Yves Montand, Gérard Depardieu did not receive Oscar nominations, despite receiving BAFTA nominations, for portraying César Soubeyran aka "Le Papet" & Jean Cadoret respectively, nor did Daniel Auteuil, despite winning a BAFTA, for portraying Ugolin all in Jean de Florette. Auteuil and Montand were also not Oscar nominated for the same roles for Manon des Sources.
The first half of a two film series, shot back to back, Jean de Florette is just an incredible film which is both beautiful and heartbreaking in depicting an honest dream against dishonest ambition.
Quickly it is hard to put Auteuil in supporting when he definitely has more screen time than Montand, and possibly more than Depardieu, and seems like it was a case of "servile equals supporting" which is extremely silly. Anyway, the film opens with the unlikely characters to follow in such a story, as more often we would begin with our tragic hero then see the villains who will try to stand in his way. This film is the opposite where we open with the colluding villains as they set their plans. We have the paternal, though in this instance being the Uncle, role of a long standing family in Southern France looking for some avenue to increase his family's wealth, along with his nephew Ugolin played by Auteuil. Although related the two are dissimilar in manner, and performance. Montand's performance is very much defined by his status as the old noted actor, with that whole type of regal presence accentuating the nature of the man of this assumed privilege and even prestige. Contrasting that most bluntly is his nephew, where Auteuil is made up quite a bit with his teeth and nose, to look almost rat-like, and is something that Auteuil wholly embraces with his performance. A performance that is my kind of mannered performance, because I never even thought of it as mannered when watching it. Although it is entirely so where Auteuil accentuates his makeup and prosthetics with his whole facial expressions, that is unlike any Auteuil I've seen, along with his voice. Each element being extremely specific in creating this specific sniveling quality, although remarkably performed because he wholly convinces you just of Ugolin as this person. A person who very much is defined by his life of labor, who lives with the dirt, and Auteuil accentuates every bit of this by embracing those mannerisms making you believe and sense the history of this man's life.
We are presented with their unlikely state of being even from their earliest conversation where Montand comes in with this gracious even warm spirit to his nephew making suggestions that Ugolin might attempt to woo a local woman to find a wife with this paternal wisdom as the defining feature of his delivery. Something that Auteuil reacts to with nearly deaf ears and just kind of a confused expression of why exactly he'd want to "burden" himself with such things. Mentioning instead his use of prostitutes as all the women he could possibly need, Auteuil makes this pronouncement as honestly as Ugolin knows, which there isn't a second of consideration and such a life of expectation isn't something that Auteuil's work suggests even phases Ugolin. Crafting the odd pairing of the two as despite being family what draws them together is only the collusion of family, as we see César as this instructor for Ugolin even if we hardly feel they are as one despite working as a pair. Something that becomes more evident as the two come upon a dying neighboring farmer, which is perhaps where we see the clearest bond of the two reacting not with concern for the man, but rather this instant connection of the possibilities each man senses with the potential death. Even the notion of criminal murder being sort of danced around which Montand delivers with regal distance and Auteuil with dogged, well, dog eat dog mentality. The man indeed dies, which while watching the property the men find the all important water source for the property, where we see the master criminal and his fool apprentice. Montand bringing this shifty manner in his eyes of catching something to steal, while controlling Ugolin who Auteuil portrays as less able to stay calm in expresses this energy at the potential that César controls lest to alarm others of the whereabouts of the spring.
Their plans hit a snag when the inherited owner Jean Cadoret appears, along with his wife and young daughter. A man with a hump, and played by a more than dubious man, Gérard Depardieu, which speaks to truly the nature of acting as he manages to deliver such gentle earnestness from the second he enters into the frame. Depardieu's performance is brimming with such approachable excitement as he enters as Jean, a man of the city, who reacts in wonder as he sees the gorgeous hills of southern France. Depardieu is truly endearing here as he manages to make the character's enthusiasm something which is completely honest and entirely contagious. As he looks upon in wonderment and pronounces all his dreams, it is hard not to caught up with his splendid ideas of making a home for himself with his family, because the sincerity of the dream just seems to rest in the initial glowing eyes of his as he seems drawn into such a fantasy place, for him anyways. One of the many brilliant ideas of this narrative however is the presentation of the dream, from the outset, is not from the dream, but rather how the dream is the obstacle of the two men we were introduced to first. César sees him as a threat to his plan which he then suggests to Ugolin to befriend Jean only to be in the position to undermine him when possible. Montand's performance is without overt maniacal quality, rather it is with this overly practical dismissiveness. Montand's performance will be consistent for much of the film as he appears basically as commentary on the attempts of Jean to make it as a farmer on the land, basically as this worst kind of commentator who speaks of every challenge that will befall him, and even shrugs off every potential victory of Jean with some negative alternative in the future. Montand's performance makes César a villain whose villainy exists largely through callous indifference in just observing the failure with conviction that it will come sooner than later. Montand's performance is effective though largely one of consistency, where there is maybe a touch more frustration a few times within his still confidence at Jean's assumed failure, however I would say within the scheme of the film Auteuil and Depardieu have the purposefully more dynamic arcs.
Speaking of, we are given the perspective of knowing the truth so what we see instead is this cruel game of Ugolin presenting himself as a friendly neighbor to Depardieu's Jean, something Auteuil excels with but not entirely excelling with in terms of the quality of Ugolin's own "performance". Ugolin isn't exactly the best but gets by as Auteuil presents very much an act, though only something someone with a bit more cynicism would catch onto right away. Auteuil's main delivery in these moments is as the doubting "friend", where any idea Jean presents Ugolin has some negative slant on the idea that undercuts it in some way. Auteuil presents it with a certain effective simplicity where seemingly the simple man is just putting forth his own wisdom, as limited as it is, which is a combination of the doubt of his voice and confusion in his face on the atypical thinking presented by Jean. Auteuil tiptoes around the idea of honest confusion with put upon negativity effectively to make Ugolin seemingly reliable enough for the very much trusting Jean. Contrasting that is Depardieu's own work that is so endearing through the sincerity of every moment of his optimism as he explains his ideas of breeding rabbits. There's the energy not of someone with a plan but a fundamental truth to make choices to fulfill his dream. Even when Ugolin offers a negative slant to every single one of his ideas, Depardieu doesn't react as someone brushing the ideas off, rather as someone who honestly cannot see such negativity because his belief is so pure. Something that perhaps makes a little bit of a complication for Ugolin where Auteuil is quite excellent in being able to balance the degree of which guilt ways on the man, as he offers some minor help to Jean, but never of course tells him the truth that would make his plans completely thrive. Auteuil puts just enough shame in his eyes in certain moments, where Jean's trust is so pure, or even in the moment where he hides away to renege on an offer he had made. Auteuil doesn't redeem Ugolin but does offer the right glints of humanity to suggest a man who knows he's doing wrong though can't quite overcome his faults to do the right thing.
The progression of the degradation of Jean is where the power of the film exists because Depardieu begins with such a potent sense of that dream and what we see is the way that dream seems to be slowly purged away from him, however not in the way you might expect. Depardieu is wonderful in accentuating every moment of success with such joy, a joy that isn't selfish but rather something he wants to not only share with his wife and daughter but anyone nearby. In his eyes you see a man who believes himself to be nearly living in some kind of heaven for himself, so much so that even when he comes upon squatters on his land he only is inviting towards them. Depardieu is not presenting as foolish but rather the nature of the man to love and welcome all to be part of what he sees as an ideal experience. Unfortunately due to the lack of the spring it does eventually take its toll upon him, as he begins to run out of money. One especially heart-wrenching moment comes as Jean asks his wife to allow him to pawn her prized necklace to allow them to get by a little longer. Depardieu is so moving in the scene because you still see the dream in his eyes as a man who is convinced it will all work out, yet there is the first crack in the heartbreak within him as he must ask his wife to do this. Something Depardieu burys within his performance, as the emotions he's trying to hide away from the doubt and the loss of the prized possession, only to find out that his wife already pawned it for the sake of the family. Depardieu's reaction is devastating because you see finally a full break in the dream, and the dawning reality that is tearing at that dream do you see such pain. Something that continues with another powerful though painful scene of a full storm coming, however not close enough to Jean's farm. Depardieu again is so heartbreaking because he goes from such real excitement to the rain to such fundamental anguish, particularly in his delivery of "there's no one up there" as God doesn't answer his prayers and Depardieu brings not just a sense of defeat, but a destruction of a dream. But what is fascinating in Depardieu's work isn't that he doesn't suddenly become just a cynical man, rather he makes something that feels all the more tragic from where he began, which is twisting the dream. Depardieu brings the enthusiasm still however now it isn't with optimism it is reeking with desperation. The same manner of the man wanting for the dream, but now the intensity is making a horrible obsession. Depardieu shows the man clinging onto the dream now rather than living it, and makes it a harrowing act of suffering, leading to his final accidental end. Depardieu makes it an especially powerful portrayal by realizing that shift within the dream from something you can believe in to something that nearly disturbs you. Within the final moments you also have one great moment from Auteuil where you see Ugolin witness what he helped wrought, and that hint of shame suddenly becomes something absorbing in the moment. He still doesn't act as a good man, however Auteuil realizes in his face the real extent of his shame and sorrow. Although not enough as we find both Ugolin and César, after having purchased the land, unplugging the water spring as vultures devour the rewards of their misdeeds as we close out the masterful Jean de Florette.
Manon des Sources, while still largely effective, does feel more so the epilogue of the previous film than one that completely exists on its own accord for the most part.
The sequel offers the fallout of the acts of César and Ugolin several years later where they have found profit with the spring, though Jean's now adult daughter Manon (Emanuelle Béart) still resides in the area as a nearly mute shepherd. It seems the ideal life for the pair as the two now live in their success through their ill gotten gains and continue on as such without a seeming worry to anything they have done. That is until Ugolin happens upon a naked Manon to which he becomes instantly infatuated with her. Auteuil's portrayal of this is that of immediate fascination befitting a man who before dismissed the need for a wife as unnecessary due to prostitution, it is simple but also pure in Auteuil's portrayal of his fascination in her eyes but his very manner changes in the moment. Suddenly his movements are even more pathetic as he sneaks around her presence while looking towards her with the same kind of distinct infatuation. Something that leads to a conversation between the two collaborators though of somewhat different natures. And this is quite bluntly where Montand shines in these moments as he shows the older César easing up on his indifference a little bit. As the two converse about Ugolin's desire for a wife where Auteuil speaks every word about his interest now like a little boy who has just discovered love for the first time. Contrasting that with César where Montand brings considerable warmth and joy in his reaction of seeing the potential for his family to live on. Montand is even sweet in the moment as he mentions his own relationships in the past in somewhat metaphorical terms however there is the appropriate sense of nostalgia but with complication that is just overpouring in Montand's delivery. The man is speaking to a time he holds dear but the complication of the time is abundantly clear as in particular he seems to allude to his ideal relationship not working out for some mysterious reason.
We shift as Ugolin now dressed as a "rich man" tries to woo Manon who is instantly disgusted with him. Auteuil is so perfectly pathetic in the scene because of how he is bringing far too much intensity in his declarations of interest towards her, problematically reminding her of his past with her, and then just his whole physical manner is just so stilted as he walks along with an odd suit that he saw as showing his wealth. Auteuil portrays the man completely misguided in every moment though the intensity of the infatuation is evident in every moment of a man just lost in his lust to the point he ends up sewing a piece of Manon's hair into himself. An act that could seem ridiculous however Auteuil's performance gives an internal logic to this man so stunted in his life that he thinks this will in some way make himself closer to her. At the same time however Manon discovers that the whole town, along with César and Ugolin had conspired against her father, leaving her to find the source of all water for the town and purposefully blocking it. Leading now Ugolin to become the one losing it, although Auteuil's portrayal is very different from Depardieu instead of pulling you into his sadness, he makes you see just how much the man becomes more pathetic in his wretched state of becoming less cogent in any way. Eventually the situation leads to the town to accuse the two men directly of their faults, which unfortunately for Ugolin also coincides with him trying to declare his love for Manon. The scene is ideally painful because Auteuil's performance is as a man who truly doesn't know any better and his simple ability of processing the situation only diminishes more and more as the conversation goes on. Auteuil manages to get to the point it is hard not to feel sympathy because of just how completely lost he is in every reaction in his inability to fully understand his choices and eventually even rage against his uncle. The rage though isn't of a man figuring out he's made a mistake logically, rather wholly raw and irrational is a man falling apart in his core by his mistaken love and limited ability to have any sense of his life. He too becomes heartbreaking in showing a man too destroyed by his crime, though as always within Auteuil's performance purely as a man without the ability to comprehend his failures. Comparing that to Montand who is great as he becomes defensive for his choices bringing a suddenly prideful ferocity to his performance as he challenges the judgment of all. Montand though finally reveals his own break in the man who so confidently oversaw the ruin of another, losing some of that overt confidence to reveal an earnest vulnerability as his voice falters and that reserve of his expression finally falters.
The last tragedy of the film begins as Ugolin takes his own life due to his guilt, and his insanity from his obsession, leaving César alone, no longer able to make use of all his mechanizations as his whole family line will end with him. Montand's performance remarkably manages to uncover sympathy for César despite his villainous actions throughout both films. Montand does so by just so honestly presenting the sorrow for his nephew bringing such a sense of weight in his voice, his face and his whole physical manner. Montand shows that César has become lost as he saunters around in his depressed state with his only activity being visiting a grave site to visit his seemingly entirely deceased family now. The final tragedy of the tale however comes as César converses with an elderly woman of the community that sheds light on his earlier failed romance. Montand's reactions are amazing throughout the scene as he begins with just kind of confusion to the woman's blame for not having answered a letter, being slightly more intrigued as she suggests it ended up a tragedy. Montand showing the wheels turning in the right way of César's slow realization that he in fact had been the father of Jean after all is tremendous work from him. Montand shows it less as overt horror, but rather understanded sorrow of someone seeing the truth as far too little too late, and just a solemn depression within the man as he realizes all his ill-deeds were against his own son. Montand finally is front and center within both films and doesn't waste this time. Montand delivers the years of waste in the final scenes of the film as we see such a crushing depression within every bit of himself, though with a difference from just the lonely man at the end of a family line, as we now see in his work the pain of hope. We see a moment of him trying to reach out to his granddaughter, who correctly blames him for her father's death, then on his deathbed write a letter with the truth lined out. Montand too manages to be heartbreaking, despite all that his character has done, by so honestly presenting that glint of tenderness in the man mixed in however with the state of a soul truly lost in his shame. All three performers deliver terrific performances in this duology, each crafting their own tragedies that manage to not be repetitive but find the individual power of how the destruction of each man is sewn.
(Montand for Jean)
(Montand for Manon, Depardieu)
(Auteuil)
79 comments:
Delighted that Auteuil got a 5 for both films. Knew you'd prefer Montand in Manon, so relieved to put him in 5th.
Ratings and thoughts on the casts.
Pleased that it frees up a spot in Supporting as well so a write-up for Lance Henriksen in Aliens would be nice.
Louis: What are your thoughts on the direction, screenplay, score and cinematography.
Yeah I was baffled anyone was putting Auteuil in supporting, he's the driving force of the film.
Also, Louis: do you see the comparisons between this and say, a (much darker variation on) Minari or The New Land?
Louis: Which of Auteuil's turns did you prefer.
Hey guys! It's Shaggy Rogers
Tell us your ranks of 1986 nominees in each category:
Song
1. "Take My Breath Away" - Top Gun
2. "Mean Green Mother de Outer Space" - Little Shop of Horrors
3. "Somewhere Out There" - An American Tail
4. "Glory of Love" - The Karate Kid Part II
5. "Life in a Looking Glass" - That's Life!
Original Score
1. The Mission
2. Aliens
3. Hoosiers
4. Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home
5. Round Midnight
Sound Mixing
1. Aliens
2. Top Gun
3. Platoon
4. Heartbreak Ridge
5. Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home
Sound Editing
1. Aliens
2. Top Gun
3. Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home
Editing
1. Aliens
2. Platoon
3. The Mission
4. Top Gun
5. Hannah and Her Sisters
Special Visual Effects
1. Aliens
2. Little Shop of Horrors
3. Poltergeist II: The Other Side
Makeup and Hairstyling
1. The Fly
2. Legend
3. The Clan of the Cave Bear
Costume
1. A Room With a View
2. The Mission
3. Otello
4. Peggy Sue Got Married
5. Pirates
Production Design
1. Aliens
2. The Mission
3. A Room With a View
4. The Color of Money
5. Hannah and Her Sisters
Cinematography
1. The Mission
2. Platoon
3. Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home
4. Peggy Sue Got Married
5. A Room With a View
Louis, do you consider Ronan Lead or Supporting in Blitz?
Luke:
Depardieu - 3.5(Has an easy chemistry with her off-screen husband where you just believe the sense of love between them and it isn't something that needs to be questioned at any point. She doesn't get to do too much, however makes the most of what she has with the pawn scene especially being quite moving in the way she expresses her confession with such genuine care and desperation of someone just as broken by the situation even as her husband remains hopeful. Then the moments afterwards her performance effectively portrays the sense of growing discomfort with her husband showing her genuine growing concern as he appears to lose his mind. She is also in Manon, but her screentime is so brief she really just doesn't have much to do.)
Beart - 4(A performance that works in reverse to how compelling she is, as the later portion of Mano she's mostly just kind of seen which I do think is a little bit of a missed opportunity within the scheme of the narrative, along with her love interest being the one major character in the duology that I would just call bland. She's best in her early scenes where she brings this artful combination between a ferocity of kind of a wild child with this calm innocence in other moments. Beart determines these both by the situation, showing very much the rage that still exists within her for the treatment of her father, while at other moments reflecting the same pure heart that her father had. Beart naturally segues between that beatific quality with a determined anger depending on the scene as related to essentially her character's nature and her nurture as determined by the cruelty of the townspeople. All of that is a little too easily resolved for me though with the ideal love interest for her as just the boring guy, that ends up even purging the interest of her character as well.)
Girardot - 2(The character I will say as written is far too much of just "nice guy" to begin with as the good school teacher who is always just concerned with others and just loves Beart's character without complication or even exception. However I didn't find his performance really created any interest either playing instead into that niceness without any real charm or nuance within the margins of the performance. He's just a bit of a dullard unfortunately.)
Jonathan:
Berri's direction, which as far as I can tell is a bit of a Curtis Hanson situation, where a director just found the exact right material for themselves, because it seems that of a master filmmaker. Berri's touch with the tone in particular is so precise and elegant in Jean especially in knowing just how much emotion to push, how much not to push and when to sprinkle in enough levity within it. He uses the score lusciously but doesn't overuse it, he accentuates the beauty of the locale but doesn't make it just a travelogue. Rather each element is with distinct purpose in the way the land is both absolutely stunning to look at, yet in a way curiously oppressive in the way you sense the ever need of nature and the uncaring force of it, particularly in the thunderstorm scene. The sense of place is so tangible however in such a way where you sense the dream but also the distance of hopelessness as nature doesn't care if you fail. But that is also just in the way he naturally segues from scenes purely on visual language, but also just his use of shots in dialogue sequences, that are all captivating with a pace that just moves despite never seeming rushed. His work in Jean is just exceptional in every sense. Manon is a natural carryover, and most of it is consistent, but the moments of true genius feel a little more limited, even if it is still confidently directed and certainly consistent.
Calvin:
Very much so, particularly in regards to Minari and the importance of water for agriculture to the point that it feels oppressive in this way.
Luke:
I mean essentially an even keel but I guess ever so slightly Manon.
Dirk:
I think she's just barely leading, because the film is consistent in cutting back to her and her story is never lost. But, I wouldn't consider it even fraud for her to go supporting because of the film's wavering perspective and the fact that her scenes tend to be in general shorter.
Ew, Glory of Love was nominated that year? That's like in bottom 10 songs of all time.
Luke: Personally I think Reiser is better
Louis, what are your current Oscar predictions for Picture and the acting categories?
Louis: To add to Dirk's question, thoughts on each as well as Director.
I'll give Mescal an extra .5 for Gladiator II, I thought his moment with Joseph Quinn was great.
Louis: Have you ever seen any episodes of Night Court, as I recently learned that John Larroquette won 4 straight Emmys for it.
Tough year for films. Almost worse than 2018. I still have hope for Nosferatu. Robert Eggers has not yet disappointed.
Louis, your rankings of Ridley Scott’s films and performances?
Marcus: Maybe I need to see the show in full context, but I'll just say Larroquette definitely goes out on a limb from the few clips I've seen, and I can see why Emmy voters would award that kind of comedic acting.
Louis: Could I have your thoughts on this scene and Spader's performance from Boston Legal, which won him his third Emmy?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wISDKSs5Efo&ab_channel=ThanhT%C3%B9ngNguy%E1%BB%85n
Regarding Gladiator II Scott really needs to dump Scarpa. As once again the screenplay is mostly the problem here. Scott's action as usual is on point as is his visuals for the part (the baboon scene is embarrassing however) which is enough for me not to revile film. I did hate the revisions/"revelations" from the first film, that like the Star Wars sequels, said on the triumphant ending "well I guess the bad guys instantly came back from that". Otherwise when not referencing the first film directly, it is doing so...directly by doing variations of the same scenes. Something that I don't actually think is inherently bad, great sequels sometimes do this, even the Godfather Part II, but the key is you need to create a new angle or feeling in the retread, rather than just making it feel like a lesser variation. Which far too much of this feels like, right down to Debbie Downer as our protagonist...I mean Lucius. The overall narrative even isn't horrible, but just the essential meat is not good enough or bad. The twin emperors, the power player from nothing, even Lucius pulling a Henry V, all have potential, the relationships are just too weakly drawn and also just the dialogue is much less. Every time I heard a memorable line I said "oh wait's that's from the first one". Which this whole film is chasing, which again could've been a winning strategy potentially, but largely ends defeat here.
Pascal - 2.5
Nielsen - 3.5
Quinn - 2.5
Hechinger - 2.5
Raz - 2.5
Jacobi (Why even bring him back?)
Lucas - 2.5
Karim - 3
McInnerny - 2.5(Really expected Equitius Blackadder to show up and troll Senator Darling but alas)
McCann - (Lame role, sad that no one saw the potential of his work as the Hound)
I'd go higher on Karim and Pascal and lower on Hechinger. I could tell Pascal had his scenes cut down, it feels like they didn't want to distract from Lucius. Actually, same with Quinn, he was playing Geta very differently at the start of his performance vs the end, so I assume they cut out the subplot that would explain the change.
Hechinger was saddled with the broadest role, specifically made for overacting, yet I still feel like he somehow wasn't hammy enough?
Also, scalding hot take, but I liked Mescal here more than I like Crowe in the original. Bare in mind, I think the original is boring and Crowe's screen presence only does so much. I concede one complaint that Mescal is a bit too dour at times (and his accent slips through when he yells), but I got more out of his interactions with Karim and the way he uses his smile than I got out of Maximus.
Louis: Thoughts on the cast. I'm glad we more or less agree on Mescal (I'm surprised you're saving him for a potential nominee review which I don't see happening at all) in terms of the overall performance. I guess Washington's getting a 4 if he does get a review.
Jonathan:
The screenplay is wonderful in the way it manages to be so much so efficiently. There are three principal characters and it doesn't need more than that, though it makes keen use of the other minor characters, such as the wife and eventually very important daughter, but also the uncaring chorus of the townfolk. The dialogue is engaging but also rich in both color and character. Every bit tells you more about the history of the area, but also is engaging in granting you the character of it. It has natural moments of humor yet is very intense in terms of creating this juxtaposition between the ambition of others and the pure dream of another. The progression and degradation of that dream is so eloquently realized by giving you hope and dashing it in equal measure creating such a profound tragedy where it left me going "please just let that man have his well" without seeming just arduous as it could've, and perhaps that is the masterstroke of letting us in on the conspiracy from the outset that makes us feel culpable in the best possible way.
Dirk & Luke:
I'm going to watch Wicked and The Piano Lesson this weekend, so I'll give those after I do.
Marcus:
I've seen like a total of 30 seconds of Night Court.
J96:
1. Alien
2. The Duellists
3. Blade Runner
4. The Last Duel
5. Thelma & Louise
6. Gladiator
7. Kingdom of Heaven
8. Black Hawk Down
9. The Martian
10. All the Money in the World
11. American Gangster
12. Matchstick Men
13. House of Gucci
14. White Squall
15. Legend
16. Prometheus
17. Napoleon
18. Body of Lies
19. Gladiator II
20. Alien: Covenant
21. 1492: Conquest of Paradise
22. Someone to Watch Over Me
23. The Counselor
24. Exodus: Gods and Kings
Tahmeed:
Well to echo the last time I commented on a Spader summation, I found the editing and directing strange if not more accurately described as bad. But once again I have to say that Spader's performance is pretty outstanding in managing to very much do the lawyer speak in the slick way, but intertwining with it seemingly genuine emotion as he accentuates the real hardship and hope mixed between the two. And honestly give that speech to most actors I think it probably would be very easy to be just maudlin but Spader makes it sing I have to give him credit.
Luke:
Pascal - (Actually move him up to a 3 because his silent reaction to fighting his own men is a pretty great moment, and suggests that we should've gotten a lot more of him to build to that kind of emotion overall. His last scene should've been devastating but it's not. And it could be editing that stripped the character, common with Scott's films after all (which probably speaks to his production speed), because we just don't get enough. I would also say his chemistry with Nielsen wasn't entirely there, but again maybe there was more between that really sold him to her and his shared loyalty. Pascal with what he has does a fine job in showing the dejected decency even within his moment as a conquering warlord and I think there was great potential here wasted, maybe in editing maybe just because Scarpa's not the man to hire for epics.)
Nielsen - (Really is trying so hard to bridge the gap, and I'll be honest she does succeed at least within her own work. Even in scenes that didn't work for me, Nielsen's devotion to the role and conviction in creating that connection between the past and present does resonate within her.)
Quinn - (To echo Robert, yes he completely changes his performance from his early scenes to late scenes without a proper moment to explain why. And again maybe a victim of editing, script or direction, because Quinn I almost thought was onto something but then just is let down by the inability of the film to let him articulate either a complete mad man, or a concerned slightly more pragmatic albeit still evil man. Quinn ends up just being inconsistent though he is better than his onscreen brother.)
Hechinger - (Actually meant to give him a 2, but could go lower because what he's doing just doesn't work. Could be too much could be too little, but either way just felt ridiculous in the wrong way. Doesn't help that his extreme shift is handled in like a second but even then wasn't terribly convinced by what he was doing regardless.)
Raz - (Standard thug work.)
Lucas - (Preferred Hemmings, though he's okay.)
Karim - (One repeat note that was most onto something I'd say given it's a variation on Hounsou, however enough of one that it does have his own life with Karim finding a real humanity in his moments with Mescal to create a genuine friendship...unlike the other gladiators were that seems just rushed. Karim finds a person within the type though and is one of the suggestions of how the film could've been so much more.)
McInnerny - (Plotwise I mean really why would you trust him with anything? A little too comic but not funny enough here I'd say. Again the beats are there, but they're just not good enough, as I feel we should've seen more of a decay in his character, which is part writing but also McInnerny plays him so foolish at the start there's nowhere for him to go.)
Luke:
I'm not predicting Mescal, but again, A24's overstuffed slate does create slight pause on the seemingly super easy to predict best actor lineup, that there might be a swerve somewhere. And hey, it's better than Emilia Perez and Blitz if you ask me, so wouldn't be out of place in what's looking to be a year with a lot letdown/bad contenders. (though I'm only going to be predicting it for techs and Washington)....anyway thank you Anora for existing.
Well I guess I made the right decision in starting my weekend off with Wicked instead of Gladiator II, it was a marvelous breath of fresh air that clearly had so much love for all of the source material that came before it. I was worried about the bloated runtime, but was so happy to discover that this was due to how much they developed and deepened the story elements that were already there rather than adding unnecessary new plot points.
Whole cast for the most part is the quite good, believe it or not I think the MVP for me was Grande.
I honestly didn't think the additions added much of substance. Maybe I'm still spoiled by what Kushner did for West Side Story, but I felt like it could have made more clever changes than it did. Also, I still don't think splitting it into two parts works. Part of the issue is that the central conflict of the stage show fully presents itself at the end of Act 1. As a result, this film's structure makes said conflict feel very belated.
Erivo and Grande are both very good. The latter probably is MVP.
The Piano Lesson is the most fervent attempt of the three August Wilson adaptations to transform it into something fully cinematic, and while a noble effort, its stage roots are still unmistakable which isn't the case with the very best stage adaptation. Malcolm Washington's attempts to craft atmosphere and expansion are admirable, though not always successful. I would say more often are on "the right track" than wholly amplify as is intended. Something it feels like "stuff" to try to make a scene more interesting, in other moments, it does work in making it more than just a filmed stage play, but it is the former more than the latter. So mainly what's left is what all these Wilson adaptations have, is the source material and the performers bringing to life. Like all three, there is definitely a power just in that, though I thought the cast here was a little inconsistent, from fully realizing the style honestly to feeling a bit stagy, for the most part effective in making words resonate though rarely does it make you wholly forget this is a performance of notable material and turn into just genuine life.
Also after watching it, I do think Jackson has a chance for a nomination, yes he's reactionary for many scenes but he does have a substantial monologue, and I've seen actors be nominated with far less material to work with so I'm a little surprised by the "he has no chance" reaction he got after its festival premiere.
Washington - 2.5
Fisher - 2.5
Potts - 3.5
Deadwyler - 4.5(A few needless bugged eyed moments keep me from going higher).
Hawkins - 3.5
Louis: entirely agree with you on Jackson, I was surprised at how quickly people shot down his chances entirely.
Also, with the way Supporting Actress is panning out this year with the likes of Saldana, Gomez and Ronan being so underwhelming and the great abundance of category fraud going on, I'm sure you're as annoyed as I am that Joan Chen doesn't seem to have a fighting chance at this point.
Louis: Thoughts on the cast.
Well as someone who knew almost nothing about Wicked going in, I did largely enjoy this. Not sure entirely about the plot, particular the animal genocide bit, but in terms of just going along with the musical numbers as well as the performances of Erivo, and especially Grande, I rather enjoyed it. I did definitely feel the runtime to a degree, but when it works I was sufficiently swept up, particularly the comedic interactions between the leads, but the emotional connection between just them also worked, even when I wasn't always sold by the mechanization of the plot around them, they remained consistent and brought me through even the less captivating elements.
Erivo - 4.5
Grande - 5(One must be honest with one's self)
Bailey - 3.5 (He and Dan Stevens really need to play brothers in something.)
Yeoh - 3
Goldblum - 3.5
Slater - 3
Bode - 3
Dinklage - 3
Yang - 2
James - 2.5
Settle - 2.5
Nyman - 2.5
Grande getting a 5. Until Lily-Rose Depp comes along, that is definitely surprise of the year.
Louis: Thoughts on the cast.
Louis: Only Erivo, Grande, Bailey, Yeoh and Goldblum please.
can we all just collectively agree that Jeff Goldblum shall exclusively be refered to as The Wizard of "Uh"s from now on?
Nobody against that idea?
Good.
Louis: are Deadwyler and Grande lead or supporting.
Luke:
Washington - (Washington certainly can deliver lines, there's nothing underneath the lines. It is just him rattling off the words without any depth into them. There was so much more nuance that could've been brought here in first of all a bit of modulation, he carries almost the same tone in his voice no matter what is going on, and maybe a bit of changes in his expression. There is a little but what there is, is pretty weak if not entirely lifeless. I barely gauged what his character's deal was other than that he likes to ramble in a very rambling way.)
Fisher - (If it weren't for his scene with Deadwyler where he actually found a bit of nuance in the moment I would've called this a terrible performance. As Fisher manages to be completely stiff yet feels over the top as though he's acting in a bad production of Grapes of Wrath. He just seems fake for the majority of the film and just a crafted person. Except again that scene with Deadwyler where he let's up and actually find something there for at leas ta scene.)
Potts - (Really liked his performance where he fully brings to life the distinct style just so naturally in playing the sides of his character from seeming a desperate charlatan to suddenly an earnest family man another. Potts brings a natural character to every moment he's onscreen and you instantly sense the age of his past of a man who still enjoys life even if quietly exasperated by it all the same.)
Deadwyler - (Again there were a few moments in her fights with Washington where I thought she just went a tip too far, something I think maybe a more seasoned director might've gotten her to pull back on. Having said that she is otherwise terrific in bringing the intensity of the character's belief that is attached to the piano. She brings this sense of traumatic conviction of her character that shows her defined by the family trauma as damaging but also combined with this certain ferocity where she stands against it. She combines this naturally with an earnest though complicated warmth and power to her work. She's particularly effective in terms of the way she exchanges her character a bit from each person in bringing out different manner depending on the man she's dealing with, the fedup with Washington, the empathy for Fisher or the bluntness with Hawkins. Then there is her climactic scene where she really goes for it, and in this instance it does work. In creating this nearly possessed quality to her work as she speaks beyond the current state and far beyond, Deadwyler finding that power in the moment quite beautifully.)
Hawkins - (I mean this is typical Hawkins work, in just being reliable as per usual, and this is him being reliable once again. Hawkins brings a nice unfussy quality to his work in portraying earnest concern but mixed with just the practicality of a man who is trying to make his wants known. He's effective though in his final big scene where he also plays into that intensity that Deadwyler is working with though a different more fearful shade and surprised quality that he delivers on.)
Erivo - (I mean glad she got another role that makes use of her talents as she certainly delivers on the songs, bringing the powerful passion to it that feels like such an essential facet of the character. She though of course acts in the songs but also outside of them. Erivo I think finds the right tone quite ably by avoiding becoming too much of a boring righteous type I think as Erivo nicely plays with moments of vulnerability with the sense of conviction. Erivo combines the qualtiy artfully to really sell those moments of earnest exposition related to the plot, wasn't my favorite aspect, but Erivo wholly sold it for me. Erivo though shines most with Grande as their anti-chemistry completely works from Erivo's reactions to her that creates a nice back and forth, then their chemistry also works in quiet moments of emotion that both carry along quite beautifully.)
Grande - (I don't know if this was just perfect casting, but regardless, if a performer pulls it off, one must give them credit for it, and I personally wasn't expecting to love Grande in this, however I absolutely did. And honestly I think a lot of her lines moments would be very easy for me to hate the character, particularly as she does hateable things for a good chunk of the movie, but I loved Glinda even when she was a brat. And it is because Grande's comedic timing here just absolutely on point selling the air head lines so beautifully and just being completely earnest in a comedic way that just sells every moment so successfully. Her performance though goes further, and this is why I couldn't not give her a 5, which is the physicality of her work. Grande's choices in every moment where she needs to do a ridiculous comedic movement with her head, her hair, just strange positioning of her body, Grande not only makes it completely work in character it is also just absolutely hilarious every time she makes one of these choices, and just surprised me ever time because really a lot of the choices are pretty bold to say the least, however the boldness pays off. However, she does despite making fun of her character the whole time in a sense, and successfully in that sense, Grande also manages to be earnest in terms of the emotions related to the piece. She pulls it off by making the sincere moments seemingly coming from the same naivety but just in caring instead. And the moments with Erivo, she brings a warmth that completely worked for me, building up the friendship naturally, without losing the character's comedic potential except when the scene rightfully calls for just connection which finds as well. Oh, yeah, she sings pretty good too.)
Bailey - (Manages to be a successful seeming meathead over the top quality in a very Chris Pine in Into the Woods way that works, while also settling that down for his moments of being purely earnest in other scenes. Bailey manages to hit both notes successfully without undermining either.)
Yeoh - (She manages to take seemingly the grumpy teacher type in her early scenes and tweak that just slightly in a way where it is more so revelation than twist, while also being still the twist which is nicely performed. She'd probably be a 3.5, but her singing is not good, and her performance behind the moment felt slightly awkward.)
Goldblum - (He's doing the Goldblum, which he CAN act without doing the Goldblum (in fact he did do so relatively recently in The Mountain), however in this instance just of doing the Goldblum, but it works. He's fun even if coasting, but he's coasting in that enjoyable Goldblum way he's found in recent years. When it's the right role it does work, which was the case here.)
Anonymous:
Deadwyler is supporting to me (it's a pure ensemble I feel), Grande is co-lead.
Calvin:
Yes, Chen being so unlikely is quite vexing.
Louis: From the contenders you've seen, how would you rank the cases of attempted fraud in the Supporting category this year in terms of egregiousness? And do you think it might be too difficult to convince voters for any of them?
Dirk & Luke:
Picture:
The Brutalist (Winner)
Anora
Wicked
Dune: Part Two
Conclave
Blitz
A Complete Unknown
Nickel Boys
A Real Pain
Emilia Perez
I REALLY need to try to hold in my ire on Perez, but it still benefits from being Netflix's main pony so I'm still not doubting it until it begins to miss (please!). Sounds like A Complete Unknown might be good enough to be an "old school" pick. A Real Pain I think probably has the muster to do slightly better than Past Lives. Wicked will be a giant hit (judging by my crowd), that helps and doing way better critically than expected, is only a boon to that.
Director:
Brady Corbet - The Brutalist (Winner)
Sean Baker - Anora
Denis Villeneuve - Dune: Part Two
RaMell Ross - Nickel Boys
Jacques Audiard - Emilia Perez
Right now predicting buyers remorse by voters with Perez (seeing sight unseen then drop it fast). But I will drop Audiard if any other foreign language contender is showing some heat for whoever is the director behind that. I think Chu will probably get in DGA, but will lose out with the director's branch. Berger possibly as well.
Actor:
Adrien Brody - The Brutalist (Winner)
Ralph Fiennes - Conclave
Timothee Chalamet - A Complete Unknown
Colman Domingo - Sing Sing
Daniel Craig - Queer
Still seems right despite A24 overload, which isn't unprecedented.
Actress:
Mikey Madison - Anora (Winner)
Cynthia Erivo - Wicked
Angelina Jolie - Maria
Saoirse Ronan - The Outrun
Karla Sofia Gascon - Emilia Perez
Definitely think Erivo enters the conversation, though I have a feeling we are going to get very different lineups in the precursors. You could argue for Kidman, Jean-Baptiste or Torres, and I wouldn't disagree. I will need to see Demi Moore get in at SAG to convince me she has a shot.
Supporting Actor:
Guy Pearce - The Brutalist (Winner)
Clarence Maclin - Sing Sing
Kieran Culkin - A Real Pain
Denzel Washington - Gladiator II
Stanley Tucci - Conclave
If Conclave shows any weakness will drop Tucci for Strong. Pearce, Maclin, Culkin and Washington are all looking good, even if Gladiator I think will only do techs outside of him, he rarely misses if he has buzz (American Gangster being the only example). Four locks already? No. But everyone else feels slightly fringe...for now.
Supporting Actress:
Danielle Deadwyler - The Piano Lesson (Winner)
Ariana Grande - Wicked
Zoe Saldana - Emilia Perez
Felicity Jones - The Brutalist
Saoirse Ronan - Blitz
If Wicked is in picture, Grande is definitely in, who knows could even contend for the win, as I'm not the only one who has sung her praises. Everyone else seems like in a good enough spot, though Ronan I think is on the shakiest ground.
Tahmeed:
Worst to least bad:
Kieran Culkin - A Real Pain
Josh O'Connor - Challengers
Mike Faist - Challengers
Zoe Saldana - Emilia Perez
Margaret Qualley - The Substance
Ariana Grande - Wicked
Natasha Lyonne - His Three Daughters
Though I don't think O'Connor, Faist, Qualley, or Lyonne seem *too* likely to contend at this point. I don't think it probably hurts anyone, because there isn't a sole lead pulling a fast one in any of the seeming major contenders since Saldana, Culkin, and Grande are all co-leads.
I really want the screentime breakdown of Wicked, because I wasn't sure just how much Glinda had vs. Elphaba. I think it's at the very least more borderline than any other example.
Robert:
At the very least I don't think it is horrendous fraud in the slightest, and by the construction of the piece, she doesn't have typical lead perspective so to speak. But if her screentime is less than I might've thought, sometimes performances that make a strong impact almost trick you into thinking they're in the film more than they are, I could potentially place her in supporting.
I have a very cynical theory that Pearce will lose because of his vocal protesting of Gaza. I also think the Academy might snub Gascon just out of plain transphobia even when they nominate the rest of the film. I'm not trying to get political with these predictions, but I'm noticing some... concerning trends from the industry at the moment.
Louis: How would you currently predict the screenplay categories?
Tony:
Original:
The Brutalist (Winner)
Anora
A Real Pain
Hard Truths
Saturday Night
The first 3 speak for themselves. Hard Truths seems like a return to form for Leigh, and the writing branch loves him, so I think this seems like a good bet. Back to Saturday Night now, as why not? You can sell me on many choices for the fifth spot, except Blitz.
Adapted Screenplay:
Conclave (Winner)
Dune Part Two
Nickel Boys
Sing Sing
The Room Next Door
I'm truly hoping the writing branch sees how terribly written Perez is, but even if they like the film musicals are often left off here (hence why no Wicked as well). First four all make sense to me, and Room Next Door as the passion push, though I considered I'm Still Here or The Wild Robot for that spot as well. If A Complete Unknown is considered good beyond just "standard musical biopic" good, it becomes part of the top five.
Robert: I'd agree with it maybe hindering Pearce from the win, but given how vocal actors like Ruffalo got in for Poor Things, I don't think he should miss out on the nomination entirely. Although there are definitely gradations to being outspoken, which I think could play a part.
Robert and Tahmeed: The main thing I would contribute to both your observations is that, as I'm sure many of us know, politics in the oscars are nothing new. And despite the ideal being the most deserving candidates recieve the recognition, often times the academy's choices are influenced by culture and contemporary issues.
Case in point, way back in 2000, there was a controversy regarding "The Contender", and Gary Oldman's supposed criticism of the film's left leaning bias. That story seems to be largely exaggerated, with Oldman's comments mostly regarding the editing of the film. Still, I would wager it possibly screwed him out of his first oscar nomination, despite giving IMO a better performance than his nominated co-star Jeff Bridges.
Mitchell:
I'll have to disagree, Oldman was always hanging on in that race (even if I agree that he was better than Bridges), as Bridges was already "in the club" as a multiple prior nominee, then Bridges, Finney, Phoenix and Dafoe were firm between Globes and SAG. Oldman lost out because Del Toro went back to supporting at the Oscars. Afterall, Oldman had already made those supposed comments before the SAG nominations, and there's no reason to believe the Academy at large would be more offended than SAG.
Louis: Fair enough. I knew that Oldman did recieve some precursors and was generally praised, hence the use of "possibly" screwing him to convey that it wasn't only reason he might've been snubbed. I do stand by the idea that the oscars have historically been a reflection - whether coincidental or not - of the political topics of their given time. As a broader example, I do know that "Milk" released in October 2008, shortly before California's "Proposition 8" law went into place in November.
Tahmeed: I think he'll get in, but I also think that even actors of Ruffalo's stature are going to find themselves suddenly finding less offers. I'm smelling blood in the water. There's going to be a more concentrated effort to silence anyone who speaks out of turn.
I don't know, maybe the Aaron Sorkin announcement the other day has me paranoid.
I think outspoken politics have less of an effect on nominations as people make it seem. Its never really been a thing.
Louis, why do you think Deadwyler will win? Particularly since The Piano Lesson is unlikely to contend for noms outside of Deadwyler, while Saldaña and Grande are in likely Best Picture nominees, where they have flash, debatably lead roles.
I think Berger ends up missing out on Director too, as Conclave seems more of an “Acting & Screenwriting” type of nominee. Same for Chu, as populist entertainment flicks (The Martian, Barbie, Top Gun: Maverick, etc.) don’t usually make it there.
Louis: WOW. 5 for Grande? Couldn't have imagined that for some reason.
Anonymous:
Grande I think can win, however she's going against the bias of being mostly a comedic performance. Saldana speaks perhaps towards my bias against the film, but even so her "Oscar scenes" are her "I'm staring at you weird while singing" rather than say the far more emotional performances of other Musical winning performances like Hathaway, Hudson and DeBose. Though something in both of their columns is this is the category where musical performance typically win.
But, I could see Deadwyler win like a Regina King or Alicia Vikander, where their films don't do amazing but their individual performance gets enough support for the win. She definitely has the performance that feels like a far more typical winner comparatively, and if the Piano Lesson overperforms at all (screenplay, or Jackson), then I think she definitely can win.
Of course much race to run, and I have heard much praise for Jones in The Brutalist, so this is by no means a set in stone opinion.
Louis: One interesting thing about the Taxi Driver scene with Scorsese is that, even though he's acting, he's still directing De Niro. He's directing him to put the meter down, not write anything and to look at the woman in the window.
Grande might also get backlash for the behind-the-scenes drama with her co-star, the Academy tends to be less forgiving of such scandals when it comes to women unfortunately.
Marcus: Could you give a past example? I doubt AMPAS - particularly the older, more out-of-touch voters - would really care or even know about it to begin with, to be perfectly frank.
Perfectionist: I have to say I was pleasantly surprised (maybe a bit shocked) to see that Louis liked Wicked on the whole at all. Based on my knowledge of the original musical, I really wasn't expecting it to be his cup of tea. I was already interested in seeing it, but his praise has me more intrigued.
Louis: Thoughts on Jean De Florette's score and cinematography.
So if your BP list is (almost) correct, that would make the THIRD time Chalamet stars in two BP nominees in the same year. For 2021, I’d have definitely swapped out Don’t Look Up for his other film that year which was Terri my snubbed, The French Dispatch.
I almost asked you about where you would rank AlienS in your Ridley ranking, but then remembered that Jane Cameron directed that one.
Louis, can’t remember if I asked this or not, but how do you rank the films and performances of Director Steve McQueen?
Marcus: is there any actual scandal/drama? Because I really cannot find a single thing that falls in line with what you're saying.
Calvin: No. I think it's just her getting a bad rep for being a "homewrecker" for apparently cheating with Ethan Slater on his wife. Personally, I don't feel like that affecting her chances.
Louis: Your prediction for Animated Feature.
Jonathan:
The score is stunning work and while inspired by Verdi, Jean-Claude Petit's work certainly exists as its own. The opening work summarizes the overall score so well as it begins with a dramatic, intense and tragic sounding ode of doom, that segues so beautifully to what sounds almost like a squeeze box playing out this gentle melody, backed by almost playful strings, that themselves builds towards suddenly something somber that is once again overtaken by the dramatic once again to denote the tragedy. Finding this balance that reflects the tone of the piece that has such simple beauty mixed in with tragedy. And throughout though the score mixes in these elements so potently and poignantly, which is simply fun at times, while also realizing the intensity of the darkness and sadness within. Particularly fantastic use of the instrumentation, where for example the melody that can be so hopeful in one moment, when made a single woodwind becomes so painfully somber and tragic.
Bruno Nuytten's work is some of the most beautiful cinematography, in well, almost any film. The lusciousness it captures in the French Countryside feels something out of a fantasy land with just how beautiful. With the lighting being so often this glorious golden hue that you can't help but be swept up within Jean's own dream because the land does look like something out of a dream as presenting by Nuytten. Immaculately framed and composed in addition to the vibrancy of the contrasting colors, that make truly every frame a painting in this instance, where there is just so much within every single shot here. It overwhelms in the best possible way because as beautiful as the nature is as shown, it overtakes the people in a fascinating way, as they are never shot above it, rather part of it. If that wasn't enough, there is also some exceptional moments of dynamic lighting that become more intense as they evoke the emotional mood of Jean, that somehow take this work even further in its dramatic beauty.
J96:
1. Mangrove
2. 12 Years a Slave
3. Hunger
4. Red, White and Blue
5. Lovers Rocks
6. Widows
7. Education
8. Alex Wheatle
9. Shame
10. Blitz
Matthew:
Animated Feature:
The Wild Robot (Winner)
Inside Out 2
Memoir of a Snail
Flow
Wallace and Gromit: Vengeance Most Fowl
I'll swap one out for Moana 2 if it is more than the episodic cash grab the trailers have made it appear to be.
Louis: Aside from Memoir Of A Snail, Flow, Vengeance Most Fowl and maybe Moana 2, are there any other animated films that you may have an interest in seeing before you finish 2024 in February.
Louis: How would you rank the 21st century Palme d'Or winners you've seen, from best to worst?
Luke:
I'll probably check out Transformers One at some point, and if anything obscure of note like Look Back.
Tony:
1. Parasite
2. The Pianist
3. 4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days
4. Dancer in the Dark
5. Anora
6. Shoplifters
7. The Tree of Life
8. The White Ribbon
9. The Wind That Shakes the Barley
10. Anatomy of a Fall
11. Triangle of Sadness
12. Dheepan
13. The Class
14. The Square
15. I, Daniel Blake
16. Titane
17. Winter Sleep
18. Blue is the Warmest Color
19. Elephant
Louis: Do you intend on seeing Fahrenheit 9/11.
Has The Tree of Life grown on you?
Louis: So it seems that none other than Martin McDonagh was attached to direct Conclave back in 2020, and was preparing to film it shortly before the pandemic. Thoughts on how different his approach might have been?
Robert:
I never hated the film, and always appreciated certain elements. I would say I've come to appreciate those elements all the more, perhaps have fewer reservations overall in terms of the elements that don't work for me as well.
Tony:
Substantial to the point I wonder if there's a script somewhere. Obviously he has always very dramatic elements in his scripts to begin with so it wouldn't have suddenly been a full comedy, and it would've been the first adaptation by him so I do think he might've tempered his idiosyncrasies a little. Still, wouldn't have been PG, and likely would've had a bit more fun in terms of the back and forth between the factions. And for me, likely would've resonated more by coming at a different, likely more potent, angle for the dramatic elements.
Luke, out of the likely 5 for Best Actor, who do you predict to finish from 1st to 5th.
1. Brody
2. Craig
3. Domingo
4. Fiennes
5. Chalamet (This has Rami Malek written all over it)
I saw Gladiator II last night, overall a pretty pointless movie that Denzel Washington pretty single-handedly makes watchable by being intentionally hilarious. I genuinely think he was treating the movie the way Alan Rickman treated Prince of Thieves, which is 100% the correct call.
Not great reviews for Moana 2? Damn 2024 was an L.
RIP Jim Abrahams
Post a Comment