Leigh Whannell did not receive an Oscar nomination for portraying Adam in Saw.
Leigh Whannell is the name you more likely know as the writer/director of Upgrade and The Invisible Man remake, who started out as a writer with this film, while James Wan directed this film. Whannell is technically one of the lead actors of the film, as we open with two men finding themselves chained separately in a dank room with various clues speaking to their circumstances. The other being one Dr. Lawrence Gordon (Cary Elwes with his most unconvincing American accent since Hot Shots!). Whannell takes on the role of a few upcoming writers or directors who star in their own films, sometimes this works, and sometimes there’s a reason the individual became better known for his behind the scenes work. With Whannell it is the latter. And honestly it is rare to be able to take on a performance that honestly comes across more High School level than film level at any point. Whannell tries hard, very hard as we open up in his scene of disorientation in the area and fear. The problem is the effort is more noticeable than the emotion. Whannell is effortful in every bit of dialogue he speaks. There is the raging attempt at portraying anxiety of the situation but it comes across as more awkward than effective. His expressions are either the emotion in the most thin terms of it, or very flat. This is most evident when Elwes is speaking, where Whannell could do much more in terms of alluding towards the truths of his character, craft a bit of internal life as he’s listening to this other man, but instead his performance is very flat as he struggles to do nothing.
As the film unwinds we find out that the two men are in a trap designed by an infamous serial killer who designs puzzles for their victims, victims he chooses as people not appreciating their life enough. The two men find out they’ll need to play his game to escape, as they have a hacksaw that is only good for their legs, and he wants to pit the two men against each other in their predicament. Where the plot thickens is that the men are connected more so than either thought, as Adam is a photographer who took pictures of Dr. Gordon was cheating on his wife, meanwhile Gordon himself was mistaken as possibly the killer by two extremely incompetent police detectives. These two get interconnected as Adam was hired by one of the two idiot detectives to spy on Gordon, giving a more direct reason of hatred. A revelation that isn’t performed particularly well by Whannell, who again tries to play it kind of casual of the man having a bit of an ego about his private detective abilities and a brief superiority over Gordon. Again though it comes across as trying hard, but not as a man posturing, but rather an actor who can’t quite hit the note he’s looking for.
The two do try to trick the game including a standout, in that it stands out as being extra bad, of Adam pretending to die from poison which pretty much looks like when Bugs Bunny pretends to be dying in a given battle with Elmer Fudd. One could counter my argument to say that Adam is supposed to be a bad actor so Whannell played it properly by being bad, but eh, that might hold more water if the rest of his performance was on point, or even more so if the immediate scene afterwards he does some non-fake (in movie reality) acting as Adam is electrocuted to show the obviousness of the ruse. The electrocuted acting is very similar to say when Homer Simpson is electro shocked, so still very cartoonish. The one bit of credit I can give him is towards the end of the film when all is revealed, his portrayal of his character’s physical pain and eventual complete panic stricken fear is decent. Not great, but at least somewhat believable, however this only stands out because before this point his work is far less than believable. There are worse performances than this one, but this isn’t a particularly good one. Though I’ll note that James Wan doesn’t necessarily seem to get great performances from his actors, as even the more seasoned Elwes sometimes struggle here, though maybe the comically bad “pale losing blood” makeup on him at a certain point didn’t help matters. Whannell could be worse but he’s not good here, and found his place appropriately as a decently talented writer/director.
65 comments:
Pretty much. And as much as I haven't really enjoyed any of these films, for some reason I keep watching them. Maybe just because Tobin Bell is so cool.
Louis: Ratings and thoughts on the cast.
Well, that was quick.
Do you have any active interest in watching Larry Sanders at some point? I ask because I'm considering getting your reactions to some scenes from it and I know you'd prefer not to see clips from show you haven't seen yet.
A friend of mine told me Saw X is the best one because it’s the only one where Jigsaw has an actual point. It’s also the only one where Bell is the actual lead.
Louis: Thoughts on this film's direction and screenplay?
Fwiw, as someone who only really kept up until Saw 3D/7, Saw 2 is worth a shot if you didn't hate this one. It has a more intricate (though of course very silly) plot, a solid balance of gore without overdoing it, and some of the meatier material Tobin Bell got. It's still very much a Saw movie, but one of the better ones.
I also enjoy 6 quite a bit, but that one is definitely a gorefest.
Louis: Your thoughts on the iconic "Hello Zepp" track?
Well I'll admit that I watched the first two films and honestly I do feel compelled to see the rest, I didn't even dislike Whannell and Elwes here and that aggresive, trashy 2000s editing, music and direction seems to be somewhat of the series' trademark and I weirdly appreciate that.
Also fyi Bell in Saw 2 is a 3.5 for me if you're planning to watch the sequel just for him.
That Bugs Bunny comparison ... ouch.
The story of Whannell and Wan is as inspirirng as it is a little sad. Two nobodys from Australia write a script to make it as a no-budget, but then risk it all by sending it in to the Hollywood studios.
Every studio wants it because it's cheap af, but not with them. They, however, don't want David Fincher to direct it starring Orlando Bloom (not my examples, i heard Whannell say that), and they have some producers trudt them so much that they create an entire new stusio branch just for this project.
The result: one of the most profitable movies in history, that begun the most iconic horror series of the 2000s, and a really successful directing career for James Wan. Leigh's acting career ... doesn't exist outside of James Wan movies and was so successful that he himself is a director now.
Like, you could legit make a pretty decent movie out of THAT ...
your thoughts on the final plot twist?
Tim: What's sad about that story? Sounds like things worked out pretty well for both of them.
You write a movie to set up your buddy's directing career and he hits it big.
You hope for that same movie to set up your acting career and it completely falters.
Sure, he got out of it and found success eventually, but i can't be the only one smelling the dramatic irony here
Never been big on the SAW films (or most of James Wan's filmography, which I've mostly experienced against my own volition), but it is interesting to see a performance from a modern franchise horror film analyzed here.
Louis: ratings and thoughts on the cast of The Roses?
Louis: Since someone asked about misconceptions when it comes to analyzing acting, are there any notas misconceptions you've seen when people talk about film direction?
Also, what are some examples of films where there is a notable gap between overall quality and quality of direction?
Louis: If you don't mind, your thoughts on 'Knights' from Shrek 2.
Tim: I guess maybe, in a certain sense.
Louis: Your thoughts on the cast of Blue Moon?
Tim: I don't know if he was really hoping for that much of an acting career. It wasn't a huge budget, he probably just starred in it to cut the cost down.
Louis: I'm glad you liked Shrek 2 and have to concur on Puss in Boots being my favorite part of the whole franchise.
If you don't mind answering, your thoughts on Accidentally in Love? (I assume you weren't the biggest fan, but I love the song).
Louis: So after The Big Sleep, Fox produced an adaptation of The High Window in 1947 with George Montgomery as Marlowe, but they also considered Dana Andrews, Fred MacMurray, John Payne and Victor Mature for the part.
Thoughts?
Ballad of a Small Player isn’t terrible, it’s just not good enough. The story of the degenerate expatriate gambler trying to find a win has potential, his ethereal relationship with Fala Chen has potential, his earthy relationship with Tilda Swinton has potential, it all seems like things that could be really interesting but the film never quite takes the win. It’s always on the border of it, but there’s just not quite enough meat beneath its glossy surface.
Farrell - 4
Chen - 3.5
Swinton - 3.5
Ip - 3
Jennings - 3
Just my opinion but I thought Swinton was terrible
Louis: What are your top ten horror films in terms of production design.
Louis: You watch Slow Horses this year? I had issues with the finale.
Luke:
Elwes - 2.5(There’s a greater general competence from him, however he too often seems to be trying very hard, against the problem being the effort is immediately noticeable. He’s particularly not great in his overly emotional scenes. When he’s more so working the situation in a calmer way, he’s good and overshadows his co-star, same when we see him as the overly confident doctor. Elwes is reliable in those moments, but the bigger moments he struggles here, in maybe what was a “take one due to budget” situation. I’ll admit I found it particularly comical when he was trying to emote covered in that terrible blood loss makeup.)
Glover - 3(He’s reasonably fine in trying to add a bit of genuine gravity to the situation particularly in his earlier scenes where he brings a convincing low key manner. Unfortunately when his character becomes obsessive I found Glover a bit less convincing on the whole. Not terrible but started to become just a little silly which contrasted negatively with his early scenes.)
Emerson - 2.5(Found he bordered on okay at some times, a little goofy at others.)
Bell - 3.5(His vocal work obviously has become iconic in its own right and it is impressive in instantly living its own striking impression every time he speaks about wanting to play a game. So when he does appear finally he does leave his impact albeit very quickly in this instance, but does so effectively in bringing the calm menace, that isn’t supernatural however he has a certain supernatural edge to the quiet pointed determination behind his performance.)
Anonymous:
The direction is an artifact to its period where almost any time it pulse a stylistic swing it does suddenly remind one of the “coolest” type of overediting from the period. Meanwhile the direction itself obviously struggles a bit with getting great performances from his actors, and technical elements are not great like letting that makeup be on Elwes when likely just having him just look unwell would’ve been a better choice. There are many elements that not only reveal budget but also limitations of Wan’s skill at the time. I wouldn’t say it’s all bad, there is a basic competence in some of the depiction of the grungy elements and more than that in the specific realization of the character of Jigsaw which has become an iconic horror character thanks to this initial realization.
The screenplay better aspects are more conceptual from the design of the plot, to the design of the “games” as various sets up for the character. The details as such which are imperfect but there was some attention paid. Beyond that however the actual character motivations are pretty limited, there’s basically a “flaw” to determine each person, and usually less than that. The actual interactions between the two men don’t really build up character wise, even though it should and the progression is more so the plot than the character. Has some ideas in here, even if limited at times, isn’t a great script but the appeal within did require some actual effort in terms of designing the plot as a game.)
Emi:
Another part of the film that I knew of long before I ever saw the film, particularly just use of reference even parody of the “all is revealed” scene. The bit is memorable and impactful as a random bit of intensity, albeit certainly very much within its period for specific choices of instrumentation. Those choices however do work in its theoretically overly dramatic but certainly effective way.
Matthew:
Cumberbatch & Colman - 4(Both are good and seem eager to make a go of their take on the material, which is much more to be pithy and witty in their very English way. Each taking an ownership of that and effectively finding the right tone. As they don’t go full comedy, though they are funny, but rather keep some reality with each hateful word coming with the venom of a real bitterness, and moments of reactions revealing some turmoil beneath the more overt insulting candor. You do believe them as this couple before the knives ever come out, which is pivotal. They’re fun together finding an actual chemistry even in the insults, in the way they cheerfully portray their hatred for one another at times, and creating a dynamic that elevates their material.)
Samberg and McKinnon - 2(Speaking on the opposite ends of things however are their main supporting cast. Samberg is no DeVito and I can like Samberg, but he goes for a broad note here that just doesn’t work. He always feels like he’s doing the sketch version of the cynical husband/lawyer, and never comes to life in any real way. McKinnon is much the same, with less material to work with but every note she plays doesn’t speak to any depth whatsoever. She’s always going for the punchline and in turn is not believable beyond the punchline…which unfortunately doesn't really hit that hard here either.)
Janney & Bromilow - 3(They probably have the most potential in terms of bringing some energy to the supporting cast, but bafflingly they both are barely in the film. But regardless Janney brings the expected intensity for the cutthroat lawyer and Bromilow the right reactions of horror to this terrible couple. Sadly they are not used beyond that.)
Marcus:
One major one is bigger meaning better with direction. As I saw somewhere people with a straight face saying how much better Jon M. Chu’s direction for Wicked was better than Baker for Anora, with essentially their reasoning being the spectacle of Wicked made it better directed, discounting so much of what goes into directing. And I think simplifying direction can be a major misconception, where just how many decisions come into play as Sidney Lumet stated quite well, where he essentially said the job was to get everyone in the movie to make the same picture. And everyone, means every department therein, but also every performance, every bit of cinematography then even the edit. AND the story. I think this is where there is the most grey area to talk about but an important grey area. As the director, unless a writer/director, doesn’t create the screenplay, they most certainly have an impact on it, unless of course it is a studio for hire job or something. Not just by cutting scenes, developing meaning in direction, utilizing actor improvement, but by having conversations with the writer in potentially refining the screenplay even if they’re not the writer. Again, so illuminating is the behind the scenes of Sorkin working with Fincher, where you see Fincher challenging parts of the script, an essential element that does not occur in Sorkin directed efforts. Although conversely sometimes the director can receive too much praise or the blame with scripts, particularly with fundamental elements, such as seeing some criticisms about very much essential writing bits of House of Dynamite being all put on Kathryn Bigelow, who isn’t absolved (and has many questionable directing choices in the film), but the rotten core of the script began with Noah Oppenheim. But that is why that is a particularly grey area.
I believe I’ve created a list for that previously in terms of films I’d describe as well directed even if I didn’t love them.
For the opposite, I think it is very hard to have a good film with bad direction. There are certain films where the actors/script shine more, but truly bad direction would get in the way of that. As say something like Groundhog’s Day, is very much built on Murray’s performance and the great script, but Ramis’s direction still needed to facilitate that, and even has its own moments in there somewhere, even if it is largely a workman effort. Again though that’s why workmanlike doesn’t necessarily mean bad.
Harris:
Cannavale - (He’s working with a trope, a trope I really enjoyed in this instance to the point I could almost go for him as the friendly earthy bartender who is the right kind of foil for someone like Hart. Cannavale I think hits that note pretty well without going too broad, having fun with it in showing a guy who in a way puts on a little bit of a tough guy bartender act for fun, though also genuinely is far more grounded than some of his customers. Meanwhile I think he has some great moments when you see his genuine concern for Hart at times just beneath the surface.)
Kennedy - (Also filling a similar role to Cannavale, though it works as an alternative, as someone closer to Hart in some sensibilities if a bit more reserved. Kennedy does something tricky but pivotal, which is making listening something compelling within a performance. Kennedy shows the way he takes in Hart, has certain reservations about him, but also genuinely becomes interested in his way, all of this largely in silence.)
Qualley - (I like her just fine I just don’t think she can make her drawn out conversation about an uninteresting bit of intercourse in any way interesting. Qualley’s though completely fine in representing the eager fan in some ways, though with a confidence beyond that. She’s decent even if I don’t love all the writing around her.)
Delaney - (Designed as a fairly simplistic straightforward guy, which Delaney delivers on this note without overdoing it at least.)
Luke:
Great bit from the Cops camera angles, to the brutality including the literal paper shaker in the eyes, and of course the planting of the catnip, though also Puss’s reaction that is hardly a full denial, plus the fact that is wholly a cocaine bag.
Tahmeed:
I don’t mind an upbeat love song that makes sure you want to know every bit of love in their lyrics. But as a definitely from the early 00’s rock band song in a pretty pure fashion from every bit of the instrumentation choices, which is a jaunty as possible, but honestly works in this instance, and I’ll admit the “come on come on” chorus definitely works as a toe tapper.
8000’s:
Well haven’t seen Montgomery’s take but they should’ve gone with MacMurray honestly, who I think would’ve brought a bit more humor to the part. Andrews could’ve worked though just dependent on if we get a livelier turn from him or not. Payne’s interesting in that I do like him in Miracle but really haven’t seen him in much else. So maybe. Mature’s a hard no, would be so boring.
Robert:
I did enjoy the season, but wouldn’t say this was one of their best climaxes.
Louis: I hated how annoying they made River this year. Like, what the hell was with his audacity in the last episode asking for his promotion? He came off as really entitled and whiny.
Also, the early part of the season seemed like it was going to do more with Shirley’s arc, and I’m annoyed they didn’t bother. Especially since she’s the team’s strongest asset.
Louis: in honor of the day, your thoughts on the screenplay to The Exorcist?
While watching it this time around, I realized part of what I loved so much about it is how while it's not slow-paced by any means, the level of detailing/interiority throughout is impressive.
This is especially comparing to some inferior modern films about exorcisms, I really appreciated how they establish the 'criteria' for a measure that extreme, and show the steps/hurdles so organically.
Louis: Before ending Lead, could you watch Red Lights and The SpongeBob SquarePants Movie?
Louis: Ratings and thoughts on the casts of The Ballad of a Small Player and Spinal Tap II.
Perfectionist and Marcus: I feel like you guys are low-key two of the most mysterious longtime commenters on here. So, I'd like to get to know you both a little better. What are some of your all-time favourite films? You can name however many as you like, no need to restrict yourselves to top 10s.
Tony: hahaha. Hey man. So I have been on this blog since late 2020/early 2021. I would admit, up until 2019, I knew almost nothing about movies besides Home Alone, The Dark Knight and Avengers lol, but because that was such a huge year for movies, it spawned a lot of movie conversations at my school and it led to my friends suggesting me stuff.
As much as people don't like Joker(2019), and I also know why it kind of won't age, it's what got me into movies. Slowly, I got really intrigued and actually followed the awards season that year, and immediately covid followed, so I had a lot of time to catch up to some shit(Coincidentally I started with horrors/slashers like SAW or Scream, and jumped to movies like American Psycho, Drive, Die Hard to more complex stuff thanks to this blog).
Nonetheless, I still think I am quite behind a lot of folks on this blog, and especially the engineering studies had stressed me out a lot the past couple of years to be able to catch up to a lot of modern cinema, I still have a lot of affinity for movies(in fact, 2024 onwards, I have watched a lot of movies from older times on different sites), and for this blog, and the guys on here. Even when you don't watch movies, the concept of ratings or "5 Jacks or "5 Mifunes" really fascinates freaks like me lol. Some of my favorite movies: 12 Angry Men, Back To The Future, The Conversation, Rear Window, Harakiri, Sunset Boulevard, The Maltese Falcon, High And Low, Ikiru, In A Lonely Place, Chinatown, Seven Samurai, The Shawshank Redemption, The Thin Red Line, In Bruges, American Psycho(yeah I still love this movie lol) amongst many more.... Welp, there goes the mystery.
Robert:
I would certainly agree there, even the way he interacted with his grandfather this season seemed a little pompous and disinterested. And the fact that he fact that he was willing to play up to Whelan of all people seemed out of character compared to previous seasons, particularly last where you would've thought his relationship with his dad would've humbled him a bit.
And yeah not returning to Shirley's instincts being right about Ho being targeted seemed odd. Speaking of, I thought this plot was going to expand Ho in any way, but I guess being a one dimensional prick will forever be his thing.
Conversely though did love Lamb this season, especially Oldman's Cold War monologue, the totally out of left field comical death, and what we did get from the team moments of Coe, Catherine and of course Shirley.
That was another issue: I honestly didn’t buy that Lamb would stick out his neck for Roddy in the finale. There’s really no reason to beyond the writers sticking to status quo.
I did love the Coens-esque death scene. Even better was the debrief the next episode. The Cold War speech felt very le Carre in a good way. Hopefully next season gives Shirley and Coe more screentime, they’re my favorite characters alongside Lamb.
Louis: Thoughts on the voices of John Malkovich, Peter Sarsgaard, Allison Williams, and Sydney Sweeney?
Tony: I found out about this place kind of by accident. I went down a rabbithole of Oscar winning speeches a few years back and found someone ranking all the nominees in a year in the comments. Turns out they were completely ripping off Louis's blog, and I've been lurking since 2019. I only really started commenting in either 2021/22, which was the first Oscars race I followed from start to finish.
Some of my favorite films are, no particular order -
La Haine
Do the Right Thing
Apocalypse Now
Mulholland Dr.
Dr. Strangelove
Seven Samurai
Moonlight
Battle of Algiers
Portrait of a Lady on Fire
Goodfellas
Marcus: I remember that fraud, he had Hugh Laurie in Blackadder as his profile picture.
Ah yes, Sir Lancelot McButt. Hate to admit it, but I also stumbeld upon the blog thanks to them.
Bugonia has an incredible performance by Jesse Plemons and a very good one by Emma Stone, other than that I’m not positive it worked for me. There were a lot of fascinating ideas in there, but the overall messages were kinda muddled to me, and there is one character in particular whose fate felt deeply unjustified for a moment of shock value.
has somebody ever found out who that McButt guy was?
I remember a few folks on here and myself called out that plagiarizing fraud on YouTube, and I hope they stopped doing what they were doing. Wild times on the blog, I almost forgot about that lol.
Hey Louis! Stephen Davis of Psifonian Awards is back from a hiatus! I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again; I believe you and him are in cahoots as your blog and his channel are about 90% identical. His winners and runner-ups are 9/10 times in your top 5’s. And his nominees always rank among your top 10.
I’m not trolling, just stating my observations.
I mean there was that time, in 2019, when the two lighthouse actors tied for #1, and then Stephen had them tied, but then I think you changed it after he posted his video. But then, I’ve also seen times like in 2012, when you ranked Tom Hanks’s performance in Cloud Atlas low, and then Stephen had that as his win. You might have only liked 1/6 or 1/3 of that performance, but it was winning for Stephen.
But I’ve also seen both of you shift your choices.
He is doing 2021, and I am looking forward to it.
I love seeing artists take inspiration from each other, and reading your blog to predict his videos is like tracking pre-cursors to predict the Oscars…… but/and sometimes, even better.
[Stephen (Psifonian), if you’re reading this, feel free to chime in.]
Perfectionist, Marcus: Thank you both very much for your responses. And Marcus, just in case you can't find LM's list of well-directed films he didn't love, it's under his review of Siddiqui in Raman Raghav 2.0.
Tony: Thank you.
RIP Diane Ladd
RIP Diane Ladd
RIP Diane Ladd
RIP Dianne Ladd.
RIP Diane Ladd
R.I.P. Diane Ladd
RIP Diane Ladd
RIP Diane Ladd
Regarding Bugonia:
Well I will disagree with the faint praise I’m seeing from some of my cohorts, as I pretty much loved this. Is it uncovering some great nuance within the ideas, no, but frankly I don’t care, as I was wholly swept up in the style of running with the idea of insanity, particularly as a realization of one’s trauma crafting essentially their own demented world view. A world view that is ideal to be realized stylistically by Yorgos Lanthimos. Although appreciating once again Lanthimos allows his performers to realize humanity within the insanity once again.
Stone - 5
Delbis - 4
Silverstone - 3.5
Halkias - 3
RIP Diane Ladd
RIP, Diane Ladd.
R.I.P. Diane Ladd
Louis: Assuming Stone is Lead, who has slightly more screentime between her and Plemons?
Tahmeed:
The Exorcist’s screenplay is one of its most important assets, though in itself a challenge where the novelist adapted his own novel. Where really the extended cut shows that while Blatty took appropriate steps to refine it into a cinematic form, there was still very much the scope of a novel in terms of the additional details. An element that is realized here though effectively I feel in terms of setting up the stakes, as I’ve heard some dislike the opening, though I love it as very much setting up the mythic stakes to the situation, the real notion of the monster, before jumping into what we see as reality, where then Blatty wisely constructs it from the point of view of the non-believer who is forced to believe in the slow insidious steps, where Blatty’s work shows the horror of the supernatural, but also just the horror of the cold clinical state of trying to find a way to help your loved one going through some kind of crisis that you don’t understand. What is impressive is so naturally intertwining it with Father Karras’s personal journey with faith that in itself builds towards the appropriately climactic exorcist, where that exorcism isn’t just the dramatic event, it is the specific challenge to Karras in so many ways where the climax is of course horror based but also very much specifically character based where the power comes from. I will commend his ability to reduce the role of Kinderman appropriately, but keeping him there as really an essential bit of levity in such a dark story.
Anonymous:
Farrell - (He’s giving it his all, from the fake refined accent, to the emotional strain of the part, Farrell is doing everything he can to realize the intensity behind the life of his character. Unfortunately there’s just not enough meat for Farrell to really find a path that would make this a great performance. The raw materials you can see within what Farrell is trying to bring to it, from the emotional desperation, to the moments of tenderness in seeking some respite, Farrell is truly trying to make the threads connect here, they are just too thin to allow him to make it something more than admirable effort to elevate substandard material. He is good, sadly that material keeps him from greatness.)
Swinton - (A weird character that seems interesting on paper, but the problem is that it is all too vague. Maybe this is on Swinton in terms of playing sort of this more milquetoast aspect to the character, then later this also lovelorn person, to maybe someone more incisive and sinister. It doesn’t really work, and maybe Swinton fails to provide the connective tissue, but I do think it is more so the screenplay, where the character is a whole bunch of interesting ideas that don’t cohere.)
Chen - (I wholly liked her ethereal vibe she was bringing even if that too is way too vaguely written for her to do much with it. Like Farrell, I could see where this could’ve been a great performance, but she has even less to work with.)
Jennings - (Probably the most complete character in that you completely understand this is just a sleazy guy, which Jennings brings a degree of enjoyable shamelessly to. Doesn’t add up to too much but he’s fine.)
McKean & Guest - 3.5(They get the most laughs, finding themselves back into playing the pompous ego and general eccentricity of both. They find essentially the best bits of improv to work off of. They don’t reinvent their old performances in any way, but they’re both good.)
Shearer - 3(Like Guest and McKean there’s just less of him.)
Franco - 2(Just kind of forgettable.)
Reiner - 3.5(Probably lost the least step in a way as his introductions are amusing by keeping that specificity of his delivery.)
Higgins - 2(Not funny bits as is often the case with him.)
Addison - 2.5(I found some of the bits around him were funnier than his delivery of the bits.)
McCartney - 3(The best of the cameo and his reactions actually worked in being lost by even David St. Hubbins’s ego being too much for him.)
The rest of the musicians cameos - 2(Not funny and also not really trying very hard in any direction.)
J96:
I know you’re joking, but Stephen and I merely have similar taste. Though I’d say the gap between our tastes probably has grown a bit more recently.
Harris:
Stone is lead, Plemons probably has slightly more screentime.
Louis: The Mummy 4 is officially happening with Fraser and Weisz returning.
Gun to your head, Louis: Best current actress to debut in the 2010s... Emma Stone or Jessie Buckley?
Post a Comment