|
Post by JangoB on Aug 25, 2022 14:53:21 GMT
|
|
|
Post by stabcaesar on Aug 25, 2022 15:40:54 GMT
Is it just me or does that look like a Terrence Malick movie?
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Aug 25, 2022 15:42:14 GMT
Might be too arty for Academy Awards but Blanchett is going to clean up for this stuff with critics group I'm guessing so wouldn't be surprised to see her as the person to beat for a while at least in the Fall........also watch out for Nina Hoss because she's awesome too.
Side note: This role in some ways evokes Blanchett at her oddest and hardest to pin down - Stateless, Manifesto etc. - where her "other" career merges with her more famous career......this is one of those roles that is more interesting given who's playing it and when she is playing it and what have maybe lead up to it........there's a handful of actors who have that kind of tentacle like reach across their full body of work, where roles play off of roles and artistic choices dovetail with commercial properties........and almost all of the actors who have that - ever - are men ......
........one of the reasons for her GOAT-ness actually.........
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Aug 25, 2022 15:43:16 GMT
Is it just me or does that look like a Terrence Malick movie? Not really. Malick is far more freewheeling, whereas this has much more clinical precision. The vibe I was getting was Jonathan Glazer.
|
|
rhodoraonline
Badass
Your Generosity Hides Something Dirtier and Meaner
Posts: 1,023
Likes: 504
|
Post by rhodoraonline on Aug 25, 2022 17:03:57 GMT
Did you guys hear a small, child's voice saying 'okay' at the very end? Blanchet is such a force, she could easily burst into the Best Actress race if the film is even moderately received (though in all honesty, it looks strong).
|
|
|
Post by Tommen_Saperstein on Aug 25, 2022 20:54:15 GMT
yeah this teaser was very Glazer. It might be too arty for the Academy but Blanchett + Focus Features + a comeback narrative for Todd Field + a increasingly younger membership willing to nod more ambitious and weird projects also make me think it could be a huge contender.
either way, I for one can't fucking wait. It looks brilliant.
|
|
|
Post by DanQuixote on Aug 27, 2022 8:59:43 GMT
I’m about to eat this UP.
|
|
|
Post by iheartamyadams on Sept 1, 2022 20:23:04 GMT
90+ metascore, Blanchett with undeniable raves, she’s the best actress alive blah blah blah
|
|
|
Post by wallsofjericho on Sept 1, 2022 20:40:45 GMT
Can't wait to see Cate in this, especially after those raves 😎
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Sept 1, 2022 21:56:22 GMT
Can't wait to see Cate in this, especially after those raves 😎 I said this once on MAR - but there's only a few stars in the movies - ever - who have had a commercial career and an entirely separate "experimental" career in film / TV / theater like she has.......and not as successful at it as her either tbh ........not that Burt Lancaster thing of "make one for them, one for you" - a lot of people do that - or mix prestige & Pop movies - but an entirely separate run of experimental work that sometimes becomes part of their commercial career at the same time. Olivier, Pacino, PSH - it's usually men - but (especially) Huppert too - have had this - but I actually think that if this film is like what it appears to be - and she is nodded - this is potentially a historic type of turn for Blanchett in this specific way that "acting" is perceived: Because with her it's rarely about how good she is - it's more about good she is at things no one else would be in - regardless of its commercial potential - and that makes it appear like there's nothing she can't do - and that the greatest trick for an actor - because all actors have things they can't do......but she makes her career a testament to Acting as Experimentation. Blanchett already has an Oscar nod for playing a famous man ffs, she has Manifesto (which no one has, come on - some people would call THAT her best even), a bunch of stage roles that are experimental af, Stateless on TV ........this "seems" like an experiental movie - or as experiimental as things that compete for Oscars can be - and she may win for it.....that's amazing even if she doesn't win - it isn't just prestige, it's investigational and could easily fail - that's the key: There's never been an actress in English quite like her because of this experimental / commercial 1-2 punch and its overlap between the two ......even if people hate her because they are fncking dumb as rocks (um) - that specific achievement ^ - would be more than enough alone to be in awe of her......my guess is this going to become more clearly spelled out when they do promotion for this movie - which was written for her, which wouldn't exist without her and the fact that she's just 53 .......
|
|
|
Post by wallsofjericho on Sept 1, 2022 22:03:11 GMT
Can't wait to see Cate in this, especially after those raves 😎 I said this once on MAR - but there's only a few stars in the movies - ever - who have had a commercial career and an entirely separate "experimental" career in film / TV / theater like she has.......and not as successful at it as her either tbh ........not that Burt Lancaster thing of "make one for them, one for you" - a lot of people do that - or mix prestige & Pop movies - but an entirely separate run of experimental work that sometimes becomes part of their commercial career at the same time. Olivier, Pacino, PSH - it's usually men - but (especially) Huppert too - have had this - but I actually think that if this film is like what it appears to be - and she is nodded - this is potentially a historic type of turn for Blanchett in this specific way that "acting" is perceived: Because with her it's rarely about how good she is - it's more about good she is at things no one else would be in - regardless of its commercial potential - and that makes it appear like there's nothing she can't do - and that the greatest trick for an actor - because all actors have things they can't do......but she makes her career a testament to Acting as Experimentation. Blanchett already has an Oscar nod for playing a famous man ffs, she has Manifesto (which no one has, come on - some people would call THAT her best even), a bunch of stage roles that are experimental af, Stateless on TV ........this "seems" like an experiental movie - or as experiimental as things that compete for Oscars can be - and she may win for it.....that's amazing even if she doesn't win - it isn't just prestige, it's investigational and could easily fail - that's the key: There's never been an actress in English quite like her because of this experimental / commercial 1-2 punch and its overlap between the two ......even if people hate her because they are fncking dumb as rocks (um) - that specific achievement ^ - would be more than enough alone to be in awe of her......my guess is this going to become more clearly spelled out when they do promotion for this movie - which was written for her, which wouldn't exist without her and the fact that she's just 53 ....... Great points, She is in a similar and rarified air like DDL that I can actually see her winning a third Oscar. These raves are icing on the cake for an actress who is worshipped by her peers and who has had a stellar career.
|
|
|
Post by futuretrunks on Sept 1, 2022 22:05:18 GMT
I don't see it. Tilda Swinton is the gifted experimenter par excellence who occasionally appears in something very commercial; Tilda's kind of like an adjunct to Philip Seymour Hoffman to me. Blanchett is like her much less talented cousin. Blanchett has failed in scenes requiring such basal acting that she can never be considered a GOAT contender. Her conception of acting is fundamentally shallow, and manifests its defects with the artificiality present in so many of her dramatic scenes, where she's unconvincingly trying to conjure up emotion. When a Leo loses his shit, you believe that shit. When Blanchett "loses her shit", she looks like she's thinking about someone she saw losing their shit. The difference is unmistakable to me.
|
|
rhodoraonline
Badass
Your Generosity Hides Something Dirtier and Meaner
Posts: 1,023
Likes: 504
|
Post by rhodoraonline on Sept 1, 2022 22:30:58 GMT
Whenever she does end up winning her third Oscar, it would be way more deserved in my humble opinion than Meryl or Frances
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Sept 1, 2022 22:45:56 GMT
I don't see it. Tilda Swinton is the gifted experimenter par excellence who occasionally appears in something very commercial; Swinton has it too certainly but it's likely (no jinx!) going to be 9 Oscar nominations to 1 after this year - and while Oscar nominations don't mean everything - 9 to 1 isn't nothing either........... and possibly (no jinx!) 3 wins to 1 and 2 Oscar nominations (and a possible win) with roles that are experimental so her overlap is more noticeable anyway...... I mean you can argue their talent - but you can't argue their overall stature - and Blanchett is 8 years younger too.......it's a different thing ........Blanchett has this niche in a more pronounced way imo.....all I'm saying
|
|
|
Post by futuretrunks on Sept 1, 2022 22:53:59 GMT
I don't see it. Tilda Swinton is the gifted experimenter par excellence who occasionally appears in something very commercial; Swinton has it too certainly but it's likely (no jinx!) going to be 9 Oscar nominations to 1 after this year - and while Oscar nominations don't mean everything - 9 to 1 isn't nothing either........... and possibly (no jinx!) 3 wins to 1 and 2 Oscar nominations (and a possible win) with roles that are experimental so her overlap is more noticeable anyway...... I mean you can argue their talent - but you can't argue their overall stature - and Blanchett is 8 years younger too.......it's a different thing ........Blanchett has this niche in a more pronounced way imo.....all I'm saying I can't argue against her stature. Certainly she's very well-respected. But...I do think Blanchett never really peeled off as a leading lady, and it's why someone like Winslet checked her; Galadriel is a very good performance, but that's like all she can do on a big budget level, she can't anchor something like Titanic. She's never really been the lead of a big-time movie. That part has nothing to do with her acting, but she's more like Adam Driver to me. Occasionally good, frequently absurdly overrated, but constantly in movies. Ready and willing to do tiny parts if the director is acclaimed enough. It's all personal preference or whatever, but when I saw Michael Clayton, well before the Oscar talk, I was in awe by Swinton. When I saw Blanchett's nominated and winning performances, I was confused. I simply don't like her general approach to acting.
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Sept 2, 2022 2:02:47 GMT
I don't see it. Tilda Swinton is the gifted experimenter par excellence who occasionally appears in something very commercial; Tilda's kind of like an adjunct to Philip Seymour Hoffman to me. Blanchett is like her much less talented cousin. Blanchett has failed in scenes requiring such basal acting that she can never be considered a GOAT contender. Her conception of acting is fundamentally shallow, and manifests its defects with the artificiality present in so many of her dramatic scenes, where she's unconvincingly trying to conjure up emotion. When a Leo loses his shit, you believe that shit. When Blanchett "loses her shit", she looks like she's thinking about someone she saw losing their shit. The difference is unmistakable to me. You don't even need to go with Tilda Swinton for this (I don't think her commercial career has approached anything near Blanchett's, which is why she isn't a household name, despite her recent stuff with Marvel etc). Nicole Kidman is the correct comparison (and a better actress, imho). She is arguably over the course of her career more experimental and risk-taking than Blanchett , and indisputably a bigger and more iconic star. I'd say she is just as respected by her peers (their SAG nomination tallies are similar and both pretty ridiculous) but is a bigger star because she took bigger chances. Her bigger stardom also makes her a bigger tabloid target. Blanchett almost never carried big commercial films. She does the Samuel L Jackson thing (where he appears in Big ensemble studio films, often in Supporting roles, and risks nothing if those films fail). So things like Lord Of The Rings, Cinderella, Oceans 8, Cinderella, Thor: Ragnorok....their success has little to do with her starpower. Whereas Kidman, at least for a short period, carried commercial studio films like she was Julia Roberts. ... Moulin Rouge, The Others, The Interpreter etc) at the same time she was carrying weird experimental indies like Birth, Fur and Dogville at the peak of her stardom as an A-list leading lady. No one of her stature took risks like Kidman. Certainly not Blanchett, who never reached that level of status as a leading lady. Kidman mainly did the thing of jumping into ensemble blockbusters that would be successful without her when she got into middle age (ie Aquaman), which Blanchett has always done. Kidman I think sets trends that other like Blanchett follow in Hollywood (ie going all in on prestige TV and becomkng a major producer). Blanchett has taken chances, but overall, I think she's played safer over her career than Kidman. It's a fascinating comparison. Especially since they are both Australian and both pretty much the same age. They are about as equivalent a pairing to Pacino and DeNiro in their prime as I can think of for two female actors because of their shared similarities. culture & industry stature. Over the years, I've also come to believe that Kidman has more range than Blanchett, which is what Blanchett is famously touted for. Kidman can do everything Blanchett can, but I don't think the same applies in reverse.
|
|
|
Post by urbanpatrician on Sept 2, 2022 2:34:17 GMT
I will say Blanchett was considered a greater actress earlier than Kidman. Blanchett was pretty much the instant anointed headliner of the new late 90s generation after Elizabeth came out.... that generation consisting of Watts, Kidman, Winslet, and Blanchett.... this group was finalized after 2003, pretty much. Kidman was a recognizable movies figure before 2001 primarily.
Still.... not that that is really all that relevant. I think Swinton destroys that quadfecta of Watts, Winslet, Kidman, and Blanchett anyways. But I think from 1993-2007 was her dead period and she didn't gain many fans from those years because that wasn't really her great period. But since Michael Clayton gave her a new career purview, she has just been wrecking it far harder than any actress I can think of after 2007. She has one pretty interesting performance every 2 years.
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Sept 2, 2022 2:44:15 GMT
I will say Blanchett was considered a greater actress earlier than Kidman. Blanchett was pretty much the instant anointed headliner of the new late 90s generation after Elizabeth came out.... that generation consisting of Watts, Kidman, Winslet, and Blanchett.... this group was finalized after 2003, pretty much. Kidman was a recognizable movies figure before 2001 primarily. Still.... not that that is really all that relevant. I think Swinton destroys that quadfecta of Watts, Winslet, Kidman, and Blanchett but I think from 1993-2007 was her dead period and she didn't gain many fans from those years because that wasn't really her great period. But since Michael Clayton gave her a new career purview, she has just been wrecking it far harder than any actress I can think of after 2007. She has one pretty interesting performance every 2 years. Kidman had to deal with the stigma of being Tom Cruises' girlfriend/wife from the beginning of her Hollywood career, when they met with her being cast in Days Of Thunder. People were always reluctant to give her credit because they assumed she got opportunities based on their relationship . But she was the most acclaimed young actress in Australia, years before meeting Cruise and before Blanchett even got out of drama school. And Kidman fully established herself as a generational great actress in 1995 with To Die For ( arguably one of the most influential performances of all time, when you consider how many actresses since have cited it as an influence in similar roles). Blanchett made her big breakthrough in 1997 with Elizabeth. She didn't have to deal with the stigma of being part of the biggest celebrity couple in the world like Kidman, so of course she was anointed without the baggage Kidman had to deal with , but Kidman had already established her bonafides as a great actress before anyone even knew who Blanchett was. I'd also say, that in spite of the celebrity baggage that has always dogged Kidman, based on the critical and commercial success of her films, was widely regarded as arguably the best actress in the world between 2001-2005 (ignoring Meryl Streep of course). Blanchett really got cooking after Kidman lost a bit of popularity in the mid-2000s, as the critics choice (along with Winslet). I actually find Kidman and Swinton to be more similar as actresses (though Kidman has sex appeal in her arsenal/toolkit, which Swinton never really had) and in their approaches than Swinton and Blanchett, even though Swinton and Blanchett are more similar in appearance.
|
|
|
Post by urbanpatrician on Sept 2, 2022 3:11:49 GMT
I will say Blanchett was considered a greater actress earlier than Kidman. Blanchett was pretty much the instant anointed headliner of the new late 90s generation after Elizabeth came out.... that generation consisting of Watts, Kidman, Winslet, and Blanchett.... this group was finalized after 2003, pretty much. Kidman was a recognizable movies figure before 2001 primarily. Still.... not that that is really all that relevant. I think Swinton destroys that quadfecta of Watts, Winslet, Kidman, and Blanchett but I think from 1993-2007 was her dead period and she didn't gain many fans from those years because that wasn't really her great period. But since Michael Clayton gave her a new career purview, she has just been wrecking it far harder than any actress I can think of after 2007. She has one pretty interesting performance every 2 years. Kidman had to deal with the stigma of being Tom Cruises' girlfriend/wife from the beginning of her Hollywood career, when they met with her being cast in Days Of Thunder. People were always reluctant to give her credit because they assumed she got opportunities based on their relationship . But she was the most acclaimed young actress in Australia, years before meeting Cruise and before Blanchett even got out of drama school. And Kidman fully established herself as a generational great actress in 1995 with To Die For ( arguably one of the most influential performances of all time, when you consider how many actresses since have cited it as an influence in similar roles). Blanchett made her big breakthrough in 1997 with Elizabeth. She didn't have to deal with the stigma of being part of the biggest celebrity couple in the world like Kidman, so of course she was anointed without the baggage Kidman had to deal with , but Kidman had already established her bonafides as a great actress before anyone even knew who Blanchett was. I actually find Kidman and Swinton to be more similar as actresses (though Kidman has sex appeal in her arsenal/toolkit, which Swinton never really had) and in their approaches than Swinton and Blanchett, even though Swinton and Blanchett are more similar in appearance. Ok well, my point is that Blanchett was more of an instant hit. Kidman was a movie star for 12 years before 2001. I think she largely lived in the shadows of Tom Cruise, the tabloids, the culture of movie stardom - as you say, but I think in 1999 she was still considered a movie star. Talks about Cruise and Kidman being wooden in Eyes Wide Shut in 1999. I know To Die For was a well acclaimed performance for her, and a lot of people thought she was snubbed but I think the movie star/tabloid image still casted a large shadow over her image shedding performance in To Die For, so no I think Blanchett was more of an instant hit, the fact that she was never considered a movie star to begin with and she got a copious amount of acclaim for 1 performance (Elizabeth)..... and the Paltrow hating in the late 90s by Blanchett fanboys were definitely more numerous than it is now. However when 2001 came around, Kidman's critical acclaim definitely shot up. Her fanboys bashed Halle Berry incessantly for winning. There were some unhappy Naomi Watts fans too, but still.... Kidman fans were overwhelming in 2001 so upset that Halle Berry basically robbed their girl. Well obviously Kidman is more attractive than Swinton and Blanchett but I have Swinton clearly out in front of those 2 in evaluation of talent, imo.
|
|
|
Post by stabcaesar on Sept 2, 2022 3:24:40 GMT
When a Leo loses his shit, you believe that shit. No. When Leo DiCraprio loses his shit I want to bust out laughing. He doesn't deserve to be mentioned in a same sentence as Cate Blanchett.
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Sept 2, 2022 3:25:40 GMT
Kidman had to deal with the stigma of being Tom Cruises' girlfriend/wife from the beginning of her Hollywood career, when they met with her being cast in Days Of Thunder. People were always reluctant to give her credit because they assumed she got opportunities based on their relationship . But she was the most acclaimed young actress in Australia, years before meeting Cruise and before Blanchett even got out of drama school. And Kidman fully established herself as a generational great actress in 1995 with To Die For ( arguably one of the most influential performances of all time, when you consider how many actresses since have cited it as an influence in similar roles). Blanchett made her big breakthrough in 1997 with Elizabeth. She didn't have to deal with the stigma of being part of the biggest celebrity couple in the world like Kidman, so of course she was anointed without the baggage Kidman had to deal with , but Kidman had already established her bonafides as a great actress before anyone even knew who Blanchett was. I actually find Kidman and Swinton to be more similar as actresses (though Kidman has sex appeal in her arsenal/toolkit, which Swinton never really had) and in their approaches than Swinton and Blanchett, even though Swinton and Blanchett are more similar in appearance. Ok well, my point is that Blanchett was more of an instant hit. Kidman was a movie star for 12 years before 2001. I think she largely lived in the shadows of Tom Cruise, the tabloids, the culture of movie stardom - as you say, but I think in 1999 she was still considered a movie star. Talks about Cruise and Kidman being wooden in Eyes Wide Shut in 1999. I know To Die For was a well acclaimed performance for her, and a lot of people thought she was snubbed but I think the movie star/tabloid image still casted a large shadow over her image shedding performance in To Die For, so no I think Blanchett was more of an instant hit, the fact that she was never considered a movie star to begin with and she got a copious amount of acclaim for 1 performance (Elizabeth)..... and the Paltrow hating in the late 90s by Blanchett fanboys were definitely more numerous than it is now. However when 2001 came around, Kidman's critical acclaim definitely shot up. Her fanboys bashed Halle Berry incessantly for winning. There were some unhappy Naomi Watts fans too, but still.... Kidman fans were overwhelming in 2001 so upset that Halle Berry basically robbed their girl. Well obviously Kidman is more attractive than Swinton and Blanchett but I have Swinton clearly out in front of those 2 in evaluation of talent, imo. Kidman wasn't getting bricks thrown at her for being "wooden" in Eyes Wide Shut. That was mainly Cruise. Kidman gave by far the most acclaimed performance in that film. Pretty much most of the acting nominations that film got were for Kidman ( Empire Awards nomination for Best Actress, Golden Satellites nomination for Best Actress, Online Film And Television Association nomination for Best Actress, Awards Circuit nomination for Best Actress). She got a decent amount of recognition for her acting, considering the film was way too divisive to get near the Oscars etc. Funny that Eyes Wide Shut has come up in this conversation, since Kidman famously used her influence to get Blanchett cast in a voice role in the film faroutmagazine.co.uk/secret-cate-blanchett-cameo-stanley-kubrick-movie/
|
|
|
Post by urbanpatrician on Sept 2, 2022 3:35:32 GMT
Ok well, my point is that Blanchett was more of an instant hit. Kidman was a movie star for 12 years before 2001. I think she largely lived in the shadows of Tom Cruise, the tabloids, the culture of movie stardom - as you say, but I think in 1999 she was still considered a movie star. Talks about Cruise and Kidman being wooden in Eyes Wide Shut in 1999. I know To Die For was a well acclaimed performance for her, and a lot of people thought she was snubbed but I think the movie star/tabloid image still casted a large shadow over her image shedding performance in To Die For, so no I think Blanchett was more of an instant hit, the fact that she was never considered a movie star to begin with and she got a copious amount of acclaim for 1 performance (Elizabeth)..... and the Paltrow hating in the late 90s by Blanchett fanboys were definitely more numerous than it is now. However when 2001 came around, Kidman's critical acclaim definitely shot up. Her fanboys bashed Halle Berry incessantly for winning. There were some unhappy Naomi Watts fans too, but still.... Kidman fans were overwhelming in 2001 so upset that Halle Berry basically robbed their girl. Well obviously Kidman is more attractive than Swinton and Blanchett but I have Swinton clearly out in front of those 2 in evaluation of talent, imo. Kidman wasn't getting bricks thrown at her for being "wooden" in Eyes Wide Shut. That was mainly Cruise. Kidman gave by far the most acclaimed performance in that film. Pretty much most of the acting nominations that film got were for Kidman ( Empire Awards nomination for Best Actress, Golden Satellites nomination for Best Actress, Online Film And Television Association nomination for Best Actress, Awards Circuit nomination for Best Actress). She got a decent amount of recognition for her acting, considering the film was way too divisive to get near the Oscars etc I don't think she had bricks thrown at her. That was Halle Berry for robbing Kidman for Moulin Rouge!, Paltrow for robbing Blanchett for Elizabeth, even Hilary Swank got a bunch of hate by the American Beauty fanboys for winning over Annette Bening. Julia Roberts over Burstyn. List goes on, but in 1999 I don't remember anyone saying Kidman should've won an Oscar for Eyes Wide Shut. That 1999 supporting actress lineup was pretty good tho. You had some Sevigny fans, a lot of Collette fans, some fans of the American Beauty girls, and some people thought Jolie deserved her win. I even saw a few people mention Diane Venora in The Insider, but those were probably the Mann boys, primarily. At least this is what I remember in 1999. I truthfully think a lot of the Eyes Wide Shut fans came retrospectively. I agree with most of your claims tho. I think nowadays Kidman and Blanchett are praised about equally. But as you said, when Kidman died down a little bit, Blanchett definitely took a bit from her. I think the main movie was Blue Jasmine. It shot Blanchett up, a lot. In my personal opinion, Blanchett didn't give a great performance from 2003-2012. Just my opinion tho. That's 10 years.
|
|
|
Post by futuretrunks on Sept 2, 2022 3:49:31 GMT
When a Leo loses his shit, you believe that shit. No. When Leo DiCraprio loses his shit I want to bust out laughing. He doesn't deserve to be mentioned in a same sentence as Cate Blanchett. Shame on you, then! His door freakout vs. Lorraine Bracco in Basketball Diaries is stuff Blanchett could literally sign a deal with the devil for and still not execute anywhere near Leo's level. She's grossly limited. Literally the way he shouts "Fuck you April!" in Revolutionary Road...beyond Blanchett. She can't do it because she's not elemental. That imperious scene about the winds in Elizabeth 2 is laughable to me, nearly as bad as Cotillard's inexplicable death scene in TDKR. ""I, too can command the wind, sir!" You're not in a His Girl Friday parody...
|
|
|
Post by mhynson27 on Sept 2, 2022 4:02:47 GMT
No. When Leo DiCraprio loses his shit I want to bust out laughing. He doesn't deserve to be mentioned in a same sentence as Cate Blanchett. Shame on you, then! His door freakout vs. Lorraine Bracco in Basketball Diaries is stuff Blanchett could literally sign a deal with the devil for and still not execute anywhere near Leo's level. She's grossly limited. Literally the way he shouts "Fuck you April!" in Revolutionary Road...beyond Blanchett. She can't do it because she's not elemental. That imperious scene about the winds in Elizabeth 2 is laughable to me, nearly as bad as Cotillard's inexplicable death scene in TDKR. ""I, too can command the wind, sir!" You're not in a His Girl Friday parody... You're over 25 mate, Leo ain't gonna fuck you.
|
|
|
Post by futuretrunks on Sept 2, 2022 4:29:40 GMT
Shame on you, then! His door freakout vs. Lorraine Bracco in Basketball Diaries is stuff Blanchett could literally sign a deal with the devil for and still not execute anywhere near Leo's level. She's grossly limited. Literally the way he shouts "Fuck you April!" in Revolutionary Road...beyond Blanchett. She can't do it because she's not elemental. That imperious scene about the winds in Elizabeth 2 is laughable to me, nearly as bad as Cotillard's inexplicable death scene in TDKR. ""I, too can command the wind, sir!" You're not in a His Girl Friday parody... You're over 25 mate, Leo ain't gonna fuck you. Leo isn't my type! I'm into women!
|
|