|
|
Post by JangoB on Aug 9, 2022 17:25:43 GMT
Will there be a more divisive performance this year? I'm not sure. What say you, good folks of MAR - was his Colonel Parker a performance of your nightmares? Or maybe of your dreams? Let's find out how many people are on each side. I'm in the Yay camp. I'll adapt my thoughts from the Elvis thread: It's fun to watch such a flamboyant character performance from him and frankly it fits the stylized cinematic world of this movie very well. Even though I didn't like the trailers I'm actually grateful for them because they smartly prepared us for the type of turn he'd be doing. With the shock and apprehension out of the way I found quite a few things to appreciate about him as Parker. Obviously his choices wouldn't have worked in a more level-headed biopic like Walk the Line but this movie is artificial-feeling enough (and I don't mean that in a bad way) for him to properly belong in it. We're in Baz world here, folks. Hanks is certainly over the top but that's a description that could also be given to the majority of the film itself so to me his performance didn't stand out like a sore thumb. I mean, it's a movie in which this happens:  To me Hanks fits it just fine. |
|
|
|
Post by hugobolso on Aug 9, 2022 17:27:29 GMT
Nay. Jimmy Stewart was an excellent villian (or a kind of, he is terrible manipulative, definitive not the hero) in Rope. Tom Hanks is a terrible one with prosthetics in Elvis.-
|
|
|
|
Post by JangoB on Aug 9, 2022 17:28:52 GMT
Nay. Jimmy Stewart was an excellent villian in Rope. Tom Hanks is a terrible one with prosthetics in Elvis.-  |
|
|
|
Post by finniussnrub on Aug 9, 2022 17:29:50 GMT
Eh, it's isn't even that he's over the top (that's fine, the film is indeed over the top), it is the way he's over the top. An over the top "good old boy" accent could've worked, and been more accurate to the accent that Parker used to cover up his Dutch accent, rather than doing some weird riff on Peter Lorre, I guess. A real proper huxster also could've worked, even if he was big, but he plays it so slimy, you would question why anyone would give this guy the time of day let alone control of their finances.
|
|
|
|
Post by JangoB on Aug 9, 2022 17:54:46 GMT
Eh, it's isn't even that he's over the top (that's fine, the film is indeed over the top), it is the way he's over the top. An over the top "good old boy" accent could've worked, and been more accurate to the accent that Parker used to cover up his Dutch accent, rather than doing some weird riff on Peter Lorre, I guess. A real proper huxster also could've worked, even if he was big, but he plays it so slimy, you would question why anyone would give this guy the time of day let alone control of their finances. Yeah, the accent remains the only thing I don't quite get about his performance. I mean, I can appreciate the swing for the fences but it wasn't really necessary to swing this hard. Especially when the real guy didn't sound like that at all. |
|
|
|
Post by thomasjerome on Aug 9, 2022 17:55:29 GMT
i found him off-putting in the trailers but it worked fine in the film, he didn't annoy me or anything. Not sure if him narrating the story was the best decision though.
|
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Aug 9, 2022 18:41:35 GMT
Fucking Nay X a 10000!!! I cannot overstate how bad a performance Hanks gave. It took Austin Butler's performance to counteract that shitshow.
|
|
|
|
Post by mikediastavrone96 on Aug 9, 2022 18:57:47 GMT
Tom Hanks going "when is he going to play the Santy Claus song?" over and over in his Kentucky Fried Goldmember voice is one of the heartiest laughs I've had all year. Big yay.
|
|
|
|
Post by countjohn on Aug 9, 2022 20:28:11 GMT
Not as bad as suggested by the trailers but still a definite nay.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tommen_Saperstein on Aug 9, 2022 22:01:50 GMT
that clip was torture to watch, I have no idea how I'm going to sit through the whole thing. Pure cinematic cocaine, but like if you did a line of cocaine while also on a sugar high. Ugh  |
|
|
|
Post by DeepArcher on Aug 9, 2022 22:17:59 GMT
Big yay. Hilarious cartoon villain caricature that perfectly fit the outrageous nature of the film.
|
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Aug 14, 2022 3:07:52 GMT
Massive yay. It's a Baz Luhrmann film -- what, are you looking for subtlety? He's swinging for the fences on the fucking moon and he lands among the stars.
|
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Aug 14, 2022 3:16:26 GMT
Massive yay. It's a Baz Luhrmann film -- what, are you looking for subtlety? He's swinging for the fences on the fucking moon and he lands among the stars. The lies we tell ourselves  He's fucking terrible. Being in a " Baz Lurhmann " film is no excuse, especially when he's doing whatever he's doing opposite a performance as serious and nuanced as Austin Butler's. They were acting like they were in different movies. His made-up "Dutch" accent sounds nothing like the actual Colonel Tom Parker either (who actually sounded American). |
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Aug 14, 2022 3:18:42 GMT
Massive yay. It's a Baz Luhrmann film -- what, are you looking for subtlety? He's swinging for the fences on the fucking moon and he lands among the stars. The lies we tell ourselves He's fucking terrible. Being in a " Baz Lurhmann " film is no excuse, especially when he's doing whatever he's doing opposite a performance as serious and nuanced as Austin Butler's. They were acting like they were in different movies. His made-up "Dutch" accent sounds nothing like the actual Colonel Tom Parker either (who actually sounded American). And I don't care. I was entertained and had an absolute ball watching the film, and watching his performance in it. You can hate his choices in it, fine. But I thought he was exactly what the film needed. |
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Aug 14, 2022 3:25:43 GMT
The lies we tell ourselves He's fucking terrible. Being in a " Baz Lurhmann " film is no excuse, especially when he's doing whatever he's doing opposite a performance as serious and nuanced as Austin Butler's. They were acting like they were in different movies. His made-up "Dutch" accent sounds nothing like the actual Colonel Tom Parker either (who actually sounded American). And I don't care. I was entertained and had an absolute ball watching the film, and watching his performance in it. You can hate his choices in it, fine. But I thought he was exactly what the film needed. Fair enough if you don't care. I just couldn't believe how bad he was. I thought he harmed the film waaaaay more than he helped it. You could still have an actor giving an outsized performance as an amoral svengali, and have that actor still resemble an actual human being. This was a biopic, not a cartoon. |
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Aug 14, 2022 3:30:00 GMT
And I don't care. I was entertained and had an absolute ball watching the film, and watching his performance in it. You can hate his choices in it, fine. But I thought he was exactly what the film needed. Fair enough if you don't care. I just couldn't believe how bad he was. I thought he harmed the film waaaaay more than he helped it. You could still have an actor giving an outsized performance as an amoral svengali, and have that actor still resemble an actual human being. This was a biopic, not a cartoon. But that's the thing about Luhrmann: he always plays to more heightened, outré, almost grotesque sensibilities. I watched this movie thinking about how Parker's extreme over-the-top nature was both disarming because he was so laughable, and yet also emphasizing the naivete of the people he was conning. If this were a normal run-of-the-mill biopic, he would obviously be more out of place, but he works in Luhrmann's world because of how amped up everything is in the movie. I get not liking what Hanks is bringing to the table, but for me, it's the sort of big artistic risk people have criticized Hanks for not taking, and I think he hit exactly the tone needed for the film. It's buck-wild and unsubtle as can be, but I was enthralled by it nevertheless, and if it means he was conning me just like Parker conned the Presleys, well, then I guess I'm Mr. Gullible. |
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Aug 14, 2022 3:39:45 GMT
Fair enough if you don't care. I just couldn't believe how bad he was. I thought he harmed the film waaaaay more than he helped it. You could still have an actor giving an outsized performance as an amoral svengali, and have that actor still resemble an actual human being. This was a biopic, not a cartoon. But that's the thing about Luhrmann: he always plays to more heightened, outré, almost grotesque sensibilities. I watched this movie thinking about how Parker's extreme over-the-top nature was both disarming because he was so laughable, and yet also emphasizing the naivete of the people he was conning. If this were a normal run-of-the-mill biopic, he would obviously be more out of place, but he works in Luhrmann's world because of how amped up everything is in the movie. I get not liking what Hanks is bringing to the table, but for me, it's the sort of big artistic risk people have criticized Hanks for not taking, and I think he hit exactly the tone needed for the film. It's buck-wild and unsubtle as can be, but I was enthralled by it nevertheless, and if it means he was conning me just like Parker conned the Presleys, well, then I guess I'm Mr. Gullible. I don't think Hanks works in Lurhmann's "world" at all, because he's the only one giving that type of silly, heightened performance in Elvis. Everyone else plays it completely straight. In Lurhmann's other films, all the actors are generally on the same page, so it makes sense. When you see Jim Broadbent hamming it up in Moulin Rouge, it works because most of the cast are at some point playing along to his tone Maybe Lurhmann directed Hanks badly. Or maybe Hanks watched other Lurhmann films and made the wrong decision to base his performance off things he expected a Lurhmann film to be.But he got those shitty reviews for a reason. I don't think his performance was a big artistic risk at all. He's done very similar shit in things like The Ladykillers. It just needed more nuance to be in keeping with the film Lurhmann actually made. |
|
|
|
Post by futuretrunks on Aug 15, 2022 22:20:35 GMT
Yikes. Hanks was pretty terrible, as was the movie. Butler's vocal work was sensational, though.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tommen_Saperstein on Sept 6, 2022 3:08:16 GMT
I guess I'm a yay for the tiebreaker. It's an acquired tolerance, grating at first but I got used to it. He's making deliberate choices and most of them work in this context. Actually pretty funny at times, like some of his reactions to Elvis sabotaging the Christmas specials.
|
|
Nikan
Based
Posts: 3,156 
Likes: 1,560
|
Post by Nikan on Sept 6, 2022 5:59:18 GMT
My main problem with Hanks is that he's the joke of an already joke movie. You wouldn't believe a guy like that would be kept around Elvis and his crowd and not get kicked out years sooner. His character can't be functioning in the same world that Butler's is much less to be taken seriously by him, for so long...
His case reminds me of Anthony Hopkins in Dracula; where an established, respectable actor is free to make whatever choice he likes: You have him, Reeves and Oldman in that movie and none of them seem to be acting in the same film... and the excuse is well what do you expect? it's ultimately a silly movie. A "vampire" movie, a "Baz Luhrmann" movie (same thing right? he sucks the life out of good material...)
|
|
speeders
Based
Posts: 4,093
Likes: 2,211
|
Post by speeders on Sept 11, 2022 22:56:26 GMT
Pretty disturbed how close this is... This was an easy all-time bad performance for me.
|
|
|
|
Post by stabcaesar on Jan 24, 2023 12:04:11 GMT
He was so, so, so bad in it.
|
|
