Search
Gareth von Kallenbach (974 KP) rated The Twilight Saga: Eclipse (2010) in Movies
Aug 8, 2019
The beautiful people of Forks, Washington, are back in the latest installment of the Twilight saga. This time around there’s a little bit more story and a lot more action. Still, not nearly enough of either to make this movie compelling for anyone but diehard fans. Oh, I’m sorry..Twi-hard fans.
Edward Cullen (Robert Pattinson) and Bella Swann (Kirsten Stewart) are reunited and still very much in love, to the brokenhearted dismay of Jacob Black (Tayor Lautner). As Edward and Bella prepare for graduation and contemplate marriage, Victoria, a vengeful vampire now played by Brice Howard, is creating an army to destroy Bella and the Cullen family. Because of this, the Cullen and the werewolves form an uneasy alliance to keep Bella from harm. Bella finds herself struggling with her desire to be with Edward and have him “change” her and her feelings for Jacob. Not your typical teenage angst, but in Bella’s world of vampires and werewolves, these are actually the least of her worries.
Directed by David Slade, of Hard Candy and 30 Days of Night, Eclipse at least makes attempts to flesh out the supporting characters, which helped keep the movie interesting because, honestly, if it just focused on the love triangle of Edward, Bella and Jacob, it would have felt interminably slower. While Pattinson, Stewart and Lautner play tortured, awkward and earnest well, they play it too much. Thank goodness for Chief Swan, portrayed with perfect unease by Billy Burke and the stories of Jasper (Jackson Rathbone) and Rosalie (Nikki Reed) and the first Quileute werewolves.
When there was action, it was fast and furious and and when there was humor it was usually when Jacob was around, but I’m sure there were a couple of funny lines that were missed because of the collective sighs and moans the predominantly female audience emitted every time Jacob graced the screen in all his shirtless splendor. A slowly paced tale that picks up speed towards the end, Eclipse is definitely easier to watch than the previous two movies. While no true Twi-hard will care what critics say about the movie, if you’re on the fence about watching this movie, stay on it, especially if you haven’t read the series or watched the previoius two.
Edward Cullen (Robert Pattinson) and Bella Swann (Kirsten Stewart) are reunited and still very much in love, to the brokenhearted dismay of Jacob Black (Tayor Lautner). As Edward and Bella prepare for graduation and contemplate marriage, Victoria, a vengeful vampire now played by Brice Howard, is creating an army to destroy Bella and the Cullen family. Because of this, the Cullen and the werewolves form an uneasy alliance to keep Bella from harm. Bella finds herself struggling with her desire to be with Edward and have him “change” her and her feelings for Jacob. Not your typical teenage angst, but in Bella’s world of vampires and werewolves, these are actually the least of her worries.
Directed by David Slade, of Hard Candy and 30 Days of Night, Eclipse at least makes attempts to flesh out the supporting characters, which helped keep the movie interesting because, honestly, if it just focused on the love triangle of Edward, Bella and Jacob, it would have felt interminably slower. While Pattinson, Stewart and Lautner play tortured, awkward and earnest well, they play it too much. Thank goodness for Chief Swan, portrayed with perfect unease by Billy Burke and the stories of Jasper (Jackson Rathbone) and Rosalie (Nikki Reed) and the first Quileute werewolves.
When there was action, it was fast and furious and and when there was humor it was usually when Jacob was around, but I’m sure there were a couple of funny lines that were missed because of the collective sighs and moans the predominantly female audience emitted every time Jacob graced the screen in all his shirtless splendor. A slowly paced tale that picks up speed towards the end, Eclipse is definitely easier to watch than the previous two movies. While no true Twi-hard will care what critics say about the movie, if you’re on the fence about watching this movie, stay on it, especially if you haven’t read the series or watched the previoius two.
Gareth von Kallenbach (974 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.
Andy K (10821 KP) rated Naked Lunch (1991) in Movies
Sep 28, 2019
Exterminate all rational thought.
The closing line from Roger Ebert's TV review of Naked Lunch was "I love what he did, but I hate it!"
Director David Cronenberg has always been known as someone who pushes the envelope of film storytelling to its limit. This is not more on display in maybe any of his films more than it is in Naked Lunch.
In 1952 New York, pest exterminator Bill Lee has an problem in his life. His wife, Joan, has begun using and is now addicted to his "bug powder" he uses in his job. She shoots it into her veins for her narcotics addiction. She is so full of the intoxicant she can even breath on cockroaches to kill them . Bill is arrested for his involvement and begins to trip himself.
His high continues as he now believes he is a secret agent who has been told he must murder his wife. He returns home and actually accidentally does so in a case of ironic accomplishment.
His trip takes him to North Africa where he meets a slew of bizarre and unsavory characters in his attempt to complete his ongoing "mission". He writes a series of articles using a typewriter which continually morphs into a giant cockroach. He finds another man who lets him borrow his typewriter in which his living typewriter is maimed and killed by Bill's device. Another man Bill meets may actually be a giant killer centipede in disguise!
If this doesn't make a lot of sense, I don't think it is really supposed to. Cronenberg's film, according to the writer/director himself, is an amalgam of not only the source material novel by William S. Burroughs, but also other works by the author and even some aspects of Burroughs' own life including the wife shooting incident.
Pretty much right from the start you know you are in for something very unusual when Lee starts having a conversation with his bug typewriter 15 minutes into the film. Then add another conversation with a giant "mugwump" sitting at a bar, a bug that bizarrely speaks in a voice from his bulbous anus and the fore mentioned giant centipede, you have a film in which you never are fully aware of what is real or what has become a drug-filled fantasy.
Cronenberg's fascination with the "body horror" style of film goes way back to some of his earlier films including The Brood and Scanners as well as They Fly remake. All his skill at creating one of a kind images are on full display here and you can't take your eyes off the screen as a result.
The entire cast really inhabit their roles including Peter Weller (who turned down Robocop 3 for this role) as Lee. His monotone, stoic delivery and minimalist physicality is perfect for this role. Throw in supporting performances by Ian Holm, Judy Davis and even Roy Scheider and you have found a perfect ensemble for this strange acid trip of a film.
The jazz soundtrack is also legendary including saxophone maestro Ornette Coleman off a score from Howard Shore. The improvisation and inconsistent melodies are a partnership with the unusual story taking place and form a symbiosis with the film.
You definitely leave the film wondering what you have just watched; however, sometimes that s a good thing. The director makes you think about what you have watched and decide for yourself the important elements what what is actually true.
I wish more films were like this!
Director David Cronenberg has always been known as someone who pushes the envelope of film storytelling to its limit. This is not more on display in maybe any of his films more than it is in Naked Lunch.
In 1952 New York, pest exterminator Bill Lee has an problem in his life. His wife, Joan, has begun using and is now addicted to his "bug powder" he uses in his job. She shoots it into her veins for her narcotics addiction. She is so full of the intoxicant she can even breath on cockroaches to kill them . Bill is arrested for his involvement and begins to trip himself.
His high continues as he now believes he is a secret agent who has been told he must murder his wife. He returns home and actually accidentally does so in a case of ironic accomplishment.
His trip takes him to North Africa where he meets a slew of bizarre and unsavory characters in his attempt to complete his ongoing "mission". He writes a series of articles using a typewriter which continually morphs into a giant cockroach. He finds another man who lets him borrow his typewriter in which his living typewriter is maimed and killed by Bill's device. Another man Bill meets may actually be a giant killer centipede in disguise!
If this doesn't make a lot of sense, I don't think it is really supposed to. Cronenberg's film, according to the writer/director himself, is an amalgam of not only the source material novel by William S. Burroughs, but also other works by the author and even some aspects of Burroughs' own life including the wife shooting incident.
Pretty much right from the start you know you are in for something very unusual when Lee starts having a conversation with his bug typewriter 15 minutes into the film. Then add another conversation with a giant "mugwump" sitting at a bar, a bug that bizarrely speaks in a voice from his bulbous anus and the fore mentioned giant centipede, you have a film in which you never are fully aware of what is real or what has become a drug-filled fantasy.
Cronenberg's fascination with the "body horror" style of film goes way back to some of his earlier films including The Brood and Scanners as well as They Fly remake. All his skill at creating one of a kind images are on full display here and you can't take your eyes off the screen as a result.
The entire cast really inhabit their roles including Peter Weller (who turned down Robocop 3 for this role) as Lee. His monotone, stoic delivery and minimalist physicality is perfect for this role. Throw in supporting performances by Ian Holm, Judy Davis and even Roy Scheider and you have found a perfect ensemble for this strange acid trip of a film.
The jazz soundtrack is also legendary including saxophone maestro Ornette Coleman off a score from Howard Shore. The improvisation and inconsistent melodies are a partnership with the unusual story taking place and form a symbiosis with the film.
You definitely leave the film wondering what you have just watched; however, sometimes that s a good thing. The director makes you think about what you have watched and decide for yourself the important elements what what is actually true.
I wish more films were like this!
Andy K (10821 KP) rated The Fly (1986) in Movies
Oct 3, 2019
Be Afraid...Be Very Afraid
Seth Brundle is his own version of Dr Frankenstein. Instead of reanimating dead issue, his desire is to teleport flesh from one "telepod" to another.
After a chance meeting at a social magazine function, Veronica "Ronnie" Quaife meets the eccentric genius Brundle. She agrees to come back to his spacious, warehouse studio loft to see what he has been working on. He tells her about his masterpiece that will change the concept of travel throughout the world. After a short demonstration, Ronnie is not sure what to believe.
The next day, she explains what happened to her editor and scummy, sexist former boyfriend who suggests Brundle is just a con man. Eventually, Ronnie takes the offer to be Brundle's exclusive recorder of the evolution of his creation which has still one major flaw, it can only teleport inanimate objects. When tried on something living, the computer doesn't understand "the flesh" turn disembowels its subjects.Ronnie and Brundle begin a torrid affair amidst more work on the pods ultimately concluding with the successful teleportation of a baboon.
After Ronnie's boss and former lover threatens to publish her story early, Brundle gets drunk and decides it is time for a human trial of his newly perfected equipment. In his haste, he does not notice an insect guest present within his pod with him. Although successful, Brundle is not aware of his transformation yet to come.
His evolution from man to man/insect begins slowly, but continues relentlessly though Brundle does not know the cause. Once he looks through his records and discovers the genesis of his misfortune, he may be too late to stop it.
The Fly has to be director David Cronenberg's biggest financial hit grossing north of $40 million in 1986. Adjusted for inflation and considering the subject matter, genre and R rating, that would have to be much more if released today. It's hard to say the film would be Cronenberg's highest critical success, although most of his early films are now considered cult classics since they had a hard time finding mainstream audiences due to their "body horror" often gruesome visuals and offbeat subject matter.
Although most would classify as horror due to the shocking visuals within the last 30 minutes of the film, I have always felt it was more of a thriller. Once Bundle is infected, he has to use his sharp, but now deteriorating wits to figure a solution to his problem before it is too late. Every subsequent Ronnie visit to Brundle's loft finds unexpected results which keep the viewer on edge and wondering what horrors they will view next.
The make up effects in the film rivaled any of the top work ever at that time and garnered effect artist Chris Walas an Academy Award in 1986. By today's standards of CGI and film perfection, some elements could look a bit dated to modern audiences, but I believe still hold up to present day scrutiny.
The film score by frequent Cronenberg collaborator Howard Shore is haunting, bleak somber, and excellent.
Too often mesmerizing acting performances in horror/thriller movies get overlooked for the Oscars (except if you are Anthony Hopkins) which is a shame here. Jeff Goldblum undergoes not only a physical transformation, but his mannerisms, ticks and speech all go from human to insect and he deserves a lot of credit for what he did to bring "Brundlefly" to life.
After a chance meeting at a social magazine function, Veronica "Ronnie" Quaife meets the eccentric genius Brundle. She agrees to come back to his spacious, warehouse studio loft to see what he has been working on. He tells her about his masterpiece that will change the concept of travel throughout the world. After a short demonstration, Ronnie is not sure what to believe.
The next day, she explains what happened to her editor and scummy, sexist former boyfriend who suggests Brundle is just a con man. Eventually, Ronnie takes the offer to be Brundle's exclusive recorder of the evolution of his creation which has still one major flaw, it can only teleport inanimate objects. When tried on something living, the computer doesn't understand "the flesh" turn disembowels its subjects.Ronnie and Brundle begin a torrid affair amidst more work on the pods ultimately concluding with the successful teleportation of a baboon.
After Ronnie's boss and former lover threatens to publish her story early, Brundle gets drunk and decides it is time for a human trial of his newly perfected equipment. In his haste, he does not notice an insect guest present within his pod with him. Although successful, Brundle is not aware of his transformation yet to come.
His evolution from man to man/insect begins slowly, but continues relentlessly though Brundle does not know the cause. Once he looks through his records and discovers the genesis of his misfortune, he may be too late to stop it.
The Fly has to be director David Cronenberg's biggest financial hit grossing north of $40 million in 1986. Adjusted for inflation and considering the subject matter, genre and R rating, that would have to be much more if released today. It's hard to say the film would be Cronenberg's highest critical success, although most of his early films are now considered cult classics since they had a hard time finding mainstream audiences due to their "body horror" often gruesome visuals and offbeat subject matter.
Although most would classify as horror due to the shocking visuals within the last 30 minutes of the film, I have always felt it was more of a thriller. Once Bundle is infected, he has to use his sharp, but now deteriorating wits to figure a solution to his problem before it is too late. Every subsequent Ronnie visit to Brundle's loft finds unexpected results which keep the viewer on edge and wondering what horrors they will view next.
The make up effects in the film rivaled any of the top work ever at that time and garnered effect artist Chris Walas an Academy Award in 1986. By today's standards of CGI and film perfection, some elements could look a bit dated to modern audiences, but I believe still hold up to present day scrutiny.
The film score by frequent Cronenberg collaborator Howard Shore is haunting, bleak somber, and excellent.
Too often mesmerizing acting performances in horror/thriller movies get overlooked for the Oscars (except if you are Anthony Hopkins) which is a shame here. Jeff Goldblum undergoes not only a physical transformation, but his mannerisms, ticks and speech all go from human to insect and he deserves a lot of credit for what he did to bring "Brundlefly" to life.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Killer (2023) in Movies
Nov 18, 2023
Interesting...but ends with a "thud"
Director David Fincher has a strong track record of interesting films…SE7EN, FIGHT CLUB, THE SOCIAL NETWORK (to name a few). Michael Fassbender is one of the more interesting actors working today…HUNGER, INGLORIOUS BASTERDS, PROMETHEUS (to name a few). So when these 2 got together to make a film of the graphic novel THE KILLER, anticipation was high.
Lower those expectations just a bit and you’ll be rewarded by an enteraning (enough) film/character study that is…interesting, but lands with a “thud”.
Based on the aforementioned graphic novel that was written by Alexis Nolent and illustrated by Luc Jacamon, THE KILLER follows the titular character after a hit has gone wrong and he must fight to save his life, while seeking vengeance on those that wronged him.
It is a “thinking man’s” hit-man film set in the seedy underground of a high-priced assassin. In lesser hands this could be a lesser John Wick knock-off, but in Fincher’s skilled fingers, THE KILLER is an intriguing character study.
It helps that the central figure of this film is portrayed by Michael Fassbender who is fascinating to watch even if he is just sitting around looking out a window. And this is good…for he spends the first 20 minutes of this film…sitting around looking out a window (waiting for his target to show up). It is a unique choice in a film such as this and with Fincher’s direction and Fassbender’s performance, it works more often than it doesn’t.
After the initial hit goes awry, sending Fassbender’s character on a global manhunt, the rest of the film is a series of one-on-one scenes with THE KILLER versus THE LAWYER (Charles Parnell - who is turning into a pretty reliable “that guy” character actor). THE KILLER versus THE BEAST (in what is the best action scene in the film) and THE KILLER versus THE CLIENT (portrayed by Arliss Howard in another portrayal of an “a-hole rich guy”). All of these scenes work for the most part, but none of them “knock it out of the park”.
The only scene that comes close to knocking it out of the park is THE KILLER versus THE EXPERT and that is because The Expert is played by Tilda Swinton and has 90% of the dialogue in the scene. It is always exciting to see 2 marvelous performers sitting across a table, playing off each other and Fassbender and Swinton (especially) shine in this portion of the film.
The problem with THE KILLER is that the separate scenes do not add up to a cohesive whole - and certainly the parts are more interesting than the final procduct and that blame needs to be placed at the feet of Director Fincher who should have been able to blend these scenes together better. He isn’t helped by a finale scene that lands with a thud…on purpose. But a “thud” is a “thud” and that is a tricky way to end the film.
And…in the case of THE KILLER…Fincher (and Fassbender) did not build up enough equity heading into the final scene that one can forgive “the thud”….though it is still a pretty good film. The “thud” pulls this film down from “really good” (not great) to just…”good”.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis).
Lower those expectations just a bit and you’ll be rewarded by an enteraning (enough) film/character study that is…interesting, but lands with a “thud”.
Based on the aforementioned graphic novel that was written by Alexis Nolent and illustrated by Luc Jacamon, THE KILLER follows the titular character after a hit has gone wrong and he must fight to save his life, while seeking vengeance on those that wronged him.
It is a “thinking man’s” hit-man film set in the seedy underground of a high-priced assassin. In lesser hands this could be a lesser John Wick knock-off, but in Fincher’s skilled fingers, THE KILLER is an intriguing character study.
It helps that the central figure of this film is portrayed by Michael Fassbender who is fascinating to watch even if he is just sitting around looking out a window. And this is good…for he spends the first 20 minutes of this film…sitting around looking out a window (waiting for his target to show up). It is a unique choice in a film such as this and with Fincher’s direction and Fassbender’s performance, it works more often than it doesn’t.
After the initial hit goes awry, sending Fassbender’s character on a global manhunt, the rest of the film is a series of one-on-one scenes with THE KILLER versus THE LAWYER (Charles Parnell - who is turning into a pretty reliable “that guy” character actor). THE KILLER versus THE BEAST (in what is the best action scene in the film) and THE KILLER versus THE CLIENT (portrayed by Arliss Howard in another portrayal of an “a-hole rich guy”). All of these scenes work for the most part, but none of them “knock it out of the park”.
The only scene that comes close to knocking it out of the park is THE KILLER versus THE EXPERT and that is because The Expert is played by Tilda Swinton and has 90% of the dialogue in the scene. It is always exciting to see 2 marvelous performers sitting across a table, playing off each other and Fassbender and Swinton (especially) shine in this portion of the film.
The problem with THE KILLER is that the separate scenes do not add up to a cohesive whole - and certainly the parts are more interesting than the final procduct and that blame needs to be placed at the feet of Director Fincher who should have been able to blend these scenes together better. He isn’t helped by a finale scene that lands with a thud…on purpose. But a “thud” is a “thud” and that is a tricky way to end the film.
And…in the case of THE KILLER…Fincher (and Fassbender) did not build up enough equity heading into the final scene that one can forgive “the thud”….though it is still a pretty good film. The “thud” pulls this film down from “really good” (not great) to just…”good”.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis).
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.)
Gareth von Kallenbach (974 KP) rated Sabotage (2014) in Movies
Jun 19, 2019
Action icon Arnold Schwarzenegger is back in “Sabotage”, with an ensemble film that is part thriller, part action, and part western. Schwarzenegger plays John Breacher, the leader of a top D.E.A. squad who take on the worst of the criminal underworld in the war on drugs.
Breacher has become a celebrity for his exploits as the numerous pictures of him with former Presidents attest to. It is learned that after bringing down a drug Kingpin, Breacher had his wife and son kidnapped in retaliation and he was forced to watch them tortured to death via video for refusing to turn himself over to the kidnappers for retaliation.
The brutal and drawn out nature of the crimes has haunted Breacher and as the film opens he is leading his team on a raid of a mansion filled with cash and bad guys.
His team is very efficient at what they do but have both physical and mental scars from their experiences. The raid goes almost as planned, but Breacher and his team are accused of taking ten million dollars from the crime scene after the raid as it was learned that the F.B.I. were also keeping tabs on the locale.
Six months pass and despite being an outcast, Breacher and his team are returned to active duty after the closure of the investigation against them. With most of his agency convinced someone on the team has taken the money, Breacher and company celebrate their return to active status.
Their celebration is short-lived when members of the team start being killed in brutal fashion. The fact that highly trained operatives are able to be killed in this manner has raised some red flags especially to local detective Brentwood (Olivia Williams), who thinks there may be more to the cases than first thought. The fact that the D.E.A. is not helping with her investigation and the fact that the bodies are starting to pile up lead her and Breacher into an uneasy alliance to find the killer(s).
What follows is a methodical, but at times action packed film that results in an ending that is disappointing compared to what it could have been.
After the final revelation was revealed, it seemed to me that the methods taken did not match up well with the timeline, opportunity, and motivations of the characters involved. The more I thought about the film the more I was convinced that there were easier ways for things to be accomplished or explained and that perhaps there were too many Red Herrings along the way.
The cast is the film is top notch from Terrance Howard, Sam Worthington, Joe Manganiello and Josh Holloway, and this is one of Schwarzenegger’s most mature and diverse roles in memory. I liked the ambiguity of his character as he was not the one man killing machine and unstoppable force of nature that he has portrayed countless times before.
Breacher is a haunted and troubled man who is highly capable at what he does and enjoys doing it even though it has cost him everything he holds dear. The film seemed to be unable to find an identity as it started out as a very gripping drama that had you guessing but took some turns that strained to be credible and became a conglomeration of action clichés and western nostalgia which is a shame as the cast and premise offered so much more as did the first part of the film.
Director David Ayer keeps things moving along and is to be praised for not letting the action overshadow the characters but sadly the final act of the film comes up short and undermines what could have been a classic mix of action and drama.
The film fails as an effective action film or drama which results in an at times enjoyable but largely forgettable effort.
http://sknr.net/2014/03/28/sabotage/
Breacher has become a celebrity for his exploits as the numerous pictures of him with former Presidents attest to. It is learned that after bringing down a drug Kingpin, Breacher had his wife and son kidnapped in retaliation and he was forced to watch them tortured to death via video for refusing to turn himself over to the kidnappers for retaliation.
The brutal and drawn out nature of the crimes has haunted Breacher and as the film opens he is leading his team on a raid of a mansion filled with cash and bad guys.
His team is very efficient at what they do but have both physical and mental scars from their experiences. The raid goes almost as planned, but Breacher and his team are accused of taking ten million dollars from the crime scene after the raid as it was learned that the F.B.I. were also keeping tabs on the locale.
Six months pass and despite being an outcast, Breacher and his team are returned to active duty after the closure of the investigation against them. With most of his agency convinced someone on the team has taken the money, Breacher and company celebrate their return to active status.
Their celebration is short-lived when members of the team start being killed in brutal fashion. The fact that highly trained operatives are able to be killed in this manner has raised some red flags especially to local detective Brentwood (Olivia Williams), who thinks there may be more to the cases than first thought. The fact that the D.E.A. is not helping with her investigation and the fact that the bodies are starting to pile up lead her and Breacher into an uneasy alliance to find the killer(s).
What follows is a methodical, but at times action packed film that results in an ending that is disappointing compared to what it could have been.
After the final revelation was revealed, it seemed to me that the methods taken did not match up well with the timeline, opportunity, and motivations of the characters involved. The more I thought about the film the more I was convinced that there were easier ways for things to be accomplished or explained and that perhaps there were too many Red Herrings along the way.
The cast is the film is top notch from Terrance Howard, Sam Worthington, Joe Manganiello and Josh Holloway, and this is one of Schwarzenegger’s most mature and diverse roles in memory. I liked the ambiguity of his character as he was not the one man killing machine and unstoppable force of nature that he has portrayed countless times before.
Breacher is a haunted and troubled man who is highly capable at what he does and enjoys doing it even though it has cost him everything he holds dear. The film seemed to be unable to find an identity as it started out as a very gripping drama that had you guessing but took some turns that strained to be credible and became a conglomeration of action clichés and western nostalgia which is a shame as the cast and premise offered so much more as did the first part of the film.
Director David Ayer keeps things moving along and is to be praised for not letting the action overshadow the characters but sadly the final act of the film comes up short and undermines what could have been a classic mix of action and drama.
The film fails as an effective action film or drama which results in an at times enjoyable but largely forgettable effort.
http://sknr.net/2014/03/28/sabotage/
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Inferno (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Infernal
Dan Brown has had a bad rap over the years from snobbish reviewers who dismiss his work as “trash”. I’m sure to a large degree the multi-millionaire Dan Brown couldn’t give a toss! I personally enjoyed both the books and Ron Howard’s films of “The Da Vinci Code” and “Angels and Demons” as glossy escapism. Occasionally though books will generate a “WHHAAAT??” moment and Brown’s 2013 novel “Inferno” generated just such a response in its dramatic conclusion… and (for me at least) not in a good way. As someone always looking at script potential in books, the words “unfilmable” came to mind. So veteran screenwriter David Koepp (“Jurassic Park”, “Mission Impossible”, “Spiderman”) is to be congratulated in ‘adapting’ the story to provide a coherent screenplay.
But unfortunately it’s still arrant nonsense.
The film starts in promising style with famed symbologist Robert Langdon (Tom Hanks) waking in hospital to horrific visions of hell on earth with only the attractive young nurse Dr Sienna Brooks (Felicity Jones) to soothe his nerves. A serious head wound prevents him from remembering the last 48 hours which makes it a bit tricky when a “Terminator”-style female cop (the striking Romanian actress Ana Ularu) arrives to try to kill him. Fleeing the scene, Langdon follows a typically convoluted trail of puzzles in a race to find the location of the source of a plague that if released will devastate the world’s population. In the process he has to dodge police, World Health Organisation (WHO) staff and members of a shadowy “private security organisation” trying to catch him.
The problem with the story is that it has a plague-sized hole in its plot. The actions of the main protagonist of the film, Bertrand Zobrist (Ben Foster, “The Program”), make absolutely zero sense. If he wanted to achieve his aims he would have just done it! (“No, Mr Bond – I won’t shoot you now”). Laying a devious cryptic trail for others to follow makes even less sense, particularly as he is even seen (in flashback) to be not very good at that! Quite bonkers!
Unfortunately, the more you ponder the story, the worse it gets, and it is this that fatally drags the film down despite all the good work that Hanks, Jones and director Ron Howard try to counter-balance it with.
For there are elements on the positive side of the scales. The Italian and Turkish scenes (in Florence, Venice and Istanbul) are gloriously filmed with lush colours and exotic and evocative locations. Tom Hanks is as solidly reliable as ever in the Langdon role, and its great to see Felicity “The Theory of Everything” Jones in a leading role before she disappears into obscurity again (humour: “Rogue One” is released in December).
Tom Hanks
The film has fun with romantic expectations of the Langdon and Brooks characters. Here though is Hanks with the more age-appropriate Knudsen.
The supporting cast is also of great quality. Sidse Babett Knudsen (“Borgen”) is Dr Sinsky, leader of the W.H.O. (not credited – as memorably done with Peter Capaldi in “World War Z” as “Doctor, W.H.O.”!). Irrfan (“Jurassic World”) Khan is striking as the mysterious and authoritarian “Provost”. And Omar Sy (who made such an impact in the brilliant “The Intouchables”) plays the lead W.H.O. officer in pursuit of Langdon.
Hans Zimmer again provides the soundtrack, with his beautiful series theme cleverly working its way into the music as Langdon’s memory returns. However, at various points the music become overtly noticeable, intrusive and not to my liking. A bombastic choral reworking of the theme over the end titles is stirring though.
In summary, a glossy and nonsensical disappointment.
But unfortunately it’s still arrant nonsense.
The film starts in promising style with famed symbologist Robert Langdon (Tom Hanks) waking in hospital to horrific visions of hell on earth with only the attractive young nurse Dr Sienna Brooks (Felicity Jones) to soothe his nerves. A serious head wound prevents him from remembering the last 48 hours which makes it a bit tricky when a “Terminator”-style female cop (the striking Romanian actress Ana Ularu) arrives to try to kill him. Fleeing the scene, Langdon follows a typically convoluted trail of puzzles in a race to find the location of the source of a plague that if released will devastate the world’s population. In the process he has to dodge police, World Health Organisation (WHO) staff and members of a shadowy “private security organisation” trying to catch him.
The problem with the story is that it has a plague-sized hole in its plot. The actions of the main protagonist of the film, Bertrand Zobrist (Ben Foster, “The Program”), make absolutely zero sense. If he wanted to achieve his aims he would have just done it! (“No, Mr Bond – I won’t shoot you now”). Laying a devious cryptic trail for others to follow makes even less sense, particularly as he is even seen (in flashback) to be not very good at that! Quite bonkers!
Unfortunately, the more you ponder the story, the worse it gets, and it is this that fatally drags the film down despite all the good work that Hanks, Jones and director Ron Howard try to counter-balance it with.
For there are elements on the positive side of the scales. The Italian and Turkish scenes (in Florence, Venice and Istanbul) are gloriously filmed with lush colours and exotic and evocative locations. Tom Hanks is as solidly reliable as ever in the Langdon role, and its great to see Felicity “The Theory of Everything” Jones in a leading role before she disappears into obscurity again (humour: “Rogue One” is released in December).
Tom Hanks
The film has fun with romantic expectations of the Langdon and Brooks characters. Here though is Hanks with the more age-appropriate Knudsen.
The supporting cast is also of great quality. Sidse Babett Knudsen (“Borgen”) is Dr Sinsky, leader of the W.H.O. (not credited – as memorably done with Peter Capaldi in “World War Z” as “Doctor, W.H.O.”!). Irrfan (“Jurassic World”) Khan is striking as the mysterious and authoritarian “Provost”. And Omar Sy (who made such an impact in the brilliant “The Intouchables”) plays the lead W.H.O. officer in pursuit of Langdon.
Hans Zimmer again provides the soundtrack, with his beautiful series theme cleverly working its way into the music as Langdon’s memory returns. However, at various points the music become overtly noticeable, intrusive and not to my liking. A bombastic choral reworking of the theme over the end titles is stirring though.
In summary, a glossy and nonsensical disappointment.
Gareth von Kallenbach (974 KP) rated Concussion (2015) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
Concussion has quite a few big names starring in it, as well as a few I
had never heard of.
The main cast is as follows: Will Smith as Dr. Bennet Omalu, Gugu
Mbatha-Raw as Prema Mutiso, Alec Baldwin as Dr. Julian Bailes, Albert
Brooks as Dr. Cyril Wecht, David Morse
as Mike Webster, Matthew Willig as Justin Strezelczyk, Paul Reiser as
Dr. Elliot Pellman, Arliss Howard as Dr. Joseph Maroon, Luke Wilson as
Roger Goodell, Mike O’Malley as Daniel Sullivan, Hill Harper as Spellman
Jones, Eddie Marsan as Dr. Steven DeKosky, Stephen Moyer as Dr. Ron
Hamilton, and Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje as Dave Duerson.
Dr. Bennet Omalu works at the Pittsburgh coroner’s office as a forensic
pathologist along with Dr. Cyril Wecht and Daniel Sullivan. Omalu, a
highly educated Doctor hailing from Nigeria, strives to stride in the
footsteps of Dr. Wecht, and must contend with the derision thrown his
way by Sullivan.
Based on true events, the story follows Omalu in his quest to find out
the true cause of death of “Iron Mike” Webster, and subsequently team
mates and other football players that seem to go crazy for no obvious
reason.
Will Smith takes this role and immerses himself in it. His accent is
believable, his mannerisms are believable, his portrayal of the
character as a whole drew me and made me BELIEVE it.
The supporting cast are all really really great as well. Gugu Mbatha-Raw
as Smiths love interest, Prema is probably one of the quietest
characters in the movie, yet she portrays herself as Omalu’s staunch
supporter straight through the whole film.
Albert Brooks as Dr. Cyril Wecht gave a brilliant performance as a cut
and dry no-nonsense Chief Medical Examiner as well. He supports Omalu’s
research even when he must see that it may be detrimental to his own
career, and indeed, in the end, his support of Omalu does almost cost
him his entire career.
Dr. Omalus research, spending his own money to run testing in order to
find the cause of death of Mike Webster, puts him directly in the
crosshairs of the NFL. His subsequent discovery of and diagnoses of CTE
(Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy) in Webster, and other NFL players
that died by their own hands or in tragic accidents due to basically
going crazy, threatened the NFL and its entire existence, or so they
thought.
Alec Baldwin gives a great performance as a man struggling between his
love of a sport and his guilt over sending players back into a game when
they were hurt. Early in the film he is shown to say “what am I
missing”. He has run the tests he knows to run, but cannot get to the
bottom of what is clearly affecting his players. He helps Dr. Omalu in
his quest to bring the truth before the NFL and the media and the
public.
Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje as Dave Duerson has only brief moments on film,
but his contribution to the movie and his final contribution to Omalus
research at the time of his death, helps bring CTE to the forefront of
the media eye, which in turn forces the NFL to address the findings, at
least ion some level.
Will Smith is up for a Golden Globe for his role in this film and I have
to say that in my opinion it is well deserved.
I loved the movie, it had my full attention from beginning to end, and I
thought that it was very well done. It showed the seedy underside of the
NFL and the extents to which big multi-million dollar companies will go
to in order to hide any truths that might threaten their way of doing
business. During the movie I murmured under my breath to my husband
“This reminds me of the crap the tobacco industry pulled when it was
trying to deny that cigarette smoking causes lung cancer”, and I was not
surprised when in some of the later clips there were voice overs heard
from a congressional hearing basically saying the same thing.
I would give this movie 5 out of 5 stars.
had never heard of.
The main cast is as follows: Will Smith as Dr. Bennet Omalu, Gugu
Mbatha-Raw as Prema Mutiso, Alec Baldwin as Dr. Julian Bailes, Albert
Brooks as Dr. Cyril Wecht, David Morse
as Mike Webster, Matthew Willig as Justin Strezelczyk, Paul Reiser as
Dr. Elliot Pellman, Arliss Howard as Dr. Joseph Maroon, Luke Wilson as
Roger Goodell, Mike O’Malley as Daniel Sullivan, Hill Harper as Spellman
Jones, Eddie Marsan as Dr. Steven DeKosky, Stephen Moyer as Dr. Ron
Hamilton, and Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje as Dave Duerson.
Dr. Bennet Omalu works at the Pittsburgh coroner’s office as a forensic
pathologist along with Dr. Cyril Wecht and Daniel Sullivan. Omalu, a
highly educated Doctor hailing from Nigeria, strives to stride in the
footsteps of Dr. Wecht, and must contend with the derision thrown his
way by Sullivan.
Based on true events, the story follows Omalu in his quest to find out
the true cause of death of “Iron Mike” Webster, and subsequently team
mates and other football players that seem to go crazy for no obvious
reason.
Will Smith takes this role and immerses himself in it. His accent is
believable, his mannerisms are believable, his portrayal of the
character as a whole drew me and made me BELIEVE it.
The supporting cast are all really really great as well. Gugu Mbatha-Raw
as Smiths love interest, Prema is probably one of the quietest
characters in the movie, yet she portrays herself as Omalu’s staunch
supporter straight through the whole film.
Albert Brooks as Dr. Cyril Wecht gave a brilliant performance as a cut
and dry no-nonsense Chief Medical Examiner as well. He supports Omalu’s
research even when he must see that it may be detrimental to his own
career, and indeed, in the end, his support of Omalu does almost cost
him his entire career.
Dr. Omalus research, spending his own money to run testing in order to
find the cause of death of Mike Webster, puts him directly in the
crosshairs of the NFL. His subsequent discovery of and diagnoses of CTE
(Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy) in Webster, and other NFL players
that died by their own hands or in tragic accidents due to basically
going crazy, threatened the NFL and its entire existence, or so they
thought.
Alec Baldwin gives a great performance as a man struggling between his
love of a sport and his guilt over sending players back into a game when
they were hurt. Early in the film he is shown to say “what am I
missing”. He has run the tests he knows to run, but cannot get to the
bottom of what is clearly affecting his players. He helps Dr. Omalu in
his quest to bring the truth before the NFL and the media and the
public.
Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje as Dave Duerson has only brief moments on film,
but his contribution to the movie and his final contribution to Omalus
research at the time of his death, helps bring CTE to the forefront of
the media eye, which in turn forces the NFL to address the findings, at
least ion some level.
Will Smith is up for a Golden Globe for his role in this film and I have
to say that in my opinion it is well deserved.
I loved the movie, it had my full attention from beginning to end, and I
thought that it was very well done. It showed the seedy underside of the
NFL and the extents to which big multi-million dollar companies will go
to in order to hide any truths that might threaten their way of doing
business. During the movie I murmured under my breath to my husband
“This reminds me of the crap the tobacco industry pulled when it was
trying to deny that cigarette smoking causes lung cancer”, and I was not
surprised when in some of the later clips there were voice overs heard
from a congressional hearing basically saying the same thing.
I would give this movie 5 out of 5 stars.
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)