Last movie you watched......

Give Songbird a break, he's still trying to figure out how it's possible Bush never won a single Grammy.

 

We reached that moment where you cite awards as justification for a movie actor that you like, because you feel awards validate success.

Sometimes a movie sucks, and an actor wins all the acting awards for a laughable performance.

Look how MENACING Bardem was here! Scary!

 

You can make the argument that an actor winning a single award is just a fluke, or politics, or whatever. Sometimes movies especially are "of a time" and look worse and worse given distance. (Titanic is a good example, I think.) But Bardem won just about every major award for his performance that year, and he also won awards from critics associations in Austin, Boston, Central Ohio, Chicago, Dallas, Detroit, Florida, Houston, Iowa, Kansas City, Las Vegas, New York, North Texas, Oklahoma, Phoenix, Santa Barbara, the Southeast, Toronto, Utah, Vancouver, and Washington, D.C..

For me, that does validate his success in the role, yes. The evidence that he was good is fairly overwhelming. I have no idea how you can think you are right here and so many others are wrong, but in a way I admire your resistance to the prevailing wisdom. You think he was laughable. Some very large percentage of the critical audience thought it was the performance of the year. We're not going to bridge that gulf, especially if you're not the kind of person given pause or doubt by standing virtually alone against the overwhelming consensus.

The last movie I saw was Drive, by the way, for the third time. I love that movie. Going to see The Shape of Water today.

 

I thought Bardem's character in "No Country for Old Men" was one of the most chilling villains I've seen in a good movie. He was outstanding.

And: "My Little Pony: The Movie."

 

Trying to attach objective truth to an acting performance or someone's entertainment preferences is almost as stupid as Songbird's original opinion.

 

Here's the thing, typefitter: I don't think others are wrong. I'm not saying they're wrong. I'm not belittling their belief system. I thought the movie was a bore and Bardem was miscast. I said it 10 years ago and I'll say it again: Brad Garrett should have gotten that role if you're looking for someone who exudes menacing psycho killer. I didn't really watch Everybody Loves Raymond but the times I did and he was on the screen he looked like he wanted to rip someone's heart out of their chest. Anton Chigurh had his name written all over it.

Now, I'm going to play checkers with the Washington Post critic who hated the movie too. Clearly, we don't belong in y'all's game of cinematic chess.

 

Having watched plenty of ELR (shut up!), Garrett would have been terrible in the role. He WAS laughable as the put-upon big brother on purpose. Talk about miscast. No one would have bought that for a second.

 

I think I've just been amazingly trolled. You had me going until the Brad Garrett part. Well done.

 

I think you should have capitalized *HE* instead of was; all about the inflection.

He may have been miscast for that role, who knows, but he LOOKS like a giant menacing psycho killer.

 

I just watched 38 minutes of The Room and was done with it at that point.

I will concede that NCFOM is better than The Room.

But the guy who plays Johnny was more believable than Bardem's Chigurh and at least he didn't try to hide an accent.

 

I started watching The Room again. It's like a gruesome wreck you can't turn your eyes away from.

I have to think they tried doing something out of the Rocky Horror Picture Show book.

There's no other explanation.

 

I thought the explanation was that they actually thought they were making a good, serious movie, but when that failed, they rolled with the idea that it was a comedy.