Movies: Where does Casey Affleck rank amongst the better actors of today?

[Mr Jiggyfly]

Whitaker's character is the new boyfriend of Bale's love interest. Of course the movie has to show their interactions, in order to show what type of man he is. That is a given.

They had to show the interactions, but it was spelled out quite clearly that Wesley was sympathetic to Rodney, and it couldn't have been made more obvious to us than the dinner scene.

However, there is simply no reason to just assume Whitaker's character will simply let Bale's character go. Seriously, why would Whittaker's character continue to try to convince Bale's character to drop his gun, and cry "No" when Bale's character exacted his revenge? That is because he knows he has to arrest him, but he is reluctant. When he suddenly lets him go, as the last scene suggests, that basically makes that past scene pointless, and simply emotionally manipulative.

Also, nothing suggests that the former likes the latter enough, to do that over his job. Respect and affection are two different things, and can be mutually exclusive. The movie is set in realism from the get-go, but it suddenly changes in that last scene, and that feels off to me. Even if he does let him go, that is just typical poor Hollywood storytelling, and not realistic at all. Frankly, it gives nobody any comfort, if a person is just let free, after he murdered another man, no matter how justified the reason is, or how sympathetic he is.

There are more reasons why I dislike it, but that is the main one, and the straw that breaks the camel's back. In this case, I think the filmmakers just tried to be too cute with things, and creates more problems than necessary. I do not think all the critics are wrong about it, but you do not have to agree. I cannot convince you, nor can you. Let us just agree to disagree.

You are simply removing the human element from Wesley and assuming that all cops put their duties above their emotions - which simply isn't true. He obviously wasn't going to shoot him knowing the circumstances and he knew Harlan was a murderous thug - it's not a big reach to see why he would let him go.

Also, nothing about the premise of this film was designed to elicit any type of comfort for the audience, at least IMHO. I certainly didn't feel any form of comfort seeing the closing scene, in fact it was quite the opposite.

 

[Stealth JD]

Where does he rank? I dunno...scum-baggiest?

 

[Danko]

Where does he rank? I dunno...scum-baggiest?

yep.

 

[Muzzinga]

He's like Ben Foster, where he just shows up as a supporting actor in random films and steals the show

 

[SirPaste]

Where does he rank? I dunno...scum-baggiest?

I was thinking that too, the hypocrisy in Hollywood is insane

 

[nameless1]

They had to show the interactions, but it was spelled out quite clearly that Wesley was sympathetic to Rodney, and it couldn't have been made more obvious to us than the dinner scene.

You are simply removing the human element from Wesley and assuming that all cops put their duties above their emotions - which simply isn't true. He obviously wasn't going to shoot him knowing the circumstances and he knew Harlan was a murderous thug - it's not a big reach to see why he would let him go.

Also, nothing about the premise of this film was designed to elicit any type of comfort for the audience, at least IMHO. I certainly didn't feel any form of comfort seeing the closing scene, in fact it was quite the opposite.

To just let him go, that is the plot of every 80's Hollywood movie. Nothing suggests that this is not steeped in reality, and to change all that for the ending, is just lazy and unimaginative filmmaking.

Anyway, let us just agree to disagree. These are just our opinions, and neither of us can prove each other wrong. Only the director knows what he wanted to do, so unless he tells us explicitly, we can argue until we are blue in the face, but still get no definite answers.

Frankly, this movie does not deserve this much attention. A lot of people disliked it. I am not the only one.

 

[nameless1]

He's like Ben Foster, where he just shows up as a supporting actor in random films and steals the show

Affleck is a very internal actor, while Foster is a lot more expressive. Outwardly, I will even say Foster appears to have a lot more range, but he can also go overboard, and ham it up sometimes. Affleck is safer in that regard, but one also has to look very closely at his performance, to pick up the nuances.

Both are definitely underrated, but Affleck is probably even more underrated than Foster, as his performance in Manchester by the Sea proves.

 

[Bluenote13]

I was thinking that too, the hypocrisy in Hollywood is insane

What hypocrisy is that?