|
Post by stephen on Mar 23, 2022 1:22:08 GMT
Mark Rylance:
|
|
|
Post by finniussnrub on Mar 23, 2022 1:37:30 GMT
Mark Rylance: Adam McKay and bad dentures could never keep the standing man down.
|
|
|
Post by cheesecake on Mar 23, 2022 1:51:20 GMT
He and Beale are definitely the reason to check this out -- incredible stuff, especially from the former. Great craft on display, but unfortunately it didn't quite win me over. Found the score to be very overpowering for the first half, the pacing dragged, and a lot of scenes felt kind of like a clumsy first take. Man, I sound so cranky but it was so strangely predictable despite it all, though for a mashup of Phantom Thread / Free Fire / Rope it's pretty darn neat to watch unfold. There's a lot to appreciate (Rylance!!! Seriously so great) but it's overcooked.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Mar 27, 2022 0:47:41 GMT
~ around a 7 / 10 Predictable, convoluted but highly watchable film especially if you are a fan of the Rylance / Flynn history from the knockout play Jerusalem which is one of the best theater performances of all time (or that I've seen anyway) - tour de force doesn't begin to describe it tbh. Anyway......I've said before that Rylance has been boring me a lot in DLU, Trial of the Chicago 7 and Waiting for the Barbarians - even when he is good - and he is good (not great) in the last 2 of those - but he's incomplete or only hitting one note........well here is a glimmer of his theater work where he often layers or shades to great effect and he seems not just engaged with the material but also how to incorporate himself within it too (which he doesn't do in any of those 3). This time he's fully arc'd the character, stands out without trying to steal the show, knows how to "fit the piece" and has some great moments where you think along with him - he's particularly impressive in a scene where unblinking, he shows emotion through 1 eye (raised eyebrow, modulated voice inflection!) and not the other - in a pretty marvelous example of actor control and playing to the camera in close-up (the "you can hurt young Mable, you can hurt me" scene.).....which is botched by cutting away from - him.......wtf, director?!? So..........a slight return to form for Rylance, Simon Russell Beale is good - resembling a greying bulldog, Flynn good enough and Zoey Deutch is lovely.........shot in that English visual style for 1950s movies where the 1950s always look very leathery, somehow dingy, and yet polished (think the look of things like Dance With A Stranger and Let Him Have It)
|
|
|
Post by JangoB on Sept 16, 2022 11:23:05 GMT
To me all the shenanigans about the crime families and the double-crosses felt a bit worn out which wasn't helped by Moore's inability to find any interesting way to cinematically present the stagey material but Rylance's magnificent performance almost managed to turn this into a decent movie all by itself. I'm just constantly fascinated by the colors he brings into his portrayals and this is no exception. Quite enjoyed Desplat's work too - I didn't know he was the composer so I was always guessing whether it was him (because it really has that signature Desplat sound) or somebody imitating him so it was very satisfying to see his name in the end credits.
|
|
|
Post by Tommen_Saperstein on Sept 16, 2022 17:54:24 GMT
watched this a few months ago and found it mostly forgettable apart from Rylance (who turns in another solid performance) and Flynn who hams it up like he's auditioning for a Boardwalk Empire reboot. The best part was the twist at the end and moment-to-moment the way the story kept shifting directions made it watchable but it doesn't amount to much in the end but a playful gimmicky narrative experiment. Rylance is outstanding in Phantom of the Open btw (must-see for Rylance buffs). One of his absolute best performances!
|
|
|
Post by Martin Stett on Feb 5, 2023 0:09:35 GMT
Thus suffers from Unprovoked Monologue Syndrome (UMS), in which characters will launch into long talks about their backstory without any motivation because the audience needs either (a.) exposition or (b.) a chance to watch the actors act. In almost all cases, the reasoning for this is (b.), as the movie is reeeeeeally obvious and straightforward with what it is doing, and it knows the actors are very, very good.
And that is okay, because the movie never tries to pretend that it is a mystery: I groaned because I figured out several twists within the first half hour of the movie, but the movie expected me to figure this out. The purpose is to watch the characters try to maneuver around the rather silly shenanigans going on. Instead of attempting to fool the audience, the movie lays all the cards on the table and we get to watch Leonard twist his way around and try to win.
I do think the finale was very, very stupid for a movie that was such an excellent nuts and bolts suspense thriller before that. There was no need for the final few minutes, the (rather obvious) twists at the end could have been revealed at any point prior in the story, and it would have been cool to see how they would affect things if they actually had any impact on the plot. Instead, they get tacked onto the end in a stupid, STUPID finale sequence. But eh, small complaint in the end. Solid film.
|
|