As a gamer with a keen eye for cinematic performances and a soft spot for honest appraisals, I can wholeheartedly empathize with Paul Walter Hauser‘s approach to rating his own work. Like him, I too have found myself in situations where I have to evaluate my own experiences – be it games, movies, or life choices – with an unbiased perspective.
It can be challenging to determine a performer’s genuine feelings towards a film they’ve starred in. After a movie’s release, actors often engage in publicity to praise the production. Even when external opinions have been made, they typically continue to defend their work for clear reasons. However, Paul Walter Hauser is open about sharing that one of his films, in his own words, is quite satisfactory.
Similar to numerous individuals, Paul Walter Hauser maintains a Letterboxd profile for rating and commenting on the films he’s watched. A Twitter user noticed that Hauser had given his film “Richard Jewell“, his breakthrough role centered around the man suspected of the 1996 Atlanta Olympics bombing, a score of 3.5 out of 5. It might be assumed that an actor would bestow high praise on their own movies. However, Hauser himself acknowledged the post and explained that his review is truthful. While he appreciates the movie, it doesn’t reach the caliber of exceptional cinema in his opinion.
If you believe The Shawshank Redemption and Schindler’s List are masterpieces, but find Richard Jewell to be less exceptional, there’s nothing amiss about providing an accurate rating. A 3.5 out of 5 isn’t a slight; it simply reflects the reality that while Richard Jewell is good and certainly worth watching, it doesn’t quite reach the heights of those other films.
Hauser’s evaluation in this case seems hard to dispute. To begin with, a 3.5 out of 5 is a quite commendable rating for a movie. It undeniably falls on the favorable side of the spectrum. Any film receiving such a score is likely one that most viewers will be pleased they watched once it ends.
Criticizing the actor for giving an honest rating to the film “Black Bird” might seem a bit excessive, since if he had given it a higher score, he’d likely face more criticism. Placing “Richard Jewell” alongside cinema classics like “Schindler’s List,” one of the best films from the ’90s and arguably one of the greatest ever made, might suggest that he’s being insincere with his assessment.
Hauser isn’t implying that “Richard Jewell” is a poor film, as many actors eventually acknowledge that some of their movies aren’t fantastic. Every renowned actor has made a subpar film, so it wouldn’t be surprising if “Cobra Kai” actor Hauser criticized a movie of his. However, he isn’t doing that in this scenario.
Hauser’s evaluation matches the initial reception of the film by critics, as it holds a 77% rating on Rotten Tomatoes. However, audience ratings are notably more favorable. Many who watched the film seemed to enjoy it, despite the fact that Richard Jewell didn’t perform well at the box office. Interestingly, I wrote a review for TopMob when the movie was first released and was less favorable than many other critics, but I did acknowledge some positive aspects of the film.
To put it simply, “Richard Jewell” is definitely worth watching, despite my personal feelings towards it. I can’t dispute its merit. It showcases one of Paul Walter Hauser’s finest acting performances, which is quite an achievement given the high caliber of movies that often fall short. In essence, this could be considered a strong review for many films fail to attain such quality.
Read More
Sorry. No data so far.
2024-12-07 01:37