Search
Search results
Bruce Beresford recommended Hobson's Choice (1983) in Movies (curated)
Pat Healy recommended The Night of the Hunter (1955) in Movies (curated)
Awix (3310 KP) rated The Personal History of David Copperfield (2019) in Movies
Jan 24, 2020
Armando Ianucci's adaptation of Charles Dickens' semi-autobiographical novel strikes an interesting balance between being the movie you expect and something new and unusual. Somewhat rambling plot: David Copperfield is born, grows up, goes from rags to riches and back again, meets various colourful characters, and so on. Obviously an opportunity for some actors to turn in rather big comedy performances, and the cast duly oblige.
However, the film is also quite studied in its non-naturalism - it doesn't even pretend to be realistic (this obviously extends to many of the casting choices), and in this context the experiment just about succeeds. However, it doesn't feel affected, and the film retains a warmth and sincerity that make it a real pleasure to watch.
However, the film is also quite studied in its non-naturalism - it doesn't even pretend to be realistic (this obviously extends to many of the casting choices), and in this context the experiment just about succeeds. However, it doesn't feel affected, and the film retains a warmth and sincerity that make it a real pleasure to watch.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated The Personal History of David Copperfield (2019) in Movies
Oct 8, 2020
This retelling of Charles Dickens’ David Copperfield takes us from his birth, through his adolescence and adulthood. With the tempo set like a whirling dervish from the moment David (Dev Patel) takes us with him to witness his birth and travel along through his pivotal life moments as he tells his story.
We see his birth where his mother, Clara Copperfield (Morfydd Clark, playing a double role, later as Dora Spenlow) a slight, fantastical woman, and the steadfast housekeeper, Peggotty (Daisy May Cooper) go through the hectic confusion while people mill about, entering and exiting during the process of birth. His Aunt, Betsy (Tilda Swinton) goes about, adding to the calamity insistent that the child of her late brother would be a girl, who would carry her legacy as a Trotwood. Her eccentricity noted immediately as she storms out once learning the child is a boy.
The film progresses, with the same quick tempo, through his brief, idyllic childhood with his mother, then his trip to Yarmouth summering with Peggotty’s family where his imagination begins its bloom in the house that is a boat, by the sea. Once David returns home, he is informed that his mother had married, and his stepfather sends him to London. He is sent to live with Mr. & Mrs. Micawber (Peter Capaldi and Bronagh Gallagher) while he works at the bottle factory.
David’s life goes from famine to feast, bear to bull. However, he has learned resilience through his encounters with people of all classes and situations. As Copperfield makes his way through life, the tempo slows down, and the frenzy subsides.
Yes, it’s a remake, the film is beautifully made, the cast is an incredibly talented international group. Hugh Laurie and Tilda Swinton provide an endearing portrait of eclectic personalities. The film is just a charming and whimsical piece of storytelling.
We see his birth where his mother, Clara Copperfield (Morfydd Clark, playing a double role, later as Dora Spenlow) a slight, fantastical woman, and the steadfast housekeeper, Peggotty (Daisy May Cooper) go through the hectic confusion while people mill about, entering and exiting during the process of birth. His Aunt, Betsy (Tilda Swinton) goes about, adding to the calamity insistent that the child of her late brother would be a girl, who would carry her legacy as a Trotwood. Her eccentricity noted immediately as she storms out once learning the child is a boy.
The film progresses, with the same quick tempo, through his brief, idyllic childhood with his mother, then his trip to Yarmouth summering with Peggotty’s family where his imagination begins its bloom in the house that is a boat, by the sea. Once David returns home, he is informed that his mother had married, and his stepfather sends him to London. He is sent to live with Mr. & Mrs. Micawber (Peter Capaldi and Bronagh Gallagher) while he works at the bottle factory.
David’s life goes from famine to feast, bear to bull. However, he has learned resilience through his encounters with people of all classes and situations. As Copperfield makes his way through life, the tempo slows down, and the frenzy subsides.
Yes, it’s a remake, the film is beautifully made, the cast is an incredibly talented international group. Hugh Laurie and Tilda Swinton provide an endearing portrait of eclectic personalities. The film is just a charming and whimsical piece of storytelling.
Lee (2222 KP) rated The Personal History of David Copperfield (2019) in Movies
Jan 26, 2020
Based on the famous and beloved novel by Charles Dickens, Armando Iannucci (Veep, The Thick of It, The Death of Stalin) brings us this fresh new take on David Copperfield. And it’s like no other Dickens adaptation you’ve ever seen before.
Dev Patel stars as Copperfield, the star and narrator of the story which charts his personal rise from rags to riches during Victorian England. We begin though with Copperfield as an adult, recounting his life story to a small theatre audience as he steps into a painted backdrop behind him on stage, transporting him, and us, to the location of his birth. He enters the family home and continues to narrate from within the scene as his mother struggles with labour. It’s just one of a variety of wonderfully inventive storytelling devices that the movie employs throughout.
While the chaos of childbirth plays out, the first in a long line of star-studded supporting characters arrives, David’s eccentric Aunt Betsey (Tilda Swinton), and we immediately get a glimpse of the kind of humour Iannucci has brought to the story as she sets about upsetting Peggotty, the family housekeeper, and declares that the baby will definitely be a girl.
From there, the storyline is fast paced, weaving between locations as David grows up - from an overturned boat house in Yarmouth, to the chaos of London and the difficulties of working in a bottle factory, and on to the Kent countryside. Along the way we meet yet more big names, including Peter Capaldi, Ben Whishaw, Hugh Laurie, Paul Whitehouse and Benedict Wong. Not to mention countless other recognisable faces.
The Personal History of David Copperfield is a real mixing pot of beautiful visuals, quirky humour and larger than life characters. Realism has been ditched in order to deliver a whimsical tale that is accessible to all ages. Unfortunately though, it just didn’t work for me. Aside from the opening scenes, and the occasional moment later on, the humour didn’t land at all. In fact, I got more laughs from the incredible movie Parasite that I saw just the night before seeing this.
Dev Patel, always impressive and enjoyable in everything he does, is charming as David Copperfield and is definitely the standout. Benedict Wong and Hugh Laurie were both enjoyable, but I felt the others all suffered from a script that just wasn’t strong enough. A beautifully shot movie, bold and bright and vibrant, but instantly forgettable.
Dev Patel stars as Copperfield, the star and narrator of the story which charts his personal rise from rags to riches during Victorian England. We begin though with Copperfield as an adult, recounting his life story to a small theatre audience as he steps into a painted backdrop behind him on stage, transporting him, and us, to the location of his birth. He enters the family home and continues to narrate from within the scene as his mother struggles with labour. It’s just one of a variety of wonderfully inventive storytelling devices that the movie employs throughout.
While the chaos of childbirth plays out, the first in a long line of star-studded supporting characters arrives, David’s eccentric Aunt Betsey (Tilda Swinton), and we immediately get a glimpse of the kind of humour Iannucci has brought to the story as she sets about upsetting Peggotty, the family housekeeper, and declares that the baby will definitely be a girl.
From there, the storyline is fast paced, weaving between locations as David grows up - from an overturned boat house in Yarmouth, to the chaos of London and the difficulties of working in a bottle factory, and on to the Kent countryside. Along the way we meet yet more big names, including Peter Capaldi, Ben Whishaw, Hugh Laurie, Paul Whitehouse and Benedict Wong. Not to mention countless other recognisable faces.
The Personal History of David Copperfield is a real mixing pot of beautiful visuals, quirky humour and larger than life characters. Realism has been ditched in order to deliver a whimsical tale that is accessible to all ages. Unfortunately though, it just didn’t work for me. Aside from the opening scenes, and the occasional moment later on, the humour didn’t land at all. In fact, I got more laughs from the incredible movie Parasite that I saw just the night before seeing this.
Dev Patel, always impressive and enjoyable in everything he does, is charming as David Copperfield and is definitely the standout. Benedict Wong and Hugh Laurie were both enjoyable, but I felt the others all suffered from a script that just wasn’t strong enough. A beautifully shot movie, bold and bright and vibrant, but instantly forgettable.
RəX Regent (349 KP) rated The Pirates! An Adventure With Scientists (2012) in Movies
Feb 19, 2019
Ardman Animation returned to the big screen in 2012 with this adaptation of the Children novel series, The Pirates!.
After building model sets in order to plan out a CGI animation similar to their 2011 Arthur Christmas, they quickly decided to return to their roots and this 3-D adventure was filmed as a stop-motion movie and is much the better for it.
The story itself, whilst following real life characters such as Queen Victoria and Charles Darwin, is pure, adulterated fiction, not quite from the school of Ridley Scott in which he claims to be making historical epics whilst taking liberties, I grant you, but still, I’m still having to explain to my 5 year old daughter that Queen Victoria was a super villain as portrayed here! We follow a crew of Pirates, lead by The Pirate Captain (Hugh Grant) as he attempts to win the converted pirate of the year but to no avail.
After an encounter with Charles Darwin (David Tennent), he learns that the ships “parrot”, Polly, is in fact a thought to be extinct Dodo and the pair along with his crew, return to England in order to win Scientist Of The Year as well. But Queen Victoria wants the bird, in order to eat it with other world leaders who gather to taste rarest cuisine.
My main issue with this film is that Victoria is presented a villain and this is now how my 5 year old daughter, who loves this film by the way, now looks upon as a baddie! But other than that this is a witty film built on wit. Every frame contains a joke of some kind, whether it be in the background, audible or part of the action.
Ardman’s style is unmistakable and quintessentially British and I suspect that whilst some international audiences will find this quaint, it will probably be lost on many.
But this is an underrated adventure, with lovable characters, villains and all told at a good pace.
Not something to be used for your history homework but still and enjoyable romp none the less.
After building model sets in order to plan out a CGI animation similar to their 2011 Arthur Christmas, they quickly decided to return to their roots and this 3-D adventure was filmed as a stop-motion movie and is much the better for it.
The story itself, whilst following real life characters such as Queen Victoria and Charles Darwin, is pure, adulterated fiction, not quite from the school of Ridley Scott in which he claims to be making historical epics whilst taking liberties, I grant you, but still, I’m still having to explain to my 5 year old daughter that Queen Victoria was a super villain as portrayed here! We follow a crew of Pirates, lead by The Pirate Captain (Hugh Grant) as he attempts to win the converted pirate of the year but to no avail.
After an encounter with Charles Darwin (David Tennent), he learns that the ships “parrot”, Polly, is in fact a thought to be extinct Dodo and the pair along with his crew, return to England in order to win Scientist Of The Year as well. But Queen Victoria wants the bird, in order to eat it with other world leaders who gather to taste rarest cuisine.
My main issue with this film is that Victoria is presented a villain and this is now how my 5 year old daughter, who loves this film by the way, now looks upon as a baddie! But other than that this is a witty film built on wit. Every frame contains a joke of some kind, whether it be in the background, audible or part of the action.
Ardman’s style is unmistakable and quintessentially British and I suspect that whilst some international audiences will find this quaint, it will probably be lost on many.
But this is an underrated adventure, with lovable characters, villains and all told at a good pace.
Not something to be used for your history homework but still and enjoyable romp none the less.
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/
Neon's Nerd Nexus (360 KP) rated The Personal History of David Copperfield (2019) in Movies
Jan 29, 2020
Hard Cake
The personal history of david copperfield really disappointed me especially after such a cracking trailer and while no means a bad film it just really wasnt a film I enjoyed. What I was expecting was a sharply written, quirky yet dry and playful adaptation of the Charles Dickens novel something similar to a yorgos lanthimos film like the favorite for instance but sadly I found this movie to be extreamly dull, uninteresting and severely lacking overall. I wouldnt say its necessarily bad however it all just felt very flat to me. Characters didnt feel believable, humour seemed forced and while david patel burts at the seemes constantly with energy the film around him didnt seem to follow along the same. Very interesting ideas are present here and the emphases is on life almost being like a stage play with people we meet being the characters in it. See everyone in life is unique and has their own distinctive traits/interesting stories and no matter what happenes in our lives neither one is no less meaningless or important than the other. This does come across brilliantly and shows the bad traits of human nature, see everyone is on the path to happiness its just what they do and who they exploit or how much they choose to lie to get there and achieve sucess is diffrent from person to person. Then on a positive side it also shows how we should all realise where we have come from, to be greatful for what we have, to let our creativity flow and to appreciate these characters that enter our lives and inspire/care for us. So heres where I feel conflicted as much as I like these great ideas I feel they they just aren't integrated well enough with the dull story or the forced comedy and sure the film is well made but to watch its just not exciting or that engaging and the characters all became forgettable once off screen just like when watching a sketch show. Failing to keep my intrest constantly made the runtime feel a drag too and by the time I left I struggled to remember much of what had just happened infront of me wishing I'd of just stayed home and watched Perfume or The Favorite instead in the warm. No doubt some will enjoy this but will they be talking about it in a month? I highly doubt it.
Darren (1599 KP) rated Wings (1927) in Movies
Dec 8, 2019
Verdict: Beautiful Portray of Love & War
Story: Wings starts as two young men Jack Powell (Rogers) and David Armstrong (Arlen) both sign up to become fighter pilots in the First World War, they are from different backgrounds, with Jack working with his hands, which has seen him get the attention of Mary Preston (Bow) and David being rich, with the pair both seeking the attention of Sylvia Lewis (Ralston).
What starts out in rivalry soon becomes friendship between the two men as through their training, they learn they need to be on the same side and want the same thing from their time in the service. They are followed by Mary who has taken up a job where she delivers medical supplies to troops, all while her love for Jack continues to grow.
Thoughts on Wings
Characters – Mary Preston has worked with Jack Powell for years, they work on cars and her love for Jack is clear, she doesn’t get the attention she desires of him though, with the men at war, she uses her driving skills to deliver medical supplies, hoping to find Jack too, which sees her needing to find a way to act more lady like for the era. Jack Powell is from the working class bracket of people, he has always been great with cars and mechanics, which sees him sign up for the air force during world war 1, he will do what he can get impress the rich Sylvia to whom he loves and after years of rivalry with David, they will become friends. David Armstrong has come from a rich family, he is set to be marrying Sylvia one day if the families have their say, he sees Jack as a rival, until they fight side by side in the skies. Sylvia is the woman that both men are fighting for the attention of, they both see her as the perfect woman and will go to lengths to impress her.
Performances – This being a silent movie, all the work from the actors in the film comes from face expressions and movements, which they are all fantastic with, Clara Bow shows the pain of being in love with somebody who doesn’t want you, while Charles Rogers and Richard Arlen show the rivalry men can have when it comes to women.
Story – The story here follows two men from different backgrounds, one rich one working class, that are both fighting for the same woman, who join the air force to impress, where they become friends and learn the horrors of war. This is a story that is one that shows that love can be something people will always do crazy things for, it shows how the war bought enemies together and for a movie made in 1927, showed us a strong female character willing to go into war, unlike many films for years to come. Being a silent movie, we do get the expression and action doing a lot of the storytelling around the dialogue which is interesting because it keeps away a lot of unnecessary dialogue certain war films turn too.
Romance/War – The romance in this film shows how people will do strange things for love, you might not always see it right under your nose either, with the war being the main location that our characters all go to impress, the dog fight scenes are brilliant to watch, with the use of music making a big impact on the quality too.
Settings – The film uses the settings you would expect to see the war fought at, while we see the ground shots, it is when we are in the sky watching the dog fights that we get to feel the peril the characters are going through.
Scene of the Movie – Any of the dog fights.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – It does play into stereotypes of other nationalities.
Final Thoughts – This is a genius war movie that rightly deserved to win the first Oscar, it brings us a story that shows how much people would have risked for war and just how far they would go for love.
Overall: Brilliant.
Story: Wings starts as two young men Jack Powell (Rogers) and David Armstrong (Arlen) both sign up to become fighter pilots in the First World War, they are from different backgrounds, with Jack working with his hands, which has seen him get the attention of Mary Preston (Bow) and David being rich, with the pair both seeking the attention of Sylvia Lewis (Ralston).
What starts out in rivalry soon becomes friendship between the two men as through their training, they learn they need to be on the same side and want the same thing from their time in the service. They are followed by Mary who has taken up a job where she delivers medical supplies to troops, all while her love for Jack continues to grow.
Thoughts on Wings
Characters – Mary Preston has worked with Jack Powell for years, they work on cars and her love for Jack is clear, she doesn’t get the attention she desires of him though, with the men at war, she uses her driving skills to deliver medical supplies, hoping to find Jack too, which sees her needing to find a way to act more lady like for the era. Jack Powell is from the working class bracket of people, he has always been great with cars and mechanics, which sees him sign up for the air force during world war 1, he will do what he can get impress the rich Sylvia to whom he loves and after years of rivalry with David, they will become friends. David Armstrong has come from a rich family, he is set to be marrying Sylvia one day if the families have their say, he sees Jack as a rival, until they fight side by side in the skies. Sylvia is the woman that both men are fighting for the attention of, they both see her as the perfect woman and will go to lengths to impress her.
Performances – This being a silent movie, all the work from the actors in the film comes from face expressions and movements, which they are all fantastic with, Clara Bow shows the pain of being in love with somebody who doesn’t want you, while Charles Rogers and Richard Arlen show the rivalry men can have when it comes to women.
Story – The story here follows two men from different backgrounds, one rich one working class, that are both fighting for the same woman, who join the air force to impress, where they become friends and learn the horrors of war. This is a story that is one that shows that love can be something people will always do crazy things for, it shows how the war bought enemies together and for a movie made in 1927, showed us a strong female character willing to go into war, unlike many films for years to come. Being a silent movie, we do get the expression and action doing a lot of the storytelling around the dialogue which is interesting because it keeps away a lot of unnecessary dialogue certain war films turn too.
Romance/War – The romance in this film shows how people will do strange things for love, you might not always see it right under your nose either, with the war being the main location that our characters all go to impress, the dog fight scenes are brilliant to watch, with the use of music making a big impact on the quality too.
Settings – The film uses the settings you would expect to see the war fought at, while we see the ground shots, it is when we are in the sky watching the dog fights that we get to feel the peril the characters are going through.
Scene of the Movie – Any of the dog fights.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – It does play into stereotypes of other nationalities.
Final Thoughts – This is a genius war movie that rightly deserved to win the first Oscar, it brings us a story that shows how much people would have risked for war and just how far they would go for love.
Overall: Brilliant.
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)