Yes I looked it up myself. I remembered it was directed by Eastwood, so I was surprised it was a foreign entry.
What you posted were foreign-language films nominated for best picture. Where did you see that it was a foreign entry? Or maybe a more clarifying question: What do you mean by “foreign entry”?
That's my point! The whole thing is confusing! Somebody fix it!
As a side note, it is crazy that this isn't just a link to an old BBC article about my mate's film, it's the actual old BBC site, which has links to contemporaneous articles about HBO paying $15 million for the rights to Attack of the Clones and the finale of Joe Millionaire.
Just wanted to say we saw Dolittle today, and you will love it! So funny, so many puns and tributes in so many layers - you can’t afford to blink or sneeze! A very very clever script, and such an army of animators, you’d never believe how many there were given it’s ‘not really’ animated. (I was the only person who stayed to read the end credits, all that work and no-one cares. End credits done by a company called Scarlet Letters ) ignore all that stuff on his accent etc: he’s meant to be depressed and confused, mumbly anyway, mixing his languages.
Someone should pitch En Garde! to Downey...a few of his lines echo some of Ridski’s thoughts
Loved Little Women, which I saw today. It’s the only adaptation I’ve seen, and I never read the book, so I have nothing to compare it with. A marvelous film in its own right.
Loved Little Women, which I saw today. It’s the only adaptation I’ve seen, and I never read the book, so I have nothing to compare it with. A marvelous film in its own right.
I’ve read wonderful comments about it, following reviews, so I was already thinking of trying to go. Two favourable comments here persuade me
Loved Little Women, which I saw today. It’s the only adaptation I’ve seen, and I never read the book, so I have nothing to compare it with. A marvelous film in its own right.
I’ve read wonderful comments about it, following reviews, so I was already thinking of trying to go. Two favourable comments here persuade me
I saw Little Women Friday. I thought it was excellent. I loved the book in my younger days and this version made me happy.
I’ve read wonderful comments about it, following reviews, so I was already thinking of trying to go. Two favourable comments here persuade me
Ronan, Dern and Streep are givens as absorbing performers, and Florence Pugh, an actress I hadn’t seen before, gave Amy a compelling centeredness. (Due credit for that to Greta Gerwig, too, for her direction and script.)
As a Chris Cooper fan since Matewan, I was taken aback to see the wiry flint of a man settle into the comfortable corpus of a kindly grandfather. Time sure flies.
Saw 1917 in one of my extremely rare visits to a movie theater. I was impressed. If you're inclined to see it, this one for the big screen and not the TV screen. It is technically and visually stunning.
Finally got around to seeing Knives Out today. Well done. I overheard some minor complaints about Daniel Craig’s cornpone accent, but I drank it up as part of the movie’s winking spirit.
Speaking of Spirit: Bonus points for the “Did I just hear that?” snippet of Animal Zoo.
ETA: Looking back, I see I’m on board with nan, STANV and unicorn33. That’s acclamation.
I finally got around to seeing 1917 last night. From a production, design and technical standpoint, it was stunning. Tremendous work must have gone into research and design. The "one-shot" gimmick didn't add much, as far as I'm concerned. If the span of the action was 2 hours, it would be good, but what are they promising in a film that represents maybe a week, or a few days, of elapsed time?
The acting was also terrific, as far as I could tell, myself having been much too young in 1917 to have observed speech, mannerisms, etc.
The story, though, was a mere skeleton to hang all of the above upon. Saving Private Ryan, anybody?
And like so many movies this year, it was too darn long.
Also saw Marriage Story. Meh. Too stagey. Too self-conscious. Privileged people living privileged lives. Hollywood narcissism. But how did Laura Dern get to be so stunning? Va-va-vooom, as we used to say in the 20s.
Couldn't agree more. I especially love his comedic side as Harry Zimm in Get Shorty.
I just watched an old Johnny Carson clip of him. On the show were McClean Stevenson and George Carlin. McClean said, (more or less): "Gene, you're my favorite actor. And it's because in every role you play, you totally become the role. It's not like Robert Redford, another favorite of mine. He's a great actor too, but in every movie, he's always Robert Redford."
That's exactly right. Hard to explain, but it's not a quality that every actor has. I think Philip Seymour Hoffman was like that. But Al Pacino is not. But they're both great.
Couldn't agree more. I especially love his comedic side as Harry Zimm in Get Shorty.
I just watched an old Johnny Carson clip of him. On the show were McClean Stevenson and George Carlin. McClean said, (more or less): "Gene, you're my favorite actor. And it's because in every role you play, you totally become the role. It's not like Robert Redford, another favorite of mine. He's a great actor too, but in every movie, he's always Robert Redford."
That's exactly right. Hard to explain, but it's not a quality that every actor has. I think Philip Seymour Hoffman was like that. But Al Pacino is not. But they're both great.
Speaking of Gene Hackman, "Sonny Grosso, the true-blue New York City police detective who with his gung-ho partner made the record heroin bust that inspired the Oscar-winning film “The French Connection,” died on Jan. 22 at his home in Manhattan. He was 89."
I just watched an old Johnny Carson clip of him. On the show were McClean Stevenson and George Carlin. McClean said, (more or less): "Gene, you're my favorite actor. And it's because in every role you play, you totally become the role. It's not like Robert Redford, another favorite of mine. He's a great actor too, but in every movie, he's always Robert Redford."
That's exactly right. Hard to explain, but it's not a quality that every actor has. I think Philip Seymour Hoffman was like that. But Al Pacino is not. But they're both great.
Maybe it's the difference between a leading man and a character actor. Whether I'm watching Al Pacino as Dr. Kevorkian or Phil Spector, I'm looking for Al.
One of my favorite Pacino movies is And Justice for Al.
Pacino who became popular at the same time as De Niro, seemed to have an appealing quality, whether he played a hero or a villain, but to me, De Niro in either type of role projected something a little crazy. I got the same feeling standing near each of them.
So the question becomes whether an actor is subjugating his or her own persona to become a totally different human (for example Daniel Day Lewis and Jeffrey Wright ), or , is consuming the character inside of his or her very strong screen presence (DeNiro, Brando, Redford)? I mean which makes somebody a “great” actor?
So the question becomes whether an actor is subjugating his or her own persona to become a totally different human (for example Daniel Day Lewis and Jeffrey Wright ), or , is consuming the character inside of his or her very strong screen presence (DeNiro, Brando, Redford)? I mean which makes somebody a “great” actor?
In some cases, it may be in the eye of the beholder. De Niro, Brando and Pacino have each had roles where they did a great job of subjugating their persona, but fans like me, keep looking into their eyes and saying, Al? Are you in there?
De Niro in Awakenings is a good example, but De Niro in The Godfather 2, maybe more De Niro.
I never learn my lesson about the big Marvel movies. I was a big comic book fan and I really want these movie to be good. So I watched the last Avengers movie last night. First of all, 3 friggin hours ! Really??
Second, all of these movies are very formulaic despite superficial pretensions of seriousness. Half baked mumbo jumbo about the science or supernatural threat driving the story, followed by a brutally overlong mind and eye numbing fight scene concluded by the heroes basically beating up the bad guy.
Scorsese was right.
Unless one appears to have some true originality and deviates from the formula, like Logan or Deadpool, never again for me.
Took myself to see "Little Women" this weekend. Can't say I enjoyed it. It's just one delightful moment after another. But no real plot other than the lives of these delightful women. Perhaps it's my testosterone. Maybe it's an easier film for women to enjoy.
I just watched an old Johnny Carson clip of him. On the show were McClean Stevenson and George Carlin. McClean said, (more or less): "Gene, you're my favorite actor. And it's because in every role you play, you totally become the role. It's not like Robert Redford, another favorite of mine. He's a great actor too, but in every movie, he's always Robert Redford."
That's exactly right. Hard to explain, but it's not a quality that every actor has. I think Philip Seymour Hoffman was like that. But Al Pacino is not. But they're both great.
Maybe it's the difference between a leading man and a character actor. Whether I'm watching Al Pacino as Dr. Kevorkian or Phil Spector, I'm looking for Al.
One of my favorite Pacino movies is And Justice for Al.
Pacino who became popular at the same time as De Niro, seemed to have an appealing quality, whether he played a hero or a villain, but to me, De Niro in either type of role projected something a little crazy. I got the same feeling standing near each of them.
I think Pacino used to be the consummate character actor, becoming whatever role he was playing. But in later years, he has become a parody of himself and is Al Pacino in everything.
Joaquin Phoenix, actor, animal rights activist. I only watched the Oscars tonight in hopes that he would do what he always does, be a voice for the voiceless.
) ignore all that stuff on his accent etc: he’s meant to be depressed and confused, mumbly anyway, mixing his languages.
That's my point! The whole thing is confusing! Somebody fix it!