if you do, we can chat here re;their work/upcoming projects
previously I posted on iMDB
see ya soon
I'm fond of both actors. I don't think they're everyone's cup of tea as they can be a bit of a long shot. But within their respective roles (as they may be type cast to certain roles) I think they're quite good and effective.
shareI'm not sure if 9 months later can count as soon, but in my book it does. :)
Definite fan of Keanu Reeves. He's an unusual and unique actor—a fantastic action star, and I think he's quite versatile and capable in dramas, romances and comedies, as well. My favorite performances of his are in comedy and drama, actually.
I'm less familiar with Jeremy Renner's filmography, but I like his work in "The Hurt Locker," and in "Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol," that scene of his Brandt preparing to do the fan jump cracks me up!
You'll likely find me on the various actor boards around here. I find human nature fascinating, and actors provide such an accessible way to explore our lens on people, and our idea of emotional truth. Also, they're great fun to watch.
Don't like either of them, but especially Renner. I have read
so many comments that he is a real jerk. Keanu is more interesting
to me, but his choice of movies, like the John Wick thing is really
nauseating for the most part.
Generally I try to avoid getting a sense of what actors may be like offscreen, because it can get in the way of being able to watch their work without bias.
(But with those that I particularly enjoy or find interesting, I do choose to watch or read some of their interviews, and I'm willing to form an impression of them. It's probably better not to as a general rule, but it's fun trying to ascertain the nature, authenticity, and intent of things that we enjoy, isn't it?)
Keanu is more interesting to me, but his choice of movies, like the John Wick thing is really nauseating for the most part.
I liked the original Point Break ... these pathetic remakes are always bad.
I actually don't know what I find interesting about him ... maybe nothing
now that I think about it. I think an awful lot of his celebrity rested on
Matrix.
The original "Point Break" is great. From what I heard about the remake, Ericson Core's remake was about the action, and more of it. I think that's fine if that's what they wanted, but it's not what really made the original great. Which for me was the bond and tension between two characters who share a certain outsider, maverick streak, on opposite sides of the law and established society. It was also the different kinds of loyalties (to your duty, to the people you care about, and to your own sense of right and wrong) and having to choose between those loyalties, more than once. And it was the chemistry between Patrick Swayze and Keanu Reeves, who played off each other with charisma to spare.
The action was icing on the cake. I think the foot chase is terrific filmmaking and the [spoiler]parachute-free airplane jump (from the moment that we think that Johnny won't do it, and start to feel regret and frustration, to the moment where we see him suddenly make that mental switch, and start to wonder, "What is he--" to the immediate next instant that he astonishingly leaps out of the plane)[/spoiler] is perfectly played and perfectly timed. I love it.
I think the third act could've been tighter, but all said it's a really good, memorable film.
I think an awful lot of his celebrity rested on Matrix.
Have you seen "John Wick," then? It took me a while to warm to the idea of watching it, because it had been described to me as, "Keanu Reeves and a bunch of guns," which in my opinion is a complete distortion of what makes him an effective actor. It's not his action skills per se; it's how he can tell a story and reveal his character with his body language. It's not his capacity for violence but decency (though his performance in "The Gift" shows the inverse can also be true). Well, I loved "John Wick," and consider it one of his best roles because the filmmakers seemed to get that. Not what I expected for a graphic-novel style revenge tale with an absurdly high body count.
But also, I think it's a cool action film. The pacing and minimalist visual storytelling is elegantly effective, the fight sequences are well-choreographed and well-shot, the music cues are good, the assimilation of the underground criminal world into civilized society is darkly amusing, and the characterization of Wick is understated enough that he remains mysterious, but revealing enough that you know you want to root for him. I also like the sleek and stylish look of the film and the color palettes they use to convey the mood of the narrative. Also, Michael Nyvquist was awesome. (Okay, there's a lot I like about this movie, besides the fact that Reeves impresses as a physical actor).
I hope he keeps doing a variety of projects, though. As much as I enjoy him in action roles which tend to play up his stoicism, I'm even more partial to his looser, more humanistic performances in a lot of his dramas and comedies.
I saw both Wicks, only because they were free on NetFlix or something. Entertaining, but stupid. I don't really like Reeves and cannot really think of anything he was great it. Or course I like the Matrix but because of the story. The sequels were terrible.
I did like Michael Nyquist who died recently, but he was going too many action movies as well.
Yeah, the "Wick" movies are entertaining, on that we agree. :) Reeves is particularly strong in "My Own Private Idaho," and really shows a flair for physical comedy in "The Night Before." The thing about him, though, is that he's often more about playing into a scene than standing out from it. I appreciate that, because I prefer more understated, naturalistic performances over grander, larger-than-life performances.
I haven't seen "The Matrix Revolutions," but "Reloaded" slipped a few notches from the first film. For me a lot of the reason is that the vision changed (at least to me). The story went from one that [spoiler]emphasized human agency and free will, to fatalism. And the focus went from being about a man and his self-discovery and liberation and salvation of the human race, to being about a pre-ordained system where the game is inextricably rigged.[/spoiler] It's hard to want to invest in that. The Chateau fight scene is fantastically fun to watch, though.
Michael Nyvquist got my attention in "John Wick" with his unusual style and great instincts acting and reacting. His Swedish-accented English and unorthodox pronunciation is part of it, but I also liked his cadence, the way he chose to deliver his lines and emphasize certain words. I liked how he let his performance breathe, letting his character reflect before moving or speaking, and I enjoyed his humor.
What have you liked from Nyvquist? He's excellent in "As It Is in Heaven," which was a wonderful movie, as well.
I liked Nyquist a lot playing Mikael Blomkvist in the "Girl who ..." series with Noomi Rapace. I thought there was a calmness and honesty to his character, and the way the got through to the emotionally hardened Lisbeth Salander. The character and words from from writers and directors so I don't know how much was the actor, never really do with actors. I think he did a great job.
It was a shame he died so young at 56.
I always get Nyquist mixed up with Mads Mikkelsen who was in the movie "After The Wedding" which I really liked. He also makes action movies too.
I started watching foreign movies in the 70's around high school, and it changed the way I saw contemporary American movies which I am very critical of now. The American public must be complete idiots to accept the junk society we live in that never gets better. It always leads back to politics for me, but the best movies to me seem to be foreign for quite a long time now.
I liked Michael Nyqvist's performance in "The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo," too, particularly his ability to show his character's vulnerability. It feels like a very honest performance. Yes, 56 is too young. I'll miss him in films.
Mads Mikkelsen is another excellent actor! Have you seen "Jagten" (aka "The Hunt")? That's my favorite performance and film of his to date.
The character and words from from writers and directors so I don't know how much was the actor, never really do with actors.
I think I can relate to at least some of what you're saying about contemporary American films, but I'm curious what you mean about it leading to politics. Do you mean in the sense of governance, or in that Hollywood is a business, or some other sense?
Yeah, the 70s was a great era for Hollywood cinema, but if we're looking at the work being put out by American filmmakers, I think a lot of good movies are still being made (and for me "good" can mean anything from technical or storytelling craft, to human understanding or social commentary, to pure imagination or emotional resonance). You got me thinking about my favorite filmmakers working today... John Sayles, Kelly Reichardt, and Jim Jarmusch always get my attention. Kathryn Bigelow, Jeff Nichols, Derek Cianfrance, and Jeremy Saulnier haven't always hit the mark for me (I loved "Point Break," "The Hurt Locker," "Mud," "Blue Valentine," and "Blue Ruin," but not as much "Zero Dark Thirty," "Midnight Special," "The Place Beyond the Pines," and "Green Room"), but I think they're all quite talented and look forward to their work. I also think Jordan Peele made a good horror comedy of social relevance with "Get Out;" Rian Johnson is an interesting genre-bender (the neo-noir high school mystery "Brick" and the sci-fi action horror "Looper"); Shane Carruth has been thought-provoking with both "Primer" and "Upstream Color;" and Kenneth Lonergan has come a long way refining his storytelling with "Manchester by the Sea." And just this past week, I really enjoyed Kogonada's debut "Columbus." I'm sure there are more I'm forgetting or haven't become enough familiar with, but those are some who make me optimistic about contemporary American filmmaking.
I also enjoy a lot of European films and filmmakers. I find Michael Haneke's films powerful and perceptive. They leave a lasting impression on me.
Do you favor any filmmakers these days, or are there any recent films you regard highly?
Interesting. I have gotten to the point where I don't care at all about the big production Hollywood blockbuster and action movies. I don't like the sex movies, like say "Hard Candy" or "40 Shades". Don't like comic book movies or the action movies like Borne whatever or Planet of the Apes.
I would like a small film like Manchester By The Sea, but that movie had no point really. It was depressing and did not show any growth by the central character ... or indeed who would care about such a character if it was not a good looking Hollywood action playing the part. The guy was a complete loser.
I realize I am way over the critical side when it comes to my reaction about movies and TV. I think there is far too much fear and violence and I believe this had had an effect on American society that is very detrimental. I like more European movies, small movies.
I admit I will go see Alien sequels and Star Wars and even Star Trek even though I don't much care for how they are handled.
I hope with this Weinstein thing that the movie and entertainment industry will be purged of a lot of corruption. The whole country is racked with corruption now, and they keep feeding us the same of BS.
The last movies I saw were on NetFlix, the Trip series to Spain and Italy with Rob Bryden and Steve Coogan. Those are kind of cute, and maybe too quiet. Also saw Scorsese's silence about the Christian priests in Japan in the 1600's. Not sure what to make of that, but I respect the effort a lot more than most of Scorsese's stuff which I don't like most of. I respect movies that try to deal with real things.
The political aspect is that society and our government is so different today that it gets political. I read a lot of neuroscience books. They talk about how interesting it is to discover how the brain works, but that is not what they are doing. They are finding ways to manipulate us all on a scale that we've never seen before.
> > Interesting. I have gotten to the point where I don't care at all about the big production Hollywood blockbuster and action movies. I don't like the sex movies, like say "Hard Candy" or "40 Shades". Don't like comic book movies or the action movies like Borne whatever or Planet of the Apes.
I'm open to all genres on principle, haven't seen "Hard Candy" or "Fifty Shades," but basically I think film sex has to be sensual, erotic or emotional to work, *and* should serve the story in some way, but sometimes it seems like shows and movies just go for people panting on a bed to fill some time.
I don't watch many comic book and action movies because they tend to be boilerplate (same plot, same character archetypes, just different names, clothing, and maybe locations), and don't feel like they matter much. Which can be fine if they're at least entertaining, but if I don't really care about the lead character(s), I likely won't care much about the movie, either. A lot of these movies have such huge budgets that they're made by committee and go through focus groups. Or forget the focus groups—they're going straight for the built-in audience and it doesn't matter how they do it, as long as it's not that different from what's already out there. How do you get a coherent and distinct personal vision across, and a line through to characters who are memorable or who feel like authentic human beings that way? Basically, I'm not the target audience for these movies. lol
> > I would like a small film like Manchester By The Sea, but that movie had no point really. It was depressing and did not show any growth by the central character
Yes, there's very little growth by the central character Lee. It's an interesting change from most stories, to have a protagonist who's passive, doesn't seem to even try to move forward with his life, but instead only reacts to and is pulled along by events and other people. But I think it's very realistic that way, considering his personality and what he's experienced, and I also think it's hopeful in another way: how sometimes we're redeemed by the love and compassion of others. We see Lee's ex-wife, his friend George, and his nephew Patrick all trying to help him up, and the way he responds to each of them is very much in line with the role they can play in his life.
> > ... or indeed who would care about such a character if it was not a good looking Hollywood action playing the part. The guy was a complete loser.
I think the nice thing about the multitude of actors we have, is that they can portray a wide spectrum of human personality, experience and culture. I don't think any actor can resonate the same way or at all with everyone, but I don't think they should, either, if they're being authentic, and we're being authentic.
Yeah, I see how Lee can be considered a loser, but personally I think the film did a great job humanizing him. I recognize things about him that feel true and understandable. His tendency to withdraw, his anger, his depression. His idea of coping and moving on as apparently being about the ability to walk through town, or remember where he parked his car. If we can feel something for him, I feel that's a gift that stories like these can offer us, that ability to stay connected with the part of us that's sympathetic, that can imagine and relate, that can hope something for someone. But whichever stories, movies, and actors do that for us, is different for everyone.
> I think the film did a great job humanizing him.
I'd agree with that ... but what is necessary or important, or at all meaningful?
The only point to that movie is that, and actually I think it was a good one, but just buried way too far down - that some people cannot be fixed or recover from life.
As most good movies do for me, I think of them in political terms, that is some people are not criminals, they are not even bad people, they are just hurt or damaged and are not suitable for working. That's why I think it makes more sense to have a compassionate country and not the vicious kind of society Donald Trump and the Republicans seem to push for.
> > I think there is far too much fear and violence and I believe this had had an effect on American society that is very detrimental.
My concern is there isn't enough fear to go with the violence. I think we should worry for the lives of the central characters, at least, in violent movies. It shouldn't feel like it doesn't matter if people live or die. Some movies are good at getting us emotionally invested in the central characters, and some aren't. To me it's the latter that can be detrimental. That's why I so disliked Edgar Wright's "Baby Driver," but I'll leave it at that in case you haven't seen it.
> > I like more European movies, small movies.
I like how they tend to feel more authentic, and about real people. The downside is they can be a little... maybe too quiet, as you put it, but the good ones are well worth it.
> > I admit I will go see Alien sequels and Star Wars and even Star Trek even though I don't much care for how they are handled.
They can fit my "pure imagination" definition of good. (Not as much the new Star Trek, but I liked the originals, namely "The Wrath of Khan.") Another sci-fi blockbuster that I liked recently was Bong Joon-ho's "Snowpiercer."
> > I hope with this Weinstein thing that the movie and entertainment industry will be purged of a lot of corruption.
It's about time.
> > The last movies I saw were on NetFlix, the Trip series to Spain and Italy with Rob Bryden and Steve Coogan. Those are kind of cute, and maybe too quiet. Also saw Scorsese's silence about the Christian priests in Japan in the 1600's. Not sure what to make of that, but I respect the effort a lot more than most of Scorsese's stuff which I don't like most of. I respect movies that try to deal with real things.
I haven't seen any of those yet, but I've been catching up on some of Werner Herzog's recent documentaries. I liked "Lo and Behold, Reveries of the Connected World," and "Into the Inferno" looks good...
That's funny and interesting.
I really did not like Wrath of Khan or any of the Star Trek movies. The whole idea of Star Trek was gone after the original series was cancelled. Political conspiracy theorist that I tend to be, I think Star Trek was cancelled because it was too socialist and counter-culture. Simple as it was, it provoked thought and was simple straightforward moral allegories, and we rarely see that in movies or TV anymore.
I could not get into SnowPiercer since it was so hokey and unbelievable to me. Worlds that are so unbelievable, and this even applies to Star Wars now, are merely special effects have to be really good to appeal to me. One that I have a soft spot for, I don't know why, was "Ghosts Of Mars".
One of my favorite small movies that is in the science fiction genre is "The Man From Earth". It is about a man who is basically immortal for some reason he does not understand, but he has to live with it, and figure out how to coexist with all of us mere mortals. It is a really fun movie, and no action or special effects - all mental. Loved it.
Since I have been involved in IT and the Internet since the late 80's I found Herzog's Lo and Behold hardly worthy of my attention. But mostly I really like his movies. I liked the one about Antarctica, and the one about the cave paintings. "Into the Abyss" about the murderers was thought provoking but sad. "Grizzly Man" was interesting as well. I like the documentaries better than his movies. Liked "Into the Inferno" as well.
There is a better movie on Antarctica, "Antarctica: A Year on Ice" (2013) a more what life is like on Antarctica.
> > The political aspect is that society and our government is so different today that it gets political. I read a lot of neuroscience books. They talk about how interesting it is to discover how the brain works, but that is not what they are doing. They are finding ways to manipulate us all on a scale that we've never seen before.
Yeah, politics is pretty divisive right now. The good thing is more people are becoming more informed and more positively engaged. I think as long as that keeps up, there are ways forward.
Manipulation on a scale we've never seen before? Are there books you'd recommend, if you don't mind my asking?
Books:
Thinking Fast and Slow - Kahneman
Willpower - Baumeister
The Brain That Changes Itself - Doidge
The Political Brain - Westen
The Political Mind - Lakoff
Altered Genes, Twisted Truth - Druker
How Markets Fail - Cassidy
The Third Chimpanzee - Diamond
Our Inner Ape - De Waal
Bad Samaritans - Chang
Vital Lies, Simple Truths - Goleman
The Price Of Inequality - Stiglitz
Requiem For The American Dream - Chomsky
Democracy In Chains - McLean
1491 - Mann
1493 - Mann
The Untold History of the United States - Stone and Kuznick
A Fine Mess - Reid ( topical - about the tax system )
Anything by
- Barbara Ehrenreich
- Atul Gawande
- Jared Diamond
- David Cay Johnston
Movies:
The Untold History of the United States - Based on the book
The End Of Poverty - narrated by Martin Sheen
The Brainwashing Of My Dad
In Defense of Food
Food Inc.
The Corporation
Capitalism: A Love Story
SickO
Where To Invade Next
That is about all I can think of quickly.
Thank you for the recommendations, brux.
Barbara Ehrenreich does great work; I haven't read any of her books but I've come across a few of her articles and it's always worthwhile.
I started Jared Diamond's "Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed" a while back and am still getting through it; it's pretty sobering but great.
Yeah, "The Untold History of the United States" is good, and it's the best thing Oliver Stone has done lately. I was hoping he'd bring the same lucidity and even-handedness to his take on "Snowden," but alas... maybe next time.
Daniel Kahneman's "Thinking, Fast and Slow" has been on my list, but I'd forgotten about it—thanks for reminding me of it!
And yes, "A Fine Mess" is one for right now. Yesterday, even!
> Yeah, "The Untold History of the United States" is good, and it's the best thing Oliver Stone has done lately.
The Putin Interviews which came out earlier this year was interesting. I am not one for Stone's fictional movies at all. Snowden was probably the one I have the least objection to. Then again, all the movies on Snowden have lacked substance or real information, and frankly been pretty boring.
I'd like to see some kind of reaction or talk from T. R. Reid about this tax bill, it is the antithesis of tax reform. Under the Republican administration this country's government does not work, and probably will never work as long as we keep spending half our revenues with the military, and those military take over the rest of the economy.
I agree with you completely, i can't stand Renner and i don't find him a great actor either.
shareI'm not that familiar with Renner, and I don't follow Keanu's career closely -- but I do think Keanu is a better actor than his reputation would have him be. In the right roles he has been perfect casting. He has done some turkey performances too, but he's somehow always a very likeable screen presence. I haven't seen every film he's ever been in but I certainly have a lot of time for him as an actor and will always catch something if it comes to my attention.
shareJohn Wick, "awesome"
shareBoth are terrific
Loved Renner in 'The Town' and 'The Hurt Locker'
Hes able to play that charismatic, likeable bastard you just know you shouldnt be pals with
Keanu is different...takes more varied projects and is sometimes limited in his acting choices (Dracula for God's sake...that accent lol)
But hes done so much great action stuff i really dig him
I dont really watch his other stuff much tbh...not my kind of films
I enjoyed Renner in "American Hustle," and recently "Wind River," too. I think he's very good at giving
"lived-in" performances.
Yeah, Keanu's taken risks (yep, Dracula) that aren't totally successful. Accents are a tricky thing. Unless an actor nails it, there will understandably be people who find it distracting or detracting.
Personally I think it's more important to get the essence of the character and the authenticity of their emotions. Reeves got Jonathan Harker's propriety, righteousness and valor, but he didn't nail the accent, and what's more, I think you can see onscreen that he doubted himself, as well, and that unfortunately can overshadow the other qualities of his Dracula performance.
Not for me, though (lol). I love how his reactions deliver the humor and operatic absurdity of the first part of the film. And later the way he [spoiler]looks at Mina as they take their wedding vows. It tells us everything we need to know about her fate.[/spoiler] By the end, I frankly feel relief seeing his character riding in pursuit of Dracula, as one of the few reasonable elements of a film that's very little like the "Dracula" lore that I recall. (Dracula is a melancholy romantic! Mina WANTS to turn! Van Helsing is a horny old man who cracks bad jokes about venereal diseases! Jonathan... Oh. Jonathan is still trying to save Mina. That seems normal.)
Hahaha. What a gonzo film. Gorgeous visuals. The tone of the performances is all over the map, but I think everyone got some fine moments, and Gary Oldman is brilliant here. It's my favorite performance of Oldman's so far.
Good points...thoughtful post
Cheers!
I love Oldman in almost everything btw
Hey, Shogun, thanks! Yeah, Oldman's awesome. I love him in
JFK
Dracula
True Romance
Leon
Immortal Beloved
The Fifth Element
the "Harry Potter" movies
Christopher Nolan's "Batman" movies
Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy
and Lawless (actually think that movie needed 3x more Oldman; Tom Hardy's wonderful but that film seemed to rise to another level every time Oldman was on),
And I really need to see Meantime, Sid and Nancy, and State of Grace. Looking forward to seeing Darkest Hour sometime, too.
Cheers!
Sid and state were both terrific
Oldman nails both parts
Cheers back at ya:)