Wednesday, 25 September 2024

Alternate Best Actor 1977: Rutger Hauer in Soldier of Orange

Rutger Hauer did not receive an Oscar nomination for portraying Erik Lanshof in Soldier of Orange. 

Soldier of Orange follows a few Dutch resistance soldiers during Nazi occupation during World War II. 

That description probably gives you the immediate wrong impression about this film despite being completely accurate to the plot of this film. The plot is of a WWII thriller, the execution is pure Paul Verhoeven, as it is far more chaotic, horny and satirical then that plot would lead you to believe, despite treating the plot seriously...kinda. It's a strange film that is almost like a party film but the party being held in and around Nazi persecution and fighting the Nazis. Honestly I'm not sure it entirely worked for me in its approach maybe because it is kinda all these things while not being entirely any of them, not that I dislike the film but it is extremely specific in a way that I didn't always adore either. Within its crazed tapestry you have Rutger Hauer as the central role of one of the men who we find in the opening scene will be the Aviation hero who helps lead the Dutch Queen back onto her own soil. We proceed to flashback to try to uncover essentially how this man got there, which is kind of a curious sight to those of us who typically Hauer best in his domineering performances in his English Language roles. As we see the young man enter into a hazing situation where Hauer exudes this naivety and weakness of such a state, and seems like such a passive sort particularly compared to Jeroen Krabbé as the older much more confident Guus. Although the slightly older man takes him under Hauer's Erik under his wing, we see the men become friends in what is driven by Guus's, for lack of a better description, anarchist lifestyle. Hauer however is effective in gradually moving his presence just a bit towards the Hauer of his later years as we see Erik become just a bit more confident around Guus, though certainly the secondary man in their relationship (though for the record of this review Krabbé is supporting). The film's progression however will then surprise one as Holland gets invaded by the Nazis and proceeds to quickly surrender. Something that leads the men to join the resistance, however even this isn't quite the way you'd expect, as even Erik expresses his antisemitism, hardly being a true believer in terms of fighting against the evil of Nazis and more so a nationalistic sentiment. 

The men are almost immediately captured and tortured, where Erik escapes only to be captured again, though let go to be used as bait. And again the nature of the character isn't what you'd expect within the seemingly dire situation, where people are tortured and killed. But even within the approach by Verhoeven Hauer is able to maneuver himself within that specific approach. As he naturally segues to this moment of a bit more gravity, if only for a moment, that even then works into a erotic moment when one of the fiancée's of the men ends up helping him then sleeping with him. Hauer's performance is able to be whatever he needs to be in a scene for Erik, having moments of intense severity in his performance but also scenes of slightly romantic. The men end up leaving to go to England to get formal training where again things don't go as expected as it is much about Erik and Guus both trying to sleep with an English secretary as it is getting prepped to go home and launch some missions. And as strange as all this is Hauer manages to create some consistency by indeed being whatever is needed while creating enough of an arc in the progression of his character to being more charismatic and more confident in each sort of task or change we see. Hauer is good here even what here is, is not anything I've seen quite like this, which is never precisely a compliment. As the film never loses the chaotic sexual energy even when one of the characters gets brutally tortured and guillotined by the Nazis. It proceeds in its own way regardless, as those scenes are interrupted by Erik having sex with the English secretary failing to maintain his potency as he lists all the people he's going to bomb during the war. What Hauer does more or less works in this scene, much like all the scenes regardless of what happens. It's a completely good performance within the scheme of a film that I struggled to entirely reckon with though not for lack of trying on my part or the film's. 

154 comments:

Luke Higham said...

Louis: Ratings and thoughts on the cast.

Anonymous said...

Louis: What are your, uh, top 5 animated ensembles?

Tony Kim said...

Louis: Meant to follow up on your Barton Fink analysis yesterday, but I didn't get the chance to. I'll do it now - I agree, to an extent, that the film is evoking imagery of Hell, but I'm not sure that I would go far as you. A few points I'd like clarification on: Has Barton died a spiritual death of sorts when he leaves New York, having "sold his soul" to work in pictures? If the beach itself is purgatory, do you see the Hotel Earle, or Los Angeles in general as being Hell? Why would the devil/Lipnick punish Barton by sending him to a place better than Hell? And how would you say all of this ties into "the life of the mind" and the theme of the creative process?

Anonymous said...

Louis: your cast and director for a 2010’s version of The Substance?

Shaggy Rogers said...

Louis: Your Top 10 best acting performances in Paul Verhoeven films.

Emi Grant said...

It seems like The Life of Chuck as been pushed to Summer of 2025... disappointing to say the least.

Michael McCarthy said...

Awwww man, this one’s gonna hurt

RIP Maggie Smith

Ytrewq Wertyq said...

RIP Maggie Smith

Luke Higham said...

RIP Maggie Smith

RatedRStar said...

RIP Maggie Smith..Legend

A said...

R.I.P. Maggie Smith.

J96 said...

Rest In Peace Dame Maggie Smith.

Another GIANT.

Emi Grant said...

R.I.P. Maggie Smith

Tim said...

Aw god, no!

R.I.P. Maggie Smith

Tahmeed Chowdhury said...

RIP Maggie Smith

Jonathan Williams said...

RIP Maggie Smith

Louis Morgan said...

RIP Maggie Smith, legend.

Louis Morgan said...

Regarding Mega;opolis, Well I tried, but it just didn't come together for me. I think there was definitely an avenue here with this idea of Roman decay thrusted into New York City/America and the inner working politics of a powerful family. But structurally and stylistically it is a mess. The film both takes too long and rushes the actual plot mechanizations, which I didn't hate in theory but the way they reveal themselves don't work particularly in association with the overarching fantastical element relating to our central character's vision. They seem weirdly separate at times in almost two different films. Stylistically it lacks a true straight man, and it needed one. Driver I think is trying to provide it but he's given too many weird moments to sell for it to work. Where the biggest failure is the appreciation of the ambition of the dream, something Coppola did brilliantly in The Godfather and Tucker actually. Here though the passion feels false or at least forced and fails to provide a necessary heart for the piece. 
I didn't hate it entirely, some of the more over the top moments actually do have a certain appeal, Aubrey Plaza finds the right tone more so than anyone else to make her performance work even when others often don't, and I'll give it for having one of the most hilarious murder scenes in a film ever...and I'm hoping it was intentional. 

I'll have to ponder the ratings for the performances a bit more but Plaza is the only one that would be the above 3.5 range.

ruthiehenshallfan99 said...

RIP Maggie Smith

Tahmeed Chowdhury said...

Louis: Would you consider checking out How to Make Millions Before Grandma Dies soon? Usha Seakhum is phenomenal in it.

Louis Morgan said...

Luke:

Krabbe - 4(Brings the right kind of self-assured bravado in his performance that just innately makes him the dominant character in his scenes. He balances it enough in the few moments where the film takes him out of that specific comfort, which he nicely owns with the right kind of ease particularly in contrast to Hauer who is always playing catch up to his character to some degree. Those moments being where the conflict forces him to take action or puts him in danger and in those moments he excels in bringing a bit more depth to the casual cool of the man otherwise.)

Meuldijk - 4(Maybe the most complex character in the film although I would say her story is maybe taken a little too taken for granted within the scheme of the narrative where we jump in her relationships or her state within the society a little too often. Having said that she does bring a welcome specific sort of cunning energy to her scenes, where you see within her performance the certain calculation she makes even when choosing to have sex with someone. I wish there had been more of her as she made her character more than the limits of her.)

Penhaligon - 3(She on the other hand is hard to describe as much more than horny sex object, though she does at least bring a certain life to that at least.)

Fox - 3.5(Typical version of him doing his ultra British soldier thing, not his best example of it, but works as per usual. )

Tony:

To clarify slightly, there are two hells in this instance one literal, one figurative, the hotel is a literal transport to hell, with Mundt being a genuine devil, though the Dante version of the devil where he too is tortured in hell despite it being his domain, and Lipnick is Barton's personal hell but metaphorical. Now I don't think Barton "sold his soul" by going to Hollywood, rather the experience is challenging him and perhaps exposing him as a fraud. Nothing that he does in New York implies a man who is the master of his art despite the evident success of his play. The writer's block isn't just some psychological block, rather it weaves the whole nature of his mind, and his life of the mind, as his experiences with both Mundt and Lipnick expose him in different ways. With Mundt a fraud in his soul, who proclaims his love of the common man yet can't listen to one damn story from Charlie and literally complains from hearing the common man for "making too much noise". The man who is put through this wringer because HE DOESN'T LISTEN and is too self-absorbed into the life of the mind. And with Lipnick he fails to appeal to the simple measure supposedly asked of him, which Barton believes to be beautiful...though that is something we can never know the full truth of but some elements indicate it may be derivative of his play, which then Barton can only deliver his single Barton Fink, and not even that Barton Fink feeling which would be something new but from his mind. And purgatory then is where the film leaves Barton, will he learn the lessons technically imparted, quite roughly, by Mundt or will he go back to the path that exposes himself further or will he finally listen?

Which maybe if they'd get to Old Fink sometime soon, we'd get that answer.

Razor said...

RIP Maggie Smith.

RatedRStar said...

Laughing at Adam Drivers "So go back to the cluuubbb" lol =D I wonder if there are many line deliveries like that in that film.

Anonymous said...

Louis: Your thoughts on these South Park episodes

Miss Teacher Bangs a Boy
Free Willzyx

Bryan L. said...

Louis: Your thoughts on these double features for 2024 films?

Civil War/Salvador
Kinds of Kindness/Cloud Atlas
The Fall Guy/The Stunt Man
Love Lies Bleeding/Thelma & Louise

Anonymous said...

Louis what are your thoughts on 1970 as a film year since it seems to be regarded as an outcast year compared to other years in regards to the Oscars?

Anonymous said...

Louis, have you seen the Wild Robot? Thoughts?

Louis Morgan said...

Anonymous:

Watership Down
The Plague Dogs
Alice in Wonderland
The Great Mouse Detective
Coraline

Shaggy:

Top Five feels more fitting:

1. Isabelle Huppert - Elle
2. Kurtwood Smith - Robocop
3. Jeroen Krabbe - The Fourth Man
4. Daphne Patakia - Benedetta
5. Jerone Krabbe - Soldier of Orange

Tahmeed:

Certainly will do at some point.

Anonymous:

Miss Teacher I think is absurdly repetitive and thinks it's getting far more mileage out of "nice" than it really does. Cartman as Dawg is an okay bit but even that loses steam.

Free Wilzyx is pretty amusing in managing to just do a cursed version of Free Willy particularly with the extremely dark ending.
Bryan:

Well Civil War certainly would likely make me appreciate Salvador more, so sure.

Don't quite see Kind of Kindness with Cloud Atlas, other than one actor playing multiple characters, I think Beast would be a more logical pairing there.

Fall Guy and Stunt Man obviously makes sense, though Fall Guy really could've used Peter O'Toole.

I mean sure in the general sort of female pair that gets into crime, sure.

Louis Morgan said...

Anonymous:

It's not a great year for film. I mean even my favorite film of the year is derided by many. Conversely the favorite of many MASH, is a film I don't care for despite typically liking Altman. And then Patton the rep as the best picture, I do think is a very good film with a masterful performance but it's not a masterpiece as a film entirely. But even forgetting the top tier, the general trend is this kind of strange place of not quite becoming the 70's yet, but not escaping the 60's, leaving it in a kind of experimental ground where some films are still very much 60's (Scrooge, The Railway Children, The Private Life of Sherlock Holmes, Cromwell) then you have films failing to become the 70's (Catch-22, Joe, Performance), you also just have trends of not knowing what the changes are, whether it be how Love Story is so corny while also being theoretically crass, you have the use of songs in films like Joe and even Cable Hogue (despite really liking the film on the whole), even Patton however it is confident in the way its qualities are mixing between 60's and 70's without strictly being either. There are a few films confidently 70's namely MASH, which my objection to that film isn't technique as I think Altman 100% succeeded in making the film he wanted to make, Five Easy Pieces, Little Big Man for example, but they are more so the exceptions. It's a year defined by uncertainty of the path of cinema, which is reflected well in that best picture lineup, with MASH and Pieces being the new guard, Love Story and Airport being the old attempting to be new, and then Patton which is a the confident blending...and makes sense why it won.

Anonymous said...

Louis: Your thoughts on the direction and screenplay of Munich

Robert MacFarlane said...

Louis: What do you think was the worst Oscar season to deal with in the 2010’s? Not just in terms of nominations and Critics wins and whatnot, but just everything. The discourse, the narratives, the direction the season went.

Tahmeed Chowdhury said...

Robert: I'll say that both 2017 (the discourse around Three Billboards) and 2018 (Green Book, Vice, Bohemian Rhapsody) dampened my enthusiasm for the Oscars in general.

That was of course until Parasite's win the very next year, which reminded me why I loved following the awards race to begin with.

Emi Grant said...

Robert: Co-signing with Tahmeed for 2018. On top of those headaches of discourse and the incredibly weak nominations, there was an insufferable, actually racist backlash against Aparicio's Oscar nomination in Mexico, with a group of actors seeking to sabotage her chances at a nomination at the Ariel awards.

Boy, was that a dire time.

Louis Morgan said...

Robert:

You can't beat 2018. Whether it be the quality of the films nominated (rare is there literally only one best picture nominee I had genuine passion for: The Favourite), what actually won, or the specific discourse around the season as a whole which exacerbated when it became clearer Bohemian Rhapsody and Green Book were going to be the favorites, it was pretty bad on most fronts.

I will say though Joker probably had the worst discourse around a single film, which spread into the mainstream beyond just discussions of cinema. Thankfully so much of that season helped to counteract that however.

Tim said...

nice to see you loving Dreyfuss now

Louis Morgan said...

RIP John Ashton

Tim said...

R.I.P. John Ashton

Bryan L. said...

R.I.P. Kris Kristofferson

Luke Higham said...

RIP Kris Kristofferson

Louis Morgan said...

RIP Kris Kristofferson as well.

Louis Morgan said...

Sometimes beauty is in simplicity, and while The Wild Robot doesn't reinvent itself to something unexpected, sometimes executing the more expected just so well makes all the difference. Which is the case here, it is a straightforward fable, but accepts and owns that fact in some ways in the fashion of the oldest school of animated films. Which isn't a criticism, as I can't help but respect this level of earnestness when executed as effectively as it is here. Now that isn't to say there isn't some degree of more cynical humor in here, there is, but even that is naturally quantified within the story and engaged with, rather than utilized as pop culture riffing distractions as seen in lesser animated films. Speaking of animation, this is gorgeous (thank you Spider-Verse for reinventing CGI animation) to look out, to also listen to not only the score but the splendid assembly of vocal performances, where the celebrity voices actually bother to act out the role, with Nyong'o especially impressing within crafting the arc through how her level of expression changes throughout. This is one seeking to hit you right squarely in the heart and isn't ashamed of it, and I won't lie, it indeed hit a bullseye with me. 

Nyong'o - 4.5
Pascal - 4
Connor - 3.5
O'Hara - 3.5
Nighy - 3.5
Hsu - 3
Hamill - 3
Berry - 3.5
Rhames - 3

Luke Higham said...

I fully anticipated you loving The Wild Robot and I hope it along with The Last Wish brings about a renaissance era for DreamWorks.

Thoughts on the cast.

Tahmeed Chowdhury said...

From the enthusiasm of both reviews, I'm guessing both Dying and The Wild Robot will be upgraded to 5 stars on rewatch. Can't wait to watch both.

Jonathan Williams said...

RIP Kris Kristofferson

Matt Mustin said...

RIP John Ashton, Kris Kristofferson and the incomparable Maggie Smith. Goddamn it.

Calvin Law said...

Glad you loved Nyong'o's voice work, and your lovely review of the film, Louis. I kinda knew it would hit that extra sweet spot for you.

RIP John Ashton, Kris Kristofferson, Maggie Smith...so many legends in a short span of time.

Calvin Law said...

Also, I totally did not recognise the fox as Pascal initially. And instantly knew the beaver would be Berry before he opened his mouth (delightfully so).

Ytrewq Wertyq said...

RIP Kris Kristofferson and John Ashton

Luke Higham said...

Louis: Can I have your thoughts on the cast of Close Your Eyes (2023).

Tahmeed Chowdhury said...

RIP Kris Kristofferson and John Ashton

Tim said...

R.I.P. Kris Kristofferson

Razor said...

RIP Kris Kristofferson and John Ashton.

Ytrewq Wertyq said...

Louis: Your thoughts on Jeroen Krabbe as an actor? Judging by where he generally appears on your lists, you don't seem to be very crazy about him when he appears in non-Dutch films.

RatedRStar said...

RIP Kris Kristofferson and John Ashton

Louis Morgan said...

Nyong'o - (Her performance is even more essential than your typical vocal performance, given that she must deliver the entire emotional arc for the character. Her character doesn't have expressions so everything is up to her, which she absolutely excels with. And Nyong'o's vocal performance honestly is one of her most expressive performances she's ever given despite playing a robot. As even her choice to even approach the early scenes of her character is not to play the standard robot voice, it is something artificial but artificial as an AI that is designed to sound like a human. Bringing this not exactly phony, but not exactly honest enthusiasm that sets her character up one way, that brings a certain strangely endearing energy while also completely being this creature designed by programming. The progression of her performance throughout the film is absolutely fantastic because there is not a single transformation in terms of bringing more nuance to her work. Rather she just offers a little more accentuation of one word or another at first, that slowly builds towards a greater emotionalism within her character. The way she makes it so naturally more is what is most impressive because suddenly she is just about completely human in her manner, but it wasn't a single moment of change, but so many successive together all simply within Nyong'o's performance. Something that is extremely technically impressive yet she makes it seem all so easy.)

Pascal - (I will concur with Calvin I did not recognize him, for me until I saw who played the part later, and it isn't some dramatic transformation of his voice or anything, rather it is an extremely natural sort of minor yet distinct switch within his voice, that is just great because it makes it so it's not Pedro Pascal playing the Fox, rather he's just this fox. A fox he completely brings to life with just the right pitch of a cynical wiliness that manages to hit the humorous moments of the character's callousness while balancing enough nuance to convey a certain degree of vulnerability. Something he doesn't entirely give up at any point however Pascal rather artfully alludes to the depth without losing the certain bite, no pun intended, to the character left intact.

Connor - (Brings the right sort of teenage energy for the lack of a better word that he manages not to overplay, which I think it would've been easy to have gone too far in certain moments that would've led to unlikability. He balances though bringing a much more honest sense of the uncertainty connected with a real emotional pain that compels those moments. An anxiety that is alive that makes his moments of later straightforward earnestness of the character's emotions hit wonderfully. )

O'Hara - (Bread and butter exasperated mom from her, but a nice rendition regardless.)

Nighy - (Offers the right ease of gravitas in his performance though with a nicely balanced warmth that offers the right degree of comfort for his character in the right moment.)

Hsu/Hamill/Rhames - (Enjoyable relatively quick bit of purposefully one note that works. )

Berry - (I mean more Berry is never a bad thing, and in voice form, definitely never a bad thing. Entertaining of course and makes the most of the lines he does have.)

Ytrewq:

I think he mostly fell into the unfortunate fate of many talented non-British European actors who were brought over to Hollywood, which is to play the villain, usually the Bond villain, and pompous European man. And that's the case of most of his Hollywood performances, and I mostly don't put it on him *that* much as the roles he typically had were pretty limited for the part. In contrast to his native turns where you see a different actor with a far more dynamic presence. And while one can blame him for not trying to make more out of nothing, it clear when he has some decent writing he is able to deliver a much more overt charisma and strong presence.

A said...

R.I.P. John Ashton & Kris Kristofferson.

A said...

I can't wait to see The Wild Robot.

J96 said...

Rest In Peace Kris Kristofferson.

J96 said...

Rest In Peace John Ashton.

J96 said...

Louis, thoughts on the “Nosferatu” trailer?

Tahmeed Chowdhury said...

J96: Louis gave his thoughts on the first Nosferatu trailer on Bob Hoskins's review for TwentyFourSeven, and he doesn't watch second trailers for his most anticipated films.

Louis: Do I have any winning requests left? I kind of lost track after a point.

Luke Higham said...

Louis: Thoughts on Willa Fitzgerald & Kyle Gallner in Strange Darling, Winona Ryder & Michael Keaton in Beetlejuice Beetlejuice and Carrie Coon, Elizabeth Olsen and Natasha Lyonne in His Three Daughters.

Maciej said...

RIP John Ashton & Kris Kristofferson.

Luke Higham said...

Louis: Daniel Day-Lewis has come out of retirement for a low-key drama with Sean Bean. Doesn't say who's directing it but I would guess it's Jim Sheridan.

J96 said...

Rest In Peace John Amos.

DAMN! DAMN! DAMN! TWO “Coming to America” Cast Members in less than a month!

Matt Mustin said...

Luke: It's been confirmed it's his son directing it.

Matt Mustin said...

Juror No. 2 trailer looks very good. I'm always here for Clint and I'm glad he's still with us and still making movies.

Louis Morgan said...

Luke:

Solo - (His performance hits the right note in terms of being sort of exhausted by the past in some ways, but in no way being broken or defeated by it. He manages to carry the weight of the history without it becoming overwhelming to the point where that is the only defining feature of the character which could easily have been a mistake. He still carries with himself the quiet sense of the passion he once had for his filmmaking and his friend even if it is relocated now due to the time between then and now. He offers so much within his work to articulate just how much he has been through and has done. Where the film goes creates this certain spark in him that he rather beautifully articulates this way it grows in terms of the incisiveness to find some way towards his closure. He always plays it close to the chest, but never do you not completely feel what he's going through. Rather what he shows is the containment of time, that doesn't remove the emotions but just holds it somewhat back, which slowly comes back to him through the journey of the film.)

Pardo - (Brings a wonderful old school character actor type of energy where you instantly get the dynamic of him as an editor where he has very clearly his own slightly more cynical opinion though wrapped around his own passion just in his own way. He brings the right humorous manner that adds the right kind of alternative energy to the proceedings to offer a different approach to the past.)

Louis Morgan said...

Villamil - (In some ways very similar to her performance from The Secret in Their Eyes present set scenes, however regardless she delivers that same kind of unrequited love beautifully in crafting it as this specific kind of tension that isn't unpleasant yet at the same time is still a tension.)

Torrent - (A large puzzle piece in the meta narrative element given her own history with Erice, and striking if you were to only watch Erice's films to see here go from the little girl to the teeanger to now the middle aged woman. But beyond that her performance is terrific in the way she brings this very no nonsense approach in her moments of seeing someone wholly accepting of what happened to the past and treating it with a blunt honesty because of it.)

Coronado - (His performance obviously is at the center of it all with the way he is an enigma in the glimpses of him in the first half where there's just this calm and cool about the character. A quiet command and the sense of the leading man in these moments. A leading man defined by a certain detached "cool". When we find him again his performance is in contrast to that as still distant though sort of passively lost in his way as a man kind of stuck within himself and it is hard to completely decipher what he is thinking at a given moment. He manages to find the right balance, particularly in his final reactions that manages to possibly say the right amount without giving it away entirely one way or another.)

Keaton - (A fine reprise in that he brings the same energy as before with the same comedic timing and just ability to go for it every second he's onscreen. What makes it not *as* good as his previous performance is clearly Burton didn't just let him go in terms of improvisation to the same level as he did in the original film. Thankfully he did let him still find plenty of moments to play around with which Keaton makes the most of each time in bringing that same combination of things in the character that he did before.)

Ryder - (Her performance is an interesting one for a reprise to go from the goth girl to the over the hill woman is obviously a pretty big leap between the two. And to Ryder's credit is that her performance does suggest the natural changes over the years to be a somewhat jaded and quietly disturbed host who is able to fully cope with her past. Her performance though largely is there to be some basis of reality and balancing between all the other acts going around her, including ones that don't work like Theroux. She balances them well managing to frankly not get serious but not go too far off the deep end either. Providing a necessary straight man that measured to give the film at least some stability.)

Louis Morgan said...

Tahmeed:

You do have a request.

Luke:

I mean glad to see him either way, hope it inspires him to get back with PTA at some point. And hopefully his son has some talent.

Louis Morgan said...

RIP John Amos, let's all have some McDowells in his honor.

8000S said...

Louis: Your casts for Japanese and Korean versions of Once Upon a Time in the West.

RatedRStar said...

RIP John Amos

Ytrewq Wertyq said...

RIP John Amos

Luke Higham said...

RIP John Amos

Tim said...

R.I.P. John Amos

Louis Morgan said...

Luke:

Olsen & Coon - (Together I think their performances suffer in the early scenes of quite simply trying too hard to force the type of the character rather than let it fully naturally develop. Coon's manner as the stern sister is just slightly too much in just how much she imposes this specific blunt approach that it seems more like it is, the same goes with Olsen in playing the sort of flighty sister, which again just the manner being a little too much particularly within the film that seeks a naturalistic approach for the most part. Thankfully past the early scenes that ease up on the manner, though I won't say in a way that was this natural realization of the people beneath the type, rather it came off as more of performers becoming just more relaxed in their parts. And both do while keeping aspects of the stern and the spaced out, they become much more part of their performance with any notion of a more caricaturish quality being diminished. And then they do become quite effective in each presenting their form of grief and connection with their sisters with a much more convincing sense of their history. There the chemistry begins to truly work well in the moments that are mixed between hostility and warmth, the interweave with an honesty even when the film occasionally goes in a few circles, they find something notable in their performances.)

Lyonne - (As noted before she is the MVP because she doesn't at all force upon the mannerisms to be the "burn out" sister, Lyonne just is that, and while the part is working with her expected presence to a certain degree, Lyonne in no way coasts upon that at any point. As the character here while brazen as she often is, the confidence behind that is the same. Lyonne rather shows the frustrations as very much evident with moments more so have hesitation within those moments that reveal a natural insecurity at times even when she is so direct with her callousness towards her sister's demands at times. Her performance is very naturalistic in finding the "type" but hardly is simply the "type" at any point. Rather she digs deeper into that type than ever before in creating the fleshed out elements beneath any of that to create this singular person living through her grief that is again challenged by her sisters in the moment. Something Lyonne is amazing in portraying the real insecurities of when she's dealing with her anxiety of her also very real grief even when challenged and her desperate want for a real acceptance despite the frequently blithe way she sometimes interacts. Lyonne beautifully layers her performance to reveal so much more going on deeper in the character and is never a single note. Her performance feels the most complete in creating a fuller portrait of the character that goes well beyond type, and really hits the emotional pathos behind it all, and even behind this type, to reveal the real human being suffering within all of that.)

Louis Morgan said...

8000's:

Once Upon a Time in the West directed by Akira Kurosawa:

Jill: Kyoko Kagawa
Frank: Toshiro Mifune
Cheyenne: Tsutomu Yamazaki
Harmonica: Tatsuya Nakadai
Morton: Masayuki Mori

Once Upon a Time in the West directed by Park Chan-wook:

Jill: Lee Young-ae
Frank: Choi Min-sik
Cheyenne: Song Kang-ho
Harmonica: Lee Byung-hun
Morton: Cho Jin-woong

I'll admit it's harder to get the impact of Frank in the same way as Fonda as hero type casting seems much less a thing, at least in the same way as the US, when it comes to Japanese and Korean cinema.

Matt Mustin said...

Louis: Following that hero type casting logic, if they had to make it today in the U.S, who would be Frank? I cant think of anyone who would have the same punch that seeing Fonda like that did.

Louis Morgan said...

Matt:

I mean theoretically they did it with Tom Cruise with Collateral.

But otherwise still, Tom Hanks, however I have been decidedly unimpressed by his attempts at outright villainy, so wouldn't have confidence with his approach.

Lucas Saavedra said...

Louis: What are your thoughts on the rest of the cast of His Three Daughters and Beetlejuice Beetlejuice?

Tony Kim said...

Louis: Speaking of Tom Hanks, what do you think of PSH playing his roles in Cloud Atlas?

Luke Higham said...

Louis: Could you re-watch The Duellists before Plotnikov's review.

Tahmeed Chowdhury said...

Louis: While I won't get my hopes up for an upgrade (or even a significant rise in the overall), I'd like to use my winning request for a backlog review of Matthew Macfadyen in Pride and Prejudice.

Matt Mustin said...

Tahmeed: Thank you

Matt Mustin said...

Manhunter is fantastic and it shows what a great director can do, because it's the same source material as Red Dragon, but what Mann does with it is just so much more interesting and dynamic and downright cool than anything in the later film. Which isn't *badly* directed, but it's just Ratner aping what Demme did.

Petersen-4(A little awkward at points, particularly early on, but he's good at showing the developing obsession of finding this killer and he's legit great at showing how his psyche is being poisoned by everything he's seen.)

Cox-4.5(Very different from Hopkins, but effective in his own way. Much more grounded. He's not in it much but the impression he makes festers with us, much as it does with Will.)

Noonan-4.5(OK, I love Ralph Fiennes as an actor, but comparing takes on this character, Noonan mops the floor with him. Noonan is one of those actors who's kind of instantly fascinating no matter what, and that's used brilliantly here. Extremely disturbing but also a brings a genuinely believable sweetness in his relationship with Allen, an aspect that the later film failed at entirely)

Farina-3(Solid)

Allen-3.5(All about her chemistry with Noonan, which is great)

Griest-2.5(Just fine)

Lang-2.5(Would be lower if it weren't for his scene with Noonan, where he's genuinely good. Although I noticed he loses his accent completely in that scene, but whatever)

Emi Grant said...

Joker Folie a Deux left me truly flabbergasted. Not a good film at all, but I somehow couldn't bring myself to hate it, even though I can totally see why anyone else would.

Phoenix: 3/2.5 (I might be kind here)
Gaga: 3/3.5
Gleeson: 4 (easily my favorite part of the film)
Keener: 3
Coogan: 3
Lofland: 3

Don't know if two certain actors in the film were meant as surprises or not. Just gonna say the second one in particular was an unexpectedly well-thought out and performed reprisal deserving of a better scene partner.

Luke Higham said...

Louis: Can I have your thoughts on Richard Jenkins performance in these two scenes from Dahmer.

youtube.com/watch?v=39jz28h8Aiw&pp=ygUNZGFobWVyIGxpb25lbA%3D%3D

youtube.com/watch?v=JbFuulyY2B0&pp=ygUNZGFobWVyIG1vcmd1ZQ%3D%3D

Matt Mustin said...

Folks who've seen Labyrinth, is David Bowie lead or supporting?

Robert MacFarlane said...

Matt: Supporting, to the film’s detriment. (Cannot overstate how back Connelly is as the lead)

Matt Mustin said...

Robert: I've yet to see a performance from Connelly where she hasn't been at least slightly bland.

Robert MacFarlane said...

Bland isn’t quite the right word, more like… Whiny. Shrill, almost.

Tony Kim said...

Louis: Thoughts on the trailers for Juror #2 and Babygirl?

Robert MacFarlane said...

Just realized I said “back” instead of “badl

Louis Morgan said...

Lucas:

Theroux - (A misguided performance that honestly I'd probably go lower on as I think he doesn't successfully go either way. One approach could've been to be as obvious as he is, which he's extremely obvious in the role, but be hilarious in being so obvious. He's unfortunately not that. The other approach could've been to be genuinely charming to make you have any reason why Lydia would like him other than desperation. Which he's neither, and to be fair I didn't think he was aggressively bad or anything, which he could've been but there was far too much of him to not really work as either a comedic or dramatic presence.)

Ortega - (I think she manages to not go too hard as the annoyed daughter, which a tip and the character could've been insufferable. She thankfully conveys those elements without going too far with them. It also allows her progression towards not being so callous far more effective because it is a gentler journey, with her being most effective in the more emotional moments. Lightly emotional mind you, but she brings the right sort of honest grounding to them by not overplaying them.)

Conti - (As stated before found him to be one of the best elements, particularly in playing the subversion in this instance playing initially into the fairly popular type as the "ideal" love interest who's a little awkward but "dreamy" in just the right way. Making it so he completely sells the idea of his character being on the level first as just some love interest than even as a ghostly love interest. Making it so that when he twists it just slightly it is just about perfect in revealing the awkward elements as the revelation of the real sinister nature of the character who is particularly unnerving since it isn't a complete subversion of what he was doing before just the explanation of it. My only complaint wouldn't be on him, just the film that gets rid of him too early, though I do quite enjoy Keaton in that moment.)

O'Hara - (She's always a comic pro however she is just not selling the best comedic material for her that along with Theroux just felt the most labored in terms of the jokes. She's much better at selling the less than stellar material though than Theroux and I'll give her credit for getting through it as best she can despite not exactly making it work either.)

Dafoe - (Rare instance where I think I'd rather Dafoe wasn't cast, as I think this part would've worked better with the apparent original choice of Christopher Walken, he would've instantly just been this character rather than Dafoe who has to work for it. The problem with that being that the character is too pointless and has too little time for Dafoe to really do enough with it to make it more. It's there for a quick repeated joke, which I don't think Dafoe fails at, but he doesn't exceed it.)

Belluci - (Is in the movie.)

Tony:

I mean sure, though there are many actors who would've been a better fit there, Hoffman included.

Juror #2 looks like it could be potentially a completely *good* 90's style legal thriller, probably not a great one, but I'd be completely fine with good. As everything in the trailer looked as such with a compelling central hook there, though I do think Hoult is a better fit for character parts that straightforward leading man, we'll see what he can do here.

Speaking of 90's, erotic thriller though here done obviously with a much more twisted satirical and overtly comedic element here than those 90's film, and seems to be trying to have fun with the concept, so I'm certainly interested along with seeing Dickinson continuing to expand his resume and Kidman in a funny way going back to some of her earliest roles, but what looks like in far more dynamic fashion than most of them.

Bryan L. said...

Louis: Your thoughts on “Go back to the cluuuub” from Megalopolis.

Also, your cast & director for a 90s Longlegs, 90s Love Lies Bleeding and a 70s Rebel Ridge.

Louis Morgan said...

Todd Phillips's direction to Lady Gaga and Phoenix in the musical sequences: "You know could you sing but like try not to sing?"

Joker 2 is just terrible, not that I have much to say in praise of the original but at least there was the occasional scene that built on each other. Here there were so many loose ends, nonstarters and just pointless moments one ponders if they were pulling scenes out of a hat. That includes the musical sequences which Phillips proves he's inept at despite the efforts of Lawrence Sher and his production designers. They rarely have an actual impact but worse are just dull particularly due to Phiilips baffling decision to rarely let Gaga truly use her voice, other than really the Sonny and Cher scene which in turn is the best scene in the film and one of the few moments that suggested the actual potential of the overall concept. Theoretically there are many talented people in this ship, but Phillips at the helm makes the whole thing sink.

Phoenix - 3/2.5
Gaga - 3
Gleeson - 4
Keener - 3
Beetz - 3
Gill - 3.5
Coogan - 3

Luke Higham said...

Thoughts on the cast.

Louis Morgan said...

Lucas:

Sanders - (Obviously a single scene performance that is built up to quite a bit by the entire film referring to him without showing him and Sanders indeed makes the most of his spotlight. Going from the near comatose state of dying to suddenly having this potent spirited manner as we instantly see the dad he once was to the daughters. There Sanders has such an overwhelming sense of warmth to his performance mixed in with a potent nostalgia of a man just wanting to share his best memories with those that he loves one more time. Sanders very much carries the moment through by giving such a sense of history in each tidbit while also granting the speech the right sense of the comforting certainty when compared to the conversations between the daughters through the rest of the film. Even making his final moment work which is definitely a swing that works because of how Sanders makes it convincing even within the break of the expected reality.)

Adepo - (Mostly there in his early scenes though enough of a sense of the not exactly deep relationship but rather the mutual connection in their drug habits more than anything. But then has his one moment of very effective passive aggressiveness that he brings a whole into and is particularly effective in the way he is both keeping this false sense of cordiality within so much biting anger within the facade.)

Bryan:

Sadly that is the only spice that scene has to offer, to the point I'll admit I barely noticed it when actually watching the film itself because it is sandwiched within a lifeless and languid scene of so called conversation. Hearing Driver's delivery is hilarious though, and a supercut of Megalopolis's moments of that ilk would be the ideal format of seeing the film (which sadly the actual film contains too few of those moments on the whole to recommend).

Longlegs 1990's directed by David Fincher:

Lee Harker: Jennifer Jason Leigh
Longlegs: Bill Bolender
Agent Carter: Tony Burton
Ruth Harker: Geraldine Chaplin
Carrie Anne: Mia Sara

Love Lies Bleeding 1990's directed by Kathryn Bigelow:

Louise: Jodie Foster
Jackie: Janet McTeer
Daisy: Amanda Plummer
JJ: Eric Roberts
Lou: Charles Bronson

1970's Rebel Ridge directed by Don Siegel:

Terry: Carl Weathers
Chief Burnne: Richard Widmark
Summer: Elizabeth Hartman
Officer Marston: Fred Ward
Officer Lann: Andrew Robinson

Louis Morgan said...

Luke:

Phoenix - (His performance is the greatest hits of the greatest hits. So it's a bit diluted. He has technically good moments in terms of portraying the sudden intense emotions one way or another, the problem is the writing and direction does not know what direction to send him into so Phoenix is just all over the place. For example there's a southern lawyer bit that is completely just ill thought out, though Phoenix is trying it but the concept isn't there entirely in why Arthur is entirely putting on this particular show suddenly so Phoenix's performance doesn't feel entirely honest even though he's certainly going for it. He's still absolutely trying here, even in the songs but his efforts are not guided properly. Right down to the songs and the weird choice to have the whisper singing, like what horrendous choice, particularly since as evidenced by Walk the Line, Phoenix can carry a tune to at least some degree.)

Gaga - (Speaking of carrying a tune, while it's unfortunate with Phoenix it is far worse with her, where you just are there baffled why Phillips is containing her talent in one song after another, let him sing out damn it! She does eventually, but it isn't cultivated for impact, it's just Phillips must've forgotten to advise them so poorly or something. Anyway, Gaga suffers from maybe a worse situation as Phoenix because her character just isn't there. There's potential ideas but revelations and twists don't show the truth of the character, they just confuse the character, and worse they don't even try to really grow at any part. Like a crazed fangirl that could've been something, a genuine loving psycho could've been something, a psycho wanting to exploit another psycho could've been something, but as if she's not any of them. And it's not really her fault, she's trying to play the notes but she's just given either the wrong notes or they are not part of the same song.)

Louis Morgan said...

Gleeson - (I guess his performance could make me harder on Phoenix and Gaga, but his is at least a consistent character, just a limited one that he runs with. The part breaks down to "jerk guard" when you dig deep, and Gleeson basically does absolutely everything he possibly can with it. I love his presence here because he so easily goes from this sort of jovial demeanor of the man playing with his job yet can menace either directly or just with his great physicality. He manages to bring so much life to his character that it made me truly baffled that his storyline honestly just gets dropped rather than resolved, as Gleeson has such a powerful presence in basically creating the tone the film should have. Because he has this twisted levity, with a blunt darkness that he balances with ease. Though to bash Phillips just a bit more, he gives Gleeson ONE SONG and the song is off-screen and not paid attention to. WHAT THE HELL. Give him a diabolical version of Hard Knock Life or something, I don't care but give him something because I'm sure Gleeson would've made the most out of it musically and acting wise. But this goes to emphasize the waste of an opportunity this film was.)

Keener - (I mean basically playing the part in her performance in that trying to try to keep some semblance of dramatic honesty despite the ludicrous swings of the piece. She certainly tries what she can as the quietly crusader lawyer who is always on her client's side even when Arthur is self-destructive. She's convincing even if like so many things underutilized.

Beetz - (Gives just a quietly honest performance though mostly cut away from.)

Gill - (I will say his scene is probably the most obvious in terms of just how bad Phillips's direction is, as he so struggles to get across what the scene is intending to be effectively, as it is supposed to be a key moment but so much of the directing choices fumbles it in a weird way. Having said that, Gill is honestly moving in his performance and just hitting note of the man being terrified and haunted by his whole experience and having to bring up the raw nerve so painfully is moving in terms of his own performance. And maybe could've been truly devastating if there weren't so many misguided choices in the scene around him.)

Coogan - (I mean fine sort of jerk exploitative not caring true crime performance. Nothing major but brings the right sort of self-serious callousness.)

Matt Mustin said...

I binge watched all of Superstore. Very funny show, highly recommended for anyone who wants an easy, enjoyable, very funny comfort watch.

Cast ranking (Top 10 only. It's a big cast)
1. Lauren Ash (Amazing performance. Completely hilarious as the drill sergeant assistant manager, but she also takes every bit of complexity and nuance given to her and fully runs with it, and the character's growth and development is actually fully earned and believable due to Ash's perfectly pitched work. But this is a sitcom and the main goal is to be funny, and she definitely is.)

2. Josh Lawson (Only a couple guest spots across the first three seasons but EVERY SINGLE ONE is a comedy grand slam)

3. America Ferrara (ESSENTIAL to the show, she holds the entire thing together)

4. Colton Dunn (Very funny sarcastic straight man of sorts)

5. Mark McKinney (The voice he uses takes some getting used to, but I settled in with it pretty quick. This is a very good performance as he makes someone who could be easy to hate into someone extremely endearing, if misguided. He also, of course is very funny)

6. Ben Feldman (Extremely good work as the "Leading Man" of the show, and the chemistry he has with Ferrara is insane, and in a lot of ways that kind of makes the show. He can sometimes be more annoying than funny, but usually he's annoying in a funny way.)

7. Jon Barinholtz (Hilarious clueless moron)

8. Nichole Bloom (Enjoyable ditzy airhead, which isn't actually as one note as it sounds.)

9. Johnny Pemberton (Pretty hilarious wannabe rapper/hopeless romantic/complete idiot)

10. Nico Santos (Potentially INTOLERABLE character, which is sort of the point. At times he leans more into annoying than funny, but he's funny enough generally and he does make you care about him. He also has terrific chemistry with Bloom and their friendship is one of the stronger aspects of the show overall)

Tony Kim said...

Louis, your thoughts on the non-saved Kinds of Kindness cast?

Ytrewq Wertyq said...

I was not going to watch Joker: Folie a Deux anyway due to how non-sequel friendly the first film was and how musical formula seemed ill-fitting in a universe as bleak as this one and everybody's comments here have reaffirmed my decision even further.

Jonathan Williams said...

Louis: Thoughts on Annie Hall's screenplay.

8000S said...

Louis: What do you think of the idea of a movie set in 1920s Indiana? Curiously, there were many politicians (both Democratic and Republican) who were members of the Indiana KKK. Two governors (One Democrat, one Republican) got the support from the Klan because of their anti-Catholic bigotry.

There was also a well-known case where a young schoolteacher, Madge Oberholtzer was raped by the Indiana Klan's Grand Dragon, D.C. Stephenson.

Looking at photos of them, who would you pick for these real-life figures?

Democratic Governor Sam Ralston and Republican Governor Edward Jackson (those two governors who got support from the KKK)
Republican Governor Warren McCrary (a governor who got into trouble with the KKK because he opposed a bill that would have created a Klan Day in Indiana)
D.C. Stephenson and Madge Oberholtzer

Mitchell Murray said...

8000s: Based on photos alone....Jackson vaguely reminds me of Hugh Bonneville. Stephenson sort of looks like Bruce McGill. Ralston and Oberholtzer I find harder to place. Of course, resemblance alone is just one element of casting, so don't take those comparisons to seriously.

Mitchell Murray said...

On a totally unrelated note...this is random, but Death Battle just released it's latest episode today. This is significant because for much of this year, the crew has had some legal trouble regarding ownership, and their past relationship with Roosterteeth. As a result, they hadn't been releasing new episodes for the past 10 months, and even this one/the ones going forward are independantly financed.

Regardless....its Omni-man Vs Bardock AKA Invincible vs DBZ. Given that Viltrimites are essentially a fusion of Kryptonians and Saiyans - it made for an interesting match.

Mitchell Murray said...

Lastly, this is more relevant news...I finished the Netflix series "Kaos" not long ago. To be perfectly honest, I'm mixed on the show. When it's about Zeus and Hera, it's pretty solid, and Goldblum is at the very least intriguing in his performance. But as I was watching the series, I was just getting bored and tired of it's subplots, along with some very predictable/forced moments. Also found it's portrayal of Hades and visual representation of the underworld to be very uninspired. Greek myth, like Shakespeare, is endlessly adaptable, and as a modern take on those gods, it's not bad. Still, for a representation of an endgame storyline of an ancient pantheon.....I'd rather play GOW Ragnarok again.

8000S said...

Mitchell: Bardock in the English dub of his special was turned into someone who seemed to care for Goku, even though in the Japanese version, he's just an asshole like the Saiyans, who love to murder people. He even calls baby Goku scum when he learns that his power level is 2 units.

Tahmeed Chowdhury said...

8000's: You're right about Bardock, I also never really understood why the original Funimation dub tried to essentially turn Goku's character into Superman. I think the latter thing is why many people were surprised when they first encountered how Goku *always was* in the original Japanese dub of both DBZ and Dragon Ball Super.

Ytrewq Wertyq said...

Mitchell: That last sentence of your first comment...damn, if only more people who come up with fancasts on the internet realized that for once.

Mitchell Murray said...

Ytrewq: Indeed, and thank you.

Tahmeed and 8000s: I'll take both your words, since this DB episode was my mostly intro to Bardock. One thing I can say - and I didn't think about this going into the matchup - is that Bardock being a pre-Super character means he doesn't really benefit from the crazy scaling/power boosts DragonBall currently has.

Jonathan Williams said...

Louis: Your thoughts on War Of The Worlds (2005) sound editing.

Tim said...

okay, so i recently watched Sound Of Freedom ... it's fine i guess

It has some really tough scenes in there that are not explicit at all and only allude to the subject matter at hand, but are so long and drawn out that you practically wich for the movie to finally cut away. It was hella disturbing, but really effective in that regard.
Other than that though, not much that really stands out. It's actually a kind of standard rescue mission movie. Not a bad one, but also not that special.

And i think the subject matter made people so emotional and punched in the gut so much that many either overlooked or just outright ignored that all the characters nt played by Bill Camp lack real depth and the pacing is lacking in some parts.

Not really worth the hype, nor the discussions for that matter

Matt Mustin said...

Louis: What are your thoughts on Siskel and Ebert's review of Space Jam?

RatedRStar said...

Louis: I'm up to episode 4 of Only Murders in the Building and its been pretty suspenseful so far, way more than usual, I am also so glad we are back in these apartments lol I thought Season 3 was the good but the weakest simply because it spent too much time in that Broadway backstage and not enough time in those fairytale flats lol.

Louis Morgan said...

Tony:

Stone - (Her first performance is pretty limited as just an alternative to Plemon's character, though she does have the right sort of allusion to her character also having this same kind of obsession albeit slightly. The second performance is more prominent and what I think she excels with in the character is still finding something genuine within the Lanthimos method that can sometimes limit that, thankfully his Stone films have consistently pushed on that including this one even without McNamara to help things even more. Her performance in the immediacy plays a certain off kilter quality though alluding towards maybe some emotional desperate need between the lines that both alludes to what her character may be going through or the delusion Plemons's character sees her as. Something progressively becomes more emotionally fraught the more obvious that one side appears to be the truth of the relationship and is effective in playing the genuine emotion within the completely absurdist approach in the way it is all depicted. The third story is obviously her most dominant performance within the scheme of the story and again what makes this film work a bit better for me is that Stone as much as she's playing an alien idea of the completely devoted cult member who loves water, Stone doesn't play it as alien within her own performance. She does have this certain callous conviction, however something a cult member one would have even if tilted slightly to the heightened. She balances that further by playing the emotional desperation just beneath the surface of this routine, showing perhaps the despondent woman who once was there who found solace in the strange cult. Although it doesn't suddenly make it reality, it keeps it from just becoming a bizarre idea.)

Dafoe - (Dafoe obviously seems suited for Lanthimos in any direction given he can play from completely outlandish to very subdued reality depending whatever role he is in. And theoretically you get that, though the first and third roles are very similar to being a cult of personality of slightly different ilks. Dafoe is effective in either instance though in bringing the sort of distant imperious quality of a man completely assured of his position in both roles, and I would say he does change his manner enough in there is a bit more of a pompousness of his "directions" in the first story, and the second there's just a bit more phony new age manner that separates them. Interestingly the middle story is completely subdued and just human in playing directly just concerned dad without any bells whistles or Lanthimos weirdness there. He doesn't have much to do on the whole, but Dafoe is effective in separating that bit entirely.)

Louis Morgan said...

Qualley - (Qualley is a performer always willing to go for it, and while that didn't work in one of her performances this year (Drive Away Dolls) worked beautifully for another (the Substance) and here it works though not as strongly. She gets to play four roles actually and plays enough into the sort of trophy wife with just a tip into this sense of her own culpability in the games in the quiet sadism she brings. The second story she's pretty straightforward but effective in bringing a slightly more down to earth. Then the third she is down to earth in one and then crazed in the other. Although the latter is I suppose not my favorite pure Lanthimos trope where a character does something completely bizarre for just the sake of it, which Qualley sells as best she can still, but wished maybe there was a bit more substance there, though that's not on her.)

Athie - (Enjoyed his deadpan in the second story to some of Plemons's insanity.)

Chau - (Underutilized I'd say on the whole given her talents, however she is effective in bringing the straightest bit of reality to the first story in her more honest horror to what she learns about her husband. In the second story bringing the same albeit fairly briefly in the scheme of the film. And the third she gets to almost reprise the Menu a little bit in playing that specific fascination of a cult of personality, which she does well but even then she gets less focus than Dafoe.)

Jonathan:

So I actually went down a brief bit of research to find out if the editing story was true about Annie Hall since it was so often repeated and the first script I found suggested it wasn't. Although it was so precise that I knew it couldn't be the actual screenplay which I eventually did find. And the film we know is indeed in there, including all the scenes with Annie, but there is just a lot more other stuff around the relationship, some that carries over however with seeming relevance to the main thrust of the narrative. Something that is lacking in the original screenplay, which in some ways reminded more of Allen's later 90's work in terms of how unwieldy the structure is, so kudos to the edit in that sense. What is different however is the bits that make up the unwieldy narrative of self-analysis is the comedy is much better and the specific approach to just his relationships feels far more insightful. The screenplay as much as it isn't the film with that focus, that heart within it even if it was hidden. Beyond all that was refined in the edit, the screenplay unwieldy as it is simply has better than average Allen bits like the childhood bit, the brother bit, the Snow White bit, the Marshall McLuhan bit, and more. It has a better relationship than many because Annie does have her own life and doesn't ever feel like just some idea to impact Allen's character. She has an internal life and presence. Even in its original form it is one of his better screenplays and arguably one that he tried and failed to replicate several other times.

War of the Worlds unsurprisingly has excellent sound design, as when would something like that be off for Spielberg? The sounds here in part are just expected disaster work all very effective though in terms of the detail and impact of car crashes, plane crashes, explosions, missiles, gunshots and so on and so forth. That is combined with the excellent work of creating the Alien sound effects, from their own strange sounds, to of course the blast of the tripods, the laser sounds and particularly the blood letting sound. All of those combined are probably unnerving in their different ways of not being quite right to the expectation and is one of the best elements of the film.

Louis Morgan said...

8000's:

Sam Ralston: I mean missed opportunity because Jack Warden would've been perfect. Otherwise Paul Walter Hauser.
Edward Jackson: Again Hal Holbrook deal. Otherwise Shea Whigham
Warren McCrary: Again James Gandolfini otherwise John Goodman
D.C. Stephenson: Driving me slightly insane as his face looks like an ugly overweight version of an actor that I can't put my finger on.
Madge Oberholtzer: Daisy Edgar-Jones

Although good luck with making that film particularly in terms of tone.

Matt:

You won't see a purer example of unconditional love than this review of two Chicago Bulls fans showing just their intense adoration for their number one player without exception or hesitation. And if you notice there is some criticism of the Looney Tunes elements from Siskel, however it is as soon as they get to Jordan...and his performance, that you see that love where they cannot seem to separate that adoration from the film. And I love particularly how they just praise and praise Jordan constantly, without exception and consider his prospects as an actor from this performance of all things. It's really a ridiculous review as they really just use it as a praise fest for Jordan, which if one has seen the film you know that it in itself is ridiculous to think his performance is some stratosphere over Shaq. But even ignoring that they struggle to really convey why the film is good other than "Jordan is AMAZING". And you'll see even Siskel and Ebert could be victims of fan based rose tinted glasses.

Tony Kim said...

8000S and Louis: What do you say to Glenn Fleshler as Stephenson? That's who he reminds me of.

Matt Mustin said...

The pictures of D.C. Stephenson I see are reminding me a lot of Charles Coburn but in terms of who could play him now, yeah I don't know.

Louis Morgan said...

Tony:

For old Stephenson sure. But he was only in his 30's when he committed the murder. I also think given he is key to the downfall of the KKK, both by his crimes and his naming of names, he'd likely be the extremely vile villainous central protagonist (though probably you'd need to make co-protagonist to make it tolerable.)

And I actually figured out who I was thinking of, which was Johnny Flynn.

Robert MacFarlane said...

Louis: Will you be able to see A Different Man soon?

Louis Morgan said...

Unfortunately the only theater remotely close to me, which isn't very close, that is playing it is only is playing it once a day at an odd time I can't make. Hoping it comes to another theater since I definitely want to see it as soon as I can.

Luke Higham said...

Louis: Have either Keitel or Carradine gone up.

8000S said...

Louis: What do you think of Chuck Jones' thoughts on Space Jam? He said something about how Bugs would have never needed help to defeat aliens and how Lola had no future as a character.

Although I'm sure she could have been a good character if he or Clampett had come up with her back in the 40's. Obviously, June Foray would have voiced her.

Robert MacFarlane said...

Louis: Yeah, I had to drive an hour away to Eatontown to see it, and they already phased it out. But it’s probably my favorite movie so far this year, and Stan feels like a performance that could be your win for the entire year.

Emi Grant said...

Louis: Do you think We Live in Time will be a player of sorts come awards season? Idk what to make of it, outside maybe being long shots for both Pugh and Garfield looking to be the 5th actors in their respective categories.

Then again, it could be too early to tell. I'm not sure.

Jonathan Williams said...

Louis: Thoughts on The Duellists direction, screenplay and cinematography.

Perfectionist said...

Okay. I didn't know until now, that Pacino was making a King Lear adaptation of his own. That's cool.

Louis Morgan said...

8000's:

I do think his "they nerfed Bugs" is a pretty hilarious criticism, though true. I would need full context on his Lola response, though in a general sense the character as depicted in Space Jam, most certainly would be true.

Emi Grant:

A24 has so much on its plate that it could easily suffer from that. I think it will need to surprise at the box-office to at least some degree for it to find the needed momentum. I mean actress is open enough that Pugh certainly could be in play, Garfield would be with Domingo, Craig and Brody in one studio. So that's a tall order, unless A24 drops any Craig push, then maybe a better chance given Garfield is well liked/has been nominated before.

Jonathan:

Scott's direction is a very specific type of debut where there is a level of confidence in the debut despite being a first timer, however in these instances they usually thrived in some other related medium. One that springs to my mind is Hugh Hudson for Chariots of Fire, where the choices are often unusual and never timid, however very different from say sometimes you see with first time actors who maybe try too hard to be distinct. Scott's work here is fascinating because there are elements of his known approach to be sure, yet it is also entirely different from so many of his films. The known Scott is that of technical precision and daring. Which is most evident with the attention to detail with the sound and visual design of every single duel, each that Scott approaches in a different captivating way stylistically though consistent in approaching them with a technical mastery. Particularly just the careful sound editing of the sword fighting that was obviously frequently not the case in films with sword play of the past. The technical mastery though goes far beyond the duel, from his use of cinematography, to especially the sound design even in quiet scenes that seek to create such a palpable sense of place whether it is a seedy bar, a warm intimate room, or the dense forest around an estate. Scott seeks and successfully puts you in this time. But I suppose true to the expected Scott, is a quiet shift in style however in this instance particularly effectively used to more so evoke paintings of the period that the exact say clothing. I think particularly the depiction of the frozen soldiers, or the costuming, that don't break the reality but further captivating more so this emotional idea. But where Scott feels especially different in this first instance is his brevity, his efficiency, his humor and his humanity. Where it often seems struggles with the edit now in terms of what to keep, here he keeps everything it would seem, yet the film moves and is extremely short given all that it covers. Nothing feels rushed yet it somehow takes its time. And that's where we find the moments of humor, something Scott has found again time and again, yet is masterful here in the way there is so much humor based on either the situation or in a moment of character, that Scott executes it flawlessly by never compromising the drama but gives so much more life to so many moments. Humanity is key though, Scott takes moments for his characters as people not just for the sake of the plot and you see the greatness of a filmmaker in those moments. Of course I love even his most off-kilter approach the one here being the transitions that I think is the only element some might balk at, but I love it as it grants the specific sense of the progression of time, with each section being truly a moment in time that we close the book on to open again at a later point.

Louis Morgan said...

Well I wasn't able to see *the* Stan film I wanted to see, but I saw a Stan film with the Apprentice. Something that maybe was helped by a low bar being set by something like Vice, as this film easily clears that and maybe even bests W. (which also isn't great) to be decently watchable but decidedly not great itself. It definitely has some good scenes when it focuses most squarely on Trump and Cohn's interactions, though sort of the switches in the relationship feel a little rushed in terms of the writing. There are also sometimes just some odd directorial and editing choices, that aren't ruinous but don't amplify the film. And it does get a little repetitive at times particularly when focusing on Trump's personal descent, which maybe that's the problem in the film playing it mostly towards the center in terms of tone, in that it doesn't go full satire but obviously isn't a completely straight biopic either. It wanders around a little too much though again it does hit some moments of striding when it rests more squarely on the central pair....even if some of those transitions within it are imperfect. A relationship that it is very direct with but not ham handed in the way say Vice is...in fact I think some might find it gives too much nuance to Cohn and Trump at times. Forgetting all that though for a moment, just as a film, I found it captivating enough but missing just a few necessary ingredients to make it something that would live beyond the current zeitgeist rather than likely to become an artifact of it. 

I definitely think Strong could get in, though likely as a lone nominee.

Bakalova - 3.5
Donovan - 4
Carrick - 3

Luke Higham said...

Is Strong Lead or Supporting.

Louis Morgan said...

He's definitely supporting.

Tony Kim said...

Louis: Your thoughts on the acting in these comedy skits?

https://youtu.be/7wNF-6M3mkY?t=231
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Inf1Yz_fgk

8000S said...

Louis: Your thoughts on "Daffy the Commando", if you've seen it.

Tony Kim said...

Louis: If you're not saving them for later, could I get your thoughts on the cinematography of Kinds of Kindness, and the scene where they watch the video?

Louis Morgan said...

Tony:

Fun just to see Matthau and Lemmon work as they do in very much in action on the stage you see the chemistry where they are almost each playing an instrument in the way their rhythm together works, even the way Matthau paces against the more specific reactions of Lemmon feeds into it, and it is hard not to love the joy on Wilder's face as he watches the two of them perform.

The second sketch I will say Odenkirk, who obviously started in the sketch comedy, is most accustomed to it, and plays into that Mr. Show taking something to an extreme as he goes from a kindly neighbor to suddenly a demanding one where he brings first this having fun that twists into a kind of hectoring determination. But what is great is how he manages to naturally segue to suddenly this intense desperation and need with bizarre yet convincing vulnerability as the delusion within the delusion must be given solace.

Ryan's work is far less showy than his previous two collaborations with Lanthimos and you see him tasked to do something closer to what Thimios Bakatakis did with Lanthimos's earlier works than what we see with Poor Things and The Favourite. Where the approach that is being in-acted is this off-putting mundanity. As the lighting is more realistic and naturalistic, with compositions always creating this certain tension by distance as the shots never want to make you feel comfortable rather there's kind of this uneasy voyeurism in the presentation. Although within this specific scheme it is still very well shot in having dynamic moments of lighting and the specific sort of contrasts of color even if it is always nonchalant, for the most part however effective as such. And while I'll admit I prefer the no holds barred approach of the previous films, for me Ryan excelled in realizing Lanthimos older approach.

Lanthimos and Fillippou's humor I'd say is very much WTF, which is also when McNamara is utilized, but McNamara is FAR more witty around the WTF's. And I will admit the lack of wit perhaps is what keeps me from loving undiluted Lanthimos. Nevertheless, what worked for me is these WTF bits landed enough times this time around, including this one where it does I think an effective setup to the punchline of thinking it is going to be some lovely home movie of his wife to have it instead a sex tape shot like an overt porno. Though I think the moment also alludes well that there's already something off with Plemons's character beyond just theoretical grief for his wife.

8000's:

Maybe I have but don't remember it clearly.

8000S said...

Louis: Thoughts on this scene from "The Wise Quacking Duck"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vEMQg1BBkzo

Louis Morgan said...

Saturday Night attempts to be the multi thread examination of the hour and a half before the first SNL airs, however it doesn't weave it into a tapestry just a whole bunch of knots. In that there is no natural progression, some threads are forgotten about, others have little to no resolution, some have resolution that just sort of happen and frankly seem a bit underwhelming particularly the ending where everything goes right not due to some truly quick thinking by our protagonist of Lorne Michaels, rather just all ends up working out. Not that this all needed to be a tight bow, but it's not even close to one making the screenplay seem more like a series of cherry picked incidents than a complete story. The personal explorations are limited, mostly it is just setup, fittingly I guess, for random bits of personalities clashing with references to famous or eventually famous people, mostly portrayed well if limitedly at the same time. There are some amusing moments, though almost all the best ones were in the first teaser, it is better than your average behind the scenes story of its ilk (a low bar mind you), it's certainly watchable but greatness this is not.

Labelle - 4
Sennott - 3.5
Smith - 4
Hunt - 3.5
O'Brien - 3.5
Fairn - 3.5
Wood - 3.5
Morris - 4
Matula - 3.5
Braun - 3
Hoffman - 3.5
Feldman - 3
Gerber - 3
Dewey - 4
Dafoe - 3.5
Rhys - 3.5
Simmons - 3.5
Batiste - 2.5
Brener - 3
Wuhl - 3
Letts - 3
Podany - 3.5

Luke Higham said...

Louis: Is it wholly an ensemble piece.

Louis Morgan said...

Labelle I'd say is lead, if only just barely. If someone were to place him supporting it wouldn't be egregious.

Matt Mustin said...

Louis: Thoughts on Smith and Rhys?

Luke Higham said...

Thoughts on LaBelle, O'Brien, Morris, Hoffman, Dewey, Dafoe and Simmons.

Louis Morgan said...

Matt:

Smith - (Intentionally setup as the standout BUT he also does have to deliver on being the "star" of Chevy Chase within the cast. Which Smith excels with and I'll say the majority of the cast do a fantastic job in terms of evoking without becoming parody or even simple impression. And it is very easy to see how say a Ryan Murphy version of this would've turned out in comparison. Anyway, Smith never feels like he's trying to play Chase he just gets it down by instead of being exactly Chase, rather embodying the style of him, from his specific sort of awkward yet controlled physicality that he weaponizes, and the egotistical yet strikingly acerbic manner that he portrays with an ease between moments of playing it up and genuinely being that. And although too little time is spent on it I think, he makes the most of his one scene where he gets to show the vulnerability below the surface particularly in terms of his relationship where Smith naturally reveals a more potent emotional distress. To the point I wish he had gotten to explore more because he's most certainly game with what he has.)

Rhys - (Rhys comes in and out a few times very much again playing more so the style of Carlin than doing Carlin, which again I'd say was the wise move. Rhys brings the right acerbic intensity of the man who doesn't care, yet wraps it around with the sense of personal distress just underneath that cynicism that grants an impact, even though he doesn't get a ton to do overall.)
Luke:
Labelle - (Probably had the toughest task in that doing the Michaels mannerisms would've been instantly a parody a la John Magaro in The Many Saints of Newark. Labell forgoes that to instead accentuate moments that allude to the specific vocal mannerisms without ever going full bore with them. Beyond that he does actually get a kind of extension of his performance in The Fabelmans in seeing that Speilberg running a show just in terms of bringing the similar passion yet also nervousness in his energy. Doesn't feel like laziness though as there is the right sense of greater maturity in his work and a progression of that character...though he's again not exactly the same to begin with.)

Louis Morgan said...

O'Brien - (Probably the most overt impression out of the cast but to his credit he completely pulls it off, and honestly I could go up slightly just because of how convincing he is given Aykroyd is so highly specific. O'Brien is able to hit that specificity, particularly in his deliveries of the surprise rapid fire precision exposition he's known for, but never does he feel contrasted by adhering to the role. While we don't get too much else with him, O'Brien is effective in playing the out of comfort moments of playing the attempted lothario and does so effectively, if again something that could've been explored more writing wise.)

Morris - (Probably gets the most complete arc out of the film in terms of actually finding the moments of him portraying this sort of manner of someone who just believes himself to be a bit lost in all of the madness but also slightly detached from it at the same time. Keeping this sort of wandering manner that works as does his reactions that are contrasted by being this observer in a way despite being within it all. And he works by playing it small in terms of the uncertainty, not making a world burden but just a strong question. And completes the arc nicely by just showing him sort of be wholly purposeful in a moment and take action.)

Hoffman - (Really doesn't have the best role to work with as basically this kind of butt of the joke in several moments and as the weak willed suit it would seem. Hoffman though delivers well with what he has in bringing this uncertainty wrapped with an attempted determination and suggests his potential in more roles at the very least.)

Dewey - (Plays directly into the most intense of acerbic venom in every direction and commits most effectively in this sense. Always coming through in so many scenes by playing much of the time with this particular confidence that comes from his particularly intense callousness. Contrasting his moment late in the film where he's out of his comfort zone that he manages to not overplay yet more subtly presents the nervousness he still tries to hide mostly in his confidence.)

Dafoe - (A theoretical sleepwalking role in terms of how much is wanted from him as just playing the blunt suit, however Dafoe indeed does it with ease and makes his impact regardless. I will say his arc is one of those that is ridiculously rushed, though Dafoe can do what he can with it.)

Simmons - (Kind of an expected performance, but regardless delivers on just being confidently horrible in kind of a purposefully creaky and creepy sort of way)

Anonymous said...

Louis: Thoughts on the 3.5's and Nicholas Braun.

Louis Morgan said...

Anonymous:

Sennott - (I think her whole story is one of the weakest, because it is touched upon basically just the wrong amount as it introduces her complex relationships but fails to properly address them. Sennott brings her usual energy even beyond the ill-conceived writing behind her character, which she needed a lot more meat to have made it work. Still I always appreciate her presence and this is no different.)

Hunt, Fairn and Matula - (All get the short shrift in terms of exploring what should be central characters, but do whatever they can, particularly in their one focused upon sketch sequence. They each nicely bring what life they can and I suppose I was impressed that I got any sense of them given how quickly they ran through their moments on the whole.)

Wood - (Great visual casting, but honestly I could down to a 3, as in terms of the actual performance he didn't allude to more than just a very generalized Belushi, and frankly played too much frankly ogreish and failed to convey Belushi's own charisma. He's not bad though, as again he doesn't over do the impression either, even if he feels the most like a phony version just in terms of what is lacking.)

Podany - (I mean extremely impressive in just seeming to entirely be Billy Crystal from the 70's, without a bit of put on about it. But again, far better than that, is he is able to convey a person beyond that in portraying first his joyful eagerness and then his honestly moving portrayal of the sense of betrayal as his efforts end up not being appreciated.)

Braun - (Thought his Henson was perfectly good in bringing this sort of contrasting naivety and genuineness about his quiet care for his creations while being just a bit exasperated by the callousness of who he is dealing with. His Kaufman was a strange choice, one for the double casting but also just seemed like he played it last minute in how half-hearted the whole thing felt....and it wasn't a surprise to learn he was a last minute replacement for Benny Safdie who would've been a much better choice. Braun frankly seems lost without a sense of the needed mischief for Kaufman and his rendition of the mighty mouse bit definitely could've been better.)

Anonymous said...

Louis: Thoughts on Naomi Ackie, Channing Tatum in Blink Twice and the cast of The Apprentice?

Marcus said...

Louis: Based on their current selection of roles and quality of output, which actors and actresses (under the age of 40 now) do you think will have the most Oscar nominations in say, 10-15 years' time?

Bryan L. said...

Marcus: For actors, I think it’ll be Timothée Chalamet, since he’s the first batter up for high-profile roles amongst his age group, and he’s likely to get his second nom fairly soon.

Tahmeed Chowdhury said...

Marcus: I'll second Chalamet, and I'll add Paul Mescal to that list - he has the emotional intensity in his performances that is Academy catnip, and he also has the physicality that gives him a wide range of roles to play.

As for actresses, it'll be pretty hard to top Saoirse Ronan's haul any time soon.

Louis Morgan said...

Marcus:

Out of the women, it is funny how it can only really be between Lawrence, Ronan and Stone given their heads starts. Lawrence despite having as many acting nominations as Ronan and Stone, seems completely out of the running currently given that she had zero buzz for either Causeway or Don't Look Up when theoretically she should've given her prior stature.

Ronan seems likely to make her nomination comeback this year, though I think there is a world where she misses for both. Still she hasn't been making truly wrong decisions they just haven't fully paid off with the last few, and so I think she will be back...likely this year and I think she'll have the opportunity for more down the road.

Stone obviously has had the most success given she's won twice, plus a producing nomination. The question is, is the academy satisfied or will they just keep on wanting to reward her? I think it could easily be the latter particularly if she pulls more Poor Things out of her, where she's daring in the way where she won't be ignored. So out of the three in the running I say Stone.

Out of the men the class is much smaller in terms of who even has a single nomination. But I'd say the runners are Daniel Kaluuya, Paul Mescal and Chalamet. The former who has the most nominations, but has less output overall. Mescal and Chalamet have the output and a nomination. So they both seem primed for more opportunities, though I think the real question will be the transition to an older actor, where I lean Mescal slightly just because he already can exude age, where Chalamet may take longer to get sort of the boyish element of himself.