brightridge19 said:Norton is easily the winner 😍 way down south—no one even brought him up 🙏 🙏
...man, seriously, 😍 it’s such a shame the movie doesn't follow his arc, because our dear old Ed was absolutely brilliant... howdy 😍 ...northerncrane4, you should probably watch this before you go rethinking that poll 😉
..wiredfalcon2, I’m totally lost on this whole gift situation 🤔 🙂 ...but whatever—Merry Christmas to everyone celebrating (and for the rest of you, I hope you’re having a good time wherever you ended up 🙂 ) 🙂 😍 😘
...honestly boss, you are just 😍 🙂 ...but I bet 😍 😍 😍 😍 😍 is already jumping in to join the party—probably dropping a whole string of 😍 because he loves you guys so much, or whatever. 😳 🙂
First off, Maria Peterson is absolutely right—professional translations aren't cheap, they cost a serious amount of money, yet you’re sitting here expecting us to do all that work for you for free? 😉
...but let’s set the jokes aside for a second. 🙂 That question was phrased all wrong... Look, the movie title actually needs to be translated based on what’s happening in the content itself—because if you don't, you just end up with these totally nonsensical translations. For example, I would... Keeping Up with the Kardashians Literally translated. Down with the SteinsThe title is basically just a pun that doesn't even land with the actual content—which, honestly, I can't quite wrap my head around as it stands. A literal translation probably wouldn't make any sense in relation to the movie anyway. 🙂 And that’s exactly where things start falling apart. 🙂 Look, some of these titles aren't actually problematic—I mean, why wouldn't Confetti just be Confetti? I'm assuming the title carries some specific weight within the context of the movie, right? 🙂 It’s the same deal with Something New—sometimes a simple title really is the best way to go. Some titles work just fine being literal, like how Waist Deep could just be taken at face value, which ends up feeling totally pointless—like you're just stuck "waist deep" in something. Then again, it could be metaphorical, maybe an allusion to wasting time or just wasting away... I don't quite get the one with Fried Worms, though. If that's considered a "mistake," then fine, take it literally—it's not your fault if the filmmakers decided to go with a stupid title. 😁 If it’s actually baked into the title, it could be a subtle nod to a character's broken English—which, honestly, is one of those things that gets lost in translation when you try to move it over to American English. It’s a tricky balance, though. Take Adam Abel, for instance—one of the characters there doesn't speak great English, and his entire vocabulary of profanity is technically "wrong." Because of that, the translator kept using "For the sake of f**k" instead of the grammatically correct "For f**k's sake"—pardon my language—but it actually works perfectly for the character. Or look at how they handled Jonathan Safran Foer's work, where the protagonist struggles with English; the way that translates can really change the whole vibe of the story. 👍...but looking at these titles, why even bother making movies like this in the first place? 😉
...EOD? 🙂 ...Yeah, look, Robert Carlyle is wonderful 😍, but he’s got this one little issue—he’s too low-key, too subtle, which means he rarely gets tapped for the big leading roles. It’s more like a flicker than an explosion... kind of a shame, really, because the guy can pivot between such wildly different archetypes (think Daffy, Begbie, or Gaz 🙂)... ...Grega Kinnear was absolutely stellar in Little Miss Sunshine—for me, he was the absolute highlight of that film—but it feels like people don't quite give him enough credit for it...
@quietdriver3/">@@quietdriver3 ...Solid point there—the Americans definitely have their share of consistently brilliant, fascinating actors 👍, especially when I think back to someone like Robert Thewlis 😵...
...you both are sweet with your enthusiasm and nostalgia, but I can't help feeling that even today—just like always—there are a few truly exceptional actors out there; it’s just that it’s in our nature to be a bit overly nostalgic 🙂 Joseph Lee3, you mentioned Spall, Hoffman, Depp... who all seem, at least to me, capable of playing the widest spectrum of roles. Well, at least two of them have proven it—primarily Hoffman (my personal favorite, so maybe I'm being a bit subjective 😳), who did—and did brilliantly—absolutely everything: from comedy (Punch-Drunk Love) to drama (Magnolia, Love Lisa—which is actually more of a Hoffman film since the script is sparse and relies much more on what we infer from the imagery than what is said), to action (the man even played a villain in Mission: Impossible III with a certain "otherworldly" dimension—though I have a feeling northerncrane4 might not agree with me on that one 🙂), and I could go on... Then there's someone like Edward Norton—in my eyes, one of the best American actors working today (and he had the luck of having the kind of look that fits a Hollywood "leading man" perfectly), who, if he starts picking smarter roles, will almost certainly join the "greats" in twenty years. Of course, to get there, you have to age, no matter how much we try to ignore it 😉, but I’d happily bet money on him... ...what saddens me is the fact that here, as elsewhere, great acting is automatically identified with acting exclusively in English-language films. Our first associations are always Hollywood blockbusters, while British cinema follows, and the rest of the world passes by relatively unnoticed, which feels like an injustice... if you look at the acting of someone like Olivier Gourmet, especially what he did with his brother Dardenn, I don't think you could remain indifferent. The guy might be hyper-productive—less lead roles, less fanfare, more small parts, somewhat similar to Buscemi's excellent "cameo" style mentioned above 🙂—but the way he uses not just his voice and face, but his entire body, is fantastic... then there's the mini-generation of brilliant Danish actors (unfortunately, fewer actresses) led by Mads Mikkelsen (I've been diving deep into his filmography lately, and he really is a man who can pull off any role—he's played everything from dealers to nerds; his only real disappointment was the villain in the new Bond, but I can overlook that because I think the issue is primarily "linguistic": his English sounds a bit clunky in all his films, making the whole thing feel a bit like a recitation... but for "Danish" roles, he deserves nothing but applause, even if it isn't widely recognized...) and Thomsen (also very good, though perhaps a bit more static, less expressive... everyone else—Lia Kaas, Pilmark...—is good, often exceeding the Hollywood standard, but not quite top-tier), Ulrich Mühe (brilliant 👍, and honestly, my surprise at his excellent performance in the recent The Lives of Others seems totally misplaced, given it's just one of many great roles he's had)... there truly are incredible non-English speaking actors that deserve our attention, yet it's rarely done... 🙂
...and please don't take me the wrong way; I'm not saying there are a *ton* of great actors out there—but they exist, in every era, and I genuinely love the belief that they still exist today 🙂There are plenty of actors I enjoy—like Robert Carlyle 😍, who I genuinely adore and has such a solid run of great roles—but honestly, I don't think he can hold a candle to someone like Pacina 😍. That said, there’s definitely a handful of performers who go way beyond just being "personal favorites"...
...Joseph Lee3 😍 ...I agree with a fair amount of what's been said here, but look—don't be too harsh. We still have some genuinely talented actors out there today 🙂 (though, obviously, there are also "those other types" who, as C. Doyle put it, step in front of the lens with the most stunning views and deliver that same tired line to the director: Darling, I'm ready for my close-up ...😁 )
...yeah, there's definitely something here—all three actors are top-tier (I can't quite put my finger on why, but Robert Carlyle is easily one of my favorite faces 🙂), yet the movie doesn't look particularly inviting... such a shame (though I won't be unfair and write it off before I actually see it)... ...anyway, this is a really cool thread 👍 I need to sit and think about "those" kinds of movies for a bit...🙂
EDIT: just remembered one: The Good Cop by Lasse Hallström...no idea why that one popped into my head, since it isn't exactly terrible, but with a cast like that (Bodnia, Bosti Larsen, Hjejle...), it could have been so much better......also, Red Dragon —I mean, you've got Norton + PSH + Hopkins + Fiennes + Watson all in one place, and it ends up being just mediocre/bad...
...noted 🙂 ...though, I actually have one little "perk" here—the fact that Winterbottom hired Coogan again actually makes me happy. I’ve always loved it when directors stick with the same cast, even if I have to admit Michael's cast isn't exactly my favorite (and I'm lucky enough to rarely be exposed to American TV 😉)... but this whole "kinship" thing honestly gave me a laugh 😁... ...as for Winterbottom himself... I recently stumbled upon an article that accidentally hit the nail on the head by calling him a nerdy director... he’s one of those guys who truly understands cinema, almost like he wants to experiment with questioning—in a very cautious, almost "academic" way—what actually makes a movie, and the process behind it (which is probably why he felt the need to make A Cock and Bull Story—to play around with the "pre-film" concept, essentially inviting the audience into that world and deconstructing the magic somehow...) —sometimes he nails it (for me, Tristram Shandy works), sometimes less so (like 9 Songs, which is more about playing with structure and metaphor), but I find it charming... truthfully, I like him because when he isn't adapting massive novels, he makes films about "important" social issues without feeling the need to wrap them up in a crime thriller, a romance, or some intimate drama... and that's why I like him 🙂
ironcrane7 said:As for my disappointment of the year—it’s definitely Cock and Bull Story.
...mind if I ask why? 🙂 Personally, I actually enjoyed it—it's pretty funny, and I've always had a soft spot for that "movie about movies" vibe...🙂 It almost felt right for a small, indie director like Winterbott to tackle something like this, and I thought he did a decent enough job with it.🙂
Mr. Beast said:Ruiz’s "Seraphim, son of the lighthouse keeper" is the absolute worst—alongside Jordan’s "Random Satellite," and even Bullock’s "Liberty."
...but hey, at least Seraphim has a stunning photo 😍 😍 😍
