Search
Search results
David McK (3185 KP) rated Dark Prince (Greek Series, #2) in Books
Jul 25, 2020
Sequel to David Gemmell's earlier Lion of Macedon, with more emphasis on the mystical elements this time around: whereas that earlier novel was perhaps 90/10 in favour of history, this is (IMO) closer to 40/60.
As the novel starts, Alexander is but a 4 year old and Parmenion is out of favour with Philip of Macedon, who is jealous of the Spartan general's success in battle. Alexander is still plagued by the Chaos Spirit, and - at around the 1/4 mark - is magically transported into an alternate Greece, where the myths and monsters of Greek legend are all real. With a little help from Aristotle and the Siptrassi stones, Parmenion is soon off on a rescue mission, accompanied by Philip's assassin Attalus (without Philips knowledge). The bulk of this novel - parts 2 and 3 (of 4) - then takes place in that alternate Greece, with Parmenion - again - reliving his past and playing a key role in proceedings, before it returns to 'our' Greece for the final part of the novel.
As is standard for Gemmell, lots of musing on the nature of Good and evil throughout, and with a conflicted central protagonist.
As the novel starts, Alexander is but a 4 year old and Parmenion is out of favour with Philip of Macedon, who is jealous of the Spartan general's success in battle. Alexander is still plagued by the Chaos Spirit, and - at around the 1/4 mark - is magically transported into an alternate Greece, where the myths and monsters of Greek legend are all real. With a little help from Aristotle and the Siptrassi stones, Parmenion is soon off on a rescue mission, accompanied by Philip's assassin Attalus (without Philips knowledge). The bulk of this novel - parts 2 and 3 (of 4) - then takes place in that alternate Greece, with Parmenion - again - reliving his past and playing a key role in proceedings, before it returns to 'our' Greece for the final part of the novel.
As is standard for Gemmell, lots of musing on the nature of Good and evil throughout, and with a conflicted central protagonist.
David McK (3185 KP) rated Lion of Macedon (Greek series #1) in Books
Jul 7, 2020
The first of David Gemmell's forays into ancient Greece, followed up by Dark Prince, with Gemmell returning to the setting (if not the characters) towards the end of his life with his Troy series (Lord of the Silver Bow, Shield of Thunder and Fall of Kings - the latter being completed by his wife following his death in 2006).
Unlike the Troy books, however, this is set (much) later in the ancient Greek world, even well after the battle of Thermopylae, and follows the life and times of the half-Spartan/half Macedonian Parmenion - the actual Lion of Macedon of the title - of whom little is apparently known, other than that he was an actual Macedonian general in the service of Philip II of Macedon (who doesn't even appear in this until about 2/3rd of the way through the book): the father (or was he?) of the most famous Macedonian of all: Alexander. As in Alexander the Great.
I add the 'or was he' question to the above as this novel provides an alternative patronage. It also, unlike his later Troy series, mixes on some of Gemmell's more 'fantastical' elements (I hesitate to even use that word), with the philosopher Aristotle reimagined and the inclusion of the Stones of Power (aka the Siptrassi Stones - as an aside, I'm not sure where these novels were written in relation to those?), albeit not to the extent of Dark Prince. The themes of redemption, honour, courage and Good (the Source) Vs Evil are as strong as any other in his oeuvre!
Unlike the Troy books, however, this is set (much) later in the ancient Greek world, even well after the battle of Thermopylae, and follows the life and times of the half-Spartan/half Macedonian Parmenion - the actual Lion of Macedon of the title - of whom little is apparently known, other than that he was an actual Macedonian general in the service of Philip II of Macedon (who doesn't even appear in this until about 2/3rd of the way through the book): the father (or was he?) of the most famous Macedonian of all: Alexander. As in Alexander the Great.
I add the 'or was he' question to the above as this novel provides an alternative patronage. It also, unlike his later Troy series, mixes on some of Gemmell's more 'fantastical' elements (I hesitate to even use that word), with the philosopher Aristotle reimagined and the inclusion of the Stones of Power (aka the Siptrassi Stones - as an aside, I'm not sure where these novels were written in relation to those?), albeit not to the extent of Dark Prince. The themes of redemption, honour, courage and Good (the Source) Vs Evil are as strong as any other in his oeuvre!
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated Straw Dogs (2011) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
Successful actress Amy Sumner (Kate Bosworth) is returning from her big city life to her southern hometown of Blackwater. Along with Amy is her well-educated and wealthy husband, David Sumner (James Marsdon). David quickly finds this vacation is filled with tension, particularly when it comes to Amy’s ex-boyfriend, Charlie (Alexander Skarsgård), who is not ready to be out of her life. So it is up to the weakling Harvard hero to protect his relationship, home, and way of life in a town he doesn’t quite understand.
A remake of the 1971 thriller classic of the same name, “Straw Dogs” has lost a lot of its appeal and logic with time. It still has gory moments and the plot is very similar to the original but many of the base thrills have been lost in the move to a present day setting.
This film asks the viewers to suspend disbelief, ignore a number of unfinished back-stories, and stand behind characters who are not engaging or believable. Details, both big and small miss the mark. James Marsdon is incorrectly suited as the shy bumbling academic. The house is a seeming fortress for no apparent reason. The side stories, interesting detractions from the overly built tension between the two leading males, are left unresolved.
Additionally, the themes are awkward and incomplete. There are literary throwbacks and some blatant social commentary but all of the film’s depth is lost on an audience who has no reason to care. Viewers will be preoccupied wondering what the point of the film is.
Sure, the story is engrossing and it does force self-analysis, but the modern adaptation would have benefitted from serious editorial cuts. Had the film been completed in a quarter of the time it might have actually managed to be thrilling!
Unbalanced, vapid, and pointless as a thriller “Straw Dogs” falls prey to the unnecessary remake trap. For a real psychological thrill it would be better to opt for the original.
A remake of the 1971 thriller classic of the same name, “Straw Dogs” has lost a lot of its appeal and logic with time. It still has gory moments and the plot is very similar to the original but many of the base thrills have been lost in the move to a present day setting.
This film asks the viewers to suspend disbelief, ignore a number of unfinished back-stories, and stand behind characters who are not engaging or believable. Details, both big and small miss the mark. James Marsdon is incorrectly suited as the shy bumbling academic. The house is a seeming fortress for no apparent reason. The side stories, interesting detractions from the overly built tension between the two leading males, are left unresolved.
Additionally, the themes are awkward and incomplete. There are literary throwbacks and some blatant social commentary but all of the film’s depth is lost on an audience who has no reason to care. Viewers will be preoccupied wondering what the point of the film is.
Sure, the story is engrossing and it does force self-analysis, but the modern adaptation would have benefitted from serious editorial cuts. Had the film been completed in a quarter of the time it might have actually managed to be thrilling!
Unbalanced, vapid, and pointless as a thriller “Straw Dogs” falls prey to the unnecessary remake trap. For a real psychological thrill it would be better to opt for the original.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated The Legend of Tarzan (2016) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
CPR Needed
As tends to be the case with Hollywood, studios pay very close attention to their rivals release schedules, eyeing up potential competition to pit their films against, maxing box-office returns in the process.
And when Disney announced they were rebooting The Jungle Book in March this year, Warner Bros quickly responded with another jungle-themed film; The Legend of Tarzan. But does this interpretation on the classic character swing or fall?
It’s been nearly a decade since Tarzan (Alexander Skarsgård), aka John Clayton III, left Africa to live in Victorian England with his wife Jane (Margot Robbie). Danger lurks on the horizon as Leon Rom (Christoph Waltz), a treacherous envoy for King Leopold, devises a scheme that lures the couple and friend George Williams (Samuel L Jackson) to the Congo. Rom plans to capture Tarzan and deliver him to an old enemy in exchange for diamonds. When Jane becomes a pawn in his devious plot, Tarzan must return to the jungle to save the woman he loves.
Directed by David Yates (Harry Potter & the Deathly Hallows), Legend of Tarzan features committed performances from its lead cast, immersive scenery and impressive special effects, but all of the glitz can’t save a film that plods along at a dreadful pace. Not since Peter Jackson’s King Kong has there been a movie that wastes so much of its opening act.
Alexander Skarsgård is likeable and commanding as the titular character, but lacks enough acting prowess to tackle the deeper, more emotional side that writers Adam Cozad and Craig Brewer have brought to the table here. Therefore, the scenes featuring a solo Tarzan suffer somewhat and Samuel L Jackson feels wasted in a poorly written and half-hearted role.
It is in Margot Robbie and Christoph Waltz that we find the film’s saving graces. Their characters leap off the screen with Waltz in particular being a highlight throughout. It’s unfortunate that one of our greatest living actors is lambasted with poor dialogue however, though the script just about keeps him afloat.
David Yates brings a similar filming style here to that of his foray into Harry Potter. The action is confidently filmed, but he avoids the use of shaky-cam that many directors seem to find appealing nowadays. The CGI is on the whole very good, especially in the finale which is breath-taking to watch.
It’s just a shame the rest of the film is such a drag. The first hour is incredibly poorly paced with very brief, albeit well-filmed, action sequences not doing enough to brighten Legend of Tarzan up. Elsewhere, the use of flashbacks is at first a decent way of giving the audience some exposition, but after the tenth one, they’re a nuisance.
Overall, The Legend of Tarzan does a lot more with its iconic character than other films have done, but that doesn’t excuse its poor pacing. Thankfully, the exciting finale lifts the final act above the standard of the first hour, and commanding performances from all the cast sustain interest just about enough to see it through to the end.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/07/07/cpr-needed-the-legend-of-tarzan-review/
And when Disney announced they were rebooting The Jungle Book in March this year, Warner Bros quickly responded with another jungle-themed film; The Legend of Tarzan. But does this interpretation on the classic character swing or fall?
It’s been nearly a decade since Tarzan (Alexander Skarsgård), aka John Clayton III, left Africa to live in Victorian England with his wife Jane (Margot Robbie). Danger lurks on the horizon as Leon Rom (Christoph Waltz), a treacherous envoy for King Leopold, devises a scheme that lures the couple and friend George Williams (Samuel L Jackson) to the Congo. Rom plans to capture Tarzan and deliver him to an old enemy in exchange for diamonds. When Jane becomes a pawn in his devious plot, Tarzan must return to the jungle to save the woman he loves.
Directed by David Yates (Harry Potter & the Deathly Hallows), Legend of Tarzan features committed performances from its lead cast, immersive scenery and impressive special effects, but all of the glitz can’t save a film that plods along at a dreadful pace. Not since Peter Jackson’s King Kong has there been a movie that wastes so much of its opening act.
Alexander Skarsgård is likeable and commanding as the titular character, but lacks enough acting prowess to tackle the deeper, more emotional side that writers Adam Cozad and Craig Brewer have brought to the table here. Therefore, the scenes featuring a solo Tarzan suffer somewhat and Samuel L Jackson feels wasted in a poorly written and half-hearted role.
It is in Margot Robbie and Christoph Waltz that we find the film’s saving graces. Their characters leap off the screen with Waltz in particular being a highlight throughout. It’s unfortunate that one of our greatest living actors is lambasted with poor dialogue however, though the script just about keeps him afloat.
David Yates brings a similar filming style here to that of his foray into Harry Potter. The action is confidently filmed, but he avoids the use of shaky-cam that many directors seem to find appealing nowadays. The CGI is on the whole very good, especially in the finale which is breath-taking to watch.
It’s just a shame the rest of the film is such a drag. The first hour is incredibly poorly paced with very brief, albeit well-filmed, action sequences not doing enough to brighten Legend of Tarzan up. Elsewhere, the use of flashbacks is at first a decent way of giving the audience some exposition, but after the tenth one, they’re a nuisance.
Overall, The Legend of Tarzan does a lot more with its iconic character than other films have done, but that doesn’t excuse its poor pacing. Thankfully, the exciting finale lifts the final act above the standard of the first hour, and commanding performances from all the cast sustain interest just about enough to see it through to the end.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/07/07/cpr-needed-the-legend-of-tarzan-review/
Matthew Krueger (10051 KP) rated Dead Ringers (1988) in Movies
Sep 15, 2020 (Updated Sep 15, 2020)
Whats The Difference Between Us
Dead Ringers- is a decent movie, its the last movie david cronenberg did in the 80's. So his 80's streak ending on a low ball/a dispointment. I really liked Jeremy Irons he was really good. And the psychological espect was good as well. Other than that it was a okay movie.
The Plot: Elliot (Jeremy Irons), a successful gynecologist, works at the same practice as his identical twin, Beverly (also Irons). Elliot is attracted to many of his patients and has affairs with them. When he inevitably loses interest, he will give the woman over to Beverly, the meeker of the two, without the woman knowing the difference. Beverly falls hard for one of the patients, Claire (Geneviève Bujold), but when she inadvertently deceives him, he slips into a state of madness.
In his DVD commentary, Irons claims that Robert De Niro declined playing the Mantles due to his unease with the subject matter and portraying gynecologists, while William Hurt decided to reject the parts because "it is hard enough to play one role".
Irons was given two different dressing rooms with two sets of costumes for playing his two characters. However, given the fact that he said "the whole point of the story is you should sometimes be confused as to which is which", he chose to use only one of the rooms and combine different costume items intended for different characters. Irons also developed an "internal way" to portray each character, employing the Alexander technique for "different energy points", giving each character his own appearance.
Like i said before the psychological espect is good in this. Jeremy Irons was excellent. I wouldnt really recordmend this film, rather davids other 80's films instead.
The Plot: Elliot (Jeremy Irons), a successful gynecologist, works at the same practice as his identical twin, Beverly (also Irons). Elliot is attracted to many of his patients and has affairs with them. When he inevitably loses interest, he will give the woman over to Beverly, the meeker of the two, without the woman knowing the difference. Beverly falls hard for one of the patients, Claire (Geneviève Bujold), but when she inadvertently deceives him, he slips into a state of madness.
In his DVD commentary, Irons claims that Robert De Niro declined playing the Mantles due to his unease with the subject matter and portraying gynecologists, while William Hurt decided to reject the parts because "it is hard enough to play one role".
Irons was given two different dressing rooms with two sets of costumes for playing his two characters. However, given the fact that he said "the whole point of the story is you should sometimes be confused as to which is which", he chose to use only one of the rooms and combine different costume items intended for different characters. Irons also developed an "internal way" to portray each character, employing the Alexander technique for "different energy points", giving each character his own appearance.
Like i said before the psychological espect is good in this. Jeremy Irons was excellent. I wouldnt really recordmend this film, rather davids other 80's films instead.
Dave Eggers recommended The Landlord (1970) in Movies (curated)
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated 21 Bridges (2019) in Movies
Sep 22, 2020
Direction and Lead Performances elevate a "so-so" script
The world lost a tremendous talent when 44 year old Chadwick Boseman lost his battle with cancer. Whether it was as Jackie Robinson in 42, Thurgood Marshall in THURGOOD or as T'Challa/Black Panther in the Marvel movies, Boseman's charm and charisma lept off the screen and drew you into whatever project he is in.
This charm and charisma is very much in evidence in the by-the-book cops chasing robbers action flick 21 BRIDGES. As the cop chasing "the fugitive", Boseman elevates the proceedings to a level above what this average script had to offer.
Set in NYC, 21 BRIDGES tells the tale of Detective Andre Davis (Bozeman) who must chase down a couple of thieves - and cop killers - before they can escape New York. Told in one night, Davis makes the call to close the "21 Bridges" of the island of Manhattan so the bad guys are stuck on the island.
And...that's the first disappointment with this film, it doesn't do anything with that premise. Do the bad guys try to escape on one of those "21 Bridges"? Nope. The bridges are never really mentioned again...so why call this film "21 Bridges"?
What does work is Boseman's performance. His Davis is competent, honest, smart and earnest and you are drawn into his work. As is the work of the person who is thrust into the action as his partner, Vice Cop Frankie Burns (Sienna Miller). You might roll your eyes when you hear Miller's name for her early career was more about being on the tabloid pages than it was about being on the screen, but she has morphed herself - and her career - into something quite interesting through turns in films like FOXCATCHER and AMERICAN SNIPER and she is as equally interesting as Bozeman in this film. The 2 make a good pair.
The rest of the supporting cast - Taylor Kitsch, Keith David and the great J.K. Simmons - are solid, if not spectacular. But there are 2 standouts. Alexander Siddig (Dr. Bashir in STAR TREK: DEEP SPACE 9) is interesting as the "money launderer" and Stephan James (IF BEALE STREET COULD TALK) is just as charming and charismatic as Bozeman as one of the the thieves on the run. If you are looking for a young, charismatic actor to fill the hole created by Bozeman's death, James could very well fit the bill.
I've mentioned that the script by Adam Mervis and Matthew Michael Carnahan is nothing special, but what is special is the Direction by Brian Kirk (a TV Director of such shows as GAME OF THRONES and LUTHER). This is his Major Motion Picture debut (as far as I could tell) and there were some VERY interesting shots and some taught, tense moments. He'll be a director to watch in the future.
While nothing too special, 21 BRIDGES is better than "good enough" - a cops 'n robbers film that will hold your interest for the relatively quick 1 hour and 39 minute running time.
Letter Grade: B
7 Stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
This charm and charisma is very much in evidence in the by-the-book cops chasing robbers action flick 21 BRIDGES. As the cop chasing "the fugitive", Boseman elevates the proceedings to a level above what this average script had to offer.
Set in NYC, 21 BRIDGES tells the tale of Detective Andre Davis (Bozeman) who must chase down a couple of thieves - and cop killers - before they can escape New York. Told in one night, Davis makes the call to close the "21 Bridges" of the island of Manhattan so the bad guys are stuck on the island.
And...that's the first disappointment with this film, it doesn't do anything with that premise. Do the bad guys try to escape on one of those "21 Bridges"? Nope. The bridges are never really mentioned again...so why call this film "21 Bridges"?
What does work is Boseman's performance. His Davis is competent, honest, smart and earnest and you are drawn into his work. As is the work of the person who is thrust into the action as his partner, Vice Cop Frankie Burns (Sienna Miller). You might roll your eyes when you hear Miller's name for her early career was more about being on the tabloid pages than it was about being on the screen, but she has morphed herself - and her career - into something quite interesting through turns in films like FOXCATCHER and AMERICAN SNIPER and she is as equally interesting as Bozeman in this film. The 2 make a good pair.
The rest of the supporting cast - Taylor Kitsch, Keith David and the great J.K. Simmons - are solid, if not spectacular. But there are 2 standouts. Alexander Siddig (Dr. Bashir in STAR TREK: DEEP SPACE 9) is interesting as the "money launderer" and Stephan James (IF BEALE STREET COULD TALK) is just as charming and charismatic as Bozeman as one of the the thieves on the run. If you are looking for a young, charismatic actor to fill the hole created by Bozeman's death, James could very well fit the bill.
I've mentioned that the script by Adam Mervis and Matthew Michael Carnahan is nothing special, but what is special is the Direction by Brian Kirk (a TV Director of such shows as GAME OF THRONES and LUTHER). This is his Major Motion Picture debut (as far as I could tell) and there were some VERY interesting shots and some taught, tense moments. He'll be a director to watch in the future.
While nothing too special, 21 BRIDGES is better than "good enough" - a cops 'n robbers film that will hold your interest for the relatively quick 1 hour and 39 minute running time.
Letter Grade: B
7 Stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Holdovers (2023) in Movies
Dec 31, 2023
Emotional Rich...and Real
The last time Paul Giamatti starred in an Alexander Payne film (2004’s SIDEWAYS), Payne won the Oscar for Best Adapted Screenplay.
Reunited for THE HOLDOVERS, it might be time for Giamatti to win the Oscar.
THE HOLDOVERS tells a well-worn story of a cranky older guy, all-Male Prep School teacher Paul Hunham (Giamatti) who is forced to spend the Christmas holidays sometime in the early 1970’s with arrogant, intelligent, student, Angus Tully (Dominic Sessa). Will they learn to tolerate - and then respect - each other by the time school is back in session? Of course they are.
But it is the journey and not the destination that this film is about - and, boy, what a journey.
Director Payne (working off a screenplay by David Hemingson - WHISKEY CAVALIER) infuses his usual human style into the HOLDOVERS focusing on the characters and driving strong, emotional performances. Sometimes this works (SIDEWAYS, NEBRASKA), sometimes it doesn’t (DOWNSIZING) but in a Payne film it all depends on the strength of the script - and performances - in the film.
Payne was wise to turn over the central character of Paul “Walleye” Hunham to Giamatti who rides the line of curmudgeonly without becoming evil. From the start you can see some sort of humanity under the cranky surface of Paul and when the facade starts to fade away you see a real human being under there. It is, perhaps, the finest performance of Giamatti’s career and expect to see Giamatti’s name called come Oscar Nomination time.
Of course, Giamatti’s performance is only as good as the other actors that he is working against and in newcomer Sessa, Payne has given Giamatti a very good counterpoint indeed - especially since this is Sessa’s Major Motion Picture screen debut. He imbues Tulley with the requisite youthful arrogance but you can sense the vulnerability underneath from a young man who just wants to be accepted - and loved - for who he is.
A joyful surprise of this film is the work of Da’Vine Joy Randolph (ONLY MURDERS IN THE BUILDING) as the cafeteria worker (with a secret tragedy of her own) who volunteers to stay behind to cook for these two. She provides a welcome 3rd leg to this stool and counterbalances both Giamatti’s and Sessa’s performance in a strong - and real - way.
All of this, of course, is due to the fine direction of Payne and the smart, funny and emotionally rich script by Hemingson. They wisely set this piece in the early 1970’s - so there are no cell phones or Internet to draw these people away from each other. They are trapped with one another and must deal with each other in an emotionally satisfying manner.
One of the best films of 2023 (expect to see it in my Top 5 of the year), THE HOLDOVERS is the type of film that the Academy loves - so expect more than 1 Oscar nomination and, just maybe, an Oscar win for Giamatti.
All would be well deserved.
Letter Grade: A
9 Stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Reunited for THE HOLDOVERS, it might be time for Giamatti to win the Oscar.
THE HOLDOVERS tells a well-worn story of a cranky older guy, all-Male Prep School teacher Paul Hunham (Giamatti) who is forced to spend the Christmas holidays sometime in the early 1970’s with arrogant, intelligent, student, Angus Tully (Dominic Sessa). Will they learn to tolerate - and then respect - each other by the time school is back in session? Of course they are.
But it is the journey and not the destination that this film is about - and, boy, what a journey.
Director Payne (working off a screenplay by David Hemingson - WHISKEY CAVALIER) infuses his usual human style into the HOLDOVERS focusing on the characters and driving strong, emotional performances. Sometimes this works (SIDEWAYS, NEBRASKA), sometimes it doesn’t (DOWNSIZING) but in a Payne film it all depends on the strength of the script - and performances - in the film.
Payne was wise to turn over the central character of Paul “Walleye” Hunham to Giamatti who rides the line of curmudgeonly without becoming evil. From the start you can see some sort of humanity under the cranky surface of Paul and when the facade starts to fade away you see a real human being under there. It is, perhaps, the finest performance of Giamatti’s career and expect to see Giamatti’s name called come Oscar Nomination time.
Of course, Giamatti’s performance is only as good as the other actors that he is working against and in newcomer Sessa, Payne has given Giamatti a very good counterpoint indeed - especially since this is Sessa’s Major Motion Picture screen debut. He imbues Tulley with the requisite youthful arrogance but you can sense the vulnerability underneath from a young man who just wants to be accepted - and loved - for who he is.
A joyful surprise of this film is the work of Da’Vine Joy Randolph (ONLY MURDERS IN THE BUILDING) as the cafeteria worker (with a secret tragedy of her own) who volunteers to stay behind to cook for these two. She provides a welcome 3rd leg to this stool and counterbalances both Giamatti’s and Sessa’s performance in a strong - and real - way.
All of this, of course, is due to the fine direction of Payne and the smart, funny and emotionally rich script by Hemingson. They wisely set this piece in the early 1970’s - so there are no cell phones or Internet to draw these people away from each other. They are trapped with one another and must deal with each other in an emotionally satisfying manner.
One of the best films of 2023 (expect to see it in my Top 5 of the year), THE HOLDOVERS is the type of film that the Academy loves - so expect more than 1 Oscar nomination and, just maybe, an Oscar win for Giamatti.
All would be well deserved.
Letter Grade: A
9 Stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated Pete's Dragon (2016) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
Pete’s Dragon is a staple of my childhood. It was one of the three movies I would always choose to watch. So, naturally, I was a little worried when I heard about the new movie earlier this year. The teaser trailer didn’t give much to go by, but it looked promising. I trying something new this year where I do not watch anything beyond the teaser trailer (believe me, it’s killing me not to watch the new Rogue One trailer), so that’s all I had going into this. And I was pleasantly surprised.
39 years after the original, David Lowery brings us the re-invention of Pete’s Dragon. His aim was not to remake the original film, but to reinvent it. And that he did. PD opens up with a family traveling through a forest on a road trip. The young boy, Pete (Levi Alexander) is reading from a book about a lost puppy name Elliot. A tragic accident occurs, which leaves Pete by himself in the forest. As he starts to wander, a pack of wolves begins to close in on him, only to be thwarted by… you guessed it. A dragon.
Flash forward 6 years, and we now see an older Pete (Oakes Fegley) running around through the forest with Elliot, the dragon who he bonded with over the years. Pete happens upon a forest ranger, Grace (Bryce Dallas Howard) as she is scouting the forest, unmarking trees that were marked for cut down. She’s not a rebel, just protecting the habitat of an owl. Turns out her fiancé, Jack (Wes Bentley), and his brother, Gavin (Karl Urban), run the company that is tearing down the forest. One day, they happen upon Pete and bring him home, but Pete misses Elliot, and Elliot misses Pete. In an effort to get back to him, Elliot is discovered by Gavin who wants to hunt down Pete and bring him in. Grace seeks assistance from her father, Meachum (Robert Redford), who was always thought of as a crazy old man with his wild story of a dragon he met so many years ago. Can they help save Elliot from Gavin and his men?
While a little darker than the original, I found that I enjoyed this movie quite a lot. There are some plot holes to consider, and a little unbelievable on how fast the story develops in time passed in the universe set up here, but you have to understand that this movie is geared toward children. And I think they did well in creating an entertaining film for children and nostalgic adults alike. In fact, this screening was the quietest family screening I have ever attended. There were plenty of kids in the audience, but they were captivated.
Keeping in mind that this is truly a children’s movie, my biggest gripe was the absence of my favorite scene from the original (scorched apples, anyone?). But all in all, it is definitely something to get out to theaters to see. Lowery had indicated that he chose the appearance for Elliot as he did because he wanted to portray a dragon you could hug. Success, Mr. Lowery. Success. Pete’s Dragon is good fun for the whole family, so what are you waiting for? Go see it, already.
39 years after the original, David Lowery brings us the re-invention of Pete’s Dragon. His aim was not to remake the original film, but to reinvent it. And that he did. PD opens up with a family traveling through a forest on a road trip. The young boy, Pete (Levi Alexander) is reading from a book about a lost puppy name Elliot. A tragic accident occurs, which leaves Pete by himself in the forest. As he starts to wander, a pack of wolves begins to close in on him, only to be thwarted by… you guessed it. A dragon.
Flash forward 6 years, and we now see an older Pete (Oakes Fegley) running around through the forest with Elliot, the dragon who he bonded with over the years. Pete happens upon a forest ranger, Grace (Bryce Dallas Howard) as she is scouting the forest, unmarking trees that were marked for cut down. She’s not a rebel, just protecting the habitat of an owl. Turns out her fiancé, Jack (Wes Bentley), and his brother, Gavin (Karl Urban), run the company that is tearing down the forest. One day, they happen upon Pete and bring him home, but Pete misses Elliot, and Elliot misses Pete. In an effort to get back to him, Elliot is discovered by Gavin who wants to hunt down Pete and bring him in. Grace seeks assistance from her father, Meachum (Robert Redford), who was always thought of as a crazy old man with his wild story of a dragon he met so many years ago. Can they help save Elliot from Gavin and his men?
While a little darker than the original, I found that I enjoyed this movie quite a lot. There are some plot holes to consider, and a little unbelievable on how fast the story develops in time passed in the universe set up here, but you have to understand that this movie is geared toward children. And I think they did well in creating an entertaining film for children and nostalgic adults alike. In fact, this screening was the quietest family screening I have ever attended. There were plenty of kids in the audience, but they were captivated.
Keeping in mind that this is truly a children’s movie, my biggest gripe was the absence of my favorite scene from the original (scorched apples, anyone?). But all in all, it is definitely something to get out to theaters to see. Lowery had indicated that he chose the appearance for Elliot as he did because he wanted to portray a dragon you could hug. Success, Mr. Lowery. Success. Pete’s Dragon is good fun for the whole family, so what are you waiting for? Go see it, already.
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.)
