Ipickthiswhiterose

The sentence was just saying it's fun to have a moan. I was mocking myself, really, but since you went on.... Biopic roles aren't lazy. But they operate on a considerably lower level of difficulty, generally, than most other forms of acting role. Again, replication is the simplest thing to ask an actor to engage in. You can generally identify, for instance, very few obviously bad performances in biopics by major names and in the rare cases where they do exist (Gotti, for instance) it is more reflective of the project overall being a mess rather than a bad performance. Horror on the other hand: Helen Mirren (Winchester), DeNiro (Godsend, Hide and Seek) , Nicholson (Wolf), Pacino (Hangman), Heath Ledger (The Order), Ian McKellen (The Keep) and many other great actors have all shit the bed in horror movies. I could do a similar list for comedies (with some of the same actors, TBH). Biopic is a low risk genre. The form of comedy performance that relies on personality only that you refer to is only very niche and no, in those cases doesn't deserve awards. But you're talking more about Adam Sandlers there, while I'm referring to things like McAdams, Christopher Guest's oeuvre, peak Jim Carrey and Steve Martin, Coen brothers films and so on.

Oh come on, it's healthy to have a nice cathartic flounce now and again.

The hold that performances in biopics have over acting awards is disgusting. Half of the Best Actor/Actress awards since 2000 have gone to facsimile biopic performances. Thing is, facsimile biopic roles are literally the easiest performances to give. Asking an actor to replicate/copy behaviour is the simplest task they can work with. Horror and Comedy require risk, commitment, creativity and can go horribly wrong. They are the hardest genre to give performances in. Truly great performances in these movies are amazing. For instance, how in the blue hell was Rachel McAdams not even nominated for her utterly iconic performance in Mean Girls? That performance balanced naturalism, archetype, dialogue designed to be quotable, panto villainy with a hint of vulnerability. Yet what won Supporting Actress that year? Ah yes, Cate Blanchett for a performance in a facsimile biopic that nobody remembers and that doesn't come close to even the best dozen performances Cate Blanchett has ever given. Never mind Toni Collette last year....Alex Wolff gives an incredible performance in Hereditary and can't get a nomination but Sam Rockwell doing a 10 minute George Bush impression can. I could rant about this for hours.

The more I think about it the more this film is going to have an upward climb. All the previous 'new' in terms of general audience superheroes had an easy elevator pitch in terms of explaining concept: - Bunch of Ragtag space pirates - Prince of Hidden African country with fancy tech - Female superman with flame hands Even "Best martial artist in the world" is pretty easy to go with too. But the Eternals may need a sentence or two too much explaining. Maybe. But the Marvel brand is just so strong.

Ewan is visibly an absolutely broken man, especially in Attack of the Clones. To spend literally an entire film, an ENTIRE film up to the point his mentor dies without a single identifiable objective is utterly unplayable and soul crushing. And there was no going back after that. He gave up with Phantom Menace as any actor would with that material. McDiarmid is the exception that proves the rule in the prequels. He doesn't care about the awful scrip, leans into it, decides its a ludicrous panto, and just goes for it. It also doesn't hinder him that he has the one and only decent duologue in the whole trilogy, and is the only character who has a consistent and defined objective (as his was the only one that was inherently predetermined) in the whole series of films. But no, other than McDiarmid, there isn't a single other competent performance in the prequels.

Just questioning that Midsommar number. Seems impossibly high. Is that a typo or is there some kind of reporting correction there? I'd love it if it was right of course.

Yes, Mr and Mrs Smith was Angelina Jolie's first big hit. But she still has zero legacy films, and zero movies that were hits off her own bat (Salt was claimed above, but made less than x3 budget. It did fine. But it wasn't a big hit. Wanted had plenty of other stars- she wasn't even top billed.) But Mr and Mrs Smith was a hit partially from Jolie and her relationship with Pitt. Having already been treated as an A-List star for 6 years. And having reams and reams and reams of media coverage lavished on her, an oscar for a performance in basically a TV movie and multiple failed attempts to have launched as a megastar already failed. Look. Come on, let's not pretend that there are any other stars of Jolie's level that haven't got - never mind one, but MULTIPLE legacy films to their name after being an A-Lister for 20 years. With Jolie you're negotiating whether an above-average drama or decent action film can be classed as 'good' or not. With Brad Pitt - who admittedly has been an A-Lister for 5 or so years longer than Jolie - you can name Thelma and Louise, Kalifornia, True Romance, 12 Monkeys, Seven, Inglorious Bastards, 12 Years a Slave, Interview with a Vampire, Three of Life. All of which have an objectively more obvious movie legacy. Mr and Mrs Smith isn't even in his 10 - probably 15 - most notable films. Winona Ryder - Jolie's co-star in Girl, Interrupted - was only an A-Lister for about 5 years, but she was in 5 movies with an undisputed historic legacy - Beetlejuice, Heathers, Edward Scissorhands, Black Swan and The Age of Innocence where Jolie has zero. Where people are arguing that Jolie has been in good films... that's as far as it gets. Good films. No great ones. No legacy ones. No important ones. I'm not saying she isn't a star. But she's the most bizarre, non-star star in history. I'd certainly argue no undisputed A-Lister has had less of an impact on the history of film, never mind an A-Lister who has been an A-Lister for 20 years.

Marvel is a far bigger star, especially in terms of box office draw that Jolie. AJo has never drawn a film that didn't have a property title or a more famous person next to it. Heck, she hasn't really drawn many films period. Three movies that she was at the centre of the marketing of were gigantic bombs (Beowolf, Alexander, Sky Captain). Most of her starring movies were never intended to be draws, or just did meh (Salt, Tomb Raiders, The Tourist) I'd argue that Jude Law in Captain Marvel and Robert Redford in Winter Solder were no weaker draws to those movies than Jolie will be to Eternals.

Has any star in history maintained being an A-List actor without being in a single actively indisputably good movie than Angelina Jolie? 25 year career, 20 of it as an A-list actor. Plenty of Ok movies, but no actual good ones. Heck, the closest is Kung Fu Panda in which she has, like, 5 lines. The next is Girl, Interrupted which is essentially a made-for-tv movie with above-average writing. Anyway, Eternals remains a little ambiguous for me, but Marvel has more than earned the right to the benefit of the doubt.

It isn't. The musical doesn't make sense. They aren't really Cats, just sort of vaguely cat-ish in behaviour. Mostly they're basically just humans. The musical is nonsense. But yes, it's a dance show, so ultimately in order for the film to make any kind of sense the Cats still had to have human physiology and expression. I mean, if your point is "The musical is stupid" - well, yeah, the musical has always been stupid. But this was what a movie version of it had to be. And they've got brass balls if nothing else.

But dancing - live human dancing - is literally the one and only point of the entire show.

I don't know exactly what some people wanted though. Did you expect photorealistic Favreau-type Cats dancing like humans? I mean if people think this is terrifying, that would have been some Exorcist level business. It was either make something like this; film the stage production - which they've already done; or just not make it - and not making things apparently isn't a thing that is an option any more. And I, for one, am delighted this now exists. Seriously, imagine if this hadn't happened. What misery. I mean alternatively they could have had them just in Cat onesies, but it hardly would have helped the dancing and I'm holding out on humans in animal onesies and theme park style facepaint for the Robin Hood live action.

I assure you in absolutely no uncertain terms that McKellan and Dench had beyond a ball making this movie. And if it's a massive rip-roaring success they will find it absolutely hilarious and delighted they were involved. And if it's a massive bomb with historically terrible reviews they will find it absolutely hilarious and delighted they were involved. I can't wait for their interviews.

I hate the stage show. But I can't knock something that just balls to the wall F***ing GOES for it. Pills of steel to put something like this out into the world. It's amazing. Amazing. I'm so glad it exists. It will be unmissable for all the reasons.

In addition to the conferences on Folk Horror and the macabre coming up that are going to place Midsommer front and centre. Not much is going to be written about Annabelle, people will be studying Midsommer for years, nay decades. And it's a movie with a budget of less than $10m that's going to make over $20m at the US box office. It's fine thanks.

Amazing achievement for Aladdin, wonderful performance and indicative of genuine love by the general audience at this point, especially in such a crowded summer for kids and family movies. Surprised to see Annabelle get a decent set of legs. SLOP2's international collapse is not getting attention because of how frugal Illumniation are and because it's doing a little better in the US, but $507m OS for the first to what will be less than $150m OS for the second is pretty astonishing.

Thanks for the list and the hard work you're giving. Really glad you enjoyed the amazing Midsommar. I also agree that Fighting with my Family and Parabellum are really strong contributors. Must admit to being baffled by the inclusion of Brightburn, one of the worst movies of the year IMO I've seen in cinemas. I just didn't even vaguely see where either the dramatic tension was nor why I was meant to be finding it scary. It was just knocking a sequence of dominos over to me.

Aquaman and "stupidity" is a very questionable statement. Aquaman had about 8 principal characters and every one of them had a clear, linear set of objectives that made sense based off of their given circumstances. Whether you like the characters or not those objectives were consistent and the characters pursued them in a logical fashion. The world was consistent within itself and defined with its own set of rules that were adhered to by Wan. Given that, while I can see that you can fling accusations of atonality at it, there was nothing illogical or 'stupid' about it, unless you simply declare that the world it presented was inherently stupid which, in a movie landscape full of fantasy, sci-fi and superheroes, seems a little tenuous. There was nothing in Aquaman as inherently stupid as, for instance, Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom's lazer-gun dinosaur plot, antagonist lack of motive and shoehorned child cloning. There wasn't even anything as inherently stupid as The Dark Knight's Chaotic Evil Joker who doesn't have a plan being simultaeously the world's greatest and most organised beurocrat who has lots of remarkably inch-perfectly designed and thought through plans.

Heterogenous spectatorship. Same as all genres that appeal to affect (comedy and erotica being the others) Nobody can agree on what the purpose of a horror movie is, not even horror movie fans. It seems like it's easy to say "Be scary". But Evil Dead, Friday 13th, Final Destination, Aliens, Witchfinder General, the original Dracula are all considered classics, or at least notable in the genre, without being scary to the vast majority of viewers. To me, Friday 13th isn't a horror film, it has no intention of generating dramatic tension. Nor is Drag Me To Hell, which to me lampshades all of its stakes in humour. To someone else, those two films might be considered the hight of pure entertainment, while my favourites like Neon Demon and Session 9 might be considered slow, pretentious tosh. People who view horror sadistically, relish the 'fun' of violence and prefer Friday 13th, Rob Zombie, most slashers and the Elm Street series, and people who view horror masochistically, want the excitement of feeling threat and prefer the original Halloween, TCM, Exorcist. Those spectatorships are literally 180degrees opposed and so making horror that works for everyone simply doesn't exist. Again, the same can be said to a large extent of comedy and erotica. It's notable that almost all of the universally considered 'great' horror films - with a handful of exceptions - managed their universal acclaim either by aligning themselves to another genre (Silence of the Lambs and others attached to thriller, Jaws attached to the standard action film, Alien to the sci-fi genre), being directed by universally acclaimed geniuses, or were basically accidental happenstance of mood and atmosphere as much as genuine vision (TCM, Evil Dead, Wicker Man)

Wanting to see ANY movie is a luxury. No. I know you have observed some basic seeds of argument and you think that because you have observed some basic seeds of argument that is the equivalent of a concrete discourse. Spectating violence as entertainment is indeed a privileged act, but why apply that argument to this specific film - that is actually more about exploring everyday concepts and ideas rather than intending to titillate with its violence - when basically all movies have violence in? The dynamics you're discussing apply more to rote horror and violent blockbusters than they do to movies like Midsommar. Easily. Those movies much more frequently use violence in this privileged manner. And in terms of safety - Midsommar plays less on affect and more on cognition than the average horror movie. It is one of the movies that places the spectator in a state of threat the least, because you are always kept distant from the action. Your reading works much better with something like Halloween and Texas Chainsaw Massacre because they are about putting the viewer in the body of the spectator. I could recommend some texts about the subject if you genuinely are interested in it. I don't expect so but the offer is there.

Valonqar Thanks for giving your perspective, I value you have taken the time to do it. However I very strongly disagree with this take. Firstly I completely disagree that horror should be about good v evil. But more to the point Midsommar (and I'm trying to work without any kind of spoilers here) simply doesn't have the dynamics you insinuate. It is an optimistic movie and I think you are misjudging what the "Evil" in this film was. I have put up a review of the movie in the review section that is able to work with spoilers. There are no subverting of expectations here, he doesn't follow the horror formula but then the movie never presents itself with a standard horror formula. I know it is a tired, pseud thing to say that I don't think you understood the movie and it's a risky and arrogant thing to do....but I do suggest that you are putting a more standard template on this film than it ever pretended to have. This is not a and reading it as such is a huge disservice to its intentions.

A for me. One of the best horror movies of the 21st Century and takes down Booksmart for my favourite film of the year. Full review is spoiler heavy.