Paul Mescal is an interesting choice, in that I'd never heard of him and he isn't glamorous. I guess that matches Russel Crowe, who was also an interesting choice for the latter reason. Mescal was fine, for a role he didn't quite fit and a role that wasn't really a character. He doesn't naturally elicit admiration. He's a modest tough/soft man, not a magnetic leader.
Denzel overacted again. His eccentric phrasing and facial expressions were distracting. That's what you get with most actors once they're canonized. Rotten Tomatoes called him "scene-stealing", which is too true.
Certainly some of the movie was exciting, though in similar portion it was embarrassing. Some of the dialogue and acting were tough, and I'd say the same for the general artistic direction, which isn't usually something I criticize or even distinguish beyond the writing, acting, music, etc. But here I noticed some bad directorial choices. I thought he would have learned something in the past 20 years. And he's a renowned director, right?
The best part was the intro. Some of the violence was good. Everything else was artistically limp at best, childish at worst.
I feel embarrassed on the Hound's behalf. He was so tough and independent in GoT. Here he's subservient and not-burned. He roots for Rome rather than serving himself.
Denzel has all choice of roles, so I'm not embarrassed for him, I just lose a little respect for him.
Am I not entertained: 2.75/4
Movie itself: 1.75/4
No comments:
Post a Comment