Search
Search results
Darren (1599 KP) rated Alien 3 (1992) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Story: How do you follow up two of the best sci-fi films or all time? This struggles to keep up with the atmosphere created in the first two. It offers nothing new to the series either. As a stand-alone film this would struggle to be a good sci-fi thriller. It’s only positive I can think of were a couple of surprise deaths. (5/10)
Actor Review: Sigourney Weaver – Ripley back to kick the alien’s arse. Sigourney has created one of the biggest icons in female cinema, but this is not the chapter anyone would be remembering. (6/10)
ripley
Actor Review: Charles S. Dutton – Dillon leader of the religious movement on in the prison. One of the good guys who protects Ripley from the bad prisoners. He does an ok job but doesn’t have enough to work with. (6/10)
dance
Actor Review: Charles Dance – Medical officer with a dark past on the road to recovery. Good supporting role is used well to create a good connection between Ripley and the prisoners. (6/10)
Director Review: David Fincher – The great director disowned this film after it got changed post production and I don’t blame him. (4/10)
Action: Slow moving action throughout. (6/10)
Sci-Fi: Take out the Alien it offers very little in the world of sci-fi. (5/10)
Thriller: Not very thrilling compared to previous offering. (5/10)
Special Effects: Poor special effects too. (5/10)
Chances of Tears: No (0/10)
Settings: A prison on a planet with nowhere to run creating a great isolation setting for this sci-fi horror. (9/10)
Suggestion: I only say try because it makes the first two look even better and it is nice to see how the characters you grew to love, well their next chapter. (Try It)
Best Part: Lead scene.
Worst Part: Loses suspense element.
Action Scene of the Film: Final scene.
Kill Of The Film: Clemens
Oscar Chances: Nominated for one Oscar for visual effects
Chances of Sequel: Did get a sequel.
Overall: Poor addition to the franchise.
https://moviesreview101.com/2014/01/29/alien-3-1992/
Actor Review: Sigourney Weaver – Ripley back to kick the alien’s arse. Sigourney has created one of the biggest icons in female cinema, but this is not the chapter anyone would be remembering. (6/10)
ripley
Actor Review: Charles S. Dutton – Dillon leader of the religious movement on in the prison. One of the good guys who protects Ripley from the bad prisoners. He does an ok job but doesn’t have enough to work with. (6/10)
dance
Actor Review: Charles Dance – Medical officer with a dark past on the road to recovery. Good supporting role is used well to create a good connection between Ripley and the prisoners. (6/10)
Director Review: David Fincher – The great director disowned this film after it got changed post production and I don’t blame him. (4/10)
Action: Slow moving action throughout. (6/10)
Sci-Fi: Take out the Alien it offers very little in the world of sci-fi. (5/10)
Thriller: Not very thrilling compared to previous offering. (5/10)
Special Effects: Poor special effects too. (5/10)
Chances of Tears: No (0/10)
Settings: A prison on a planet with nowhere to run creating a great isolation setting for this sci-fi horror. (9/10)
Suggestion: I only say try because it makes the first two look even better and it is nice to see how the characters you grew to love, well their next chapter. (Try It)
Best Part: Lead scene.
Worst Part: Loses suspense element.
Action Scene of the Film: Final scene.
Kill Of The Film: Clemens
Oscar Chances: Nominated for one Oscar for visual effects
Chances of Sequel: Did get a sequel.
Overall: Poor addition to the franchise.
https://moviesreview101.com/2014/01/29/alien-3-1992/
Sarah (7798 KP) rated Blinded by the Light (2019) in Movies
Apr 26, 2020
Clumsy and unoriginal
Watching this film would never be my choice, as despite my love of musicals I've never been particularly interested in the music of Bruce Springsteen. And I'm afraid to say this film hasn't changed my opinion on this either.
This film is so cheesy and cliched that I spent most of the time watching it cringing in horror. It seems to copy virtually every other type of film that has come before it that looks at coming of age in a Muslim and Pakistani background - it's like a poor version of East is East, with barely any laughs & a bit of Springsteen thrown in. The production values in this too are rather poor. You can tell it's low budget, from the dodgy dance scenes to the cinematography as a whole.
There is a decent cast thrown into this like Hayley Atwell, Rob Brydon and Dean Charles Chapman but I felt like they were sadly underused and letdown by the poor and ridiculously cheesy script. There are some likeable parts in this that makes it a little bit feel good but overall I could've quite happily turned this off and not felt like I was missing out.
This film is so cheesy and cliched that I spent most of the time watching it cringing in horror. It seems to copy virtually every other type of film that has come before it that looks at coming of age in a Muslim and Pakistani background - it's like a poor version of East is East, with barely any laughs & a bit of Springsteen thrown in. The production values in this too are rather poor. You can tell it's low budget, from the dodgy dance scenes to the cinematography as a whole.
There is a decent cast thrown into this like Hayley Atwell, Rob Brydon and Dean Charles Chapman but I felt like they were sadly underused and letdown by the poor and ridiculously cheesy script. There are some likeable parts in this that makes it a little bit feel good but overall I could've quite happily turned this off and not felt like I was missing out.
Mark @ Carstairs Considers (2053 KP) rated Ghosted in Books
Dec 17, 2018
Mean Girl Gets Scrooged
Ellie Charles rules Lincoln Heights Middle School. Everyone wants to be her friend and everyone wants to please her. She's top of the class academically, president of the student body, and chairperson of every committee that matters. Maybe she rules with an iron fist, but no one seems to mind - at least as best Ellie can tell.
The book opens the day of the winter dance. Naturally, Ellie is chair of the dance committee, and it is going to be awesome! However, when Ellie falls off a ladder, she finds herself having a freaky out of body experience. Suddenly, she's back five years ago when her best friend, Marley, and Marley's two dads lived across the street. Back before her father left her and her mother right before Christmas. Why is she witnessing these events again? And who is the Girl in Black who seems to be following Ellie on this trip down memory lane?
Being a big fan of A Christmas Carol, I had to give this modern middle grade take on the classic a try. While I enjoyed aspects of it, including a few clever nods to the original, I felt the book was lacking overall. Ellie is just so mean it is hard to root for her. The book spends much of the time in the past, and Ellie's sad past doesn't help things. The expected ending seems abrupt and short, so we don't get as big a pay off as we would like after our trip with Ellie. Then again, it might just be that I'm not the target audience. Either way, this won't be making my list of beloved spins on the Dicken's classic.
The book opens the day of the winter dance. Naturally, Ellie is chair of the dance committee, and it is going to be awesome! However, when Ellie falls off a ladder, she finds herself having a freaky out of body experience. Suddenly, she's back five years ago when her best friend, Marley, and Marley's two dads lived across the street. Back before her father left her and her mother right before Christmas. Why is she witnessing these events again? And who is the Girl in Black who seems to be following Ellie on this trip down memory lane?
Being a big fan of A Christmas Carol, I had to give this modern middle grade take on the classic a try. While I enjoyed aspects of it, including a few clever nods to the original, I felt the book was lacking overall. Ellie is just so mean it is hard to root for her. The book spends much of the time in the past, and Ellie's sad past doesn't help things. The expected ending seems abrupt and short, so we don't get as big a pay off as we would like after our trip with Ellie. Then again, it might just be that I'm not the target audience. Either way, this won't be making my list of beloved spins on the Dicken's classic.
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated X-Men: First Class (2011) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
When the “X-Men:The Last Stand” failed to score big with critics and audiences in 2006, many fans began to wonder if they would ever see their favorite mutant superhero team on screen anytime soon. Despite mixed reviews, 2009’s standalone film “Wolverine“, did sufficient box office numbers to warrant a sequel which is currently in development, indicating that the likely future of the series was with standalone character films.
Then 20th Century Fox decided to tell a team-based origin story that focuses on the early days of the X-Men and how they became the team that they are today. This is a bit of a controversial move as it involves recasting several roles to play younger versions of beloved characters.
The result is X-Men: First Class which stars Scottish actor James McAvoy as Charles Xavier, a brilliant young academic who hides his unique and amazing telepathic gifts from the world. When a chance encounter proves to Charles that there are others in the world who share his gifts he dedicates his studies to unlocking the mysteries of genetic mutations and their possibilities.
At the same time a young man named Eric Lehnsherr (Michael Fassbender), has embarked on a path of destruction and revenge against those who wronged and tormented him and his family during the Nazi occupation of their native Poland. Eric’s main target is man who now calls himself Sebastian Shaw (Kevin Bacon), who has surrounded himself with a team of skilled mutants and is manipulating US and Russia to the brink of nuclear war, for his own evil purposes.
When CIA Agent MacTaggart (Rose Byrne), learns of Shaw’s plans, she recruits Xavier, not knowing that he and his friend Raven (Jennifer Lawrence) are mutants themselves, with the hopes of understanding their new enemy and mounting a proper defense.
When the truth of his true nature is revealed, Charles teems with MacTaggart and scientist Hank McCoy (Nicholas Hoult), to locate and recruit other gifted individuals to their cause. Fate steps in when Erik and Charles meet and eventually become friends over there mutual pursuit of Shaw. Despite a great deal of understanding between the two individuals, Eric is intent upon killing Shaw. He warns his new friend not to trust humans, as his time under Nazi control taught him that it’s only a matter of time until he and his fellow mutants are targeted for extinction by the world. Despite this the Eric and Charles recruit and train a team to prepare to face Shaw and his followers, with the fate of the world hanging in the balance.
The film starts off well and it was very enjoyable to see a deeper side of the characters. From young Charles hitting on women in bars and making jokes about losing his full head of hair to the deadly side of Eric and his abilities as well as the early relationship between the iconic characters. Somewhere along the way the film loses its initial momentum as the plot of the film takes a while to get going. As good as the cast is, they need something to do and after numerous debates and a few training and recruitment segments the film became somewhat boring. There simply was not a lot of action to sustain the plot.
Kevin Bacon was an interesting choice for the villain. He did a good job, although watching him strut around I kept expecting him to break into dance at any moment. Another issue I had was that some of the supporting characters were basically throwaway as I cared little about their stories and outcomes. Only the characters of Raven, Eric, and Charles held any real interest for me and watching their interplay with one another was one of the strong points of the film.
As the film move toward the finale there were several things about it that did not work for me starting with the makeup for The Beast. Complete with spectacles it was almost a laughable look that brought to mind Jason Bateman in “Teen Wolf 2“. The fact that the character was annoying as well did very little to help.
The biggest issue I had with the film was that after all this buildup the finale was actually very ho-hum and while it did contain some visually nice moments, I do not feel the action balanced with the storytelling, certainly not to the extent that audiences expect from nor require of a summer blockbuster.
There are a couple of moments in the film that will certainly be questioned by fans of the series as well as scenes which conflict with information from the earlier films in the series. It seems certain elements of continuity have been omitted for creative license. I will not spoil those here but suffice it to say that if my wife, who is a casual fan of the series, was able to note conflicts and discrepancies between this film and a previous film, then certainly hard-core fans may have some real issues.
The film does a good job with explaining the origin and nature of the characters, but fails to provide an adventure worthy of the effort and instead plays out in a very underwhelming fashion. Director Matthew Vaughn proved himself highly adept with adventure films when he produced “Kick Ass“, and other action-oriented films. He is clearly a fan of comics and action and I would love to have seen what could’ve resulted had he been given carte blanche with the film.
In the end, “X-Men: First Class“, for me was more entertaining than the previous ensemble films, but fails to live up to its potential and severely lacks enough action to sustain the early momentum of the film.
Then 20th Century Fox decided to tell a team-based origin story that focuses on the early days of the X-Men and how they became the team that they are today. This is a bit of a controversial move as it involves recasting several roles to play younger versions of beloved characters.
The result is X-Men: First Class which stars Scottish actor James McAvoy as Charles Xavier, a brilliant young academic who hides his unique and amazing telepathic gifts from the world. When a chance encounter proves to Charles that there are others in the world who share his gifts he dedicates his studies to unlocking the mysteries of genetic mutations and their possibilities.
At the same time a young man named Eric Lehnsherr (Michael Fassbender), has embarked on a path of destruction and revenge against those who wronged and tormented him and his family during the Nazi occupation of their native Poland. Eric’s main target is man who now calls himself Sebastian Shaw (Kevin Bacon), who has surrounded himself with a team of skilled mutants and is manipulating US and Russia to the brink of nuclear war, for his own evil purposes.
When CIA Agent MacTaggart (Rose Byrne), learns of Shaw’s plans, she recruits Xavier, not knowing that he and his friend Raven (Jennifer Lawrence) are mutants themselves, with the hopes of understanding their new enemy and mounting a proper defense.
When the truth of his true nature is revealed, Charles teems with MacTaggart and scientist Hank McCoy (Nicholas Hoult), to locate and recruit other gifted individuals to their cause. Fate steps in when Erik and Charles meet and eventually become friends over there mutual pursuit of Shaw. Despite a great deal of understanding between the two individuals, Eric is intent upon killing Shaw. He warns his new friend not to trust humans, as his time under Nazi control taught him that it’s only a matter of time until he and his fellow mutants are targeted for extinction by the world. Despite this the Eric and Charles recruit and train a team to prepare to face Shaw and his followers, with the fate of the world hanging in the balance.
The film starts off well and it was very enjoyable to see a deeper side of the characters. From young Charles hitting on women in bars and making jokes about losing his full head of hair to the deadly side of Eric and his abilities as well as the early relationship between the iconic characters. Somewhere along the way the film loses its initial momentum as the plot of the film takes a while to get going. As good as the cast is, they need something to do and after numerous debates and a few training and recruitment segments the film became somewhat boring. There simply was not a lot of action to sustain the plot.
Kevin Bacon was an interesting choice for the villain. He did a good job, although watching him strut around I kept expecting him to break into dance at any moment. Another issue I had was that some of the supporting characters were basically throwaway as I cared little about their stories and outcomes. Only the characters of Raven, Eric, and Charles held any real interest for me and watching their interplay with one another was one of the strong points of the film.
As the film move toward the finale there were several things about it that did not work for me starting with the makeup for The Beast. Complete with spectacles it was almost a laughable look that brought to mind Jason Bateman in “Teen Wolf 2“. The fact that the character was annoying as well did very little to help.
The biggest issue I had with the film was that after all this buildup the finale was actually very ho-hum and while it did contain some visually nice moments, I do not feel the action balanced with the storytelling, certainly not to the extent that audiences expect from nor require of a summer blockbuster.
There are a couple of moments in the film that will certainly be questioned by fans of the series as well as scenes which conflict with information from the earlier films in the series. It seems certain elements of continuity have been omitted for creative license. I will not spoil those here but suffice it to say that if my wife, who is a casual fan of the series, was able to note conflicts and discrepancies between this film and a previous film, then certainly hard-core fans may have some real issues.
The film does a good job with explaining the origin and nature of the characters, but fails to provide an adventure worthy of the effort and instead plays out in a very underwhelming fashion. Director Matthew Vaughn proved himself highly adept with adventure films when he produced “Kick Ass“, and other action-oriented films. He is clearly a fan of comics and action and I would love to have seen what could’ve resulted had he been given carte blanche with the film.
In the end, “X-Men: First Class“, for me was more entertaining than the previous ensemble films, but fails to live up to its potential and severely lacks enough action to sustain the early momentum of the film.
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated Your Highness (2011) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
For all you minotaur lovers out there, the movie Your Highness is the film for you. Not that the movie is about them but it has the most unique minotaur I have ever seen in a movie. Your Highness takes place long ago in a land far away in a kingdom that has two princes. The oldest and heir-to-the-throne is Prince Fabious (the fabulous James Franco). He is a prince’s prince, a knight’s knight, he enjoys protecting the innocent, he slays evil cyclops and other evil things that should be slayed.
The youngest is Prince Thadeous (film co-writer Danny McBride), he is a slacker’s slacker, a player’s player, he enjoys booze and other mind-altering stuff, he lays with easy maidens and…well, you get the point. Even though the two brothers are so very different they still love each other, even if Thadeous won’t admit it. So when Prince Fabious was to be married to the beautiful yet naive Belladonna (the enchanting Zooey Deschanel) he wanted none other than his younger brother to be his best man.
But fate had other plans and what should have been the happiest of wedding days was ruined when the evil wizard Leezar (Justin Theroux) kidnaps Belladonna so he can produce an evil dragon offspring that he would use to rule the world. The two brothers vow to save her and kill Leezar. Ok, technically Thadeous is told by their father the King (Charles Dance) that either he goes with his older brother or he will be kicked out of the kingdom and it is Fabious who does the vowing. So they ride out with their most trusted knights and along the way they meet the Great Wize (not a typo) Wizard (voiced by Mario Torres. Jr.), the highly skilled fighter Isabel (played by a pretty intimidating Natalie Portman), the Minotaur (Brian Steele, a surprisingly fitting name), forest people (I loved the forest people!). Epic adventure and treachery ensue – dun dun dunn! Will they save Belladonna and the world? Will Thadeous become a respectable prince? Will the minotaur live happily ever after?
The movie is funny but the humor is on par with middle-school-aged male humor so approximately 80% of all adult males will probably find the movie funny and a lot of wives will be wondering why they married them. It also had some decent fight scenes sprinkled throughout the movie. I’ll be honest, there were a couple of scenes in the film that I wish I could un-see… the kind of stuff that never happened in any dice role-playing game that I have ever played.
Now I am sure we have all seen movies where one person’s performance was so well done that it made the other people’s performances seem lacking (whether they truly were or not). To me this movie fell victim to that problem. After all with people like Charles Dance, Natalie Portman, James Franco, Zooey Deschanel and Damian Lewis, who plays Boremont, one of the trusted Knights, it was bound to happen. Overall, a very entertaining and funny movie.
The youngest is Prince Thadeous (film co-writer Danny McBride), he is a slacker’s slacker, a player’s player, he enjoys booze and other mind-altering stuff, he lays with easy maidens and…well, you get the point. Even though the two brothers are so very different they still love each other, even if Thadeous won’t admit it. So when Prince Fabious was to be married to the beautiful yet naive Belladonna (the enchanting Zooey Deschanel) he wanted none other than his younger brother to be his best man.
But fate had other plans and what should have been the happiest of wedding days was ruined when the evil wizard Leezar (Justin Theroux) kidnaps Belladonna so he can produce an evil dragon offspring that he would use to rule the world. The two brothers vow to save her and kill Leezar. Ok, technically Thadeous is told by their father the King (Charles Dance) that either he goes with his older brother or he will be kicked out of the kingdom and it is Fabious who does the vowing. So they ride out with their most trusted knights and along the way they meet the Great Wize (not a typo) Wizard (voiced by Mario Torres. Jr.), the highly skilled fighter Isabel (played by a pretty intimidating Natalie Portman), the Minotaur (Brian Steele, a surprisingly fitting name), forest people (I loved the forest people!). Epic adventure and treachery ensue – dun dun dunn! Will they save Belladonna and the world? Will Thadeous become a respectable prince? Will the minotaur live happily ever after?
The movie is funny but the humor is on par with middle-school-aged male humor so approximately 80% of all adult males will probably find the movie funny and a lot of wives will be wondering why they married them. It also had some decent fight scenes sprinkled throughout the movie. I’ll be honest, there were a couple of scenes in the film that I wish I could un-see… the kind of stuff that never happened in any dice role-playing game that I have ever played.
Now I am sure we have all seen movies where one person’s performance was so well done that it made the other people’s performances seem lacking (whether they truly were or not). To me this movie fell victim to that problem. After all with people like Charles Dance, Natalie Portman, James Franco, Zooey Deschanel and Damian Lewis, who plays Boremont, one of the trusted Knights, it was bound to happen. Overall, a very entertaining and funny movie.
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.)
Rachel King (13 KP) rated Glass Houses (The Morganville Vampires, #1) in Books
Feb 11, 2019
I found this book to be a nice change from the typical high school setting that so many Young Adult books take place in - with good reason, of course. So what if she's still only 16, she's in college! Unfortunately, she still has not outgrown the evil female clique syndrome that plague so many stories. Some elements of the story remind me of my own days in university, but the book takes them all to the extreme. On a side note, it's a good thing she's so dang smart, because from my experience, skipping classes like she does throughout the text should, in reality, result in failing grades. I guess that's the beauty of fantasy literature - you can skip all the drudgery and go straight for the exciting bits of life.
The part I did not really understand - and I am still waiting for an explanation after finishing the book - is how the psychotic Monica seems to get away with more than the resident vampires do. I mean, if the vamps both built and run the town of Morganville, it makes more sense that they would want to appear more nefarious than the lowly humans.
I also found it strangely refreshing that the vampires were wholely and completely the bad guys - no human-vampire romantic happenings, and no, Miranda the vision-plagued goth and her undead boyfriend Charles do not count. But I did find the head vampire Amelie very intriguing, since she seems less interested in bloody deaths and widespread property damage and more interested in maintaining power and protecting her assets, a trait that no other vampire in the novel seemed to exhibit.
I can not wait to get my hands on the next novel in the series, The Dead Girls' Dance, since Michael's state of ghost / not-ghost / Glass House incarnate has not been resolved enough for me at all!
The part I did not really understand - and I am still waiting for an explanation after finishing the book - is how the psychotic Monica seems to get away with more than the resident vampires do. I mean, if the vamps both built and run the town of Morganville, it makes more sense that they would want to appear more nefarious than the lowly humans.
I also found it strangely refreshing that the vampires were wholely and completely the bad guys - no human-vampire romantic happenings, and no, Miranda the vision-plagued goth and her undead boyfriend Charles do not count. But I did find the head vampire Amelie very intriguing, since she seems less interested in bloody deaths and widespread property damage and more interested in maintaining power and protecting her assets, a trait that no other vampire in the novel seemed to exhibit.
I can not wait to get my hands on the next novel in the series, The Dead Girls' Dance, since Michael's state of ghost / not-ghost / Glass House incarnate has not been resolved enough for me at all!
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)
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated Pride and Prejudice and Zombies (2016) in Movies
Jan 30, 2020 (Updated Jan 30, 2020)
Pride and Prejudice. Zombies. That's it pretty much!
The book was released a fair while back now, and it's a shame that a film adaption took so long to materialise - by 2016, countless 'quirky' zombie movies in a similar vain had saturated the market, and what we're presented with is a film that tries reasonably hard to be something 'out there' but ultimately feels uninspired.
The main issue I found with PPZ was the actual zombie side of things! The zombies themselves looked great, the make up used is gruesome and effective, but the scenes of horror are seldom, and just quite boring. The final act sees a massive horde introduced into the narrative, but said horde probably gets less than two minutes screen time.
The actual Pride and Prejudice side of things felt way more fun.
The cast is pretty strong, even if a few of the characters are insufferable. Lily James is a great lead as Elizabeth Bennet. Her and her sisters make for a strong band of kick-ass zombie slayers. Sam Riley as Mr. Darcy took a (really) long time to win me over, but I actually ended up enjoying him as well.
Lena Headey is entertaining as a badass eyepatched version of Lady Catherine, and it's clear in moments like this that PPZ is just a bit of fun horror comedy fluff that shouldn't be taken too seriously.
The undisputed highlight of the cast is Matt Smith though. His comedic timing is on point and got a few genuine laughs out of me.
Another thing I found frustrating is the story that we weren't being told...the film opens with an animated story book style flashback of how the zombie apocalypse came to be, and what happened in the ensuing chaos. Even the soothing tones of Charles Dance can't distract me from the fact that this exposition dump sounds like a far more interesting story!
Couple that with the fact that we only get glimpses in the distance of a zombie infested flaming London completely surrounded by a massive concrete wall, and you can't help but feel that the film is a bit of a missed opportunity.
Oh well - here's hoping we get a Sense and Sensibility and Sea Monsters adaption somewhere down the line!
The book was released a fair while back now, and it's a shame that a film adaption took so long to materialise - by 2016, countless 'quirky' zombie movies in a similar vain had saturated the market, and what we're presented with is a film that tries reasonably hard to be something 'out there' but ultimately feels uninspired.
The main issue I found with PPZ was the actual zombie side of things! The zombies themselves looked great, the make up used is gruesome and effective, but the scenes of horror are seldom, and just quite boring. The final act sees a massive horde introduced into the narrative, but said horde probably gets less than two minutes screen time.
The actual Pride and Prejudice side of things felt way more fun.
The cast is pretty strong, even if a few of the characters are insufferable. Lily James is a great lead as Elizabeth Bennet. Her and her sisters make for a strong band of kick-ass zombie slayers. Sam Riley as Mr. Darcy took a (really) long time to win me over, but I actually ended up enjoying him as well.
Lena Headey is entertaining as a badass eyepatched version of Lady Catherine, and it's clear in moments like this that PPZ is just a bit of fun horror comedy fluff that shouldn't be taken too seriously.
The undisputed highlight of the cast is Matt Smith though. His comedic timing is on point and got a few genuine laughs out of me.
Another thing I found frustrating is the story that we weren't being told...the film opens with an animated story book style flashback of how the zombie apocalypse came to be, and what happened in the ensuing chaos. Even the soothing tones of Charles Dance can't distract me from the fact that this exposition dump sounds like a far more interesting story!
Couple that with the fact that we only get glimpses in the distance of a zombie infested flaming London completely surrounded by a massive concrete wall, and you can't help but feel that the film is a bit of a missed opportunity.
Oh well - here's hoping we get a Sense and Sensibility and Sea Monsters adaption somewhere down the line!
Charlie Cobra Reviews (1840 KP) rated Godzilla: King of the Monsters (2019) in Movies
Jul 7, 2020
Hail To The King Baby
Godzilla: King of The Monsters is a 2019 monster movie directed by Michael Dougherty and written by Dougherty, Zach Shields, and Max Borenstein. It was produced by Legendary Pictures and distributed by Warner Bros. Pictures. The film was dedicated to the original Godzilla suit performer Haruo Nakajima and executive producer Yoshimitsu Banno. The movie stars Kyle Chandler, Vera Farmiga, Millie Bobby Brown, Ken Watanabe and Zhang Ziyi.
Working to track down and study Titans (giant-God like monsters) for the organization Monarch, Paleobiologist Emma Russell (Vera Farmiga) and her daughter Madison (Millie Bobby Brown) witness the birth of a giant larva monster named Mothra. The monster is hostile until Emma uses a device called "Orca", which only Titans can hear, to calm it down until eco-terrorists attack, led by Alan Jonah (Charles Dance) and kidnap both her and her daughter. Monarch scientists and soldiers approach Mark (Kyle Chandler), Emma's ex-husband, to track them down and soon they are headed towards Antarctica, where Jonah intends to free a Titan encased in ice called "Monster Zero".
This movie had classic Godzilla flick written all over it and it did not disappoint. The visual effects were awesome, from the way the monsters looked, to the blasts they utilized and even things like explosions were all top notch. The music was also outstanding, as many classic Godzilla themes made a comeback including Mothra's theme. The action sequences far exceeded those of it's predecessor Godzilla 2014, There was plenty of monster battles to make this a fan favorite for years to come. Now I do have to agree with some of the critics and say that the storyline was a little thin and predictable but that didn't stop the film from being enjoyable. And some critics complained about underdeveloped human characters, but in all honesty, the human characters are not why the fans are going to see this movie. I thought the main cast of characters had enough development, it's just that compared to a normal Godzilla film or even the last one, there were a lot of secondary characters or supporting cast. Which to me personally, made the film feel more full. This movie checked a lot of my boxes for what I've come to expect in a Godzilla/giant monster movie and made me happy when I watched it in theaters. It had its down time in certain parts and slow building scenes or moments where it seemed the audience in consensus chose to use that time to run to the restroom and back. But other than that and some predictable plot points and character actions this movie was great.
Working to track down and study Titans (giant-God like monsters) for the organization Monarch, Paleobiologist Emma Russell (Vera Farmiga) and her daughter Madison (Millie Bobby Brown) witness the birth of a giant larva monster named Mothra. The monster is hostile until Emma uses a device called "Orca", which only Titans can hear, to calm it down until eco-terrorists attack, led by Alan Jonah (Charles Dance) and kidnap both her and her daughter. Monarch scientists and soldiers approach Mark (Kyle Chandler), Emma's ex-husband, to track them down and soon they are headed towards Antarctica, where Jonah intends to free a Titan encased in ice called "Monster Zero".
This movie had classic Godzilla flick written all over it and it did not disappoint. The visual effects were awesome, from the way the monsters looked, to the blasts they utilized and even things like explosions were all top notch. The music was also outstanding, as many classic Godzilla themes made a comeback including Mothra's theme. The action sequences far exceeded those of it's predecessor Godzilla 2014, There was plenty of monster battles to make this a fan favorite for years to come. Now I do have to agree with some of the critics and say that the storyline was a little thin and predictable but that didn't stop the film from being enjoyable. And some critics complained about underdeveloped human characters, but in all honesty, the human characters are not why the fans are going to see this movie. I thought the main cast of characters had enough development, it's just that compared to a normal Godzilla film or even the last one, there were a lot of secondary characters or supporting cast. Which to me personally, made the film feel more full. This movie checked a lot of my boxes for what I've come to expect in a Godzilla/giant monster movie and made me happy when I watched it in theaters. It had its down time in certain parts and slow building scenes or moments where it seemed the audience in consensus chose to use that time to run to the restroom and back. But other than that and some predictable plot points and character actions this movie was great.