Paul Newman in one of his worst performances: Miscast or bad direction?

I wasn't crazy about BLAZE or Color of Money, but he was fine in this film. What's your problem?

You have it quite backwards, jon. This film shows how Newman was NOT limited as an actor. This is a quite different sort of role for him, nuanced and controlled. He did a great job with it.

I have to politely differ with you. I think Newman's performance was quite good, precisely because it wasn't his usual kind of role. It showed that he also had the ability to play such an upright straight-arrow character, and he did it well.

I liked the Color of Money as a fun entertainment film, but I didn't think the character in Color of Money was written with a lot of depth. Newman did a good job with the material he had to work with. But Mr. Bridge ... now that's a performance.

I think Nobody's Fool was one of Newman's best performances. His character was someone who had been an irresponsible man-child most of his life. Yet somehow, we the audience can tell there is something good in him. The movie doesn't have a lot of overt sentiment. Yet we're sure by movie's end that the character has truly grown as a person, conveyed by subtle hints. There are layers to that character. That was clearly not just a performance that any competent actor could have pulled off; it was a matter of the right man for the right part.

Can't comment on Blaze. Never have watched it.

To me, it was neither. Newman was one of the best things of this film as well as the production values and Joanne Woodward. Overall I did like the movie, but it was the length and pace that were my problems with it.








"Life after death is as improbable as sex after marriage"- Madeline Kahn(CLUE, 1985)

[deleted]

I think he was very good. Far outside his usual zone of operating and still completely legitimate. The film itself was something of an oddity though, that's for damn sure.

___
http://tinyurl.com/m746w8t