Peter Mullan did not receive an Oscar nomination for portraying Joe Kavanagh in My Name is Joe.
Peter Mullan plays the titular role of Joe, and is an actor who provides an immediate authenticity to a role, that's the case here as the working class guy attending an Alcoholics Anonymous, and is so authentic that I'll admit I might've struggled to entirely understand every word coming out of his mouth. And usually I scoff when some individuals claim they can't understand the actors in films like Banshees of Inisherin or Trainspotting, but this time I'll admit I was challenged in this opening anyways as he goes over his experiences up until this point. Thankfully it began to clear up for me as soon as I could actually see Mullan and he finished his speech about where he's been and where he is now. Mullan brings this sense of a seasoned history of tough stories and difficult times in this moment, but a clarity in the conversation with hopeful accentuation as he speaks about it. Mullan expresses this as a man who has been here before, has maybe said some variation of this before, and there is a strong belief in every moment of a man who has been through a lot but is ready to move forward. And after this point the film kind of jumps right into an unexpected beat as we mostly follow Joe in a day to day situation, where mostly Mullan has to be more charming than anything else as we see Joe coaching, messing with friends, and even the lower end criminal nature of them is largely downplayed as it seems to want us to see Joe just living his life.
Well in living his life Mullan is indeed very charming and brings a great deal of bright energy in the part. Showing a man who is very much going about embracing life after his hardships and seeming ready to be his best self around everyone else. Mullan has an easy manner in these scenes bringing this natural calm and real sense of joy with the man just going to enjoy life as he can and as he should. Mullan successfully takes it a step further as we see Joe going about trying to help all his fringe friends in his own ways, with just his general impassioned demeanor, if in a very modest way, that completely works in Mullan's hands. He makes it completely convincing every step of the way that it is hard not to find Joe quite likeable with just how much earned brightness that Mullan brings. The man is a man who empathizes and supports first before anything else, and Mullan manages to play this in a way that always feels honest to a man overcoming his past, in fact seems to inform his manner that shows someone who might be enjoying life a bit more than anyone else because he's already been so much terrible events that he's ready to enjoy the good things in life. Mullan carries that specific energy with such an honesty that just as much as I came in expecting to believe him as a man who struggled with alcohol, I much more so was surprised by how much I believed him as a man basically rejecting sadness that was so pervasive for him as he now enjoys his life.
Something that I think is essential as the film goes into what is a large portion of the film is his chemistry with Sarah the health worker who quite obviously comes from a very different background and lifestyle than Joe. A romance that could easily have not been convincing by that setup however one immediately can believe it because of that energy that Mullan is exuding where he really just is so charming and outgoing in such a humble way. Mullan is so incredibly endearing that you don't have to buy into the romance, one can simply accept it as Sarah and Joe become closer. Closer in a way where the two of them are so believable in the specific chemistry they develop that isn't about this intense romance, rather this ease of each other's company that is so beautifully realized. You see them just enjoying spending this time together every moment they are with one another, whether it is just spending time casually, or eventually having sex with one another. The two are so playful that it is surprising, but in a way that totally works in exploring the two kinds of finding each other's best natures. They just have that authentic sense of connection that Mullan doesn't at all seem like the rough character we often know him to be and with Sarah we see a truly loving man that just feels genuine in the best possible way.
That isn't to say that this performance is all joy and happiness, though much more of it than I would have gathered given the pained roles Mullan often plays, and Mullan has a standout moment in a scene where Sarah finally asks about his alcoholism. And Mullan is simply incredible as he goes about speaking first with such a meek delivery as we see the very real fear in his eyes that he'll think Sarah will hate him once she learns the truth about him. When he finally tells the story, love everything Mullan does from his finger tapping his head to just the sort of way he's looking in remembering it as uncovering the dust of this great pain with his delivery featuring such a potent such of the heartbreak of his memories as he notes that not only was he drunk, he was violent. Something we flashback to as we see the rage of the old Joe at his old girlfriend, and as with any time we see violent Mullan, he is indeed absolutely terrifying in the intensity he can unleash in a performance. The animalistic rage in Mullan's performance as a man just got lost in himself, in contrast to the man looking back with this somber understanding of this as something that he essentially fears within himself as much as he seemingly has moved past it. And after this great scene for Mullan is where the film somewhat fell apart for me in getting into the contrived plot over the side characters that ends creating a wedge between Joe and Sarah, leading him into a violent confrontation and a different tragedy to deal with. All of these moments are still well acted by Mullan, he never loses the character, but the way in which Joe is forced into each situation does feel a touch contrived because it suddenly feels so plot driven rather than character driven. Mullan is very strong in these moments, particularly a scene of failed proposal where Mullan brings such a sense of the character just wanting to affirm that happiness and the shyness he brings feels so natural as he tries to ease off it. Or even in the most melodramatic moments of a reverting to his violent alcoholic ways, Mullan delivers every moment of intensity you would want and keeps a potency in these scenes even as the writing flounders more than a little. Mullan remains captivating by keeping the essential honesty within his performance even as the writing begins to make the whole film feel less honest. Mullan proving his measure in this leading role, and leading no surprise why this moved him beyond the minor character roles he had played previously.
123 comments:
Louis: Ratings and thoughts on the cast.
This year has not lived up to my expectations.
Yeah, 4.5 feels right.
Also, yeah, I don't think subtitles are required for this, but they'd definitely help.
Well I'd give him a 5 for this, but at least it looks like he could win this lineup.
I'm fairly certain now it's gonna be Lillard winning this.
Louis: Did you manage to get a DVD copy of Twenty Four Seven.
John Smith: Louis your thougts and ratings of the cast in Show Me Love/Fucking Åmål
The person who obtains a DVD or even VHS of Twenty Four Seven and makes a digital cover deserves a million dollar reward.
Now that John Boorman has lost the Louis MVP filmmaker badge, tell us which names can get 5?
My picks: Nolte, Carrey, Lillard, Hoskins, Norton, Bridges and McKellen (Gods and Monsters).
Shaggy: Unfortunately, he said that Carrey is still a 4 for The Truman Show after rewatching it. I still have my fingers crossed for Bridges being upgraded, and suspect Gallo might be a dark horse contender for a 5 as well.
Louis: T&R on the cast of Lock, Stock, and Two Smoking Barrels?
Part of me feels that McKellen should be a 5 for Gods and Monsters. It's definitely his better performance from the year.
Is Hanks still a 4 for Private Ryan, or are you planning on a revision of that review?
I’m really intrigued as to how Lillard will fare.
Louis: Your double feature choices for 1998's Best Picture nominees?
I watched "Affliction" sometime ago.... Nolte, in all honesty, would be a great choice for taking the entire year... I was always intrigued over why he was rated lower but I thought "that's his opinion". It would be good to see him being upgraded. Just as great would be Edward Norton for American History X, and Jeff Bridges in The Big Lebowski.
If my memory serves me correctly, the last fiveless year on this blog for Lead Actor is 1932. Usually the overall winner is pretty uncontestable/an all-timer peformance for Louis, so the unpredictability this time is intriguing to me.
As someone who has watched Affliction around 2 months ago, I'd be fine with Nolte getting upgraded to 4 or maybe 4.5, but winning the whole year would be too much imo.
Louis: You don't mind watching Gods and Monsters during Supporting. After re-watching it, I agree with the majority that he's better there than in Apt Pupil. I'm pretty sure you've settled on Bridges for The Big Lebowski.
Honestly, a 4.5 is just right for McKellen in Gods and Monsters. He's great and the only reason to watch that terrible film, but I can't go to a 5 for him.
He's a lot better there than in Apt Pupil though, that's for sure.
Luke:
Goodall - 4.5(Very lovely work where she like Mullan just brings that honesty to their relationship that every moment of low key charm not only feels earned, it also is very endearing in such a specific earnest way. She's also very good I think in selling much of the later material that I think is less successful overall, in terms of conveying the conflicting feelings and is quite moving in showing the struggle to kind of accept the more difficult circumstances in a very human way. She never makes her decision that of an antagonist rather granting a real sense of where she's coming from in each choice.)
McKay - 3.5(I think he was more than decent the problem is the film just never quite writes him up enough in the early scenes to suddenly devote so much to him, leaving the whole thing to be a bit hollow, though not his fault I would say.)
Lewis - 3.5(Very fine "friend" support that just carries the same kind of authenticity.)
Gods and Monsters is a film I've seen enough times to know my thoughts will not change.
Tony & John: Again I do not give thoughts until the results.
Robert:
He's been upgraded to a 4.5.
Tony:
The Thin Red Line/From Here to Eternity
Saving Private Ryan/Battleground
Shakespeare in Love/Day For Night
Life is Beautiful/The Shop on Main Street
Elizabeth/The Lion in Winter
I do have some hope in Norton sneaking his way to #2 or #1, as the visceral power of that performance is something I've never quite forgotten, especially as the film itself isn't memorable apart from him...which seems to be a pattern amongst a lot of these 4.5 rated performances from 1998.
Louis: Was F. Murray Abraham's work in Amadeus your favorite performance from the first time you watched the film, or was the brilliance of it something you fully "got" on later watches?
Louis: Your thoughts on Arthur Q. Bryan and June Foray's work in Looney Tunes.
Louis: Talking a little about Mullan, you forgot to write that he won the best prize at the Cannes Film Festival.
Louis: Your thoughts on The Mask Of Zorro's screenplay.
Jonathan: Wait until the re-watch, because I also have questions to ask about that film.
Ytrewq: I would disagree. Nolte is genuinely marvelous in Affliction, for my money. It wouldn't be "too much" at all. I have seen a lot of people who have him as that year's win.
Louis: Thoughts on the Paddington 3 trailer.
Perfectionist: I personally flip flop between Nolte and Bridges as my win that year, so I concur.
I literally never seen anyone choose Nolte for 1998 aside from Bill Murray on an SNL sketch, it is always between Norton and McKellen as it should be.
Affliction for me is James Coburn and his scenes with Nick Nolte and the tooth pulling scene for me which Nolte is great in but thats it. It's interesting that some people think Gods and Monsters is awful, its masterful compared to how bad Affliction is lol.
Anonymous: I think Nolte is harrowing in it. There's a true sense of pathetic desperation in how he unravels. If anything Coburn is the weak link. He peaks with his first scene and then hammers the same crotchety asshole note down for the remainder of his screentime.
Also, American History X has not aged well with me and I'm afraid to rewatch it.
Louis: If you can't find Twenty Four Seven, do you go straight to Lillard or do an analysis with another actor?
Shaggy: I'm pretty sure he's planned well in advance to get a copy.
Luke: What makes you think Louis has settled on Bridges' rating for Lebowski?
Tony: His review does not read like a 5. He's mentioned several times he's not that big on the film overall outside of Goodman.
Tony: The last paragraph of his review has me convinced and he must've seen it more than twice.
Luke and Matt: I see.
Louis: Your thoughts on McKean and Fabian in these scenes?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNCA53U7wAU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYxZCYQJqyw
Luke: I hope Louis got it. Because I tried to purchase the DVD a while ago, but unfortunately I only found it on LaserDisc.
Marcus:
No in that, at that time, I doubt I had a favorite. But like many of the very best, I have indeed appreciated some more little details every time.
Tony:
I mean who doesn't love that particular voice of Elmer Fudd's that Bryan brings that I think hits just the right kind of perfect note in his particular silliness that is so gentle for a man whose point is to kill the wabbit. And his particular way of speaking does accentuate the humor every time.
Foray's impressive in terms of the natural stretch as she's totally convincing as Granny, despite being quite young and even when much older she didn't sound aged in that particular way which she does with considerable ease.
Luke:
Alas, I wish King and Hawkins had made this film rather than Wonka, despite liking Wonka. And I mean it doesn't look bad, Colman and Banderas are nice inclusions and can appreciate the scenario...but that recasting does throw me off more than a lot, and unfortunately raises overall suspicious that this could potentially be one sequel too many...hopefully I'm wrong.
Tony:
The first season is great acting from both as you see from McKean that authority of Chuck when talking about the law with the insurance company and the force of him. But then you also see so naturally how the moment his ability is even slightly challenged, by Howard making a very honest way to respectfully retire, how he becomes so desperate in a moments notice. Fabian's very good in the scene in playing that Howard sort of distance on the top, but showing his very real concern as both concern for the firm but genuine empathy for Chuck as well in each of his reactions to Chuck going off the deep end.
The second scene, which is probably the most honest manipulation in all of Breaking Bad, where in Fabian's performance, which again he's really the phoniest honest guy you'll ever meet, where his presentation is phony but the man is honest, and this is a great moment of it where Howard makes his case in that Howard way, but Fabian shows as soon as he shows his cards of honestly, and personally putting up the money himself it is absolutely sincere in every choice he makes, with real concern and really heartbreak in himself that he's had to go to this length. McKean on the otherhand shows how Chuck was never so pure, taken aback by Howard's legitimate action to genuine sacrifice for the firm, against the man who claims his care for it yet would nearly destroy it for himself, and McKean shows this moment of inferiority genuinely for Chuck in his reaction. Then in his action you see how small Chuck is, because of his false, frustrated attempted smile at being beat, not by moral duplicity but sacrifice.
Louis: Random, but on the topic of BCS, do you personally think Jimmy will be capable of change? Like, on the grand scheme of things after the series finale?
Emi: I kinda feel like the whole point of the show is that he's not.
Matt: See, I kind of agree, but idk if I'm reading into it too cinically or not.
Emi & Matt:
Ever so slightly, yes. In that he had the grandest Slipping Jimmy scheme of all in getting his sentence down to a cushy short stint, and instead chose to tell the truth for once, take the hard road for once and to attempt to rectify some of the wrongs he had committed in the past....however he's left theoretically in a situation where he is entirely living within his criminal reputation....which wouldn't exactly keep encouraging further change, however I don't quite see Jimmy trying to run any schemes in prison either.
Louis: what are your 10 favorite actors who you've never given more than a 4 to?
Lucas: Michael Wincott and Benedict Wong might be up there. I'm curious on who the others might be.
Louis: What’s your rating and thoughts on Potente in Run Lola Run?
Louis: Do you think the final scene of BCS is the last time Jimmy and Kim ever see each other? Even Odenkirk and Seehorn disagree with each other on that. Personally, I do think they probably still keep in touch through occasional visits and phone calls, though I see no good reason for them rekindling their romantic relationship.
Robert: I've learned from experience that Louis doesn't comment on performances in additional films he watches until after the results.
A little late, but to add to the "Affliction" conversation...
A 4 for Nolte seems perfectly fair IMO; Solid throughout, with that striking tooth pulling scene BUT maybe not absolute best of that year. Colburn's review I think largely covers my own thoughts. The performance is more one note following his first scene, but I think thats entirely intentionally and functional. As in..we needed to see how Wade was traumatized, and Colburn delivers in showing Glen's true colours and his inherent cruelty. Also, Glen is heavily drinking throughout that second half, so his crotchety attitude being so consistent makes sense to me, if that is Glen's drinking persona.
Also, couple more notes on GOW: Ragnarok...
-I've beaten Heimdall, but have since done some exploring/side missions before continuing the story. And while that fight was spoiled for me, it was no less satisfying to see that smug bastard finally get humbled
-The berserker bosses are giving me more trouble than the Valkeries from GOW 2018
-The fact that I've been so immersed in the rest of the gaming world, improving stats and finding secrets is certainly a credit to a game of its type
-I've had some minor technical issues with the game playing audio, or not having dialogue or sound effects in some scenes. However, I'm not sure if thats related to my system or the specific copy I bought, so I won't hold it against the game itself
Louis: Your thoughts on "Birds Anonymous". Curiously, it won the Oscar for Best Animated Short, and when Edward Selzer passed away, the Oscar was given to Mel Blanc, who said it was his favorite Looney Tunes cartoon.
Louis, your thoughts on the trailers for Kneecap and Sing Sing.
Louis: As its my birthday tomorrow, could you do an LB review for The Wrong Trousers. There are a couple W&G related questions that I would like to ask you tomorrow.
Luke, what's your final top 5 prediction for 98 Lead.
1. Jim Caviezel (If moved to Lead)
2. Matthew Lillard
3. Rufus Sewell
4. Edward Norton
5. Peter Mullan
6. Bob Hoskins
7. John Hurt
8. Brendan Gleeson
9. Jeff Bridges
10. Shah Rukh Khan
If Norton does get upgraded, which I'm doubtful of as he was a 5 originally then I'd put him in 2nd.
Ganz and maybe Gallo might show up in the top 10 but I've no idea where to put them.
I don't know how you're all seeing Caviezel as lead, I think that movie is as clear cut an example of an ensemble as it gets.
Matt: This is not my personal opinion but I recall Louis wanting to check his screentime percentage which has yet to be posted.
Louis Morgan, these one week gaps really derail my excitement for your reviews. Can't you hurry it a bit? Like this particular year really just went on for 2 months?
Anonymous: Surely you have other pastimes to keep you busy than spend all your days waiting on a review.
Hey Luke: If Caviezel was placed in supporting who would be #10 in the ranking?
Anonymous: "Derail my excitement", lol. Besides, most of the time new reviews appear weekly.
Shaggy: Ask me that once we've moved on.
Anonymous: Grow up. He goes at his own pace to avoid burnout.
Temporarily setting comments to users only.
Louis: You can delete my comments from that conversation as well if you want to. It's not something I want to remind myself of if I come back to this page.
Anyway, to more positive things. Can't wait for your Wrong Trousers write-up tomorrow.
Happy Birthday Daniel
Happy Birthday to you too Luke.
Well everyone...I finished the main story of "God of War: Ragnarok" tonight. I will mention right away that I had some minor audio issues in this playthrough - namely pieces of dialogue being mute or certain sound effects not activating. I don't know if thats a common issue with the game or if it's just my system/copy, but I thought I'd bring it up. And on the note of pacing, this game "could've been" a few hours shorter during the main campaign. GOW 2018 was a long game as well, but I'd say Ragnarok's run time was even more padded, and could've been streamlined a touch.
However....that's really my only nitpick. Like it's predecessor, this is an outstanding achievement in modern gaming. Graphically, it's a visual marvel with it's fight animation, new realms and motion capture. Thematically, it's a very interesting reinterpretation of the Nordic doomsday, but also a powerful exploration of forgiveness, grief and parental bonding. Mechanically, it builds on an already strong combat system with new weapons, new techniques and a whole new fighting set up/style for Atreus. And structurally, despite it's bloated run time, it has an superb script thats well concieved and well performed. In terms of gaming sequels, this is far more "Red Dead Redemption 2" than "The Last of Us 2" (not to dunk on the latter game too much, which has a lot of unfourtunate toxicity attached to it, though there's still genuine flaws in the final product).
Daniel and Luke: Happy birthdays to both of you.
Happy birthday, Luke and Daniel.
Also, I'll do something a bit different and offer thoughts on the VA cast of Ragnarok...
Judge - (Now TC Carson did a very good job playing Kratos in the early GOW games. For the direction this story/character went, though, I can't deny Judge was a fantastic choice, and delivers with these two games one of the great VA performances of the last decade. Judge has such an incredible physicality in the part that really aids the motion capture, as he can shift from stoic to furious in a heartbeat. Then there's his striking voice, which Judge does a terrific job to add emotion behind Kratos' normally composed delivery. In Ragnarok specifically, he has some downright powerful scenes of showing the character's true emotional state, while never compromising Kratos' experience and strength. This is stunning work.)
Suljic - (We go from a terrific child performance in GOW 2018, to a terrific adolescent performance in Ragnarok. Suljic thankfully did not lose a step since his first outing, and I think delivers a strong followup in Atreus' journey. His chemistry with Judge is still just as palpable, and on his own, he does well to show the boy's fear, uncertainty, compassion and intelligence. The game depends on him to carry entire sections of the plot, and Suljic is there for every moment.)
Duncan - (A wonderfully entertaining supporting performance, aided by Duncan's naturally entrancing voice. Mimir being perhaps the game's most talkative side character could've gotten very stale, very fast. But Duncan just brings such colour and wisdom in his delivery, while still reflecting any given tone or scene.)
Bisutti - (Effective work from her, jumping off from Freya's state from the last game, and charting her eventual change with realism and power. Shes another aspect that the game needed to nail, and Bisutti more than delivers.)
Hurst - (The game's take on Thor is unquestionably bold - going from heroic, chiseled and capable in most of it's depictions, to broken, glutinous, blunted and cruel. To that end, Hurst absolutely finds those notes in his Thor, and makes him appropriately dangerous and pitiful.)
Schiff - (Has one sort of silly line delivery that stands out, mostly since it's in a very pivitol sequence. Beyond that, Schiff fulfills everything that Odin was build up to be - someone whose less inspiring, powerful patriarch, and more conniving hoarder. He brings a fast talking, weasily speech pattern that's almost persuasive at times, before eventually gives to a crazed obsession for knowledge and control.)
Harrington and Craighead - (Strong followups to their first outings, I think. Harrington gets a little more material with Sindri's past mistakes and eventual turn to vengeance, which he does well with. Craighead, meanwhile, is just hilariously crass and abrasive, but reigned in just enough at the right moments.)
Porter - (Every bit as pompous and insufferable as Heimdall needed to be, but with the right tinge of ego driven insecurity.)
Lucas:
Michael Wincott
Ward Bond
Scott Glenn
Benedict Wong
Jack Warden
Harry Davenport
Ned Beatty
Woody Strode
Robert Morley
Chris Cooper
Tried to stay away from actors who would have theoretical higher if TV was included.
8000's:
Never loved sort of prototypical Sylvester Tweedy, but one like this I can enjoy thanks to the shake of format in playing around in different fun ways of more so the temptation of going back to his addiction, particularly with the capper with the improved bird chaser himself falling into such extremes quite suddenly.
Tony:
Kneecap looks like it could be fun very much a la The Commitments, Good Vibrations, Sing Street sort of things, and is very much wearing those influences on its sleeve...also interesting to see Fassbender in the mentor/dad role...though also Barry Foster from Ryan's Daughter role it seems.
With Sing Sing, the trailer itself was pretty powerful and looks like it might hit that inspirational sweet spot, that is tough to achieve yet so remarkable when achieved. Great to see Raci in something again, and Domingo's work looks potentially very impressive.
Daniel & Luke:
Happy Birthday gentlemen.
Happy Birthday Daniel and Luke.
Louis, what do you think of these '98 double features?
Shakespeare in Love/Singin' in the Rain
Life is Beautiful/The Great Dictator
The Big Lebowski/The Long Goodbye
American History X/The Man with the Golden Arm
Happy Birthday guys!
Tony: I think Seven Beauties could also be an apt double feature to Life is Beautiful, though I see what you’re getting at with The Great Dictator.
Daniel, Luke: Happy birthday, gentlemen
Daniel and Luke: Happy birthday!
Happy Birthday Daniel and Luke!
Louis: But didn't you give Chris Cooper a 4.5 for Breach?
Thank you guys.
Louis: Instead of Cooper, what about Dave Bautista.
Thank you all very much everyone. I do always feel happy that I share my birthday with Luke along with one of the best footballers in the world (Mohammed Salah) and my favorite female wrestler (Bayley).
Mitchell: I agree with you on the GOW Ragnarok performances, they are all generally great, I kinda wanted more from Porter as Heimdall though, his character on paper reminds me of Hermes from God Of War 3 in that he is an annoying troll but I kinda hoped he'd be a little more gloriously over the top like that character was since I thought he was perhaps a bit too insufferable to a point where I wanted him off the screen as soon as possible.
Louis: After watching The Wrong Trousers, can I have your thoughts on Gromit leaving home, Gromit tailing Feathers, the Diamond Heist and the train chase.
And thoughts on the teaser for the upcoming film.
Bryan: Haven't seen Seven Beauties, but judging by the premise, maybe.
Louis: What would be your double feature choices for these films, and do you think they would've been additional BP nominees that year in an expanded field?
The Truman Show
Gods and Monsters
A Simple Plan
Primary Colors
Out of Sight
Tony: A Simple Plan - Before the Devil Knows You're Dead?
It's been a while since I've seen either film. But I mostly make that comparison since both movies focus on siblings involved in a financial scheme or situation, which in turn brings up a lot of familial drama.
Tony: I think Affliction also could’ve had a good shot at getting in, since both of its nominations were in high-profile categories, including a win.
For The Truman Show, maybe They Live? Different styles, but both deal with similar themes.
The Thomas Crown Affair could be a good pair for Out of Sight.
Bryan and Mitchell: I was thinking these could work.
The Truman Show/A Matter of Life and Death
Gods and Monsters/Love and Death on Long Island
A Simple Plan/The Treasure of the Sierra Madre
Primary Colors/State of the Union
Out of Sight/They Live By Night
I mean, it's obvious, but Out of Sight should be paired with Ocean's 11.
Tony:
I can see them all particularly Lebowski and the Long Goodbye of course.
Tim:
You are correct. Then replace him with Edmond O'Brien.
Luke:
He's working his way there, though hopefully he'll get above a 4 sometime.
Gromit leaving home is classic cartoon somberness, and genuinely sad because who doesn't love Gromit. Gromit tailing feathers is great again by the actual Rear Windowesque moment, along with reading his newspaper with the article about his reading a newspaper, just great touches along the way. The Diamond Heist is wonderfully done in every bit of it particularly as Feathers exploits the different state of Wallace's sleeping. The train chase is the best though from Feather instantly whipping out a gun, to Gromit creating his own track and just the build up to the climax of swiping Feather's getaway train.
Tony:
The Truman Show and Gods and Monsters unquestionably. A Simple Plan and Primary Colors seem logical. Out of Sight probably with that editing nomination, though it is showy in a way that I think it could've been by itself so to speak. Have a feeling it wouldn't be that easy, maybe Affliction given the Coburn win, with Schrader's lack of a screenplay nom meaning less given he wasn't nominated for Taxi Driver or Raging Bull either. Of course, it's easy to forget that Little Voice was a big player (for some reason) but definitely underperformed given Horrocks got so many precursors yet was left off. Also Waking Ned Devine which got PGA with only five nominees and SAG ensemble, but its zero nominations overall makes it hard to believe it was in a ten.
The Truman Show/Dark City
Gods and Monsters/All That Jazz
A Simple Plan/Double Indemnity
Primary Colors/The Best Man
Out of Sight/The Narrow Margin
Also switching back to open comments. Though I will keep on moderation for a bit to see if Michael Wincott from Talk Radio comes back.
Luke:
And yes, that teaser can only properly hype one up for hopefully a worthy return for ole' Feathers McGraw.
Good to be back, was worried about not being able to comment due to those nasty trolls. Sorry you have to deal with that Louis.
Louis: Your thoughts on the titular sequence and Mike's fateful final encounter with Walt from Breaking Bad's Say My Name, if you haven't given them before.
R.I.P. Yoshiko Kuga.
Matt: Personally, I'd rather pair a film with a work from a different director, as it allows one to consider how the same themes have been explored by other artists. Plus, I enjoy the extra challenge.
Nolte up to a 4.5 and I think he'll take the win from the nominees.
My updated lead actor nominees rank:
1. Nolte
2. Norton
3. McKellen
4. Hanks
5. Benigni
Benigni has the chance to do the funniest thing ever...
Louis: Thoughts on my proposed double features for The Truman Show, Gods and Monsters, and A Simple Plan?
Also, what would your list be for Lucas' previous question, with only actresses?
Would have preferred a 5 for Nolte personally. But this is still a major upgrade. I am leaning towards the possibility, that maybe no one gets a 5 in the entire 1998 lineup again. I am rooting for Matthew Lillard and Edward Norton, but that's unlikely.
Louis: Your cast and director for a 2000s The Iron Claw? I think Nick Nolte as Fritz Von Erich would have been a good idea.
If I were to take a guess for Louis' top 7.
1) Norton(He is searing in the movie and is a very safe choice)
2) Nolte
3) Lillard
4) Mullan
5) Hurt
6) McKellen(GAM)
7) Hoskins
To anyone who wants to watch Twenty Four Seven, try getting the Shane Meadows collection DVD.
Louis: Your thoughts on this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7TKQ6SzUpGg
That House of the Dragon premiere...wow.
Louis: Your thoughts on it and MVP once you see it, and your thoughts on the final sequence.
Louis: Thoughts on this? https://youtu.be/lW9tu1i1UgA?si=5VjvwoV66RC1XQDn
Louis: Similar to Matt's clip, your thoughts on this as well? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x_y691nZztE
Louis: Thoughts on the direction and screenplay of American History X.
Opinions notwithstanding, it's up to Bob, Matthew and Rufus to save the year. With all due respect and appreciation, given my expectations at the start, I'll be gutted if this ends up being fiveless. The streak goes all the way back to 33 and it would feel like it got messed up by a game breaking bug.
I'd actually find it more interesting if this ends up being a fiveless year.
Final note on the certain comments, I do try to delete any needlessly hostile comments towards anyone else, when I can get to them in time, I tend to ignore those directed at me but from now I'll try to delete them as well to prevent any escalation. And I would suggest in the future just try to ignore them until I can delete them in the future. Though I most certainly appreciate the support.
Marcus:
The opening scene is theoretically Walt living and glorifying in his dream. Every moment of getting to be the original formula maker, being known as the man who killed Gus Fring, and having a criminal moniker that he glories in with the "same my name". That is Walt's true want more than anything, and Cranston plays the entire scene as the man most alive, not when he's happy with his family or anything close to that. Here being worshipped, even for criminal acts, is Walt truly as himself.
Walt killing Mike is theoretically one of Walt's most evil acts in terms of the directness of action, as it's a time Walt kills not for survival of any kind, but completely for pride and grudge. And you have that through Walt's not quite regret I would say but rather his surprise almost at himself for giving into the moment by shooting Mike. With Mike, who I would say did change characters a touch to be more "moral" in Better Call Saul, however fitting accepting his end as almost another rotten inconvenience of his life not needing any extra by Walt continuing to explain himself.
Tony:
The Truman Show with A Matter of Life and Death is a little unexpected, but I can see it as the man essentially being observed from above.
Gods and Monsters with Love and Death makes proper companions as both artistic men seeking companionship in men are unlikely to reciprocate.
Treasure of Sierra Madre fits well with A Simple Plan, given it too is a simple plan of collecting gold that becomes not at all simple by the end of it.
I'll admit actresses are a little tougher as I don't have the clear database to draw from.
Ytrewq:
The Iron Claw 2000's directed by David Gordon Green:
Kevin von Erich: Ben Affleck
Kerry von Erich: Josh Brolin
David von Erich: Walton Goggins
Mike von Erich: Casey Affleck
Doris von Erich: Stockard Channing
Pam Adkisson: Robin Tunney
I would agree on Nolte (where his voice still would be not quite as gruff as the real man)
Tahmeed:
MVP probably D'arcy.
I liked it well enough as mostly a table setting reintroduction episode except for the ending, but it did a fine job of basically placing all the characters in their spots.
The final sequence I think I'm in the middle of as I've seen some pure hatred from book purists. Middle in that I did quite like the general atmosphere leading up to the actual act, which in itself was still pretty horrible with the sound design in particular being rather bone chilling. I do wonder why they took Alicent from being present, and the choice aspect was a little bungled, though I don't mind making Blood and Cheese *slightly* less bloodthirsty.
8000's:
I mean insight and you can tell how much thought he put into every aspect of the film, which is the sign of a great director where there's nothing that he's just kind of blithe about.
Matt:
From everything I've read and seen of Rylance's Shakespeare work he very much seeks *his* interpretation, and in this case playing Richard, at least from this, in a sympathetic and comedic bent. And to actually know whether or not this works, which I've heard some love and some hate, Rylance's risk-taking with Shakespeare, I would have to see the whole thing to see if it works. Because in this scene, it does work as he plays to the crowd in a Globe like way in accentuating the absurdity of a man seducing a woman he made a widow. But as much as it is funny in the way he chooses to emphasize that absurdity in the pledge at the end, Rylance enforces the emotion to be honest as Richard which is certainly an interesting choice, however again to know if it works the whole way through one would have to see it all.
Tony:
From this clip Scott too is very much offering an interpretation of an unexpected degree, and again typically the definition of Hamlet is how crazy he is and how much of it is a put on. Again full performance for context, however Scott emphasizes the nunnery line as a challenge before seemingly becoming blithe as though Hamlet is struggling with his performance at first but then gets comfortable by the end of it. And in the comfort, Scott shows his understanding of the text to be able to deliver as he does with a very modern rhythm that is rather casual for the lack of a better word and not at all a haughty notion. Potentially quite a fascinating approach, though how effective it is overall would require seeing the whole thing because like Rylance it is very much his own take.
Jonathan Williams:
The direction is actually all over the place. Much of it though is making sure we understand the emotion or intensity of a given scene by blaring the music as loud as possible, and choosing the most dramatic ways of presentation to accentuate the extreme. Something that is not balanced effectively by build or nuance for the most part. I think the best scenes are the ones where Kaye (or whoever edited it precisely) lets the emotion be subdued on the whole, and the scenes of the struggling family living with each other are the best they are when the film is at its best...however those moments of direction are limited at best. Mostly it is pushing to the extremes of emotions constantly and without appropriate nuance to create a more convincing balance. And I would say at times borders on exploitation whether intended or not, such as the final death scene or even the curb stomp scene, both which are presented to accentuate the violence, less as I think a realistic brutality and more so, in terms of the cinematic language, a glorification. Something that may be unintended however less so is the basketball scene which does glorify the moment of the white supremacists triumphing. I think the film wants to present this from Derek's perspective to show what he got out of it, before taking it away later on, how the lack of an assured directorial hand doesn't successfully convey the film as his perspective consistently, to not make it a strange scene as it stands alone. The film has moments, and perhaps some of the problems are due to those post-production editing differences, but in terms of successfully supporting its thematic narrative it doesn't only falter at times, it seems to almost send the opposite message of its intention.
Where the direction is inconsistent I would say the screenplay is worse despite having a good hook in terms of showing how a man can be driven so far into hate, then find his way back from it. That's a potent a very striking narrative, which I think even as kind of having the two timelines commenting on each other, is also a striking idea that has potential, which some of it is realized though I think more often from the contrasts of performance than truly brilliant screenwriting. The problem is the conversation of race and racism, usually devolves into the most rudimentary talking points which are fine for portraying the thinness of the racists argument, but when the counterargument feels thin, that is a serious problem. But the bigger issue is that none of it is wrapped within character, it feels like some standard ripped from op-eds given to the characters rather than revealing the characters through their personal arguments. It also struggles as it isn't quite sure how plot driven it wants to be, at times focusing much time on setting up the whole police action with Derek's release, that doesn't actually balance itself feel perfunctory and worse out of place. The humanizing element falls short because the character is written to be the simplest notion of humization because he tells jokes, which contrast that with every other minority which is depicted one note as a thug, a victim or someone who speaks only in overtures. The idea is sound enough but the execution is off much like much of the script. There's plenty to work within the script, it just doesn't find the path to do it in.
Louis: My MVP would also be D'Arcy, only realized after the episode ended that they only had one spoken line in the entire episode. Given what the book's version of Blood and Cheese was, I'm 100% fine with them going the alternate route.
Your thoughts on Jace "reporting" to Rhaenyra? Was probably my favorite scene in the whole episode, just powerfully performed. I also really liked the opening sequence in the Wall, even if every mention of "the unknown danger" always makes me annoyed by what we got.
Tahmeed:
A powerful scene of the emotion just beneath the surface in the conversation between mom and son though positioned as prince and Queen. I too liked the opening but again, like you, that nagging feeling of (what a let down) cannot ever be diminished sadly.
Post a Comment