Louis: Congratulations... you have completed the Hong Kong award for Best Actor Line-Up for 2004 Tony Leung, Stephen Chow, Alex Fong, Daniel Wu and Jackie Chan.
Your thoughts on these 2004 films? I was surprised by your decent ratings for the first two as I thought they'd be lower based on your ratings for their leads.
The Passion of the Christ The Phantom of the Opera A Series of Unfortunate Events
Louis: I agree for the most part, I will defend Alex Fong as a reliable character actor getting a meaty part however, even though he should have been nominated in Supporting. BTW could have been worse... you could have seen the Hong Kong 2004 Supporting line-up which Daniel Wu (despite losing) was the favorite to win.
All three I haven't rewatched in some time and really didn't desire to re-watch them during this time, which says something.
The Passion of the Christ - (I think Caviezel probably would be well cast typically but this depiction of Jesus is so limited to his suffering that it limits his performance. Anyway, my rating is based largely just on the striking nature of the overall aesthetic/vision even though I honestly find other depictions of the crucifixion far more powerful with far less violence)
The Phantom of the Opera - (The original rating was a mis-click, it's a 2.5 for me. Which it is mainly the musical which is pretty clunky, but maybe clunkier than it had to be given Butler's miscasting, though I don't hate it either, and one should note that Patrick Wilson has such a great singing voice.)
A Series of Unfortunate Events - (Found it occasionally annoying, occasionally slightly enjoyable but on the whole didn't fully grip me in its dark twist on a children's tale.)
Louis: Yeah, I just went back to "All I Ask of You", which is not a song I have any affection for at all, but I actually fully forgot or just plain didn't realize how good a singer Patrick Wilson is.
I actually just watched Ray today. I didn’t hate it, I didn’t even hate Foxx, but it was just as mediocre as Walk the Line. Granted, Walk Hard’s parodying of both films has made it nigh impossible for me to retroactively take either seriously.
Films To Watch Peter Pan (Re-Watch) From Here To Eternity (Re-Watch) The Big Heat (Re-Watch) Ugetsu (Re-Watch) Julius Caesar (Re-Watch) I Vitelloni Él A Geisha The Sun Shines Bright Summer With Monika Sawdust And Tinsel Gentlemen Prefer Blondes Hiroshima Crime Wave Older Brother, Younger Sister Where Chimneys Are Seen The Man Between Love Letter Wife The Wild Geese Thérèse Raquin The Bigamist House Of Wax The Proud And The Beautiful Sincere Heart Man On A Tightrope The War Of The Worlds Inferno The Titfield Thunderbolt The Captain's Paradise Martin Luther Young Bess Malta Story Torch Song The Beggar's Opera The Heart Of The Matter
Louis: Ratings and thoughts on: Ronit Elkabetz and Simon Abkarian in To Take A Wife Jung Woo-Sung and Son Ye-jin in A Moment To Remember Dana Ivgy and Ronit Elkabetz in Or (My Treasure) Werner Herzog in incident At Loch Ness Jamie Bell in Undertow Clive Owen, Jamie Foreman and Malcolm McDowell in I’ll Sleep When I’m Dead Stephen Chow and Yuen Qiu in Kung Fu Hustle Matt Damon and Brian Cox in The Bourne Supremacy Gerard Jugnot in The Chorus Ryan Gosling, Rachel McAdams and James Garner in The Notebook Phil Davis in Vera Drake Alan Tudyk in I, Robot Antonio Banderas, John Cleese and Eddie Murphy in Shrek 2 Jason Lee in The Incredibles Matthew Lillard and Linda Cardellini in Scooby-Doo 2: Monsters Unleashed Val Kilmer, Rory McCann, Christopher Plummer and Anthony Hopkins in Alexander Jeremy Irons in Being Julia Clive Owen, Mads Mikkelsen, Stellan Skarsgard, Stephen Dillane, Ioan Gruffudd, Ray Winstone and Joel Edgerton in King Arthur
Season 2 of Six Feet Under is better than the first one (less Billy, thank god); more plot-focused, the characters are deepened decently, didn't really like Frances Conroy's plotline though
Louis: can you add GZA, RZA, Roberto Benigni, Steven Wright, Joseph Rigano and Vinny Vella from Coffee & Cigarettes to your supporting ranking as well?
Louis: I saw The Whole Bloody Affair (which I dug even though I would say for me I still prefer the films as two separate installments), and I definitely agree with you in how the excision of the 'sequel hook' scene makes the later revelation impact resonate all the more even knowing what happens, and also the Pretty Rikki scene being fine but maybe not needed overall.
Anyway, if the film had been released as it is back in the day as one entire film, do you think its awards prospects would've changed at all? I feel like Thurman would've gotten a nomination in the end and maybe a few technicals (I think this is actually Richardson's best work with Tarantino and that production design too). Carradine I feel like would've not gotten a nomination in the end either way, struck me as someone who probably burned a lot of bridges in the industry - though it would've been funny if he'd hit all the precursors and missed in the end to say, Sonny Chiba (side note I feel like The Whole Bloody Affair makes his performance shine even more for me on rewatch because it does further emphasise how much of a hack/hypocrite Bill is in the decisions he made and how much of a loser Carradine plays him as).
Louis: What do you think of Rickman in Prisoner? I think he adds a lot of subtext to the way he plays the Shack scene. He plays it like he’s avenging Lily, and that brief flash of hurt in his eyes when Sirius makes the “chemistry set” insult seems to imply he was revisiting his childhood bullying.
2020s Atlantic City directed by Darren Aronofsky (riding the wave of Caught Stealing)
Lou Pascal: Bryan Cranston (could've also been a good retirement role for Michael Douglas tho he's 10 years too old) Sally Matthews: Elizabeth Olsen
2010s The Fugitive dorected by Christopher McQuarrie
Dr. Richard Kimble: Tom Cruise Deputy US Marshal Samuel Gerard: Josh Brolin Frederick Sykes: Holt McCallany Dr. Charles Nichols: Eric Stoltz
2010s The Shining directed by Mike Flanagan (note: this is meant to be a Kubrickesque version)
Jack Torrance: Matthew McConaughey Wendy Torrance: Rose Byrne Danny Torrance: Jacob Tremblay Dick Halloran: Richard Roundtree Delbert Grady: Jim Broadbent
Elkabetz - (Her performance is all about developing internalized strain for much of it. And she's terrific in showing the way just one word from her husband accentuates her stress that much more. Creating that sense of growing stress and anxiety. Something that she weaves throughout her performance in just showing it in the physicality of that pressure that begins quite and eventually leads to his explosions. Explosions that feel both earned and painfully convincing. As she shows just the intensity of the outburst of someone with absolutely nothing to hang onto in her life and creating just the extreme of her release fitting someone who feels she knows no way out and has no other outlet until it completely boils over in such an extreme fashion.)
Abkarian - (A rather effective performance in the type of role that can easily be overplayed. Abkarian though I think works because he’s not constantly at any kind of extreme. Rather maintaining this same kind of assured confidence in himself while also being horrible in his small ways. Abkarian presents less as artful sadism and more so as a man just being himself, and that as himself it leads to such pain for his wife. Abkarian presents importantly though the lack of self-awareness that shows he’s not purposefully being horrible in his action but at the same time is horrible because he has no sense of himself not to be.)
Jung & Son - (Together much of their work is creating earnest chemistry within the purposefully melodramatic model. I will say both achieve that effectively even with the less than perfect elements of the film. They find an honesty in the sense of love to create a backbone within the film. Then when Jung is playing within the melodramatic scenes he finds enough balance without going overboard within his performance in his emotional reactions, creating enough naturalism even when needing to deal with such extremes. Son on the other hand has a particular challenge in playing the worsening condition presented in a particularly melodramatic way. Son finding the real sense of confusion and attempting to find one’s self even when script wise there are degrees of convenience. Son does well with what she has, and while the melodrama certainly still exists Son makes real emotion out of it.)
Ivgy - (An interesting performance in playing the degree of age, innocence and growing lack of innocence within her performance. As the progression in the film is less about big moments and more of the gradual decay. Her performance manages to create the tragedy of it largely by just showing it as more so an innate nature of the situation that slowly bleeds into her actions. Ivgy playing into a convincing sense of the person just living her life much of the time and playing not to the heights of that extreme just this sad kind of recognition where going along with it eventually leads to such a painful road.)
Elkabetz - (An impression range within the two performances she has from 04. As she is in such an extreme contrast in playing very much into depicting this woman on the fringe in this instance. Elkabetz excels as such never for a moment feeling someone playing the part of the person at this dreadful existence. She simply is that and is more impressive in factoring the unique manner and disposition. Elkabetz is particularly captivating in creating this extreme behavior where she presents essentially this comfort in living on the fringe, showing the only real distaste when she is attempting anything outside of it. Elkabetz made this state eerily natural and found this foundation in her moments with the connection with her daughter. Something she portrays with honest warmth but even when encouraged to do more by her, there is this unnerving confidence in her wanting to make no genuine attempts to lift herself out of her current existence.)
Herzog - (It’s him doing his thing he does in his docs but completely straightfaced in the sillier context. Herzog best sells the whole shtick because he is so directly Herzogian and we just get the enjoyment of him being himself in that slightly comedic way. Sadly the film doesn’t really allow him to be pushed anywhere truly interesting despite starting with such a promising idea of getting Herzog to be in a silly situation, but regardless he’s fun to watch.)
Bell - (Does his best to keep the tones together by making the overriding concern just the sense of survival and care in his performance. Convincingly finding more than anything just the reality of each situation so within his own work there is no disconnect because Bell makes it all just based on that need and conviction to survive within his performance.)
Owen - (Doing his “noir” cool again for Hodges though with a bit more of an emotional undercurrent nagging the man as he goes about his revenge. Owen’s good in playing within the tone of cool the sense of real desperate emotion of someone truly suffering from his loss. The film sadly doesn’t do too much with this beyond a very basic level but Owen is good with what he has as a starting point.)
Foreman - (Brings such genuine emotion to the scene of dealing with the loss of his friend that he sells the movie better than anyone because man the heartbreak is real with his performance. Bringing that along though in playing the man having such real pain in his emotion as he works with Owen’s character for that revenge with that sense of grief as a constant. It’s a moving performance and an interesting show of emotional range for a frequent side player in a lot of these low budget British films.)
Mcdowell - (Just is there to be a creep in a few scenes. He delivers on that notion with a certain pompousness behind his hideousness but he really doesn’t have much to do here.)
Chow - (He’s okay but I didn’t find him that charismatic or that funny. I mean he’s mostly there to play the silly notes even when turning into the badass and as such I think he’s wholly fine but didn’t really come to life beyond that.)
Yuen - (Her performance is very funny in bringing that intense stern quality with the right comedic edge to it. Eventually however, transforming to her more overt badass scenes where she manages to play up in the right way of just how ridiculous it all is while still maintaining that same kind of “don’t mess with me” land lady presence. It’s an enjoyable performance that is very much the place where the film finds its ideal in terms of its tonal absurdity.)
Damon - (A natural enough continuation that is mostly about bringing the stakes to the action with just a little extra emotional investment in a few moments. I think he’s entirely as such here though I’ve never felt he made the investment greater than sort of the basic confines. He’s good but for me not a great action lead.)
Cox - (Enjoyable Cox being the sleazebag agency type with plenty of moments of him just smarmy it enough with a combination of a lot of side eyes and overly enigmatic “don’t ask” deliveries. He’s fun in a way that makes for a good villain though maybe slightly underexploited.)
Jugnot - (Has a mild charm to his performance although I thought fell into the bit of the overtly “lightness” of it all that made me not entirely convinced of his character beyond the slightly twee confines of the film.)
Gosling - (Fascinating to see him stumble around here a bit as he’s not particularly charming. I think almost Gosling is seeking a path to play the part and in turn probably emphasizing this stress quality too much and trying to be dramatic. So the non-dramatic moments feel very forced without the greatness of levity he would eventually be known for. Gosling here seemingly is treating every scene as the most important moment so in turn it only kind of works when the scene calls for that and when it doesn't he’s a bit awkward.)
McAdams - 3(I would say there is at least some semblance of charm of her onscreen presence here and there. I wouldn’t say she can make up for the character behaving as needed by the script more than anything, or the struggle to find genuine chemistry with Gosling but she at least does find some moments to just naturally luminate the screen through her presence. I wouldn’t say it makes it a particularly great performance as there are still awkward moments, but you can see her appeal to at least a degree.)
Garner - (Technically the best part of the film even if I think even his section is a little undercooked in a few parts. Garner brings a nice sincerity in just projecting the warmth of his character in presenting the old love of a man who won’t let up in that support no matter the situation. Finding even enough of a sense of the heartbreak in a few reactions to see when his attempts are getting through but still reaffirming that same sense of unquestionable care that is the constant undercurrent of his performance.)
Davis - (His performance really is just about naturalism as he doesn’t put a lot on the part as just a loving, caring husband who is just living his life. When the disruption of the status quo happens Davis is good not by bringing this immediate sense of support or horror, rather this quiet sense of confusion within the man as his life is turned upside down that eventually results in just being dutiful through the difficulty of this new situation. Davis maintains his performance very much playing closely in just this man of the period and the limits of it, and achieves within that specific confines of the character.)
Tudyk - (The performance that elevates the entirety of the film and the one that alludes to a far greater film. Tudyk's performance manages to allude to a secret within his vocal performance and create nuance within the character. Creating the slow build towards realizing the actually more sympathetic and heroic qualities of the android. Finding an essential humanity, right down to complicated sacrifice such as in the final reveal that Tudyk reveals by in those denials not making it singular false accusation but rather tricky complication.)
Banderas - (He’s just so much fun in the exuberance he brings to each and every word that he says. Managing very much to be the constantly boisterous heroic type in a way that sells the overinflated ego while also being genuinely charming still nonetheless.)
Cleese - (Pretty much doing his pompous regal thing that he knows how to do but not the most complicated work from him.)
Murphy - (More of the same from his first performance.)
Lee - (His performance I think importantly keeps the sense of the “fanboy” throughout the film even when he’s menacing it is with this degree of genuine interest with also bitterness of someone still fixated on being jilted as a hero more than anything. There is an immaturity within it but also a danger within that rather than a reduction of menace.)
Lillard & Cardellini - 3.5(Both manage to really sell the cartoon type in a way that wholly pays homage without seeming just like a pure copy either. It’s a shame it’s the material they’re working with because they’re both clearly game to run with the idea of their parts sadly, they’re not really given anywhere to go.)
Kilmer - (Probably has the most interesting performance where you see the man in power yet struggling to maintain control of his household. Kilmer portraying quite effectively this sense of frustrated madness brought upon by Jolie’s character, and alludes to a far more fascinating portrait of the most powerful man in the world essentially powerless in his own life.)
McCann - (Just quick bits but brings some genuine humanity to his soldier, something sadly vacant in most other characters.)
Hopkins & Plummer - (Both very generalized gravitas but they deliver on that minor request.)
Owen - (He’s trying but really struggling to sell his awful lines. In the end feeling more than a little lost in the mediocrity of his film.)
Mikkelsen - (Tries to bring the most nuance to a character without any real depth to him. He’s doing his part as best he can even as he’s shoved to the side consistently.)
Skarsgard - (Playing one note of evil, adequately.)
Dillane - (There for some quick minor gravitas, which he delivers.)
Grufford - (They really give him no real angle for his Lancelot, so he’s mostly there looking concerned.)
Winstone - (Very messy performance from him that’s all over the place and not in a good way.)
Edgerton - (Pretty awkward and stiff here without that presence he’s become known for.)
With Million Dollar Baby, I’ll say I don't love Eastwood’s lowlight aesthetic choices, Swank or Freeman’s performances. So make it brighter in parts, overall less excessive seriousness to the point of dourness. Bigger problem Haggis’s subtle sledgehammer script is what I mostly bristle at. Like Swank’s family coming to see her, I think you could’ve had them wearing Disney shirts, or even trying to hide them as a false bit of trying to hide their shame, but no they have to be wearing goofy hats that just makes it feel over the top and ridiculous. Same with like the “evil fighter” Maggie faces who just is so twistedly absurd that again breaks any reality I might feel around the characters. Funny how Rocky could flesh out the opponent and strengthen the film. Also remove Danger immediately…or re-write and a different performance.
Will Ray find a more interesting avenue in, maybe focus on one part of his life more clearly, one aspect, or more so developing relationships. Rather choosing the most obvious rote path after another. Deal with everything in a more genuine way rather have a quick bit really just to get to the next song in the playlist.
Finding Neverland is one where maybe I should check out the miniseries with Ian Holm as Barrie. The film I think isn’t horrible as the idea of using Neverland as the escape of the realities of life has some idea, although I think Barrie is written in such a twee way where he seems almost ethereal being and developing him as a more so a person who needs to escape his own reality could’ve been something more interesting.
J96:
Radcliffe - (The film that asked the most of him up until this point and quite the problem as such. Radcliffe was not up to the task and that isn’t just his big emotional moments like raging against Sirius which feels so thin and frankly false. But really so many moments when being told about his parents Radcliffe goes for a quick smile for a second then back to blank face. He goes for an immediate “one emotion” , doesn't stay with it typically and certainly doesn’t explore it. His reactions are limited, sometimes nonexistent, like when Sirius is suggesting they live together, this should be a whole new world of possibility and Radcliffe’s reaction is basically “oh cool idea I guess”.)
Grint - (I mean with Grint you have to feel sorry for how limiting they were to Ron in the scripts to just only focus on him as a comedic foil, Grint is forced into just that note and that’s unfortunate as I think he actually could’ve done more.)
Watson - (Her basic performance is that over-emphasis something that only gets her so far, and is less the more she’s out of just general exposition. A weakness that becomes more and more evident in each film. The limits become more noticeable the more asked, take the scene where Harry tells her about Sirius’s plan, and Watson is not a friend being there for her friend in his potential change in a happier life, she’s just kind of “ok cool” as well.)
Gambon - (Seems like he was still trying to figure out his take with Dumbledore as there’s the moments, not to the extreme of Goblet, where he gets a little too imperious and others where eh’s trying to bring the warmth of Harris and I wouldn’t say there’s quite a clear consistency within the sides.)
Oldman - (It’s unfortunate he has to play the scene as so ridiculous as he needs to be the “villain” in a way that doesn’t hold up to scrutiny so he just seems completely nuts in that scene and Oldman in reflection. He’s better in his later scenes as the gentle Sirius but unfortunately his major scene is that fairly silly one.)
Rickman - (Quite good with what he does have. As we get some nice exposition though where he does bring certain pointed undercurrents to the certain emotion when telling the students to be able to spot werewolves. Then in the shack scene Rickman probably lets out the most emotions up until that point, where he does allude to really the years of bullying when interacting with both Lupin and Sirius, the emotion is rawer in alluding to the vulnerability. Although his sweet revenge in Sirius has this triumphant quality of a man feeling he’s truly besting someone who has wronged him. Also just a good moment when protecting the kids from Lupin as werewolf where you see him switch from angry teacher to good teacher protecting kids in a moment’s notice.)
Thewlis - (The highlight of the film where you get a lot of genuine warmth and comfort from his performance with Harry. Doing so much heavy lifting in those moments when his co-star is not, and conveying a whole sense of history that goes beyond even just caring about the kid of his friends. As Thewlis, when speaking both of James and Lily, offers two ideas there with speaking of James with really more than just a friendly camaraderie of the past, and with Lily the vulnerability of someone truly with the sense of the outcast of the past. My only real reservation is he has to get in that silliness of the shack scene, albeit just briefly when he first meets Sirius and both are so maniacal for no reason, thankfully Thewlis drops it faster and gets back to being good after that point.)
Also just want to note: Why cast Julie Christie in that role? So random.
The VFX remains pretty impressive. Buckbeak and the flights around Buckbeak wholly hold up and have genuine magic to them. Really I’d say Cuaron’s direction perhaps shines most in working around the VFX so well, as the Dementors too also hold up really well as I think Cuaron smartly uses darkness to sell the CGI more than it would’ve otherwise, though importantly doesn’t make it because you can’t see rather just making them genuine blend within the environment. Lupin Werewolf probably holds up the least out of all the effects but is still quite good, particularly that the CGI manages to get emotion out of it, as I love just how sad the wolf is when the initial transformation is complete.
1. Prisoner of Azkaban 2. Order of Phoenix 3. Sorcerer’s Stone 4. The Half-Blood Prince 5. Deathly Hallows Part I 6. Deathly Hallows Part II 7. Goblet of Fire 8. Chamber of Secrets
Although important note I haven’t re-watched any other than Prisoner.
I have not, pretty good in retaining the style of the language for so long except about the ridiculousness of the conga, including Darcy’s rejection of the line which probably was my favorite bit from the sketch, leading quite nicely to the full breakdown of all pretense quite hilariously as Darcy’s had enough.
Calvin:
If it was released today I think it would be a huge nomination leader. Released then though even full, I think it probably still would have been too genre for the academy of that time. The fact that it couldn’t get even a stray sound nomination, despite BAFTA actually embracing Vol. 1 quite a bit, says a lot. It wasn’t until picture 10, where genre could get in more easily, that the academy embraced Tarantino again, as we shouldn’t forget he was even snubbed for an adapted screenplay for Jackie Brown which theoretically should’ve been more suited to the academy.
Joe:
Probably never for the latter two. Solo Mio has okayish reviews, so I guess I could be convinced in the right circumstances.
Ytrewq:
I’m always weary about Cranston going too big but maybe. Olsen would be a great fit.
All there are good fits for the Fugitive.
I think McConaughey actually could do more of a build anyways, but certainly could do the full Jack if needed. Byrne could play the fear. Tremblay likely would’ve been better in the role. Roundtree would be a great fit. Broadbent probably would be nicely creepy though I’d probably look for someone less recognizable for the part.
Matt:
Burrell - (A tough role I’ll admit to begin with as his whole character is designed just to be horrible. I think though there was room in moments to allude to the character’s fears within the situation to add a hint of humanity that Burrell doesn’t really go for. He really just emphasizes the jerk note consistently to the point that it just gets a bit much. Also his final scene was so stupid, “I have a gun, but I’ll just scream instead”.)
Paddy Considine in My Summer of Love Gary Stretch and Stuart Wolfenden in Dead Man's Shoes Roger Robinson in Brother to Brother Daniel Craig, Rhys Ifans and Samantha Morton in Enduring Love The cast of Dawn of the Dead Christopher Walken, Mickey Rourke and Marc Anthony in Man on Fire Tzi Ma, J.K. Simmons, Ryan Hurst and Marlon Wayans in The Ladykillers Gena Rowlands and James Marsden in The Notebook John Travolta, Gabriel Macht and Scarlett Johansson in A Love Song for Bobby Long Jared Leto and Angelina Jolie in Alexander
Everett - (Just a basic pompous note with his voice work. Delivers on the requirement but didn’t find it all that notable here.)
Anonymous:
Considine - 4(Considine is working with a role where every development feels fairly expected from devote to deranged essentially. Considine though I think manages to find a path not to become overwrought. Bringing the same kind of intensity in the first half of a man who needs to desperately hold onto that quality of himself to not fall to his lesser behaviors. Something we see in the second half where it is the same kind of intensity just funneled in a different direction.)
Stretch - (His performance is interesting in basically creating the “villain” of the piece and starting with this degree of confidence where you would believe he will be the bad guy for your typical thriller. He’s convincing as such then slowly this idea wanes away so effectively in his performance as he frankly becomes increasingly less confident and even goofy in a way. To reveal a man who isn’t at all tough particularly when we see him facing off as the authentic killer.)
Wolfenden - (Less the most sympathetic but rather the least confident as even any kind of pretend killer. Playing effectively the increasing sense of fear as it becomes increasingly clear that the man they’re dealing with is in no way a simple problem. His best scene being his last one with Considine and is essential to creating the visceral terror as it’s hard not to feel bad by just how completely petrified he is and basically shrinking to this nothing with such a terrible false hope in his eyes that he might be spared.)
Robinson - (Brings an interesting reflective quality of someone who has lived through a lot. Robinson creates a contrast between the sense of nostalgia with frankly a sense of nostalgia. Finding a compelling sense of that history he has been through that frankly creates a better sense of it than the literal scenes we see of the past. This is to the point you’d wish the film would stick to conversations with him but the film sadly does not.)
Craig - (Doesn’t have a terribly interesting role of just seeming dour yet slightly pompous in his intellectualism. Where he maintains that tone through almost the whole film till the very end where he brings some genuine emotion which he’s good at, but it takes a bit too long to get there.)
Ifans - (A strange character to be sure however Ifans does deliver in creating an effective unnerving energy of someone who just seems to be a little too enthusiastic that slowly develops towards obsession. Within that obsession going from seeming just annoying towards genuinely dangerous which Ifans delivers with the right kind of growing intensity and a slight shift that means quite a bit.)
Morton - 3(Mostly there just to seem slightly concerned for much of the film. She delivers on that well enough but a little too simplistic of a role.)
Rhames brings some nice gravitas, Polley goes from slightly awkward to good throughout the film, Weber comes off as a discount lead though he’s not terrible, Kelly has a better role than most but found him like Polley, Phifer begins with an interesting premise is delivering on the strangeness of it but then the film pushes him in a dull direction and he becomes pretty dull with it as well without really selling properly as a mental break mania.
Walken - (I mean it’s Walken when he’s not coasting, so he’s good and I was so happy when he wasn’t a twist villain. Walken brings an effortless combination between his own sense of an old school badass presence where you see how he and Washington both were in the past, but there is also a real sense of warmth in some of his interaction with him, even his later “sell” about his revenge. Walken plays it all as a true friend.)
Rourke - (Doesn’t really have much to do other than some exposition with his presence, which is appreciated but not really a great use of him.)
Anthony - (Could be worse all things considered as he has a basic functionality of his performance, but the more is asked of him the less convincing he is. His last scene in particular is where a greater actor could’ve done a lot more where he’s just okay.)
Ma - (Found him the one sidekick that worked in largely just reaction shots, however found his reaction shots consistently amusing, with his whole sell of the cigarette bit being some effortless physical comedy from him.)
Simmons - (In a rare instance found him just kind of forced in his comedy and the whole mountain girl bit reminded of recent Ethan Coen. Simmons though just fell into goofy rather than funny for me which is surprising as typically him doing comedy is gold for me.)
Hurst - (Playing dumb is an artform and he’s not Van Gogh here. Just didn’t find his attempt at it particularly amusing.)
Wayans - (Found his style of performance honestly ill-fitting to the nature of the Coens frankly as it felt like he was playing towards studio comedy style, although regardless didn’t find him particularly amusing.)
Rowlands - 3.5(Her role is pretty thankless as mostly she’s just playing looking lost. I think she does that well enough but as performances depicting the condition she’s just working with far less material. In her one other type of scene she’s good in the moment clarity and then the intense fear, but again just the writing lets her only do so much.)
Marsden - (Standard Marsden required as the good guy who is secondary because he’s Marsden. I appreciate that he doesn’t add any negative qualities and in his final scene playing just properly as a “Come one!” given the situation.)
Travolta - (He gets instantly tiresome in playing this totally contrived character who is supposed to be essentially a hillbilly intellectual. That contrast just feels totally false and Travolta doesn’t help matters. Every line he delivers feels overcooked and just with the effort quiet display of someone trying to deliver this great performance. When he gets emotional it is only worse and again feels like the type of phony “Oscar clip” moments rather than genuinely finding honest emotion within a character.)
Macht - (His role might be even more contrived and Macht is just rather bland.)
Johansson - 3(She’s actually okay here in that any life I did find in the film was from her. Not that I would say she’s great by any means but I at least believed on a basic functional level which is more than I can say about her co-stars.)
I already talked about Jolie.
Leto - (Just bland and stilted throughout. Doesn’t sell the role or the period or the tone.)
Ytrewq:
Paul Newman Nicholas Hoult Colin Farrell Charlize Theron Walter Huston William Holden Melvyn Douglas Nick Nolte Gregory Peck Dev Patel
62 comments:
1. Stewart
2. Ryū
3. Hawkins
4. Boyer
5. Hasegawa
Louis: Congratulations... you have completed the Hong Kong award for Best Actor Line-Up for 2004
Tony Leung, Stephen Chow, Alex Fong, Daniel Wu and Jackie Chan.
1. Ryū
2. Stewart
3. Hawkins
4. Boyer
5. Hasegawa
RatedRStar:
I see. That is almost to a comical extreme of how much Leung is in a wholly different league compared to his competition.
Your thoughts on these 2004 films? I was surprised by your decent ratings for the first two as I thought they'd be lower based on your ratings for their leads.
The Passion of the Christ
The Phantom of the Opera
A Series of Unfortunate Events
Louis: I agree for the most part, I will defend Alex Fong as a reliable character actor getting a meaty part however, even though he should have been nominated in Supporting. BTW could have been worse... you could have seen the Hong Kong 2004 Supporting line-up which Daniel Wu (despite losing) was the favorite to win.
I have seen mostly every Hong Kong acting line-up, 2004 Supporting Actor might actually be the worst ever lol.
1. Stewart
2. Ryu
3. Hawkins
4. Boyer
5. Hasegawa
1. Ryu
2. Stewart
3. Hawkins
4. Boyer
5. Hasegawa
The actress who plaid S***n in Passion of the Christ was who Psifonian chose for this runner-up in 2004.
Louis, your double-features for the 1953 BP nominees?
Harris:
All three I haven't rewatched in some time and really didn't desire to re-watch them during this time, which says something.
The Passion of the Christ - (I think Caviezel probably would be well cast typically but this depiction of Jesus is so limited to his suffering that it limits his performance. Anyway, my rating is based largely just on the striking nature of the overall aesthetic/vision even though I honestly find other depictions of the crucifixion far more powerful with far less violence)
The Phantom of the Opera - (The original rating was a mis-click, it's a 2.5 for me. Which it is mainly the musical which is pretty clunky, but maybe clunkier than it had to be given Butler's miscasting, though I don't hate it either, and one should note that Patrick Wilson has such a great singing voice.)
A Series of Unfortunate Events - (Found it occasionally annoying, occasionally slightly enjoyable but on the whole didn't fully grip me in its dark twist on a children's tale.)
J96:
From Here to Eternity/The Thin Red Line
Julius Caesar/Jesus Christ Superstar
The Robe/The Mission
Roman Holiday/It Happened One Night
Shane/Unforgiven
Louis: Yeah, I just went back to "All I Ask of You", which is not a song I have any affection for at all, but I actually fully forgot or just plain didn't realize how good a singer Patrick Wilson is.
It always boggles my mind that Banderas didn’t get to play the Phantom.
Robert: Ooooooooh man.
Yeah that's kind of what I suspected regarding your rating for Phantom.
To the best of your memory, how would you have improved Million Dollar Baby, Ray and Finding Neverland as films?
I think Million Dollar Baby is great *shrug*
I actually just watched Ray today. I didn’t hate it, I didn’t even hate Foxx, but it was just as mediocre as Walk the Line. Granted, Walk Hard’s parodying of both films has made it nigh impossible for me to retroactively take either seriously.
The most damning thing I can say about Ray is that Booger from Revenge of the Nerds gives the most layered performance.
Films To Watch
Peter Pan (Re-Watch)
From Here To Eternity (Re-Watch)
The Big Heat (Re-Watch)
Ugetsu (Re-Watch)
Julius Caesar (Re-Watch)
I Vitelloni
Él
A Geisha
The Sun Shines Bright
Summer With Monika
Sawdust And Tinsel
Gentlemen Prefer Blondes
Hiroshima
Crime Wave
Older Brother, Younger Sister
Where Chimneys Are Seen
The Man Between
Love Letter
Wife
The Wild Geese
Thérèse Raquin
The Bigamist
House Of Wax
The Proud And The Beautiful
Sincere Heart
Man On A Tightrope
The War Of The Worlds
Inferno
The Titfield Thunderbolt
The Captain's Paradise
Martin Luther
Young Bess
Malta Story
Torch Song
The Beggar's Opera
The Heart Of The Matter
Louis: Ratings and thoughts on:
Ronit Elkabetz and Simon Abkarian in To Take A Wife
Jung Woo-Sung and Son Ye-jin in A Moment To Remember
Dana Ivgy and Ronit Elkabetz in Or (My Treasure)
Werner Herzog in incident At Loch Ness
Jamie Bell in Undertow
Clive Owen, Jamie Foreman and Malcolm McDowell in I’ll Sleep When I’m Dead
Stephen Chow and Yuen Qiu in Kung Fu Hustle
Matt Damon and Brian Cox in The Bourne Supremacy
Gerard Jugnot in The Chorus
Ryan Gosling, Rachel McAdams and James Garner in The Notebook
Phil Davis in Vera Drake
Alan Tudyk in I, Robot
Antonio Banderas, John Cleese and Eddie Murphy in Shrek 2
Jason Lee in The Incredibles
Matthew Lillard and Linda Cardellini in Scooby-Doo 2: Monsters Unleashed
Val Kilmer, Rory McCann, Christopher Plummer and Anthony Hopkins in Alexander
Jeremy Irons in Being Julia
Clive Owen, Mads Mikkelsen, Stellan Skarsgard, Stephen Dillane, Ioan Gruffudd, Ray Winstone and Joel Edgerton in King Arthur
1. Ryu
2. Stewart
3. Hawkins
4. Hasegawa
5. Boyer
Louis, thoughts on the performances of Prisoner of Azkaban? I particularly remember Thewlis being in your top 10 performances in a Cuarón film.
Also thoughts on the VFX? And then your rankings of the HP films?
Louis: You ever see this sketch? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WSeEYFD1pXs
Season 2 of Six Feet Under is better than the first one (less Billy, thank god); more plot-focused, the characters are deepened decently, didn't really like Frances Conroy's plotline though
MVP Rachel Griffiths
Luke, rating predictions.
Ryu - 5
Stewart - 5
Hawkins - 4.5/5 (probably his career best)
Boyer - 4.5
Hasegawa - 4.5
1. Boyer
2. Hawkins
3. Stewart
4. Ryu
5. Hasegawa
Louis: Could you add Rupert Everett in Shrek 2 and Ryan Hurst in The Ladykillers to your supporting ranking?
Louis: can you add GZA, RZA, Roberto Benigni, Steven Wright, Joseph Rigano and Vinny Vella from Coffee & Cigarettes to your supporting ranking as well?
1. Hawkins
2. Stewart
3. Ryu
4. Boyer
5. Hasegawa
Louis: I saw The Whole Bloody Affair (which I dug even though I would say for me I still prefer the films as two separate installments), and I definitely agree with you in how the excision of the 'sequel hook' scene makes the later revelation impact resonate all the more even knowing what happens, and also the Pretty Rikki scene being fine but maybe not needed overall.
Anyway, if the film had been released as it is back in the day as one entire film, do you think its awards prospects would've changed at all? I feel like Thurman would've gotten a nomination in the end and maybe a few technicals (I think this is actually Richardson's best work with Tarantino and that production design too). Carradine I feel like would've not gotten a nomination in the end either way, struck me as someone who probably burned a lot of bridges in the industry - though it would've been funny if he'd hit all the precursors and missed in the end to say, Sonny Chiba (side note I feel like The Whole Bloody Affair makes his performance shine even more for me on rewatch because it does further emphasise how much of a hack/hypocrite Bill is in the decisions he made and how much of a loser Carradine plays him as).
Louis: What do you think of Rickman in Prisoner? I think he adds a lot of subtext to the way he plays the Shack scene. He plays it like he’s avenging Lily, and that brief flash of hurt in his eyes when Sirius makes the “chemistry set” insult seems to imply he was revisiting his childhood bullying.
1. Ryū
2. Stewart
3. Boyer
4. Hawkins
5. Hasegawa
Pretty big gap between the first two and the other three for me personally.
I'm a Gate of Hell fan and I'm hoping Hasegawa gets a 5.
Louie, when will you watch Solo Mio, Balls Up and Busboys? And your past directing choices for Frank Coraci, Ari Aster, Steven Brill and Dennis Dugan?
Louis: Matt requested Delroy Lindo in Clockers.
My winning request qould be Miles Teller in Whiplash
Louis: My winning requests are:
Jules Berry - The Crime of Monsieur Lange (1936)
Sydney Greenstreet and Peter Lorre - The Verdict (1946)
Louis: Thoughts on these hypothetical casts?
2020s Atlantic City directed by Darren Aronofsky (riding the wave of Caught Stealing)
Lou Pascal: Bryan Cranston (could've also been a good retirement role for Michael Douglas tho he's 10 years too old)
Sally Matthews: Elizabeth Olsen
2010s The Fugitive dorected by Christopher McQuarrie
Dr. Richard Kimble: Tom Cruise
Deputy US Marshal Samuel Gerard: Josh Brolin
Frederick Sykes: Holt McCallany
Dr. Charles Nichols: Eric Stoltz
2010s The Shining directed by Mike Flanagan (note: this is meant to be a Kubrickesque version)
Jack Torrance: Matthew McConaughey
Wendy Torrance: Rose Byrne
Danny Torrance: Jacob Tremblay
Dick Halloran: Richard Roundtree
Delbert Grady: Jim Broadbent
5º Kazuo Hasegawa
4º Charles Boyer
3º Jack Hawkins
2º Chishū Ryū
1º James Stewart
Louis: Thoughts on Phil Dun...I mean, Ty Burrell in Dawn of the Dead?
Luke:
Elkabetz - (Her performance is all about developing internalized strain for much of it. And she's terrific in showing the way just one word from her husband accentuates her stress that much more. Creating that sense of growing stress and anxiety. Something that she weaves throughout her performance in just showing it in the physicality of that pressure that begins quite and eventually leads to his explosions. Explosions that feel both earned and painfully convincing. As she shows just the intensity of the outburst of someone with absolutely nothing to hang onto in her life and creating just the extreme of her release fitting someone who feels she knows no way out and has no other outlet until it completely boils over in such an extreme fashion.)
Abkarian - (A rather effective performance in the type of role that can easily be overplayed. Abkarian though I think works because he’s not constantly at any kind of extreme. Rather maintaining this same kind of assured confidence in himself while also being horrible in his small ways. Abkarian presents less as artful sadism and more so as a man just being himself, and that as himself it leads to such pain for his wife. Abkarian presents importantly though the lack of self-awareness that shows he’s not purposefully being horrible in his action but at the same time is horrible because he has no sense of himself not to be.)
Jung & Son - (Together much of their work is creating earnest chemistry within the purposefully melodramatic model. I will say both achieve that effectively even with the less than perfect elements of the film. They find an honesty in the sense of love to create a backbone within the film. Then when Jung is playing within the melodramatic scenes he finds enough balance without going overboard within his performance in his emotional reactions, creating enough naturalism even when needing to deal with such extremes. Son on the other hand has a particular challenge in playing the worsening condition presented in a particularly melodramatic way. Son finding the real sense of confusion and attempting to find one’s self even when script wise there are degrees of convenience. Son does well with what she has, and while the melodrama certainly still exists Son makes real emotion out of it.)
Ivgy - (An interesting performance in playing the degree of age, innocence and growing lack of innocence within her performance. As the progression in the film is less about big moments and more of the gradual decay. Her performance manages to create the tragedy of it largely by just showing it as more so an innate nature of the situation that slowly bleeds into her actions. Ivgy playing into a convincing sense of the person just living her life much of the time and playing not to the heights of that extreme just this sad kind of recognition where going along with it eventually leads to such a painful road.)
Elkabetz - (An impression range within the two performances she has from 04. As she is in such an extreme contrast in playing very much into depicting this woman on the fringe in this instance. Elkabetz excels as such never for a moment feeling someone playing the part of the person at this dreadful existence. She simply is that and is more impressive in factoring the unique manner and disposition. Elkabetz is particularly captivating in creating this extreme behavior where she presents essentially this comfort in living on the fringe, showing the only real distaste when she is attempting anything outside of it. Elkabetz made this state eerily natural and found this foundation in her moments with the connection with her daughter. Something she portrays with honest warmth but even when encouraged to do more by her, there is this unnerving confidence in her wanting to make no genuine attempts to lift herself out of her current existence.)
Herzog - (It’s him doing his thing he does in his docs but completely straightfaced in the sillier context. Herzog best sells the whole shtick because he is so directly Herzogian and we just get the enjoyment of him being himself in that slightly comedic way. Sadly the film doesn’t really allow him to be pushed anywhere truly interesting despite starting with such a promising idea of getting Herzog to be in a silly situation, but regardless he’s fun to watch.)
Bell - (Does his best to keep the tones together by making the overriding concern just the sense of survival and care in his performance. Convincingly finding more than anything just the reality of each situation so within his own work there is no disconnect because Bell makes it all just based on that need and conviction to survive within his performance.)
Owen - (Doing his “noir” cool again for Hodges though with a bit more of an emotional undercurrent nagging the man as he goes about his revenge. Owen’s good in playing within the tone of cool the sense of real desperate emotion of someone truly suffering from his loss. The film sadly doesn’t do too much with this beyond a very basic level but Owen is good with what he has as a starting point.)
Foreman - (Brings such genuine emotion to the scene of dealing with the loss of his friend that he sells the movie better than anyone because man the heartbreak is real with his performance. Bringing that along though in playing the man having such real pain in his emotion as he works with Owen’s character for that revenge with that sense of grief as a constant. It’s a moving performance and an interesting show of emotional range for a frequent side player in a lot of these low budget British films.)
Mcdowell - (Just is there to be a creep in a few scenes. He delivers on that notion with a certain pompousness behind his hideousness but he really doesn’t have much to do here.)
Chow - (He’s okay but I didn’t find him that charismatic or that funny. I mean he’s mostly there to play the silly notes even when turning into the badass and as such I think he’s wholly fine but didn’t really come to life beyond that.)
Yuen - (Her performance is very funny in bringing that intense stern quality with the right comedic edge to it. Eventually however, transforming to her more overt badass scenes where she manages to play up in the right way of just how ridiculous it all is while still maintaining that same kind of “don’t mess with me” land lady presence. It’s an enjoyable performance that is very much the place where the film finds its ideal in terms of its tonal absurdity.)
Damon - (A natural enough continuation that is mostly about bringing the stakes to the action with just a little extra emotional investment in a few moments. I think he’s entirely as such here though I’ve never felt he made the investment greater than sort of the basic confines. He’s good but for me not a great action lead.)
Cox - (Enjoyable Cox being the sleazebag agency type with plenty of moments of him just smarmy it enough with a combination of a lot of side eyes and overly enigmatic “don’t ask” deliveries. He’s fun in a way that makes for a good villain though maybe slightly underexploited.)
Jugnot - (Has a mild charm to his performance although I thought fell into the bit of the overtly “lightness” of it all that made me not entirely convinced of his character beyond the slightly twee confines of the film.)
Gosling - (Fascinating to see him stumble around here a bit as he’s not particularly charming. I think almost Gosling is seeking a path to play the part and in turn probably emphasizing this stress quality too much and trying to be dramatic. So the non-dramatic moments feel very forced without the greatness of levity he would eventually be known for. Gosling here seemingly is treating every scene as the most important moment so in turn it only kind of works when the scene calls for that and when it doesn't he’s a bit awkward.)
McAdams - 3(I would say there is at least some semblance of charm of her onscreen presence here and there. I wouldn’t say she can make up for the character behaving as needed by the script more than anything, or the struggle to find genuine chemistry with Gosling but she at least does find some moments to just naturally luminate the screen through her presence. I wouldn’t say it makes it a particularly great performance as there are still awkward moments, but you can see her appeal to at least a degree.)
Garner - (Technically the best part of the film even if I think even his section is a little undercooked in a few parts. Garner brings a nice sincerity in just projecting the warmth of his character in presenting the old love of a man who won’t let up in that support no matter the situation. Finding even enough of a sense of the heartbreak in a few reactions to see when his attempts are getting through but still reaffirming that same sense of unquestionable care that is the constant undercurrent of his performance.)
Davis - (His performance really is just about naturalism as he doesn’t put a lot on the part as just a loving, caring husband who is just living his life. When the disruption of the status quo happens Davis is good not by bringing this immediate sense of support or horror, rather this quiet sense of confusion within the man as his life is turned upside down that eventually results in just being dutiful through the difficulty of this new situation. Davis maintains his performance very much playing closely in just this man of the period and the limits of it, and achieves within that specific confines of the character.)
Tudyk - (The performance that elevates the entirety of the film and the one that alludes to a far greater film. Tudyk's performance manages to allude to a secret within his vocal performance and create nuance within the character. Creating the slow build towards realizing the actually more sympathetic and heroic qualities of the android. Finding an essential humanity, right down to complicated sacrifice such as in the final reveal that Tudyk reveals by in those denials not making it singular false accusation but rather tricky complication.)
Banderas - (He’s just so much fun in the exuberance he brings to each and every word that he says. Managing very much to be the constantly boisterous heroic type in a way that sells the overinflated ego while also being genuinely charming still nonetheless.)
Cleese - (Pretty much doing his pompous regal thing that he knows how to do but not the most complicated work from him.)
Murphy - (More of the same from his first performance.)
Lee - (His performance I think importantly keeps the sense of the “fanboy” throughout the film even when he’s menacing it is with this degree of genuine interest with also bitterness of someone still fixated on being jilted as a hero more than anything. There is an immaturity within it but also a danger within that rather than a reduction of menace.)
Lillard & Cardellini - 3.5(Both manage to really sell the cartoon type in a way that wholly pays homage without seeming just like a pure copy either. It’s a shame it’s the material they’re working with because they’re both clearly game to run with the idea of their parts sadly, they’re not really given anywhere to go.)
Kilmer - (Probably has the most interesting performance where you see the man in power yet struggling to maintain control of his household. Kilmer portraying quite effectively this sense of frustrated madness brought upon by Jolie’s character, and alludes to a far more fascinating portrait of the most powerful man in the world essentially powerless in his own life.)
McCann - (Just quick bits but brings some genuine humanity to his soldier, something sadly vacant in most other characters.)
Hopkins & Plummer - (Both very generalized gravitas but they deliver on that minor request.)
Owen - (He’s trying but really struggling to sell his awful lines. In the end feeling more than a little lost in the mediocrity of his film.)
Mikkelsen - (Tries to bring the most nuance to a character without any real depth to him. He’s doing his part as best he can even as he’s shoved to the side consistently.)
Skarsgard - (Playing one note of evil, adequately.)
Dillane - (There for some quick minor gravitas, which he delivers.)
Grufford - (They really give him no real angle for his Lancelot, so he’s mostly there looking concerned.)
Winstone - (Very messy performance from him that’s all over the place and not in a good way.)
Edgerton - (Pretty awkward and stiff here without that presence he’s become known for.)
Harris:
With Million Dollar Baby, I’ll say I don't love Eastwood’s lowlight aesthetic choices, Swank or Freeman’s performances. So make it brighter in parts, overall less excessive seriousness to the point of dourness. Bigger problem Haggis’s subtle sledgehammer script is what I mostly bristle at. Like Swank’s family coming to see her, I think you could’ve had them wearing Disney shirts, or even trying to hide them as a false bit of trying to hide their shame, but no they have to be wearing goofy hats that just makes it feel over the top and ridiculous. Same with like the “evil fighter” Maggie faces who just is so twistedly absurd that again breaks any reality I might feel around the characters. Funny how Rocky could flesh out the opponent and strengthen the film. Also remove Danger immediately…or re-write and a different performance.
Will Ray find a more interesting avenue in, maybe focus on one part of his life more clearly, one aspect, or more so developing relationships. Rather choosing the most obvious rote path after another. Deal with everything in a more genuine way rather have a quick bit really just to get to the next song in the playlist.
Finding Neverland is one where maybe I should check out the miniseries with Ian Holm as Barrie. The film I think isn’t horrible as the idea of using Neverland as the escape of the realities of life has some idea, although I think Barrie is written in such a twee way where he seems almost ethereal being and developing him as a more so a person who needs to escape his own reality could’ve been something more interesting.
J96:
Radcliffe - (The film that asked the most of him up until this point and quite the problem as such. Radcliffe was not up to the task and that isn’t just his big emotional moments like raging against Sirius which feels so thin and frankly false. But really so many moments when being told about his parents Radcliffe goes for a quick smile for a second then back to blank face. He goes for an immediate “one emotion” , doesn't stay with it typically and certainly doesn’t explore it. His reactions are limited, sometimes nonexistent, like when Sirius is suggesting they live together, this should be a whole new world of possibility and Radcliffe’s reaction is basically “oh cool idea I guess”.)
Grint - (I mean with Grint you have to feel sorry for how limiting they were to Ron in the scripts to just only focus on him as a comedic foil, Grint is forced into just that note and that’s unfortunate as I think he actually could’ve done more.)
Watson - (Her basic performance is that over-emphasis something that only gets her so far, and is less the more she’s out of just general exposition. A weakness that becomes more and more evident in each film. The limits become more noticeable the more asked, take the scene where Harry tells her about Sirius’s plan, and Watson is not a friend being there for her friend in his potential change in a happier life, she’s just kind of “ok cool” as well.)
Gambon - (Seems like he was still trying to figure out his take with Dumbledore as there’s the moments, not to the extreme of Goblet, where he gets a little too imperious and others where eh’s trying to bring the warmth of Harris and I wouldn’t say there’s quite a clear consistency within the sides.)
Oldman - (It’s unfortunate he has to play the scene as so ridiculous as he needs to be the “villain” in a way that doesn’t hold up to scrutiny so he just seems completely nuts in that scene and Oldman in reflection. He’s better in his later scenes as the gentle Sirius but unfortunately his major scene is that fairly silly one.)
Rickman - (Quite good with what he does have. As we get some nice exposition though where he does bring certain pointed undercurrents to the certain emotion when telling the students to be able to spot werewolves. Then in the shack scene Rickman probably lets out the most emotions up until that point, where he does allude to really the years of bullying when interacting with both Lupin and Sirius, the emotion is rawer in alluding to the vulnerability. Although his sweet revenge in Sirius has this triumphant quality of a man feeling he’s truly besting someone who has wronged him. Also just a good moment when protecting the kids from Lupin as werewolf where you see him switch from angry teacher to good teacher protecting kids in a moment’s notice.)
Thewlis - (The highlight of the film where you get a lot of genuine warmth and comfort from his performance with Harry. Doing so much heavy lifting in those moments when his co-star is not, and conveying a whole sense of history that goes beyond even just caring about the kid of his friends. As Thewlis, when speaking both of James and Lily, offers two ideas there with speaking of James with really more than just a friendly camaraderie of the past, and with Lily the vulnerability of someone truly with the sense of the outcast of the past. My only real reservation is he has to get in that silliness of the shack scene, albeit just briefly when he first meets Sirius and both are so maniacal for no reason, thankfully Thewlis drops it faster and gets back to being good after that point.)
Also just want to note: Why cast Julie Christie in that role? So random.
The VFX remains pretty impressive. Buckbeak and the flights around Buckbeak wholly hold up and have genuine magic to them. Really I’d say Cuaron’s direction perhaps shines most in working around the VFX so well, as the Dementors too also hold up really well as I think Cuaron smartly uses darkness to sell the CGI more than it would’ve otherwise, though importantly doesn’t make it because you can’t see rather just making them genuine blend within the environment. Lupin Werewolf probably holds up the least out of all the effects but is still quite good, particularly that the CGI manages to get emotion out of it, as I love just how sad the wolf is when the initial transformation is complete.
1. Prisoner of Azkaban
2. Order of Phoenix
3. Sorcerer’s Stone
4. The Half-Blood Prince
5. Deathly Hallows Part I
6. Deathly Hallows Part II
7. Goblet of Fire
8. Chamber of Secrets
Although important note I haven’t re-watched any other than Prisoner.
Robert:
I have not, pretty good in retaining the style of the language for so long except about the ridiculousness of the conga, including Darcy’s rejection of the line which probably was my favorite bit from the sketch, leading quite nicely to the full breakdown of all pretense quite hilariously as Darcy’s had enough.
Calvin:
If it was released today I think it would be a huge nomination leader. Released then though even full, I think it probably still would have been too genre for the academy of that time. The fact that it couldn’t get even a stray sound nomination, despite BAFTA actually embracing Vol. 1 quite a bit, says a lot. It wasn’t until picture 10, where genre could get in more easily, that the academy embraced Tarantino again, as we shouldn’t forget he was even snubbed for an adapted screenplay for Jackie Brown which theoretically should’ve been more suited to the academy.
Joe:
Probably never for the latter two. Solo Mio has okayish reviews, so I guess I could be convinced in the right circumstances.
Ytrewq:
I’m always weary about Cranston going too big but maybe. Olsen would be a great fit.
All there are good fits for the Fugitive.
I think McConaughey actually could do more of a build anyways, but certainly could do the full Jack if needed. Byrne could play the fear. Tremblay likely would’ve been better in the role. Roundtree would be a great fit. Broadbent probably would be nicely creepy though I’d probably look for someone less recognizable for the part.
Matt:
Burrell - (A tough role I’ll admit to begin with as his whole character is designed just to be horrible. I think though there was room in moments to allude to the character’s fears within the situation to add a hint of humanity that Burrell doesn’t really go for. He really just emphasizes the jerk note consistently to the point that it just gets a bit much. Also his final scene was so stupid, “I have a gun, but I’ll just scream instead”.)
Louis: Is Elkabetz a 5 or 4.5 for To Take A Wife.
Louis: Thoughts on Rupert Everett in Shrek 2.
Ratings and thoughts on:-
Paddy Considine in My Summer of Love
Gary Stretch and Stuart Wolfenden in Dead Man's Shoes
Roger Robinson in Brother to Brother
Daniel Craig, Rhys Ifans and Samantha Morton in Enduring Love
The cast of Dawn of the Dead
Christopher Walken, Mickey Rourke and Marc Anthony in Man on Fire
Tzi Ma, J.K. Simmons, Ryan Hurst and Marlon Wayans in The Ladykillers
Gena Rowlands and James Marsden in The Notebook
John Travolta, Gabriel Macht and Scarlett Johansson in A Love Song for Bobby Long
Jared Leto and Angelina Jolie in Alexander
I frequently forget that Jay Baruchel, of all people, is in Million Dollar Baby.
Wuthering Heights cast ratings:
Robbie-3.5
Elordi-4
Chau-3.5
Oliver-4
Latif-3
Clunes-2.5
Mellington and Cooper-3
1. Ryu
2. Stewart
3. Hasegawa
4. Hawkins
5. Boyer
Louis: Your top 10 favorite actors and actresses who have become more skilled with age?
Luke:
5
Everett - (Just a basic pompous note with his voice work. Delivers on the requirement but didn’t find it all that notable here.)
Anonymous:
Considine - 4(Considine is working with a role where every development feels fairly expected from devote to deranged essentially. Considine though I think manages to find a path not to become overwrought. Bringing the same kind of intensity in the first half of a man who needs to desperately hold onto that quality of himself to not fall to his lesser behaviors. Something we see in the second half where it is the same kind of intensity just funneled in a different direction.)
Stretch - (His performance is interesting in basically creating the “villain” of the piece and starting with this degree of confidence where you would believe he will be the bad guy for your typical thriller. He’s convincing as such then slowly this idea wanes away so effectively in his performance as he frankly becomes increasingly less confident and even goofy in a way. To reveal a man who isn’t at all tough particularly when we see him facing off as the authentic killer.)
Wolfenden - (Less the most sympathetic but rather the least confident as even any kind of pretend killer. Playing effectively the increasing sense of fear as it becomes increasingly clear that the man they’re dealing with is in no way a simple problem. His best scene being his last one with Considine and is essential to creating the visceral terror as it’s hard not to feel bad by just how completely petrified he is and basically shrinking to this nothing with such a terrible false hope in his eyes that he might be spared.)
Robinson - (Brings an interesting reflective quality of someone who has lived through a lot. Robinson creates a contrast between the sense of nostalgia with frankly a sense of nostalgia. Finding a compelling sense of that history he has been through that frankly creates a better sense of it than the literal scenes we see of the past. This is to the point you’d wish the film would stick to conversations with him but the film sadly does not.)
Craig - (Doesn’t have a terribly interesting role of just seeming dour yet slightly pompous in his intellectualism. Where he maintains that tone through almost the whole film till the very end where he brings some genuine emotion which he’s good at, but it takes a bit too long to get there.)
Ifans - (A strange character to be sure however Ifans does deliver in creating an effective unnerving energy of someone who just seems to be a little too enthusiastic that slowly develops towards obsession. Within that obsession going from seeming just annoying towards genuinely dangerous which Ifans delivers with the right kind of growing intensity and a slight shift that means quite a bit.)
Morton - 3(Mostly there just to seem slightly concerned for much of the film. She delivers on that well enough but a little too simplistic of a role.)
Rhames brings some nice gravitas, Polley goes from slightly awkward to good throughout the film, Weber comes off as a discount lead though he’s not terrible, Kelly has a better role than most but found him like Polley, Phifer begins with an interesting premise is delivering on the strangeness of it but then the film pushes him in a dull direction and he becomes pretty dull with it as well without really selling properly as a mental break mania.
Walken - (I mean it’s Walken when he’s not coasting, so he’s good and I was so happy when he wasn’t a twist villain. Walken brings an effortless combination between his own sense of an old school badass presence where you see how he and Washington both were in the past, but there is also a real sense of warmth in some of his interaction with him, even his later “sell” about his revenge. Walken plays it all as a true friend.)
Rourke - (Doesn’t really have much to do other than some exposition with his presence, which is appreciated but not really a great use of him.)
Anthony - (Could be worse all things considered as he has a basic functionality of his performance, but the more is asked of him the less convincing he is. His last scene in particular is where a greater actor could’ve done a lot more where he’s just okay.)
Ma - (Found him the one sidekick that worked in largely just reaction shots, however found his reaction shots consistently amusing, with his whole sell of the cigarette bit being some effortless physical comedy from him.)
Simmons - (In a rare instance found him just kind of forced in his comedy and the whole mountain girl bit reminded of recent Ethan Coen. Simmons though just fell into goofy rather than funny for me which is surprising as typically him doing comedy is gold for me.)
Hurst - (Playing dumb is an artform and he’s not Van Gogh here. Just didn’t find his attempt at it particularly amusing.)
Wayans - (Found his style of performance honestly ill-fitting to the nature of the Coens frankly as it felt like he was playing towards studio comedy style, although regardless didn’t find him particularly amusing.)
Rowlands - 3.5(Her role is pretty thankless as mostly she’s just playing looking lost. I think she does that well enough but as performances depicting the condition she’s just working with far less material. In her one other type of scene she’s good in the moment clarity and then the intense fear, but again just the writing lets her only do so much.)
Marsden - (Standard Marsden required as the good guy who is secondary because he’s Marsden. I appreciate that he doesn’t add any negative qualities and in his final scene playing just properly as a “Come one!” given the situation.)
Travolta - (He gets instantly tiresome in playing this totally contrived character who is supposed to be essentially a hillbilly intellectual. That contrast just feels totally false and Travolta doesn’t help matters. Every line he delivers feels overcooked and just with the effort quiet display of someone trying to deliver this great performance. When he gets emotional it is only worse and again feels like the type of phony “Oscar clip” moments rather than genuinely finding honest emotion within a character.)
Macht - (His role might be even more contrived and Macht is just rather bland.)
Johansson - 3(She’s actually okay here in that any life I did find in the film was from her. Not that I would say she’s great by any means but I at least believed on a basic functional level which is more than I can say about her co-stars.)
I already talked about Jolie.
Leto - (Just bland and stilted throughout. Doesn’t sell the role or the period or the tone.)
Ytrewq:
Paul Newman
Nicholas Hoult
Colin Farrell
Charlize Theron
Walter Huston
William Holden
Melvyn Douglas
Nick Nolte
Gregory Peck
Dev Patel
Post a Comment