Movie review thread...
-
@antipodean said in Movie review thread...:
@rancid-schnitzel said in Movie review thread...:
@majorrage said in Movie review thread...:
@mn5 said in Movie review thread...:
People wank on about Ledgers performance simply cos he died and elevating dead artists to another stratosphere is the done thing to do.
Tom Hardy as Bane shat all over him in my opinion.
Bullshit on the first one. Ledger's Joker was an incredible character portrayed by one hell of an actor. Worthy Oscar performance.
Second one is just an artistic opinion I disagree with, so not fair to call it bullshit ...
Not sure about that. I'd argue he may not have even been nominated if he hadn't topped himself. Not saying it wasn't a great performance, but Oscar winning?
Being awarded an Oscar isn't the best measure IMO. Shakespeare In Love won Oscars.
While people can argue about the relative merits of performances, when someone rubbishes Ledger's Joker, I wonder the level of oxygen deprivation of having their head shoved that far up their own arse.
I don't like Joaquin Phoenix but I can acknowledge his performance was amazing. Absolutely believable and compelling from an artist with hugely disparate work.
Who was rubbishing his Joker? Seems the only real "criticism" is that it was really good but perhaps not the genius performance some claim.
I think what sets Phoenix's Joker apart is the realism of it all. Nicholson and Ledger were doing their job by camping it up a bit (they're Batman films after all) but there was nothing amusing about the latest incarnation.
-
@rancid-schnitzel said in Movie review thread...:
@antipodean said in Movie review thread...:
@rancid-schnitzel said in Movie review thread...:
@majorrage said in Movie review thread...:
@mn5 said in Movie review thread...:
People wank on about Ledgers performance simply cos he died and elevating dead artists to another stratosphere is the done thing to do.
Tom Hardy as Bane shat all over him in my opinion.
Bullshit on the first one. Ledger's Joker was an incredible character portrayed by one hell of an actor. Worthy Oscar performance.
Second one is just an artistic opinion I disagree with, so not fair to call it bullshit ...
Not sure about that. I'd argue he may not have even been nominated if he hadn't topped himself. Not saying it wasn't a great performance, but Oscar winning?
Being awarded an Oscar isn't the best measure IMO. Shakespeare In Love won Oscars.
While people can argue about the relative merits of performances, when someone rubbishes Ledger's Joker, I wonder the level of oxygen deprivation of having their head shoved that far up their own arse.
I don't like Joaquin Phoenix but I can acknowledge his performance was amazing. Absolutely believable and compelling from an artist with hugely disparate work.
Who was rubbishing his Joker?
MN5
-
@rancid-schnitzel said in Movie review thread...:
I think what sets Phoenix's Joker apart is the realism of it all. Nicholson and Ledger were doing their job by camping it up a bit (they're Batman films after all) but there was nothing amusing about the latest incarnation.
Yeah, thats exactly what I think too. Ledger, and to a lesser extent Nicholson, were both playing characters. Fictional, made up characters which gave them leeway in how it was presented.
Phoenix played a truly disturbed, mentally ill man. And by fuck it was convincing. Absolutely phenomenal.
-
@antipodean said in Movie review thread...:
Being awarded an Oscar isn't the best measure IMO. Shakespeare In Love won Oscars.
I'm not sure if there is a better benchmark though when it comes auto acting.
When it comes to other Oscars given out, yes I agree entirely.
-
Joker in some comics and older Batman series is a larger than life, camp type character, most of the villains are.
I think Phoenix' portrayal possibly strayed further by giving an insight into his maniacal side that made him rather than the character we see opposing batman.
That's my professional analysis anyway.
-
Old Henry
4 farmers out of 5 old hands
-
@antipodean said in Movie review thread...:
@rancid-schnitzel said in Movie review thread...:
@antipodean said in Movie review thread...:
@rancid-schnitzel said in Movie review thread...:
@majorrage said in Movie review thread...:
@mn5 said in Movie review thread...:
People wank on about Ledgers performance simply cos he died and elevating dead artists to another stratosphere is the done thing to do.
Tom Hardy as Bane shat all over him in my opinion.
Bullshit on the first one. Ledger's Joker was an incredible character portrayed by one hell of an actor. Worthy Oscar performance.
Second one is just an artistic opinion I disagree with, so not fair to call it bullshit ...
Not sure about that. I'd argue he may not have even been nominated if he hadn't topped himself. Not saying it wasn't a great performance, but Oscar winning?
Being awarded an Oscar isn't the best measure IMO. Shakespeare In Love won Oscars.
While people can argue about the relative merits of performances, when someone rubbishes Ledger's Joker, I wonder the level of oxygen deprivation of having their head shoved that far up their own arse.
I don't like Joaquin Phoenix but I can acknowledge his performance was amazing. Absolutely believable and compelling from an artist with hugely disparate work.
Who was rubbishing his Joker?
MN5
Actually, I said he was decent and it was easily his best work but I won’t expect you to let the truth get in the way of whatever you’re tying to say.
-
@mn5 said in Movie review thread...:
@antipodean said in Movie review thread...:
@rancid-schnitzel said in Movie review thread...:
@antipodean said in Movie review thread...:
@rancid-schnitzel said in Movie review thread...:
@majorrage said in Movie review thread...:
@mn5 said in Movie review thread...:
People wank on about Ledgers performance simply cos he died and elevating dead artists to another stratosphere is the done thing to do.
Tom Hardy as Bane shat all over him in my opinion.
Bullshit on the first one. Ledger's Joker was an incredible character portrayed by one hell of an actor. Worthy Oscar performance.
Second one is just an artistic opinion I disagree with, so not fair to call it bullshit ...
Not sure about that. I'd argue he may not have even been nominated if he hadn't topped himself. Not saying it wasn't a great performance, but Oscar winning?
Being awarded an Oscar isn't the best measure IMO. Shakespeare In Love won Oscars.
While people can argue about the relative merits of performances, when someone rubbishes Ledger's Joker, I wonder the level of oxygen deprivation of having their head shoved that far up their own arse.
I don't like Joaquin Phoenix but I can acknowledge his performance was amazing. Absolutely believable and compelling from an artist with hugely disparate work.
Who was rubbishing his Joker?
MN5
Actually, I said he was decent and it was easily his best work but I won’t expect you to let the truth get in the way of whatever you’re tying to say.
I guess unless someone else wrote this post https://www.forum.thesilverfern.com/post/650801
Some people can accept actors they've "never warmed to" can produce a good performance. They can also discard the hyperbole and not automatically not be contrarian. Obviously you're not one of them.
-
@taniwharugby said in Movie review thread...:
Joker in some comics and older Batman series is a larger than life, camp type character, most of the villains are.
I think Phoenix' portrayal possibly strayed further by giving an insight into his maniacal side that made him rather than the character we see opposing batman.
That's my professional analysis anyway.
its interesting, its actually the one area i struggle with the Nolan Batmans films, they tried/claimed to go more realistic and less camp.....but then still had a grown man decide dressing up as a Bat with a full on cape was a logical thing to do
at least if you lean in to the camp or fantastical side of things to can just decide this is very much not the real world and so people can "logically" decide to do things no one in the real world would
-
@antipodean said in Movie review thread...:
@mn5 said in Movie review thread...:
@antipodean said in Movie review thread...:
@rancid-schnitzel said in Movie review thread...:
@antipodean said in Movie review thread...:
@rancid-schnitzel said in Movie review thread...:
@majorrage said in Movie review thread...:
@mn5 said in Movie review thread...:
People wank on about Ledgers performance simply cos he died and elevating dead artists to another stratosphere is the done thing to do.
Tom Hardy as Bane shat all over him in my opinion.
Bullshit on the first one. Ledger's Joker was an incredible character portrayed by one hell of an actor. Worthy Oscar performance.
Second one is just an artistic opinion I disagree with, so not fair to call it bullshit ...
Not sure about that. I'd argue he may not have even been nominated if he hadn't topped himself. Not saying it wasn't a great performance, but Oscar winning?
Being awarded an Oscar isn't the best measure IMO. Shakespeare In Love won Oscars.
While people can argue about the relative merits of performances, when someone rubbishes Ledger's Joker, I wonder the level of oxygen deprivation of having their head shoved that far up their own arse.
I don't like Joaquin Phoenix but I can acknowledge his performance was amazing. Absolutely believable and compelling from an artist with hugely disparate work.
Who was rubbishing his Joker?
MN5
Actually, I said he was decent and it was easily his best work but I won’t expect you to let the truth get in the way of whatever you’re tying to say.
I guess unless someone else wrote this post https://www.forum.thesilverfern.com/post/650801
Some people can accept actors they've "never warmed to" can produce a good performance. They can also discard the hyperbole and not automatically not be contrarian. Obviously you're not one of them.
What I was saying then was I wasn’t falling over myself praising his performance and pointing out I much preferred Hardy. Not really much more to be said and I can’t help if you misinterpret it so I’ll leave it at that.
-
I'll leave you to your revisionism.
Cry Macho
Not a great addition to Clint's body of work. I found the pace too slow, probably to fill out a skeletal script. In fact what bits there are, are quite absurd. The redemption, intergenerational personal growth story in Gran Torino was vastly better.
-
@antipodean said in Movie review thread...:
Cry Macho
I haven't even heard of this. Does he have threesomes with 20 year olds in this one?
-
@antipodean said in Movie review thread...:
I'll leave you to your revisionism.
Cry Macho
Not a great addition to Clint's body of work. I found the pace too slow, probably to fill out a skeletal script. In fact what bits there are, are quite absurd. The redemption, intergenerational personal growth story in Gran Torino was vastly better.
Clint is a legend and no one thinks this more than me but his best years are behind him. I’ll watch this on a rainy day but I’m not in a hurry.
-
This post is deleted!
-
-
@kruse said in Movie review thread...:
@mn5 said in Movie review thread...:
@Kruse if you’re not too busy do you think you can watch this and give us a review ?
Just the original?
Whatever you’ve got time for.
-
South of Heaven
Brilliant
5 Teds out of 5 Johnnys
-
Paul Schrader's new movie The Card Counter is the best film I have seen this year. It certainly has miss-steps, but is really very good.
It's the first film I have watched in 4K HDR on an OLED TV. It was quite impressive how he used that dynamic range to make the locations look even more realistically boring and oppressive.
4 and a half stars.
-
The Foreigner-Pierce Brosnan can actually act!! Very Gerry Adams-esque I thought. Shame Jackie Chan forgets he is supposed to be retired but badass soldier every time he is hurt has to do his over the top "I'm hurt" facials but apart from that, and danger of doing the old IRA tropes, ok movie to pass the time.
Typical action-political thriller movie but I was never bored-no wonder, the director's a Kiwi.
