|
|
Post by hi224 on Nov 25, 2017 19:05:54 GMT
What did you think as well.
|
|
|
|
Post by joekiddlouischama on Nov 28, 2017 5:13:40 GMT
What did you think as well. ... "good/very good," one of the year's better releases thus far. Roman J. Israel, Esq. is engrossing and offers genuine dilemmas and moral ambiguity—a philosophical or intellectual film that does not feel philosophical or intellectual as you watch it, because you feel completely wrapped up in the moment and the eccentricities of the protagonist, quirkily and rivetingly portrayed by Denzel Washington. The movie is both humanly sympathetic and morbidly funny. Moreover, the film is effectively paced and the soundtrack is terrific, with solid supporting performances (most notably by Colin Farrell). I am definitely going to see it again. |
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Nov 29, 2017 2:09:31 GMT
Would you think Washington will be nominated for it or is it not enough?
|
|
|
|
Post by hi224 on Nov 29, 2017 2:54:39 GMT
the buzz and bad reviews are there so sadly no plus, he has Gyllenhaal, Stanton, Phoenix, and others to contend with.
|
|
|
|
Post by mecano04 on Dec 4, 2017 21:37:19 GMT
It was good but not great nor amazing.
Denzel won't get an Oscar for this one. He should have won last year over Affleck.
|
|
|
|
Post by joekiddlouischama on Dec 6, 2017 8:39:32 GMT
Would you think Washington will be nominated for it or is it not enough? ... worth a nomination in my view, but perhaps the performance is too quirky for the voters—a real "character" role. While Washington's performance in Fences, for instance, proved excellent (he took a dialogue-heavy, theatrical part and made it feel naturalistic and authentic), one could easily still see "Denzel Washington," so to speak, so viewers and voters could embrace him pretty easily. This performance as a quixotic post-revolutionary lawyer battling himself and his ideals, conversely, is more offbeat, kind of like Clint Eastwood playing a darkly existential variation of John Huston in White Hunter, Black Heart (1990). |
|
|
|
Post by hi224 on Dec 8, 2017 11:00:20 GMT
it is a complete psychologcal operation! huh?. |
|
|
|
Post by mecano04 on Dec 8, 2017 21:50:05 GMT
it is a complete psychologcal operation! In what sense? I mean, I didn't search for a deep-deep meaning but on the surface it's about your sticking to your belief to the end and being alone on your island versus dropping some of them but fitting "in". You can add the being stuck in your era (for the beliefs and the activism) vs how it works now but otherwise it didn't struck me as a deeply intellectual movie (more than The Mummy or Thor Ragnarok, but not life changing) |
|
|
|
Post by joekiddlouischama on Dec 14, 2017 10:28:48 GMT
For people who have seen the film, do you believe that—had you been in Roman's situation—you would have divulged the information in order to receive the reward money? And, more generally, would you have looked to embrace a corporate position in order to make significant money after years of struggle? I do like how the movie refuses to demonize any of the options. |
|
|
|
Post by joekiddlouischama on Dec 14, 2017 10:31:30 GMT
By the way, Washington did receive a Golden Globe nomination for this performance—for what that is worth. Needless to say, a Golden Globe nomination may or may not foretell an Oscar nomination, but at least his acting here is receiving some critical attention.
For anyone who still wants to see it, the movie seems to be leaving theaters after today; personally, I will check it out once more before it leaves.
|
|
|
|
Post by hi224 on Dec 14, 2017 16:20:01 GMT
He also got nommed for Sag as well.
|
|
|
|
Post by Nora on Jan 29, 2018 1:17:42 GMT
For people who have seen the film, do you believe that—had you been in Roman's situation—you would have divulged the information in order to receive the reward money? And, more generally, would you have looked to embrace a corporate position in order to make significant money after years of struggle? I do like how the movie refuses to demonize any of the options. none of the character development made much sense to me. he took the reward too quickly and then changed too much too quickly. I dont believe the character of his IQ and experience and perspective on the world would have given up his 30 years of what we are made to believe was a morally clean legal practice for 100 K and this fast and in this manner. Very disappointed with the movie. |
|
|
|
Post by hi224 on Jan 29, 2018 1:26:11 GMT
For people who have seen the film, do you believe that—had you been in Roman's situation—you would have divulged the information in order to receive the reward money? And, more generally, would you have looked to embrace a corporate position in order to make significant money after years of struggle? I do like how the movie refuses to demonize any of the options. none of the character development made much sense to me. he took the reward too quickly and then changed too much too quickly. I dont believe the character of his IQ and experience and perspective on the world would have given up his 30 years of what we are made to believe was a morally clean legal practice for 100 K and this fast and in this manner. Very disappointed with the movie. I actually saw it as he reached a point in his life where he had decided to do things for himself for a change and also what suits what others want of him. |
|
|
|
Post by hi224 on Jan 29, 2018 1:27:06 GMT
For people who have seen the film, do you believe that—had you been in Roman's situation—you would have divulged the information in order to receive the reward money? And, more generally, would you have looked to embrace a corporate position in order to make significant money after years of struggle? I do like how the movie refuses to demonize any of the options. none of the character development made much sense to me. he took the reward too quickly and then changed too much too quickly. I dont believe the character of his IQ and experience and perspective on the world would have given up his 30 years of what we are made to believe was a morally clean legal practice for 100 K and this fast and in this manner. Very disappointed with the movie. Now tthat said Farrell and Ejogos characters needed more development. |
|
|
|
Post by Nora on Jan 29, 2018 1:47:04 GMT
none of the character development made much sense to me. he took the reward too quickly and then changed too much too quickly. I dont believe the character of his IQ and experience and perspective on the world would have given up his 30 years of what we are made to believe was a morally clean legal practice for 100 K and this fast and in this manner. Very disappointed with the movie. Now tthat said Farrell and Ejogos characters needed more development. yes, for sure. Ejogo made even less sense to me as a character. Why would she even like him SO much (as to always call him when she was down plus being the one who asks him out), because of that one little speech he gave? I guess, he just did what he did for too long and wanted a change but the movie could have spent a bit more time on him making the actual decision. To me it felt like one scene he was Roman J Israel, the next he was a "Jordan Belfort" type.. |
|
