jakob
Full Member
Posts: 827
Likes: 698
|
Vice
Dec 25, 2018 17:39:07 GMT
via mobile
Post by jakob on Dec 25, 2018 17:39:07 GMT
I'm a bit mixed on it. The performances are amazing as is the makeup, and there are flashes of true brilliance, but it is excessively overbearing. McKays style works for and against the movie. On one hand, it's fast, flashy, and entertaining, on the other hand it's EXTREMELY beat-you-over-the-head and at times borders on just being a parody by an angry liberal filmmaker. It feels less Big Short and more preachy Oliver Stone. Yes, it does bullet point many true horrific things that did occur, but they are portrayed in such an unrealistically silly fashion, it makes what occurred somehow still feel false (which again maybe that's the point). McKay throws a lot at the wall and only half of it sticks, and while it's perhaps too aggressive, it's also sort of admirable. It's a complicated film I'm gonna have to let simmer.
|
|
The-Havok
Badass
Doing pretty good so far
Posts: 1,155
Likes: 552
|
Post by The-Havok on Dec 25, 2018 17:43:11 GMT
From what I've read it's like if Barbie made a movie
|
|
|
Post by Tommen_Saperstein on Dec 25, 2018 20:42:17 GMT
McKays style works for and against the movie. On one hand, it's fast, flashy, and entertaining, on the other hand it's EXTREMELY beat-you-over-the-head and at times borders on just being a parody by an angry liberal filmmaker. It feels less Big Short and more preachy Oliver Stone. that sounds exactly like The Big Short I'll still probably watch it for the performances and because it's relevant, but...blech
|
|
jakob
Full Member
Posts: 827
Likes: 698
|
Post by jakob on Dec 25, 2018 21:16:27 GMT
McKays style works for and against the movie. On one hand, it's fast, flashy, and entertaining, on the other hand it's EXTREMELY beat-you-over-the-head and at times borders on just being a parody by an angry liberal filmmaker. It feels less Big Short and more preachy Oliver Stone. that sounds exactly like The Big Short I'll still probably watch it for the performances and because it's relevant, but...blech But I still felt the dramatization felt gritty and real in The Big Short. I believed those characters and that situation and the crushing weight of caution that film ended on, whereas I had a very hard time buying or believing the dramatization in Vice.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 26, 2018 21:15:49 GMT
It's disjointed and red-faced and sweaty and screaming, but it doesn't... not work? I loathed The Big Short, so I was fully expecting to hate this, but it's well-acted and slickly watchable without being condescending. Adams is the true star of the film - I felt that she barely skimmed the surface of a very similar character in The Master, but here she's vivid, anchored by her own desires of success and family perfection, and totally three-dimensional.
6/10, or B-
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Dec 27, 2018 6:15:57 GMT
Overstuffed and over-directed, Adam McKay proves he is the physical one-man embodiment of the phrase "too many cooks." He will showcase a particular scene seven different ways, throwing literally everything he can at the wall and seeing if it'll stick. But one thing that remains endemic throughout is the general arrogance he shows in his audience's intelligence. I can't agree with the above comment that this film lacks condescension; it positively oozes it. I think that McKay is indicting a fair amount of his moviegoing audience for their complacency both during and after the fact of Cheney's reign. And while that sort of anger can fuel art wonderfully, here it just feels like so much grand posturing.
Bale is pretty well immersive in his portrayal; where Oldman's Churchill falls on its poorly-molded face, Bale's Cheney feels richly textured despite him being such a clandestine figure. He galvanizes the film when it starts to feel long in the tooth (and this happens far too early in the film to be a good thing; by the time 9/11 rolls around my ass felt pretty numb), and he manages to keep Cheney a provokingly elliptical figure rather than a frustrating one, so kudos to him for that. Unfortunately, the rest of the supporting ensemble felt like SNL walk-ons more than actual characters, particularly when stacked against Bale's transformation.
Vice reads Cheney (and the Bush years at large) the riot act, as it should . . . but it feels like a well-gnawed bone rather than a dripping hunk of fresh mutton. There's some nice marrow still in there, but for the most part the meat's long gone.
|
|
|
Vice
Dec 27, 2018 7:29:38 GMT
via mobile
morton likes this
Post by Sharbs on Dec 27, 2018 7:29:38 GMT
Bale's great. Everyone else, not so much (Adams is almost bad). I'm all for a scathing indictment on one of recent history's most terrifying politicians, and it accomplishes that but as a lot are saying McKay does so in 5 different fashions just to make sure he did what he came here to do. Lot only that it was boring as fuck
|
|
morton
Based
Posts: 2,811
Likes: 2,954
|
Post by morton on Dec 27, 2018 7:43:42 GMT
Overstuffed and over-directed, Adam McKay proves he is the physical one-man embodiment of the phrase "too many cooks." He will showcase a particular scene seven different ways, throwing literally everything he can at the wall and seeing if it'll stick. But one thing that remains endemic throughout is the general arrogance he shows in his audience's intelligence. I can't agree with the above comment that this film lacks condescension; it positively oozes it. I think that McKay is indicting a fair amount of his moviegoing audience for their complacency both during and after the fact of Cheney's reign. And while that sort of anger can fuel art wonderfully, here it just feels like so much grand posturing. Bale is pretty well immersive in his portrayal; where Oldman's Churchill falls on its poorly-molded face, Bale's Cheney feels richly textured despite him being such a clandestine figure. He galvanizes the film when it starts to feel long in the tooth (and this happens far too early in the film to be a good thing; by the time 9/11 rolls around my ass felt pretty numb), and he manages to keep Cheney a provokingly elliptical figure rather than a frustrating one, so kudos to him for that. Unfortunately, the rest of the supporting ensemble felt like SNL walk-ons more than actual characters, particularly when stacked against Bale's transformation. Vice reads Cheney (and the Bush years at large) the riot act, as it should . . . but it feels like a well-gnawed bone rather than a dripping hunk of fresh mutton. There's some nice marrow still in there, but for the most part the meat's long gone. While Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 11/9 wasn't perfect, I feel that he did the same thing that McKay was trying to do with Vice a lot better. While that film made me angry and sad, I didn't get the condescension from it like I did from Vice. While I agree with McKay in that the American people could do a lot better in not being complacent including myself, Moore also showed why many people do get complacent by putting the blame on a faulty system and on both political parties whereas I felt McKay was mostly blaming Americans for being dumb and paying more attention to things like the Fast and Furious franchise. I also agree about the supporting cast. I thought Adams, Perry, Pill, and Rockwell were fine; but unfortunately they didn't get to do much because I felt just as soon as a scene would get momentum, McKay would cut to another scene or break up the scene by adding something unnecessary like the whole hook, line, and sinker imagery when Dubya asks Cheney a second time to be his Veep. I really don't know what was going on with Carell. I think I would have enjoyed his performance a lot more if he had just went 100% Brick Tamland even if if it wouldn't have made any sense rather than getting Michael Scott deja vu from a lot of his scenes. Between this and Beautiful Boy, I've found that I may have overpraised his acting abilities before because he's fine in quieter moments, but anytime he gets emotional and shouty, all I see and hear is Michael Scott. I didn't hate it exactly because I do think that there's a great film in there, but I know I will probably resent it when Adams probably wins Best Supporting Actress for a merely serviceable performance, and it gets an editing nomination for most editing rather than best editing.
|
|
|
Vice
Dec 27, 2018 13:15:14 GMT
via mobile
Post by HELENA MARIA on Dec 27, 2018 13:15:14 GMT
Well, that sounds... promising😑
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 27, 2018 13:28:59 GMT
I think that McKay is indicting a fair amount of his moviegoing audience for their complacency both during and after the fact of Cheney's reign. Yeah, I can see this, but I guess my comment was based more on the fact that Margot Robbie wasn't sitting in a bathtub telling me to "fuck off." The Big Short was nigh unwatchable for its condescension, IMO. I'd add too to my original post that McKay does just sort of skim over some of the more salacious parts of Cheney's history. I was expecting a lot more about the hunting "incident" and Valerie Plame.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Dec 27, 2018 14:58:01 GMT
I think that McKay is indicting a fair amount of his moviegoing audience for their complacency both during and after the fact of Cheney's reign. Yeah, I can see this, but I guess my comment was based more on the fact that Margot Robbie wasn't sitting in a bathtub telling me to "fuck off." The Big Short was nigh unwatchable for its condescension, IMO. I'd add too to my original post that McKay does just sort of skim over some of the more salacious parts of Cheney's history. I was expecting a lot more about the hunting "incident" and Valerie Plame. In the grand scheme of things, the hunting incident is pretty much inconsequential, and McKay depicted it more or less how it went down and highlighted the ludicrous nature of Whittington having to be the one to apologize despite being the victim. As for Valerie Plame, yeah, they could've done more with it, but I think they got across the point pretty (if brutally) effectively as well. Unfortunately, those are largely the exceptions that prove the rule for this movie. The problem is, Cheney is far more byzantine than even McKay is able to exploit in one single film. His machinations could sustain a House of Cards-esque series, and distilling all of that into a single film means that things obviously are going to be left out. But the way they paid the most meager of lip service to things like Halliburton (a far more egregious glossing-over than either Whittington or Plame) annoyed me far more. McKay's approach is glibness couched in incendiary righteousness, and while it's clear he's had it in for the Bush administration for years (the jabs he's thrown at it in his films are a case study in themselves), he feels that a cursory connect-the-dots motif is enough. It isn't. Cheney changed the image of the Vice-Presidency irrevocably, and simply using the label "unitary executive theory" over and over doesn't show just how impactful he was in reshaping it. McKay's approach in The Big Short was immensely flawed, but I think the condescension is somewhat warranted because very few people are aware of why the bubble burst in 2008 and spelling it out for us in the way that he did was effective at getting his point across. It's just that McKay, both there and here, feels the need to continue rubbing our nose in the carpet long afterward.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 27, 2018 16:06:33 GMT
stephen - Yes, totally agreed. In my experience, I can't say that McKay's argument of American "complacency" is untrue. If Americans are engaged politically at all, they tend to be either very liberal (and would be fully aware of Cheney's crimes) or ultra conservative (watching Fox News all day, etc.). The middle ground (i.e. where the vast majority of Americans lie) is exhaustion and indifference.
|
|
|
Vice
Dec 28, 2018 22:52:28 GMT
Post by Pittsnogle_Goggins on Dec 28, 2018 22:52:28 GMT
Overall a liked it. Definitely not a fan of some of McKay’s directorial choices but much of it still worked for me. Bale embodied Cheney and would be a better winner than Oldman, but I’d still prefer Cooper or Mortensen to win this year. I thought Adams was good and will be ok with her win unless I get blown away by someone I’ve yet to see (Beale Street and The Favourite being the major ones). Everyone else was fine enough.
|
|
|
Vice
Dec 28, 2018 23:01:32 GMT
Post by Pittsnogle_Goggins on Dec 28, 2018 23:01:32 GMT
Overstuffed and over-directed, Adam McKay proves he is the physical one-man embodiment of the phrase "too many cooks." He will showcase a particular scene seven different ways, throwing literally everything he can at the wall and seeing if it'll stick. But one thing that remains endemic throughout is the general arrogance he shows in his audience's intelligence. I can't agree with the above comment that this film lacks condescension; it positively oozes it. I think that McKay is indicting a fair amount of his moviegoing audience for their complacency both during and after the fact of Cheney's reign. And while that sort of anger can fuel art wonderfully, here it just feels like so much grand posturing. Bale is pretty well immersive in his portrayal; where Oldman's Churchill falls on its poorly-molded face, Bale's Cheney feels richly textured despite him being such a clandestine figure. He galvanizes the film when it starts to feel long in the tooth (and this happens far too early in the film to be a good thing; by the time 9/11 rolls around my ass felt pretty numb), and he manages to keep Cheney a provokingly elliptical figure rather than a frustrating one, so kudos to him for that. Unfortunately, the rest of the supporting ensemble felt like SNL walk-ons more than actual characters, particularly when stacked against Bale's transformation. Vice reads Cheney (and the Bush years at large) the riot act, as it should . . . but it feels like a well-gnawed bone rather than a dripping hunk of fresh mutton. There's some nice marrow still in there, but for the most part the meat's long gone. While Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 11/9 wasn't perfect, I feel that he did the same thing that McKay was trying to do with Vice a lot better. While that film made me angry and sad, I didn't get the condescension from it like I did from Vice. While I agree with McKay in that the American people could do a lot better in not being complacent including myself, Moore also showed why many people do get complacent by putting the blame on a faulty system and on both political parties whereas I felt McKay was mostly blaming Americans for being dumb and paying more attention to things like the Fast and Furious franchise. I also agree about the supporting cast. I thought Adams, Perry, Pill, and Rockwell were fine; but unfortunately they didn't get to do much because I felt just as soon as a scene would get momentum, McKay would cut to another scene or break up the scene by adding something unnecessary like the whole hook, line, and sinker imagery when Dubya asks Cheney a second time to be his Veep. I really don't know what was going on with Carell. I think I would have enjoyed his performance a lot more if he had just went 100% Brick Tamland even if if it wouldn't have made any sense rather than getting Michael Scott deja vu from a lot of his scenes. Between this and Beautiful Boy, I've found that I may have overpraised his acting abilities before because he's fine in quieter moments, but anytime he gets emotional and shouty, all I see and hear is Michael Scott. I didn't hate it exactly because I do think that there's a great film in there, but I know I will probably resent it when Adams probably wins Best Supporting Actress for a merely serviceable performance, and it gets an editing nomination for most editing rather than best editing. Not that I cared for Carell’s performance at at, but I didn’t get Michael Scott vibes at all. And I’ve been watching a ton of The Office lately. I found the portrayal to be quite separated, unfortunately it still wasn’t very good. I did find him very excellent in Beautiful Boy though.
|
|
|
Post by DeepArcher on Dec 29, 2018 5:48:07 GMT
One of the most unnecessarily messy films I've seen in a long time. This coming from a fan of The Big Short, I truly have no idea what McKay was trying to do with the over-editing here. Just look at the flaming mess that is its overlong opening sequence, which jumps time frames twice within five to ten minutes for no apparent reason, bleh. These problems continue to plague the movie throughout. The tonal inconsistently certainly wrecks it as well. Unlike with The Big Short, the comedic tone is *not* naturally ingrained. In fact, it's hardly there at all. There's one or two dumb meta bits, but outside of that, there's nothing that even feels like it's meant to be comedy. Honestly, I think this could've worked decently enough as a straightforward dramatic biopic. It's informative as a political expose and has moments in which it's actually dramatically compelling, like the film often hints at a great film that could have been.
The lack of coherent structure is truly detrimental, though. This is supposed to be about the "most dangerous vice president in American history," and then Cheney is Veep for, what, twenty minutes of the movie? And that's it. There's hardly anything shown of his involvement in the Bush administration outside of his manipulation of post-9/11 policy and launching of the Iraq War. The film almost seems to suggest that's the extent of his involvement -- and as horrible as those actions were, why would a damning expose pull punches like that? If McKay had cut-out his stupid bits, maybe we could've had more time to explore these parts that felt glossed over. Oh, well.
The makeup work is truly phenomenal. Bale is exceptional in his transformation if not totally compelling; it's hard to hold Cheney's monotony against Bale's performance, as he does capture it perfectly, but that mixed with the under-written script doesn't allow for much in terms of versatility. That's not to say he doesn't have his moments of greatness -- some of the film's better scenes that actually focus on Cheney having a human grappling with morality (just so happens he usually opts in favor of the more unsavory direction), and especially that final monologue (kind of a dumb ploy but it worked for me), showcase some dynamite work from Bale. Say what you will about McKay's abundantly obvious political biases, but you have to give the film props for depicting Cheney as more of a complicated figure and not the one-dimensional caricature villain he could've easily turned into, and that most of the film's other characters are turned into. Adams is also pretty strong, but I thought Carrell and Rockwell were nearly atrocious; and it's not really to the fault of the actors, it just feels like both their roles were written for completely different films.
For a (rare) fan of The Big Short, this was disappointing. But as movie, it was actually decently entertaining, it's just weighed-down to mediocrity by so much damn inept mishandling and oversight. (Also, for those who saw it, how shitty was that fucking mid-credits scene? What even was that? McKay, get your shit together.)
|
|
chris3
Badass
I just ordered a slice of pumpkin pie...
Posts: 1,051
Likes: 1,047
|
Post by chris3 on Jan 3, 2019 4:59:29 GMT
An absolute disaster. I honestly don't know what was worse: the direction or the script. I really disliked The Big Short, and Adam McKay took all the flaws in that movie and dialed them up to 11. Incompetent, amateurish, idiotic, and insultingly proud of itself. McKay is worse than a bad director: he's a bad director that thinks he's a genius. I went in with trepidation, but I wasn't expecting one of the worst movies of the year. The cast were all game to play, but McKay gave them nothing to work with. He deserves public ridicule for this. Remember when the critics just went guns blazing on Jason Reitman for Labor Day? That's what should be happening tenfold to McKay right now. A travesty.
|
|
|
Post by countjohn on Jan 7, 2019 1:03:33 GMT
I've got to say this was a disappointment. A lot of the time I like movies that get a polarizing response like this so I was thinking I'd like it or at least find it interesting, but not a whole lot here worked.
One good thing I'll say is that the acting was very good. Wouldn't have any issues with Bale, Adams, and Rockwell getting noms. Adams in particular was good, reminded me of her performance in The Master, although obviously with much worse material to work with here.
The problem was that the script was a mess and it could probably use to be recut. I know non-linear storytelling is sexier, but the only times the movie would sort of work is when we'd stick in one time period for a while instead of jumping all around or having an expository cutaway to kill the momentum.
There were a few moments I found laugh out loud funny (Rumsfeld's quip about Congress early in the movie, them doing Shakespeare in the bedroom, the fake ending) but for the most part it wasn't that funny. Satires only work when the filmmaker genuinely finds the thing being satired to be farcical and silly. Chaplin saw Triumph of the Will and laughed through the whole thing which is what made him want to make a comedy about the Nazis. This is angry satire which always overplays its hand and ends up being unfunny.
At first I sort of thought that Cheney's speech looking into the camera in the end was the kind of thing the movie needed, more from his perspective and less a cartoon version of Cheney. But it undermined the thesis the movie had been trying build. Most of the movie wants to depict him as a power hungry political professional who doesn't believe anything but then all of a sudden he's giving a Patton-esq "I did my job" speech. You can criticize him for one of those things but not both of them at the same time.
As has been noted by some people, the movie does play fast and loose with the facts. The unitary executive theory is not that "the president can do anything he wants" and is/was a fairly mainstream view in legal circles, not a fringe right wing idea only held by Scalia types as the movie made it out. Now, they shouldn't have stopped the movie to give a detailed legalese explanation, but they shouldn't have stopped the movie to give a half assed one sentence explanation either. In a similar vein the movie tried to connect the end of the Fairness Doctrine to the rise of Fox News even though Fox is on cable so FCC regulations don't effect them anyway. The movie was full of stuff like this, dumbing down complicated issues; condescending like Oliver Stone at his worst. It was also a bit funny since they sort of had a substhread with the rise of Fox/dishonest talk radio (and then the "but these are facts!" like in the mid credits scene) but then they do stuff like that.
I think it's a 5/10 from me, it feels like it should maybe be lower but the good acting was enough to elevate it a bit and make it somewhat watchable. I was really hoping I would like it.
|
|
|
Post by JangoB on Jan 8, 2019 1:26:52 GMT
I liked the film but it's weird - it seems to me like "The Big Short" was simultaneously a more sprawling movie and also somehow a more focused one than this. McKay dives into the same kind of editing and storytelling methods but his grip somehow felt a little less firm to me this time round. But I do have to say that I enjoy his essay-like approach to these real life stories. It does freshen up the genre and allows him to essentially have more freedom to portray what's on his mind as opposed to just making a dry chronicle of historical events. Some of the fun choices worked rather well for me (for instance, I loved the fake ending sequence), others were, shall we say, a little less impressive. McKay is at his worst when he's openly condescending to the 'normal life' people, particularly during that rather unfortunate mid-credits thing at the end which offered about as sophisticated a commentary on the American discussion of politics as any lame SNL sketch. But the film mostly focuses on Cheney and his surroundings and exploits and I found all that to be quite interesting to observe.
Christian Bale was very good but I feel that I could've been a little more impressed by him had McKay not decided to be so flashy with his approach and given him more proper scenes to act. The cutting by Hank Corwin is rather intense and I feel that it gets in the way of a pretty wonderful performance, not allowing it to fully blossom. It feels as if I haven't yet seen the full performance, even though I know it was the finished film. But what I did see was excellent, if maybe just slightly one-note. I enjoyed the ensemble as well.
|
|
|
Post by sterlingarcher86 on Jan 9, 2019 17:30:36 GMT
Adam McKay must really think we are all idiots. First a half dozen metaphors to explain the housing bubble and now apparently he thinks we need unitary executive theory explained to us like 5 times.
I hope this movie retroactively makes people realize The Big Short is also garbage.
Bale and the makeup were stellar though.
|
|
|
Vice
Jan 9, 2019 18:48:40 GMT
Post by therealcomicman117 on Jan 9, 2019 18:48:40 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Sharbs on Jan 9, 2019 18:49:06 GMT
that mid-credits scene is the most embarrassing thing in all of cinema this year
|
|
|
Post by DeepArcher on Jan 9, 2019 19:06:18 GMT
that mid-credits scene is the most embarrassing thing in all of cinema this year But didn’t you hear? The new Fast and Furious is gonna be lit!
|
|
|
Vice
Jan 11, 2019 0:36:15 GMT
Post by Tommen_Saperstein on Jan 11, 2019 0:36:15 GMT
annnnd once again Steve Carrell is oddly the best thing about an Adam McKay film.
what garbage this was. I feel bad for Bale. The man put on weight for this shit, the least you can do is give him something to do other than grunt his way along a scattershot script that keeps stepping on his toes. The screenplay is pretty shallow and moves at lightning speed, but it's the editing that really doesn't give any of the performances room to breathe and Bale gets the worst of it as the underbaked centerpiece. Virtually every time Bale has some room to flex his acting muscles McKay's editor cuts away. It's a real shame because Bale's performance was for the most part transformative (apart for a couple scenes in the mid-portion where Bale's gestures, body movements, and vocal inflections were a bit too exaggerated and felt phony to me) and occasionally I forgot that I was watching Christian Bale with some weight gain. It's damn creditable work that never gets a chance to shine. I don't remember any "big moments" for Bale here. No individual scene stuck out to me because McKay's style is so noisy and busy. Adams suffers the same fate and I never got a real grasp of her character. Rockwell's performance is amusing but one-note and shallow. Carrell plays Rumsfeld as an evil Michael Scott and it's entertaining as hell. I love the part when Cheney asks him "but what do we believe?" and Carrell just bursts out laughing and goes into his office. There were a couple enjoyable moments like that but for the most part they get lost in an ocean of in-your-face directorial choices and lazy condescension. 5/10
|
|
|
Post by countjohn on Jan 11, 2019 1:34:06 GMT
Adam McKay must really think we are all idiots. First a half dozen metaphors to explain the housing bubble and now apparently he thinks we need unitary executive theory explained to us like 5 times. I hope this movie retroactively makes people realize The Big Short is also garbage. Bale and the makeup were stellar though. As I noted, they didn't even explain it right. The unitary executive theory in abbreviated form is that the President controls the entire executive branch, not that he can "do anything he wants" or that he has no checks and balances. Congress and the courts are still checks on the president even if he controls the whole executive branch. I am really glad I didn't see The Big Short now. The trailers always made me roll my eyes when it was out.
|
|
speeders
Based
Posts: 4,093
Likes: 2,212
|
Post by speeders on Jan 11, 2019 14:38:30 GMT
This movie made me angry. This really could have been an iconic, scathing movie but instead, it just felt extremely petty and immature. Hands down the worst directed Oscar candidate I've ever seen. Vice lacks cohesion, focus, story, atmosphere and at times it feels like McKay even forgot why he's angry at Cheney. It's an ugly, aimless movie that misses the point and just becomes mind-numbingly boring and excruciating, because of poor plotting and structure. It's so gimmicky and has zero depth. Cheney's motivation never feel clear and the movie even skips some of the most interestingly devious parts about Cheney, such as being the appointed head of the nominating committee for Bush's VP, which included candidates such as his wife, before he nominated himself. No, instead Bush just calls Cheney here and immediately offers him the position and that's neither true or even cinematically interesting at all. McKay never really gives Bale any breathing room to take over scenes and get McKay's point across through the performance. Because of that, he doesn't have a single memorable scene. Adams has a few scenes where she's legitimately good, but horrible in others and I would be happy for her to miss her nomination. It's unfathomable that she missed for her career-best turn in Arrival and is emerging as a locked nominee here and a possible winner. I was disappointed in Rockwell who plays W. like a SNL sketch and barely has any screentime to make much impact. After seeing this and Beautiful Boy in the span of a day, I am so sick of Steve Carrell and his affected Oscar-baiting dramatic acting.
The good parts: -- Bale is as good as the material allows him to be and while he's nowhere close to make my personal line-up, he's much better than anyone of the likely best actor nominees this year (not counting Hawke). I prefer him to Oldman last year. -- Make-up is impressive. -- I actually quite enjoyed the score.
I don't think I can ever erase that mid-credits scene from my mind and they almost singlehandedly erase any shred of goodwill the movie build up to that point.
3/10
|
|