|
Post by stephen on Aug 23, 2019 17:39:41 GMT
Jackson definitely needs to be in the conversation for a future thread discussion on "greatest actor/director pairings." I'm not the world's biggest fan of production posses, as I feel like it limits a filmmaker's options and can cause them to have tunnel-vision (and I think Tarantino is as guilty of this as anyone), but Jackson feels like the exception that proves the rule with him. It's gotten to the point that it doesn't really feel like a Tarantino film without him.
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Aug 23, 2019 19:28:46 GMT
Samuel L. JacksonGenre: Quentin TarantinoI had wanted to do a profile of my man Mr. Samuel L. Jackson for awhile but I couldn't find an angle to talk about him within a particular traditional genre, because let's face it, with over 187 credits to his name on IMDB, the muthafuc/a has done every damn thing to various degrees of quality. But if you want to talk about the greatness of this icon and his impact, then you have to talk about his partnership with his greatest collaborator, Quentin Tarantino. Thus, I'm creating a new genre called Quentin Tarantino, because you can say he has a genre all to himself. I'm sure pupdurcs will allow me this solid. Where else would we start but with Pulp Fiction, Quentin's greatest film and Sam's greatest and most iconic performance as the bible-quoting hitman, Jules Winfield. Jackson had done some great work before Pulp Fiction, primarily his role as Gator Purify in Spike Lee's Jungle Fever, where he won a uniquely created Best Supporting Actor award at Cannes just to acknowledge his performance. But Pulp Fiction was his announcement that he had FINALLY arrived as a major Hollywood actor, with his smooth line delivery, effortlessly cursing capabilities, underrated comic timing and ability, and of course his famous dramatic monologue at the end of Pulp Fiction, which is arguably the greatest acting scene in Tarantino's entire filmography. Jackson's performance was not only revelatory but influential as well. IMO its the greatest performance in a Tarantino movie, and it made Samuel L. Jackson a movie star who would have a long and great career afterwards. This brought Jackson his first and unbelievably his only Oscar nomination to date, where he lost to the late Martin Landau for his work in Ed Wood. With all due respect to Landau and the champions of his performance, I think Jackson should've gotten his first Oscar that year. Here's the ending to Pulp Fiction featuring that great monologue.. His next team-up with Tarantino was for one of the director's greatest and most underrated film in his filmography, Jackie Brown. an homage to 70's Blaxploitation films, and an adaptation of Elmore Leonard's novel Rum Punch. As Ordell Robbie, a Los Angeles black market gun runner, Jackson turns in a chilling performance of a soul-less man who's willing to kill anyone of his partners who would be a hinderance for cashing in on his $550,000 and retiring to Mexico. Unlike Jules who did end up having redemption at the end of Pulp Fiction, Ordell has no inkling of redemption or care for his partners in crime. Just look at the way he coldly says to Louis (Robert De Niro) "well if you had to do it, you had to do it" when he learns Louis killed Melanie because she was annoying him, and was just concerned about his money. Then when he lost trust in Louis he ends up killing his long-time partner in crime with no remorse. One of Jackson's great villain roles and one of the more interesting characters in the Tarantino universe, Jackson was phenomenal in this role and easily worthy of his 2nd Oscar nomination for his work here. Here's one of my favorite scenes from the film, where Ordell tricks one of his employees Beaumont (a hilarious Chris Tucker cameo) to get in the trunk of his car which ultimately leads to his death... After Jackie Brown, Jackson did a cameo in Kill Bill Vol 2. as Rufus the pianist and the narrator for Inglorious Basterds, but he came back to a meaty Tarantino role as Stephen, Calvin Candie's loyal house slave and right hand man, in Django Unchained. Jackson often gets hit with the "he only plays himself" criticism, but he totally transforms into an old, gray-haired, limping, man who talked like a stereotypical 1800s American south slave in front of Schultz and Django but behind closed doors was actually a mastermind and brilliant manipulator. He plays a character archetype that is so despised in African-American culture (uncle tom) that you literally cheer when he gets his comeuppance at the end of the film. A terrific supporting performance that totally deserved an Oscar nomination that year, Jackson showed when he has a great role that requires transformation, he can do it seamlessly. Here's one of my favorite clips of his performance.. Finally, Jackson re-teamed with Tarantino for his second leading role with the director, as Major Marquis Warren in The Hateful Eight. Again as Warren, Jackson believably played a character from the 1800s, this time an African-American Civil War office for the Union Army. With this role, Jackson again showed his underrated comedic abilities and timing, especially in his famous flashback monologue to Bruce Dern's General Sanford Smithers character which began a turning point for the film. Jackson was great, as he always is in Tarantino films, and was fully deserving a Best Actor oscar nom for his performance. Jackson, I feel, doesn't get enough credit for his ability and range to play characters in period pieces as well as contemporary roles. Samuel L. Jackson and Quentin Tarantino are one of the great actor-director parings of the past 30 years, and imho even though Tarantino has worked with actors like DiCaprio, Pitt, and Kurt Russell on multiple occasions, Tarantino does his best work with Samuel L. Jackson. No other actor fits the Tarantino-verse better than Jackson, and it goes to show not just Sam Jackson's considerable abilities as an actor, but his impact on Tarantino and his legacy and also his iconic Hollywood standing for an unconventional Hollywood leading man. Here's to the muthafu/ka! Great Post I been wracking my mind for awhile about doing a profile with Jackson, but he works so much in so many different genres that I just kept putting it off. Pretty inventive use of the term genre, but I guess it gets the job done. Jackson is without question the quintessential Tarantino actor. He probably should have two or three supporting actor Oscars for his work in those films. And yes, the way he nailed both Django and Hateful Eight suggests his range in period films is highly underrated. He didn't feel like an anachronism in either part.
|
|
sirchuck23
Based
Bad news dawg...you don't mind if I have some of your 300 dollar a glass shit there would ya?
Posts: 2,672
Likes: 4,772
|
Post by sirchuck23 on Aug 23, 2019 19:42:51 GMT
Samuel L. JacksonGenre: Quentin TarantinoI had wanted to do a profile of my man Mr. Samuel L. Jackson for awhile but I couldn't find an angle to talk about him within a particular traditional genre, because let's face it, with over 187 credits to his name on IMDB, the muthafuc/a has done every damn thing to various degrees of quality. But if you want to talk about the greatness of this icon and his impact, then you have to talk about his partnership with his greatest collaborator, Quentin Tarantino. Thus, I'm creating a new genre called Quentin Tarantino, because you can say he has a genre all to himself. I'm sure pupdurcs will allow me this solid. Where else would we start but with Pulp Fiction, Quentin's greatest film and Sam's greatest and most iconic performance as the bible-quoting hitman, Jules Winfield. Jackson had done some great work before Pulp Fiction, primarily his role as Gator Purify in Spike Lee's Jungle Fever, where he won a uniquely created Best Supporting Actor award at Cannes just to acknowledge his performance. But Pulp Fiction was his announcement that he had FINALLY arrived as a major Hollywood actor, with his smooth line delivery, effortlessly cursing capabilities, underrated comic timing and ability, and of course his famous dramatic monologue at the end of Pulp Fiction, which is arguably the greatest acting scene in Tarantino's entire filmography. Jackson's performance was not only revelatory but influential as well. IMO its the greatest performance in a Tarantino movie, and it made Samuel L. Jackson a movie star who would have a long and great career afterwards. This brought Jackson his first and unbelievably his only Oscar nomination to date, where he lost to the late Martin Landau for his work in Ed Wood. With all due respect to Landau and the champions of his performance, I think Jackson should've gotten his first Oscar that year. Here's the ending to Pulp Fiction featuring that great monologue.. His next team-up with Tarantino was for one of the director's greatest and most underrated film in his filmography, Jackie Brown. an homage to 70's Blaxploitation films, and an adaptation of Elmore Leonard's novel Rum Punch. As Ordell Robbie, a Los Angeles black market gun runner, Jackson turns in a chilling performance of a soul-less man who's willing to kill anyone of his partners who would be a hinderance for cashing in on his $550,000 and retiring to Mexico. Unlike Jules who did end up having redemption at the end of Pulp Fiction, Ordell has no inkling of redemption or care for his partners in crime. Just look at the way he coldly says to Louis (Robert De Niro) "well if you had to do it, you had to do it" when he learns Louis killed Melanie because she was annoying him, and was just concerned about his money. Then when he lost trust in Louis he ends up killing his long-time partner in crime with no remorse. One of Jackson's great villain roles and one of the more interesting characters in the Tarantino universe, Jackson was phenomenal in this role and easily worthy of his 2nd Oscar nomination for his work here. Here's one of my favorite scenes from the film, where Ordell tricks one of his employees Beaumont (a hilarious Chris Tucker cameo) to get in the trunk of his car which ultimately leads to his death... After Jackie Brown, Jackson did a cameo in Kill Bill Vol 2. as Rufus the pianist and the narrator for Inglorious Basterds, but he came back to a meaty Tarantino role as Stephen, Calvin Candie's loyal house slave and right hand man, in Django Unchained. Jackson often gets hit with the "he only plays himself" criticism, but he totally transforms into an old, gray-haired, limping, man who talked like a stereotypical 1800s American south slave in front of Schultz and Django but behind closed doors was actually a mastermind and brilliant manipulator. He plays a character archetype that is so despised in African-American culture (uncle tom) that you literally cheer when he gets his comeuppance at the end of the film. A terrific supporting performance that totally deserved an Oscar nomination that year, Jackson showed when he has a great role that requires transformation, he can do it seamlessly. Here's one of my favorite clips of his performance.. Finally, Jackson re-teamed with Tarantino for his second leading role with the director, as Major Marquis Warren in The Hateful Eight. Again as Warren, Jackson believably played a character from the 1800s, this time an African-American Civil War office for the Union Army. With this role, Jackson again showed his underrated comedic abilities and timing, especially in his famous flashback monologue to Bruce Dern's General Sanford Smithers character which began a turning point for the film. Jackson was great, as he always is in Tarantino films, and was fully deserving a Best Actor oscar nom for his performance. Jackson, I feel, doesn't get enough credit for his ability and range to play characters in period pieces as well as contemporary roles. Samuel L. Jackson and Quentin Tarantino are one of the great actor-director parings of the past 30 years, and imho even though Tarantino has worked with actors like DiCaprio, Pitt, and Kurt Russell on multiple occasions, Tarantino does his best work with Samuel L. Jackson. No other actor fits the Tarantino-verse better than Jackson, and it goes to show not just Sam Jackson's considerable abilities as an actor, but his impact on Tarantino and his legacy and also his iconic Hollywood standing for an unconventional Hollywood leading man. Here's to the muthafu/ka! Great Post I been wracking my mind for awhile about doing a profile with Jackson, but he works so much in so many different genres that I just kept putting it off. Pretty inventive use of the term genre, but I guess it gets the job done. Jackson is without question the quintessential Tarantino actor. He probably should have two or three supporting actor Oscars for his work in those films. And yes, the way he nailed both Django and Hateful Eight suggests his range in period films is highly underrated. He didn't feel like an anachronism in either part. Yeah man, like Terry Montana pointed out, I cheated..lol..based on the rules of this thread, but it was for a good cause though..talking about Samuel L. Jackson. I probably could of done it with him and the crime genre and include Pulp Fiction and Jackie Brown, but I cheated to include a full spectrum of his Tarantino work. I hope Jackson can win a competitive Oscar one day. That he only has 1 nomination is kind of low. Like you and Stephen pointed out, it just doesn't seem like a Tarantino film without him involved in some capacity.
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Aug 23, 2019 19:53:49 GMT
Great Post I been wracking my mind for awhile about doing a profile with Jackson, but he works so much in so many different genres that I just kept putting it off. Pretty inventive use of the term genre, but I guess it gets the job done. Jackson is without question the quintessential Tarantino actor. He probably should have two or three supporting actor Oscars for his work in those films. And yes, the way he nailed both Django and Hateful Eight suggests his range in period films is highly underrated. He didn't feel like an anachronism in either part. Yeah man, like Terry Montana pointed out, I cheated..lol..based on the rules of this thread, but it was for a good cause though..talking about Samuel L. Jackson. I probably could of done it with him and the crime genre and include Pulp Fiction and Jackie Brown, but I cheated to include a full spectrum of his Tarantino work. I hope Jackson can win a competitive Oscar one day. That he only has 1 nomination is kind of low. Like you and Stephen pointed out, it just doesn't seem like a Tarantino film without him involved in some capacity. One nomination for Jackson is ludicrous. And as I said, he should be a multiple Oscar winner for his work with Tarantino alone. But I think despite coasting an awful lot, Jackson has shown so much talent and innate charisma that it's no big surprise that he is still in such demand. To be honest, to me he's not that much different from Jack Nicholson in terms of talent and willingness to play on their personas to the hilt. Jack got a shit tonne of Oscar love and Sam got bupkis, but I feel Jackson will have a pretty strong legacy based on his body of work. I feel he should win a competitive Oscar, but he's still sort of taken for granted in the industry because he does like at least 4 films a year...most of them not Oscar material. I also think people don't quite realise how old he is. The dude is 70. He really should be getting all the lifetime achievement gongs about now ( AFI tribute etc) , but because he doesn't really feel "old" (In the Morgan Freeman or Clint Eastwood sense) and is a constant and relevant presence in films, I don't think he's seen yet as someone who needs lifetime achievement gongs yet. But he should be getting them.
|
|
sirchuck23
Based
Bad news dawg...you don't mind if I have some of your 300 dollar a glass shit there would ya?
Posts: 2,672
Likes: 4,772
|
Post by sirchuck23 on Aug 23, 2019 20:56:57 GMT
Yeah man, like Terry Montana pointed out, I cheated..lol..based on the rules of this thread, but it was for a good cause though..talking about Samuel L. Jackson. I probably could of done it with him and the crime genre and include Pulp Fiction and Jackie Brown, but I cheated to include a full spectrum of his Tarantino work. I hope Jackson can win a competitive Oscar one day. That he only has 1 nomination is kind of low. Like you and Stephen pointed out, it just doesn't seem like a Tarantino film without him involved in some capacity. One nomination for Jackson is ludicrous. And as I said, he should be a multiple Oscar winner for his work with Tarantino alone. But I think despite coasting an awful lot, Jackson has shown so much talent and innate charisma that it's no big surprise that he is still in such demand. To be honest, to me he's not that much different from Jack Nicholson in terms of talent and willingness to play on their personas to the hilt. Jack got a shit tonne of Oscar love and Sam got bupkis, but I feel Jackson will have a pretty strong legacy based on his body of work. I feel he should win a competitive Oscar, but he's still sort of taken for granted in the industry because he does like at least 4 films a year...most of them not Oscar material. I also think people don't quite realise how old he is. The dude is 70. He really should be getting all the lifetime achievement gongs about now ( AFI tribute etc) , but because he doesn't really feel "old" (In the Morgan Freeman or Clint Eastwood sense) and is a constant and relevant presence in films, I don't think he's seen yet as someone who needs lifetime achievement gongs yet. But he should be getting them. Agreed, he still looks like he's in his 50s and maybe that's why he hasn't been getting the lifetime achievement awards coronations yet for his contributions to Hollywood...I mean, Jurassic Park, Pulp Fiction, Star Wars, Marvel Cinematic Universe, he's been a part of mostly every blockbuster movie franchise/indie pop culture darling since 1990. He's made huge contributions..and I like your Jack Nicholson comparison. Other than the Oscar nom tally, they do have alot in common. Hopefully he finally does something that gets him on the radar for awards recognition before his career is done..he's had a hell of a career for achieving mainstream stardom in his late 40s. One of the great late bloomer Hollywood stars.
|
|
|
Post by therealcomicman117 on Aug 23, 2019 21:22:00 GMT
Samuel L. JacksonGenre: Quentin TarantinoI had wanted to do a profile of my man Mr. Samuel L. Jackson for awhile but I couldn't find an angle to talk about him within a particular traditional genre, because let's face it, with over 187 credits to his name on IMDB, the muthafuc/a has done every damn thing to various degrees of quality. But if you want to talk about the greatness of this icon and his impact, then you have to talk about his partnership with his greatest collaborator, Quentin Tarantino. Thus, I'm creating a new genre called Quentin Tarantino, because you can say he has a genre all to himself. I'm sure pupdurcs will allow me this solid. Where else would we start but with Pulp Fiction, Quentin's greatest film and Sam's greatest and most iconic performance as the bible-quoting hitman, Jules Winfield. Jackson had done some great work before Pulp Fiction, primarily his role as Gator Purify in Spike Lee's Jungle Fever, where he won a uniquely created Best Supporting Actor award at Cannes just to acknowledge his performance. But Pulp Fiction was his announcement that he had FINALLY arrived as a major Hollywood actor, with his smooth line delivery, effortlessly cursing capabilities, underrated comic timing and ability, and of course his famous dramatic monologue at the end of Pulp Fiction, which is arguably the greatest acting scene in Tarantino's entire filmography. Jackson's performance was not only revelatory but influential as well. IMO its the greatest performance in a Tarantino movie, and it made Samuel L. Jackson a movie star who would have a long and great career afterwards. This brought Jackson his first and unbelievably his only Oscar nomination to date, where he lost to the late Martin Landau for his work in Ed Wood. With all due respect to Landau and the champions of his performance, I think Jackson should've gotten his first Oscar that year. Here's the ending to Pulp Fiction featuring that great monologue.. His next team-up with Tarantino was for one of the director's greatest and most underrated film in his filmography, Jackie Brown. an homage to 70's Blaxploitation films, and an adaptation of Elmore Leonard's novel Rum Punch. As Ordell Robbie, a Los Angeles black market gun runner, Jackson turns in a chilling performance of a soul-less man who's willing to kill anyone of his partners who would be a hinderance for cashing in on his $550,000 and retiring to Mexico. Unlike Jules who did end up having redemption at the end of Pulp Fiction, Ordell has no inkling of redemption or care for his partners in crime. Just look at the way he coldly says to Louis (Robert De Niro) "well if you had to do it, you had to do it" when he learns Louis killed Melanie because she was annoying him, and was just concerned about his money. Then when he lost trust in Louis he ends up killing his long-time partner in crime with no remorse. One of Jackson's great villain roles and one of the more interesting characters in the Tarantino universe, Jackson was phenomenal in this role and easily worthy of his 2nd Oscar nomination for his work here. Here's one of my favorite scenes from the film, where Ordell tricks one of his employees Beaumont (a hilarious Chris Tucker cameo) to get in the trunk of his car which ultimately leads to his death... After Jackie Brown, Jackson did a cameo in Kill Bill Vol 2. as Rufus the pianist and the narrator for Inglorious Basterds, but he came back to a meaty Tarantino role as Stephen, Calvin Candie's loyal house slave and right hand man, in Django Unchained. Jackson often gets hit with the "he only plays himself" criticism, but he totally transforms into an old, gray-haired, limping, man who talked like a stereotypical 1800s American south slave in front of Schultz and Django but behind closed doors was actually a mastermind and brilliant manipulator. He plays a character archetype that is so despised in African-American culture (uncle tom) that you literally cheer when he gets his comeuppance at the end of the film. A terrific supporting performance that totally deserved an Oscar nomination that year, Jackson showed when he has a great role that requires transformation, he can do it seamlessly. Here's one of my favorite clips of his performance.. Finally, Jackson re-teamed with Tarantino for his second leading role with the director, as Major Marquis Warren in The Hateful Eight. Again as Warren, Jackson believably played a character from the 1800s, this time an African-American Civil War office for the Union Army. With this role, Jackson again showed his underrated comedic abilities and timing, especially in his famous flashback monologue to Bruce Dern's General Sanford Smithers character which began a turning point for the film. Jackson was great, as he always is in Tarantino films, and was fully deserving a Best Actor oscar nom for his performance. Jackson, I feel, doesn't get enough credit for his ability and range to play characters in period pieces as well as contemporary roles. Samuel L. Jackson and Quentin Tarantino are one of the great actor-director parings of the past 30 years, and imho even though Tarantino has worked with actors like DiCaprio, Pitt, and Kurt Russell on multiple occasions, Tarantino does his best work with Samuel L. Jackson. No other actor fits the Tarantino-verse better than Jackson, and it goes to show not just Sam Jackson's considerable abilities as an actor, but his impact on Tarantino and his legacy and also his iconic Hollywood standing for an unconventional Hollywood leading man. Here's to the muthafu/ka! Great write-up, even though it's not really a genre of course, but we can forgive that. To me Samuel L. Jackson is the ultimate "working actor". He does so many movies a year, admittedly sometimes to his detriment of course, but he's always been a performer, who likes to work a lot. His career is almost entirely linked to Tarantino, who knows where he would be now if he hadn't gone the roles of Jules Winnfield in Pulp Fiction. Before then he was just a mostly supporting scene-stealing actor, who had shown up in notable movies like Goodfellas (killed off after his one scene), Coming to America, and Spike Lee films. among others. Pulp Fiction, made Hollywood look at him in a different light, and he started getting bigger more leading role after. I absolutely think he deserved an Oscar nom for Jackie Brown, and or Django Unchained, and I'm still shocked to this day that he didn't receive a nomination for either. In both movies he plays completely different characters from his usual "angry persona". It's clear Tarantino knows how to work with Jackson best. Two technical Tarantino collaboration, though admittedly they are very short, you forget to mention are True Romance, another scene-stealing role, which I believe is the film that got him the role of Jules Winnfeld, and his hilarious cameo in Kill Bill V2. He's basically playing Winnfield again, he even mentions that he wants to be a drifter.
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Aug 24, 2019 4:46:00 GMT
Samuel L. JacksonGenre: Quentin TarantinoI had wanted to do a profile of my man Mr. Samuel L. Jackson for awhile but I couldn't find an angle to talk about him within a particular traditional genre, because let's face it, with over 187 credits to his name on IMDB, the muthafuc/a has done every damn thing to various degrees of quality. But if you want to talk about the greatness of this icon and his impact, then you have to talk about his partnership with his greatest collaborator, Quentin Tarantino. Thus, I'm creating a new genre called Quentin Tarantino, because you can say he has a genre all to himself. I'm sure pupdurcs will allow me this solid. Where else would we start but with Pulp Fiction, Quentin's greatest film and Sam's greatest and most iconic performance as the bible-quoting hitman, Jules Winfield. Jackson had done some great work before Pulp Fiction, primarily his role as Gator Purify in Spike Lee's Jungle Fever, where he won a uniquely created Best Supporting Actor award at Cannes just to acknowledge his performance. But Pulp Fiction was his announcement that he had FINALLY arrived as a major Hollywood actor, with his smooth line delivery, effortlessly cursing capabilities, underrated comic timing and ability, and of course his famous dramatic monologue at the end of Pulp Fiction, which is arguably the greatest acting scene in Tarantino's entire filmography. Jackson's performance was not only revelatory but influential as well. IMO its the greatest performance in a Tarantino movie, and it made Samuel L. Jackson a movie star who would have a long and great career afterwards. This brought Jackson his first and unbelievably his only Oscar nomination to date, where he lost to the late Martin Landau for his work in Ed Wood. With all due respect to Landau and the champions of his performance, I think Jackson should've gotten his first Oscar that year. Here's the ending to Pulp Fiction featuring that great monologue.. His next team-up with Tarantino was for one of the director's greatest and most underrated film in his filmography, Jackie Brown. an homage to 70's Blaxploitation films, and an adaptation of Elmore Leonard's novel Rum Punch. As Ordell Robbie, a Los Angeles black market gun runner, Jackson turns in a chilling performance of a soul-less man who's willing to kill anyone of his partners who would be a hinderance for cashing in on his $550,000 and retiring to Mexico. Unlike Jules who did end up having redemption at the end of Pulp Fiction, Ordell has no inkling of redemption or care for his partners in crime. Just look at the way he coldly says to Louis (Robert De Niro) "well if you had to do it, you had to do it" when he learns Louis killed Melanie because she was annoying him, and was just concerned about his money. Then when he lost trust in Louis he ends up killing his long-time partner in crime with no remorse. One of Jackson's great villain roles and one of the more interesting characters in the Tarantino universe, Jackson was phenomenal in this role and easily worthy of his 2nd Oscar nomination for his work here. Here's one of my favorite scenes from the film, where Ordell tricks one of his employees Beaumont (a hilarious Chris Tucker cameo) to get in the trunk of his car which ultimately leads to his death... After Jackie Brown, Jackson did a cameo in Kill Bill Vol 2. as Rufus the pianist and the narrator for Inglorious Basterds, but he came back to a meaty Tarantino role as Stephen, Calvin Candie's loyal house slave and right hand man, in Django Unchained. Jackson often gets hit with the "he only plays himself" criticism, but he totally transforms into an old, gray-haired, limping, man who talked like a stereotypical 1800s American south slave in front of Schultz and Django but behind closed doors was actually a mastermind and brilliant manipulator. He plays a character archetype that is so despised in African-American culture (uncle tom) that you literally cheer when he gets his comeuppance at the end of the film. A terrific supporting performance that totally deserved an Oscar nomination that year, Jackson showed when he has a great role that requires transformation, he can do it seamlessly. Here's one of my favorite clips of his performance.. Finally, Jackson re-teamed with Tarantino for his second leading role with the director, as Major Marquis Warren in The Hateful Eight. Again as Warren, Jackson believably played a character from the 1800s, this time an African-American Civil War office for the Union Army. With this role, Jackson again showed his underrated comedic abilities and timing, especially in his famous flashback monologue to Bruce Dern's General Sanford Smithers character which began a turning point for the film. Jackson was great, as he always is in Tarantino films, and was fully deserving a Best Actor oscar nom for his performance. Jackson, I feel, doesn't get enough credit for his ability and range to play characters in period pieces as well as contemporary roles. Samuel L. Jackson and Quentin Tarantino are one of the great actor-director parings of the past 30 years, and imho even though Tarantino has worked with actors like DiCaprio, Pitt, and Kurt Russell on multiple occasions, Tarantino does his best work with Samuel L. Jackson. No other actor fits the Tarantino-verse better than Jackson, and it goes to show not just Sam Jackson's considerable abilities as an actor, but his impact on Tarantino and his legacy and also his iconic Hollywood standing for an unconventional Hollywood leading man. Here's to the muthafu/ka! Great write-up, even though it's not really a genre of course, but we can forgive that. To me Samuel L. Jackson is the ultimate "working actor". He does so many movies a year, admittedly sometimes to his detriment of course, but he's always been a performer, who likes to work a lot. His career is almost entirely linked to Tarantino, who knows where he would be now if he hadn't gone the roles of Jules Winnfield in Pulp Fiction. Before then he was just a mostly supporting scene-stealing actor, who had shown up in notable movies like Goodfellas (killed off after his one scene), Coming to America, and Spike Lee films. among others. Pulp Fiction, made Hollywood look at him in a different light, and he started getting bigger more leading role after. I think Spike Lee deserves a little bit more credit for what he did for Jackson's career than what you are giving him. Jungle Fever was arguably his huge breakthrough in Hollywood. Like sirchuck23 said, the Cannes Film Festival created an acting award simply so they could give one to Jackson for his junkie role in Lee's film. The whole film world steps up and takes notice when something like that happens. Truth is, Jackson would never even have been able to get into the room with Tarantino or be allowed on the studio casting lists, if Lee didn't give him such a major showcase first. Pulp Fiction took his career to another level, but that's generally how careers go.
|
|
|
Post by therealcomicman117 on Aug 24, 2019 5:16:33 GMT
Great write-up, even though it's not really a genre of course, but we can forgive that. To me Samuel L. Jackson is the ultimate "working actor". He does so many movies a year, admittedly sometimes to his detriment of course, but he's always been a performer, who likes to work a lot. His career is almost entirely linked to Tarantino, who knows where he would be now if he hadn't gone the roles of Jules Winnfield in Pulp Fiction. Before then he was just a mostly supporting scene-stealing actor, who had shown up in notable movies like Goodfellas (killed off after his one scene), Coming to America, and Spike Lee films. among others. Pulp Fiction, made Hollywood look at him in a different light, and he started getting bigger more leading role after. I think Spike Lee deserves a little bit more credit for what he did for Jackson's career than what you are giving him. Jungle Fever was arguably his huge breakthrough in Hollywood. Like sirchuck23 said, the Cannes Film Festival created an acting award simply so they could give one to Jackson for his junkie role in Lee's film. The whole film world steps up and takes notice when something like that happens. Truth is, Jackson would never even have been able to get into the room with Tarantino or be allowed on the studio casting lists, if Lee didn't give him such a major showcase first. Pulp Fiction took his career to another level, but that's generally how careers go. True, and Lee probably gave him his best roles pre- Pulp Fiction, but what I meant by that it is took his career a few years for it really to materialize into something bigger and more noteworthy. Like he's still giving a supporting after the titles credit in Jurassic Park for example, but if that that movie had been released after Pulp Fiction, I have no doubt they probably would beefed his up role more. You're right that he had to build-up his career, to get into studios good graces. He was doing a lot of obscure films in the late 80s. I think working with a prominent black director of the era like Lee, who gave him challenging parts like the one in Jungle Fever, allowed other noteworthy filmmakers to see the potential in him as an actor, and it was basically a long build-up to the "breakthrough". Not to mention was almost 50 when it happened too.
|
|
|
Post by therealcomicman117 on Aug 26, 2019 1:41:47 GMT
Jean-Claude Van Damme: Genre Action More Specifically of The Martial Arts Variety
Big action stars of their era have something that generally sets them apart from their contemporaries. Arnold had the physique and humor, Stallone could act and also looked good buff, Seagal looked like a normal guy, who just happened to go superhuman and introduced his (alleged) karate powers that the west had seemingly never been exposed to, however who might just be overall favorite in terms of skill and appearance is Jean-Claude Van-Damme. Similar to Arnold he had a funny Foreign voice and limited acting abilities, but Van Damme was a legit trained martial artists, and that showed in many of his best roles. Take Bloodsport for example, which is a pulse-pounding fighting tournament flick, from Canon, where Van Damme is pushed to his muscular limits. His finishing move was even an alleged influence on Johnny Cage’s final fatality in Mortal Kombat (a role that Van Damme himself may have been offered in live-action film, but turned it down to do Street Fighter). More importantly than his martial arts skills though, is that Van Damme was actually willing to take hits. In Bloodsport he looks all sorts of beat-up, with a bloody nose and everything by the end. Something you can’t say about every action hero of that era.
Van Damme followed Bloodsport up with Cyborg, a post-apocalyptic film that again heavily used his body skills for the action sequences, but more importantly Kickboxer, his final movie with Canon, was in essence Bloodsport Redux, only set in Bangkok and following a revenge plot. Again Van Damme’s skills are used well, and he gets to participate in some killer fights. Van Damme would go on to make many more action films, including Lionheart (a personal favorite, where Van Damme is actually allowed to participate in human drama), Double Impact (Double the kick power), Hard Target, Sudden Death (an underrated flick, with a terrific climax set during the NFL finals), among others. His martial-arts skills and body are almost always on display in these films, particularly Hard Target, where he gets to go "off the rails" in real serious ways.
Much like Seagal, after having some success, Van Damme’s ego got the better of him, and after a string of flops, he was reduced to direct to video / direct to dvd flicks by the 2000s. Unlike Seagal though, he kept his body-well, and still does his fighting. Some of his direct to DVD are even actually good, I particularly enjoyed Assassination Games with Scott Adkins. He also had the humanity to do JCVD, a Foreign film dramatic take-on his current life, and his washed-up status, where he proved that his acting skills have improved tremendously.
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Aug 26, 2019 9:04:06 GMT
Jean-Claude Van Damme: Genre Action More Specifically of The Martial Arts Variety Big action stars of their era have something that generally sets them apart from their contemporaries. Arnold had the physique and humor, Stallone could act and also looked good buff, Seagal looked like a normal guy, who just happened to go superhuman and introduced his (alleged) karate powers that the west had seemingly never been exposed to, however who might just be overall favorite in terms of skill and appearance is Jean-Claude Van-Damme. Similar to Arnold he had a funny Foreign voice and limited acting abilities, but Van Damme was a legit trained martial artists, and that showed in many of his best roles. Take Bloodsport for example, which is a pulse-pounding fighting tournament flick, from Canon, where Van Damme is pushed to his muscular limits. His finishing move was even an alleged influence on Johnny Cage’s final fatality in Mortal Kombat (a role that Van Damme himself may have been offered in live-action film, but turned it down to do Street Fighter). More importantly than his martial arts skills though, is that Van Damme was actually willing to take hits. In Bloodsport he looks all sorts of beat-up, with a bloody nose and everything by the end. Something you can’t say about every action hero of that era. Van Damme followed Bloodsport up with Cyborg, a post-apocalyptic film that again heavily used his body skills for the action sequences, but more importantly Kickboxer, his final movie with Canon, was in essence Bloodsport Redux, only set in Bangkok and following a revenge plot. Again Van Damme’s skills are used well, and he gets to participate in some killer fights. Van Damme would go on to make many more action films, including Lionheart (a personal favorite, where Van Damme is actually allowed to participate in human drama), Double Impact (Double the kick power), Hard Target, Sudden Death (an underrated flick, with a terrific climax set during the NFL finals), among others. His martial-arts skills and body are almost always on display in these films, particularly Hard Target, where he gets to go "off the rails" in real serious ways. Much like Seagal, after having some success, Van Damme’s ego got the better of him, and after a string of flops, he was reduced to direct to video / direct to dvd flicks by the 2000s. Unlike Seagal though, he kept his body-well, and still does his fighting. Some of his direct to DVD are even actually good, I particularly enjoyed Assassination Games with Scott Adkins. He also had the humanity to do JCVD, a Foreign film dramatic take-on his current life, and his washed-up status, where he proved that his acting skills have improved tremendously. Nice write up! I was actually thinking of doing Van Damme myself last week, but glad you got it done first. Van Damme was an incredible action star. Looked like a real movie star, but had those legit martial arts chops. Yeah his acting ability was limited, and they always had to find a reason for his accent (he's a Cajun from New Orleans, or he's from Quebec or something!!!), because even if he's playing some sort of American Cop or something, the accent is never changing). His early stuff was low budget, but so exciting and profitable that he quickly got fasttracked from B-movie status, to legit Hollywood studio action star. But there was a real charm in those early Van Damme movies like Cyborg, Bloodsport, AWOL and Kickboxer in seeing an action star slowly taking his steps into major movie stardom. His rise was parrallel to Steven Segal's, but I always found Van Damme to be a much more likeable screen presence. He could be a little cheesy at times (I think he had a butt shot clause written into his contracts ), but that was part of his appeal. As his budgets started getting bigger, I think the quality control drifted a little and a lot of his films started to seem like copies of films he already made. But he did some action classics during that period like Universal Soldier and TimeCop. I was disappointed in the live action Street Fighter film, but it's lameness wasn't Van Damme's fault. He's still pumping out those straight to DVD action films like a lot of once-big action stars from his era, but it'd be nice for him if he got some opportunities at a big supporting role in a major studio film, like his fellow 80's and 90's action star Dolph Lundgren in Aquaman and Creed 2. As you said JCVD showed how much his acting skills have improved, and I think he might genuinely bring something to the table in one of these big studio action movies. I mean, Lundgren gave a far better performance than Willem Dafoe in Aquaman, which was a bit of a shocker . Lundgren is not supposed to be able to touch one of our finest character actors in Dafoe, but a lot of these old action stars are seasoned in front of the camera and have actually picked up some solid acting chops. Could really see Van Damme doing something similar if given the opportunity.
|
|
|
Post by therealcomicman117 on Aug 26, 2019 15:50:27 GMT
Jean-Claude Van Damme: Genre Action More Specifically of The Martial Arts Variety Big action stars of their era have something that generally sets them apart from their contemporaries. Arnold had the physique and humor, Stallone could act and also looked good buff, Seagal looked like a normal guy, who just happened to go superhuman and introduced his (alleged) karate powers that the west had seemingly never been exposed to, however who might just be overall favorite in terms of skill and appearance is Jean-Claude Van-Damme. Similar to Arnold he had a funny Foreign voice and limited acting abilities, but Van Damme was a legit trained martial artists, and that showed in many of his best roles. Take Bloodsport for example, which is a pulse-pounding fighting tournament flick, from Canon, where Van Damme is pushed to his muscular limits. His finishing move was even an alleged influence on Johnny Cage’s final fatality in Mortal Kombat (a role that Van Damme himself may have been offered in live-action film, but turned it down to do Street Fighter). More importantly than his martial arts skills though, is that Van Damme was actually willing to take hits. In Bloodsport he looks all sorts of beat-up, with a bloody nose and everything by the end. Something you can’t say about every action hero of that era. Van Damme followed Bloodsport up with Cyborg, a post-apocalyptic film that again heavily used his body skills for the action sequences, but more importantly Kickboxer, his final movie with Canon, was in essence Bloodsport Redux, only set in Bangkok and following a revenge plot. Again Van Damme’s skills are used well, and he gets to participate in some killer fights. Van Damme would go on to make many more action films, including Lionheart (a personal favorite, where Van Damme is actually allowed to participate in human drama), Double Impact (Double the kick power), Hard Target, Sudden Death (an underrated flick, with a terrific climax set during the NFL finals), among others. His martial-arts skills and body are almost always on display in these films, particularly Hard Target, where he gets to go "off the rails" in real serious ways. Much like Seagal, after having some success, Van Damme’s ego got the better of him, and after a string of flops, he was reduced to direct to video / direct to dvd flicks by the 2000s. Unlike Seagal though, he kept his body-well, and still does his fighting. Some of his direct to DVD are even actually good, I particularly enjoyed Assassination Games with Scott Adkins. He also had the humanity to do JCVD, a Foreign film dramatic take-on his current life, and his washed-up status, where he proved that his acting skills have improved tremendously. Nice write up! I was actually thinking of doing Van Damme myself last week, but glad you got it done first. Van Damme was an incredible action star. Looked like a real movie star, but had those legit martial arts chops. Yeah his acting ability was limited, and they always had to find a reason for his accent (he's a Cajun from New Orleans, or he's from Quebec or something!!!), because even if he's playing some sort of American Cop or something, the accent is never changing). His early stuff was low budget, but so exciting and profitable that he quickly got fasttracked from B-movie status, to legit Hollywood studio action star. But there was a real charm in those early Van Damme movies like Cyborg, Bloodsport, AWOL and Kickboxer in seeing an action star slowly taking his steps into major movie stardom. His rise was parrallel to Steven Segal's, but I always found Van Damme to be a much more likeable screen presence. He could be a little cheesy at times (I think he had a butt shot clause written into his contracts ), but that was part of his appeal. As his budgets started getting bigger, I think the quality control drifted a little and a lot of his films started to seem like copies of films he already made. But he did some action classics during that period like Universal Soldier and TimeCop. I was disappointed in the live action Street Fighter film, but it's lameness wasn't Van Damme's fault. He's still pumping out those straight to DVD action films like a lot of once-big action stars from his era, but it'd be nice for him if he got some opportunities at a big supporting role in a major studio film, like his fellow 80's and 90's action star Dolph Lundgren in Aquaman and Creed 2. As you said JCVD showed how much his acting skills have improved, and I think he might genuinely bring something to the table in one of these big studio action movies. I mean, Lundgren gave a far better performance than Willem Dafoe in Aquaman, which was a bit of a shocker . Lundgren is not supposed to be able to touch one of our finest character actors in Dafoe, but a lot of these old action stars are seasoned in front of the camera and have actually picked up some solid acting chops. Could really see Van Damme doing something similar if given the opportunity. Thanks, Van Damme is actually a favorite of mine for a long time. This post I wrote was actually inspired by a rewatch of Bloodsport recently, and Van Damme as an actual performer in it. I still can't believe the things he seemingly put himself through during his prime. I'm sure he had a lot of assistance, but he had a great physique if anything. Yeah I always preferred him to Seagal, mostly because Van Damme had a lot more charm, especially with that silly Belgian accent of his. His movies initially didn't have the production qualities that Steven's did, but in my mind they a lot of the times they made that up by having just as much as entertainment, and even when he went to the bigger-budgeted stuff, there was still a lot of strong entertainment there. Street Fighter is a mess of a movie but there are aspects I like about it, such as Raul Julia as M. Bison, and the production design. Even when he got into the straight to DVD market, he still occasionally pumped out movies with a lot better quality then you might expect from that sort of venue. You mentioned Ludgren and his supporting roles in movies like Aquaman. The closest I can think of Van Damme, are those Kung-Fu Panda movies, and those were just voice roles. I'm surprised that directors haven't latched onto the idea of casting him in a blockbuster, it's not he's spoiled goods or anything. I think he'd be perfect for a powerful big henchmen, or a noteworthy roles like a professor or something in a MCU movie.
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Aug 26, 2019 16:02:48 GMT
Nice write up! I was actually thinking of doing Van Damme myself last week, but glad you got it done first. Van Damme was an incredible action star. Looked like a real movie star, but had those legit martial arts chops. Yeah his acting ability was limited, and they always had to find a reason for his accent (he's a Cajun from New Orleans, or he's from Quebec or something!!!), because even if he's playing some sort of American Cop or something, the accent is never changing). His early stuff was low budget, but so exciting and profitable that he quickly got fasttracked from B-movie status, to legit Hollywood studio action star. But there was a real charm in those early Van Damme movies like Cyborg, Bloodsport, AWOL and Kickboxer in seeing an action star slowly taking his steps into major movie stardom. His rise was parrallel to Steven Segal's, but I always found Van Damme to be a much more likeable screen presence. He could be a little cheesy at times (I think he had a butt shot clause written into his contracts ), but that was part of his appeal. As his budgets started getting bigger, I think the quality control drifted a little and a lot of his films started to seem like copies of films he already made. But he did some action classics during that period like Universal Soldier and TimeCop. I was disappointed in the live action Street Fighter film, but it's lameness wasn't Van Damme's fault. He's still pumping out those straight to DVD action films like a lot of once-big action stars from his era, but it'd be nice for him if he got some opportunities at a big supporting role in a major studio film, like his fellow 80's and 90's action star Dolph Lundgren in Aquaman and Creed 2. As you said JCVD showed how much his acting skills have improved, and I think he might genuinely bring something to the table in one of these big studio action movies. I mean, Lundgren gave a far better performance than Willem Dafoe in Aquaman, which was a bit of a shocker . Lundgren is not supposed to be able to touch one of our finest character actors in Dafoe, but a lot of these old action stars are seasoned in front of the camera and have actually picked up some solid acting chops. Could really see Van Damme doing something similar if given the opportunity. You mentioned Ludgren and his supporting roles in movies like Aquaman. The closest I can think of Van Damme, are those Kung-Fu Panda movies, and those were just voice roles. I'm surprised that directors haven't latched onto the idea of casting him in a blockbuster, it's not he's spoiled goods or anything. I think he'd be perfect for a powerful big henchmen, or a noteworthy roles like a professor or something in a MCU movie. Listen man...this thread has already taken credit for Kevin Conroy finally being cast as a live action Batman (whether it's actually true or not, who cares ) Let's see if lightning strikes twice and Van Damme suddenly books a major gig with the MCU or some other big studio franchise in a few months. You are right...directors are very shortsighted about what he could now bring to the table. One thing you have to give Quentin Tarantino credit for. He always saw how actors who were perceived as past their prime could be utilised effectively.
|
|
|
Post by therealcomicman117 on Aug 26, 2019 16:13:19 GMT
You mentioned Ludgren and his supporting roles in movies like Aquaman. The closest I can think of Van Damme, are those Kung-Fu Panda movies, and those were just voice roles. I'm surprised that directors haven't latched onto the idea of casting him in a blockbuster, it's not he's spoiled goods or anything. I think he'd be perfect for a powerful big henchmen, or a noteworthy roles like a professor or something in a MCU movie. Listen man...this thread has already taken credit for Kevin Conroy finally being cast as a live action Batman (whether it's actually true or not, who cares ) Let's see if lightning strikes twice and Van Damme suddenly books a major gig with the MCU or some other big studio franchise in a few months. You are right...directors are very shortsighted about what he could now bring to the table. One thing you have to give Quentin Tarantino credit for. He always saw how actors who were perceived as past their prime could be utilised effectively. Hey I can see in the future, I hope. I'd love to see him as a villain, or something in a MCU film. Give him a prominent big role role too. Nolan's another director like Tarantino who's good at given washed-up prominent actors from the 80s and 90s roles in his movies who've fallen into the B movie realm recently, such as Tom Berenger in Inception, or Eric Roberts in The Dark Knight. Some of those actors I really like, so I appreciate when directors like that give them roles in their movies, even if it doesn't ultimately do a whole lot for their career (I mean Roberts is still doing fifty movies a year).
|
|
|
Post by TerryMontana on Aug 26, 2019 16:33:43 GMT
Yeah, well, Tarantino is a master in finding them and used them effectively in his films. No reason to start giving examples actually, he's done it a million times. But Travolta in PF and (most of all) Robert Forster in Jackie Brown were so well used they even got an Oscar nod.
Imo QT is the best director alive in doing that.
|
|
|
Post by therealcomicman117 on Aug 28, 2019 2:21:15 GMT
Jack Lemmon Genre: Comedy
For an actor as well-regarded as Jack Lemmon, it’s interesting to note that for most audiences of the 60s and 70s, he was long associated with comedy. Comedy a genre that is inherently looked down-upon in the industry, but in truth it might the hardest type of film to be successful at. Lemmon is a great comedic actor because for the most part he tends to play things very straight, he’s neither zany nor foul. This is none more evident then in his partnership with Walter Matthau. Lemmon plays the “normal all-American” sounding guy to Walter Matthau’s more frumpy but good-natured slob in The Fortune Cookie, The Odd-Couple, and even later Grumpy Old-Man, among others. It makes for one of cinema’s most unlikely and endearing longtime film partnerships.
Outside of his collaboration with Matthau, Lemmon also scored great comedy hits like The Great Race where his Professor Max is one of cinema’s great comedic foil villains, Some Like it Hot, The Out-of-Towners, and my personal favorite Billy Wilder's classic The Apartment, where he plays a nice meaning but meandering man who tries to work his way up the business ladder, but complications occur, and he finds himself in a bad situation. All of Lemmon’s reactions in the movie are priceless, and his comedic timing is nothing short of extraordinary, not to mention his great chemistry with Shirley MacLaine (the two would reteam with Wilder for Irma La Douce, a less regarded but still big hit film).
Of course Lemmon has done his fair share of dramas, one of his Oscar wins (Save The Tiger), was for a very serious mid-life crisis movie, and he’s great in Glenglarry Glen Ross, and The Days of Wine and Roses, but it's comedy where audiences reacted most strongly towards him. I think it helps that he such a great “average Joe” vibe to him, that makes him so appealing. Put him in a bad comedic situation, and you’re in for a good time.
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Aug 28, 2019 7:47:23 GMT
Jack LemmonGenre: ComedyFor an actor as well-regarded as Jack Lemmon, it’s interesting to note that for most audiences of the 60s and 70s, he was long associated with comedy. Comedy a genre that is inherently looked down-upon in the industry, but in truth it might the hardest type of film to be successful at. Lemmon is a great comedic actor because for the most part he tends to play things very straight, he’s neither zany nor foul. This is none more evident then in his partnership with Walter Matthau. Lemmon plays the “normal all-American” sounding guy to Walter Matthau’s more frumpy but good-natured slob in The Fortune Cookie, The Odd-Couple, and even later Grumpy Old-Man, among others. It makes for one of cinema’s most unlikely and endearing longtime film partnerships. Outside of his collaboration with Matthau, Lemmon also scored great comedy hits like The Great Race where his Professor Max is one of cinema’s great comedic foil villains, Some Like it Hot, The Out-of-Towners, and my personal favorite Billy Wilder's classic The Apartment, where he plays a nice meaning but meandering man who tries to work his way up the business ladder, but complications occur, and he finds himself in a bad situation. All of Lemmon’s reactions in the movie are priceless, and his comedic timing is nothing short of extraordinary, not to mention his great chemistry with Shirley MacLaine (the two would reteam with Wilder for Irma La Douce, a less regarded but still big hit film). Of course Lemmon has done his fair share of dramas, one of his Oscar wins ( Save The Tiger), was for a very serious mid-life crisis movie, and he’s great in Glenglarry Glen Ross, and The Days of Wine and Roses, but it's comedy where audiences reacted most strongly towards him. I think it helps that he such a great “average Joe” vibe to him, that makes him so appealing. Put him in a bad comedic situation, and you’re in for a good time. Lemmon certainly was an excellent actor in both drama and comedy, but I tended to favor his work in comedy much more. He could bring a bittersweet pathos to his comedy that not a lot of comedians did. It helps that he also had a face for comedy....expressive, not too conventional leading man chiseled. Among his earlier comedy films, I quite enjoyed a movie he did with Henry Fonda called Mister Roberts.Even though he's highly acclaimed in drama, I think his voice could sometimes limit his effectiveness in the range of dramatic roles he did. It worked fine in certain contexts, but he had a sort of whiney, exasperated drone that I wasnt always a fan of in dramas. But he could be perfect for loser beta male characters in dramas like Glengarry Glen Ross.Even though he was a far more zany comedian (and had far less success with the Academy) I often think of someone like Jim Carrey as his natural successor. Carrey really did some dramas or dramedies that should have gotten him Oscar recognition ( The Truman Show, Man On The Moon, Eternal Sunshine Of The Spotless Mind) but just never happened. I feel Carrey may have gotten crestfallen at the lack of recognition, and just sort of given up on more serious stuff.
|
|
|
Post by therealcomicman117 on Aug 28, 2019 14:22:32 GMT
Jack LemmonGenre: ComedyFor an actor as well-regarded as Jack Lemmon, it’s interesting to note that for most audiences of the 60s and 70s, he was long associated with comedy. Comedy a genre that is inherently looked down-upon in the industry, but in truth it might the hardest type of film to be successful at. Lemmon is a great comedic actor because for the most part he tends to play things very straight, he’s neither zany nor foul. This is none more evident then in his partnership with Walter Matthau. Lemmon plays the “normal all-American” sounding guy to Walter Matthau’s more frumpy but good-natured slob in The Fortune Cookie, The Odd-Couple, and even later Grumpy Old-Man, among others. It makes for one of cinema’s most unlikely and endearing longtime film partnerships. Outside of his collaboration with Matthau, Lemmon also scored great comedy hits like The Great Race where his Professor Max is one of cinema’s great comedic foil villains, Some Like it Hot, The Out-of-Towners, and my personal favorite Billy Wilder's classic The Apartment, where he plays a nice meaning but meandering man who tries to work his way up the business ladder, but complications occur, and he finds himself in a bad situation. All of Lemmon’s reactions in the movie are priceless, and his comedic timing is nothing short of extraordinary, not to mention his great chemistry with Shirley MacLaine (the two would reteam with Wilder for Irma La Douce, a less regarded but still big hit film). Of course Lemmon has done his fair share of dramas, one of his Oscar wins ( Save The Tiger), was for a very serious mid-life crisis movie, and he’s great in Glenglarry Glen Ross, and The Days of Wine and Roses, but it's comedy where audiences reacted most strongly towards him. I think it helps that he such a great “average Joe” vibe to him, that makes him so appealing. Put him in a bad comedic situation, and you’re in for a good time. Lemmon certainly was an excellent actor in both drama and comedy, but I tended to favor his work in comedy much more. He could bring a bittersweet pathos to his comedy that not a lot of comedians did. It helps that he also had a face for comedy....expressive, not too conventional leading man chiseled. Among his earlier comedy films, I quite enjoyed a movie he did with Henry Fonda called Mister Roberts.Even though he's highly acclaimed in drama, I think his voice could sometimes limit his effectiveness in the range of dramatic roles he did. It worked fine in certain contexts, but he had a sort of whiney, exasperated drone that I wasnt always a fan of in dramas. But he could be perfect for loser beta male characters in dramas like Glengarry Glen Ross.Even though he was a far more zany comedian (and had far less success with the Academy) I often think of someone like Jim Carrey as his natural successor. Carrey really did some dramas or dramedies that should have gotten him Oscar recognition ( The Truman Show, Man On The Moon, Eternal Sunshine Of The Spotless Mind) but just never happened. I feel Carrey may have gotten crestfallen at the lack of recognition, and just sort of given up on more serious stuff. Yeah, his voice was a bit too "old-sounding", strangely enough to ever make him say believable enough for say a crime film, which is probably why he mostly shied away from those types of flicks. Lemmon was a great comedian actor, but to me he was the sort of comedic actor that really hit you on rewatch. He's so much more of a subtle performer, even when he was playing an exaggerated over the top part like in The Great Race, there was a lot of great small funny gestures. That's the sort of comedy I really appreciate, and it's among the hardest to pull off in a feature film setting. I could see the Jim Carrey comparisons a bit, although Lemmon was obviously way more of a direct "Oscar darling", receiving eight nominations and two wins in total. Strangely enough I never understood why he wasn't nominated for Glengarry Glen Ross. It would have an appropriate ninth final nomination, but I guess the academy was just too high on Pacino that year, and wanted to give him a second nomination to ensue his win. I think Carrey did basically give-up, but also he hasn't done much in the way of films in general, so I assume he got kinda bored with acting, anyway.
|
|
|
Post by therealcomicman117 on Aug 30, 2019 23:31:45 GMT
Burt Reynolds
Genre: Chase Pictures
When Burt Reynolds past last year, I’m sure there were a lot of write-ups on what his essential films are, the same movies probably showed up on people’s list, Deliverance, The Longest Yard, Smokey and The Bandit, Boogie Nights and so-forth. For an actor as big as Reynolds was (in fact at one point he was the biggest star in America), it’s interesting just how few “classics”, he’s been in. Admittedly I don’t entire blame that on Reynolds, but there were some times where a film seem to rely on his charisma, even when the script was maybe a bit subpar, case in point the road pictures he did. Reynolds seem to switch between “crazy road pictures”, and “sensitive man flicks”, within the blink of an eye. While I have enjoyed many of these movies, few of them I would classify as masterpieces, and it’s clear that audiences got tired of him repeating himself, very fast, but still I have a soft spot for his many endeavors in the genre. Of course Smokey & The Bandit is a great film, and having rewatched it last year in the wake of his death, I was really struck by how fun it really is. The comedy, the chase sequences, the performances, especially Jackie Gleason as the racist comical southern Sheriff Buford T. Justice, all hold up tremendously. However a particular favorite of mine among his road pictures would be Hooper. A good little behind the scenes satirical look at the film industry through the lenses of a stunt-man. It features a car jump sequence that is among the most thrilling that the genre has to offer, and offers some metatechnical commentary, that you might not expect for what otherwise looks on the surface to be another chase picture.
There’s also White Lighting, and its sequel Gator. While I could take or leave Gator (both films did inspire a great Archer conversation, though), White Lighting is a really solid flick, with great supporting characters, and some really killer car destruction, that I have no doubt took forever to plan and implement, especially for the time. Reynolds did plenty of other chase films, especially The Cannonball Run films for example, but those are the ones that come to my mind immediately.
While Burt Reynolds may have not been the versatile actor, I cannot deny his charm. For many people in the 70s and 80s, he along with Clint Eastwood was the epitome of cool, and tough, and these chase pictures are a great example of why.
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Aug 31, 2019 11:07:03 GMT
Burt ReynoldsGenre: Chase PicturesWhen Burt Reynolds past last year, I’m sure there were a lot of write-ups on what his essential films are, the same movies probably showed up on people’s list, Deliverance, The Longest Yard, Smokey and The Bandit, Boogie Nights and so-forth. For an actor as big as Reynolds was (in fact at one point he was the biggest star in America), it’s interesting just how few “classics”, he’s been in. Admittedly I don’t entire blame that on Reynolds, but there were some times where a film seem to rely on his charisma, even when the script was maybe a bit subpar, case in point the road pictures he did. Reynolds seem to switch between “crazy road pictures”, and “sensitive man flicks”, within the blink of an eye. While I have enjoyed many of these movies, few of them I would classify as masterpieces, and it’s clear that audiences got tired of him repeating himself, very fast, but still I have a soft spot for his many endeavors in the genre. Of course Smokey & The Bandit is a great film, and having rewatched it last year in the wake of his death, I was really struck by how fun it really is. The comedy, the chase sequences, the performances, especially Jackie Gleason as the racist comical southern Sheriff Buford T. Justice, all hold up tremendously. However a particular favorite of mine among his road pictures would be Hooper. A good little behind the scenes satirical look at the film industry through the lenses of a stunt-man. It features a car jump sequence that is among the most thrilling that the genre has to offer, and offers some metatechnical commentary, that you might not expect for what otherwise looks on the surface to be another chase picture. There’s also White Lighting, and its sequel Gator. While I could take or leave Gator (both films did inspire a great Archer conversation, though), White Lighting is a really solid flick, with great supporting characters, and some really killer car destruction, that I have no doubt took forever to plan and implement, especially for the time. Reynolds did plenty of other chase films, especially The Cannonball Run films for example, but those are the ones that come to my mind immediately. While Burt Reynolds may have not been the versatile actor, I cannot deny his charm. For many people in the 70s and 80s, he along with Clint Eastwood was the epitome of cool, and tough, and these chase pictures are a great example of why. Reynolds was certainly the king of a certain type of honkey tonk road movie with a heavy Southern aesthetic. My theory regarding their popularity at the time is that as the Western was losing popularity and beginning to seem out of date, Reynolds with his cowboy hats and convertible cars offered up a newer alternative to those who liked the charms of westerns, but needed a more contemporary context. They were almost transitional movies between the Western and the modern action cop thriller. Even so, those chase movies Reynolds were sort of time capsules of the period, and when their popularity went into decline in the early 1980's, so do his immense stardom. As you said, he was the biggest star in America for several years, so he defintely tapped into something movie goers liked with his films. But changing tastes can be brutal to the careers of movie stars, and Reynolds didn't transition well enough when his spell at the top started to end.
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Aug 31, 2019 14:36:25 GMT
Joaquin PhoenixGenre: Crime2019 may be a very key year in the career of Joaquin Phoenix. A highly talented and intense screen actor, he's been caught up in Best Actor Of His Generation (film anyway, as none of them do stage) debates with two actors with generally higher profiles than him...Leonardo DiCaprio and Christian Bale. Many cinephiles favor Phoenix in these debates because he makes plenty of arthouse movies that critics and film nerds rate. But general movie going audiences probably haven't given Phoenix a great deal of thought since 2005's Johnny Cash biopic Walk The Line. But despite huge amounts of acclaim in films since then, Phoenix has not made films that have connected in any significant way with wider audiences.
Joker, a 70's styled psychological crime film based on the famed comic-book villain looks set to change all that. Playing an iconic character, Phoenix has already recieved reviews suggesting he could be a serious contender to win the next Best Actor Oscar. This has every chance of being the film and role that reignites him in the consciousness of mainstream audiences when considering the best actor of his generation. It's a strategic, but perhaps wise move. Joker is a role that brings out the best in actors (Heath Ledger won a deserved Oscar for the role, and it was one of Jack Nicholson's most memorable performances).
The truth is though, Phoenix has shown an attraction to crime films before. Just never one with the profile of Joker. His work with director James Gray has generally focused on crime...The Yards, We Own The Night, The Immigrant.
Inherent Vice and You Were Never Really Here also were forays into the crime genre. But all Phoenix's crime films to date have had limited commercial appeal. Till now. Phoenix may finally be about to make the impact in the genre to befit His extensive crime resume, thanks to a psychopathic comic book clown. Below, Phoenix as a violent vigilante/mercenary in You Were Never Really Here:
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Aug 31, 2019 15:11:03 GMT
Couldn't agree more on that Phoenix write-up. Even though I consider him the finest actor of his generation (and by quite a distance), you are right in that he doesn't make easy, accessible movies. Which is why Joker has potential to be not just a gamechanger for him, but also for the genre itself, where it becomes the bridge between mainstream appeal and what Phoenix has been doing for ages.
I don't wanna get ahead of ourselves on Joker, as reviews still have yet to drop and those initial raves may be tempered by more thorough analysis, but you and I both know Joaquin has been absolutely crushing it these last few years in ways that very few actors can boast.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Aug 31, 2019 15:47:05 GMT
There is a fascinating argument to be made in how the medium of film (and TV) has changed and how that change effects how we view actors right now and it's unique. To many people he's the finest film actor of his generation (I'd call him and PSH the finest US actors since the 70s even) to others.......well, he's not and it's tricky. Usually that was tempered with a box office status in the past - now it's more nuanced. Many would give that title to DiCaprio who has had "normal successes" in film and they haven't seen much of what Phoenix has done in a long time - they wouldn't think he was in the running for such a title. With the changeover now - not just commercial films but "event" films it changes the playing field far more than it would have ever before for this group in their 40s. That didn't happen for previous generations - no one saw say Nicholson as trumping De Niro with Batman in '89, it was just another movie (a huge one, but still he was the same actor) - the perception of the film and the event status changes the perception of the actor now - now he instantly wipes out huge elements of his career (some negative, reinforces some positive) in a huge way previous generations couldn't do nearly as much It has done that in TV also where many people would tell you Cranston and Gandolfini on TV stand with the greatest in film history and do not differentiate between the two mediums at all. It's not just commercial vs. non and hits vs. non - that's an antiquated way of viewing it I think - it's in the case of the Joker - it's the fulfilling of an audience idea/conception.
|
|
|
Post by therealcomicman117 on Aug 31, 2019 16:05:49 GMT
Burt ReynoldsGenre: Chase PicturesWhen Burt Reynolds past last year, I’m sure there were a lot of write-ups on what his essential films are, the same movies probably showed up on people’s list, Deliverance, The Longest Yard, Smokey and The Bandit, Boogie Nights and so-forth. For an actor as big as Reynolds was (in fact at one point he was the biggest star in America), it’s interesting just how few “classics”, he’s been in. Admittedly I don’t entire blame that on Reynolds, but there were some times where a film seem to rely on his charisma, even when the script was maybe a bit subpar, case in point the road pictures he did. Reynolds seem to switch between “crazy road pictures”, and “sensitive man flicks”, within the blink of an eye. While I have enjoyed many of these movies, few of them I would classify as masterpieces, and it’s clear that audiences got tired of him repeating himself, very fast, but still I have a soft spot for his many endeavors in the genre. Of course Smokey & The Bandit is a great film, and having rewatched it last year in the wake of his death, I was really struck by how fun it really is. The comedy, the chase sequences, the performances, especially Jackie Gleason as the racist comical southern Sheriff Buford T. Justice, all hold up tremendously. However a particular favorite of mine among his road pictures would be Hooper. A good little behind the scenes satirical look at the film industry through the lenses of a stunt-man. It features a car jump sequence that is among the most thrilling that the genre has to offer, and offers some metatechnical commentary, that you might not expect for what otherwise looks on the surface to be another chase picture. There’s also White Lighting, and its sequel Gator. While I could take or leave Gator (both films did inspire a great Archer conversation, though), White Lighting is a really solid flick, with great supporting characters, and some really killer car destruction, that I have no doubt took forever to plan and implement, especially for the time. Reynolds did plenty of other chase films, especially The Cannonball Run films for example, but those are the ones that come to my mind immediately. While Burt Reynolds may have not been the versatile actor, I cannot deny his charm. For many people in the 70s and 80s, he along with Clint Eastwood was the epitome of cool, and tough, and these chase pictures are a great example of why. Reynolds was certainly the king of a certain type of honkey tonk road movie with a heavy Southern aesthetic. My theory regarding their popularity at the time is that as the Western was losing popularity and beginning to seem out of date, Reynolds with his cowboy hats and convertible cars offered up a newer alternative to those who liked the charms of westerns, but needed a more contemporary context. They were almost transitional movies between the Western and the modern action cop thriller. Even so, those chase movies Reynolds were sort of time capsules of the period, and when their popularity went into decline in the early 1980's, so do his immense stardom. As you said, he was the biggest star in America for several years, so he defintely tapped into something movie goers liked with his films. But changing tastes can be brutal to the careers of movie stars, and Reynolds didn't transition well enough when his spell at the top started to end. He also wasn't known for his very great film choices, like turning down Terms of Endearment to do Stroker Ace instead. I think he was just comfortable working with friends he knew like Hal Needham, that he rarely tried to potentially challenge himself as an actor. Those road movies were his bread and butter, but they were also his greatest downfall, because after a while they sorta started to blend together, and led to audience getting bored of him rather quickly. I can't deny his "star quality", and I enjoyed a lot of his 70s films, but there's sorta a great regret about his career when you look back on it. I know he tried a proper comeback in the 80s several times, before Boogie Nights, and even then he sorta blew his chances further when he trashed the film, and wouldn't appear in Magnolia. At least he later seemed to have a great sense of humor about his career, especially when he appeared on Archer.
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Aug 31, 2019 16:48:31 GMT
Couldn't agree more on that Phoenix write-up. Even though I consider him the finest actor of his generation (and by quite a distance), you are right in that he doesn't make easy, accessible movies. Which is why Joker has potential to be not just a gamechanger for him, but also for the genre itself, where it becomes the bridge between mainstream appeal and what Phoenix has been doing for ages. I don't wanna get ahead of ourselves on Joker, as reviews still have yet to drop and those initial raves may be tempered by more thorough analysis, but you and I both know Joaquin has been absolutely crushing it these last few years in ways that very few actors can boast. I'm not especially comfortable calling any of the leading lights in Phoenix's generation the best actor of their generation (with no caveats) by a distance, because none of them are stage actors, and that will always matter as far as I'm concerned. But best film actor of his generation.... sure, he's laid down his marker, and then some. But I feel the top 3 guys in his generation all have different strengths and weaknesses, and none have yet to draw away from the pack, imho. But Joker absolutely can be a game changer for him. It's a role designed to elicit strong reactions in people (though Jared Leto probably didn't get the strong reaction he hoped for ), and it absolutely meshes with the weird oddball vibe that Phoenix really specialises in.
|
|
|
Post by therealcomicman117 on Aug 31, 2019 18:24:48 GMT
Couldn't agree more on that Phoenix write-up. Even though I consider him the finest actor of his generation (and by quite a distance), you are right in that he doesn't make easy, accessible movies. Which is why Joker has potential to be not just a gamechanger for him, but also for the genre itself, where it becomes the bridge between mainstream appeal and what Phoenix has been doing for ages. I don't wanna get ahead of ourselves on Joker, as reviews still have yet to drop and those initial raves may be tempered by more thorough analysis, but you and I both know Joaquin has been absolutely crushing it these last few years in ways that very few actors can boast. I'm not especially comfortable calling any of the leading lights in Phoenix's generation the best actor of their generation (with no caveats) by a distance, because none of them are stage actors, and that will always matter as far as I'm concerned. But best film actor of his generation.... sure, he's laid down his marker, and then some. But I feel the top 3 guys in his generation all have different strengths and weaknesses, and none have yet to draw away from the pack, imho. But Joker absolutely can be a game changer for him. It's a role designed to elicit strong reactions in people (though Jared Leto probably didn't get the strong reaction he hoped for ), and it absolutely meshes with the weird oddball vibe that Phoenix really specialises in. I actually think the reason that Phoenix agreed to play The Joker, was because the character is much more complex and chaotic then your average comic book baddie. It's a role that allows an actor to really sink his teeth into. While I doubt he'll past Ledger for me, I could see him as The Joker being a real breakthrough, especially as far as R rated comic book flicks go. I also wouldn't surprised if the film does well enough (which based off early reviews, it should), that WB will try to get a sequel off the ground, but I'll surprised if Phoenix says yes, because I'm sure he came into the role with the idea that it would only be a one-off. He's really as "anti-franchise" as gets as far as acclaimed actors go.
|
|