Search
Search results
Scanner for Fax & QR Codes
Utilities and Productivity
App
Scanbot is the best mobile scanner app for documents and QR codes. Create free, high-quality PDF or...
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Roma (2018) in Movies
Feb 22, 2019
Thought-Provoking
Roma follows the story of Cleo, a domestic worker for a middle class family in Mexico. who is dealing with the strife of classism in the 70’s.
Acting: 10
Beautiful acting here in a number of strong roles. Yalitza Aparicio is phenomenal in her role as Cleo. She plays the part in a shy and withrdawn matter, someone who loves the family she works for but knows it’s duty above all else. Aparicio makes you feel what Cleo feels in powerful moments like the traffic scene and the final scene on the beach, neither of which I will give away. I loved her relationship between her and Adela played by Nancy Garcia Garcia (not a typo) who shined in her role as well. They had a true synergy that worked for the movie as a whole.
Beginning: 4
Characters: 10
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
The film is shot in black and white which I appreciated. It give you a sense of a “then and now” kind of feel: You know it takes place in the 70’s, but it feels like director Alfonso Cuaron was able to capture a piece of life that could still exist today. Beautiful pans of the Mexican landscape somehow give me a nostalgic vibe and I’m not even from Mexico. The movie sprawls across a number of different locations that are beautiful in their own right. From old-school movie theaters to desert valleys, it’s feels like you are on a journey.
Conflict: 8
The conflict is created as a result of Cleo’s class. There are hardships that come with her place in society in addition to the typical crap that life might throw your way. She finds herself tiptoeing around a home with a disgruntled wife who is ready to bite Cleo’s head off at any moment. Meanwhile, things aren’t much better in Cleo’s personal life as she finds herself in situations that not only make her life more difficult but bring shame to her family. As the viewer, you understand this is the way life is for Cleo and things probably won’t get much better by the end of it. But you hope she beats it anyway.
Genre: 7
I originally scored this slightly lower, but I quickly changed it as I started to peel back more and more layers of Roma. My wife and I were dead tired after viewing the film, but we found ourselves laying around talking about it for thirty minutes after it was over. A solid movie is one you can discuss long after you watch it and Roma is definitely one of those movies.
Memorability: 10
There are a number of scenes that I think about even now and say, “Wow, that was extremely powerful.” I don’t want to ruin them for fear of ruining the impact, but one scene includes a powerful confession that is beyond heartfelt. It hits you right in the gut and you think, “How could someone say that?” while also thinking, “I understand exactly where she is coming from.” Cleo’s struggles, including her battles with honor and love, leave a lasting impact that makes you want to watch the film again to reexamine it.
Pace: 6
Plot: 6
Resolution: 5
Overall: 76
Roma is the kind of movie that the artsy-fartsy nuts go crazy over. I thought it was good, but it fell just short of Best Picture worthy in my opinion due to a slow start and pace, and a meh ending. A few tweaks and I definitely could see this movie being a classic.
Acting: 10
Beautiful acting here in a number of strong roles. Yalitza Aparicio is phenomenal in her role as Cleo. She plays the part in a shy and withrdawn matter, someone who loves the family she works for but knows it’s duty above all else. Aparicio makes you feel what Cleo feels in powerful moments like the traffic scene and the final scene on the beach, neither of which I will give away. I loved her relationship between her and Adela played by Nancy Garcia Garcia (not a typo) who shined in her role as well. They had a true synergy that worked for the movie as a whole.
Beginning: 4
Characters: 10
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
The film is shot in black and white which I appreciated. It give you a sense of a “then and now” kind of feel: You know it takes place in the 70’s, but it feels like director Alfonso Cuaron was able to capture a piece of life that could still exist today. Beautiful pans of the Mexican landscape somehow give me a nostalgic vibe and I’m not even from Mexico. The movie sprawls across a number of different locations that are beautiful in their own right. From old-school movie theaters to desert valleys, it’s feels like you are on a journey.
Conflict: 8
The conflict is created as a result of Cleo’s class. There are hardships that come with her place in society in addition to the typical crap that life might throw your way. She finds herself tiptoeing around a home with a disgruntled wife who is ready to bite Cleo’s head off at any moment. Meanwhile, things aren’t much better in Cleo’s personal life as she finds herself in situations that not only make her life more difficult but bring shame to her family. As the viewer, you understand this is the way life is for Cleo and things probably won’t get much better by the end of it. But you hope she beats it anyway.
Genre: 7
I originally scored this slightly lower, but I quickly changed it as I started to peel back more and more layers of Roma. My wife and I were dead tired after viewing the film, but we found ourselves laying around talking about it for thirty minutes after it was over. A solid movie is one you can discuss long after you watch it and Roma is definitely one of those movies.
Memorability: 10
There are a number of scenes that I think about even now and say, “Wow, that was extremely powerful.” I don’t want to ruin them for fear of ruining the impact, but one scene includes a powerful confession that is beyond heartfelt. It hits you right in the gut and you think, “How could someone say that?” while also thinking, “I understand exactly where she is coming from.” Cleo’s struggles, including her battles with honor and love, leave a lasting impact that makes you want to watch the film again to reexamine it.
Pace: 6
Plot: 6
Resolution: 5
Overall: 76
Roma is the kind of movie that the artsy-fartsy nuts go crazy over. I thought it was good, but it fell just short of Best Picture worthy in my opinion due to a slow start and pace, and a meh ending. A few tweaks and I definitely could see this movie being a classic.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Stan & Ollie (2018) in Movies
Sep 25, 2019
I think that almost everyone has some knowledge of Laurel and Hardy. Certainly growing up with a love of black and white comedies meant that I saw a fair few myself. There's certainly a familiarity in what we see from Coogan and Reilly that brings a smile to your face. The main problem is that it's such a hard act to follow. I can't say that I'm left raving about what was presented. It's a charming film... I'm just not sure if that's a compliment or not.
Seeing the BBC Films logo come up at the beginning gave me some hope. Having never really enjoy either of the main actor's work this actually gave me some hope that this would be an amazing sort of production that I've come to love from the BBC. Sadly, again, I wasn't wowed by what I saw.
Coogan and Reilly do both manage to capture their part of the double act well, and seeing those trademark moves briefly gives you that spark of joy. Nostalgia is a very powerful thing and you get a great buzz but I'm not sure it's enough to make up for the overall feeling of the film.
Both Shirley Henderson and Nina Arianda make for a fiery support cast in the roles of Lucille Hardy and Ida Laurel, but I have to say that Ida was the character for me. Self promoting and yet fiercely loyal. Loving and yet tinged with a streak of harsh reality. It was pleasing to see how she evolved to show such heart and unite the pair at the end.
Capturing snippets of a lifetime is always difficult. There are so many things going on that you have to choose whether to feature or not and that inevitably leads to gaps and slight inconsistencies. Hardy's gambling made several appearances but at no point is it really shown as a severe problem , most of it was done in a very lighthearted manner which sort of defeated the point of it being mentioned at all.
The first half of the film is incredibly slow and dare I say dull. So much so that I did wonder whether it was anything like the film that the trailer had promised. While I did silently chuckle to myself it was by no means laugh out loud funny with it's comedy... although the woman across the aisle from me would probably disagree on that point.
Despite my rather bland feelings about the film it did have some excellent moments. The opening sequence of them walking through the studio lot is really well set up, but shots after that were all very traditional. My other stand out moment was right at the end where they're doing their last performance. In that moment I had a stream of tears running down my face. The fact that they managed to convey the end of Laurel and Hardy's career in such a relatively short sequence was amazing.
Ultimately I think some of the greats from history should probably be left in that iconic position. I'm really not sure that this added anything to their story.
What you should do
If you#re one for nostalgia then you should head on out to see this in January.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
I'd have to have just a little piece of Stan Laurel's creativity and dedication.
Seeing the BBC Films logo come up at the beginning gave me some hope. Having never really enjoy either of the main actor's work this actually gave me some hope that this would be an amazing sort of production that I've come to love from the BBC. Sadly, again, I wasn't wowed by what I saw.
Coogan and Reilly do both manage to capture their part of the double act well, and seeing those trademark moves briefly gives you that spark of joy. Nostalgia is a very powerful thing and you get a great buzz but I'm not sure it's enough to make up for the overall feeling of the film.
Both Shirley Henderson and Nina Arianda make for a fiery support cast in the roles of Lucille Hardy and Ida Laurel, but I have to say that Ida was the character for me. Self promoting and yet fiercely loyal. Loving and yet tinged with a streak of harsh reality. It was pleasing to see how she evolved to show such heart and unite the pair at the end.
Capturing snippets of a lifetime is always difficult. There are so many things going on that you have to choose whether to feature or not and that inevitably leads to gaps and slight inconsistencies. Hardy's gambling made several appearances but at no point is it really shown as a severe problem , most of it was done in a very lighthearted manner which sort of defeated the point of it being mentioned at all.
The first half of the film is incredibly slow and dare I say dull. So much so that I did wonder whether it was anything like the film that the trailer had promised. While I did silently chuckle to myself it was by no means laugh out loud funny with it's comedy... although the woman across the aisle from me would probably disagree on that point.
Despite my rather bland feelings about the film it did have some excellent moments. The opening sequence of them walking through the studio lot is really well set up, but shots after that were all very traditional. My other stand out moment was right at the end where they're doing their last performance. In that moment I had a stream of tears running down my face. The fact that they managed to convey the end of Laurel and Hardy's career in such a relatively short sequence was amazing.
Ultimately I think some of the greats from history should probably be left in that iconic position. I'm really not sure that this added anything to their story.
What you should do
If you#re one for nostalgia then you should head on out to see this in January.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
I'd have to have just a little piece of Stan Laurel's creativity and dedication.
Ama (21 KP) rated Detroit (2017) in Movies
Sep 11, 2017
Shattering
The first couple of questions when writing a review here are What's good? and What's bad?
Now, as you've seen I have given this film a full score, but I could not for the life of me put into a sentence what was good about it. It's not a nice film. Nothing about it is good. Except the way it makes you feel with it. But then even that is not a good thing. It's ugly.
I watched Detroit yesterday at the local cinema. I had seen the trailer, knew it was gonna be a tearjerker, knew I would hate the world and myself after watching it.
What I realised is that I completely underestimated the film.
About half an hour to an hour in all I wanted to do was to turn it off. I had an urge to just turn the cinema off, go home and potentially have some chocolate.
It wasn't the fact that the film was bad (I repeat, I gave it a full score), nor was it surprising narrative (again, I had seen the trailer and my tiny bit of historical knowledge filled in the gaps), but something in the way it was presented somehow evoked that feeling of wanting it to go away.
When I walked out of the cinema and forced myself to think about it, I realised a couple of things (all of which eventually made me come to the conclusion that that might have been deliberate).
First of all that film was lit like a feature film and shot like a documentary. This means that watching it, my brain was trying to fool me into thinking this was real a lot more than it usually would. It's film like a documentary, so it's a documentary so this is exactly what must have happened, right? There was a camera at the scene, right?
Well, of course there wasn't. Of course it was still a feature film and of course before the credit it was even stated that besides the testimonies of the parties involved, there was still dramatic licence taken. But that didn't change the fact that it shook me. It shook me because that little shake of the camera that was a little more intense that I was used to and that little zoom every now and then to get closer to an action as though the camera had only just noticed it all lead to that convincing idea of this being real and having happened exactly as I was seeing it.
The acting was splendid. Again, upon contemplating the film, I wondered what it was like for all of these black people (the term used deliberately) to play these roles, having grown up in that country themselves. I wondered what it was like for Will Poulter to become an asshole from the work 'Action!' and while that isn't any different than any other set, somehow, in Detroit, it seemed like so much bigger a deal. On this note, kudos to all the actors in this piece. There was none of you that felt out of place or irrelevant. Each of you portrayed a character dealing with the situation at hand differently and on a spectrum that showed how truly diverse humans are - even if united in a cause, be it on the white side or the black.
I could go on for hours (which I did, with the friend I went to see it with) about how this film made me feel and how much insecurity in the current world it made me feel, but there is no point in doing that. Feelings are best felt, rather than read so just watch it and I'm sure you'll understand.
I do want to say this though:
This film made me realise that the world we live in today is not the product from its past, but rather a work in progress towards what is to come.
I in no way mean that I did not know that previously, but there is a difference between knowing and understanding.
On this note, this film is not for the faint hearted but it is one of those important films that need to be watched at the moment.
Now, as you've seen I have given this film a full score, but I could not for the life of me put into a sentence what was good about it. It's not a nice film. Nothing about it is good. Except the way it makes you feel with it. But then even that is not a good thing. It's ugly.
I watched Detroit yesterday at the local cinema. I had seen the trailer, knew it was gonna be a tearjerker, knew I would hate the world and myself after watching it.
What I realised is that I completely underestimated the film.
About half an hour to an hour in all I wanted to do was to turn it off. I had an urge to just turn the cinema off, go home and potentially have some chocolate.
It wasn't the fact that the film was bad (I repeat, I gave it a full score), nor was it surprising narrative (again, I had seen the trailer and my tiny bit of historical knowledge filled in the gaps), but something in the way it was presented somehow evoked that feeling of wanting it to go away.
When I walked out of the cinema and forced myself to think about it, I realised a couple of things (all of which eventually made me come to the conclusion that that might have been deliberate).
First of all that film was lit like a feature film and shot like a documentary. This means that watching it, my brain was trying to fool me into thinking this was real a lot more than it usually would. It's film like a documentary, so it's a documentary so this is exactly what must have happened, right? There was a camera at the scene, right?
Well, of course there wasn't. Of course it was still a feature film and of course before the credit it was even stated that besides the testimonies of the parties involved, there was still dramatic licence taken. But that didn't change the fact that it shook me. It shook me because that little shake of the camera that was a little more intense that I was used to and that little zoom every now and then to get closer to an action as though the camera had only just noticed it all lead to that convincing idea of this being real and having happened exactly as I was seeing it.
The acting was splendid. Again, upon contemplating the film, I wondered what it was like for all of these black people (the term used deliberately) to play these roles, having grown up in that country themselves. I wondered what it was like for Will Poulter to become an asshole from the work 'Action!' and while that isn't any different than any other set, somehow, in Detroit, it seemed like so much bigger a deal. On this note, kudos to all the actors in this piece. There was none of you that felt out of place or irrelevant. Each of you portrayed a character dealing with the situation at hand differently and on a spectrum that showed how truly diverse humans are - even if united in a cause, be it on the white side or the black.
I could go on for hours (which I did, with the friend I went to see it with) about how this film made me feel and how much insecurity in the current world it made me feel, but there is no point in doing that. Feelings are best felt, rather than read so just watch it and I'm sure you'll understand.
I do want to say this though:
This film made me realise that the world we live in today is not the product from its past, but rather a work in progress towards what is to come.
I in no way mean that I did not know that previously, but there is a difference between knowing and understanding.
On this note, this film is not for the faint hearted but it is one of those important films that need to be watched at the moment.
Hadley (567 KP) rated The Devil in the White City: Murder, Magic, and Madness in Books
Jan 18, 2021
History (1 more)
Well-written
H.H. Holmes had many aliases and lives.
He's been a doctor and a licensed pharmacist, who then conned an old couple into selling their drug store to him where he preyed on young girls and ignorant customers that would buy whatever Holmes would tell them to buy, whether it were real or fake tonics.
He was a building owner who had a murder hotel secretly built with " a wooden chute that would descend from a secret location on the second floor all the way to the basement... ", "a room next to his office fitted with a large walk-in vault, with airtight seams and asbestos-coated iron walls. A gas jet embedded in one wall would be controlled from his closet...", "a large basement with hidden chambers and a sub-basement for the permanent storage of sensitive material. "
He owned and ran an alcohol-treatment company known as the Silver Ash Institute that claimed to have the cure for alcoholism.
He was a traveling business man, who had two wives and two children. He established the Campbell-Yates Manufacturing Company, which made nothing and sold nothing.
He was also labeled as America's first serial killer. His body count is unknown even today; his victims were frequently young women, which included stenographers and house wives. He was best known for convincing people who trusted him to sign him as the beneficiary of their life insurance policies, only to kill them and make it seem an accident so he could collect the money.
Holmes grew up in a small farming village in New Hampshire, where he briefly spoke about an early fear of a human skeleton that hung in a doctor's office: " 'I had daily to pass the office of one village doctor, the door of which was seldom if ever barred,' he wrote in a later memoir. 'Partly from its being associated in my mind as the source of all the nauseous mixtures that had been my childish terror (for this was before the day of children's medicines), and partly because of vague rumors I had heard regarding its contents, this place was one of peculiar abhorrence to me.' "... "Two children discovered Mudgett's [Holmes' real last name] fear and one day captured him and dragged him 'struggling and shrieking' into the doctor's office. 'Nor did they desist,' Mudgett wrote, 'until I had been brought face to face with one of its grinning skeletons, which, with arms outstretched, seemed ready in its turn to seize me. It was a wicked and dangerous thing to do to a child of tender years and health,' he wrote, ' but it proved an heroic method of treatment, destined ultimately to cure me of my fears, and to inculcate in me, first, a strong feeling of curiosity, and, later, a desire to learn, which resulted years afterwards in my adopting medicine as a profession.' "
Erik Larson's fourth book, the Devil in the White City, is only partly about Holmes and his dark trail of murder and lies. The story told is mostly centered around the planning and building of the 1893 World's Fair. The prologue opens with one of the architects aboard a ship long after the fair has ended - - - 1912 to be exact- - - where he begins to write of the fair in his diary. The next chapter continues on with Chicago competing against other major cities to win the rights to host the World's Fair. Chicago was not the ideal place for the fair because it was known for it's crime and slaughter houses - - - this was exactly why the politicians wanted it so badly there, so it would help to lighten the image of Chicago for the rest of the world. Even the local Whitechapel Club that had sprouted up after the infamous murders by Jack the Ripper, were excited to win the rights to host the fair in their city, and celebrated in a macabre way:
"Upon learning that Chicago had won the fair, the men of the Whitechapel Club composed a telegram to Chauncey Depew, who more than any other man symbolized New York and its campaign to win the fair. Previously Depew had promised the members of the Whitechapel Club that if Chicago prevailed he would present himself at the club's next meeting, to be hacked apart by the Ripper himself - - - metaphorically, he presumed, although at the Whitechapel Club could one ever be certain? The club's coffin, for example, had once been used to transport the body of a member who had committed suicide. After claiming his body, the club hauled it to the Indiana Dunes on Lake Michigan, where members erected an immense pyre. They placed the body on top, then set it alight. Carrying torches and wearing black hooded robes, they circled the fire singing hymns to the dead between sips of whiskey. The club also had a custom of sending robed members to kidnap visiting celebrities and steal them away in a black coach with covered windows, all without saying a word.
The club's telegram reached Depew in Washington twenty minutes after the final ballot, just as Chicago's congressional delegation began celebrating at the Willard Hotel near the White House. The telegram asked, 'When may we see you at our dissecting table?' "
There are chapters in-between, technically reading like a side story, that tell us about Holmes and his misdeeds in Chicago, but there just wasn't enough about Holmes that I could consider this a True Crime book, nor an informative book about Holmes. Unfortunately, when the reader begins to really dwell into the story of Holmes, it's quickly ended by having two or more chapters about the building of the World's Fair. One interesting point about the story is that the reader does get to see how many inventions were brought to light because of the Fair, such as the invention of the Ferris Wheel. Larson's writing is very coherent and the descriptions are so well done that the reader is practically transported back to the late 1800s, yet, before I finished the book, I felt misled by the title... then coming across everything that happened to not only the Fair, but the people who were involved with it, it's hard not to wonder if the whole thing was cursed, thus the Devil being in the White City.
One of the side stories I did really enjoy was the slow unfolding of a man named Prendergast. A delusional young man who ran one of the groups of paperboys in Chicago, who was also obsessed with politics, became a determined supporter of Mayor Harrison; after Harrison was voted into office again, Prendergast believed it was because of him and the letters he sent out to numerous politicians and potential voters. Prendergast also believed he deserved a chair on the council for Harrison's re-election, for which he even showed up at City Hall to take over. This incident was the straw that broke the camel's back for Prendergast - - - he was humiliated when the people there laughed in his face. Prendergast then decided to take matters into his own hands, and bought a revolver. The day before the Fair would end, Prendergast showed up at Harrison's home and shot him. Harrison died minutes later. Prendergast turned himself in for the murder as soon as he left Harrison's residence. When asked why he had done it, Prendergast responded: " ' Because he betrayed my confidence. I supported him through his campaign and he promised to appoint me corporation counsel. He didn't live up to his word.' "
This book has been voted as a top True Crime must-read novel. I don't agree with this. As I said before: Holmes' chapters are few; eighty percent of this book is about the building of the World's Fair. As a True Crime junkie, I didn't enjoy this one, but also as a history junkie, I enjoyed learning about the Fair and everything that happened. I can't recommend this book to TC fans or horror fans. It's mostly history and architecture.
He's been a doctor and a licensed pharmacist, who then conned an old couple into selling their drug store to him where he preyed on young girls and ignorant customers that would buy whatever Holmes would tell them to buy, whether it were real or fake tonics.
He was a building owner who had a murder hotel secretly built with " a wooden chute that would descend from a secret location on the second floor all the way to the basement... ", "a room next to his office fitted with a large walk-in vault, with airtight seams and asbestos-coated iron walls. A gas jet embedded in one wall would be controlled from his closet...", "a large basement with hidden chambers and a sub-basement for the permanent storage of sensitive material. "
He owned and ran an alcohol-treatment company known as the Silver Ash Institute that claimed to have the cure for alcoholism.
He was a traveling business man, who had two wives and two children. He established the Campbell-Yates Manufacturing Company, which made nothing and sold nothing.
He was also labeled as America's first serial killer. His body count is unknown even today; his victims were frequently young women, which included stenographers and house wives. He was best known for convincing people who trusted him to sign him as the beneficiary of their life insurance policies, only to kill them and make it seem an accident so he could collect the money.
Holmes grew up in a small farming village in New Hampshire, where he briefly spoke about an early fear of a human skeleton that hung in a doctor's office: " 'I had daily to pass the office of one village doctor, the door of which was seldom if ever barred,' he wrote in a later memoir. 'Partly from its being associated in my mind as the source of all the nauseous mixtures that had been my childish terror (for this was before the day of children's medicines), and partly because of vague rumors I had heard regarding its contents, this place was one of peculiar abhorrence to me.' "... "Two children discovered Mudgett's [Holmes' real last name] fear and one day captured him and dragged him 'struggling and shrieking' into the doctor's office. 'Nor did they desist,' Mudgett wrote, 'until I had been brought face to face with one of its grinning skeletons, which, with arms outstretched, seemed ready in its turn to seize me. It was a wicked and dangerous thing to do to a child of tender years and health,' he wrote, ' but it proved an heroic method of treatment, destined ultimately to cure me of my fears, and to inculcate in me, first, a strong feeling of curiosity, and, later, a desire to learn, which resulted years afterwards in my adopting medicine as a profession.' "
Erik Larson's fourth book, the Devil in the White City, is only partly about Holmes and his dark trail of murder and lies. The story told is mostly centered around the planning and building of the 1893 World's Fair. The prologue opens with one of the architects aboard a ship long after the fair has ended - - - 1912 to be exact- - - where he begins to write of the fair in his diary. The next chapter continues on with Chicago competing against other major cities to win the rights to host the World's Fair. Chicago was not the ideal place for the fair because it was known for it's crime and slaughter houses - - - this was exactly why the politicians wanted it so badly there, so it would help to lighten the image of Chicago for the rest of the world. Even the local Whitechapel Club that had sprouted up after the infamous murders by Jack the Ripper, were excited to win the rights to host the fair in their city, and celebrated in a macabre way:
"Upon learning that Chicago had won the fair, the men of the Whitechapel Club composed a telegram to Chauncey Depew, who more than any other man symbolized New York and its campaign to win the fair. Previously Depew had promised the members of the Whitechapel Club that if Chicago prevailed he would present himself at the club's next meeting, to be hacked apart by the Ripper himself - - - metaphorically, he presumed, although at the Whitechapel Club could one ever be certain? The club's coffin, for example, had once been used to transport the body of a member who had committed suicide. After claiming his body, the club hauled it to the Indiana Dunes on Lake Michigan, where members erected an immense pyre. They placed the body on top, then set it alight. Carrying torches and wearing black hooded robes, they circled the fire singing hymns to the dead between sips of whiskey. The club also had a custom of sending robed members to kidnap visiting celebrities and steal them away in a black coach with covered windows, all without saying a word.
The club's telegram reached Depew in Washington twenty minutes after the final ballot, just as Chicago's congressional delegation began celebrating at the Willard Hotel near the White House. The telegram asked, 'When may we see you at our dissecting table?' "
There are chapters in-between, technically reading like a side story, that tell us about Holmes and his misdeeds in Chicago, but there just wasn't enough about Holmes that I could consider this a True Crime book, nor an informative book about Holmes. Unfortunately, when the reader begins to really dwell into the story of Holmes, it's quickly ended by having two or more chapters about the building of the World's Fair. One interesting point about the story is that the reader does get to see how many inventions were brought to light because of the Fair, such as the invention of the Ferris Wheel. Larson's writing is very coherent and the descriptions are so well done that the reader is practically transported back to the late 1800s, yet, before I finished the book, I felt misled by the title... then coming across everything that happened to not only the Fair, but the people who were involved with it, it's hard not to wonder if the whole thing was cursed, thus the Devil being in the White City.
One of the side stories I did really enjoy was the slow unfolding of a man named Prendergast. A delusional young man who ran one of the groups of paperboys in Chicago, who was also obsessed with politics, became a determined supporter of Mayor Harrison; after Harrison was voted into office again, Prendergast believed it was because of him and the letters he sent out to numerous politicians and potential voters. Prendergast also believed he deserved a chair on the council for Harrison's re-election, for which he even showed up at City Hall to take over. This incident was the straw that broke the camel's back for Prendergast - - - he was humiliated when the people there laughed in his face. Prendergast then decided to take matters into his own hands, and bought a revolver. The day before the Fair would end, Prendergast showed up at Harrison's home and shot him. Harrison died minutes later. Prendergast turned himself in for the murder as soon as he left Harrison's residence. When asked why he had done it, Prendergast responded: " ' Because he betrayed my confidence. I supported him through his campaign and he promised to appoint me corporation counsel. He didn't live up to his word.' "
This book has been voted as a top True Crime must-read novel. I don't agree with this. As I said before: Holmes' chapters are few; eighty percent of this book is about the building of the World's Fair. As a True Crime junkie, I didn't enjoy this one, but also as a history junkie, I enjoyed learning about the Fair and everything that happened. I can't recommend this book to TC fans or horror fans. It's mostly history and architecture.
Lee (2222 KP) rated Queen & Slim (2019) in Movies
Dec 4, 2019
Usually when my local cinema chain hosts a secret screening, it's for a lesser known film that they're hoping to drum up interest and support for. They do occasionally show something a bit more mainstream though (the last one I went to was for an advance showing of Le Mans '66) and a lot of people in the run up to last nights secret screening were actually expecting it to be Little Women. It turned out to be Queen & Slim, a film that I knew very little about, and probably wouldn't have ventured to see at the cinema if I'm honest. Which is obviously the whole idea behind the secret screenings and why they urge you on social media beforehand to stick with it when you discover what it is!
Queen (Jodie Turner-Smith) and Slim (Daniel Kaluuya) are at a diner for their first Tinder date and they seem to be getting along, although a second date isn't exactly a definite just yet. As they drive home afterwards, they are pulled over by a white cop for driving erratically (Slim was quickly reaching to grab his phone back from Queen at the time) and for failure to execute a turn signal. There are clearly some racial motives behind the actions of the police officer though, not helped by Slim's impatience as the officer checks through the contents of his car, and the questioning coming from Queen, who works as a defense attorney and knows their rights. Following a heated exchange, a shot is fired and Queen is left with a flesh wound to her leg. An angered Slim then brawls with the cop and, in what is clearly self defense, shoots and kills the officer. Fearing what will happen to them next and the likelihood of further injustice, they decide to go on the run.
What follows is around 40 minutes of pretty tense drama, unexpectedly peppered with some moments of real humour when as the pair find themselves getting into even more difficult situations. As dash-cam footage from the vehicle of the deceased police officer goes viral, there's a real sense of urgency and intensity to their predicament, making for a really intense and gripping roller-coaster of a ride. They make it to New Orleans, and a brief stopover at the home of Queen's Uncle Earl (Bokeem Woodbine), and it's around this point in the movie that momentum gets lost somewhat, never really recovering until the finale.
Written by Lena Waithe (Master of None and Ready Player One), Queen & Slim is clearly a relevant and important movie, boasting a great look and style from director Melina Matsoukas. Daniel Kaluuya is a great choice for Slim too, no stranger to portraying strong emotions with his eyes and facial expressions, as he did so perfectly in his iconic Get Out role. While I wasn't so keen on Jodie Turner-Smith, the pair did work well together, despite making some questionable character choices at times. When a photo of the pair goes viral, they become a kind of modern day Bonnie & Clyde, hailed as heroes and legends by many as they make their way down towards Florida, where they hope to be able catch a flight to freedom in Cuba. Along the way, their relationship develops and they occasionally find support among the black community in each town they stop at.
But, following that stopover in New Orleans, Queen & Slim becomes much more of a slow meander towards the finish line, and it's a real noticeable tonal shift and change of pacing from those first 40 minutes or so. People in the cinema became fidgety (including me), some gave up on the movie completely and left the cinema (I've done that before, vowed never to do it again though) and all I could think about when they get help from some old friends of Queen's Uncle was "Is that Needles, from Back to the Future?" (it was).
All of this shouldn't detract from how important this movie is though, highlighting racial injustice and delving into real issues unashamedly. While Queen & Slim didn't quite work for me overall, it is certainly a story which deserves to be told and seen by many, getting people talking and hopefully instigating some real change. I'm glad I had the chance to see it, and glad I stuck with it right until the end.
Queen (Jodie Turner-Smith) and Slim (Daniel Kaluuya) are at a diner for their first Tinder date and they seem to be getting along, although a second date isn't exactly a definite just yet. As they drive home afterwards, they are pulled over by a white cop for driving erratically (Slim was quickly reaching to grab his phone back from Queen at the time) and for failure to execute a turn signal. There are clearly some racial motives behind the actions of the police officer though, not helped by Slim's impatience as the officer checks through the contents of his car, and the questioning coming from Queen, who works as a defense attorney and knows their rights. Following a heated exchange, a shot is fired and Queen is left with a flesh wound to her leg. An angered Slim then brawls with the cop and, in what is clearly self defense, shoots and kills the officer. Fearing what will happen to them next and the likelihood of further injustice, they decide to go on the run.
What follows is around 40 minutes of pretty tense drama, unexpectedly peppered with some moments of real humour when as the pair find themselves getting into even more difficult situations. As dash-cam footage from the vehicle of the deceased police officer goes viral, there's a real sense of urgency and intensity to their predicament, making for a really intense and gripping roller-coaster of a ride. They make it to New Orleans, and a brief stopover at the home of Queen's Uncle Earl (Bokeem Woodbine), and it's around this point in the movie that momentum gets lost somewhat, never really recovering until the finale.
Written by Lena Waithe (Master of None and Ready Player One), Queen & Slim is clearly a relevant and important movie, boasting a great look and style from director Melina Matsoukas. Daniel Kaluuya is a great choice for Slim too, no stranger to portraying strong emotions with his eyes and facial expressions, as he did so perfectly in his iconic Get Out role. While I wasn't so keen on Jodie Turner-Smith, the pair did work well together, despite making some questionable character choices at times. When a photo of the pair goes viral, they become a kind of modern day Bonnie & Clyde, hailed as heroes and legends by many as they make their way down towards Florida, where they hope to be able catch a flight to freedom in Cuba. Along the way, their relationship develops and they occasionally find support among the black community in each town they stop at.
But, following that stopover in New Orleans, Queen & Slim becomes much more of a slow meander towards the finish line, and it's a real noticeable tonal shift and change of pacing from those first 40 minutes or so. People in the cinema became fidgety (including me), some gave up on the movie completely and left the cinema (I've done that before, vowed never to do it again though) and all I could think about when they get help from some old friends of Queen's Uncle was "Is that Needles, from Back to the Future?" (it was).
All of this shouldn't detract from how important this movie is though, highlighting racial injustice and delving into real issues unashamedly. While Queen & Slim didn't quite work for me overall, it is certainly a story which deserves to be told and seen by many, getting people talking and hopefully instigating some real change. I'm glad I had the chance to see it, and glad I stuck with it right until the end.
Heather Cranmer (2721 KP) rated Eleanor & Park in Books
Jun 7, 2018
(This review can be found on my blog <a href="http://themisadventuresofatwentysomething.blogspot.com/">The (Mis)Adventures of a Twenty-Something Year Old Girl</a>).
The feels with this book, seriously! I even had a book hangover after reading Eleanor & Park by Rainbow Rowell. That's how good it was!
15 year old Eleanor is starting a new school. What's even worse is she gets bullied for being overweight and for dressing differently then everyone else. On the first day of school, Eleanor sits beside Park on the bus. At first, they ignore each other, but eventually, Park and Eleanor become closer and closer. Eleanor's family is less than perfect. Her step-dad hates Eleanor. Eleanor thinks Park's family is perfect. Will their love survive?
The title of this book is quite simple, but it works. It's very straightforward. It's a book about Eleanor and Park plus their relationship.
When I first picked up this book, the cover reminded me of a book from the 1980's or 1990's which is perfect considering this book takes place in 1986. Like the time, it is also simplistic, but it works.
I loved the world building! It was quite easy to imagine something like this happening. While the story takes place in 1986, it feels like it could happen in almost any decade. There's talk of cassette tapes and walkmans which were very 80's and 90's. There's talk of bands that were popular around 1986, but when I read it, I felt like it could even take place now.
The pacing was fantastic! From the first page, I was hooked. Every page just kept getting better and better, and by the end of the story, I was sad that it was over. I felt as if I had lost two really good friends.
I enjoyed the plot. A girl from a broken and abused household falls in love with a boy from a "normal" household. She gets her first boyfriend and is overjoyed. The boy swears he has never felt that way before. Yes, it's been done, but I assure you, Rowell makes this story original and unique. I felt that the ending of the book leaves you to form your own opinion of what happens next though. I do wish it was written in black and white because I hate speculating.
I was in love with Eleanor and Park! I can relate to Eleanor though because I was that overweight kid in high school that was sometimes made fun of. I didn't dress like her, but I get how she feels. I hated that Richie, her step-dad, was so mean to her. I kept wanting Richie to just leave. He was such a horrid person! Park was a sweetheart, and I love how he was willing to endure the teasing just to be with Eleanor. Park had a very big heart when it came to Eleanor.
The dialogue was absolutely perfect! I loved the interactions between Park and Eleanor. I also enjoyed how the story would switch between Park and Eleanor so we'd get more of an insight as to what each character was thinking and feeling. There is some swearing in this book and some mild violence.
Overall, Eleanor & Park is such a sweet and emotional read. The characters are easy to love, the pacing is fantastic, and the world building is brilliantly done!
I'd recommend this book to those aged 15+ who would like to get lost in a great book!
(I won an ARC paperback of this title in a competition. I was not required to write a review)
The feels with this book, seriously! I even had a book hangover after reading Eleanor & Park by Rainbow Rowell. That's how good it was!
15 year old Eleanor is starting a new school. What's even worse is she gets bullied for being overweight and for dressing differently then everyone else. On the first day of school, Eleanor sits beside Park on the bus. At first, they ignore each other, but eventually, Park and Eleanor become closer and closer. Eleanor's family is less than perfect. Her step-dad hates Eleanor. Eleanor thinks Park's family is perfect. Will their love survive?
The title of this book is quite simple, but it works. It's very straightforward. It's a book about Eleanor and Park plus their relationship.
When I first picked up this book, the cover reminded me of a book from the 1980's or 1990's which is perfect considering this book takes place in 1986. Like the time, it is also simplistic, but it works.
I loved the world building! It was quite easy to imagine something like this happening. While the story takes place in 1986, it feels like it could happen in almost any decade. There's talk of cassette tapes and walkmans which were very 80's and 90's. There's talk of bands that were popular around 1986, but when I read it, I felt like it could even take place now.
The pacing was fantastic! From the first page, I was hooked. Every page just kept getting better and better, and by the end of the story, I was sad that it was over. I felt as if I had lost two really good friends.
I enjoyed the plot. A girl from a broken and abused household falls in love with a boy from a "normal" household. She gets her first boyfriend and is overjoyed. The boy swears he has never felt that way before. Yes, it's been done, but I assure you, Rowell makes this story original and unique. I felt that the ending of the book leaves you to form your own opinion of what happens next though. I do wish it was written in black and white because I hate speculating.
I was in love with Eleanor and Park! I can relate to Eleanor though because I was that overweight kid in high school that was sometimes made fun of. I didn't dress like her, but I get how she feels. I hated that Richie, her step-dad, was so mean to her. I kept wanting Richie to just leave. He was such a horrid person! Park was a sweetheart, and I love how he was willing to endure the teasing just to be with Eleanor. Park had a very big heart when it came to Eleanor.
The dialogue was absolutely perfect! I loved the interactions between Park and Eleanor. I also enjoyed how the story would switch between Park and Eleanor so we'd get more of an insight as to what each character was thinking and feeling. There is some swearing in this book and some mild violence.
Overall, Eleanor & Park is such a sweet and emotional read. The characters are easy to love, the pacing is fantastic, and the world building is brilliantly done!
I'd recommend this book to those aged 15+ who would like to get lost in a great book!
(I won an ARC paperback of this title in a competition. I was not required to write a review)
PhotoGrid - Pic & Video Editor
Photo & Video and Lifestyle
4.0
Rate It
App
A must-have free photo editor app for photography fanatics and Instagram users! It's packed with...
Sugar Daddy Gay Dating For Sugar Daddy, Sugar Baby
Social Networking
App
GDaddy is the world’s FIRST and LARGEST gay dating app for gay sugar daddies, gay sugar babies. It...
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.)
