|
Post by pupdurcs on Sept 30, 2019 19:46:58 GMT
Pesci's a goddamned legend. One of the most charasmatic character actors in history. He never had "look" to be a leading man (despite a few terrific leads like My Cousin Vinny) but when given the parts, he could hold his own against the best leading men in the business. He's someone who I think would merit a second Oscar as well, but it still feels like Pitt's to lose for now. Sadly, I feel like Pesci will go back into retirement after this, so I don't see a Safidies collab happening Name any movie, and I guarantee you 99% of the time, it is improved by recasting the lead with Joe Pesci. Titanic? Gladiator? The English Patient?
Pesci is a great actor, but film is a visual medium, and visually, Pesci very wrong for a lot of lead roles. It ain't fair, but that's life.
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Sept 30, 2019 19:51:03 GMT
Dana Stevens from Slant Magazine says Pesci gives what may be the best performance in the film. It'd be interesting if the race ended up being Pesci vs Pitt.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Sept 30, 2019 19:51:22 GMT
Name any movie, and I guarantee you 99% of the time, it is improved by recasting the lead with Joe Pesci. Titanic? Gladiator? The English Patient?
Pesci is a great actor, but film is a visual medium, and visually, Pesci is visually very wrong for a lot of lead roles. It ain't fair, but that's life. You haven't disproved my statement with those examples.
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Sept 30, 2019 19:55:40 GMT
Titanic? Gladiator? The English Patient?
Pesci is a great actor, but film is a visual medium, and visually, Pesci is visually very wrong for a lot of lead roles. It ain't fair, but that's life. You haven't disproved my statement with those examples. Visually, Pesci would ruin those films as the lead. Appearance mattered for those roles. I'm Team Pesci here, and I'm all about everyone acknowledging what an incredible actor he is, but I also gotta keep it real
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Sept 30, 2019 20:00:36 GMT
You haven't disproved my statement with those examples. Visually, Pesci would ruin those films as the lead. Appearance mattered for those roles. I'm Team Pesci here, and I'm all about everyone acknowledging what an incredible actor he is, but I also gotta keep it real "My name is Maximus Decimus Fuckin' Meridius, commander of the Armies of the Fuckin' North, General of the Felix Fuckin' Legions."
|
|
|
Post by wallsofjericho on Sept 30, 2019 20:16:25 GMT
Thinking about if Scorsese had went with Nicholson for Jimmy Hoffa (who played him in 92) but I was disappointed with their first collaboration and I'm happy the Pacino/Scorsese team is getting good ink so far. I know Jack got some good notices to but he just felt out of place. Pesci and Pacino sharing the screen is going to be epic too.
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Sept 30, 2019 20:18:35 GMT
Thinking about if Scorsese had went with Nicholson for Jimmy Hoffa (who played him in 92) but I was disappointed with their first collaboration and I'm happy the Pacino/Scorsese team is getting good ink so far. I know Jack got some good notices to but he just felt out of place. Pesci and Pacino sharing the screen is going to be epic too. Sad that we'll probably never get to see Hackman/Scorsese, which I think should have replaced Nicholson in The Departed.
|
|
|
Post by wallsofjericho on Sept 30, 2019 20:20:35 GMT
Thinking about if Scorsese had went with Nicholson for Jimmy Hoffa (who played him in 92) but I was disappointed with their first collaboration and I'm happy the Pacino/Scorsese team is getting good ink so far. I know Jack got some good notices to but he just felt out of place. Pesci and Pacino sharing the screen is going to be epic too. Sad that we'll probably never get to see Hackman/Scorsese, which I think should have replaced Nicholson in The Departed.Big time. I respect his retirement but there's so many great roles he could have done.
|
|
|
Post by TerryMontana on Sept 30, 2019 21:03:41 GMT
Nobody should have replaced Jack in the Departed!!
|
|
vinnyt
New Member
Posts: 191
Likes: 117
|
Post by vinnyt on Sept 30, 2019 21:40:02 GMT
Joe Pesci as all three ages of Chiron.
|
|
|
Post by Mattsby on Nov 4, 2019 19:50:32 GMT
datebook.sfchronicle.com/movies-tv/review-scorseses-irishman-is-a-masterpiece-the-end-of-an-era-for-mob-moviesLaSalle singles out Pacino in the cast.... "His performance is generous and huge — as big as his “Scarface” performance — but always, at every moment, full of internal life and thinking."
"That switch, that turn of mind that Pacino somehow allows us to see is screen acting at its best. For both grandeur and specificity, Pacino’s Hoffa is one of the magnificent spectacles of 2019."Personally I haven't thought about Pitt for a second since seeing OUATIH - and more, he didn't get any reviews like this. Right now it's Pacino's win.... I don't see any other choice at all.
|
|
Good God
Badass
Posts: 1,633
Likes: 1,937
|
Post by Good God on Nov 4, 2019 20:12:44 GMT
datebook.sfchronicle.com/movies-tv/review-scorseses-irishman-is-a-masterpiece-the-end-of-an-era-for-mob-moviesLaSalle singles out Pacino in the cast.... "His performance is generous and huge — as big as his “Scarface” performance — but always, at every moment, full of internal life and thinking."
"That switch, that turn of mind that Pacino somehow allows us to see is screen acting at its best. For both grandeur and specificity, Pacino’s Hoffa is one of the magnificent spectacles of 2019."Personally I haven't thought about Pitt for a second since seeing OUATIH - and more, he didn't get any reviews like this. Right now it's Pacino's win.... I don't see any other choice at all. If reviews decided races, Joe Pesci would be in the running for the win. I didn't read the latest batch of reviews, but he got better ink than Pacino from the first set that I read. And personal opinions matter even less. I haven't seen The Irishman, and I may well find Pacino's the best Supporting Actor performance of the year, but a lot of other factors go into Oscar races, and Pitt has quite a few of them in his favor.
|
|
|
Post by Mattsby on Nov 4, 2019 20:22:51 GMT
datebook.sfchronicle.com/movies-tv/review-scorseses-irishman-is-a-masterpiece-the-end-of-an-era-for-mob-moviesLaSalle singles out Pacino in the cast.... "His performance is generous and huge — as big as his “Scarface” performance — but always, at every moment, full of internal life and thinking."
"That switch, that turn of mind that Pacino somehow allows us to see is screen acting at its best. For both grandeur and specificity, Pacino’s Hoffa is one of the magnificent spectacles of 2019."Personally I haven't thought about Pitt for a second since seeing OUATIH - and more, he didn't get any reviews like this. Right now it's Pacino's win.... I don't see any other choice at all. If reviews decided races, Joe Pesci would be in the running for the win. I didn't read the latest batch of reviews, but he got better ink than Pacino from the first set that I read. And personal opinions matter even less. I haven't seen The Irishman, and I may well find Pacino's the best Supporting Actor performance of the year, but a lot of other factors go into Oscar races, and Pitt has quite a few of them in his favor. Pesci has a bunch of high notices but I've read almost every review available and I would say majority favor Pacino - but I don't wanna compare them like that . I've been saying Pacino is the frontrunner - just wanted to point to a big critic and not a tweet or something , that this is more than just a good performance it's practically undeniable and very "Oscar-y" too. And you're right! There are other factors - Pacino won the first awards precursor last night! And he has massive money Netflix behind him campaigning meanwhile Pitt has said he isn't campaigning and that does matter....
|
|
Good God
Badass
Posts: 1,633
Likes: 1,937
|
Post by Good God on Nov 4, 2019 20:28:32 GMT
And you're right! There are other factors - Pacino won the first awards precursor last night! And he has massive money Netflix behind him campaigning meanwhile Pitt has said he isn't campaigning and that does matter.... Pitt has denied saying that he will not campaign, and he did do a Q&A recently.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Nov 4, 2019 21:09:19 GMT
Mick LaSalle is a great critic - I believe I mentioned him when we had that thread on "critics you like" a while back - even when we disagree he can argue/write persuasively. He may be the best newspaper critic in the country and the most powerful newspaper one outside NY/LA (it's a dying breed - mostly they're movie reviewers now, not really film critics).
I think basically the Pitt thing may come down to something stupid like are they going to let The Irishman win that many awards - because it will - and not give it an acting award when it's got so much actors acclaim - that's possible but is a bit odd .........on the other hand I'm convinced that if Brad Pitt doesn't win, OUATIH may go home empty handed.
It's that thing I said earlier, Pacino has the most ways to get to a win logically.......but Pitt has the clearest and simplest way to a win.
Usually clearest and simplest wins these things, not always though......quite a year/race this is.
|
|
morton
Based
Posts: 2,811
Likes: 2,954
|
Post by morton on Nov 4, 2019 21:38:18 GMT
Mick LaSalle is a great critic - I believe I mentioned him when we had that thread on "critics you like" a while back - even when we disagree he can argue/write persuasively. He may be the best newspaper critic in the country and the most powerful newspaper one outside NY/LA (it's a dying breed - mostly they're movie reviewers now, not really film critics). I think basically the Pitt thing may come down to something stupid like are they going to let The Irishman win that many awards - because it will - and not give it an acting award when it's got so much actors acclaim - that's possible but is a bit odd .........on the other hand I'm convinced that if Brad Pitt doesn't win, OUATIH may go home empty handed. It's that thing I said earlier, Pacino has the most ways to get to a win logically.......but Pitt has the clearest and simplest way to a win. Usually clearest and simplest wins these things, not always though......quite a year/race this is. I do feel like Best Picture will come down to The Irishman vs. OUATIH with Best Supporting Actor being an early indicator to which way it will go because I expect both will win Supporting Actor, Director, Picture, and maybe one technical prize. Of course, 1917, Jojo Rabbit, Marriage Story, and Parasite are all in the mix too, but I feel they have larger cons. Like I can see 1917 winning Best Director, but I don't think it could win Best Picture especially if it doesn't get an acting nomination and misses screenplay. Plus, I know it's different years, but they could have went with Dunkirk just a few years ago which will likely be more successful box office wise than 1917 will be. Jojo Rabbit is too much like Green Book which is a positive but also a big negative since usually AMPAS goes a completely different way in BP the next year. Marriage Story seems like it will do well on a consensus ballot, but I feel it's too small and not important enough to overcome the Netflix bias. Finally Parasite might get close to winning Best Picture closer than any foreign language film has, but as long as there is a Best International Feature Film category, I doubt a film will ever be able to win both.
|
|
|
Post by wilcinema on Nov 8, 2019 15:30:39 GMT
Oh god, OUATIH cannot possibly win Best Picture.
|
|
|
Post by doddgerhardt on Nov 8, 2019 21:14:21 GMT
Honestly if Dafoe gets nominated a 3rd time in a row, I wonder if the conversation in the industry will veer towards recognizing this great character actor for his work over the decades. Hell this would be a deserving performance to win for.
|
|
Good God
Badass
Posts: 1,633
Likes: 1,937
|
Post by Good God on Nov 8, 2019 21:39:01 GMT
Honestly if Dafoe gets nominated a 3rd time in a row, I wonder if the conversation in the industry will veer towards recognizing this great character actor for his work over the decades. Hell this would be a deserving performance to win for. How often has it happened that a would-be filler nominee went on to win the Oscar because he was considered "due"? A due narrative can swing things your way in a close race, but it won't make you into a winner from an also-ran.
|
|
|
Post by doddgerhardt on Nov 8, 2019 21:46:30 GMT
Honestly if Dafoe gets nominated a 3rd time in a row, I wonder if the conversation in the industry will veer towards recognizing this great character actor for his work over the decades. Hell this would be a deserving performance to win for. How often has it happened that a would-be filler nominee went on to win the Oscar because he was considered "due"? A due narrative can swing things your way in a close race, but it won't make you into a winner from an also-ran. That’s true. I should have specified. If he gets in mostly like he would be 4th or 5th in the line up unless critics groups go crazy for him and even still the industry doesn’t always match with critics groups. That being said this would be a no token nomination IMO. He’s fantastic in The Lighthouse.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Nov 8, 2019 22:03:24 GMT
Honestly if Dafoe gets nominated a 3rd time in a row, I wonder if the conversation in the industry will veer towards recognizing this great character actor for his work over the decades. Hell this would be a deserving performance to win for. How often has it happened that a would-be filler nominee went on to win the Oscar because he was considered "due"? A due narrative can swing things your way in a close race, but it won't make you into a winner from an also-ran. Would he be a filler nominee, though? I suppose it would depend on one's definition of the category (which we've discussed before), but for me, a filler nominee is someone who voters lazily check off but who doesn't really have a whole lot of passion behind them. If Dafoe can manage to wangle a nomination, it would be almost entirely because there is passion for the performance, because it most definitely isn't an Oscar-friendly vehicle.
As for your question, it's hard to make a judgment call on that because, as the winners ultimately went on to win, they couldn't very well be considered filler nominees in retrospect. Maybe someone like Alan Arkin, you could make the argument for?
|
|
Good God
Badass
Posts: 1,633
Likes: 1,937
|
Post by Good God on Nov 8, 2019 22:18:57 GMT
Would he be a filler nominee, though? I suppose it would depend on one's definition of the category (which we've discussed before), but for me, a filler nominee is someone who voters lazily check off but who doesn't really have a whole lot of passion behind them. If Dafoe can manage to wangle a nomination, it would be almost entirely because there is passion for the performance, because it most definitely isn't an Oscar-friendly vehicle.
As for your question, it's hard to make a judgment call on that because, as the winners ultimately went on to win, they couldn't very well be considered filler nominees in retrospect. Maybe someone like Alan Arkin, you could make the argument for?
Replace "filler" with "barely-made-it-in" if that's more palatable, but the point is the same. Alan Arkin is someone you can make that argument for, but I think he was top 3 even by nominations time. He made both SAG and BAFTA (the two most important precursors) even if he missed the Globes. Among the eventual Oscar nominees: Eddie Murphy missed BAFTA Djimon Hounsou missed BAFTA and the Globes Jackie Earle Haley missed BAFTA and the Globes Mark Wahlberg missed BAFTA and SAG It was a very fractured race and Arkin was probably in the top 2 by nominations phase. Something Dafoe (probably) won't be. Also, Little Miss Sunshine was a Best Picture nominee. Something The Lighthouse (probably) won't be.
|
|
|
Post by IceTruckDexter on Nov 9, 2019 0:19:02 GMT
How often has it happened that a would-be filler nominee went on to win the Oscar because he was considered "due"? A due narrative can swing things your way in a close race, but it won't make you into a winner from an also-ran. Would he be a filler nominee, though? I suppose it would depend on one's definition of the category (which we've discussed before), but for me, a filler nominee is someone who voters lazily check off but who doesn't really have a whole lot of passion behind them. If Dafoe can manage to wangle a nomination, it would be almost entirely because there is passion for the performance, because it most definitely isn't an Oscar-friendly vehicle.
As for your question, it's hard to make a judgment call on that because, as the winners ultimately went on to win, they couldn't very well be considered filler nominees in retrospect. Maybe someone like Alan Arkin, you could make the argument for?
Arkin had a top film behind him. Nobody thinks The Lighthouse can get into Best Picture.
|
|
|
Post by IceTruckDexter on Nov 9, 2019 0:23:35 GMT
I don't see anybody but Pitt winning. Pacino and Pesci seem to be cancelling each other out, Hanks hasn't been nominated in almost 20 years and keeps getting snubbed, Hopkins, Dafoe and Brown's films don't have enough strength to carry them to a win. If Pitt hadn't won Best Picture for '12 Years a Slave' then this would be a cake walk.
|
|
Good God
Badass
Posts: 1,633
Likes: 1,937
|
Post by Good God on Nov 9, 2019 0:26:11 GMT
I don't see anybody but Pitt winning. Pacino and Pesci seem to be cancelling each other out, Hanks hasn't been nominated in almost 20 years and keeps getting snubbed, Hopkins, Dafoe and Brown's films don't have enough strength to carry them to a win. If Pitt hadn't won Best Picture for '12 Years a Slave' then this would be a cake walk. If both Pacino and Pesci are nominated, that will benefit Pitt hugely. But if Pesci misses the nomination (which he certainly can), that won't be a factor anymore.
|
|