| Author |
Message |
|
| marantzo |
 Posted: Fri Dec 13, 2013 8:23 pm |
 |
|
|
Guest
|
| So who is the lead male character and who is the lead female character? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Syd |
| Posted: Fri Dec 13, 2013 8:37 pm |
|
|
Site Admin
Joined: 21 May 2004
Posts: 12929
Location: Norman, Oklahoma
|
marantzo wrote: So who is the lead male character and who is the lead female character?
The Butler has two male leads. It's more of a father/son film rather than a husband/wife film. Oprah Winfrey could be considered either lead or supporting. I'd probably choose lead if it were up to me since she does play such a major role in the film. The woman who plays the son's girlfriend I'd definitely say is supporting. |
_________________
Rocky Laocoon foretold of Troy's doom, only to find snaky water. They pulled him in and Rocky can't swim. Now Rocky wishes he were an otter! |
|
| Back to top |
   
|
| marantzo |
| Posted: Fri Dec 13, 2013 9:18 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
| Oprah is definitely the lead in my mind also. And she gives an excellent performance. I don't really like Oprah but she knows how to act and if she only acted I'd really like her. I never got to see Enough Said, so I can't tell if Gandolfini is the main male actor. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| billyweeds |
| Posted: Fri Dec 13, 2013 9:47 pm |
|
|
Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 20618
Location: New York City
|
marantzo wrote: Oprah is definitely the lead in my mind also. And she gives an excellent performance. I don't really like Oprah but she knows how to act and if she only acted I'd really like her. I never got to see Enough Said, so I can't tell if Gandolfini is the main male actor.
Gandolfini is definitely the lead male actor, but the leading role is just as definitely the one played by Julia Louis-Dreyfus. Just because you're the most important character of a certain gender doesn't mean you're the 'star." Winfrey supports Whitaker just as Patricia Neal supported Paul Newman in Hud. Neal won the Best Actress award, though--another misplaced category. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| billyweeds |
| Posted: Fri Dec 13, 2013 9:48 pm |
|
|
|
Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 20618
Location: New York City
|
| Oh, and by the way, Gandolfini gives the best performance by an actor in any category this year. There is simply no competition. His death becomes even sadder when you see this breathtaking performance. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| billyweeds |
| Posted: Sun Dec 15, 2013 1:14 am |
|
|
|
Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 20618
Location: New York City
|
Sometimes I feel like I'm living in an alternate universe where mediocre films get praised to the rooftops and wonderful ones are received lukewarmly. Latest case in point: American Hustle, recipient of the Best Picture award from the NY Film Critics Circle and raves from all the known published critics. It's a half-baked amalgam of Boogie Nights and GoodFellas, and not even in the same galaxy with either of them. Christian Bale, Amy Adams, Bradley Cooper, Jeremy Renner, and Jennifer Lawrence all act their asses off but have no chemistry with each other in this caper inspired by the Abscam scandal. It's set in the 70s with a soundtrack to match (which IMO is the best thing about the movie).
Cooper, Lawrence, Bale, and Adams have all been nominated for Oscars under the direction of David O. Russell, who likewise directed American Hustle, but it's not as good as either Silver Linings Playbook or The Fighter. It's closer to Huckabees in the Russell oeuvre. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| gromit |
| Posted: Sun Dec 15, 2013 1:52 am |
|
|
Joined: 31 Aug 2004
Posts: 9015
Location: Shanghai
|
billyweeds wrote: David O. Russell, who likewise directed American Hustle, but it's not as good as either Silver Linings Playbook or The Fighter. It's closer to Huckabees in the Russell oeuvre.
You should shake up that sentence until the films line up in the correct order. I thought Silver Linings was entirely mediocre at best. But AH does look fairly derivative, though kind of fun. I'm a big 3 Kings booster as well. |
_________________
Killing your enemies, if it's done badly, increases their number. |
|
| Back to top |
|
| billyweeds |
| Posted: Sun Dec 15, 2013 7:23 am |
|
|
|
Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 20618
Location: New York City
|
gromit wrote: billyweeds wrote: David O. Russell, who likewise directed American Hustle, but it's not as good as either Silver Linings Playbook or The Fighter. It's closer to Huckabees in the Russell oeuvre.
You should shake up that sentence until the films line up in the correct order. I thought Silver Linings was entirely mediocre at best. But AH does look fairly derivative, though kind of fun. I'm a big 3 Kings booster as well.
I'm not a huge fan of SLP either, but I was citing the two movies for which the four stars either won or were nominated. I prefer 3 Kings as well. I also like Flirting with Disaster. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| marantzo |
| Posted: Sun Dec 15, 2013 8:23 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
I liked Silver Linings (entirely mediocre?  ), and 3 Kings very much. Never saw The Fighter or FWD. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| billyweeds |
| Posted: Sun Dec 15, 2013 9:10 am |
|
|
|
Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 20618
Location: New York City
|
3 Kings is his best IMO, closely followed by The Fighter. His only outright disaster is Huckabees, which is one of my least favorite movies of all time.
American Hustle isn't bad, just somewhat thudding and "on the nose," with narrations (a la Liotta in GoodFellas) that are ham-handed and lethargically paced (as compared with the brisk, almost hurried, but always appropriate Liotta rhythm). The bottom line is that AH is being outrageously over-promoted and overpraised. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| billyweeds |
| Posted: Sun Dec 15, 2013 10:18 am |
|
|
|
Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 20618
Location: New York City
|
Once in a while former Yalie turned over-political conservative film critic Kyle Smith (of the New York Post) gets it right. In this case, he's the only published film critic who does get it right.
http://nypost.com/2013/12/10/american-hustle-is-a-polyester-filled-mess/
Smith's comment about Russell putting the actors' needs above the audience is so right-on-the-money it hurts. This movie is like a master class in acting from hell. But if you liked Philip Seymour Hoffman and Joaquin Phoenix masturbating on screen in The Master, you may likewise enjoy the narcissistic work of Bale, Lawrence, and Cooper. I exempt Amy Adams, who does seem to be trying to do a good acting job. Unfortunately, she's the least interesting of them all. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| marantzo |
| Posted: Sun Dec 15, 2013 10:46 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
billyweeds wrote: 3 Kings is his best IMO, closely followed by The Fighter. His only outright disaster is Huckabees, which is one of my least favorite movies of all time.
American Hustle isn't bad, just somewhat thudding and "on the nose," with narrations (a la Liotta in GoodFellas) that are ham-handed and lethargically paced (as compared with the brisk, almost hurried, but always appropriate Liotta rhythm). The bottom line is that AH is being outrageously over-promoted and overpraised.
I'm sure you remember what I thought of Huckabees.
It's strange that a director can direct a movie that ends up being crap and then makes one that is very good. Aronovsky is another example of that. The Fountain, unbelievably awful, and then he comes up with The Wrestler, excellent. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| billyweeds |
| Posted: Sun Dec 15, 2013 11:26 am |
|
|
|
Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 20618
Location: New York City
|
marantzo wrote: billyweeds wrote: 3 Kings is his best IMO, closely followed by The Fighter. His only outright disaster is Huckabees, which is one of my least favorite movies of all time.
American Hustle isn't bad, just somewhat thudding and "on the nose," with narrations (a la Liotta in GoodFellas) that are ham-handed and lethargically paced (as compared with the brisk, almost hurried, but always appropriate Liotta rhythm). The bottom line is that AH is being outrageously over-promoted and overpraised.
I'm sure you remember what I thought of Huckabees.
It's strange that a director can direct a movie that ends up being crap and then makes one that is very good. Aronovsky is another example of that. The Fountain, unbelievably awful, and then he comes up with The Wrestler, excellent.
Truffaut made Fahrenheit 451. Antonioni made Zabriskie Point. Hitchcock made The Paradine Case. Wilder made Avanti! Chaplin made A Countess from Hong Kong. It's an old story... |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| marantzo |
| Posted: Sun Dec 15, 2013 12:19 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
When I saw Fahrenheit 451, I had a hard time believing that Truffaut made it. And the ending was awful. Truffaut's endings were always good.  I never liked any of Chaplin's talkies that I saw. I never saw the other three that you mentioned. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| gromit |
| Posted: Sun Dec 15, 2013 1:03 pm |
|
|
|
Joined: 31 Aug 2004
Posts: 9015
Location: Shanghai
|
I don't think it's strange at all.
It's not a like a painting or a poem where one person does it all and can just scrap it and start over if things go awry.
A film is such a large collaboration, so much has to come together and cohere, and once enough money is sunk, the project lurches forward almost without regard to quality. On some rare occasions a director is replaced mid-film, or an actor replaced midstream or extensive re-shoots might occur.
It's a real tricky business making a film, and every project has its own challenges, whether its actors, script, financing, sets, editing, water/children/animals .... |
_________________
Killing your enemies, if it's done badly, increases their number. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
