Search
Search results
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Mank (2020) in Movies
Jan 7, 2021
Good companion piece to CITIZEN KANE
Orson Welles’ 1941 masterpiece CITIZEN KANE is truly a remarkable work of art (especially for the time it was created) and it regularly lands in either the #1 or #2 spot on my list of all-time favorite films (battling back and forth with THE GODFATHER - the one that ends up at #1 is usually the one I have watched most recently), so I am a sucker for films that are about (or around) the making of this classic.
And…the Netflix film MANK does not disappoint in this regard.
Starring Oscar winning actor Gary Oldman (he won the Oscar for portraying Sir Winston Churchill in DARKEST HOUR), Mank tells the tale of the writing of the screenplay of CITIZEN KANE by screenwriter Herman Mankiewicz. It is an intriguing story of a self-destructive, alcoholic artist (is there any other kind in this kind of film) that (ultimately) produces one of the best scripts in Hollywood history, despite (or maybe because of) his condition and the people he interacts with along the way.
Directed by David Fincher (FIGHT CLUB) - who is one of my favorite Directors working today - MANK starts slow but brews to a satisfying conclusion as Fincher focuses on the man and the relationships he has with the people around him, rather than the circumstances, which then draws to a forceful conclusion.
Gary Oldman is, of course, stellar as Herman “Mank” Mankiewicz, the writer at the center of the story. This film hinges on this performance as the titular Mank is in almost every scene of this film - and at the beginning I was worried that Fincher was going to let Oldman revert to his “hammy” ways (a very real possibility with Oldman if he is left unchecked by a Director), but Fincher reels Oldman in just enough for him to bring a portrait of a troubled man, who has sold his soul to work and alcohol. This character needs to find that soul if he is to succeed. Since Mank won the Oscar for his screenplay - and I’ve already stated that I think the CITIZEN KANE screenplay is one of the best written of all time - you know how it will turn out, but it is fascinating (and satisfying) to watch Oldman on this journey.
Fincher, of course, is smart enough to surround Oldman with some very good Supporting Actors, most notably the always evil Charles Dance (Tywin Lannister on GAME OF THRONES) as William Randolph Hearst (the inspiration for Charles Foster Kane). Dance spends most of the film observing Mank but in the final “confrontation” scene between the two, the screen sparkles as two wonderful thespians throw down.
Others in the Supporting cast - like Lilly Collins, Tom Burke (as Orson Welles), Jamie McShane and, especially Arliss Howard (as Louis B. Mayer) bring heft and the ability to go “toe to toe” with Oldman, not a small task.
Special notice has to be made of the work of Amanda Seyfried as Marion Davies - Hearst’s mistress and a character that is used as a “throw away toy” in Citizen Kane. Davis and Mank form an interesting bond and the platonic chemistry between Seyfried and Oldman is strong. I gotta admit that when Seyfried first burst on the scene in such films as MAMA MIA and MEAN GIRLS, I figured she was just the “pretty young Rom-Com girl of the time” and would come and go quickly, but she has rounded into a very impressive actress and I can unequivocally state that I was wrong about her. She can act with the best of them.
The Cinematography by Erik Messerschmidt is also a very important part of this film - as he (and Fincher) attempt to recreate in this film the look/feel of CITIZEN KANE and they pull this off very, very well.
If you can get through the slow start of the film - and if you can stomach a protagonist that is not a very nice person in most of this film, than you’ll be rewarded by a rich film experience.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
And…the Netflix film MANK does not disappoint in this regard.
Starring Oscar winning actor Gary Oldman (he won the Oscar for portraying Sir Winston Churchill in DARKEST HOUR), Mank tells the tale of the writing of the screenplay of CITIZEN KANE by screenwriter Herman Mankiewicz. It is an intriguing story of a self-destructive, alcoholic artist (is there any other kind in this kind of film) that (ultimately) produces one of the best scripts in Hollywood history, despite (or maybe because of) his condition and the people he interacts with along the way.
Directed by David Fincher (FIGHT CLUB) - who is one of my favorite Directors working today - MANK starts slow but brews to a satisfying conclusion as Fincher focuses on the man and the relationships he has with the people around him, rather than the circumstances, which then draws to a forceful conclusion.
Gary Oldman is, of course, stellar as Herman “Mank” Mankiewicz, the writer at the center of the story. This film hinges on this performance as the titular Mank is in almost every scene of this film - and at the beginning I was worried that Fincher was going to let Oldman revert to his “hammy” ways (a very real possibility with Oldman if he is left unchecked by a Director), but Fincher reels Oldman in just enough for him to bring a portrait of a troubled man, who has sold his soul to work and alcohol. This character needs to find that soul if he is to succeed. Since Mank won the Oscar for his screenplay - and I’ve already stated that I think the CITIZEN KANE screenplay is one of the best written of all time - you know how it will turn out, but it is fascinating (and satisfying) to watch Oldman on this journey.
Fincher, of course, is smart enough to surround Oldman with some very good Supporting Actors, most notably the always evil Charles Dance (Tywin Lannister on GAME OF THRONES) as William Randolph Hearst (the inspiration for Charles Foster Kane). Dance spends most of the film observing Mank but in the final “confrontation” scene between the two, the screen sparkles as two wonderful thespians throw down.
Others in the Supporting cast - like Lilly Collins, Tom Burke (as Orson Welles), Jamie McShane and, especially Arliss Howard (as Louis B. Mayer) bring heft and the ability to go “toe to toe” with Oldman, not a small task.
Special notice has to be made of the work of Amanda Seyfried as Marion Davies - Hearst’s mistress and a character that is used as a “throw away toy” in Citizen Kane. Davis and Mank form an interesting bond and the platonic chemistry between Seyfried and Oldman is strong. I gotta admit that when Seyfried first burst on the scene in such films as MAMA MIA and MEAN GIRLS, I figured she was just the “pretty young Rom-Com girl of the time” and would come and go quickly, but she has rounded into a very impressive actress and I can unequivocally state that I was wrong about her. She can act with the best of them.
The Cinematography by Erik Messerschmidt is also a very important part of this film - as he (and Fincher) attempt to recreate in this film the look/feel of CITIZEN KANE and they pull this off very, very well.
If you can get through the slow start of the film - and if you can stomach a protagonist that is not a very nice person in most of this film, than you’ll be rewarded by a rich film experience.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
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 (971 KP) rated Red Riding Hood (2011) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
In a small village a wolf has been killing villagers who wander out alone. Yet for rule-breaking Valerie the desire to venture out and spend time with her true love overpowers all logic. However, drama sets in when Valerie finds she has been betrothed to a wealthy villager around the same time that that the big bad wolf returns.
Amanda Seyfried stars as Valerie in Red Riding Hood a reworking of the classic fairytale of the same name. The film also stars Shiloh Fernandez as Peter, Valerie’s childhood best friend turned love interest, and Max Irons as Henry, the wealthy suitor who has been selected to wed Valerie. The supporting cast includes some additional familiar faces such as Michael Hogan (The Reeve) best known for his work as Colonel Tigh in the Sci-Fi series Battlestar Galactica and Michael Shanks, known for his work on the hit television series Stargate SG-1 , who plays Adrien Lazer.
The concept of building more depth into the Red Riding Hood story is a good idea however the execution in this bland who-done-it comes a crossed as scattered. The film lacks cohesion and fails to build interest in the storyline focusing instead on sweeping landscapes and overly intense one-on-one character interactions.
The wardrobe is impressive with clothing that aptly represents both village life and fairytale ideals. However, much like the rest of the film, the wardrobe seems to be taking cues directly from other movies. Among the numerous familiar scenes is an ending that could have been plucked from The Lord of the Rings.
The film is not missing any major components but the lack of originality is a fatal flaw that impacts the entire tale. The scary moments are not scary. The intrigue lacks potency. And the romantic triangle fails to generate the intended drama.
Moviegoers will see far worse films this spring but Red Riding Hood does not deliver on what could have been a brilliant adaptation.
Amanda Seyfried stars as Valerie in Red Riding Hood a reworking of the classic fairytale of the same name. The film also stars Shiloh Fernandez as Peter, Valerie’s childhood best friend turned love interest, and Max Irons as Henry, the wealthy suitor who has been selected to wed Valerie. The supporting cast includes some additional familiar faces such as Michael Hogan (The Reeve) best known for his work as Colonel Tigh in the Sci-Fi series Battlestar Galactica and Michael Shanks, known for his work on the hit television series Stargate SG-1 , who plays Adrien Lazer.
The concept of building more depth into the Red Riding Hood story is a good idea however the execution in this bland who-done-it comes a crossed as scattered. The film lacks cohesion and fails to build interest in the storyline focusing instead on sweeping landscapes and overly intense one-on-one character interactions.
The wardrobe is impressive with clothing that aptly represents both village life and fairytale ideals. However, much like the rest of the film, the wardrobe seems to be taking cues directly from other movies. Among the numerous familiar scenes is an ending that could have been plucked from The Lord of the Rings.
The film is not missing any major components but the lack of originality is a fatal flaw that impacts the entire tale. The scary moments are not scary. The intrigue lacks potency. And the romantic triangle fails to generate the intended drama.
Moviegoers will see far worse films this spring but Red Riding Hood does not deliver on what could have been a brilliant adaptation.
LoganCrews (2861 KP) rated A Million Ways to Die in the West (2014) in Movies
Sep 21, 2020
Realistically? This is only *ever* so slightly worse than 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘉𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘢𝘥 𝘰𝘧 𝘉𝘶𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘚𝘤𝘳𝘶𝘨𝘨𝘴, by a unit of less than a hair. I'd consider this to be about 45% funny, 55% unfunny in almost note-precise measure. Granted some of the humor does come from how jarringly wacky and final the scene-to-scene structure is - which unlike the majority I don't have a problem with because it shows how committed this is to truly trying to make you laugh, which I can respect. Though even its funniest moments are a far cry from the likes of the debilitatingly hilarious 𝘛𝘦𝘥 movies (the Gwendolyn joke is always a winner, though). Cut out the boring Theron + Neeson stuff and you could be left with a nicely lean, unique little comedy. I admire that this tries to be more than your average throwaway comedy by introducing like ten different plotlines but none of them ever come together smoothly at all and as a result it falls into *heavy* tedium quite regularly. My other main gripe is that MacFarlane (who does hold his weight here) plays the ultimate fucking incel - that dude who never lets people have fun on social media and swears women should just start lining up to fuck him just because he's superficially a self-proclaimed 'nice guy'. I'd hate that less if he didn't leave the ultra-talented pair of Charlize Theron and Amanda Seyfried to both be shoved unceremoniously to the corner as second and third fiddles who are relegated to kissing his despicable ass the entire time rather than flexing their comedic chops. Also quick side gripe, 85% of the jokes in the gag reel are funnier than the ones in the movie? Wtf?? But a mustachioed Neil Patrick Harris diarrheas into not one... but TWO different bowler hats. So its goofy streak satiated me for what that's worth. And I'll also support at least giving Wes Studi a more meatier role than all of 𝘏𝘰𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘭𝘦𝘴.
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.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Ted 2 (2015) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
The bear is back
The success of Ted was completely unexpected. I doubt even director Seth McFarlane knew just how popular it would go on to become.
From special DVD’s to limited edition cuddly (or not so cuddly) toys, Ted has become something of a phenomenon. A sequel was always going to be on the cards and after three years perfecting it, McFarlane returns with Ted 2. But is it as funny as its predecessor?
Ted 2 follows the titular bear as he embarks on a relationship with Tami-Lynn and continues his friendship with John, the ever-watchable Mark Wahlberg in another great performance.
Unfortunately for Ted, his rights have been challenged by the US government and he must fight to be recognised as a ‘person’, rather than just someone’s ‘property’.
What ensues is a film which whilst being as funny as its predecessor, manages to be somewhat disappointing with a serious shortage of plot. This becomes evident as McFarlane uses Family Guy-esque cut-scenes and incredibly long dance numbers.
The cast, on the whole, is fantastic. Amanda Seyfried takes over from Mila Kunis as John’s love interest and Ted’s lawyer, Samantha. As usual she is a joy to watch but her inexperience in the offensive comedy genre is evident – scenes of her taking drugs just don’t sit right.
Morgan Freeman is sorely underused as a civil rights attorney, though a quick reference to his silky-smooth voice is more than welcome. Giovanni Ribisi also makes a surprising return as Ted’s nemesis Donny.
An absolutely brilliant cameo from Liam Neeson is one of the highlights in a film packed with gags which generally hit the spot – but they’re certainly not for the feint-hearted.
Ted 2 is louder, more obnoxious and much more offensive than its predecessor with numerous scenes involving sperm banks and an endless supply of drug-related comedy.
Unfortunately, all these highs are brought crashing back down to Earth as the story continuously runs out of steam and picks up again. It’s such a shame that a film less than two hours long has such a plot problem.
Thankfully, the original Ted wasn’t a masterpiece and MacFarlane manages to shoot the film well with a real eye for the finer details. His love of movies is apparent with Star Wars references being used well.
Overall, Ted 2 is very close to the standard of its predecessor, despite the excess story-padding that occurs throughout the film. The comedic elements are cracking with Liam Neeson’s cameo being a laugh-out-loud moment – it’s worth a watch, but only if you’re a fan of the first.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/07/12/the-bear-is-back-ted-2-review/
From special DVD’s to limited edition cuddly (or not so cuddly) toys, Ted has become something of a phenomenon. A sequel was always going to be on the cards and after three years perfecting it, McFarlane returns with Ted 2. But is it as funny as its predecessor?
Ted 2 follows the titular bear as he embarks on a relationship with Tami-Lynn and continues his friendship with John, the ever-watchable Mark Wahlberg in another great performance.
Unfortunately for Ted, his rights have been challenged by the US government and he must fight to be recognised as a ‘person’, rather than just someone’s ‘property’.
What ensues is a film which whilst being as funny as its predecessor, manages to be somewhat disappointing with a serious shortage of plot. This becomes evident as McFarlane uses Family Guy-esque cut-scenes and incredibly long dance numbers.
The cast, on the whole, is fantastic. Amanda Seyfried takes over from Mila Kunis as John’s love interest and Ted’s lawyer, Samantha. As usual she is a joy to watch but her inexperience in the offensive comedy genre is evident – scenes of her taking drugs just don’t sit right.
Morgan Freeman is sorely underused as a civil rights attorney, though a quick reference to his silky-smooth voice is more than welcome. Giovanni Ribisi also makes a surprising return as Ted’s nemesis Donny.
An absolutely brilliant cameo from Liam Neeson is one of the highlights in a film packed with gags which generally hit the spot – but they’re certainly not for the feint-hearted.
Ted 2 is louder, more obnoxious and much more offensive than its predecessor with numerous scenes involving sperm banks and an endless supply of drug-related comedy.
Unfortunately, all these highs are brought crashing back down to Earth as the story continuously runs out of steam and picks up again. It’s such a shame that a film less than two hours long has such a plot problem.
Thankfully, the original Ted wasn’t a masterpiece and MacFarlane manages to shoot the film well with a real eye for the finer details. His love of movies is apparent with Star Wars references being used well.
Overall, Ted 2 is very close to the standard of its predecessor, despite the excess story-padding that occurs throughout the film. The comedic elements are cracking with Liam Neeson’s cameo being a laugh-out-loud moment – it’s worth a watch, but only if you’re a fan of the first.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/07/12/the-bear-is-back-ted-2-review/
Darren (1599 KP) rated A Million Ways to Die in the West (2014) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Story: Poking fun at the old west is fine, it should work and some of the jokes are acceptable. The endless toilet jokes make it feel like an Adam Sandler film and the poorly written sex jokes get boring quickly. You have the old storyline of trying to impress someone only to fall for the one helping you. It is advertised incorrectly as it makes out from the trailer that he is training to beat Clinch while in actual fact the training is for another dual all together. After watching and enjoying Ted I was expecting a lot better than this lazy comedy for someone with a good comic mind. (3/10)
Actor Reviews
Seth MacFarlane: Albert the cowardly sheep farmer from the Frontier who gets upset when his girlfriend dumps him and puts his life in danger because he is depressed only to discover he is brave deep down. Seth really doesn’t suit being a lead actor at all. (2/10)
seth
Charlize Theron: Anna the beautiful mysterious woman who comes to town and ends up becoming friends with Albert while training him to shot. Good performance from someone not known for comedy. (7/10)
theron
Amanda Seyfried: Louise the girl who dumps Albert and moves on, but looks like she could have changed her mind too late. Standard performance really, never gets given anything to do. (5/10)
Liam Neeson: Clinch the deadly gunslinger who wants revenge after Albert kisses his wife. We see what he is capable of and that he will cheat but we hardly see him considering he is meant to be the villain. (5/10)
neeson
Giovanni Ribisi: Edward Albert’s best friend who is very religious while his girlfriend is being a prostitute. Gets to have fun with the role and would be fair to say get most laughs.(6/10)
Director Review: Seth MacFarlane – With his history for good quality comedy I would expect to see a lot better than this from him. (3/10)
Comedy: Poor jokes throughout that get boring quickly but the few cameos will get most laughs. (4/10)
Settings: Good authentic western town created. (8/10)
Suggestion: Don’t bother, I think even the most diehard Seth MacFarlane fans will be disappointed. (Avoid)
Best Part: Cameos
Worst Part: The Jokes
Funniest Scene: Doc Brown
Kill Of The Film: The Ice Block
Believability: No just a spoof (0/10)
Chances of Tears: No (0/10)
Chances of Sequel: No
Post Credits Scene: Yes
Oscar Chances: No
Box Office: $35 Million (So Far)
Budget: N/A
Runtime: 1 Hour 50 Minutes
Tagline: Bring Protection
Overall: Lazy Comedy
https://moviesreview101.com/2014/06/07/a-million-ways-to-die-in-the-west-2014/
Actor Reviews
Seth MacFarlane: Albert the cowardly sheep farmer from the Frontier who gets upset when his girlfriend dumps him and puts his life in danger because he is depressed only to discover he is brave deep down. Seth really doesn’t suit being a lead actor at all. (2/10)
seth
Charlize Theron: Anna the beautiful mysterious woman who comes to town and ends up becoming friends with Albert while training him to shot. Good performance from someone not known for comedy. (7/10)
theron
Amanda Seyfried: Louise the girl who dumps Albert and moves on, but looks like she could have changed her mind too late. Standard performance really, never gets given anything to do. (5/10)
Liam Neeson: Clinch the deadly gunslinger who wants revenge after Albert kisses his wife. We see what he is capable of and that he will cheat but we hardly see him considering he is meant to be the villain. (5/10)
neeson
Giovanni Ribisi: Edward Albert’s best friend who is very religious while his girlfriend is being a prostitute. Gets to have fun with the role and would be fair to say get most laughs.(6/10)
Director Review: Seth MacFarlane – With his history for good quality comedy I would expect to see a lot better than this from him. (3/10)
Comedy: Poor jokes throughout that get boring quickly but the few cameos will get most laughs. (4/10)
Settings: Good authentic western town created. (8/10)
Suggestion: Don’t bother, I think even the most diehard Seth MacFarlane fans will be disappointed. (Avoid)
Best Part: Cameos
Worst Part: The Jokes
Funniest Scene: Doc Brown
Kill Of The Film: The Ice Block
Believability: No just a spoof (0/10)
Chances of Tears: No (0/10)
Chances of Sequel: No
Post Credits Scene: Yes
Oscar Chances: No
Box Office: $35 Million (So Far)
Budget: N/A
Runtime: 1 Hour 50 Minutes
Tagline: Bring Protection
Overall: Lazy Comedy
https://moviesreview101.com/2014/06/07/a-million-ways-to-die-in-the-west-2014/
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated The Art of Racing in the Rain (2019) in Movies
Jun 20, 2020
Another crying dog movie... just what my life needs.
Denny picks up a golden retriever puppy from a farm and the two become firm friends. Enzo learns all about racing and is a constant fixture at the track, it's going to be the two of them forever feeling the wind in their faces.
Then one day Eve comes along, she's there a lot and it doesn't look like she's leaving. Can Enzo adapt to family life?
The card on the film states "scenes of emotional upset"... accurate, and right from the very start too. This was made by a savage person. Originally I had a quadruple bill planned but I wasn't sure I could do this film followed by The Sun Is Also A Star and come out the other end as anything but a gibbering wreck so I split it out. That was probably one of the most sensible things I've ever done, there was so much crying.
The way they show Enzo reacting to everything is spot on. If you've watched those dog videos on Facebook where they subtitle in what the dog's thinking, it's just like that but Enzo has a much better grasp of the English language and the sultry tones of Kevin Costner. Some of the moments are wonderful and it made me wonder if my dog did any of them, and then I cried a bit more.
Milo Ventimiglia plays out leading human, Denny, and he's very convincing with the obsession Denny has for racing. The flipside with the struggle of having to be a dad came across too and there are some poignant scenes that came off beautifully.
I wasn't overly engaged with Amanda Seyfried as Eve until the midpoint of the film. Perhaps I was indifferent about her on Enzo's behalf, we may never know, but at the point where it all turned I thought she gave a wonderful and respectful performance.
There's not a huge extended cast, but it's filled with talented actors who bring something great to their characters, Kathy Baker and Martin Donovan were particularly good as Eve's parents, though you can't help but hate them.
It's nicely done overall, nothing seems out of place, there weren't any frivolous scenes. The way we get to engage with the racing is brilliantly executed, especially the scene at the beginning where he actually races in the rain, very exciting to watch. It's a lovely crying dog film (at what point do we declare this an actual genre?), is it predictable? Yes, but it's still a nice easy watch if you've got a box of tissues handy.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2019/08/the-art-of-racing-in-rain-movie-review.html
Denny picks up a golden retriever puppy from a farm and the two become firm friends. Enzo learns all about racing and is a constant fixture at the track, it's going to be the two of them forever feeling the wind in their faces.
Then one day Eve comes along, she's there a lot and it doesn't look like she's leaving. Can Enzo adapt to family life?
The card on the film states "scenes of emotional upset"... accurate, and right from the very start too. This was made by a savage person. Originally I had a quadruple bill planned but I wasn't sure I could do this film followed by The Sun Is Also A Star and come out the other end as anything but a gibbering wreck so I split it out. That was probably one of the most sensible things I've ever done, there was so much crying.
The way they show Enzo reacting to everything is spot on. If you've watched those dog videos on Facebook where they subtitle in what the dog's thinking, it's just like that but Enzo has a much better grasp of the English language and the sultry tones of Kevin Costner. Some of the moments are wonderful and it made me wonder if my dog did any of them, and then I cried a bit more.
Milo Ventimiglia plays out leading human, Denny, and he's very convincing with the obsession Denny has for racing. The flipside with the struggle of having to be a dad came across too and there are some poignant scenes that came off beautifully.
I wasn't overly engaged with Amanda Seyfried as Eve until the midpoint of the film. Perhaps I was indifferent about her on Enzo's behalf, we may never know, but at the point where it all turned I thought she gave a wonderful and respectful performance.
There's not a huge extended cast, but it's filled with talented actors who bring something great to their characters, Kathy Baker and Martin Donovan were particularly good as Eve's parents, though you can't help but hate them.
It's nicely done overall, nothing seems out of place, there weren't any frivolous scenes. The way we get to engage with the racing is brilliantly executed, especially the scene at the beginning where he actually races in the rain, very exciting to watch. It's a lovely crying dog film (at what point do we declare this an actual genre?), is it predictable? Yes, but it's still a nice easy watch if you've got a box of tissues handy.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2019/08/the-art-of-racing-in-rain-movie-review.html
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.)
Sarah (7798 KP) rated Mean Girls (2004) in Movies
Nov 22, 2020
Entertaining
Film #3 on the 100 Movies Bucket List: Mean Girls
The third film on my 100 Movies Bucket List is Mean Girls, a film I’ve seen but never had any strong emotion for. Mean Girls stars Lindsay Lohan as Cady, who after living and being homeschooled in Africa for most of her life, must now enter the terrifying world of an American high school. Here she meets Janis (Lizzy Caplan) and Damian (Daniel Franzese) who clue her into high school hierarchy, including introducing her to the Plastics: Regina (Rachel McAdams), Karen (Amanda Seyfried) and Gretchen (Lacey Chabert).
Mean Girls is a teenage movie that is unlike many others – instead of being dumb and crude, it’s surprisingly smart and humorous. From the opening scenes, it’s obvious that this is intelligent. It’s full of subtle jokes and remarks and some absolutely superb one liners, and these are all down to Tina Fey who has written an excellent script. And in the process appears to have some of the best lines as teacher Mrs Norbury, but do you blame her? Mean Girls manages to portray the high school hierarchy and social interactions perfectly. Whilst is is obviously catering more to American high schoolers, I doubt there are many that would watch this and not see something that they personally experienced at high school. It’s almost poking fun at the high school experience but in such a smart and enjoyable way. There are moments and lines in this that are almost verging on inappropriate, and likely wouldn’t be acceptable in today’s society, but even though this was made in 2004 I don’t doubt that this impropriety is still reflective of modern day high schools.
The acting on offer here is superb. Lindsay Lohan is entirely believable as Cady and this is hugely important considering the message Mean Girls is portraying. This film is entirely about the realisation that you should be happy about you are, and that putting other people down will never achieve anything. Getting this message across is done very well, in a funny yet almost heartwarming manner although admittedly it is all rather obvious. Although at least this tries to avoid as many teenage film clichés as possible, which makes for a refreshing change.
My problem with Mean Girls is the whole bitchiness of it all that underpins the second act. I know “mean” girls were to be expected, but by the end I found myself getting very irritable with how horrible these girls were and the constant sniping at each other. This may stem from my own sometimes unpleasant experiences at high school, but teenage girls stabbing each other in the backs gets very old very quickly. Fortunately the ending does at least relieve some of the meanness and provide a surprisingly heartwarming and uplifting resolution, but I’m afraid some of the damage remains. And I must admit that seeing a smart girl play dumb and risk failing for a boy really makes my blood boil, and yes I do know it’s only a film.
Overall Mean Girls is a well done teenage film which stands out mostly because of its very smart script. It’s probably one of the best high school based films out there but it isn’t perfect, and I do question as to whether it deserves a spot on the bucket list when there are so many outstanding films that have missed out.
The third film on my 100 Movies Bucket List is Mean Girls, a film I’ve seen but never had any strong emotion for. Mean Girls stars Lindsay Lohan as Cady, who after living and being homeschooled in Africa for most of her life, must now enter the terrifying world of an American high school. Here she meets Janis (Lizzy Caplan) and Damian (Daniel Franzese) who clue her into high school hierarchy, including introducing her to the Plastics: Regina (Rachel McAdams), Karen (Amanda Seyfried) and Gretchen (Lacey Chabert).
Mean Girls is a teenage movie that is unlike many others – instead of being dumb and crude, it’s surprisingly smart and humorous. From the opening scenes, it’s obvious that this is intelligent. It’s full of subtle jokes and remarks and some absolutely superb one liners, and these are all down to Tina Fey who has written an excellent script. And in the process appears to have some of the best lines as teacher Mrs Norbury, but do you blame her? Mean Girls manages to portray the high school hierarchy and social interactions perfectly. Whilst is is obviously catering more to American high schoolers, I doubt there are many that would watch this and not see something that they personally experienced at high school. It’s almost poking fun at the high school experience but in such a smart and enjoyable way. There are moments and lines in this that are almost verging on inappropriate, and likely wouldn’t be acceptable in today’s society, but even though this was made in 2004 I don’t doubt that this impropriety is still reflective of modern day high schools.
The acting on offer here is superb. Lindsay Lohan is entirely believable as Cady and this is hugely important considering the message Mean Girls is portraying. This film is entirely about the realisation that you should be happy about you are, and that putting other people down will never achieve anything. Getting this message across is done very well, in a funny yet almost heartwarming manner although admittedly it is all rather obvious. Although at least this tries to avoid as many teenage film clichés as possible, which makes for a refreshing change.
My problem with Mean Girls is the whole bitchiness of it all that underpins the second act. I know “mean” girls were to be expected, but by the end I found myself getting very irritable with how horrible these girls were and the constant sniping at each other. This may stem from my own sometimes unpleasant experiences at high school, but teenage girls stabbing each other in the backs gets very old very quickly. Fortunately the ending does at least relieve some of the meanness and provide a surprisingly heartwarming and uplifting resolution, but I’m afraid some of the damage remains. And I must admit that seeing a smart girl play dumb and risk failing for a boy really makes my blood boil, and yes I do know it’s only a film.
Overall Mean Girls is a well done teenage film which stands out mostly because of its very smart script. It’s probably one of the best high school based films out there but it isn’t perfect, and I do question as to whether it deserves a spot on the bucket list when there are so many outstanding films that have missed out.
