Some
performances get rewarded and I will never understand why. You all
know I'm not a fan of too natural performance (e.g. Paul Newman in
Nobody's Fool or Marion Cotillard in Two Days One Night), but I can
give some credit to them (both of the performances received four
points from me), so that I'd stay objective. But there is something
that I can't reward. It's the roles that give an actor nothing to
play and when an actor is lazy to do something about it.
Unfortunately, that is the case of this Oscar-nominated
performance.
Rachel McAdams plays her character exactly, as it written. This might have been a compliment, if the character hasn't been written blandly. There is really nothing to this role. It's a woman. That's all I can say about it. The role of Sacha Pfeiffer has only got some lines that reveal simply nothing about the character. (It's not the only such character in the film. In fact, all of them are so.) But the biggest blame against McAdams is that she doesn't add anything to her character. She reads her lines (and she reads them just fine, to make that clear), but we don't find out anything about her character's character.
She has got some better moments, for example in the scene Sacha comes to the priest. She shows just the right amount of energy and eagerness as a young reporter, who wants to squeeze everything out of the story she's working on. But that's probably it. On the private matter, we don't find anything out about her.
I'm thinking, why she even got recognized is that she's the only woman in an ensemble full of men. It's not a bad performance. It's just a weak one.
The chances of winning an Oscar: Let's just hope the best picture heat is not going to push her to the win. I guess, it won't. She's the last one in the game.
Rachel McAdams plays her character exactly, as it written. This might have been a compliment, if the character hasn't been written blandly. There is really nothing to this role. It's a woman. That's all I can say about it. The role of Sacha Pfeiffer has only got some lines that reveal simply nothing about the character. (It's not the only such character in the film. In fact, all of them are so.) But the biggest blame against McAdams is that she doesn't add anything to her character. She reads her lines (and she reads them just fine, to make that clear), but we don't find out anything about her character's character.
She has got some better moments, for example in the scene Sacha comes to the priest. She shows just the right amount of energy and eagerness as a young reporter, who wants to squeeze everything out of the story she's working on. But that's probably it. On the private matter, we don't find anything out about her.
I'm thinking, why she even got recognized is that she's the only woman in an ensemble full of men. It's not a bad performance. It's just a weak one.
The chances of winning an Oscar: Let's just hope the best picture heat is not going to push her to the win. I guess, it won't. She's the last one in the game.
No comments:
Post a Comment