film. Lysette's own performance being built around really being unemotional outside of the personal scenes where we see extreme emotion, a purposeful contrast, that didn't really work for me narratively, though I think Lysette played both emotions effectively enough. This all really building towards the ending smile, which again well performed, even if a bit limited.)

Clarkson - 3.5(Again we basically see the most extremes by the nature of the film which isn't to really getting to conversations that dive too deeply at any point. I found her more effective than not within these limitations, in some ways reprising what she did previously in The Green Mile, but did find her effective enough.)

Browning & Barraza - 3(Both good enough though at a bit of distance again for fairly basic interactions scene though they perform well with what they have.)


Close - 2.5(Here's for me where the film faltered the most in terms of its choice of approach, because of its insistence on not to really get into the nitty gritty at any point, we instead are left with him being vague in his relationship with his wife, his mother and his sister, leaving the character a lot less than if the film would get out of its close off space for the sake of it.)

Tony:

I think it could've given the wrong idea about the series, because it is more plot driven in a certain sense, as most episodes aren't about thwarting a bad guy (Sideshow Bob episodes aside), where sort of the "realistic" family in a cartoon that "Roasting" showed was probably the better overall representation of what the series would be. Although it is interesting as well that they had their choice of more Bart centric or Homer centric, and they went with the latter for the intro.

"The Tailor of Gloucester" - The World of Peter Rabbit and Friends
"Twas the Night Before Christmas" - The Honeymooners
"Fishes" - The Bear
"Miracle on Third or Fourth Street" - Frasier
"The Strike" - Seinfeld
"It's Christmas in Canada" - South Park
"Night of the Meek" - The Twilight Zone
"White Christmas" - Black Mirror
"Marge Be Not Proud" - The Simpsons
"X-Mas Marks the Spot" - The Real Ghostbusters

Mitchell:

I did at some point, I liked parts of it, I HATED some aspects like the strange extra additional bits of violence added to it (I mean if you're being more violent than Frank Miller you're going overboard) and HATED Michael Emerson's performance as the Joker...I mean don't copy Hamill, but don't just do him as basic psychopath either.

Anonymous:

Let me hold off on that, as it would require spoilers for almost everyone.

Luke:

Sure.

Luke Higham said...

Louis: Thank you.

Ytrewq Wertyq said...

Louis: Nice to see that you liked Scanlen, even if she's an easy 5 for me. I don't really agree on Emerson though, I thought his performance worked for that version of Joker, who really is past the point of treating everything as comedy and only intends to hurt Batman one last time before he himself kicks the bucket.

Mitchell Murray said...

First off...rest in peace, Tom Wilkinson. This was totally unxpected and shocking to hear about.

Mitchell Murray said...

Secondly, to everyone's points on TDKR...

8000s: It's not my favourite take on Superman either. If it was a younger Clark with his boy scout nievity dialed up, then it's plausible he could be recruited by the government. I don't buy it for most portrayals of the character, though, and it's also clear Miller heavily nerfed his strength/speed to even up that final fight.

Louis and Ytrewq: My issue with that Joker stems from him being more of a device to argue about rehabilitation, rather than his own flesh out antagonist. Emerson DID NOT work for me throughout the majority of his performance, save for his final scene where I honestly thought he was quite chilling. Also, when watching both films in their entirety about 1-2 years ago, his talk show scene made me go "oh great...another thing 'Joker' ripped off".

Of the non-Hamill voice performances I've heard, DiMaggio actually works the best for me.

Matt Mustin said...

RIP Tom Wilkinson. This one really hurts.

Mitchell: DiMaggio is awesome but I really like Kevin Michael Richardson too.

8000S said...

Mitchell: I think it's also important to notice that Miller did not make Batman a dark and serious character again after many years of him being campy and fun. It was Dennis O'Neil and Neal Adams.

Tim said...

And now Tom Wilkinson, i mean fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuck, can this year just end already?!

8000S said...

Louis: With all the talk that Curry's rendition of the Joker was very scary for kids, I think it's clear that those recently leaked recordings of his performance were not the scary version that many people who worked on BTAS talk about.

Surely there must be recordings that haven't been leaked yet where he's truly scary.

Matt Mustin said...

8000s: The "too scary" is not true, that has nothing to do with why he wasn't cast.

Mitchell Murray said...

Btw, thought I'd let everyone know I'm finally playing "The Last of Us: Part 2"...

I've been spoiled on most of the big story events, so it's sadly not a completely organic experience. Nonetheless, I'm about 2 1/2 hours in at it's been delivering what I was expecting. Gameplay and controls are rather similar to "Uncharted 4", but filtered through the tone/environments of the first game.

One rather strange gripe I have, though....

Abby is voiced by Laura Bailey, a voice I know and like quite a bit. Her appearance, however, is a composite between the model Jocelyn Mettler (face), and the athlete Colleen Fotsch (body). So knowing that, there's a wierd disconnect I'm having while watching Abby's scenes. I'm aware that her voice doesn't match the character's physical performance, unlike Joel and Ellie which are firmly based around Troy Baker and Ashley Johnson. I'd essentially compare it to watching a dubbed portrayal in a live action film, where if you weren't aware of the voice over it'd be fine, but if you are aware it's impossible to not see.

It's honestly kind of maddening because it's a voice acting performance - the voice doesn't have to match the face, and 99% of the time, it works despite that difference. And again, if I wasn't aware of the intimate process involved in motion capture VA, and didn't know anything about whose playing Abby, I'd probably be fine. The fact that I am, though, is making it oddly distracting.

RatedRStar said...

Mitchell Murray: In regards to The Last of Us: Part 2, even though the majority hate 2020 because of Covid, even though bizarrely, my favourite videogame and film this decade so far both come from 2020 lol, I think the graphics and gameplay of LLOUP2 are great, but the story is very heavy handed and too reliant on circumstance.

Tony Kim said...

Louis, this is somewhat random, but could you elaborate a bit on what you meant by "pop noise" for the songs I sent you a while back (Decode, I Caught Myself, Teenagers)? I have no problem with you disliking those songs, it's just that I'm unsure what you mean by your use of that specific term, and how it applies to those songs. As I like that you generally give detailed thoughts on most songs/film aspects people send you I'd just like a bit more elaboration.

RatedRStar said...

Decode by Paramore might be a contender for the best song in a bad film ever lol.

RatedRStar said...

Say You Say Me by Lionel Richie in White Nights is another one lol.

Mitchell Murray said...

RatedRStar: I see your Paramore/Lionel Richie, and I raise you a "False Pretense" by RJA.

Also, you've played the game so you'll know this...just passed the museum sequence in TLOUP2.

From a narrative standpoint, I suppose it's does very little, but it does everything from a character perspective. Also love the subtle aging Johnson does with her voice, to seperate the teenaged Ellie from the adult Ellie.

Emi Grant said...

So... I just watched Manodrome and I may be a bit biased, because while the film doesn't come together, it does provide Jesse Eisenberg a vehicle for what's arguably the most compelling he's been in possibly over a decade. Kind of a James McAvoy in Split scenario.

Idk what anyone else will think of it, nor if they'll like Eisenberg as much as I did here, but I thought I'd put my 2 cents for him anyway.

Eisenberg: 4.5/5 (It's a weird thing, because while I don't think his character's journey works entirely, he's never not interesting in it)
Young: 3.5 (too limited)
Brody: 3.5/4
Ettinger: 3
Muresan: 3

Emi Grant said...

R.I.P. Tom Wilkinson

Mitchell Murray said...

Also, with regards to "The Last of Us: Part 2"....holy dog murder, Batman.

If you know, you know.

ruthiehenshallfan99 said...

RIP Tom Wilkinson

Ytrewq Wertyq said...

Mitchell: Perhaps Todd Philips should've cast Conan O'Brien as Murray Franklin to rip off TDKR's talk show scene to an even bigger extent lol

And to complete that talk about favorite non-Hamill Jokers, for me it would be either Jeff Bennett or Kevin Michael Richardson.

Luke Higham said...

Louis: Ratings and thoughts on the Hunger Games cast.

Jonathan Williams said...

Louis: I'm happy that you enjoyed it.

Thoughts on the screenplay.

Tony Kim said...

Louis: What draws you to cinema as an art form?

Tahmeed Chowdhury said...

Louis: Your modern day cast and director for King Lear? While Cox is a fairly obvious choice for Lear, I'd love to see the Coen(s) direct Denzel in an adaptation of it too.

Luke Higham said...

Happy New Year

Matt Mustin said...

Tahmeed: I'd like to see what Brendan Gleeson might do with Lear.

Robert MacFarlane said...

The sad thing is, Wilkinson was my ideal Lear

Matt Mustin said...

Robert: Mine was Christopher Plummer, and apparently he was working on it, but he died before they could film it which SUCKS SO MUCH.

Michael McCarthy said...

FINALLY saw Poor Things. Absolutely worth the wait, I think I managed to save the best film of 2023 for the last day.

Matthew Montada said...

Michael: nice, man! I’m glad you loved it! Ratings for the cast?

Happy New Year everyone!

Also, R.I.P. Tom Wilkinson