Art

 As an avid fan of Russel Crowe, he will be passed on winning an Oscar for his role in Nuremberg. (If only because he has won it before.) But - I'd be happy to see if Crowe's performance lands him his 2nd Oscar, because ironically this is Crowe's best work since his last best actor nomination since 2001 'A Beautiful Mind' = which Denzel Washington won that year. I look at movies from the perspective of an actor and what esthetic it offers based on the same merit from the acting involved. Crowe nails this.

I find the subject matter riveting, as I focused on the pivotal performances/interaction between Malek's portrayal of a psychiatrist in this film and Crowe.

In my personal experience, the acting is on point, however it is that Hollywood adaptation which begs for more.

I can't blame either Malek or Crowe, not mailing in their work, for the same reason that a psychiatrist/patient relationship does not move that fast in ordinary time. Therefore, to compound this into a fictional sense does not give the impression for more. What I mean is, there's a dynamic to be had between patient and a doctor, which if the dynamic is so quickly made just seems counter intuitive to the degree it suggests. This dynamic I speak of just whistles through. So as an objective observer, I don't know how sincere this doctor/patient relationship is.

That is how this movie would have benefitted. If it was a film that centered in on the relationship between Crowe and Malek, which seems glazed over to make it a more dramatic unbelievable piece of cinematic history. This film deserves the Oscar. No one is the wiser.


- Marco