The Assassination of Jesse James: The Poll

The Assassination of Jesse James: The Poll

****
11
44%
*** 1/2
8
32%
***
2
8%
** 1/2
2
8%
**
2
8%
* 1/2
0
No votes
*
0
No votes
1/2 *
0
No votes
0
0
No votes
 
Total votes: 25

User avatar
flipp525
Laureate
Posts: 5837
Joined: Thu Jan 09, 2003 7:44 am

Postby flipp525 » Mon May 05, 2008 12:40 pm

Bog wrote:I guess your review is clever?

I guess that is what you were going for, I personally didn't think any of the film was extraneous and maybe I'm nitpicking and you were thinking of your whole movie-going experience with commercials and whatnot, but it's barely over two and a half hours long as a film, I felt that needed to be said what with "three fucking hours" so peppered throughout

I could've easily spent another hour with these characters, especially in that gripping coda (what happened to Bob Ford in between 1882 and 1892, for instance?). Sonic's "three fucking hours", which as Bog has stated is actually more like 2 hours and 40 minutes, absolutely breezes by. I do have to agree with him on one point, though: Mary-Louise Parker took the rather thankless role of Jesse's wife and created a piercing emblem of devastation in her final scenes. Paul Schnieder (hapless and adorable in The Family Stone and Lars and the Real Girl, btw) was fabulous here and maintained an indelible impression right from his first appearance on-screen.

And there simply aren't enough superlatives to describe Casey Affleck's performance in this film. It was just stunning. How he lost out on awards for this performance, whatever category he was nominated in, is mind-boggling. I'm still processing. Why did it take me so long to see this film?

Sonic, you get the award for the most self-referential (and self-indulgent) review of a movie this year.




Edited By flipp525 on 1237509266
"The mantle of spinsterhood was definitely in her shoulders. She was twenty five and looked it."

-Gone With the Wind by Margaret Mitchell

User avatar
criddic3
Tenured
Posts: 2752
Joined: Thu Jan 09, 2003 11:08 pm
Location: New York, USA
Contact:

Postby criddic3 » Tue Apr 15, 2008 4:38 pm

I was highlighting movies I nominated both actors for. Cruise was a near-perfect choice for the role of Lestat. He wasn't regal, like a Daniel Day-Lewis might have been, but he had a combination of charm and venom that I liked a lot in the film. I saw him clearly as a supporting role. But I agree that Dunst was the best in it.
"If you can't stand the nut on the left and you can't stand the nut on the right, go for the Johnson,” Jonathan S. Bush (10/21/2016)

User avatar
flipp525
Laureate
Posts: 5837
Joined: Thu Jan 09, 2003 7:44 am

Postby flipp525 » Tue Mar 25, 2008 8:42 am

Tom Cruise's Lestat is one of the most laughable things I've ever seen, criddic. You've got to be kidding. Kirsten Dunst and Brad Pitt gave the best performances in that film

How can you write a whole post about Costner's best work without mentioning a) The Upside of Anger and b) The Big Chill (hee)?
"The mantle of spinsterhood was definitely in her shoulders. She was twenty five and looked it."



-Gone With the Wind by Margaret Mitchell

User avatar
criddic3
Tenured
Posts: 2752
Joined: Thu Jan 09, 2003 11:08 pm
Location: New York, USA
Contact:

Postby criddic3 » Mon Mar 24, 2008 10:22 pm

Kevin Costner is underappreciated in the same way that Harrison Ford is. A once-popular actor whose prime may be past, but who occassionally reminds us why we liked them to begin with.

Costner's best performance, in my opinion, is in A Perfect World. He makes a bad man almost sympathetic, in a way that he doesn't in Mr. Brooks. In the Eastwood picture, he doesn't make the character morally ambiguous. He's a bad influence for the kid he bonds with, but he is also human. It is a great performance that was unfairly overlooked.

Ford was especially good in Witness and The Mosquito Coast, although he is also surprisingly good at light romantic comedy (as in Sabrina).

Neither one can outdo their past selves in movies like Field of Dreams and Dances With Wolves or Star Wars and Indiana Jones, where audiences are concerned, but they have proven themselves from time to time as actors.

Tom Cruise, on the other hand, has a limited range that he works hard to stretch with, but sometimes can't. However, I think he was solid in Interview with the Vampire and A Few Good Men.




Edited By criddic3 on 1206415420
"If you can't stand the nut on the left and you can't stand the nut on the right, go for the Johnson,” Jonathan S. Bush (10/21/2016)

Sabin
Laureate
Posts: 7430
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 12:52 am
Contact:

Postby Sabin » Sat Feb 16, 2008 7:47 am

John Cusack is the rare actor whose persona I never tire of. I suppose the same is true of George Clooney. They both exemplify traits that are so consistently well-suited to their respective material...save for Cusack, whom one can immediately assess is in it for the paycheck. I have not seen 'Grace is Gone', but I shudder at the prospect of sitting through 'Must Love Dogs'. On the other hand, 'Say Anything...', 'The Grifters', 'Bullets over Broadway', 'Grosse Point Blank', 'Being John Malkovich', and 'High Fidelity' are all great performances. Michael Caine aside, he's the actor who is best suited to Woody Allen, the WASPy neurotic who takes it all in stride.
"If you are marching with white nationalists, you are by definition not a very nice person. If Malala Yousafzai had taken part in that rally, you'd have to say 'Okay, I guess Malala sucks now.'" ~ John Oliver

User avatar
Damien
Laureate
Posts: 6331
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 8:43 pm
Location: New York, New York
Contact:

Postby Damien » Wed Feb 13, 2008 8:24 pm

FilmFan720 wrote:Yes, but the exploitation of non-talent should give credit to the director, not the actor. And Tom Cruise is the worst of the worst. He did, however, give a real striking performance in Born on the Fourth of July, and I have never been able to figure out where the performance came from, and why he has never been nearly as good again. I think Magnolia is also his WORST performance, closely followed by the awkwardness that is Jerry Maguire.

Didn't see Vanilla Sky -- the reunion of Cruise and Cameron Crowe was too horrible to contemplate.

I think he's adequate in Born On The Fourth and I'm forever thankful that Cruise came on board because otherwise the film wouldn't have been made. But as much as I like the movie, it would have been so much better with a real actor (I suppose in 1988 terms, maybe we're talking John Cusack).




Edited By Damien on 1202952267
"Y'know, that's one of the things I like about Mitt Romney. He's been consistent since he changed his mind." -- Christine O'Donnell

FilmFan720
Tenured
Posts: 3454
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 3:57 pm
Location: Illinois

Postby FilmFan720 » Wed Feb 13, 2008 8:18 pm

Yes, but the exploitation of non-talent should give credit to the director, not the actor. And Tom Cruise is the worst of the worst. He did, however, give a real striking performance in Born on the Fourth of July, and I have never been able to figure out where the performance came from, and why he has never been nearly as good again. I think Magnolia is also his WORST performance, closely followed by the awkwardness that is Jerry Maguire.
"Go into the world and do well. But more importantly, go into the world and do good."
- Minor Myers, Jr.

Akash
Professor
Posts: 2037
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2006 1:34 am

Postby Akash » Wed Feb 13, 2008 8:01 pm

But Damien...Vanilla Sky! He's playing a man who is trying to be a real person and doesn't know how to act like one. He doesn't know how to act. It perfectly exploits T Crazy's non-talent.



Edited By Akash on 1202950929

User avatar
Sonic Youth
Laureate
Posts: 7436
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 8:35 pm
Location: USA

Postby Sonic Youth » Wed Feb 13, 2008 7:57 pm

Pedantic point: "A-list" has to do with an actor's influence in Hollywood. If you can get a picture made just by your mere involvement, you're A-list. Costner may not be A-list anymore, but he sure used to be.

When Costner takes the stick out of his ass, he can give a wonderfully laid-back performance. But think of that small list of movies he's good in. Notice he's only at his best when he's up against a good co-star or two? When he's expected to carry a film single-handedly, it's... erm, underwhelming.

Same with Ben Affleck, who seems to improve only when he's with his paramour, Matt Damon.




Edited By Sonic Youth on 1202950932
"What the hell?"
Win Butler

User avatar
Damien
Laureate
Posts: 6331
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 8:43 pm
Location: New York, New York
Contact:

Postby Damien » Wed Feb 13, 2008 7:17 pm

I love Kevin Costner. It helps, of course, that he's my type physically, but although he's been miscast at times (Robin Hood), I think he has given some wonderful performances over the years (and his work in Upside of Anger is light years better than a highly celebrated somewhat similar role: Jack Nicholson's hamola stuff in Terms of Endearment).

I have no problem with Brad Pitt -- he's excellent in Jesse James (and he gets bonus points for being poltically and socially active).

Offhand, the only A lsit actor I can think of who is consistently bad, who has never given a good perforamnce is Tom Cruise (and yes Aakash, I'm including his risible turn in Magnolia).
"Y'know, that's one of the things I like about Mitt Romney. He's been consistent since he changed his mind." -- Christine O'Donnell

Sabin
Laureate
Posts: 7430
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 12:52 am
Contact:

Postby Sabin » Wed Feb 13, 2008 5:36 pm

Kevin Costner's performance in Bull Durham is beautiful. He is so charismatic and charming...and Oscar-worthy. Same in Tin Cup. Same in The Upside of Anger. He's such a frustrating performer. He is so totally capable of effortless charm and so prone to obnoxious mannequin roles.

Affleck is very good in Chasing Amy, his only successful leading roles. When his smug bravado is delegated to smaller proportions like in Dogma, Shakespeare in Love, and this past year's Smokin' Aces, he's also quite good. But the man is lazy as an actor; quite odd, because he's quite a talented director. On the other hand, his brother Casey makes very strong acting choices. And Brad Pitt may give his 'best' performance in 12 Monkeys but his performance is a big joke. In Jesse James, he's never been so spectral and yet down to Earth. Shame he's still not as good as Affleck, Schneider, Rockwell...
"If you are marching with white nationalists, you are by definition not a very nice person. If Malala Yousafzai had taken part in that rally, you'd have to say 'Okay, I guess Malala sucks now.'" ~ John Oliver

Akash
Professor
Posts: 2037
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2006 1:34 am

Postby Akash » Wed Feb 13, 2008 4:45 pm

OscarGuy wrote:Have you ever watched a Kevin Costner film? I mean talk about the shittiest A-lister out there...

Well, I think we're stretching it calling Costner an "A-list" actor still. And anyway, Flipp's right (damn you Flipp, that's two for two we agree on!) Costner has given a couple of performances (like Upside of Anger) where he's at least believable as a human being. Brad Pitt has yet to achieve that.

Film Fan, I'd agree with you, but Chasing Amy and Shakespeare in Love nicely acquit Ben Affleck. Just as Magnolia and Vanilla Sky acquits the seemingly obvious choice for shitty A-listers -- T. Crazy himself.




Edited By Akash on 1202939272

FilmFan720
Tenured
Posts: 3454
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 3:57 pm
Location: Illinois

Postby FilmFan720 » Wed Feb 13, 2008 4:43 pm

While this is Pitt's best performance (12 Monkeys is pure ham), I wouldn't call him or Kevin Costner our worst A-List Actor. Costner might be awful in most of his work, but performances like Bill Durham and Upside of Anger show a real light air to him that is quite effective (not to mention some nice work in JFK). I'll have to think on who the worst is...maybe Casey's big brother?
"Go into the world and do well. But more importantly, go into the world and do good."
- Minor Myers, Jr.

The Original BJ
Emeritus
Posts: 4225
Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2003 8:49 pm

Postby The Original BJ » Wed Feb 13, 2008 3:50 pm

Mister Tee wrote:For me, one unfortunate aspect of this debate is, it's kept man people from noticing that this is Brad Pitt's best performance in quite some time. I'd consider both him and Affleck worth nominating.

I absolutely agree. I think Brad Pitt gave the year's best performance that received absolutely NO Oscar talk/critics awards/kudos attention of any kind. He'll be on my ballot.

User avatar
flipp525
Laureate
Posts: 5837
Joined: Thu Jan 09, 2003 7:44 am

Postby flipp525 » Wed Feb 13, 2008 2:37 pm

OscarGuy wrote:Kevin Costner's a train wreck of whole unfathomable proportions.

Except in The Upside of Anger. Love him in that.
"The mantle of spinsterhood was definitely in her shoulders. She was twenty five and looked it."



-Gone With the Wind by Margaret Mitchell


Return to “2000 - 2007”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest