Search
Search results
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Chloe (2010) in Movies
Dec 3, 2019
Decent Beginning Then All Downhill
A woman struggling in her marriage hires a call girl to come on to her husband to see if he will cheat. If Chloe sounds like a recipe for disaster in real life, just wait until I dive into the movie! It’s not a complete failure, but it fails enough for me to highly recommend avoiding it.
Acting: 9
Beginning: 7
All the players are introduced in the first ten minutes doing their respective jobs. You can tell the movie will be shrouded in a bit of mystery. I didn’t hate the way it started, but I was looking for a bit more originality.
Characters: 10
Chloe (Amanda Seyfried) is an intriguing character in and of herself. I was drawn to her and I couldn’t figure out why. Is she crazy? Misunderstood? Is she making everything up? What the hell is with this woman? The other characters are merely a moth to her flame. It’s not to say I didn’t like them, but they would fall flat without Chloe at the helm.
Cinematography/Visuals: 9
As you’re watching this movie, you definitely get the erotic thriller feel which I think is exactly what director Atom Egoyan is going for. There are certain scenes that seem to jump off the screen with sensuality and intrigue. It keeps your eyes rooted to the screen while little details are shot to keep you guessing.
Conflict: 7
Entertainment Value: 7
Memorability: 6
Pace: 6
Plot: 3
Remember my description in the opening paragraph? Yeah, it somehow manages to get even dumber than that. It’s a shame because I think the movie definitely could have been redeemed with a slightly better storyline.
Resolution: 5
Overall: 69
Going back over my notes for Chloe, I notice I have a lot of whats, whys, and hows. That’s usually not a good sign. Few loops were closed here which is a burden for a viewer already sitting through a wandering story. Close, but no cigar.
Acting: 9
Beginning: 7
All the players are introduced in the first ten minutes doing their respective jobs. You can tell the movie will be shrouded in a bit of mystery. I didn’t hate the way it started, but I was looking for a bit more originality.
Characters: 10
Chloe (Amanda Seyfried) is an intriguing character in and of herself. I was drawn to her and I couldn’t figure out why. Is she crazy? Misunderstood? Is she making everything up? What the hell is with this woman? The other characters are merely a moth to her flame. It’s not to say I didn’t like them, but they would fall flat without Chloe at the helm.
Cinematography/Visuals: 9
As you’re watching this movie, you definitely get the erotic thriller feel which I think is exactly what director Atom Egoyan is going for. There are certain scenes that seem to jump off the screen with sensuality and intrigue. It keeps your eyes rooted to the screen while little details are shot to keep you guessing.
Conflict: 7
Entertainment Value: 7
Memorability: 6
Pace: 6
Plot: 3
Remember my description in the opening paragraph? Yeah, it somehow manages to get even dumber than that. It’s a shame because I think the movie definitely could have been redeemed with a slightly better storyline.
Resolution: 5
Overall: 69
Going back over my notes for Chloe, I notice I have a lot of whats, whys, and hows. That’s usually not a good sign. Few loops were closed here which is a burden for a viewer already sitting through a wandering story. Close, but no cigar.
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated Mr. Popper's Penguins (2011) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
A loosely based modern retelling of the beloved 1939 classic book by Florence and Richard Atwater, Mr. Popper Penguin’s tells the story of Tom Popper (Jim Carrey) a successful New York real estate developer, who is focused on becoming a partner in his company.
One day Tom finds out his father has passed away and left him a gift. To his surprise he inherits six penguins (Captain, Loudy, Bitey, Stinky, Lovey and Nimrod) from his father. With a serious case of resentment towards his father’s absent role in his life and the hindrance it puts on his lifestyle and work.
Mr. Popper tries every avenue he possibly can to get rid of the penguins. Once the flock is introduced to his children, he realizes he has no choice but to keep them. As the movie progresses on, we see Mr. Popper bonding with the penguins, teaching them how dance, going to the potty and also learning from them how to be a better person. He realizes that there are more important things in life than work, money and power. He begins spending more time with his children and tries to rekindle his relationship with his ex wife, Amanda (Carla Gugino) and less time focused on work.
I tend to see a common thread in some of Jim Carrey’s characters; he plays a guy who neglects the people he loves because of his work, for example, Liar Liar and Bruce Almighty. In this movie, Carrey is back with his usual physical slapstick comedy, however Mr. Popper’s Penguins is definitely a toned down version of Carrey’s ever so hilarious Ace Ventura: Pet Detective role. You can’t help but laugh at the shenanigans and charm of these amazing penguins as well as Jim Carrey’s ability to find the humor in the most uncomfortable situations. If you can get past Mr. Popper’s assistant Pippi (Ophelia Lovibond) and her positively unpleasant practice of perpetually trying to use words that start with the letter P, there are some great laugh out loud moments the whole family will love.
One day Tom finds out his father has passed away and left him a gift. To his surprise he inherits six penguins (Captain, Loudy, Bitey, Stinky, Lovey and Nimrod) from his father. With a serious case of resentment towards his father’s absent role in his life and the hindrance it puts on his lifestyle and work.
Mr. Popper tries every avenue he possibly can to get rid of the penguins. Once the flock is introduced to his children, he realizes he has no choice but to keep them. As the movie progresses on, we see Mr. Popper bonding with the penguins, teaching them how dance, going to the potty and also learning from them how to be a better person. He realizes that there are more important things in life than work, money and power. He begins spending more time with his children and tries to rekindle his relationship with his ex wife, Amanda (Carla Gugino) and less time focused on work.
I tend to see a common thread in some of Jim Carrey’s characters; he plays a guy who neglects the people he loves because of his work, for example, Liar Liar and Bruce Almighty. In this movie, Carrey is back with his usual physical slapstick comedy, however Mr. Popper’s Penguins is definitely a toned down version of Carrey’s ever so hilarious Ace Ventura: Pet Detective role. You can’t help but laugh at the shenanigans and charm of these amazing penguins as well as Jim Carrey’s ability to find the humor in the most uncomfortable situations. If you can get past Mr. Popper’s assistant Pippi (Ophelia Lovibond) and her positively unpleasant practice of perpetually trying to use words that start with the letter P, there are some great laugh out loud moments the whole family will love.
Mark Jaye (65 KP) rated Suicide Squad (2016) in Movies
May 14, 2019
Contains spoilers, click to show
I'll say from the outset, I'm a lifelong comic book fan. During my teenage years back in the 80's I collected John Ostrander's Suicide Squad title and absolutely loved it. It was always a given for me therefore that I would jump at the prospect of a movie based on my favourite title.
You know the synopsis I'm guessing (if you're reading this review) - government official Amanda Waller assembles a group of the baddest incarcerated criminals to go up against the potential of a metahuman crisis should the 'next' Superman not share our values. This is deemed more relevant following the demise of the man of steel himself at the climax of Dawn Of Justice. Amongst those villains are Deadshot (Will Smith), Harley Quinn (Margot Robbie), Captain Boomerang (Jai Courtney), El Diablo (Jay Hernandez), and Enchantress/Dr June Moone (Carla Delevigne). Heading up the group is Colonel Rick Flagg (Joel Kinnaman), albeit reluctantly.
The story essentially revolves around Enchantress going rogue and converting a subway station in Midway City into a warzone as she resurrects her brother Incubus and the two attempt to destroy the world. The only criticism I have with the movie concerns the simplicity within which Enchantress 'turns' on the group shortly after it is her actions that cause the senate committee to approve the founding of Task Force X only a couple of scenes earlier in the movie. It just feels a bit rushed. It's also interesting to note that the events of the movie would never have taken place had Waller not established her little 'pet project' to begin with!
The dialogue is witty and sharp and the characters are highly likeable (despite them being arch-villains and - in some cases, murderers). Will Smith is the core of the group as Deadshot and his cold-bloodedness as an assassin is softened by the connection he has to his daughter (how the audience is expected no doubt to warm to him?). Joel Kinnaman's Rick Flagg is also key to the story's heart with his flawed relationship with Dr June Moone - Enchantress's alter ego. Margot Robbie is superb as Harley Quinn although at times it seems as if her rear's the star of the show.
What do I need to say about Jared Leto that hasn't been said before? You'll either love or hate his portrayal of Mr.J!
You know the synopsis I'm guessing (if you're reading this review) - government official Amanda Waller assembles a group of the baddest incarcerated criminals to go up against the potential of a metahuman crisis should the 'next' Superman not share our values. This is deemed more relevant following the demise of the man of steel himself at the climax of Dawn Of Justice. Amongst those villains are Deadshot (Will Smith), Harley Quinn (Margot Robbie), Captain Boomerang (Jai Courtney), El Diablo (Jay Hernandez), and Enchantress/Dr June Moone (Carla Delevigne). Heading up the group is Colonel Rick Flagg (Joel Kinnaman), albeit reluctantly.
The story essentially revolves around Enchantress going rogue and converting a subway station in Midway City into a warzone as she resurrects her brother Incubus and the two attempt to destroy the world. The only criticism I have with the movie concerns the simplicity within which Enchantress 'turns' on the group shortly after it is her actions that cause the senate committee to approve the founding of Task Force X only a couple of scenes earlier in the movie. It just feels a bit rushed. It's also interesting to note that the events of the movie would never have taken place had Waller not established her little 'pet project' to begin with!
The dialogue is witty and sharp and the characters are highly likeable (despite them being arch-villains and - in some cases, murderers). Will Smith is the core of the group as Deadshot and his cold-bloodedness as an assassin is softened by the connection he has to his daughter (how the audience is expected no doubt to warm to him?). Joel Kinnaman's Rick Flagg is also key to the story's heart with his flawed relationship with Dr June Moone - Enchantress's alter ego. Margot Robbie is superb as Harley Quinn although at times it seems as if her rear's the star of the show.
What do I need to say about Jared Leto that hasn't been said before? You'll either love or hate his portrayal of Mr.J!
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Mamma Mia: Here We Go Again! (2018) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
I had a dream. A sob. A sing.
You remember in “Aliens” when Ripley (Sigourney Weaver) fought through hell and high water against that “bitch” to protect the youngster Newt (Carrie Henn)? And then how betrayed you felt in that emotional investment at the start of “Alien 3”?
Which brings us spoiler-free to the start of “Mamma Mia! Here We Go Again”, typically shortened by everyone to “Mamma Mia 2”, the sequel to the enormously successful cheese-fest (and Bros-fest) that was the first film, now – unbelievably – 10 years old.
Sophie (Amanda Seyfried) is trying to open the Bella Donna hotel on that magical Greek island separated from her husband Sky (Dominic Cooper) who is learning the tips of the hotel trade in New York. As preparations for the opening party progress we flash back to the back-story of Donna (as a post-graduate played by Lily James) as she meets Harry (Hugh Skinner, “The Windsors”, “W1A”), Bill (Josh Dylan, “Allied”) and Sam (Jeremy Irvine, “War Horse”) en route to Greece.
If you remember the first film and thought Donna (Meryl Streep) was a bit of a… erm… ‘loose woman’, then this plot point could have been amplified by seeing the “dot, dot, dot” acts in the flesh, as it were. Fortunately, in steps Lily James as the young Donna who is so mesmerisingly gorgeous and vivacious that you can forgive her just about anything. “Beguiling” was the description my better half came up with, and I couldn’t describe her better. Supporting her effectively are Alexa Davies (as the young version of Julie Walters‘ character) and Jessica Keenan Wynn (as the young version of Christine Baranski‘s character). The trio’s exuberant performance of “When I Kissed the Teacher” sets the tone well for the grin-fest to follow. (By the way, if you are a Mary Poppins fan then a bit of trivia is that Wynn is the great-granddaughter of Ed Wynn, the character who “Loved to Laugh” on the ceiling!).
In these days of drought, Trump vs the world, Brexit and universal bruhaha, this is a much-needed joyful film, and far better I would say than the original. A good story, well executed and stuffed with excellent tunes. True, apart from a number of key repeats, we are more in the territory – in CD terms – of “More Abba Gold” than “Abba Gold”, but Bjorn and Benny’s B-sides are still better than many other’s A-sides. What’s really nice is that the songs are well chosen to mesh better into the story and the lead singing of Seyfried and James is uniformly excellent. Pierce Brosnan gets to sing (no, no, come back!) but it is cleverly low-key and genuinely touching. And as for Celia Imrie, you’re a legend and we forgive you!
It’s also far better at finding both humour and pathos than the original, with the splendid Hugh Skinner exhibiting perfect comic timing and comedian Omid Djalili being very funny (stay to the end of the end-credits for a very funny monkey). National treasure Julie Walters also adds excellent comic content, particularly in a number of dance scenes.
And as for the pathos, if the duet at the finale doesn’t move you to tears you are either made of rock or are immune to being shamelessly manipulated! It’s a well-scripted convergence of grief and joy (I feel Richard Curtis‘s hand in the story here) around one of Abba’s most beautifully tear-jerking songs. I will admit to you – don’t tell anyone else – that I was left in a complete mess… another reason to sit through the end titles!
At the elderly end of the cast list Andy Garcia is magnificent as the South American hotel manager Mr Cienfuegos (you’ll NEVER guess what his first name is!) and Cher (“Moonstruck”) literally rocks up trying hard to steal the show as Sophie’s Vegas superstar grandmother.
Directed and scripted by “Best Exotic Marigold Hotel” director Ol Parker (the lucky guy who is married to Thandie Newton!) it drips with cheese again, but who cares when it is so stylishly done. Should you see this? The test is simple: if you hated “Mamma Mia” then you will hate this one; if you loved “Mamma Mia” you will simply adore this one.
Which brings us spoiler-free to the start of “Mamma Mia! Here We Go Again”, typically shortened by everyone to “Mamma Mia 2”, the sequel to the enormously successful cheese-fest (and Bros-fest) that was the first film, now – unbelievably – 10 years old.
Sophie (Amanda Seyfried) is trying to open the Bella Donna hotel on that magical Greek island separated from her husband Sky (Dominic Cooper) who is learning the tips of the hotel trade in New York. As preparations for the opening party progress we flash back to the back-story of Donna (as a post-graduate played by Lily James) as she meets Harry (Hugh Skinner, “The Windsors”, “W1A”), Bill (Josh Dylan, “Allied”) and Sam (Jeremy Irvine, “War Horse”) en route to Greece.
If you remember the first film and thought Donna (Meryl Streep) was a bit of a… erm… ‘loose woman’, then this plot point could have been amplified by seeing the “dot, dot, dot” acts in the flesh, as it were. Fortunately, in steps Lily James as the young Donna who is so mesmerisingly gorgeous and vivacious that you can forgive her just about anything. “Beguiling” was the description my better half came up with, and I couldn’t describe her better. Supporting her effectively are Alexa Davies (as the young version of Julie Walters‘ character) and Jessica Keenan Wynn (as the young version of Christine Baranski‘s character). The trio’s exuberant performance of “When I Kissed the Teacher” sets the tone well for the grin-fest to follow. (By the way, if you are a Mary Poppins fan then a bit of trivia is that Wynn is the great-granddaughter of Ed Wynn, the character who “Loved to Laugh” on the ceiling!).
In these days of drought, Trump vs the world, Brexit and universal bruhaha, this is a much-needed joyful film, and far better I would say than the original. A good story, well executed and stuffed with excellent tunes. True, apart from a number of key repeats, we are more in the territory – in CD terms – of “More Abba Gold” than “Abba Gold”, but Bjorn and Benny’s B-sides are still better than many other’s A-sides. What’s really nice is that the songs are well chosen to mesh better into the story and the lead singing of Seyfried and James is uniformly excellent. Pierce Brosnan gets to sing (no, no, come back!) but it is cleverly low-key and genuinely touching. And as for Celia Imrie, you’re a legend and we forgive you!
It’s also far better at finding both humour and pathos than the original, with the splendid Hugh Skinner exhibiting perfect comic timing and comedian Omid Djalili being very funny (stay to the end of the end-credits for a very funny monkey). National treasure Julie Walters also adds excellent comic content, particularly in a number of dance scenes.
And as for the pathos, if the duet at the finale doesn’t move you to tears you are either made of rock or are immune to being shamelessly manipulated! It’s a well-scripted convergence of grief and joy (I feel Richard Curtis‘s hand in the story here) around one of Abba’s most beautifully tear-jerking songs. I will admit to you – don’t tell anyone else – that I was left in a complete mess… another reason to sit through the end titles!
At the elderly end of the cast list Andy Garcia is magnificent as the South American hotel manager Mr Cienfuegos (you’ll NEVER guess what his first name is!) and Cher (“Moonstruck”) literally rocks up trying hard to steal the show as Sophie’s Vegas superstar grandmother.
Directed and scripted by “Best Exotic Marigold Hotel” director Ol Parker (the lucky guy who is married to Thandie Newton!) it drips with cheese again, but who cares when it is so stylishly done. Should you see this? The test is simple: if you hated “Mamma Mia” then you will hate this one; if you loved “Mamma Mia” you will simply adore this one.
JT (287 KP) rated Easy A (2010) in Movies
Mar 10, 2020
Flat, dull and lacking in any laughs. Harsh this verdict might be, but I’m afraid it is about the long and the short of it. As Indie films go this does little to highlight those credentials bestowed on other greats such as Clueless or Sixteen Candles. The lovely Emma Stone whose turn in Superbad put her on the road to stardom is short of her best, and at times is cringe worthily bad.
Olive (Stone) is a well liked pupil at high school, but when a little white lie about losing her virginity gets the rumour mill going she is singled out as, well, quite simply a slut.
Drawing on comparisons to The Scarlet Letter, which happens to be one of the books she is studying she takes it upon herself to brandish her attire with the letter A, for adulterer, as well as using her new found status to milk a little money from desperate males keen to move a level or two up the social ladder.
As Indie films go this does little to highlight those credentials bestowed on other greats such as Clueless or Sixteen Candles
Some have compared this to the best teen comedy since Clueless, well forget it, Director Will Gluck does little to inject this film with any laughs whatsoever, and any dramatic interludes seem bland. If anything the characters are somewhat annoying, ranging from Amanda Bynes’s devout Christian who is not really a good advert for all things religious to Olive’s best bud Rhiannon (Aly Michalka) by far and away one of the worst acting performances I have seen for some time.
Even the inclusion of Friends star (yes she’ll always have that tag) Lisa Kudrow as the school councillor or Thomas Haden Church as her teacher husband do little to offer the overall outcome of the plot. Perhaps one of the few shinning lights are Olive’s parents Dill and Rosemary (aptly named), Stanley Tucci and Patricia Clarkson respectively, whose care free guide to parenting should be noted for today’s modern age.
If Gluck thinks he can walk in the same footsteps of a John Hughes master class he is going to have to come up with something better than this. Hughes himself was the Godfather of the teenage comedy for the likes of The Breakfast Club and not forgetting for a second Ferris Bueller’s Day Off.
Easy A tries to hard to follow in the footsteps of the above and even Olive herself references them during the film, with an ending that hardly screams of originality, unless they are paying homage to 80s teen comedies.
Openly, its not good, confused and lost for long periods Stone does her utmost to pull anything back but it ain’t working for her or Gluck here.
Olive (Stone) is a well liked pupil at high school, but when a little white lie about losing her virginity gets the rumour mill going she is singled out as, well, quite simply a slut.
Drawing on comparisons to The Scarlet Letter, which happens to be one of the books she is studying she takes it upon herself to brandish her attire with the letter A, for adulterer, as well as using her new found status to milk a little money from desperate males keen to move a level or two up the social ladder.
As Indie films go this does little to highlight those credentials bestowed on other greats such as Clueless or Sixteen Candles
Some have compared this to the best teen comedy since Clueless, well forget it, Director Will Gluck does little to inject this film with any laughs whatsoever, and any dramatic interludes seem bland. If anything the characters are somewhat annoying, ranging from Amanda Bynes’s devout Christian who is not really a good advert for all things religious to Olive’s best bud Rhiannon (Aly Michalka) by far and away one of the worst acting performances I have seen for some time.
Even the inclusion of Friends star (yes she’ll always have that tag) Lisa Kudrow as the school councillor or Thomas Haden Church as her teacher husband do little to offer the overall outcome of the plot. Perhaps one of the few shinning lights are Olive’s parents Dill and Rosemary (aptly named), Stanley Tucci and Patricia Clarkson respectively, whose care free guide to parenting should be noted for today’s modern age.
If Gluck thinks he can walk in the same footsteps of a John Hughes master class he is going to have to come up with something better than this. Hughes himself was the Godfather of the teenage comedy for the likes of The Breakfast Club and not forgetting for a second Ferris Bueller’s Day Off.
Easy A tries to hard to follow in the footsteps of the above and even Olive herself references them during the film, with an ending that hardly screams of originality, unless they are paying homage to 80s teen comedies.
Openly, its not good, confused and lost for long periods Stone does her utmost to pull anything back but it ain’t working for her or Gluck here.
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated Black Adam (2022) in Movies
Oct 21, 2022
Dwayne Johnson jumps into the DC Universe with “Black Adam” which sees the
star departs from his usual hero roles to play a part that has his
character walking the line between good and bad.
When he is awaked nearly 5,000 years after he helped defeat a tyrant and
free his people, the magically powered Black Adam returns to the modern
world to find his homeland under the occupation of mercenaries with a
shoot first mentality.
Naturally, this does not sit well with Black Adam and him easily and
brutally dispatches the enemies he faces and in doing so comes onto the
radar of Amanda Waller (Viola Davis) who dispatches members of the Justice
Society to bring him in.
Knowing that a 5,000-year-old with god-like powers are not going to go
easily, Waller dispatches Hackman (Aldis Hodge), Doctor Fate (Pierce
Brosnan), Atom Smasher (Noah Centineo), and Cyclone (Maxine Hunkel), to
convince him to say the word which will remove his powers and come along
to detainment.
Knowing this is a bad plan, the group pushes forward with their mission
and this results in some protracted combat with moments of attempting to
reason with Black Adam.
It is learned that the mercenaries are after an ancient crown which a
professor named Shirt (Odelya Halevi), has recovered and this has placed
her and her son in great danger from forces who will stop at nothing to
obtain in.
Fans of comics and adventure movies likely will see where this is heading
as characters must form uneasy alliances to save the day from those
looking to rule the world through chaos and evil and an extended FX-laden
finale follows.
While the film was better than it looked to be from the trailers, the movie dragged in several places and never really offered up much in the way of twists or standout content from the story.
The saving grace was cast which was solid and Johnson seems to be going
all-in on his performance and it was enjoyable to see despite the flaws
with the story and at times pacing of the film.
While it does not reach the heights of many of the MCU films, “Black Adam”
is an enjoyable adventure and a great introduction to the character. As
long as you are willing to work with the issues of the film and simply
enjoy the great cast and action, you will likely have a good time,
It was also refreshing to see a locale and supporting characters who were
not from a glittering urban city and it added a nice change and diversity
to the film.
There were reports that the film had to be edited from an R- rating and some scenes do imply darker and gorier sequences were originally planned.
Make sure to stay through the credits for a bonus scene and here is hoping
that we see Black Adam back soon.
star departs from his usual hero roles to play a part that has his
character walking the line between good and bad.
When he is awaked nearly 5,000 years after he helped defeat a tyrant and
free his people, the magically powered Black Adam returns to the modern
world to find his homeland under the occupation of mercenaries with a
shoot first mentality.
Naturally, this does not sit well with Black Adam and him easily and
brutally dispatches the enemies he faces and in doing so comes onto the
radar of Amanda Waller (Viola Davis) who dispatches members of the Justice
Society to bring him in.
Knowing that a 5,000-year-old with god-like powers are not going to go
easily, Waller dispatches Hackman (Aldis Hodge), Doctor Fate (Pierce
Brosnan), Atom Smasher (Noah Centineo), and Cyclone (Maxine Hunkel), to
convince him to say the word which will remove his powers and come along
to detainment.
Knowing this is a bad plan, the group pushes forward with their mission
and this results in some protracted combat with moments of attempting to
reason with Black Adam.
It is learned that the mercenaries are after an ancient crown which a
professor named Shirt (Odelya Halevi), has recovered and this has placed
her and her son in great danger from forces who will stop at nothing to
obtain in.
Fans of comics and adventure movies likely will see where this is heading
as characters must form uneasy alliances to save the day from those
looking to rule the world through chaos and evil and an extended FX-laden
finale follows.
While the film was better than it looked to be from the trailers, the movie dragged in several places and never really offered up much in the way of twists or standout content from the story.
The saving grace was cast which was solid and Johnson seems to be going
all-in on his performance and it was enjoyable to see despite the flaws
with the story and at times pacing of the film.
While it does not reach the heights of many of the MCU films, “Black Adam”
is an enjoyable adventure and a great introduction to the character. As
long as you are willing to work with the issues of the film and simply
enjoy the great cast and action, you will likely have a good time,
It was also refreshing to see a locale and supporting characters who were
not from a glittering urban city and it added a nice change and diversity
to the film.
There were reports that the film had to be edited from an R- rating and some scenes do imply darker and gorier sequences were originally planned.
Make sure to stay through the credits for a bonus scene and here is hoping
that we see Black Adam back soon.
Ryan Hill (152 KP) rated Suicide Squad (2016) in Movies
May 9, 2019 (Updated May 26, 2019)
"Oh, I'm not gonna kill you... I'm just gonna hurt you really, really bad."
Suicide Squad, aka Suicide Squandered, was one of my most anticipated movies of 2016. It would bring back to the big screen one of the most iconic comic book characters, Mr. J, and Harley Quinn would make her long awaited movie debut. It also promised to offer a different approach on the superhero genre, as it would star the villains instead of the good guys.
However, the movie delivers much less than what it teases. It begins on a high note, by introducing some characters in a fun, energetic and fast-paced way, in spite of the messy editing that makes these segments look like mini trailers. It goes downhill from there, showing only a couple of scenes more that could justify all the love these superhero movies get. Ultimately, what distinguishes these sequences from the mediocre ones are the characters in them and whether the audience cares for them or not.
Displaying some information on the screen about certain characters or telling their backstory doesn't necessarily contribute to their development, nor to the knowledge the viewer has about them. Therefore, it's impossible to care about all the characters and only those who are played by the (more) famous actors have any meaning to the audience.
Will Smith's Deadshot is the best of the bunch. Smith has this unique ability to deliver comedic lines that many comedians wish they had. His charisma drives most of the movie and so does his character's motivation. Right now, he could be the only character capable of leading a franchise of his own. Deadshot ended up establishing a mildly interesting dynamic with Joel Kinnaman's forgettable Rick Flag.
Margot Robbie's Harley Quinn is the other character we end up caring about. Robbie provides a fantastic performance and hits all the right notes. Her amazing backstory is only slightly explored and it has potential for a future psychological thriller movie. With the right script and direction, it could be an incredible film. People have already talked about her body and I can only add that she could possibly be right below Kate Hudson's Penny Lane on the sexiest female movie characters. She could.
I love all sorts of crazy and psychotic performances on screen. In fact, one of my favourites is Gary Oldman's in Leon. Jared Leto delivers another one of those performances. It's truly stellar, I loved his interpretation of the Joker and I believe Leto can still receive high praise for his extraordinary efforts. It could happen in the form of that Batman movie, by Matt Reeves.
Just to conclude my thought on the performances, I would like to add that Viola Davis is an excellent Amanda Waller, even more menacing that Cara Delevingne's witch, more on that later. Jai Courtney was great , he got all the best jokes. Jay Hernandez sounds a lot like Jon Bernthal's Frank Castle, doesn't he? His Diablo is the best character, out of the less interesting ones. I love Katana from CW's Arrow and it was disappointing to see that the screenwriters didn't care about her, even more so because Karen Fukuhara seems perfect for the role. Killer Croc has the best entrance on water ever.
A movie is as good as its villain, right? Indeed. Cara Delevingne's Enchantress could very well be the worst movie villain ever. Malekith is relegated to second place. Honestly, I don't know who's to blame. Sure, Delevingne's acting isn't top-notch, but the screenwriters made her dance (?) in a weird way and her voice is laughable. The final result is ridiculous and by far the worst aspect of the movie.
While Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice was a dark film and proud to 'own that shit', Suicide Squad is ashamed to exhibit that dark side, which results in confusing tone shifts. One moment, it's clearly a DC movie, and another, it is a Marvel family friendly one. Therefore, the comedy sometimes doesn't land, at all. Besides, I also didn't find anything special about the way the action was shot. It was generic stuff, mostly.
Suicide Squad is a huge waste of potential, that could have benefited from some character development and sharp editing. Its greatest strenght is undoubtedly the work done by the talented cast. Could a different cut fix some of these issues? Probably, yes. I was going to attribute 6 stars to this, but a second watch didn't help, either. By the way, what was your favourite sequence? Spoiler alert: mine was the one in which Joker jumps into the acid to Harley.
However, the movie delivers much less than what it teases. It begins on a high note, by introducing some characters in a fun, energetic and fast-paced way, in spite of the messy editing that makes these segments look like mini trailers. It goes downhill from there, showing only a couple of scenes more that could justify all the love these superhero movies get. Ultimately, what distinguishes these sequences from the mediocre ones are the characters in them and whether the audience cares for them or not.
Displaying some information on the screen about certain characters or telling their backstory doesn't necessarily contribute to their development, nor to the knowledge the viewer has about them. Therefore, it's impossible to care about all the characters and only those who are played by the (more) famous actors have any meaning to the audience.
Will Smith's Deadshot is the best of the bunch. Smith has this unique ability to deliver comedic lines that many comedians wish they had. His charisma drives most of the movie and so does his character's motivation. Right now, he could be the only character capable of leading a franchise of his own. Deadshot ended up establishing a mildly interesting dynamic with Joel Kinnaman's forgettable Rick Flag.
Margot Robbie's Harley Quinn is the other character we end up caring about. Robbie provides a fantastic performance and hits all the right notes. Her amazing backstory is only slightly explored and it has potential for a future psychological thriller movie. With the right script and direction, it could be an incredible film. People have already talked about her body and I can only add that she could possibly be right below Kate Hudson's Penny Lane on the sexiest female movie characters. She could.
I love all sorts of crazy and psychotic performances on screen. In fact, one of my favourites is Gary Oldman's in Leon. Jared Leto delivers another one of those performances. It's truly stellar, I loved his interpretation of the Joker and I believe Leto can still receive high praise for his extraordinary efforts. It could happen in the form of that Batman movie, by Matt Reeves.
Just to conclude my thought on the performances, I would like to add that Viola Davis is an excellent Amanda Waller, even more menacing that Cara Delevingne's witch, more on that later. Jai Courtney was great , he got all the best jokes. Jay Hernandez sounds a lot like Jon Bernthal's Frank Castle, doesn't he? His Diablo is the best character, out of the less interesting ones. I love Katana from CW's Arrow and it was disappointing to see that the screenwriters didn't care about her, even more so because Karen Fukuhara seems perfect for the role. Killer Croc has the best entrance on water ever.
A movie is as good as its villain, right? Indeed. Cara Delevingne's Enchantress could very well be the worst movie villain ever. Malekith is relegated to second place. Honestly, I don't know who's to blame. Sure, Delevingne's acting isn't top-notch, but the screenwriters made her dance (?) in a weird way and her voice is laughable. The final result is ridiculous and by far the worst aspect of the movie.
While Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice was a dark film and proud to 'own that shit', Suicide Squad is ashamed to exhibit that dark side, which results in confusing tone shifts. One moment, it's clearly a DC movie, and another, it is a Marvel family friendly one. Therefore, the comedy sometimes doesn't land, at all. Besides, I also didn't find anything special about the way the action was shot. It was generic stuff, mostly.
Suicide Squad is a huge waste of potential, that could have benefited from some character development and sharp editing. Its greatest strenght is undoubtedly the work done by the talented cast. Could a different cut fix some of these issues? Probably, yes. I was going to attribute 6 stars to this, but a second watch didn't help, either. By the way, what was your favourite sequence? Spoiler alert: mine was the one in which Joker jumps into the acid to Harley.
Matthew Krueger (10051 KP) rated Fright Night (1985) in Movies
Oct 30, 2020
You Can't Murder a Vampire
Fright Night- is a excellent vampire movie. Directed by Tom Holland. It has comedy, horror, lots of gory and Peter Vincent.
The plot: Teenage Charley Brewster (William Ragsdale) is a horror-film junkie, so it's no surprise that, when a reclusive new neighbor named Jerry Dandridge (Chris Sarandon) moves next-door, Brewster becomes convinced he is a vampire. It's also no surprise when nobody believes him. However, after strange events begin to occur, Charlie has no choice but to turn to the only person who could possibly help: washed-up television vampire killer Peter Vincent (Roddy McDowall).
While writing the script for Cloak & Dagger, Tom Holland amused himself when he conceived the idea of a horror-movie fan becoming convinced that his next-door neighbor was a vampire, but he did not initially think this premise was enough to sustain a story. "What's he gonna do", Holland asked, "because everybody's gonna think he's mad!"
The Peter Vincent character was named after horror icons Peter Cushing and Vincent Price, and Holland specifically wrote the part for Price, but at this point in his career, Price had been so badly typecast that he had stopped accepting roles in horror movies.
Holland and McDowall built a lasting friendship, and McDowall eventually invited Holland to a dinner party where he introduced him to Vincent Price, who was flattered that the part was an homage to him and commented that the film "was wonderful and he thought Roddy did a wonderful job."
Once his cast was in place, Holland got input from each of the actors and made numerous revisions to the script. Some were slight and others were major – such as the ending, which originally featured Peter Vincent transforming into a vampire as he returned to host Fright Night.
The cast could only wear them for a maximum of 20 minutes because they were virtually blind in them, and they were thick and painful, and dried out their eyes. A set was made for Stark to wear when he was in his final pursuit of Peter and Charley, but he kept tripping on the stairs. Holland told him to take one out, and he was then able to perform the scene.
Three sets were made for Amanda Bearse, but one of them caused her agonizing pain, which she initially tried to endure. When it finally became too much to bear, she took the contacts out and the crew realized they had forgotten to buff them. For the scene in Mrs. Brewster's bedroom, Geoffreys kept his contacts in for nearly 40 minutes, resulting in scratches on his eyeballs for months afterward.
For the transformation sequences, up to 8 hours were needed to prepare Sarandon's makeup.
The makeup for Evil Ed's wolf transformation took 18 hours.
On Christmas Eve, during the shooting of a scene where he is running down a staircase, Ragsdale accidentally tripped and broke his ankle, resulting in the film being temporarily put on a hold until he could recover. "
Many scenes were shot with his foot in a cast, including the scene in which Jerry comes to Charley's room to attack him. For shots in which Charley's feet were visible, the costumers slit Ragsdale's shoes in several places, slipped them on and then covered the portions of white cast that peeked through the slits with black cloth. For the scene in which Jerry is carrying Charley by the throat with one hand, Sarandon was simultaneously pushing Ragsdale along on a furniture dolly.
The shot of Jerry pulling the pencil out of his hand was achieved by having a spring-loaded, collapsible pencil glued to his palm and an eraser-tip loosely attached to the back of his hand. When he turns his hand and pulls the spring-loaded piece from his palm, out of shot a |monofilament wire jerked away the tip, so when he turns it back, it appears as though he hss pulled it straight through his hand.
Filming of the sequence with the bat was difficult for effects veteran Randall Cook, who kept winding up on film while puppeteering the creature.
Its a excellent movie.
The plot: Teenage Charley Brewster (William Ragsdale) is a horror-film junkie, so it's no surprise that, when a reclusive new neighbor named Jerry Dandridge (Chris Sarandon) moves next-door, Brewster becomes convinced he is a vampire. It's also no surprise when nobody believes him. However, after strange events begin to occur, Charlie has no choice but to turn to the only person who could possibly help: washed-up television vampire killer Peter Vincent (Roddy McDowall).
While writing the script for Cloak & Dagger, Tom Holland amused himself when he conceived the idea of a horror-movie fan becoming convinced that his next-door neighbor was a vampire, but he did not initially think this premise was enough to sustain a story. "What's he gonna do", Holland asked, "because everybody's gonna think he's mad!"
The Peter Vincent character was named after horror icons Peter Cushing and Vincent Price, and Holland specifically wrote the part for Price, but at this point in his career, Price had been so badly typecast that he had stopped accepting roles in horror movies.
Holland and McDowall built a lasting friendship, and McDowall eventually invited Holland to a dinner party where he introduced him to Vincent Price, who was flattered that the part was an homage to him and commented that the film "was wonderful and he thought Roddy did a wonderful job."
Once his cast was in place, Holland got input from each of the actors and made numerous revisions to the script. Some were slight and others were major – such as the ending, which originally featured Peter Vincent transforming into a vampire as he returned to host Fright Night.
The cast could only wear them for a maximum of 20 minutes because they were virtually blind in them, and they were thick and painful, and dried out their eyes. A set was made for Stark to wear when he was in his final pursuit of Peter and Charley, but he kept tripping on the stairs. Holland told him to take one out, and he was then able to perform the scene.
Three sets were made for Amanda Bearse, but one of them caused her agonizing pain, which she initially tried to endure. When it finally became too much to bear, she took the contacts out and the crew realized they had forgotten to buff them. For the scene in Mrs. Brewster's bedroom, Geoffreys kept his contacts in for nearly 40 minutes, resulting in scratches on his eyeballs for months afterward.
For the transformation sequences, up to 8 hours were needed to prepare Sarandon's makeup.
The makeup for Evil Ed's wolf transformation took 18 hours.
On Christmas Eve, during the shooting of a scene where he is running down a staircase, Ragsdale accidentally tripped and broke his ankle, resulting in the film being temporarily put on a hold until he could recover. "
Many scenes were shot with his foot in a cast, including the scene in which Jerry comes to Charley's room to attack him. For shots in which Charley's feet were visible, the costumers slit Ragsdale's shoes in several places, slipped them on and then covered the portions of white cast that peeked through the slits with black cloth. For the scene in which Jerry is carrying Charley by the throat with one hand, Sarandon was simultaneously pushing Ragsdale along on a furniture dolly.
The shot of Jerry pulling the pencil out of his hand was achieved by having a spring-loaded, collapsible pencil glued to his palm and an eraser-tip loosely attached to the back of his hand. When he turns his hand and pulls the spring-loaded piece from his palm, out of shot a |monofilament wire jerked away the tip, so when he turns it back, it appears as though he hss pulled it straight through his hand.
Filming of the sequence with the bat was difficult for effects veteran Randall Cook, who kept winding up on film while puppeteering the creature.
Its a excellent movie.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated 2012 (2009) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Roland Emmerich does big budget disaster flicks as well as Dairylea does cheese. However, some of his most recent attempts to dominate the box office have been panned by viewers and critics alike, who say that he has become too reliant on special effects.
Unfortunately, those critics better look away now, as his new film is the biggest yet.
2012 takes place, well, in 2012 for the most part and features an array of big Hollywood names attracted none the less by the huge box office forecasts for the film. The premise is simple; here comes the end of the world and god should we run!
With a reported budget of over $200m which is more than Michael Bay spent on his worldwide smash Transformers: Revenge of the fallen, Emmerich was certainly able to splash out on some eye popping CGI.
2012 reads like The Day After Tomorrow on a steroid, which is no bad thing, but that film had some hideously underdeveloped characters and lacked the depth needed to allow viewers to share compassion for the people who had been affected by the global crisis.
Thankfully it seems that Emmerich has learnt his lesson here and has provided us with a back-story and it comes in many different forms. Thandie Newton and Danny Glover play president’s daughter and president respectively, a great deal of emotion has gone into writing these two characters and their on-screen scenes together, albeit a small amount, are wonderful.
John Cusack and Amanda Peet play divorced parents Jackson and Kate, only united by the love they share for their two young children and predictably later on in the film, a few deeper emotions. Unfortunately these two share no chemistry together and their on-screen scenes are flawed as a result.
2012 doesn’t have a huge deal of character development but it does improve on what was seen in The Day After Tomorrow and more recently, 10,000BC, with a deeper understanding of the characters. It ultimately succeeds in making the viewers share compassion for even the heartless characters in the film.
Moving on to the saving grace of all disaster films; the special effects, fans of major cities being destroyed are going to be pleased here with some eye-watering action pieces really showing why perhaps Emmerich overshadows even Michael Bay and has become the king of destroying anything that can be destroyed. There are a few questionable scenes, which look rather less than realistic, but this is a small point that doesn’t need to be taken into account.
Whilst all this may seem excellent, it all feels familiar, it’s all been seen and done before, so in reality 2012 adds nothing new to the genre which is unfortunate because it really is an excellent film.
Overall, 2012 is a mouth-watering treat in cinema engineering, apart from some lapses in scientific accuracy and some shaky special effects; it surpasses The Day After Tomorrow and similar disaster films by sheer depth. On the downside it adds nothing new to the formula, but if you want sheer popcorn fodder then please, look no further.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2010/10/18/2012-2009/
Unfortunately, those critics better look away now, as his new film is the biggest yet.
2012 takes place, well, in 2012 for the most part and features an array of big Hollywood names attracted none the less by the huge box office forecasts for the film. The premise is simple; here comes the end of the world and god should we run!
With a reported budget of over $200m which is more than Michael Bay spent on his worldwide smash Transformers: Revenge of the fallen, Emmerich was certainly able to splash out on some eye popping CGI.
2012 reads like The Day After Tomorrow on a steroid, which is no bad thing, but that film had some hideously underdeveloped characters and lacked the depth needed to allow viewers to share compassion for the people who had been affected by the global crisis.
Thankfully it seems that Emmerich has learnt his lesson here and has provided us with a back-story and it comes in many different forms. Thandie Newton and Danny Glover play president’s daughter and president respectively, a great deal of emotion has gone into writing these two characters and their on-screen scenes together, albeit a small amount, are wonderful.
John Cusack and Amanda Peet play divorced parents Jackson and Kate, only united by the love they share for their two young children and predictably later on in the film, a few deeper emotions. Unfortunately these two share no chemistry together and their on-screen scenes are flawed as a result.
2012 doesn’t have a huge deal of character development but it does improve on what was seen in The Day After Tomorrow and more recently, 10,000BC, with a deeper understanding of the characters. It ultimately succeeds in making the viewers share compassion for even the heartless characters in the film.
Moving on to the saving grace of all disaster films; the special effects, fans of major cities being destroyed are going to be pleased here with some eye-watering action pieces really showing why perhaps Emmerich overshadows even Michael Bay and has become the king of destroying anything that can be destroyed. There are a few questionable scenes, which look rather less than realistic, but this is a small point that doesn’t need to be taken into account.
Whilst all this may seem excellent, it all feels familiar, it’s all been seen and done before, so in reality 2012 adds nothing new to the genre which is unfortunate because it really is an excellent film.
Overall, 2012 is a mouth-watering treat in cinema engineering, apart from some lapses in scientific accuracy and some shaky special effects; it surpasses The Day After Tomorrow and similar disaster films by sheer depth. On the downside it adds nothing new to the formula, but if you want sheer popcorn fodder then please, look no further.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2010/10/18/2012-2009/
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.)
