Jump to content

Controversial film opinions


George Clooney
 Share

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, DualSense said:

Yes the interplay is perfect. If you don’t get that then did you get the film at all?

 

No I'm completely thick, you got me. I entirely expected Crowe's character to have the exact same personality as Gosling's character. Contrasting personalities?? Madness. No it's about how an actor delivers his lines, you could swap the roles they play around (however unnecessary a casting choice that would be) and Gosling would offer more because he's just more present and creative in his approach. Crowe resurrecting his LA Confidential hard man was an easy casting fit and the right one sure. 

 

Gosling gave a lot to The Nice Guys that had his role been played by Chris Pine or Chris Evans or whoever all the subtleties would have been lost. He injects humour with his facial expressions and timing where there isn't any. No other actor is doing that hilarious scream, no other actor is being funny being annoyed. I think people are overlooking how much an actor brings to scenes that isn't in the script or driven by the director, taking it as a given that Gosling's character is automatically the funnier one. 

 

Crowe in his expected to be funny scenes on his own adds almost nothing because he's not good at comedy. He's fine overall and it's not an issue because Gosling is that good. But replace him with most other actors and most of those scenes are nowhere near as funny and the film is nowhere near as good. 

 

Rush Hour and Shanghai Noon/Knights are films where Jackie Chan plays the straight serious guy but is often as funny. Whether it's his reactions to what his partner is doing or physical stuff like leaping away as Chris Tucker helplessly fires at the villain, or unexpected behaviour fitting of the character like the backstretching scene with the sex worker in Shanghai Knights. Maybe they're just written in a way that gives Jackie more room or maybe he's already generally funny. 

 

Maybe imagine Jake Gyllenhaul in Gosling's role, Gosling in Crowe's. Who would bring more humour? Gosling in 2009 was sacked from The Lovely Bones for turning up with a beer belly because that's how he saw the part as the dad. 

 

I love The Nice Guys like, want a sequel more than any other film, they have great chemistry but Gosling is everything to it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wasn't taking anything away from Gosling. I was merely stating that Crowe is just as perfectly cast. Do I see that role of washed up hard guy the same if Laurence Fishburne, Sam Worthington or Arnold Schwarzenegger plays it? No, I absolutely do not. You need fat Gladiator to make that work. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, I'm on the Crowe train here. Gosling is as good as you say, but Crowe's outstanding too. If someone else had played it they wouldn't have worked as well opposite Gosling. It's such a fantastic film and it's been too long since I watched it. Might do so tonight!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Turino 73 said:

I wasn't taking anything away from Gosling. I was merely stating that Crowe is just as perfectly cast. Do I see that role of washed up hard guy the same if Laurence Fishburne, Sam Worthington or Arnold Schwarzenegger plays it? No, I absolutely do not. You need fat Gladiator to make that work. 

 

No i agree the casting is fine, his chemistry with Gosling is perfect, the discussion was about how some actors are able to elevate material and some go through the motions. Doesn't mean I misunderstand the balence needed. It's as simple as not once thinking 'wow they delivered that line brilliantly' when you reach the end of a film and realise a great actor was in it but they didn't bring more than the bare minimum. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Scribblor said:

Yeah, I'm on the Crowe train here. Gosling is as good as you say, but Crowe's outstanding too. If someone else had played it they wouldn't have worked as well opposite Gosling. It's such a fantastic film and it's been too long since I watched it. Might do so tonight!

 

Is he though? Is he really?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He's also not playing the LA Confidential character at all, he had completely different demons in that and general demeanour. 

They are undeniably similar but it's a different role and I wouldn't even say I'm a huge fan of his in the most part. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good acting is sometimes letting one person shine in a two hander. Crowe seems to realise that here as Gosling's character is an overconfident braggart. Good acting is providing contrast.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think Crowe is amazing in that scene at all, his Mexican line is a good example of delivering it flat, no one is laughing at that, they're laughing at everything Gosling says, Crowe's 'yeah...I feel great' is not delivered poorly but not great either. I think there's enough there to find humour in his character but he's just not funny nor trying at this stage of his career so does the bare minimum.

 

Nothing wrong with the casting, the character's personality. Spin it around again, if Crowe says 'at least you're drinking again' to Gosling (who you are introduced to as an alcoholic) and Gosling says 'yeah...I feel great', everyone is laughing at Gosling's delivery. 

 

The way The Nice Guys opens with Crowe playing the aggressive hard man it reminded me of how he was in LA Confidential, that's deliberate isn't it, given the setting and period (LA earlier sure). And given that Crowe hadn't played that hard man role for ages since LA I think. It's not a coincidence is it he was cast in that role? I don't think so. 

 

Again, the rllmuk thing of dismissing a point I'm not even making. Yes, I think the two characters are exactly the same, of course. That's the fatal mistake here. Maybe someone should post again how 'lmao they're supposed to be contrasting characters'. 

 

Mark Kermode for some reason when The Fighter is mentioned always brings up that Christian Bale can't be as showy if Mark Wahlberg isn't grounded, but again the point would be; is Wahlberg doing anything remotely different to what he usually does? No. No one finishes that film and remembers Wahlberg because he's just going through the motions, applying his thing, because he knows he doesn't need to do more with standout performances all around him (Amy Adams and her family are exceptional too).

 

Ethan Hawke before Training Day said to Denzel 'if I nail this part you'll win an oscar'. But Hawke brings his best anyway, when he's pushed and pushes back pulling a gun out he's as convincing as ever, when he's pleading for his life he's making it extremely convincing despite how hammy the other actors are. Acting classes probably ask students which performance they prefer. 

 

Lordcookie used to say Kevin Bacon was the better performer in Mystic River while Penn got all the plaudits. I think Rain Men is Tom Cruise's best performance, just present in every moment in an unlikeable role. All these performances i think got more attention, a lot of people say the same of Cruise in Rain Man, people now appreciate how good Hawke was in Training Day. 

 

No one finishes Ford vs Ferrari and says 'wow, Matt Damon was unbelievable!' He's playing the boring role but still possible to think he could do more in his scenes. De Caprio's is the best performance in The Departed but Matt Damon as a villain is interesting, his sleazy arrogance convincing. Another film where an actor doesn't go through the motions with bigger actors elsewhere, he still brings something interesting. 

 

Tldr Crowe casting is fine, character is fine, chemistry is perfect, just think he doesn't do a lot with the scenes and dialogue he has.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Loik V credern said:

I don't think Crowe is amazing in that scene at all, his Mexican line is a good example of delivering it flat, no one is laughing at that, they're laughing at everything Gosling says, Crowe's 'yeah...I feel great' is not delivered poorly but not great either. I think there's enough there to find humour in his character but he's just not funny nor trying at this stage of his career so does the bare minimum.

 

Nothing wrong with the casting, the character's personality. Spin it around again, if Crowe says 'at least you're drinking again' to Gosling (who you are introduced to as an alcoholic) and Gosling says 'yeah...I feel great', everyone is laughing at Gosling's delivery. 

 

The way The Nice Guys opens with Crowe playing the aggressive hard man it reminded me of how he was in LA Confidential, that's deliberate isn't it, given the setting and period (LA earlier sure). And given that Crowe hadn't played that hard man role for ages since LA I think. It's not a coincidence is it he was cast in that role? I don't think so. 

 

Again, the rllmuk thing of dismissing a point I'm not even making. Yes, I think the two characters are exactly the same, of course. That's the fatal mistake here. Maybe someone should post again how 'lmao they're supposed to be contrasting characters'. 

 

Mark Kermode for some reason when The Fighter is mentioned always brings up that Christian Bale can't be as showy if Mark Wahlberg isn't grounded, but again the point would be; is Wahlberg doing anything remotely different to what he usually does? No. No one finishes that film and remembers Wahlberg because he's just going through the motions, applying his thing, because he knows he doesn't need to do more with standout performances all around him (Amy Adams and her family are exceptional too).

 

Ethan Hawke before Training Day said to Denzel 'if I nail this part you'll win an oscar'. But Hawke brings his best anyway, when he's pushed and pushes back pulling a gun out he's as convincing as ever, when he's pleading for his life he's making it extremely convincing despite how hammy the other actors are. Acting classes probably ask students which performance they prefer. 

 

Lordcookie used to say Kevin Bacon was the better performer in Mystic River while Penn got all the plaudits. I think Rain Men is Tom Cruise's best performance, just present in every moment in an unlikeable role. All these performances i think got more attention, a lot of people say the same of Cruise in Rain Man, people now appreciate how good Hawke was in Training Day. 

 

No one finishes Ford vs Ferrari and says 'wow, Matt Damon was unbelievable!' He's playing the boring role but still possible to think he could do more in his scenes. De Caprio's is the best performance in The Departed but Matt Damon as a villain is interesting, his sleazy arrogance convincing. Another film where an actor doesn't go through the motions with bigger actors elsewhere, he still brings something interesting. 

 

Tldr Crowe casting is fine, character is fine, chemistry is perfect, just think he doesn't do a lot with the scenes and dialogue he has.

Wow! Thanks for typing all of that out. I agree with all of it. Except the words. Crowe SMASHES the shit out of The Nice Guys. He kills in every scene. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Watched Heat last night for the first time in about 15 years. Obviously it’s a classic, but man is it long. It would lose nothing if Natalie Portman’s character was not in it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, ckny said:

Watched Heat last night for the first time in about 15 years. Obviously it’s a classic, but man is it long. It would lose nothing if Natalie Portman’s character was not in it.


Watch LA Takedown, which is the TV movie Mann expanded Heat from, it’s by far the better flick. Half the length, twice the pace and no De Niro stinking up the film:

 

 

A great fan trailer!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, ZOK said:


Watch LA Takedown, which is the TV movie Mann expanded Heat from, it’s by far the better flick. Half the length, twice the pace and no De Niro stinking up the film:

 

 

A great fan trailer!

 

 

Now that's controversial!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/08/2022 at 13:09, Made of Ghosts said:

Christian Bale is a terrible* actor. 

*I mean obviously not, he’s competent, but he’s so Actingy. When I’m watching him I always think “this is someone Acting”.

 

Sometimes I wonder if this quality is what made him a great fit for Patrick Bateman and if his career after that has just been the result of that happy accident. The only other film I can stand him in is Empire of the Sun.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, ZOK said:


Watch LA Takedown, which is the TV movie Mann expanded Heat from, it’s by far the better flick. Half the length, twice the pace and no De Niro stinking up the film:

 

 

A great fan trailer!

 

 

I broadly agree with that sentiment, as someone who prefers their Mann a bit more constrained.* The one thing I would deviate on, is that I think Heat does benefit from De Niro and Pacino's presence specifically and only when they share scenes. The chemistry on show is palpable; those are two men who clearly want to fuck each others' brains out (which also explains the distinct lack on chemistry with the supposed love interests of the piece). Which perhaps isn't what Mann intended for the film, but it certainly works for me!

 

*now Thief, that's my ideal Mann

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 01/08/2022 at 07:36, Commander Jameson said:

 

I enjoyed The Happening.

 

But then, I would.

 

dFlgNKq.jpg.0c8c64319d57daf144f08f0140cb16da.jpg.7e842c2ee270aed2d9800a6983e60b23.jpg

 

I enjoyed The Happening also. I love retty much love everything shyamalan's done. Some films have their issues, but he's not afraid of running with an idea and seeing how far he can push it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Wiper said:

 

I broadly agree with that sentiment, as someone who prefers their Mann a bit more constrained.* The one thing I would deviate on, is that I think Heat does benefit from De Niro and Pacino's presence specifically and only when they share scenes. The chemistry on show is palpable; those are two men who clearly want to fuck each others' brains out (which also explains the distinct lack on chemistry with the supposed love interests of the piece). Which perhaps isn't what Mann intended for the film, but it certainly works for me!

 

*now Thief, that's my ideal Mann


I meant Pacino, not De Niro! Bob’s okay in this, although he barely stretched himself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Couch Corpse said:

No, that's controzokial!

 

Zok's got a GREAT OPINION!!

 

Pachino did try and explain his performance by saying that his character was chipping.

 

Yeah, his "character".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've always thought the film needs Pacino's histrionics to counterbalance the subdued, measured DeNiro. It's another way the film portrays the same-but-opposite nature of the characters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know how controversial this is, but I watched Falling Down last night for the first time in years (possibly decades) and it's actually not that good?

 

It's got some memorable lines but everybody seems to have been told to ham it up as much as possible and the script is generally a bit rubbish.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Use of this website is subject to our Privacy Policy, Terms of Use, and Guidelines.