Search
Crypto News (Bitcoin,Ethereum)
News and Finance
App
Crypto News application for iOS collects exclusively fresh news about cryptocurrencies and...
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Misbehaviour (2020) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
A film guide on how to sit on the fence.
It’s only 50 years ago, but the timeframe of Misbehaviour feels like a very different world. Although only 9 years old in 1970, I remember sitting around the tele with my family to enjoy the regular Eric and Julia Morley ‘cattle market’ of girls parading in national dress and swimsuits. We were not alone. At its peak in the 70’s over 18 million Britons watched the show (not surprising bearing in mind there were only three channels to choose from in 1970… no streaming… no video players… not even smartphones to distract you!)
The background.
“Misbehaviour” tells the story of this eventful 1970 Miss World competition. It was eventful for a number of reasons: the Women’s Lib movement was rising in popularity, and the event was disrupted a flour-bombing group of women in the audience; the compere Bob Hope did an appallingly misjudged and mysoginistic routine that died a death; and, after significant pressure against the apartheid regime in South Africa, the country surprised the world by sending two entrants to the show – one white (Miss South Africa) and one black (Miss Africa South).
The movie charts the events leading up to that night and some of the fallout that resulted from it.
A strong ensemble cast.
“Misbehaviour” has a great cast.
Leading the women are posh-girl Sally Alexander (Keira Knightley) and punk-girl Jo Robinson (Jessie Buckley). I’m normally a big fan of both of these ladies. But here I never felt either of them connected particularly well with their characters. In particular, Buckley (although delivering as a similar maverick in “Wild Rose“) always felt a bit forced and out of place here.
On the event organisation side is Rhys Ifans, almost unrecognisable as Eric Morley, and Keeley Hawes as Julia Morley. Ifans gets the mannerisms of the impresario spot-on (as illustrated by some real-life footage shown at the end of the film). Also splendid is funny-man Miles Jupp as their “fixer” Clive.
Less successful for me was Greg Kinnear as Bob Hope. Hope clearly has such an unusual moon-shaped face that it’s difficult to find anyone to cast as a lookalike.
Just who is exploiting who here?
There’s no question in my mind that the event, in retrospect, is obscenely inappropriate – even though, bizarrely, it still runs to this day. But my biggest problem with the movie is that it never seems to pin its colours to any particular mast. It clearly illustrates the inappropriateness of Hope’s off-colour jokes and the instruction from host Michael Aspel (Charlie Anson), asking the swimsuit models to “show their rear view” to the audience, is gobsmackingly crass.
However, the script then takes a sympathetic view to the candidates from Grenada, South Africa, etc. who are clearly ‘using their bodies’ to get a leg-up to fame and fortune back in their home countries. (Final scenes showing the woman today, clearly affluent and happy, doesn’t help with that!)
As such, the movie sits magnificently on the fence and never reaches a ‘verdict’.
The racial sub-story.
Equally problematic is the really fascinating racial sub-story: this was an event, held in a UK that was racially far less tolerant than it is today, where no black person had EVER won. Indeed, a win was in most peoples’ eyes unthinkable. This was a time when “black lives didn’t matter”. Here we have Miss Grenada (an excellent Gugu Mbatha-Raw) and the utterly captivating Miss Africa South (a debut performance by Loreece Harrison) threatening to turn the tables . There was surely potential to get a lot more value out of this aspect of the story, but it is generally un-mined.
Perhaps a problem here is that there is so much story potential around this one historical event that there is just too much to fit comfortably into one screenplay. The writers Rebecca Frayn and Gaby Chiappe end up just giving a few bursts on the liquidizer and getting a slightly grey mush.
Nostalgia – it’s not what it used to be.
All this is not to say the movie was a write off. It’s a perfectly pleasant watch and for those (like me) of a certain age, the throwback fashions, vehicles and attitudes deliver a burst of nostalgia for the flawed but rose-coloured days of my first decade on the planet.
But it all feels like a bit of a missed opportunity to properly tackle either one of the two key issues highlighted in the script. As a female-led project (the director is Philippa Lowthorpe) I really wanted this to be good. But I’m afraid for me it’s all a bit “meh”.
If asked “would you like to watch that again?”… I would probably, politely, show my rear view and decline.
The background.
“Misbehaviour” tells the story of this eventful 1970 Miss World competition. It was eventful for a number of reasons: the Women’s Lib movement was rising in popularity, and the event was disrupted a flour-bombing group of women in the audience; the compere Bob Hope did an appallingly misjudged and mysoginistic routine that died a death; and, after significant pressure against the apartheid regime in South Africa, the country surprised the world by sending two entrants to the show – one white (Miss South Africa) and one black (Miss Africa South).
The movie charts the events leading up to that night and some of the fallout that resulted from it.
A strong ensemble cast.
“Misbehaviour” has a great cast.
Leading the women are posh-girl Sally Alexander (Keira Knightley) and punk-girl Jo Robinson (Jessie Buckley). I’m normally a big fan of both of these ladies. But here I never felt either of them connected particularly well with their characters. In particular, Buckley (although delivering as a similar maverick in “Wild Rose“) always felt a bit forced and out of place here.
On the event organisation side is Rhys Ifans, almost unrecognisable as Eric Morley, and Keeley Hawes as Julia Morley. Ifans gets the mannerisms of the impresario spot-on (as illustrated by some real-life footage shown at the end of the film). Also splendid is funny-man Miles Jupp as their “fixer” Clive.
Less successful for me was Greg Kinnear as Bob Hope. Hope clearly has such an unusual moon-shaped face that it’s difficult to find anyone to cast as a lookalike.
Just who is exploiting who here?
There’s no question in my mind that the event, in retrospect, is obscenely inappropriate – even though, bizarrely, it still runs to this day. But my biggest problem with the movie is that it never seems to pin its colours to any particular mast. It clearly illustrates the inappropriateness of Hope’s off-colour jokes and the instruction from host Michael Aspel (Charlie Anson), asking the swimsuit models to “show their rear view” to the audience, is gobsmackingly crass.
However, the script then takes a sympathetic view to the candidates from Grenada, South Africa, etc. who are clearly ‘using their bodies’ to get a leg-up to fame and fortune back in their home countries. (Final scenes showing the woman today, clearly affluent and happy, doesn’t help with that!)
As such, the movie sits magnificently on the fence and never reaches a ‘verdict’.
The racial sub-story.
Equally problematic is the really fascinating racial sub-story: this was an event, held in a UK that was racially far less tolerant than it is today, where no black person had EVER won. Indeed, a win was in most peoples’ eyes unthinkable. This was a time when “black lives didn’t matter”. Here we have Miss Grenada (an excellent Gugu Mbatha-Raw) and the utterly captivating Miss Africa South (a debut performance by Loreece Harrison) threatening to turn the tables . There was surely potential to get a lot more value out of this aspect of the story, but it is generally un-mined.
Perhaps a problem here is that there is so much story potential around this one historical event that there is just too much to fit comfortably into one screenplay. The writers Rebecca Frayn and Gaby Chiappe end up just giving a few bursts on the liquidizer and getting a slightly grey mush.
Nostalgia – it’s not what it used to be.
All this is not to say the movie was a write off. It’s a perfectly pleasant watch and for those (like me) of a certain age, the throwback fashions, vehicles and attitudes deliver a burst of nostalgia for the flawed but rose-coloured days of my first decade on the planet.
But it all feels like a bit of a missed opportunity to properly tackle either one of the two key issues highlighted in the script. As a female-led project (the director is Philippa Lowthorpe) I really wanted this to be good. But I’m afraid for me it’s all a bit “meh”.
If asked “would you like to watch that again?”… I would probably, politely, show my rear view and decline.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated The Giver (2014) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
A Striking visual translation
Over the last decade, cinema-going audiences have had the treat of numerous adaptations of popular young adult novels. Some of them have been particularly great – the Harry Potter series the highlight – whilst others have been less than stellar – Twilight, I’m looking at you.
However, with The Hunger Games on the edge of its tantalising conclusion, director Phillip Noyce introduces teens and adults alike to a whole new world in The Giver, but can it seduce audiences which have already had numerous fantasy worlds to enjoy?
For the most part, yes. Noyce directs this adaptation with extreme visual flair and commands some great performances from the veteran actors, even if the young thespians pale a little in comparison.The-Giver-Brenton-Thwaites-character-poster-691x1024
The Giver follows a community dealing with the aftermath of a brutal conflict. The Elders (people in charge) have been forced to eradicate all feelings, emotion, colour and memories from the past to ensure that this doesn’t happen again. Unfortunately, the plan isn’t fool-proof and one person each generation must be tasked with storing information from the past to ensure the progression of the future.
The book’s intriguing premise brings a striking visual translation. The majority of the picture is shot in black and white which adds to the emotionless atmosphere – just how The Elders want it.
Meryl Streep plays the Chief Elder and despite her limited screen time manages to command each scene she is a part of – though we have come to expect nothing less from the woman who played Margaret Thatcher so beautifully. Jeff Bridges is the title character – The Giver, who manages to impart wisdom to the one teenager each generation.
The teenage characters, despite their constant presence on screen, lack the magic and sparkle of their older counterparts. Brenton Thwaites stars as The Receiver Jonas and is probably the best of the younger stars, though a decent turn by True Blood’s Alexander Skarsgard helps alleviate the offerings somewhat, and there’s even a small role for Taylor Swift.
Despite it’s reasonably small budget of $25million compared to The Hunger Games $78million, the special effects are all of a decent standard. Of course there’s a few lapses here and there in areas were most people would probably never notice, and a few larger issues involving unrealistic space ships – but there isn’t too much to criticise as the striking cinematography is were the eyes are drawn.
Overall, it’s easy to feel sorry for The Giver, it’s come at an awkward time when audiences aren’t ready to get invested in another young adult movie and therefore I predict its box office success will fall short of the quality of the film itself.
The acting is on the whole very good and it’s nice to see Meryl Streep getting her teeth into the role of a villain in a style similar to her role in The Devil Wears Prada, but it all feels a little unsure of itself. Is it a sentimental rom-com or a utopian thriller? Who knows, but it’s definitely worth a watch for the striking visuals alone.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2014/09/24/a-striking-visual-translation-the-giver-review/
However, with The Hunger Games on the edge of its tantalising conclusion, director Phillip Noyce introduces teens and adults alike to a whole new world in The Giver, but can it seduce audiences which have already had numerous fantasy worlds to enjoy?
For the most part, yes. Noyce directs this adaptation with extreme visual flair and commands some great performances from the veteran actors, even if the young thespians pale a little in comparison.The-Giver-Brenton-Thwaites-character-poster-691x1024
The Giver follows a community dealing with the aftermath of a brutal conflict. The Elders (people in charge) have been forced to eradicate all feelings, emotion, colour and memories from the past to ensure that this doesn’t happen again. Unfortunately, the plan isn’t fool-proof and one person each generation must be tasked with storing information from the past to ensure the progression of the future.
The book’s intriguing premise brings a striking visual translation. The majority of the picture is shot in black and white which adds to the emotionless atmosphere – just how The Elders want it.
Meryl Streep plays the Chief Elder and despite her limited screen time manages to command each scene she is a part of – though we have come to expect nothing less from the woman who played Margaret Thatcher so beautifully. Jeff Bridges is the title character – The Giver, who manages to impart wisdom to the one teenager each generation.
The teenage characters, despite their constant presence on screen, lack the magic and sparkle of their older counterparts. Brenton Thwaites stars as The Receiver Jonas and is probably the best of the younger stars, though a decent turn by True Blood’s Alexander Skarsgard helps alleviate the offerings somewhat, and there’s even a small role for Taylor Swift.
Despite it’s reasonably small budget of $25million compared to The Hunger Games $78million, the special effects are all of a decent standard. Of course there’s a few lapses here and there in areas were most people would probably never notice, and a few larger issues involving unrealistic space ships – but there isn’t too much to criticise as the striking cinematography is were the eyes are drawn.
Overall, it’s easy to feel sorry for The Giver, it’s come at an awkward time when audiences aren’t ready to get invested in another young adult movie and therefore I predict its box office success will fall short of the quality of the film itself.
The acting is on the whole very good and it’s nice to see Meryl Streep getting her teeth into the role of a villain in a style similar to her role in The Devil Wears Prada, but it all feels a little unsure of itself. Is it a sentimental rom-com or a utopian thriller? Who knows, but it’s definitely worth a watch for the striking visuals alone.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2014/09/24/a-striking-visual-translation-the-giver-review/
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated 21 Bridges (2019) in Movies
Sep 22, 2020
Direction and Lead Performances elevate a "so-so" script
The world lost a tremendous talent when 44 year old Chadwick Boseman lost his battle with cancer. Whether it was as Jackie Robinson in 42, Thurgood Marshall in THURGOOD or as T'Challa/Black Panther in the Marvel movies, Boseman's charm and charisma lept off the screen and drew you into whatever project he is in.
This charm and charisma is very much in evidence in the by-the-book cops chasing robbers action flick 21 BRIDGES. As the cop chasing "the fugitive", Boseman elevates the proceedings to a level above what this average script had to offer.
Set in NYC, 21 BRIDGES tells the tale of Detective Andre Davis (Bozeman) who must chase down a couple of thieves - and cop killers - before they can escape New York. Told in one night, Davis makes the call to close the "21 Bridges" of the island of Manhattan so the bad guys are stuck on the island.
And...that's the first disappointment with this film, it doesn't do anything with that premise. Do the bad guys try to escape on one of those "21 Bridges"? Nope. The bridges are never really mentioned again...so why call this film "21 Bridges"?
What does work is Boseman's performance. His Davis is competent, honest, smart and earnest and you are drawn into his work. As is the work of the person who is thrust into the action as his partner, Vice Cop Frankie Burns (Sienna Miller). You might roll your eyes when you hear Miller's name for her early career was more about being on the tabloid pages than it was about being on the screen, but she has morphed herself - and her career - into something quite interesting through turns in films like FOXCATCHER and AMERICAN SNIPER and she is as equally interesting as Bozeman in this film. The 2 make a good pair.
The rest of the supporting cast - Taylor Kitsch, Keith David and the great J.K. Simmons - are solid, if not spectacular. But there are 2 standouts. Alexander Siddig (Dr. Bashir in STAR TREK: DEEP SPACE 9) is interesting as the "money launderer" and Stephan James (IF BEALE STREET COULD TALK) is just as charming and charismatic as Bozeman as one of the the thieves on the run. If you are looking for a young, charismatic actor to fill the hole created by Bozeman's death, James could very well fit the bill.
I've mentioned that the script by Adam Mervis and Matthew Michael Carnahan is nothing special, but what is special is the Direction by Brian Kirk (a TV Director of such shows as GAME OF THRONES and LUTHER). This is his Major Motion Picture debut (as far as I could tell) and there were some VERY interesting shots and some taught, tense moments. He'll be a director to watch in the future.
While nothing too special, 21 BRIDGES is better than "good enough" - a cops 'n robbers film that will hold your interest for the relatively quick 1 hour and 39 minute running time.
Letter Grade: B
7 Stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
This charm and charisma is very much in evidence in the by-the-book cops chasing robbers action flick 21 BRIDGES. As the cop chasing "the fugitive", Boseman elevates the proceedings to a level above what this average script had to offer.
Set in NYC, 21 BRIDGES tells the tale of Detective Andre Davis (Bozeman) who must chase down a couple of thieves - and cop killers - before they can escape New York. Told in one night, Davis makes the call to close the "21 Bridges" of the island of Manhattan so the bad guys are stuck on the island.
And...that's the first disappointment with this film, it doesn't do anything with that premise. Do the bad guys try to escape on one of those "21 Bridges"? Nope. The bridges are never really mentioned again...so why call this film "21 Bridges"?
What does work is Boseman's performance. His Davis is competent, honest, smart and earnest and you are drawn into his work. As is the work of the person who is thrust into the action as his partner, Vice Cop Frankie Burns (Sienna Miller). You might roll your eyes when you hear Miller's name for her early career was more about being on the tabloid pages than it was about being on the screen, but she has morphed herself - and her career - into something quite interesting through turns in films like FOXCATCHER and AMERICAN SNIPER and she is as equally interesting as Bozeman in this film. The 2 make a good pair.
The rest of the supporting cast - Taylor Kitsch, Keith David and the great J.K. Simmons - are solid, if not spectacular. But there are 2 standouts. Alexander Siddig (Dr. Bashir in STAR TREK: DEEP SPACE 9) is interesting as the "money launderer" and Stephan James (IF BEALE STREET COULD TALK) is just as charming and charismatic as Bozeman as one of the the thieves on the run. If you are looking for a young, charismatic actor to fill the hole created by Bozeman's death, James could very well fit the bill.
I've mentioned that the script by Adam Mervis and Matthew Michael Carnahan is nothing special, but what is special is the Direction by Brian Kirk (a TV Director of such shows as GAME OF THRONES and LUTHER). This is his Major Motion Picture debut (as far as I could tell) and there were some VERY interesting shots and some taught, tense moments. He'll be a director to watch in the future.
While nothing too special, 21 BRIDGES is better than "good enough" - a cops 'n robbers film that will hold your interest for the relatively quick 1 hour and 39 minute running time.
Letter Grade: B
7 Stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Mank (2020) in Movies
Dec 10, 2020
Cinematography - glorious to look at (1 more)
A fabulous ensemble cast, with Oldham, Seyfried, Arliss and Dance excelling
"Mank" is a biopic slice of the career of Herman Jacob Mankiewicz (Gary Oldman), the Hollywood screenwriter who was the pen behind what is regularly voted by critics as being the greatest movie of all time - "Citizen Kane". "Citizen Kane" was written in 1940 (and released the following year) and much of the action in "Mank" takes place in a retreat in the Mojave desert when Mank, crippled by a full-cast on the leg, has been 'sent' by Orson Welles (Tom Burke) to complete the screenplay without alcohol and other worldly distractions. Helping administer to his writing and care needs are English typist Rita Alexander (Lily Collins) and carer Fraulein Freda (Monika Gossmann). However, although Mank produces brilliant stuff, his speed of progress exasperates his 'minder' and editor John Houseman (Sam Troughton). (Yes, THAT John Houseman, the actor.)
In developing the story, we continuously flash-back six years - - nicely indicated by typed 'script notes' - - to 1934 where Mank is working at MGM studios for Louis B. Mayer (Arliss Howard) and mixing in the circles of millionaire publisher William Randolph Hearst (Charles Dance) and his glamorous young wife, actress Marion Davies (Amanda Seyfried). Allegedly, the "Citizen Kane" script was based on Hearst. But what souring of the relationship could have led to such a stinging betrayal during those six years?
Mank has an embarrassment of acting riches. Mankiewicz is a fascinating character: charismatic, reckless, passionate and the definition of a loose cannon. Basically, a dream for a great actor to portray. And Gary Oldham IS a great actor. After doing Churchill in "Darkest Hour", he here turns in a magnificent performance as the alcoholic writer. Never more so than in a furious tirade at a dinner table late in the film, which will likely be the equivalent to the Churchill "tiger" speech come Oscar time. Surely, there's a Best Actor nomination there?
Equally impressive though are some of the supporting cast.
- Tom Burke - so good as TV's "Strike" - gives a fine impersonation of the great Orson Welles: full of confidence and swagger. It's only a cameo role, but he genuinely 'feels' like the young Welles.
- Amanda Seyfried: It took me almost half of the film to recognize her as Marion Davies, and her performance is pitch perfect - the best of her career in my view, and again Oscar-worthy.
- Arliss Howard for me almost steals the show as the megalomaniac Mayer: his introduction to Mank's brother Joe (Tom Pelphrey) has a memorable "walk with me" walkthrough of the studio with Mayer preaching on the real meaning of MGM and the movies in general. Breathtakingly good.
- But - I said "nearly steals the show".... the guy who made off with it in a swag-bag for me was our own Charles Dance as Hearst. Quietly impressive throughout, he just completely nails it with his "organ-grinder's monkey" speech towards the end of the movie. Probably my favourite monologue of 2020. Chilling. I'd really like to see Dance get a Supporting Actor nomination for this.
The screenplay was originally written by director David Fincher's late father Jack. Jack Fincher died in 2002, and this project has literally been decades in the planning. Mankiewicz has a caustic turn of phrase, and there are laugh-out lines of dialogue scattered throughout the script. "Write hard, aim low" implores Houseman at one point. And my personal favourite: Mank's puncturing of the irony that the Screen Writers Guild has been formed without an apostrophe! A huge LOL!
Aside from the witty dialogue, the script has a nuance to the storytelling that continually surprises. A revelation from Freda about Mank's philanthropic tendencies brings you up short in your face-value impression of his character. And the drivers that engineer the rift between Mankiewicz and Hearst - based around the story of the (fictional) director Shelly Metcalf (Jamie McShane) - are not slapped in your face, but elegantly slipped into your subconscious.
In addition, certain aspects are frustratingly withheld from you. Mank's long-suffering wife (a definition of the phrase) Sara (Tuppence Middleton) only occasionally comes into focus. The only reference to his kids are a crash in the background as they "remodel" the family home. Is the charismatic Mank a faithful husband or a philanderer? Is the relationship with Rita Alexander just professional and platonic (you assume so), or is there more going on? There's a tension there in the storytelling that never quite gets resolved: and that's a good thing.
Mank also has an embarrassment of technical riches. Even from the opening titles, you get the impression that this is a work of genius. All in black and white, and with the appearance of 40's titling, they scroll majestically in the sky and then - after "Charles Dance" - effortlessly scroll down to the desert highway. It's evidence of an attention to detail perhaps forced by lockdown. ("MUM - I'm bored". "Go up to your room and do some more work on that movie then".)
It's deliciously modern, yet retro. I love the fact that the cross-reel "circle" cue-marks appear so prominently... the indicators that the projectionist needs to spin up the next reel. I think they are still used in most modern films, but not as noticeably as in the old films... and this one!
A key contributor to the movie is cinematographer Erik Messerschmidt. Everything looks just BEAUTIFUL, and it is now a big regret that I didn't go to watch this on the big screen after all. Surely there will be a cinematography Oscar nomination for this one. Unbelievably, this is Messerschmidt's debut feature as director of cinematography!
Elsewhere, you can imagine multiple other technical Oscar noms. The tight and effective editing is by Kirk Baxter. And the combination of the glorious production design (Donald Graham Burt) and the costume design (Trish Summerville) make the movie emanate the same nostalgia for Hollywood as did last year's "Once Upon a Time... In Hollywood".... albeit set forty years earlier. Even the music (by the regular team of Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross) might get nominated, since I had to go back and check that it actually HAD music at all: it's subtly unobtrusive and effective.
The only area I had any issue with here was the sound mixing, since I had trouble picking up some of the dialogue.
Although I can gush about this movie as a technical work of art, I'm going to hold off a 10* review on this one. For one reason only. I just didn't feel 100% engaged with the story (at least with a first watch). The illustrious Mrs Movie Man summed it up with the phrase "I just didn't care enough what happened to any of the characters". I think though that this one is sufficiently subtle and cerebral that it deserves another watch.
Will it win Oscars. Yes, for sure. Hell, I would like to put a bet on that "Mank" will top the list of the "most nominations" when they are announced. (Hollywood likes nothing more than a navel-gazing look at its history of course). And an obvious nomination here will be David Fincher for Best Director. But, for me, this falls into a similar bucket as that other black and white multi-Oscar winner of two year's ago "Roma". It's glorious to look at; brilliantly directed; but not a movie I would choose to readily reach for to repeatedly watch again.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/12/10/mank-divines-for-oscar-gold-in-a-sea-of-pyrites/. Thanks.)
In developing the story, we continuously flash-back six years - - nicely indicated by typed 'script notes' - - to 1934 where Mank is working at MGM studios for Louis B. Mayer (Arliss Howard) and mixing in the circles of millionaire publisher William Randolph Hearst (Charles Dance) and his glamorous young wife, actress Marion Davies (Amanda Seyfried). Allegedly, the "Citizen Kane" script was based on Hearst. But what souring of the relationship could have led to such a stinging betrayal during those six years?
Mank has an embarrassment of acting riches. Mankiewicz is a fascinating character: charismatic, reckless, passionate and the definition of a loose cannon. Basically, a dream for a great actor to portray. And Gary Oldham IS a great actor. After doing Churchill in "Darkest Hour", he here turns in a magnificent performance as the alcoholic writer. Never more so than in a furious tirade at a dinner table late in the film, which will likely be the equivalent to the Churchill "tiger" speech come Oscar time. Surely, there's a Best Actor nomination there?
Equally impressive though are some of the supporting cast.
- Tom Burke - so good as TV's "Strike" - gives a fine impersonation of the great Orson Welles: full of confidence and swagger. It's only a cameo role, but he genuinely 'feels' like the young Welles.
- Amanda Seyfried: It took me almost half of the film to recognize her as Marion Davies, and her performance is pitch perfect - the best of her career in my view, and again Oscar-worthy.
- Arliss Howard for me almost steals the show as the megalomaniac Mayer: his introduction to Mank's brother Joe (Tom Pelphrey) has a memorable "walk with me" walkthrough of the studio with Mayer preaching on the real meaning of MGM and the movies in general. Breathtakingly good.
- But - I said "nearly steals the show".... the guy who made off with it in a swag-bag for me was our own Charles Dance as Hearst. Quietly impressive throughout, he just completely nails it with his "organ-grinder's monkey" speech towards the end of the movie. Probably my favourite monologue of 2020. Chilling. I'd really like to see Dance get a Supporting Actor nomination for this.
The screenplay was originally written by director David Fincher's late father Jack. Jack Fincher died in 2002, and this project has literally been decades in the planning. Mankiewicz has a caustic turn of phrase, and there are laugh-out lines of dialogue scattered throughout the script. "Write hard, aim low" implores Houseman at one point. And my personal favourite: Mank's puncturing of the irony that the Screen Writers Guild has been formed without an apostrophe! A huge LOL!
Aside from the witty dialogue, the script has a nuance to the storytelling that continually surprises. A revelation from Freda about Mank's philanthropic tendencies brings you up short in your face-value impression of his character. And the drivers that engineer the rift between Mankiewicz and Hearst - based around the story of the (fictional) director Shelly Metcalf (Jamie McShane) - are not slapped in your face, but elegantly slipped into your subconscious.
In addition, certain aspects are frustratingly withheld from you. Mank's long-suffering wife (a definition of the phrase) Sara (Tuppence Middleton) only occasionally comes into focus. The only reference to his kids are a crash in the background as they "remodel" the family home. Is the charismatic Mank a faithful husband or a philanderer? Is the relationship with Rita Alexander just professional and platonic (you assume so), or is there more going on? There's a tension there in the storytelling that never quite gets resolved: and that's a good thing.
Mank also has an embarrassment of technical riches. Even from the opening titles, you get the impression that this is a work of genius. All in black and white, and with the appearance of 40's titling, they scroll majestically in the sky and then - after "Charles Dance" - effortlessly scroll down to the desert highway. It's evidence of an attention to detail perhaps forced by lockdown. ("MUM - I'm bored". "Go up to your room and do some more work on that movie then".)
It's deliciously modern, yet retro. I love the fact that the cross-reel "circle" cue-marks appear so prominently... the indicators that the projectionist needs to spin up the next reel. I think they are still used in most modern films, but not as noticeably as in the old films... and this one!
A key contributor to the movie is cinematographer Erik Messerschmidt. Everything looks just BEAUTIFUL, and it is now a big regret that I didn't go to watch this on the big screen after all. Surely there will be a cinematography Oscar nomination for this one. Unbelievably, this is Messerschmidt's debut feature as director of cinematography!
Elsewhere, you can imagine multiple other technical Oscar noms. The tight and effective editing is by Kirk Baxter. And the combination of the glorious production design (Donald Graham Burt) and the costume design (Trish Summerville) make the movie emanate the same nostalgia for Hollywood as did last year's "Once Upon a Time... In Hollywood".... albeit set forty years earlier. Even the music (by the regular team of Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross) might get nominated, since I had to go back and check that it actually HAD music at all: it's subtly unobtrusive and effective.
The only area I had any issue with here was the sound mixing, since I had trouble picking up some of the dialogue.
Although I can gush about this movie as a technical work of art, I'm going to hold off a 10* review on this one. For one reason only. I just didn't feel 100% engaged with the story (at least with a first watch). The illustrious Mrs Movie Man summed it up with the phrase "I just didn't care enough what happened to any of the characters". I think though that this one is sufficiently subtle and cerebral that it deserves another watch.
Will it win Oscars. Yes, for sure. Hell, I would like to put a bet on that "Mank" will top the list of the "most nominations" when they are announced. (Hollywood likes nothing more than a navel-gazing look at its history of course). And an obvious nomination here will be David Fincher for Best Director. But, for me, this falls into a similar bucket as that other black and white multi-Oscar winner of two year's ago "Roma". It's glorious to look at; brilliantly directed; but not a movie I would choose to readily reach for to repeatedly watch again.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/12/10/mank-divines-for-oscar-gold-in-a-sea-of-pyrites/. Thanks.)
Paul Chesworth (3 KP) created a post
Feb 20, 2018
Lee Ronaldo recommended Kollaps by Einsturzende Neubauten in Music (curated)
Great writing (1 more)
Unpredictable
Some typos (1 more)
The mom was a waste of a character
In horror books and movies, we often see dolls as the main source of scares( such as Annabelle or Child's Play). In K.R. Alexander's Bury Me we get another scary doll to add to the list with some pretty good spine chilling moments, too.
We start with Kimberly Rice, who is a kid with a vivid imagination that can imagine up anything her heart desires, but because of this, people don't believe her when strange things begin to happen in Copper Hollow. She has two friends named Alicia and James- - -but Kimberly feels like she doesn't fit in with them because they live in houses while she lives in a trailer. "I wait for them to say, Hey, Kimberly, do you want to come over for dinner? They don't. They never have. It hurt my feelings at first, but I got over it fast. They're still my best and only friends, so I can't really complain when they don't have me over to their houses. It's not like I can really invite them over to mine. " Kimberly explains.
Although she states that they are her best friends, there is another part that may suggest otherwise. At first, we read about Kimberly being ashamed of her home although she states she has never tried to invite her friends over - - - as far as we know - - - but during a scene where Kimberly goes over to Alicia's home for help with this doll, Alicia doesn't invite her inside, which Kimberly points out.
But Kimberly's dysfunctional friendships aren't what the story is about. The book is about a doll that suddenly shows up with the words 'bury me' written across its dress in black ink. The perfect setting for a horror story. Kimberly teams up with her friends, Alicia and James, to figure out what this doll wants.
Alicia convinces Kimberly to do what the doll's dress says: 'bury me.' But even after they do this, the doll somehow shows up again, without having disturbed its burial place. They finally begin to question whether or not the doll is possessed by an evil spirit because the doll's mouth moves on its own, making frowns and even seeming to silently scream at one point, and no matter what they do, the doll always comes back completely intact. Yet, the only one the doll seems to be 'haunting' is Kimberly, although James and Alicia participate in trying to get rid of it. Kimberly is also haunted by dreams that aren't exactly her own, but she doesn't reveal these to her friends- - - which doing so may have helped in the long run. As a result, the friends never really figure out how to get rid of the doll, it seems that only Kimberly's dreams can figure this out (it just takes her nearly the entire book to figure it out).
The horror elements in this story are pretty good, but as the book recommended age states, it's for pre-teens. Yet, Alexander did a better job on this than 'The Collector' when it came to those elements. I honestly really enjoyed this book, even as an adult.
We continue with Alicia and James beginning to question Kimberly, thinking that this is just a prank she has come up with because their town is boring: " 'Did you do this?' Alicia asks, looking straight at me. Once more, my heart throbs- - -but this time, with a note of anger.
'Why would I do something like this?' I ask.
'Because Copper Hollow is boring and you're trying to make it fun with another one of your wild stories?' She doesn't sound accusatory; she sounds like she's running out of options that make sense, and she doesn't like that at all. "
Kimberly also has to deal with a history book on Copper Hollow that only shows blank pages to her, even when she shows it to adults, they seem to go into a daze as if the book doesn't even exist to them. Even when she asks the Mayor about this very book, he has no idea what she's speaking of. " I try to change the subject. 'I finished that book. The one about our history.'
'Book? ' Mayor Couch asks. 'What book?'
'The one I showed you.'
He chuckles. 'You and your imagination. I don't remember you showing me a book. ' "
Readers and Kimberly still have no idea what is going half way through the book. "Something weird is going on with him. It makes me wonder. . . is it linked to the doll? Or maybe he just has some sort of memory loss? "
While Kimberly is going through all of this, her mother seems like a wasted character to introduce. She, who is rarely home and works double shifts throughout the entire book, is never there for Kimberly, but also,Kimberly never goes to her mother for help.
The story starts quickly, getting right into the doll appearing, and by the end, we learn something that was not predictable - - -this is good writing. Bury Me is what YA horror books should be: suspense, unpredictable moments and likable characters. And compared to Alexander's first book, The Collector, his story telling is getting better to the point that I am looking forward to reading his other recent books, but hopefully he sticks to telling stories with children and not adults.
I highly recommend this book to fans of R.L. Stine's 'Goosebumps,' because I truly believe we have our next R.L. Stine. Great story, great writing.
We start with Kimberly Rice, who is a kid with a vivid imagination that can imagine up anything her heart desires, but because of this, people don't believe her when strange things begin to happen in Copper Hollow. She has two friends named Alicia and James- - -but Kimberly feels like she doesn't fit in with them because they live in houses while she lives in a trailer. "I wait for them to say, Hey, Kimberly, do you want to come over for dinner? They don't. They never have. It hurt my feelings at first, but I got over it fast. They're still my best and only friends, so I can't really complain when they don't have me over to their houses. It's not like I can really invite them over to mine. " Kimberly explains.
Although she states that they are her best friends, there is another part that may suggest otherwise. At first, we read about Kimberly being ashamed of her home although she states she has never tried to invite her friends over - - - as far as we know - - - but during a scene where Kimberly goes over to Alicia's home for help with this doll, Alicia doesn't invite her inside, which Kimberly points out.
But Kimberly's dysfunctional friendships aren't what the story is about. The book is about a doll that suddenly shows up with the words 'bury me' written across its dress in black ink. The perfect setting for a horror story. Kimberly teams up with her friends, Alicia and James, to figure out what this doll wants.
Alicia convinces Kimberly to do what the doll's dress says: 'bury me.' But even after they do this, the doll somehow shows up again, without having disturbed its burial place. They finally begin to question whether or not the doll is possessed by an evil spirit because the doll's mouth moves on its own, making frowns and even seeming to silently scream at one point, and no matter what they do, the doll always comes back completely intact. Yet, the only one the doll seems to be 'haunting' is Kimberly, although James and Alicia participate in trying to get rid of it. Kimberly is also haunted by dreams that aren't exactly her own, but she doesn't reveal these to her friends- - - which doing so may have helped in the long run. As a result, the friends never really figure out how to get rid of the doll, it seems that only Kimberly's dreams can figure this out (it just takes her nearly the entire book to figure it out).
The horror elements in this story are pretty good, but as the book recommended age states, it's for pre-teens. Yet, Alexander did a better job on this than 'The Collector' when it came to those elements. I honestly really enjoyed this book, even as an adult.
We continue with Alicia and James beginning to question Kimberly, thinking that this is just a prank she has come up with because their town is boring: " 'Did you do this?' Alicia asks, looking straight at me. Once more, my heart throbs- - -but this time, with a note of anger.
'Why would I do something like this?' I ask.
'Because Copper Hollow is boring and you're trying to make it fun with another one of your wild stories?' She doesn't sound accusatory; she sounds like she's running out of options that make sense, and she doesn't like that at all. "
Kimberly also has to deal with a history book on Copper Hollow that only shows blank pages to her, even when she shows it to adults, they seem to go into a daze as if the book doesn't even exist to them. Even when she asks the Mayor about this very book, he has no idea what she's speaking of. " I try to change the subject. 'I finished that book. The one about our history.'
'Book? ' Mayor Couch asks. 'What book?'
'The one I showed you.'
He chuckles. 'You and your imagination. I don't remember you showing me a book. ' "
Readers and Kimberly still have no idea what is going half way through the book. "Something weird is going on with him. It makes me wonder. . . is it linked to the doll? Or maybe he just has some sort of memory loss? "
While Kimberly is going through all of this, her mother seems like a wasted character to introduce. She, who is rarely home and works double shifts throughout the entire book, is never there for Kimberly, but also,Kimberly never goes to her mother for help.
The story starts quickly, getting right into the doll appearing, and by the end, we learn something that was not predictable - - -this is good writing. Bury Me is what YA horror books should be: suspense, unpredictable moments and likable characters. And compared to Alexander's first book, The Collector, his story telling is getting better to the point that I am looking forward to reading his other recent books, but hopefully he sticks to telling stories with children and not adults.
I highly recommend this book to fans of R.L. Stine's 'Goosebumps,' because I truly believe we have our next R.L. Stine. Great story, great writing.