1. Murphy 2. Giamatti 3. Wright 4. Domingo 5. Cooper
There really couldn't be a more obvious first place and fifth place, eh?
Side note: Rustin and Maestro are fully available to me through Netflix (along with a few other films), so chances are I'll be watching those before anything else in the lineup.
On a different note, I just finished the main story portion of 2018's "God of War", so I feel comfortable offering my take.
It's...a superb game - no real suspense there, I think. Not only does it build on the mechanics and appeal of the early games, it presents a succesful tonal shift from the entire series. The central concepts of blending Greek and Norse mythologies AND creating a potent father-son dynamic to follow were truly a winning combo.
VA wise, Christopher Judge fully won me over with his commanding yet thoughtful turn. I'm sure it was a close race that year between him and Roger Clark.
Finally was able to see Zone of Interest, and have to say I'm largely positive though not as positive as some. Glazer's craft here is nearly enough in itself, from the very specific production design of a striking contrast, to the beautiful cinematography, that purposefully always wants you to kind of wander around the frame of the image, the sound design of the horrors you seem to frequently hear in the background, and the sudden stylistic punctuation either using Mica Levi's sparsely used score or sudden shift in visuals which capture the power of film in ways few films do. Having said all that, the major point Glazer is making regarding the mundane being a constant even in the face of horrors, which extends beyond what you think it will, is pretty obvious right away and certain scenes do feel repetitive in making this point. And certain moments that break out of this point, or kind of have more character within the point, such as the scenes where we do get more of the family dynamic, are particularly captivating, however these are limited moments of possibility that aren't articulated any further. In that sense, it's hard not to feel an even greater film was capable with this aesthetic, however with even more exploration beyond a singular point where the style constrains rather than amplifies.
Also on a completely unrelated note, got the chance to meet Peter Ostrum, Julie Dawn Cole and Rusty Goffe today. Was great to hear anecdotes about Wilder, and how absolutely no one involved in the film could have anticipated the enduring legacy the 1971 film has continued to have.
Louis: So I take it I'm not allowed to ask for thoughts on Siskel & Ebert reviews until after you're busy? I didn't think they would call for such extensive responses.
I'm pretty sure Psifonian always predicts his preference, so Giamatti is probably his #1. Not a terrible strategy given how frequently his and Louis's taste lines up.
I haven’t been able to see everything yet, but I remember Michael McCarthy posted his ballot, so I’m posting my tentative one. Make of this what you will.
Actor
1. Cilian Murphy in Oppenheimer 2. Zac Efron in The Iron Claw 3. Teo Yoo in Past Lives 4. Dominic Sessa in The Holdovers 5. Soya Kurokawa in Monster
Actress
1. Sakura Ando in Monster 2. Greta Lee in Past Lives 3. Emma Stone in Poor Things 4. Sandra Hüller in Anatomy of a Fall 5. Lily Gladstone in Killers of the Flower Moon
Supporting Actor
1. Ryan Gosling in Barbie 2. Mark Ruffalo in Poor Things 3. Milo Machado Graner in Anatomy of a Fall 4. Charles Melton in May December 5. Holt McCallany in The Iron Claw
Supporting Actress
1. Rachel McAdams in Are You There God? It’s Me, Margaret 2. Pom Klementieff in Mission: Impossible - Dead Reckoning 3. Yuko Tanaka in Monster 4. Scarlett Johansson in Asteroid City 5. Michaela Watkins in You Hurt My Feelings
My predictions: 1. Cillian Murphy 2. Paul Giamatti 3. Jeffrey Wright 4. Colman Domingo 5. Bradley Cooper
I haven't seen American Fiction yet, but my ranking between the other 4 would be: 1. Paul Giamatti 2. Cillian Murphy 3. Colman Domingo 4. Bradley Cooper
You know what, fuck it. I'll support a review for Phoenix in Napoleon for the alternate Lineup. Could always add amendments to it later after the extended cut.
Luke, I don't mind if he goes that direction. Supporting will have 5 and maybe a bonus, whereas if Lead is 15, he'll have about the same workload maybe a bit less than 2021 which had 33 review posts in total.
Freidel - (It's been awhile since I've said it but a "director's film", and that is where his performance stands, where I think most purely within Glazer's overall choice, where I think Huller suggests where there could've been even more. Freidel largely stands as the figure as a father who occasionally goes about his day into a concentration camp, and his performance is consistent in terms of its casual manner. Where we see him as the casual dad, as the somewhat henpecked husband trying to please his wife and just consistently that. The scene that moves away from that is a moment where something is questioned and Freidel's performance in this scene suddenly gives much more character to the moment, though this is brief. And then in the ending sequence we kind of see more so the truth of the man though this too he is approaching as a man doing a job, even if it is a horrible genocidal one.)
Huller - (Her performance, which I do think is co-lead, is where I think you do see the opportunity for more because what she does indicate more exploration within the wife of Hoss. As her moments with the mundane are, she is bringing more towards them in this sort of the particularly disturbing way she goes about examining the coat of a murdered Jewish woman, or the specific pride she goes about showing her garden crafted just the way she wants, while being parallel to the camp. Huller is particularly disturbing because she shows more of a sense of the situation, and not in the sense that she dislikes it, rather you see the sense of prideful joy in her appreciation for her existence based on genocidal gains. And the moment where this is questioned, or less so just that it might be slightly less perfectly crafted for her, Huller is so perfectly vile in presenting the distress of her ideal world that she's crafted for herself being disturbed in even the slightest way. And we have one more key moment where she interacts with the character that has been largely ignored throughout the film where Huller suddenly shows just how truly actively callous she can be and turns her viciousness directed towards someone. In this moment she is absolutely chilling in creating that sudden sense of the real horrifying implications of the woman.)
#3 in director.
Shaggy:
#3 in International, #3 in Sound, #6 in picture, #4 in adapted screenplay. I have to say that I'm even tempted to put Barbie over it, though I think Zone is more consistent in what it is doing, but honestly I'm a little baffled by its screenplay nomination. First of all I ponder if Glazer just liked the name of the book, since he took so little from the actual book. But the screenplay itself is so sparse and frankly in a way it would seem such a perfunctory exercise if not for the direction of it. If your average workmanlike filmmaker adapted that screenplay it would be just one big nothing, and as much as the screenplay has flaws, I'll say Killers' screenplay absolutely was robbed which actually went about trying to adapt a challenging book. Glazer basically just took the setting. And don't get me wrong I do like the film, but that screenplay, which I was not surprised to find it was only 74 pages long, did not need to be nominated.
Well it does take some time to watch the reviews, and then give properly articulated thoughts. And again this is just a matter of having the time to maintain pace with my reviews.
Luke:
Keoghan - 4(Honestly might be going high but would have to watch the film again to parse out a bit, and have zero desire to do that. The problem here is the writing behind Keoghan is completely false in creating two separate entities for his character, and it does not successfully merge them. See with Tom Ripley he is a manipulator but he is genuinely obsessed as well. With the ridiculously named Oliver Quick, he's either a complete psychopath or obsessed and his actions actually don't allow for both by the way they are written here. Because either he's just wanting to kill for his own desire to rise up the social ladder or he's just obsessed with that being a by-product. The ending firmly makes it, the former making his moments of obsession or regrets just simply lies....for the audience which are filmmaking cheats in the worst possible way. And Keoghan I think is perfectly fine in playing a character that actually isn't true to his conception. As he does bring the psychopathic intensity in his final scenes with a nefarious glee about it. He does it well. Of course then he is just a ball of genuine distress in other moments where he is seen as nothing, which Keoghan plays as pure genuine distress and heartache. Brings the same intensity and the same theoretical conviction to it, but it doesn't add up. And none of it does. Keoghan has charisma but he's not truly insidious in the way you see the manipulations which frankly seem a bit forced. Keoghan can be creepy and he is effectively creepy in his moments of observation. He's whatever the script needs him to be in a given scene, but he doesn't, nor does the script, create a convincing connective tissue between these developments. Making Oliver Quick exist for the needs of the plot rather than existing as a character who forces the plot to develop to that character.)
The remaining films that I would like you to watch before the year is finished are: The Peasants Robot Dreams Wish Peter Pan & Wendy (David Lowery) Blue Beetle The Marvels The Taste Of Things Cassandro One Life Knock At The Cabin The Burial Femme Pinball: The Man Who Saved The Game The Great Escaper Talk To Me Origin Blue Jean The End We Start From Reality The Pope's Exorcist (I've a morbid curiosity in Crowe's performance in this)
Luke: I've had a pretty bad day, but at least this made me laugh. If Rock will also cast himself as Martin, then we might already be looking at the bottom performance on Louis' overall list.
Tim: Everybody started talking about dream musician biopics in June and I believe you predicted the future in regards to Michael Jackson biopic lol
64 comments:
1. Murphy
2. Giamatti
3. Wright
4. Domingo
5. Cooper
A lot of people are gonna win this round.
Predictions:
5. Bradley Cooper
4. Colman Domingo
3. Jeffrey Wright
2. Paul Giamatti
1. Cillian Murphy
1. Murphy
2. Giamatti
3. Wright
4. Domingo
5. Cooper
1. Murphy
2. Giamatti
3. Wright
4. Domingo
5. Cooper
There really couldn't be a more obvious first place and fifth place, eh?
Side note: Rustin and Maestro are fully available to me through Netflix (along with a few other films), so chances are I'll be watching those before anything else in the lineup.
1. Cillian Murphy
2. Paul Giamatti
3. Jeffrey Wright
4. Colman Domingo
5. Bradley Cooper
1. Cillian Murphy
2. Paul Giamatti
3. Jeffrey Wright
4. Colman Domingo
5. Bradley Cooper
1. Murphy
2. Giamatti
3. Wright
4. Domingo
5. Cooper
DiCaprio missing made predictions way easier, this is a very good lineup from what I've seen and Cooper.
You know what? Even if I'm wrong I'm gonna go with a slightly different prediction just for the sake of variety.
1. Murphy
2. Giamatti
3. Domingo
4. Wright
5. Cooper
1. Murphy
2. Giamatti
3. Wright
4. Domingo
5. Cooper
On a different note, I just finished the main story portion of 2018's "God of War", so I feel comfortable offering my take.
It's...a superb game - no real suspense there, I think. Not only does it build on the mechanics and appeal of the early games, it presents a succesful tonal shift from the entire series. The central concepts of blending Greek and Norse mythologies AND creating a potent father-son dynamic to follow were truly a winning combo.
VA wise, Christopher Judge fully won me over with his commanding yet thoughtful turn. I'm sure it was a close race that year between him and Roger Clark.
Finally was able to see Zone of Interest, and have to say I'm largely positive though not as positive as some. Glazer's craft here is nearly enough in itself, from the very specific production design of a striking contrast, to the beautiful cinematography, that purposefully always wants you to kind of wander around the frame of the image, the sound design of the horrors you seem to frequently hear in the background, and the sudden stylistic punctuation either using Mica Levi's sparsely used score or sudden shift in visuals which capture the power of film in ways few films do. Having said all that, the major point Glazer is making regarding the mundane being a constant even in the face of horrors, which extends beyond what you think it will, is pretty obvious right away and certain scenes do feel repetitive in making this point. And certain moments that break out of this point, or kind of have more character within the point, such as the scenes where we do get more of the family dynamic, are particularly captivating, however these are limited moments of possibility that aren't articulated any further. In that sense, it's hard not to feel an even greater film was capable with this aesthetic, however with even more exploration beyond a singular point where the style constrains rather than amplifies.
Freidel - 4
Huller - 4.5
Also on a completely unrelated note, got the chance to meet Peter Ostrum, Julie Dawn Cole and Rusty Goffe today. Was great to hear anecdotes about Wilder, and how absolutely no one involved in the film could have anticipated the enduring legacy the 1971 film has continued to have.
5º Bradley Cooper
4º Colman Domingo
3º Jeffrey Wright
2º Paul Giamatti
1º Cillian Murphy
Louis: Ratings and thoughts on the cast, and where does Glazer rank among the directorial nominees.
1. Murphy
2. Giamatti
3. Domingo
4. Wright
5. Cooper
1. Murphy
2. Giamatti
3. Wright
4. Domingo
5. Cooper
1. Murphy
2. Giamatti
3. Domingo
4. Wright
5. Cooper
Louis: Say your final ranks in the categories of: sound, international feature, adapted screenplay, director and picture.
1) Murphy
2) Giamatti
3) Wright
4) Domingo
5) Cooper
Louis: So I take it I'm not allowed to ask for thoughts on Siskel & Ebert reviews until after you're busy? I didn't think they would call for such extensive responses.
1. Murphy
2. Giamatti
3. Wright
4. Domingo
5. Cooper
1. Murphy
2. Giamatti
3. Wright
4. Domingo
5. Cooper
1. Murphy
2. Giamatti
3. Wright
4. Domingo
5. Cooper
1. Cillian Murphy
2. Paul Giamatti
3. Jeffrey Wright
4. Colman Domingo
5. Bradley Cooper
1. Murphy
2. Giamatti
3. Wright
4. Domingo
5. Cooper
This is the easiest prediction I've ever had to do.
Louis: Category placement for Huller.
1. Murphy
2. Giamatti
3. Wright
4. Domingo
5. Cooper
Louis: Are you ready to give your rating and thoughts on Barry Keoghan in Saltburn.
Might as well join in with this
1. Murphy
2. Giamatti
3. Wright
4. Domingo
5. Cooper
This seems almost deceptively easy to predict. I'll play it safe for now.
1. Murphy
2. Giamatti
3. Wright
4. Domingo
5. Cooper
Psifonian: Any reason you're predicting Giamatti being ahead of Murphy?
I'm pretty sure Psifonian always predicts his preference, so Giamatti is probably his #1. Not a terrible strategy given how frequently his and Louis's taste lines up.
I'm going to go with my personal ranking for these.
1. Murphy
2. Giamatti
3. Domingo
4. Wright
5. Cooper
My prediction:
1. Murphy
2. Giamatti
3. Wright
4. Domingo
5. Cooper
Calvin: your ratings for the cast of The Iron Claw?
I'll give my rating predictions for this.
Murphy - 5
Giamatti - 5
Wright - 4.5
Domingo - Strong 4/Low 4.5
Cooper - 2.5
I'm oddly excited to find out who ranked lower between DiCaprio and Cooper for Louis.
I haven’t been able to see everything yet, but I remember Michael McCarthy posted his ballot, so I’m posting my tentative one. Make of this what you will.
Actor
1. Cilian Murphy in Oppenheimer
2. Zac Efron in The Iron Claw
3. Teo Yoo in Past Lives
4. Dominic Sessa in The Holdovers
5. Soya Kurokawa in Monster
Actress
1. Sakura Ando in Monster
2. Greta Lee in Past Lives
3. Emma Stone in Poor Things
4. Sandra Hüller in Anatomy of a Fall
5. Lily Gladstone in Killers of the Flower Moon
Supporting Actor
1. Ryan Gosling in Barbie
2. Mark Ruffalo in Poor Things
3. Milo Machado Graner in Anatomy of a Fall
4. Charles Melton in May December
5. Holt McCallany in The Iron Claw
Supporting Actress
1. Rachel McAdams in Are You There God? It’s Me, Margaret
2. Pom Klementieff in Mission: Impossible - Dead Reckoning
3. Yuko Tanaka in Monster
4. Scarlett Johansson in Asteroid City
5. Michaela Watkins in You Hurt My Feelings
1. Murphy
2. Giamatti
3. Wright
4. Domingo
5. Cooper
1. Murphy
2. Giamatti
3. Wright
4. Domingo
5. Cooper
Luke: Cooper could go as low as 2, I suspect.
Robert: Roughly where would Abby Ryder Fortson place in your Best Actress ranking?
1. Murphy
2. Giamatti
3. Wright
4. Domingo
5. Cooper
John Smith
1. Cillian Murphy
2. Paul Giamatti
3. Jeffrey Wright
4. Colman Domingo
5. Bradley Cooper
1) Murphy
2) Giamatti
3) Wright
4) Domingo
5) Cooper
1.Murphy
2.Giamatti
3.Wright
4.Domingo
5.Cooper
No reason to predict otherwise. It's a shame Cooper's nomination was a lock. I'm glad Domingo got in over Dicaprio but I wish Scott was here somehow.
1. Murphy
2. Giamatti
3. Wright
4. Domingo
5. Cooper
1. Murphy
2. Giamatti
3. Wright
4. Domingo
5. Cooper
My predictions:
1. Cillian Murphy
2. Paul Giamatti
3. Jeffrey Wright
4. Colman Domingo
5. Bradley Cooper
I haven't seen American Fiction yet, but my ranking between the other 4 would be:
1. Paul Giamatti
2. Cillian Murphy
3. Colman Domingo
4. Bradley Cooper
Louis: Love And Death On Long Island will be a 1998 release when you get to that year. It had festival screenings in 97.
You know what, fuck it. I'll support a review for Phoenix in Napoleon for the alternate Lineup. Could always add amendments to it later after the extended cut.
Can't say I'd be all that enthusiastic with a Napoleon Phoenix review in as strong as this one for Alternate Lead Actor.
Calvin: In a 10 lineup, I would agree with you but if by some chance it's 15 as a one-off then for me I'd be happy with it.
At the end of the day, reviewing all 5s is of the utmost importance.
Luke, I don't mind if he goes that direction. Supporting will have 5 and maybe a bonus, whereas if Lead is 15, he'll have about the same workload maybe a bit less than 2021 which had 33 review posts in total.
Anonymous: You can put the Monster Duo in separate lineups so it would only be 14 review posts in Lead.
So with Friedel out I'll put in Phoenix and for the last spot, either Bernal or Hopkins.
Marcus:
Freidel - (It's been awhile since I've said it but a "director's film", and that is where his performance stands, where I think most purely within Glazer's overall choice, where I think Huller suggests where there could've been even more. Freidel largely stands as the figure as a father who occasionally goes about his day into a concentration camp, and his performance is consistent in terms of its casual manner. Where we see him as the casual dad, as the somewhat henpecked husband trying to please his wife and just consistently that. The scene that moves away from that is a moment where something is questioned and Freidel's performance in this scene suddenly gives much more character to the moment, though this is brief. And then in the ending sequence we kind of see more so the truth of the man though this too he is approaching as a man doing a job, even if it is a horrible genocidal one.)
Huller - (Her performance, which I do think is co-lead, is where I think you do see the opportunity for more because what she does indicate more exploration within the wife of Hoss. As her moments with the mundane are, she is bringing more towards them in this sort of the particularly disturbing way she goes about examining the coat of a murdered Jewish woman, or the specific pride she goes about showing her garden crafted just the way she wants, while being parallel to the camp. Huller is particularly disturbing because she shows more of a sense of the situation, and not in the sense that she dislikes it, rather you see the sense of prideful joy in her appreciation for her existence based on genocidal gains. And the moment where this is questioned, or less so just that it might be slightly less perfectly crafted for her, Huller is so perfectly vile in presenting the distress of her ideal world that she's crafted for herself being disturbed in even the slightest way. And we have one more key moment where she interacts with the character that has been largely ignored throughout the film where Huller suddenly shows just how truly actively callous she can be and turns her viciousness directed towards someone. In this moment she is absolutely chilling in creating that sudden sense of the real horrifying implications of the woman.)
#3 in director.
Shaggy:
#3 in International, #3 in Sound, #6 in picture, #4 in adapted screenplay. I have to say that I'm even tempted to put Barbie over it, though I think Zone is more consistent in what it is doing, but honestly I'm a little baffled by its screenplay nomination. First of all I ponder if Glazer just liked the name of the book, since he took so little from the actual book. But the screenplay itself is so sparse and frankly in a way it would seem such a perfunctory exercise if not for the direction of it. If your average workmanlike filmmaker adapted that screenplay it would be just one big nothing, and as much as the screenplay has flaws, I'll say Killers' screenplay absolutely was robbed which actually went about trying to adapt a challenging book. Glazer basically just took the setting. And don't get me wrong I do like the film, but that screenplay, which I was not surprised to find it was only 74 pages long, did not need to be nominated.
Tony:
Well it does take some time to watch the reviews, and then give properly articulated thoughts. And again this is just a matter of having the time to maintain pace with my reviews.
Luke:
Keoghan - 4(Honestly might be going high but would have to watch the film again to parse out a bit, and have zero desire to do that. The problem here is the writing behind Keoghan is completely false in creating two separate entities for his character, and it does not successfully merge them. See with Tom Ripley he is a manipulator but he is genuinely obsessed as well. With the ridiculously named Oliver Quick, he's either a complete psychopath or obsessed and his actions actually don't allow for both by the way they are written here. Because either he's just wanting to kill for his own desire to rise up the social ladder or he's just obsessed with that being a by-product. The ending firmly makes it, the former making his moments of obsession or regrets just simply lies....for the audience which are filmmaking cheats in the worst possible way. And Keoghan I think is perfectly fine in playing a character that actually isn't true to his conception. As he does bring the psychopathic intensity in his final scenes with a nefarious glee about it. He does it well. Of course then he is just a ball of genuine distress in other moments where he is seen as nothing, which Keoghan plays as pure genuine distress and heartache. Brings the same intensity and the same theoretical conviction to it, but it doesn't add up. And none of it does. Keoghan has charisma but he's not truly insidious in the way you see the manipulations which frankly seem a bit forced. Keoghan can be creepy and he is effectively creepy in his moments of observation. He's whatever the script needs him to be in a given scene, but he doesn't, nor does the script, create a convincing connective tissue between these developments. Making Oliver Quick exist for the needs of the plot rather than existing as a character who forces the plot to develop to that character.)
The remaining films that I would like you to watch before the year is finished are:
The Peasants
Robot Dreams
Wish
Peter Pan & Wendy (David Lowery)
Blue Beetle
The Marvels
The Taste Of Things
Cassandro
One Life
Knock At The Cabin
The Burial
Femme
Pinball: The Man Who Saved The Game
The Great Escaper
Talk To Me
Origin
Blue Jean
The End We Start From
Reality
The Pope's Exorcist (I've a morbid curiosity in Crowe's performance in this)
Louis: Your thoughts on the ending of Raiders of the Lost Ark.
Makes you wonder what's inside all those crates.
8000S: Save that question for after Louis is done with the 2023 reviews.
Louis: Any other Lead Actor saves you're willing to release now?
I'm pretty sure Clarke's not happening.
Jesus Christ, Chris Rock is directing a remake of Another Round.
Luke: That, and the fact that the Michael Jackson biopic is actually happening... just stunned.
Luke: I've had a pretty bad day, but at least this made me laugh. If Rock will also cast himself as Martin, then we might already be looking at the bottom performance on Louis' overall list.
Tim: Everybody started talking about dream musician biopics in June and I believe you predicted the future in regards to Michael Jackson biopic lol
Luke, your thoughts on the Royal Rumble.
Anonymous: I'm relieved Cody won. I would've been pissed if it was Rock/Reigns at Mania.
I'm so disappointed that Gunther/Lesnar is off the cards after the recent scandal revelations.
Tahmeed:
I'd prefer to give those in the alternate lead nominees post.
Post a Comment