Search
Dracula FAQ: All That's Left to Know About the Count from Transylvania
Book
Dracula FAQ unearths little-known facts about both the historical and literary Dracula. The...
Antigay Bias in Role-Model Occupations
Book
From the first game of the National League of Professional Baseball Clubs on April 22, 1876, tens of...
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated The Hunger Games: Catching Fire (2013) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
The Hunger Games franchise has come at a time that is almost certain to gather box-office success. After Harry Potter finished two years ago and The Twilight Saga bowed out just 12 months ago, teenagers and young adults have been craving for a new series of blockbusters to ‘sink their teeth into’.
The first film of this new dawn, based on Suzanne Collins’ successful book, was released in March last year and greeted with warm reviews and a staggering box-office performance, a gross just shy of $700m to be a little more precise.
However, rumoured tensions between director Gary Ross and studio Color Force meant that despite its impressive takings, he was not to helm its sequel, Catching Fire. Taking over from him is Francis Lawrence, director of I am Legend, Constantine and Water for Elephants, but can he better what preceded him?
The series centres around an annual ‘games’, in which people aged between 12 and 18 must fight to the death in a custom made arena, leaving only one victor, who is showered with riches for the rest of their lives.
Jennifer Lawrence, returning to the series after her first Oscar win this year, plays Katniss Everdeen, a plucky young teen who fresh from winning the previous Hunger Games tournament alongside her beau Peeta Mellark, played by Josh Hutcherson, travel through the land of Panem (a post-apocalyptic America) to spread their story and persuade others to take part in the vicious tournament.
However, after angering the Capitol, run by cold-hearted President Snow (Donald Sutherland) who becomes increasingly concerned that an up-rising is brewing, it is decided that previous victors must once again take part, to show that even they are not above the law.
For those fresh to the series, I warn you not to watch this film without seeing the first, as much of the plot will be near incomprehensible and your enjoyment will suffer as a result.
The film starts slowly, giving enough backstory before the inevitable return to the arena. Thankfully despite its large running time of 146 minutes, it never falters and after allowing the audience to see how the world has changed, it is back into the new and improved arena for the 75th Hunger Games.
Gone is the shaky handy-cam of director Gary Ross, and in its place we are treated to sweeping shots of numerous landscapes; from the coal-mining community of District 12, to the bright lights of the Capitol and even the large arena which has been given a radical overhaul to make it even more challenging than ever.
The acting is simply sublime by all accounts. Jennifer Lawrence, fresh from the honour of an Oscar plays Katniss with such a subtle grace that she is mesmerising to watch, a real treat for fans of J-Law and of course Suzanne Collins’ character. Liam Hemsworth returns to the series as Katniss’ secret love interest Gale, but he is sorely underused. Josh Hutcherson’s Peeta Mellark is as irritating as ever and lacks a backbone, but this is more to do with the script than Hutcherson’s abilities as an actor.
Woody Harrelson, Elizabeth Banks, Stanley Tucci also return, with the latter being a real stand-out in a film which is filled with quirky and unusual characters.
Those of you who have read my review of the previous film will know that I wasn’t a fan of its lacklustre special effects. Thankfully my prayers were answered and due to a budget that has almost doubled, the effects are glorious. The Capitol is perhaps the best use of the CGI, where the first film looked like a Star Wars: Episode I rip-off, here we really feel like the city is living and breathing for the very first time.
Unfortunately, it seems like the special effects team are still struggling with CGI fire as the computer generated flames are still laughable in their realism.
At 146 minutes, Catching Fire was always going to numb your backside, but you don’t care, the film is an absolute treat to watch. Director Francis Lawrence has retained the violent nature of the series despite its ridiculous 12A certification and manages to get around those limitations with style and flair.
Yes, if I was pushed I’d say it was a little over-long, the CGI flames still look ridiculous and the ending is far too abrupt, but if those are the only faults I can find in a film, then clearly it is more than worth the increasingly expensive price of a cinema admission ticket.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2013/11/23/hunger-games-catching-fire-review/
The first film of this new dawn, based on Suzanne Collins’ successful book, was released in March last year and greeted with warm reviews and a staggering box-office performance, a gross just shy of $700m to be a little more precise.
However, rumoured tensions between director Gary Ross and studio Color Force meant that despite its impressive takings, he was not to helm its sequel, Catching Fire. Taking over from him is Francis Lawrence, director of I am Legend, Constantine and Water for Elephants, but can he better what preceded him?
The series centres around an annual ‘games’, in which people aged between 12 and 18 must fight to the death in a custom made arena, leaving only one victor, who is showered with riches for the rest of their lives.
Jennifer Lawrence, returning to the series after her first Oscar win this year, plays Katniss Everdeen, a plucky young teen who fresh from winning the previous Hunger Games tournament alongside her beau Peeta Mellark, played by Josh Hutcherson, travel through the land of Panem (a post-apocalyptic America) to spread their story and persuade others to take part in the vicious tournament.
However, after angering the Capitol, run by cold-hearted President Snow (Donald Sutherland) who becomes increasingly concerned that an up-rising is brewing, it is decided that previous victors must once again take part, to show that even they are not above the law.
For those fresh to the series, I warn you not to watch this film without seeing the first, as much of the plot will be near incomprehensible and your enjoyment will suffer as a result.
The film starts slowly, giving enough backstory before the inevitable return to the arena. Thankfully despite its large running time of 146 minutes, it never falters and after allowing the audience to see how the world has changed, it is back into the new and improved arena for the 75th Hunger Games.
Gone is the shaky handy-cam of director Gary Ross, and in its place we are treated to sweeping shots of numerous landscapes; from the coal-mining community of District 12, to the bright lights of the Capitol and even the large arena which has been given a radical overhaul to make it even more challenging than ever.
The acting is simply sublime by all accounts. Jennifer Lawrence, fresh from the honour of an Oscar plays Katniss with such a subtle grace that she is mesmerising to watch, a real treat for fans of J-Law and of course Suzanne Collins’ character. Liam Hemsworth returns to the series as Katniss’ secret love interest Gale, but he is sorely underused. Josh Hutcherson’s Peeta Mellark is as irritating as ever and lacks a backbone, but this is more to do with the script than Hutcherson’s abilities as an actor.
Woody Harrelson, Elizabeth Banks, Stanley Tucci also return, with the latter being a real stand-out in a film which is filled with quirky and unusual characters.
Those of you who have read my review of the previous film will know that I wasn’t a fan of its lacklustre special effects. Thankfully my prayers were answered and due to a budget that has almost doubled, the effects are glorious. The Capitol is perhaps the best use of the CGI, where the first film looked like a Star Wars: Episode I rip-off, here we really feel like the city is living and breathing for the very first time.
Unfortunately, it seems like the special effects team are still struggling with CGI fire as the computer generated flames are still laughable in their realism.
At 146 minutes, Catching Fire was always going to numb your backside, but you don’t care, the film is an absolute treat to watch. Director Francis Lawrence has retained the violent nature of the series despite its ridiculous 12A certification and manages to get around those limitations with style and flair.
Yes, if I was pushed I’d say it was a little over-long, the CGI flames still look ridiculous and the ending is far too abrupt, but if those are the only faults I can find in a film, then clearly it is more than worth the increasingly expensive price of a cinema admission ticket.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2013/11/23/hunger-games-catching-fire-review/
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)
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated The Hunger Games (2012) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Director Gary Ross had his work cut out trying to create a film which brought to life the startling realism of Suzanne Collins’ successful trilogy of novels and here we have the first, The Hunger Games.
This film has come at a time where movie fans have been released from the clawing hooks of the Harry Potter franchise and the finale of the Twilight Saga is now on the horizon. Some would say, it’s the perfect time to begin a new franchise and for the most part, they’re right. Move over witches and vampires, there’s a new, more mature kid ready to take your crowns.
I for one went into The Hunger Games trilogy blindfolded. I have not read the books so this review is purely based on the film I saw before me and I must say; I was mightily impressed.
The film is set some way in the future and the world is a much different place; in a place called Panem (a post-apocalyptic North America) is where we find 12 Districts full of variety with different races living alongside each other, just as we have today. However, there is a more sinister side to things as we learn that once a year; The Hunger Games tournament takes place.
For those of you not familiar with the event itself, here’s a brief description. Each year, one boy and one girl aged between 12 and 18 from each district fights to the death until there is one winner, showered with riches for the remainder of their lives.
Jennifer Lawrence of X-Men First Class fame stars as Katniss Everdeen, a plucky young girl brought up in the coal mining community of District 12. After her young sister is picked to represent District 12, she decides the only thing to do is nominate herself and save her from certain death. Her male counterpart is Peeta Mellark played by a mature looking Josh Hutcherson of Journey to the Centre of the Earth fame.
Once the pair have been selected, they are taken to Capitol, a city brimming with the wealthy, a stark contrast to the coal mining community our District 12 heroes come from. Woody Harrelson stars as a previous winner of the games and the District 12 mentor, he takes it upon himself to train the ‘tributes’ and prepare them for the task ahead.
Once in battle, all chaos ensues and this is where the film begins to partially unravel. The actors and actresses all do excellent jobs, in particular Lawrence plays Katniss exceptionally well, her soft side comes through but you never forget her harsher, hunter like persona. Unfortunately, the action is held back by the ridiculous 12A certification the film has been lumbered with. It has become the case, as with The Woman in Black earlier this year that films based on best-selling and well known books or with teen stars have to be given this frankly dire classification. The violence is toned down to such a level that it becomes unrealistic and from what I have read, The Hunger Games is a much more brutal and unforgiving experience as a novel.
Other negatives include some shoddy CGI and too much hand based camera work, the battles at the beginning of the games are messy and not enjoyable to sit through. It’s a disappointing lapse in a film which is actually very good indeed.
Thankfully, the lengthy running time allows the final third to pick up nicely to leave you with a lasting impression.
The Hunger Games had the unenviable task of being on the receiving end of comparisons to Harry Potter and the Twilight franchises, and to an extent it has done its source material proud. Does it live up to the much-loved world of Hogwarts? Probably not. Does it live up to the lust and romance of the Twilight Saga? Most definitely. It sits, right smack in the middle and that’s not a bad place to be.
Gary Ross has produced a fine blockbuster with excellent performances from the cast and some fabulous design choices. Yes, it’s a little too long, there are some shoddy special effects and the character development lacks depth, but for fans of the series and newcomers alike, it moves the game on and is an enjoyable experience.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2012/04/05/the-hunger-games-2012-review/
This film has come at a time where movie fans have been released from the clawing hooks of the Harry Potter franchise and the finale of the Twilight Saga is now on the horizon. Some would say, it’s the perfect time to begin a new franchise and for the most part, they’re right. Move over witches and vampires, there’s a new, more mature kid ready to take your crowns.
I for one went into The Hunger Games trilogy blindfolded. I have not read the books so this review is purely based on the film I saw before me and I must say; I was mightily impressed.
The film is set some way in the future and the world is a much different place; in a place called Panem (a post-apocalyptic North America) is where we find 12 Districts full of variety with different races living alongside each other, just as we have today. However, there is a more sinister side to things as we learn that once a year; The Hunger Games tournament takes place.
For those of you not familiar with the event itself, here’s a brief description. Each year, one boy and one girl aged between 12 and 18 from each district fights to the death until there is one winner, showered with riches for the remainder of their lives.
Jennifer Lawrence of X-Men First Class fame stars as Katniss Everdeen, a plucky young girl brought up in the coal mining community of District 12. After her young sister is picked to represent District 12, she decides the only thing to do is nominate herself and save her from certain death. Her male counterpart is Peeta Mellark played by a mature looking Josh Hutcherson of Journey to the Centre of the Earth fame.
Once the pair have been selected, they are taken to Capitol, a city brimming with the wealthy, a stark contrast to the coal mining community our District 12 heroes come from. Woody Harrelson stars as a previous winner of the games and the District 12 mentor, he takes it upon himself to train the ‘tributes’ and prepare them for the task ahead.
Once in battle, all chaos ensues and this is where the film begins to partially unravel. The actors and actresses all do excellent jobs, in particular Lawrence plays Katniss exceptionally well, her soft side comes through but you never forget her harsher, hunter like persona. Unfortunately, the action is held back by the ridiculous 12A certification the film has been lumbered with. It has become the case, as with The Woman in Black earlier this year that films based on best-selling and well known books or with teen stars have to be given this frankly dire classification. The violence is toned down to such a level that it becomes unrealistic and from what I have read, The Hunger Games is a much more brutal and unforgiving experience as a novel.
Other negatives include some shoddy CGI and too much hand based camera work, the battles at the beginning of the games are messy and not enjoyable to sit through. It’s a disappointing lapse in a film which is actually very good indeed.
Thankfully, the lengthy running time allows the final third to pick up nicely to leave you with a lasting impression.
The Hunger Games had the unenviable task of being on the receiving end of comparisons to Harry Potter and the Twilight franchises, and to an extent it has done its source material proud. Does it live up to the much-loved world of Hogwarts? Probably not. Does it live up to the lust and romance of the Twilight Saga? Most definitely. It sits, right smack in the middle and that’s not a bad place to be.
Gary Ross has produced a fine blockbuster with excellent performances from the cast and some fabulous design choices. Yes, it’s a little too long, there are some shoddy special effects and the character development lacks depth, but for fans of the series and newcomers alike, it moves the game on and is an enjoyable experience.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2012/04/05/the-hunger-games-2012-review/
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated The Hunger Games (2012) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
“The Hunger Games” is based in a post-apocalyptic time when the world has been overcome by a series of devastating natural disasters and people have turned on each other to provide supplies for their families and for themselves in order to survive.
Bringing peace to the land was a nation known as Panem which is ruled by the Capitol. Panem had once consisted of thirteen districts all providing a resource essential to the survival of its people. An uprising against the Capitol caused much anger and destruction resulting in war and the annihilation of its thirteenth district.
With the intent to make sure such an uprising would never happen again, the Capitol required each of the twelve remaining districts to abide by the rules and regulations written in the Treaty of Treason to make sure that there is peace within Panem. Once a year a lottery is held where each of the twelve districts must offer up one young man and one young woman as tributes. This must be done in order to remind the people of Panem what was lost. Each of the 24 tributes must train and then battle for survival in an outdoor arena against each other leaving only one tribute to become the victor. This is known as The Hunger Games.
“The Hunger Games” is based upon the New York times best seller written by Suzanne Collins and directed by Gary Ross who also directed Seabiscuit. The storyline follows the main character Katniss Everdeen (Jennifer Lawrence) who volunteers as tribute in order to save her younger sister from having to fight and Peeta Mellark (Josh Hutcheson) has also been randomly chosen as tribute for the twelfth district.
The movie mostly follows these two characters on their journey to the battle ground as opposed to the book where we get a little more background into each of the different districts and their tributes. Who will be the victor of the 74th annual Hunger Games?
Let me start off by stating that you do not need to have read the book in order to enjoy this film. However, the movie does follow the book very well. Fans will always have their own very strong opinions as to whether the films follow their favorite books but for someone who read the book after I watched the movie I must say I was not lost nor did I feel disappointed that I did not read it prior to screening it.
This film includes a great cast such as Stanley Tucci, Wes Bentley, Liam Hemsworth, Elizabeth Banks, Donald Sutherland and a surprisingly effectively-cast Lenny Kravitz. Along with a fitting cast the film also offers a great soundtrack, colors that fit each district and great cinematography.
It is always interesting to hear the comments of the other reviewers after the end of a movie screening. Some commented on how they pictured certain characters as a totally different type of character than what was portrayed in the book such as Cinna played by Lenny Kravitz.
One lady pictured him as a slim Asian man while my guest pictured him as a flamboyant white man with a high fashion sense. Others commented on how shaky the cinematography was. Yes, granted it does get shaky in a lot of the scenes but it only adds action to the heart pounding edge of your seat scenes. This film is a kickstart to the season of great movies to come and I predict “The Hunger Games” will reach a bigger audience as it provides elements of action, drama and sci-fi to satisfy a larger audience.
For those of you who have not read the book I do have to warn you some of the scenes and or elements of the story may be just a little too disturbing for some but is a great story nonetheless.
Bringing peace to the land was a nation known as Panem which is ruled by the Capitol. Panem had once consisted of thirteen districts all providing a resource essential to the survival of its people. An uprising against the Capitol caused much anger and destruction resulting in war and the annihilation of its thirteenth district.
With the intent to make sure such an uprising would never happen again, the Capitol required each of the twelve remaining districts to abide by the rules and regulations written in the Treaty of Treason to make sure that there is peace within Panem. Once a year a lottery is held where each of the twelve districts must offer up one young man and one young woman as tributes. This must be done in order to remind the people of Panem what was lost. Each of the 24 tributes must train and then battle for survival in an outdoor arena against each other leaving only one tribute to become the victor. This is known as The Hunger Games.
“The Hunger Games” is based upon the New York times best seller written by Suzanne Collins and directed by Gary Ross who also directed Seabiscuit. The storyline follows the main character Katniss Everdeen (Jennifer Lawrence) who volunteers as tribute in order to save her younger sister from having to fight and Peeta Mellark (Josh Hutcheson) has also been randomly chosen as tribute for the twelfth district.
The movie mostly follows these two characters on their journey to the battle ground as opposed to the book where we get a little more background into each of the different districts and their tributes. Who will be the victor of the 74th annual Hunger Games?
Let me start off by stating that you do not need to have read the book in order to enjoy this film. However, the movie does follow the book very well. Fans will always have their own very strong opinions as to whether the films follow their favorite books but for someone who read the book after I watched the movie I must say I was not lost nor did I feel disappointed that I did not read it prior to screening it.
This film includes a great cast such as Stanley Tucci, Wes Bentley, Liam Hemsworth, Elizabeth Banks, Donald Sutherland and a surprisingly effectively-cast Lenny Kravitz. Along with a fitting cast the film also offers a great soundtrack, colors that fit each district and great cinematography.
It is always interesting to hear the comments of the other reviewers after the end of a movie screening. Some commented on how they pictured certain characters as a totally different type of character than what was portrayed in the book such as Cinna played by Lenny Kravitz.
One lady pictured him as a slim Asian man while my guest pictured him as a flamboyant white man with a high fashion sense. Others commented on how shaky the cinematography was. Yes, granted it does get shaky in a lot of the scenes but it only adds action to the heart pounding edge of your seat scenes. This film is a kickstart to the season of great movies to come and I predict “The Hunger Games” will reach a bigger audience as it provides elements of action, drama and sci-fi to satisfy a larger audience.
For those of you who have not read the book I do have to warn you some of the scenes and or elements of the story may be just a little too disturbing for some but is a great story nonetheless.
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.)
