|
Post by futuretrunks on Dec 23, 2020 0:28:25 GMT
Looks like it might be good.
|
|
sirchuck23
Based
Bad news dawg...you don't mind if I have some of your 300 dollar a glass shit there would ya?
Posts: 2,766
Likes: 4,890
|
Post by sirchuck23 on Dec 23, 2020 0:29:58 GMT
Aw damn
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Dec 23, 2020 0:34:40 GMT
Aw damn With this news and the talk that they are pushing Dune back into setting up a proper theatrical release, I kinda get the impression that WB is going to be so damn contrite that we might see them actually greenlight the Dune sequel as an apology.
|
|
sirchuck23
Based
Bad news dawg...you don't mind if I have some of your 300 dollar a glass shit there would ya?
Posts: 2,766
Likes: 4,890
|
Post by sirchuck23 on Dec 23, 2020 0:41:02 GMT
Aw damn With this news and the talk that they are pushing Dune back into setting up a proper theatrical release, I kinda get the impression that WB is going to be so damn contrite that we might see them actually greenlight the Dune sequel as an apology. Yep..they probably had people telling them putting Dune on HBO Max might ruin their potentially lucrative franchise..plus Villenueve is only signed up for one film correct? They already pissed him off and they might lose him as well going forward.
|
|
|
Post by iheartamyadams on Dec 23, 2020 0:50:33 GMT
|
|
|
Post by therealcomicman117 on Dec 23, 2020 0:51:50 GMT
With this news and the talk that they are pushing Dune back into setting up a proper theatrical release, I kinda get the impression that WB is going to be so damn contrite that we might see them actually greenlight the Dune sequel as an apology. Yep..they probably had people telling them putting Dune on HBO Max might ruin their potentially lucrative franchise..plus Villenueve is only signed up for one film correct? They already pissed him off and they might lose him as well going forward. I have to imagine how Villenueve must have been feeling when he got the news that Dune was going to HBO max, and then later instead it was going to theaters at a completely arbitary random date. Not so great!
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Dec 23, 2020 1:02:59 GMT
While the film was getting put together, I Asked an agent who had read the script what it reminded them of. Their response, “SEVEN"Who was that genius person on this board who said that? Ummmmmm What's in all those trash bags I wonder......why the gloves ........hmmmmmm
|
|
morton
Based
Posts: 2,811
Likes: 2,954
|
Post by morton on Dec 23, 2020 1:35:20 GMT
surprised to see Malek relegated mostly to the background here. He’s probably the actual killer. I didn’t want to say anything because I thought it was only me, but this was what I thought too after seeing the trailer. The way they hide him. The way that there seems to be something a little off about what we do see of him imo, until the whole why he wants to catch the killer so badly part, but that feels like a red herring to me. I’m probably way off though lol.
|
|
sirchuck23
Based
Bad news dawg...you don't mind if I have some of your 300 dollar a glass shit there would ya?
Posts: 2,766
Likes: 4,890
|
Post by sirchuck23 on Dec 23, 2020 2:02:55 GMT
You know it’s interesting..the two films Denzel is most known for turning down are Se7en and Michael Clayton. Ironically enough he eventually worked with one of the Gilroy brothers (Dan) in a legal type thriller in Roman J Israel, Esq. and now he’s doing a “Se7en” type film in The Little Things. I guess in part trying to make up for past regrets, although no doubt he felt they were good scripts with interesting roles for him.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Dec 23, 2020 10:57:46 GMT
He’s probably the actual killer. I didn’t want to say anything because I thought it was only me, but this was what I thought too after seeing the trailer. The way they hide him. The way that there seems to be something a little off about what we do see of him imo, until the whole why he wants to catch the killer so badly part, but that feels like a red herring to me. I’m probably way off though lol. Well that's sort of the thing with a movie like this that they've already publicly said has a surprise ending (wtf!) - which basically means either one of the 3 stars or a swerve ending (ala Presumed Innocent).......the only real mystery is how well it's done and whether the mystery involves the "who" or the "why". My guess is that it may be the latter and ties directly into the film's title - ie the Denzel character missed "the little thing" this time or he discovers it too late - ie that's the films religious allegory - Losing My Religion as REM put it, being at the end of your rope up etc. Part of the issue with Denzel's acting filmography - and you know, this ain't going to be his 3rd BP nominee acting nod ever is it - is while he admirably plays "anti-heroes" there too often isn't much "anti" to them in how the characters finally resolve themselves - even in things like American Gangster or Flight - he is usually (not always) walking away and kind of heroically too ............ . Not all the time of course (Malcolm X, Training Day) but too often ..... If ever an actor as a character needed to lose, really lose - on film ala Harry Caul or Jake Gittes - it's one played by Denzel Washington .......he knows it too and at 66 he doesn't have that many roles left on film to do that I reckon (less than 10 maybe and that maybe includes his 2 this year?). That tragic character is in Fences (though that play/film falters at the end so you don't "see" it or feel it as much - looking at you August Wilson) and Macbeth has it. ......and The Iceman Cometh had it.......he's been circling it on film and this deconstruction of his Joe Cool persona without it pervading the movie audiences consciousness yet............. so I'll be disappointed if he's Somerset and not Mills..
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Dec 23, 2020 11:46:48 GMT
EW tweeting Leto's quote about Washington and tagging him.
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Dec 23, 2020 11:55:08 GMT
I didn’t want to say anything because I thought it was only me, but this was what I thought too after seeing the trailer. The way they hide him. The way that there seems to be something a little off about what we do see of him imo, until the whole why he wants to catch the killer so badly part, but that feels like a red herring to me. I’m probably way off though lol. If ever an actor as a character needed to lose, really lose - on film ala Harry Caul or Jake Gittes - it's one played by Denzel Washington .......he knows it too and at 66 he doesn't have that many roles left on film to do that I reckon (less than 10 maybe and that maybe includes his 2 this year?). Pretty sure Roman J Isreal Esq was a bigger loser, and lost way bigger than Harry Caul or Jake Gittes.
He's kinda done everything. That's how you end up getting named the Greatest Actor Of The 21st Century.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Dec 23, 2020 12:03:13 GMT
If ever an actor as a character needed to lose, really lose - on film ala Harry Caul or Jake Gittes - it's one played by Denzel Washington .......he knows it too and at 66 he doesn't have that many roles left on film to do that I reckon (less than 10 maybe and that maybe includes his 2 this year?). Pretty sure Roman J Isreal Esq was a bigger loser, and lost way bigger than Harry Caul or Jake Gittes.
|
|
|
Post by TerryMontana on Dec 23, 2020 12:48:31 GMT
Maybe I'm losing something here, sorry, but I don't get that. Why Denzel would need to lose as a character in a film?
And exactly how do we assume it'd be him and not any other acclaimed actor?
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Dec 23, 2020 12:58:45 GMT
Maybe I'm losing something here, sorry, but I don't get that. Why Denzel would need to lose as a character in a film? Well, I'm assuming it's because Pac thinks Denzel plays a lot of alleged "Joe Cool" characters who are confident in themselves and don't come off as losers in life. So maybe it's a range thing or a perception that as an actor, he is unwilling to take that "risk" to be seen that way. Never held that to be true (he's played plenty characters who have lost), but as I said, if anyone was even in doubt, he completely and fully upended that with Roman J Isreal Esq , where not only does his character lose badly in the end, but is one of the biggest "loser" characters played by an A-list leading man in a studio film in recent years. Roman is unattractive, overweight, dresses badly, can't get a woman, is on the autistic spectrum and in all likelyhood probably a middle aged virgin. In fact, with Fences and Roman J Israel Esq, he kinda played two losers who lost, back to back (even though Troy Maxon displayed the surface level bravado often associated with Denzel, he was very much a loser in life. And Roman didn't have that bravado at all).
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Dec 23, 2020 13:14:43 GMT
Maybe I'm losing something here, sorry, but I don't get that. Why Denzel would need to lose as a character in a film?
And exactly how do we assume it'd be him and not any other acclaimed actor? Oh he wouldn't "have" to lose - but it works better dramatically if he does and how they are presenting it/marketing it.. This movie is being sold to us as a "twist ending", well...................a "non-twist" ending would be the cop catches the killer straightforwardly. It's been conveyed that Little Things is something like Se7en and dark.........that means somebody has to lose on the police side - lose something at least (like Mills did) - and this part of your question then doesn't really apply: "And exactly how do we assume it'd be him and not any other acclaimed actor" - well, because acclaimed actor number 1 is the presumed killer ( Leto) - so there is no twist if he loses ..........the other acclaimed actor ( Malek) could lose but that makes less sense based on the cast: The 65 year old "guy who wins all the time" in this plot (just like the Denzel Washington, the actor playing him, very often wins with his movie characters too)...........always solves the case..........has a distinct philosophy of police work.............and has the backstory that the movie is based around.........well, him losing would be the most logical twist here.......
|
|
sirchuck23
Based
Bad news dawg...you don't mind if I have some of your 300 dollar a glass shit there would ya?
Posts: 2,766
Likes: 4,890
|
Post by sirchuck23 on Dec 23, 2020 13:37:47 GMT
If ever an actor as a character needed to lose, really lose - on film ala Harry Caul or Jake Gittes - it's one played by Denzel Washington .......he knows it too and at 66 he doesn't have that many roles left on film to do that I reckon (less than 10 maybe and that maybe includes his 2 this year?). Pretty sure Roman J Isreal Esq was a bigger loser, and lost way bigger than Harry Caul or Jake Gittes.
He's kinda done everything. That's how you end up getting named the Greatest Actor Of The 21st Century.Roman J Israel is probably the closest you’ll see Denzel to playing a loser, unattractive nerd who annoys everybody..lol. Also he played another loser in one of his greatest performances in He Got Game. Jailed for the accidental murder of his wife, his son hates him, family members are afraid of him, Jim Brown and the other dude are threatening him throughout the film, and in the end goes back to prison without knowing if the governor will keep his word on getting his son to sign at his alma mater. Only redemption he gets is the forgiveness of his son and daughter. Pretty much loses everything else.
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Dec 23, 2020 13:43:14 GMT
Pretty sure Roman J Isreal Esq was a bigger loser, and lost way bigger than Harry Caul or Jake Gittes.
He's kinda done everything. That's how you end up getting named the Greatest Actor Of The 21st Century.Roman J Israel is probably the closest you’ll see Denzel to playing a loser, unattractive nerd who annoys everybody..lol. Also he played another loser in one of his greatest performances in He Got Game. Jailed for the accidental murder of his wife, his son hates him, family members are afraid of him, Jim Brown and the other dude are threatening him throughout the film, and in the end goes back to prison without knowing if the governor will keep his word on getting his son to sign at his alma mater. Only redemption he gets is the forgiveness of his son and daughter. Pretty much loses everything else. Yep, He Got Game is one of his great "loser" roles. I always used to say it's probably the closest he's come to playing a role like Marlon Brando's in On The Waterfront (another famed "loser" performance). Life just fucked over both those characters and gave them mostly nothing back in return in the end (except a beating for Brando, and Denzel getting his ass hauled back to Prison).
|
|
sirchuck23
Based
Bad news dawg...you don't mind if I have some of your 300 dollar a glass shit there would ya?
Posts: 2,766
Likes: 4,890
|
Post by sirchuck23 on Dec 23, 2020 13:47:45 GMT
Roman J Israel is probably the closest you’ll see Denzel to playing a loser, unattractive nerd who annoys everybody..lol. Also he played another loser in one of his greatest performances in He Got Game. Jailed for the accidental murder of his wife, his son hates him, family members are afraid of him, Jim Brown and the other dude are threatening him throughout the film, and in the end goes back to prison without knowing if the governor will keep his word on getting his son to sign at his alma mater. Only redemption he gets is the forgiveness of his son and daughter. Pretty much loses everything else. Yep, He Got Game is one of his great "loser" roles. I always used to say it's probably the closest he's come to playing a role like Marlon Brando's in On The Waterfront (another famed "loser" performance). Life just fucked over both those characters and gave them mostly nothing back in return in the end (except a beating for Brando, and Denzel getting his ass hauled back to Prison). Inside Man he loses the chess match between him and Clive Owen since Owen gets away in the end. As of matter of fact, Spike Lee be having Denzel take a lot of L’s..lol
|
|
|
Post by TerryMontana on Dec 23, 2020 13:52:12 GMT
Maybe I'm losing something here, sorry, but I don't get that. Why Denzel would need to lose as a character in a film? Well, I'm assuming it's because Pac thinks Denzel plays a lot of alleged "Joe Cool" characters who are confident in themselves and don't come off as losers in life. So maybe it's a range thing or a perception that as an actor, he is unwilling to take that "risk" to be seen that way. Never held that to be true (he's played plenty characters who have lost), but as I said, if anyone was even in doubt, he completely and fully upended that with Roman J Isreal Esq , where not only does his character lose badly in the end, but is one of the biggest "loser" characters played by an A-list leading man in a studio film in recent years. Roman is unattractive, overweight, dresses badly, can't get a woman, is on the autistic spectrum and in all likelyhood probably a middle aged virgin. In fact, with Fences and Roman J Israel Esq, he kinda played two losers who lost, back to back (even though Troy Maxon displayed the surface level bravado often associated with Denzel, he was very much a loser in life. And Roman didn't have that bravado at all). And there is always Training Day in which he does play a cop but he loses big time in the end.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Dec 23, 2020 13:52:57 GMT
Again, a lot of silliness in this thread confusing "losing" in the role vs the character and "playing a loser" As I said clearly, he has plenty of roles where he played a loser but a memorable role where he loses is by far in the minority of his career - and he wants that Raging Bull, Dog Day Afternoon, Chinatown, Conversation, McCabe & Mrs Miller etc. Roman J. Israel is exactly NOT that kind of role at all that doesn't fit those above - he turns himself in, he's noble - he writes a letter to the judge for Godsakes........
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Dec 23, 2020 13:53:13 GMT
Actually, I tell a lie. Denzel's character in He Got Game loses worse than Brando's in On The Waterfront, because Brando's character at least gets to go back to work and gets the respect of his peers after getting beaten up. So even though he's "loser character" for most of the film, he kind of wins in the end. Denzel's character just gets locked up.
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Dec 23, 2020 13:57:26 GMT
Again, a lot of silliness in this thread confusing "losing" in the role vs the character and "playing a loser" As I said clearly, he has plenty of roles where he played a loser but a memorable role where he loses is by far in the minority of his career - and he wants that Raging Bull, Dog Day Afternoon, Chinatown, Conversation, McCabe & Mrs Miller etc. Roman J. Israel is exactly NOT that kind of role at all that doesn't fit those above - he turns himself in, he's noble - he writes a letter to the judge for Godsakes........ Yeah, I think you have a highly overactive imagination on this. And your thesis doesn't really work. Like on any level. God loves a trier though. Better off sticking to his lack of BAFTA recognition or whatever as his supposed career hole
|
|
|
Post by TerryMontana on Dec 23, 2020 13:58:13 GMT
Maybe I'm losing something here, sorry, but I don't get that. Why Denzel would need to lose as a character in a film?
And exactly how do we assume it'd be him and not any other acclaimed actor? Oh he wouldn't "have" to lose - but it works better dramatically if he does and how they are presenting it/marketing it.. This movie is being sold to us as a "twist ending", well...................a "non-twist" ending would be the cop catches the killer straightforwardly. It's been conveyed that Little Things is something like Se7en and dark.........that means somebody has to lose on the police side - lose something at least (like Mills did) - and this part of your question then doesn't really apply: "And exactly how do we assume it'd be him and not any other acclaimed actor" - well, because acclaimed actor number 1 is the presumed killer ( Leto) - so there is no twist if he loses ..........the other acclaimed actor ( Malek) could lose but that makes less sense based on the cast: The 65 year old "guy who wins all the time" in this plot (just like the Denzel Washington, the actor playing him, very often wins with his movie characters too)...........always solves the case..........has a distinct philosophy of police work.............and has the backstory that the movie is based around.........well, him losing would be the most logical twist here....... Well, don't forget that in Se7en there was no twist as to who was the killer, in fact that was shown way before the ending, but the twist didn't uave to do with his identity. Actually I'd love it if it was a totally different twist all around.
|
|
morton
Based
Posts: 2,811
Likes: 2,954
|
Post by morton on Dec 23, 2020 14:00:13 GMT
I didn’t want to say anything because I thought it was only me, but this was what I thought too after seeing the trailer. The way they hide him. The way that there seems to be something a little off about what we do see of him imo, until the whole why he wants to catch the killer so badly part, but that feels like a red herring to me. I’m probably way off though lol. Well that's sort of the thing with a movie like this that they've already publicly said has a surprise ending (wtf!) - which basically means either one of the 3 stars or a swerve ending (ala Presumed Innocent).......the only real mystery is how well it's done and whether the mystery involves the "who" or the "why". My guess is that it may be the latter and ties directly into the film's title - ie the Denzel character missed "the little thing" this time or he discovers it too late - ie that's the films religious allegory - Losing My Religion as REM put it, being at the end of your rope up etc. Part of the issue with Denzel's acting filmography - and you know, this ain't going to be his 3rd BP nominee acting nod ever is it - is while he admirably plays "anti-heroes" there too often isn't much "anti" to them in how the characters finally resolve themselves - even in things like American Gangster or Flight - he is usually (not always) walking away and kind of heroically too ............ . Not all the time of course (Malcolm X, Training Day) but too often ..... If ever an actor as a character needed to lose, really lose - on film ala Harry Caul or Jake Gittes - it's one played by Denzel Washington .......he knows it too and at 66 he doesn't have that many roles left on film to do that I reckon (less than 10 maybe and that maybe includes his 2 this year?). That tragic character is in Fences (though that play/film falters at the end so you don't "see" it or feel it as much - looking at you August Wilson) and Macbeth has it. ......and The Iceman Cometh had it.......he's been circling it on film and this deconstruction of his Joe Cool persona without it pervading the movie audiences consciousness yet............. so I'll be disappointed if he's Somerset and not Mills.. Yeah I went over to Reddit last night because I had more time than I did in the morning to see what the theories were, and they were pretty funny and good. A lot of people over there had a similar idea about who was actually the killer, but thought that seemed way too predictable and easy to guess, and then were coming up with these other more elaborate theories. (Knowing Hollywood, I'm guessing they might be overthinking things though.) Not really a spoiler but just in case I'll put it behind a tag. As for Denzel's character besides some people thinking he might be the real killer, although that wasn't really a popular guess compared to others over there, I missed the bags that were around him in shots, so a popular theory is that he's actually killing suspects and Rami Malek has to decide whether to bring him in or not when he finds out.
This actually makes sense given what you've wrote, and given what people caught in the trailer.
|
|