Showing posts with label christoph waltz. Show all posts
Showing posts with label christoph waltz. Show all posts

Wednesday, 8 February 2012

THE KID Versus MARIA: Rating The Acting Performances In Roman Polanski's 'CARNAGE'

I watched "CARNAGE" at 2.30pm. Thirty minutes before that, somewhere else in the country, my friend MARIA started watching it too. We promised to chat about it afterwards -- but instead, I called her up and said "Rate the acting performances from best to worst, and write a bit about them. I'll throw it on the blog." She wrote her views and I wrote mine. Coincidentally, our rankings were the same, and our views were pretty similar too. 


1. CHRISTOPH WALTZ 


MARIA – is just cool, isn’t he? Every role he plays, he inhabits effortlessly. And in ‘Carnage’ his performance as Alan Cowan is just effortless. But perhaps this ease is simply the result of the writing, as his character is the only one who does not go on much of an emotional journey, if at all, throughout the course of the film. He is the constant. He knows who he is, and what he believes, and he’s ok with that. And for that reason, he comes across as the most believable and relatable of the four.

THE KID - Waltz was amazing in this - by far the best performance. May sound weird of me to say this -- but I even felt like he was channelling a bit of Woody Allen in his performance. It was comedic, yet subtle and nuanced -- and, yeah, he seemed like a subdued Woody Allen-esque character. Not sure anyone else will see that in the performance, but I did!

He was, for me, definitely the best actor in it -- he is definitely helped by the character that was written for him, as it's by far the most interesting.


2. JOHN C. REILLY



THE KID - I think it's fair to say the material was skewed in favour of the men -- they got the funnier lines. When the two guys started siding with each other, drinking and smoking, it was hilarious -- probably because it was so realistic.

Reilly is often much better than the material he works with. Here, it fit him just right -- he could be down to Earth and normal one minute, and hilarious the next. He manages to be funny without being funny. What do I mean by that? When you see Sandler or Carrey doing comedy, it jumps out at you. Reilly is just kind of inherently funny. He coaxes the humour off the page without having to do too much.

MARIA - Ok, I may be biased here as I adore John C. Reilly as an actor and his performance in ‘Chicago’ will forever remain in my mind. But watching him turn from this lovable, peace maker into a somewhat unlikeable character was fantastic. The switch that was called for from the script is a hard one to pull off for most actors. He played the subtext so well that he pulled off the sudden switch in the dialogue with ease. The mask was dropped and the REAL Michael Longstreet was revealed. Well done John. Well done. (slow clap).



3. KATE WINSLET



MARIA - I love watching this woman try to pull off an American accent. She does it, don’t get me wrong, but it’s always on the verge of slipping right back into RP and the anticipation keeps me on the edge of my seat. And watching her play drunk… Well, you can tell she’s a Brit. She does it so well you know she’s practised many a time. I found my focus rested mainly on her character, Nancy Cowan, because you knew eventually she was going to crack and when she did it was beautiful and believable.

THE KID - I was bored by her for many parts of the film and, in fact, there were times when I thought she wasn't very good at all -- I could see the acting. I guess she can't be incredible all the time. That being said, towards the end, when she was finally called upon to do something interesting, she excelled. Her drunken behaviour and shouting got the biggest laughs of the movie. When Winslet is great, I don't think there are many in her league. In 'Carnage', she's not great, at least not for all of it.


4. JODIE FOSTER



THE KID - This is probably the worst I've ever seen her. For one, the character was repugnant, but that wasn't even the problem. I just didn't believe what I was seeing whenever Foster did her thing. It wasn't real, I couldn't buy into it. You know who they should have cast? Helen Hunt. She'd have been PERFECT. She'd have pulled off the righteousness and the anger, while still being human. Foster was miscast, and as a result, struggled massively.


MARIA - I was not a fan. BUT…perhaps that’s because I hated her character so much I wanted to throw something at the screen at times. But all in all, I felt like she was trying WAY too hard. I couldn’t relate to or care about her character in the least. That said she did a good job of amping up the drama in a rather simple story. I’m sorry I can’t say more about her performance. Unfortunately that’s acting for you. If the audience doesn’t like your character they’re usually going to go away thinking you didn’t do a great job. But if all you try to do is play lovable characters you’re going to have a boring career and probably won’t ever become a great actor. So well done Jodie on not being afraid to be disliked.

Care to share?

Thursday, 23 July 2009

Inglourious Basterds Review - from the UK Premiere.

Quentin Tarantino came bouncing onto the Leicester Square Odeon stage with his usual, crazy amount of energy. His first comments were instructing the audience to turn off their cellphones, which he waited for everyone to do. And then after introducing Christoph Waltz and Diane Kruger (Brad Pitt was absent) he asked, "Are we ready to see some some basterds?' repeatedly until he got the required enthusiasm from the audience. It didn't take long. As he slammed the microphone to the floor - it was time for us, finally, to see Inglourious Basterds.


I offer my opinions honestly, I don't claim to be a film critic or have any kind of authority on film reviewing. I just know that I really didn't love the film. 'Basterds', as you might expect-- gets the full Tarantino treatment of retro titling, obscure music (featuring many post-war artists and styles) and over the top violence. Now don't get me wrong, the violence was fun to watch; but it's starting to feel a bit too Tarantino; like he's impersonating himself.

The things that made 'Kill Bill' inspired made 'Inglourious Basterds' seem old, and self-indulgent. As a Director, Tarantino has always liked the long, drawn out scenes. But I remember watching that painfully lengthy restaurant scene in 'Death Proof' and wishing it was about ten minutes shorter. Well, that happened in nearly every scene in this film-- everything was screaming out to be shorter. For vast sums of the film I felt one thing; pure boredom. The scenes were unnecessarily long without good reason; they weren't integral to the story and they didn't build tension. I hated feeling this way, who wants to be bored during a Tarantino film?

I think, for me, the main thing that was missing was any kind of characters we could care for, or believe in. Whilst Brad Pitt's smug look throughout was kind of amusing, it was hard to take seriously. The only character who really had depth to her was Shosanna (Melanie Laurent); who's tale of revenge was something the audience could really get behind.

Anyways, I don't mean to slam the film -- there were some great moments; I laughed quite a lot throughout. It's the little things that stick out in my mind, like Hitler turning to a soldier, looking serious, and just saying, "gum?," or Pitt sticking his finger in an open leg-wound as a way of torture, along with some typically brilliant violence (eeek, not a good phrase!) such as Eli Roth battering a soldier to death with a baseball bat, which will no doubt go down as one of the all-time great Tarantino scenes.

The film, as many of you will already know, does rewrite history in some small ways. This will cause a lot of division between viewers, I would imagine. Personally, as ridiculous as it is, I kind of enjoyed it. I kind of got to see what I would have loved to have happened in real life. But to say any more would give away the ending.

If you're a war veteran looking for a respectful account of your heroic work in the war, this isn't the film for you. If you have any interest in history or World War 2, again, this film isn't really for you. But if you like Tarantino and you like seeing shit blow up and all the cool stuff that comes with his movies, then you'll probably enjoy this.

I have always been a big Tarantino fan, and whilst this does show his usual skills and bountiful ideas; it seems a bit forced at times, and about 40 minutes too long. There were moments of boredom, interspersed with moments of being truly gripped, and other moments of laughing out loud. Worth a watch, but 'Pulp Fiction' this is not.

Care to share?