And that you "got" MM's humanity before seeing the film is irrelevant - it's what happens in the movie that counts (and is difficult to effectively pull off, which I believe Williams did with her excellent performance), and that for many other people this is new information.
An absolutely beautiful film. I had heard mixed things about it on the message boards, but I really responded to this. It's beautifully written, paced, and acted by all.
My biggest complaint?? That Shalene Woodley was overlooked at the Oscars. I would have definitely voted for her over Octavia Spencer, or anyone else in that category. Such a mature and layered performance from someone so young. This girl really has IT!!
How in the hell did Clooney not win for this? I haven't seen The Artist yet, but Clooney is doing more than just playing a type, or a version of himself. Clooney really just broke my heart in this film, and he did it without resorting to histrionics. It's a quiet, layered performance that just got to me. His Matt King is not a perfect husband or father, but he finds new motivation, and Clooney made me feel like this guy had the potential to be a better man, despite the very visible effort and pain that it takes to make that happen. It's just a beautiful performance.
And that you "got" MM's humanity before seeing the film is irrelevant - it's what happens in the movie that counts.
Er, you seem to have missed my point. They might need to make a movie to prove Adolf Hitler's "humanity" (yes, I know that's offensive) or some other inhuman monster, but they certainly don't need to make a movie to prove Marilyn Monroe's "humanity."
Quote by Scottferguson
I believe Williams [gave an] excellent performance.
I wouldn't exactly call it an "excellent" performance--basically, Williams opened her eyes wide to convey stage fright, narrowed her eyes to accuse people of thinking she is crazy, and a few times did a cute burlesque of Monroe's unique mannerisms.
By humanity, I mean a convincing portrayal of a person apart from his or her image. It is the responsibility of any movie claiming to show a famous movie to do it. Of course everyone including Hitler has "humanity." But again, I am talking about getting beyond what is the public image and probing deeper that makes a biofilm performance worthy. Among those for 2011 in well-known movies, I believe Williams was the most successful, in part because of the quality of her performance, but also because to some degree adequate enough writing and direction.
And that for me is where The Iron Lady, and Streep's performance, failed. It to me was all surface impersonation, no clear concept conveyed about who the person being portrayed was. And if they had done so to make her look great, then so be it - at least they woulf have done something. Instead, they relied on acting tricks and makeup to get their non-point across.
I don't bother defending her, I'm just pointing it out so you understand what I'm trying to say. You're alot more classier than that to keep critiquing her like this. You have an opinion, but can you criticize other actors as well, and not just Streep?
Because she is regarded by you and others as the actress against whom everyone else is compared. In the case of Williams/Marilyn and Streep/Iron Lady, when both were Oscar nominees the same year, it is the best example of trying to make the point about the depth of Williams' Monroe (the humanity as was being discussed) versus the emptiness and for me total lack of depth of Streep's Thatcher. Vampirella was saying "drag queens do better Monroe's" or something like that. I feel that Williams captured Monroe, while Streep in TIL basically captured Streep doing Thatcher. I don't think it was inappropriate. Streep was more "like" Thatcher on the surface than was Williams/Monroe. But for me that's a minor value. Williams conveyed the inner Monroe, at least as the film meant to. Streep conveyed just the outer shell, and very well, of course. But for me that is inferior acting to what Williams did.
This was the best example at hand that everyone here could understand, if if not agreeing with me. It was the easiest way for me to make the point. And disagreeing with me is of course totally fine.
^Okay I understand you focus on the filmwork and not the performances. You could have just said that earlier since that clears up everything lol.
Haven't seen this film in years since it came out at the cinema. I must say it was an incredible ensemble with some of my favorite actors. The lead was the Greatest Actor of All Time Ms Meryl Streep giving one of her best performances of the decade. My lord was she terrifying, just like how the real nuns were in the 60's. (Not as terrifying as Prada.) Hoffman and Davis were very Oscar worthy, I loved Amy Adams like I normally do but it made entirely no sense why she was in Supporting. She was just as much lead as Streep.
The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (2008)
Interesting film, however I have to say the wrong people were nominated that year. Swinton and most especially my girl Blanchett were terribly snubbed for Supporting and Lead Actress respectively.
Bradley Cooper plays a struggling writer who discovers a stash of experimental, brain-enhancing pills in a drug dealer's apartment. Question is, if the pills make him so damn smart, why is the audience one or two steps ahead of him through most of the movie?
As for the other stars, we have become resigned to the sight of Robert De Niro slumming, but poor, young Abbie Cornish? I guess she's given up on those art film roles forever. Pity.
LIMITLESS is an unsavory mashup of three distinct genres: sci-fi, gangster, and "fiscal thriller" (chuckle); plus there's voiceover--almost always a bad sign. Fortunately, there are several phenomenal, trippy sequences that are almost sublime. It's your call whether it's worth mucking through all those tawdry bits to get to them.
What is it with Apatow films running 10-15 minutes longer than they need to? Anyway, a very solid film, with Segel and Blunt giving great performances, and they made a very believable couple. Nice supporting work from Chris Pratt and Alison Brie.
I counted the women in the theatre, because I could. There were five of us, and we were all better dressed than the men we were with. Lol. Seeing as how "Safe" is a testosterone film, no surprise. Not up to the "Crank" films, and not one I'm going to rave about even if I were inebriated. I still rather enjoyed it. Suspend your disbelief, and it's possible. Racial stereotypes abound, and I give full credit to the largely unheralded James Hong, who works all the time, and didnt flinch as a Chinese thug yet again. Jason Statham's body is still intact.
B "I've seen him fight. Not good for you. Not good business" Mei
The breathtaking production design by Tom Foden and exquisite costumes by Eiko Ishioka are good enough reasons to see this film, but almost everything else (including most of the acting, although a few performances stand out) is simply excruciating.
This movie was a big surprise for me. I didn't expect to like it nearly as much as I did. Fantastic performances from Michelle Williams and Kenneth Brannagh, both very deserving of their Oscar nominations. Eddie Redmayne was wonderful here. He's definitely one to watch.