|
Post by pupdurcs on May 21, 2019 18:31:21 GMT
Thing is, Pitt is getting a LOT of lead talk, according to the tweets I'm seeing. Some are saying he's even more lead than DiCaprio. DiCaprio's bowed out of races before ( The Departed) in favor of his co-stars, so I wouldn't be surprised if that happens this time with Pitt, who remains Oscar-less (in an acting category, anyway). DiCaprio had Blood Diamond when The Departed was out, and he got nodded for that. Don't think he bowed out of anything. He had options that season. We live in the era of category fraud. If the studio think it's at all possible to sell DiCaprio as the sole lead, and Pitt as supporting, they'll try it and probably get away with it. If both DiCaprio and Pitt are both campaigned lead, Pitt looks to have the early advantadge.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on May 21, 2019 18:35:26 GMT
Thing is, Pitt is getting a LOT of lead talk, according to the tweets I'm seeing. Some are saying he's even more lead than DiCaprio. DiCaprio's bowed out of races before ( The Departed) in favor of his co-stars, so I wouldn't be surprised if that happens this time with Pitt, who remains Oscar-less (in an acting category, anyway). DiCaprio had Blood Diamond when The Departed was out, and he got nodded for that. Don't think he bowed out of anything. We live in the era of category fraud. If the studio think it's at all possible to sell DiCaprio as the sole lead, and Pitt as supporting, they'll try it and probably get away with it. If both DiCaprio and Pitt are both campaigned lead, Pitt looks to have the early advantadge. They were preparing to run a supporting campaign for DiCaprio that year as well for The Departed. He got a lead Globe nod, but the Globes don't have that dumb rule the Oscars do that limit an actor to one slot per category. Apparently, DiCaprio refused on the grounds that he would be taking attention from Wahlberg and Nicholson. Yes, he had another film that year, but if he'd gone through with that supporting campaign and had gotten in, he might very well have won for it.
We do live in the era of category fraud, but we don't often see major A-listers like Pitt or DiCaprio defer to the supporting categories if they're co-leads. Emma Stone could be argued as doing so last year, but I don't think FSL really were wanting her to win in the first place, instead using her to maximize nominations and keep her out of Colman's way. I think if Pitt's role is as major as these reports seem to say, they might realize he stands a strong shot as a leading win and push him over Leo, who just won four years ago.
|
|
|
Post by iheartamyadams on May 21, 2019 18:39:35 GMT
This will be interesting to watch unfold. A tweet said that Pitt is more of a lead than DiCaprio and he has slightly better ink. With that considered, I’m struggling to see him go Supporting. He’s too big a star and if he’s apparently more lead, how on earth is that going to work!? I agree with Scrudpuppy though that they may try. He’s also great (career best perf imo) in Ad Astra and they try and avoid vote splitting.
DiCaprio has been mentioned frequently as well in tweets and is getting great ink. I think he has a role that’s probably a bit more flashy and appealing to the industry, so he’ll defintely be a contender for a nom. Just seems weird to even entertain the idea of literally the biggest star on earth going Supporting. My gut tells me they both go lead but I can see it playing out a number of ways and I’m excited to watch the madness unfold.
First review from The Wrap is very positive
Tarantino has begged the press not to include any spoilers in reviews, and he had a Cannes official do the same on stage before the press screening began. (The announcement drew a few boos.) But it’s no spoiler (and probably no surprise, either) to say that “Once Upon a Time … in Hollywood” is big, brash, ridiculous, too long, and in the end, invigorating. It’s a grand playground for the director to further fetishize old pop culture, to break things and hurt people, and to bring a wide-eyed glee and a robust sense of perversity to the whole craft of moviemaking.
But it also, curiously, shares a kinship with Pedro Almodovar’s “Pain and Glory,” a delicate memory piece that is one of the most moving films in the Cannes competition. Almodovar’s film is the work of a lion in winter, a director in a moment of crisis and reflection looking back on his life and career with regret and longing. Tarantino’s film could scarcely be more dissimilar stylistically, but you can see it as the work of a 56-year-old artist wondering about his place in a changing industry.
The roles are as juicy as they come, and Leonardo DiCaprio (Rick) and Brad Pitt (Cliff) know exactly what to do with them. The spectacular talkiness of previous Tarantino films is in shorter supply in “Once Upon a Time” – but whether it’s Rick describing the plot of a Western novel to an 8-year-old co-star or Cliff facing off against a blowhard Bruce Lee, there are enough gems scattered throughout the film to make this worthy of the DiCaprio’s and Pitt’s first onscreen time together.
The film takes its time, to the point where at times it starts to feel sluggish – but even the slower moments have delicious touches or wonderful cameos (ladies and gentlemen, Bruce Freakin’ Dern!) And slowly but surely, this bravura homage builds up to … something.
And that’s where the film becomes difficult to write about. Tarantino doesn’t want reviewers revealing “anything that would prevent later audiences from experiencing this film in the same way” that we did, and it’s probably inevitable that I’ve already done that. But I’m not going to say anymore, because he’s right that the film needs to be experienced with fresh eyes, and its spectacular conclusion shouldn’t be foreshadowed.
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on May 21, 2019 18:42:46 GMT
DiCaprio had Blood Diamond when The Departed was out, and he got nodded for that. Don't think he bowed out of anything. We live in the era of category fraud. If the studio think it's at all possible to sell DiCaprio as the sole lead, and Pitt as supporting, they'll try it and probably get away with it. If both DiCaprio and Pitt are both campaigned lead, Pitt looks to have the early advantadge.
We do live in the era of category fraud, but we don't often see major A-listers like Pitt or DiCaprio defer to the supporting categories if they're co-leads.
Denzel Washington was campaigned as lead for American Gangster, while Russell Crowe (equal screen time, lead of his own half of the story) and equally billed in the marketing, was campaigned in supporting. Studios do it for major A-listers, and they will for this as well if it makes sense. Besides which, Pitt's best chance of actually winning is probably supporting. I can't see a cool dude stuntman in a Tarantino flick being an obvious or even probable choice for a lead actor win. Sounds far too fun. If Pitt goes lead, he's going to lose to someone dying of cancer or playing a real life historical figure in a biopic.
|
|
|
Post by iheartamyadams on May 21, 2019 18:47:27 GMT
We do live in the era of category fraud, but we don't often see major A-listers like Pitt or DiCaprio defer to the supporting categories if they're co-leads.
Denzel Washington was campaigned as lead for American Gangster, while Russell Crowe (equal screen time, lead of his own half of the story) and equally billed in the marketing, was campaigned in supporting. Studios do it for major A-listers, and they will for this as well if it makes sense. Besides which, Pitt's best chance of actually winning is probably supporting. I can't see a cool dude stuntman in a Tarantino flick being an obvious or even probable choice for a lead actor win. Sounds far too fun. If Pitt goes lead, he's going to lose to someone dying of cancer or playing a real life historical figure in a biopic. How is that comparable? Washington has always been a way bigger star than Crowe.
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on May 21, 2019 18:55:31 GMT
Denzel Washington was campaigned as lead for American Gangster, while Russell Crowe (equal screen time, lead of his own half of the story) and equally billed in the marketing, was campaigned in supporting. Studios do it for major A-listers, and they will for this as well if it makes sense. Besides which, Pitt's best chance of actually winning is probably supporting. I can't see a cool dude stuntman in a Tarantino flick being an obvious or even probable choice for a lead actor win. Sounds far too fun. If Pitt goes lead, he's going to lose to someone dying of cancer or playing a real life historical figure in a biopic. How is that comparable? Washington has always been a way bigger star than Crowe. In 2007, as far as the industry was concerned, Washington and Crowe were equal in terms of A-list stardom (even though Denzel was always the more consistent box office draw). We were not that far removed from Crowe's peak period of Gladiator and A Beautiful Mind, which were winning Best Picture and making hundreds of millions worldwide. Crowe was still the A-lister getting offered the best studio roles, and he was the one who had history with Ridley Scott as a leading man. In fact, the first version of American Gangster with Denzel, Antoine Fuqua and Benicio Del Toro got canned, because the studio was worried about the escalating budget. Crowe and Ridley Scott attaching themselves allowed the studio to resuscitate the project When they made that film, they were stars equal in stature. Anything else is revisionist history. Denzel was a bigger star before Crowe' s career took off, and has been a bigger star since Crowe's career fell off, but for a period in the 2000's, they occupied the same level of A-list clout.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on May 21, 2019 19:06:57 GMT
|
|
|
Post by iheartamyadams on May 21, 2019 19:10:59 GMT
How is that comparable? Washington has always been a way bigger star than Crowe. In 2007, as far as the industry was concerned, Washington and Crowe were equal in terms of A-list stardom (even though Denzel was always the more consistent box office draw). We were not that far removed from Crowe's peak period of Gladiator and A Beautiful Mind, which were winning Best Picture and making hundreds of millions worldwide. Crowe was still the A-lister getting offered the best studio roles, and he was the one who had history with Ridley Scott as a leading man. In fact, the first version of American Gangster with Denzel, Antoine Fuqua and Benicio Del Toro got canned, because the studio was worried about the escalating budget. Crowe and Ridley Scott attaching themselves allowed the studio to resuscitate the project When they made that film, they were stars equal in stature. Anything else is revisionist history. Denzel was a bigger star before Crowe' s career took off, and has been a bigger star since Crowe's career fell off, but for a period in the 2000's, they occupied the same level of A-list clout. No way. Absolute nonsense. Washington had two Oscars and was a way more consistent box office draw. Crowe has already had three consecutive box office bombs leading up to this film. He was already beginning his downward career spiral.
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on May 21, 2019 19:36:03 GMT
In 2007, as far as the industry was concerned, Washington and Crowe were equal in terms of A-list stardom (even though Denzel was always the more consistent box office draw). We were not that far removed from Crowe's peak period of Gladiator and A Beautiful Mind, which were winning Best Picture and making hundreds of millions worldwide. Crowe was still the A-lister getting offered the best studio roles, and he was the one who had history with Ridley Scott as a leading man. In fact, the first version of American Gangster with Denzel, Antoine Fuqua and Benicio Del Toro got canned, because the studio was worried about the escalating budget. Crowe and Ridley Scott attaching themselves allowed the studio to resuscitate the project When they made that film, they were stars equal in stature. Anything else is revisionist history. Denzel was a bigger star before Crowe' s career took off, and has been a bigger star since Crowe's career fell off, but for a period in the 2000's, they occupied the same level of A-list clout. No way. Absolute nonsense. Washington had two Oscars and was a way more consistent box office draw. Crowe has already had three consecutive box office bombs leading up to this film. He was already beginning his downward career spiral. Err...no. That is not how the industry works. Sean Penn has two Oscars. Hilary Swank has two Oscars. Daniel Day-Lewis has three Oscars. They have never at any point in their careers been major box office draws.Oscars have fuck all to do with anything. The idea that you can be someone as big as Crowe was in the first half of the 2000's and get struck off the A-list after a few underperformers and some bad press is ludicrous. It took 10 years of Marlon Brando flopping to fall off studio "A-lists". Brad Pitt has had a tonne of flops this decade, yet no one is acting as if he isn't still A-list in stature (obviously DiCaprio is bigger and more consistent draw these days). Crowe was still regarded as huge international star then. The fact that he was still allowed to carry massively budgeted films like Robin Hood and Noah, with no major co-leads, years after his supposed "box office peak", tells you how long it takes the industry to acknowledge someone like Crowe is no longer as big as they thought he once was. In all likelyhood, the industry probably just dismissed his box office underperformers prior to American Gangster as reaction to his bad press (phone throwing etc), and something that could be easily fixed. If you want to indulge in revisionist history to forcefully win an argument, knock yourself out. But I've said my piece and I'm done.
|
|
|
Post by iheartamyadams on May 21, 2019 19:47:39 GMT
No way. Absolute nonsense. Washington had two Oscars and was a way more consistent box office draw. Crowe has already had three consecutive box office bombs leading up to this film. He was already beginning his downward career spiral. Err...no. That is not how the industry works. Sean Penn has two Oscars. Hilary Swank has two Oscars. Daniel Day-Lewis has three Oscars. They have never at any point in their careers been major box office draws.Oscars have fuck all to do with anything. The idea that you can be someone as big as Crowe was in the first half of the 2000's and get struck off the A-list after a few underperformers and some bad press is ludicrous. It took 10 years of Marlon Brando flopping to fall off studio "A-lists". Brad Pitt has had a tonne of flops this decade, yet no one is acting as if he isn't still A-list in stature (obviously DiCaprio is bigger and more consistent draw these days). Crowe was still regarded as huge international star then. The fact that he was still allowed to carry massively budgeted films like Robin Hood and Noah, with no major co-leads, years after his supposed "box office peak", tells you how long it takes the industry to acknowledge someone like Crowe is no longer as big as they thought he once was. If you want to indulge in revisionist history to forcefully win an argument, knock yourself out. But I've said my piece and I'm done. I’m not trying to “forcefully win an argument”, lmfao. I don’t care. It’s not my style to continue going on and on after a debate has run its course. I don’t agree with your analysis of star power is what it boils down to. Russell Crowe was a prestige star and had a very brief run where he he enjoyed with commercial success in two of those projects, but I don’t think many would consider him anything remotely close to a consistent draw and that’s the difference between him and Washington. Washington in additional to being equally if not more respected, more awarded, ect was also a legitimate draw. I do not view them as on par in any sense at any point in their careers. Maybe if it was like the very next project after ABM, but even then it would be a stretch imo.
|
|
|
Post by iheartamyadams on May 21, 2019 20:08:39 GMT
90 on MC with four reviews.
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on May 21, 2019 20:14:51 GMT
Hollywood doesn't work like that. Especsilly if you are a white male that has had box office and critical success on the scale of Crowe, where that success can be directly attributed to him (as Gladiator and A Beautiful Mind were for some). Whether it makes sense or not, Crowe was regarded as a huge A-lister for a long time after his biggest successes. The town spent years trying to replicate that success and still treated him and paid him like a megastar. Crowe was paid 18 Million dollars to headline Noah in 2014, many years after his supposed A-list leading man career had fallen off. Yet he was still being paid like an A-list superstar in 2014, not a "prestige leading man". www.forbes.com/pictures/emjl45mmei/24-russell-crowe/#553fe67b3b49
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on May 21, 2019 20:44:29 GMT
Hollywood doesn't work like that. Especsilly if you are a white male that has had box office and critical success on the scale of Crowe, where that success can be directly attributed to him (as Gladiator and A Beautiful Mind were for some). Whether it makes sense or not, Crowe was regarded as a huge A-lister for a long time after his biggest successes. The town spent years trying to replicate that success and still treated him and paid him like a megastar. Crowe was paid 18 Million dollars to headline Noah in 2014, many years after his supposed A-list leading man career had fallen off. Yet he was still being paid like an A-list superstar in 2014, not a "prestige leading man". www.forbes.com/pictures/emjl45mmei/24-russell-crowe/#553fe67b3b49Dude, this is QT's thread not Russell Crowe's or Denzel's! stop mixing everything, We know ye right! Conversational tangents happen "dude". It was an interesting and relevant convo that spawned from the QT film's Oscar campaign possibilities and I think we've said what needed saying. No harm, no foul. If you want to move to conversation specifically back to QT/The movie/Leo/Pitt....the floor is yours. I know the concept of holding multiple conversations that can intersect is alien to you (and your equally dumb Sockpuppet aliases), but give it a go. You might surprise yourself. Asshole.
|
|
|
Post by iheartamyadams on May 21, 2019 20:56:13 GMT
Hollywood doesn't work like that. Especsilly if you are a white male that has had box office and critical success on the scale of Crowe, where that success can be directly attributed to him (as Gladiator and A Beautiful Mind were for some). Whether it makes sense or not, Crowe was regarded as a huge A-lister for a long time after his biggest successes. The town spent years trying to replicate that success and still treated him and paid him like a megastar. Crowe was paid 18 Million dollars to headline Noah in 2014, many years after his supposed A-list leading man career had fallen off. Yet he was still being paid like an A-list superstar in 2014, not a "prestige leading man". www.forbes.com/pictures/emjl45mmei/24-russell-crowe/#553fe67b3b49I didn’t know that. Pretty shocking and yes, a solid indicator that maybe he was a bigger in Hollywood than I remembered (and the numbers reflected). Touché scrudpup, touché.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on May 21, 2019 21:19:23 GMT
What's kind of interesting is if you read these reviews closely you can see the critics and festival "experts" engaging in a kind of childish game of one-upmanship. Some call it a masterpiece but almost equally some go out of their way to randomly declare it NOT a masterpiece (Variety does this) while still liking it.
Almost as if trying to differentiate themselves from other QT fans or haters.......the reviews are actually quite funny and almost condescending to the reader on both sides.
|
|
|
Post by iheartamyadams on May 21, 2019 21:31:29 GMT
Ellwood on the films award chances
Gregory Ellwood - Cannes - Playlist 🎬 @thegregorye Now that I've filled my Once Upon A Time In Hollywood review, let's talk Oscars shall we? Once has a great chance at a Best Picture nod. Not only is moving, but it will also appeal to older members and has less gore/blood than his other recent nominees. (1) #Cannes2019 1:57 PM · May 21, 2019 from Cannes, France · Twitter Web Client
Gregory Ellwood - Cannes - Playlist 🎬 TheGregoryE You can start the debate on lead vs. supporting actor Pitt, but I think both are lead. Pitt gives the more subtle perf that sticks with you, but DiCaprio shows more range. Likely DiCaprio, but this is gonna be a Pitt perf people are going to remember for years (2) #Cannes2019
Gregory Ellwood - Cannes - Playlist 🎬 Margot Robbie is very, very good. She does exactly what the role requires, but due to the nature of it I would be surprised if she gets a Supporting Actress nod. This makes more sense in context but it can't hurt Sony to try. No other real potential acting nods with this one. (3)
|
|
|
Post by Mattsby on May 21, 2019 21:50:22 GMT
Can't wait for the movie, probably will love it. But-- kinda upset that QT has seemingly gave Pacino a throwaway part or at least a minimal one - multiple reviews call it a cameo, and some dummy at Indiewire says his perf is a "broad, fleeting caricature." You'd think QT would give Pacino one real sizzling monologue but that doesn't seem to be the case which is odd bc QT has a great talent for giving even smaller roles their own distinctive impact. Also, some info on who the narrator is for those interested but I'll put in spoilers anyway-- Kurt Russell
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on May 21, 2019 21:57:36 GMT
Can't wait for the movie, probably will love it. But-- kinda upset that QT has seemingly gave Pacino a throwaway part or at least a minimal one - multiple reviews call it a cameo, and some dummy at Indiewire says his perf is a "broad, fleeting caricature." You'd think QT would give Pacino one real sizzling monologue but that doesn't seem to be the case which is odd bc we know QT has a great talent for giving even smaller roles their own distinctive impact. Yeah really shocked on Pacino especially since he's prominent in the trailer. I've seen some other reviews that positively single him out as being "dialed in" and a "Uproarious" so that's something at least and as time goes on it's good for him to be in something people will actually see ........ One of the other sad things about this film is the Dern role sounds a bit .......menacing in a way....... and rather perfect for Reynolds - doesn't seem like any of the supporting roles gets that much time whereas in PF you had Walken, Keitel, Stoltz etc. all making a lot of impact in a short time...........
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on May 21, 2019 22:11:30 GMT
Can't wait for the movie, probably will love it. But-- kinda upset that QT has seemingly gave Pacino a throwaway part or at least a minimal one - multiple reviews call it a cameo, and some dummy at Indiewire says his perf is a "broad, fleeting caricature." You'd think QT would give Pacino one real sizzling monologue but that doesn't seem to be the case which is odd bc QT has a great talent for giving even smaller roles their own distinctive impact. To be fair, when I saw the latest trailer, I was kinda thinking "broad caricature" was exactly what Pacino was doing. It's like Tarantino hired him to do that broad , schitcky stuff he did in a lot of his more forgettable 2000's films. Then again, Tarantino can have esoteric and downright bizarre tastes. Maybe he thinks Two For The Money & Jack And Jill are misunderstood classics, and wanted that Pacino. Least he still has The Irishman.
|
|
|
Post by Mattsby on May 21, 2019 22:15:44 GMT
Can't wait for the movie, probably will love it. But-- kinda upset that QT has seemingly gave Pacino a throwaway part or at least a minimal one - multiple reviews call it a cameo, and some dummy at Indiewire says his perf is a "broad, fleeting caricature." You'd think QT would give Pacino one real sizzling monologue but that doesn't seem to be the case which is odd bc we know QT has a great talent for giving even smaller roles their own distinctive impact. Yeah really shocked on Pacino especially since he's prominent in the trailer. I've seen some other reviews that positively single him out as being "dialed in" and a "riot" so that's something at least and as time goes on it's good for him to be in something people will actually see ........ One of the other sad things about this film is the Dern role sounds a bit .......menacing in a way....... and rather perfect for Reynolds - doesn't seem like any of the supporting roles gets that much time whereas in PF you had Walken, Keitel, Stoltz etc. all making a lot of impact in a short time........... Exactly. I watched the trailer right before going thru the reviews so I was excited for about eight seconds thinking his role was like fourth biggest, along with QT expressly writing the role for him and Pacino being at that table read for the main cast....!
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on May 21, 2019 22:19:25 GMT
Can't wait for the movie, probably will love it. But-- kinda upset that QT has seemingly gave Pacino a throwaway part or at least a minimal one - multiple reviews call it a cameo, and some dummy at Indiewire says his perf is a "broad, fleeting caricature." You'd think QT would give Pacino one real sizzling monologue but that doesn't seem to be the case which is odd bc QT has a great talent for giving even smaller roles their own distinctive impact. To be fair, when I saw the latest trailer, I was kinda thinking "broad caricature" was exactly what Pacino was doing. It's like Tarantino hired him to do that broad , schitcky stuff he did in a lot of his more forgettable 2000's films. Then again, Tarantino can have esoteric and downright bizarre tastes. Maybe he thinks Two For The Money & Jack And Jill are misunderstood classics, and wanted that Pacino. Least he still has The Irishman. It's the nature of Tarantino that's sort of what the acting is in his films - usually all good but not deep either - it wasn't even a put down exactly, the point was it was brief really and in and out. In a way it's sort of similar in a way to me saying The Equalizer and Equalizer 2 for example are broad caricatures - it's just what that is by nature. At least he's going to be in a likely BP nominee and a major film with this one too.
|
|
|
Post by Mattsby on May 21, 2019 22:25:18 GMT
Can't wait for the movie, probably will love it. But-- kinda upset that QT has seemingly gave Pacino a throwaway part or at least a minimal one - multiple reviews call it a cameo, and some dummy at Indiewire says his perf is a "broad, fleeting caricature." You'd think QT would give Pacino one real sizzling monologue but that doesn't seem to be the case which is odd bc QT has a great talent for giving even smaller roles their own distinctive impact. To be fair, when I saw the latest trailer, I was kinda thinking "broad caricature" was exactly what Pacino was doing. It's like Tarantino hired him to do that broad , schitcky stuff he did in a lot of his more forgettable 2000's films. Then again, Tarantino can have esoteric and downright bizarre tastes. Maybe he thinks Two For The Money & Jack And Jill are misunderstood classics, and wanted that Pacino. Least he still has The Irishman. Well.... Pacino has great scenes/moments in both Two for the Money (gamblers anonymous meeting) and Jack & Jill (a lot actually, my fav is his "I end up talking to lemon trees" bit). So I wouldn't mind that Pacino! The trailer suggests he's a bigger character - I counted three costume changes. And just from the on set pics I was kinda predicting that Pacino was gonna play the role flamboyantly. Anyway, one review says the Pacino character talks about watching Rick Dalton's stuff on 35mm which is funny bc Qt started meeting Pacino for this part around when Qt's Beverly theater in LA was showing Scarecrow on 35mm and Pacino has said - multiple times actually - how incredibly wowed he was by that 35mm print. So it's almost like he wrote that in. Though maybe a stretch.
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on May 21, 2019 22:31:02 GMT
I think Tarantino is good at getting challenging and unique performances out of actors, regardless of their level. I feel like Sam Jackson has deserved an Oscar nomination (and maybe a win or two) every time he's been in a Tarantino movie. Never particularly rated Christoph Waltz outside the auspices of Tarantino. He can draw very interesting sides out of actors when he so chooses.
It's a bit of a surprise (to me anyway) to see in such a big cast for a Tarantino film, that there appear to be few standouts beyond the male leads. Tarantino is uusually good for more than that, but he probably had his reasons.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on May 21, 2019 23:13:29 GMT
To be fair, when I saw the latest trailer, I was kinda thinking "broad caricature" was exactly what Pacino was doing. It's like Tarantino hired him to do that broad , schitcky stuff he did in a lot of his more forgettable 2000's films. Then again, Tarantino can have esoteric and downright bizarre tastes. Maybe he thinks Two For The Money & Jack And Jill are misunderstood classics, and wanted that Pacino. Least he still has The Irishman. Well.... Pacino has great scenes/moments in both Two for the Money (gamblers anonymous meeting) and Jack & Jill (a lot actually, my fav is his "I end up talking to lemon trees" bit). So I wouldn't mind that Pacino! The trailer suggests he's a bigger character - I counted three costume changes. And just from the on set pics I was kinda predicting that Pacino was gonna play the role flamboyantly. Anyway, one review says the Pacino character talks about watching Rick Dalton's stuff on 35mm which is funny bc Qt started meeting Pacino for this part around when Qt's Beverly theater in LA was showing Scarecrow on 35mm and Pacino has said - multiple times actually - how incredibly wowed he was by that 35mm print. So it's almost like he wrote that in. Though maybe a stretch. Here's a newer one that singles Pacino out (played "deliciously", lol) Jeff Wells praised the whole supporting cast as a whole I just saw, so you'll see these and there have been a few, just that it's small and of course there's Bradshaw in the Guardian which singled him out specifically as well......what are the odds he can get in "Quentin Tarantino's "10th" film"? www.thetimes.co.uk/article/tarantino-review-once-upon-a-time-in-hollywood-cannes-film-fesitval-vgcqhxqpd
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on May 21, 2019 23:39:06 GMT
Jeff Wells "praise" for the supporting cast is as half-hearted as it gets. He lists everyone by name then proceeds to say,"they are all good and tasty as far as it goes, but this is totally Pitt's film...don"t even debate it". The big take away from Wells (If anyone is inclined to take anything away from him, and I'd understand if they choose not to ) is that Pitt is probably the biggest and maybe only awards season acting bet for this film. There remains possibilities for DiCaprio, but if Pitt gets the passion vote that seems likely based on what we are hearing so far, it may just be him. hollywood-elsewhere.com/2019/05/once-upon-a-time-in-hollywood-is/#disqus_thread
|
|