Search
Search results
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Licorice Pizza (2021) in Movies
Dec 20, 2021
Set in the San Fernando Valley of 1973; Writer/Director Paul Thomas Anderson has created a loving and nostalgia-filled look at that era with his new film “Licorice Pizza”. The film focuses on a teenaged Gary (Cooper Hoffman) who becomes intrigued by an older photographer assistant named Alana (Alana Haim); during his school photo sessions.
Despite their age difference; the two become friends and Gary attempts to impress her with his hustle as he works in the fringes of Hollywood and has become a regular on the audition circuit and various events thanks to his agent.
When he is able to get Alana to act as his chaperone on a promotional trip to New York; reality sets in when Alana catches the eye of an older actor and starts dating him; Gary moves his hustle into high gear and begins a successful Waterbed business and even convinces his agent to represent Alana.
What follows is a long-winding story as the two move into Hollywood circles and face various challenges associated with their times, confused feelings, and goals.
While the film has some great moments and really great performance; especially that of Haim and Bradley Cooper; the two hours and forty-five minute run time seemed overly long and self-indulgent and could easily have lost forty-five minutes or so and not lost much as the film is loaded with scenes that are overly long or do not advance the story or characters in any meaningful way.
In many ways, the film plays out like a teenaged boy’s fantasy as there is the alluring older woman and his repeated ways to impress her; some of which stretch credibility.
What makes the film work so well is the nostalgic and loving look at the era and the winning performances from the cast. Much like he did with “Boogie Nights”; Anderson is not afraid to take broken or dysfunctional characters and make them sympathetic and relatable.
Expect the movie to do well with the Award voters and it will be interesting to see what the cast will do next.
Despite their age difference; the two become friends and Gary attempts to impress her with his hustle as he works in the fringes of Hollywood and has become a regular on the audition circuit and various events thanks to his agent.
When he is able to get Alana to act as his chaperone on a promotional trip to New York; reality sets in when Alana catches the eye of an older actor and starts dating him; Gary moves his hustle into high gear and begins a successful Waterbed business and even convinces his agent to represent Alana.
What follows is a long-winding story as the two move into Hollywood circles and face various challenges associated with their times, confused feelings, and goals.
While the film has some great moments and really great performance; especially that of Haim and Bradley Cooper; the two hours and forty-five minute run time seemed overly long and self-indulgent and could easily have lost forty-five minutes or so and not lost much as the film is loaded with scenes that are overly long or do not advance the story or characters in any meaningful way.
In many ways, the film plays out like a teenaged boy’s fantasy as there is the alluring older woman and his repeated ways to impress her; some of which stretch credibility.
What makes the film work so well is the nostalgic and loving look at the era and the winning performances from the cast. Much like he did with “Boogie Nights”; Anderson is not afraid to take broken or dysfunctional characters and make them sympathetic and relatable.
Expect the movie to do well with the Award voters and it will be interesting to see what the cast will do next.
Mike Wilder (20 KP) rated True Romance (1993) in Movies
May 30, 2018
I know people that hate this film, but I know far more that love it.
Contains spoilers, click to show
The film was written by Quentin Tarantino, and it really shows with the sharp dialogue and crazy plot. The film centres around Clarence (Christian Slater) who meets and marries Alabama (Patricia Arquette). After Clarence goes to get Alabama's belongings, through a series of mishaps, he ends up with suitcase of coke and they decide to sell it. This leads to a wild adventure involving drug dealers, police and movie executives.
The casting in this film is amazing with Hollywood greats turning up and each one adds something special to the film. But by far the best performance is by Brad Pitt as the roommate of Clarence's friend Dick. He is on screen for a total of about 5 minutes but steals every scene he is in. However every one of the characters in the film brings something special. The performances by Hollywood greats, including Dennis Hopper, Christopher Walken and Gary Oldman all come so close to being over the top, but the incredible script and brilliant directing manage to hold back just enough to stop it going too far.
This film is a true masterpiece where everything just falls in to place. The film is not for the faint of heart though. There are very graphic scenes of violence. One particular scene involving a woman getting severely beaten. The perpetrator definitely gets his comeuppance though. While the violence is very graphic, as with most of Tarantino's films, it is very bloody but also portrayed in a realistic manor. This adds to the shock and also to bring you closer to the victims.
I cannot praise this film enough. It is one of the greats that has been overlooked by many including Hollywood. Almost all of the performances are worthy of Oscar nomination, as with the script. But this film was overlooked by all the major awards.
If you are a fan of Tarantino films, or films with a good cast and great story give this film a try. I know people that hate this film, but I know far more that love it.
The casting in this film is amazing with Hollywood greats turning up and each one adds something special to the film. But by far the best performance is by Brad Pitt as the roommate of Clarence's friend Dick. He is on screen for a total of about 5 minutes but steals every scene he is in. However every one of the characters in the film brings something special. The performances by Hollywood greats, including Dennis Hopper, Christopher Walken and Gary Oldman all come so close to being over the top, but the incredible script and brilliant directing manage to hold back just enough to stop it going too far.
This film is a true masterpiece where everything just falls in to place. The film is not for the faint of heart though. There are very graphic scenes of violence. One particular scene involving a woman getting severely beaten. The perpetrator definitely gets his comeuppance though. While the violence is very graphic, as with most of Tarantino's films, it is very bloody but also portrayed in a realistic manor. This adds to the shock and also to bring you closer to the victims.
I cannot praise this film enough. It is one of the greats that has been overlooked by many including Hollywood. Almost all of the performances are worthy of Oscar nomination, as with the script. But this film was overlooked by all the major awards.
If you are a fan of Tarantino films, or films with a good cast and great story give this film a try. I know people that hate this film, but I know far more that love it.
Lenard (726 KP) rated Mank (2020) in Movies
Dec 6, 2020
David Fincher has spent two decades working to adapt his father's screenplay about Herman Mankiewicz. He succeeded in a major triumph. Gary Oldman plays the alcoholic washed up screenwriter hired by New York wunderkind Orson Welles to write the first draft of the screenplay for his first film. The resulting film, Citizen Kane, would change moviemaking for generations even if the battle to get it made, released, and seen lasted two industry cycles.
Mank is a wonder to behold technically. The production design, editing, and cinematography takes you back to an earlier Hollywood era. Its use of flashback, mirroring Kane, fills in the blank as to how Mank was in this world and why he was willing to burn it. The movie even foreshadows events that would.shape the screenplay Mank is writing.
My greatest pleasure was how its relevance continues today, but without the explicit shoutouts or manipulation of events. Do you know the parable of the organ grinder's monkey? If you don't, Mank tells you, but never exposes the reason it resonates. Also, even if you have seen other works about WRH, you still learn more about him. Mank is great and will get many Oscar nominations. Amanda Seyfried gives Marion Davies the star turn she never had in life.
Mank is a wonder to behold technically. The production design, editing, and cinematography takes you back to an earlier Hollywood era. Its use of flashback, mirroring Kane, fills in the blank as to how Mank was in this world and why he was willing to burn it. The movie even foreshadows events that would.shape the screenplay Mank is writing.
My greatest pleasure was how its relevance continues today, but without the explicit shoutouts or manipulation of events. Do you know the parable of the organ grinder's monkey? If you don't, Mank tells you, but never exposes the reason it resonates. Also, even if you have seen other works about WRH, you still learn more about him. Mank is great and will get many Oscar nominations. Amanda Seyfried gives Marion Davies the star turn she never had in life.
Matthew Krueger (10051 KP) rated Darkman (1990) in Movies
Mar 5, 2021
In The Shadows
Darkman- is a dark twisted superhero movie directed by horror icon Sam Raimi. Its a excellent film as well.
The plot: When thugs employed by a crime boss lead a vicious assault on Dr. Peyton Wilder (Liam Neeson), leaving him literally and psychologically scarred, an emergency procedure allows him to survive. Upon his recovery, Wilder can find solace only by returning to his scientific work developing synthetic skin, and seeking revenge against the crime boss. He assumes a phantom avenger persona called Darkman, who, with malleable facial qualities, is able to infiltrate and sow terror in the criminal community.
Unable to secure the rights to either The Shadow or Batman, Raimi decided to create his own superhero and struck a deal with Universal Studios to make his first Hollywood studio film.
Initially, Raimi's longtime friend and collaborator Bruce Campbell was set to play Darkman, but the studio balked at the idea because they did not think Campbell could carry the role. Gary Oldman and Bill Paxton were also considered.
Sam had wanted to work with Frances McDormand but the studio resisted this notion and almost cast Julia Roberts before Pretty Woman made her a star. At one point, they wanted Demi Moore for the role. The director even tested Bridget Fonda but felt that she was too young for Neeson.
Its a excellent film.
The plot: When thugs employed by a crime boss lead a vicious assault on Dr. Peyton Wilder (Liam Neeson), leaving him literally and psychologically scarred, an emergency procedure allows him to survive. Upon his recovery, Wilder can find solace only by returning to his scientific work developing synthetic skin, and seeking revenge against the crime boss. He assumes a phantom avenger persona called Darkman, who, with malleable facial qualities, is able to infiltrate and sow terror in the criminal community.
Unable to secure the rights to either The Shadow or Batman, Raimi decided to create his own superhero and struck a deal with Universal Studios to make his first Hollywood studio film.
Initially, Raimi's longtime friend and collaborator Bruce Campbell was set to play Darkman, but the studio balked at the idea because they did not think Campbell could carry the role. Gary Oldman and Bill Paxton were also considered.
Sam had wanted to work with Frances McDormand but the studio resisted this notion and almost cast Julia Roberts before Pretty Woman made her a star. At one point, they wanted Demi Moore for the role. The director even tested Bridget Fonda but felt that she was too young for Neeson.
Its a excellent film.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Dracula Untold (2014) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
The latest Dracula movie attempts to honor an ancient story while adding some new spice and bringing the usual graphics flair we’ve come to expect from Hollywood, but falls short.
Dracula Untold, as the name implies, is an origin story for the pop culture father-of-all-vampires. Luke Evans bears the mantle of Prince Vlad Tepes of the Dracula Clan. (Not Count, but Prince.) What about the King, you ask? Well, they didn’t cover this, but there is no King.
Luke Evans is one of my favorite actors in Hollywood right now, and he does this role justice. The rest of the cast contributed solid performances as well, as best they could with sub par script, and poor direction. Charles Dance was a particular pleasure to witness.
This film is Gary Shore’s directorial debut, and it’s easy to see the marks of a neophyte director. Had it been in the hands of someone more experienced, it would have been a juggernaut of a Fall film. Even so, he did pretty well enough, all things considered. According to his work history, Shore was an electrician until 1998, then disappeared until 2014. This is his second film so far this year.
Dracula Untold opens with the story of Vlad the Impaler, as told by his son. Vlad was shipped off to the Turks to become a trained and conditioned weapon. He earned his title by impaling an entire village for the Turkish army. Vlad was a deadly force on the battlefield, but they eventually allowed him to go home, where he could start a family and rule Transylvania. It is painfully obvious that the usual blood-thirsty character was meant to become a hero for this new tale.
The Turks return to take more boys, like they did him, but he refuses. This draws the Turks’ ire, and they demand retribution for the insult and insubordination. Desperate, he seeks out a monster in the mountains who was the REAL first vampire — a man who made a deal with a demon.
Vlad is granted temporary powers, paying a heavy price in the process. After this, the story really ramps up.
This film left me feeling as if something was missing. I attribute this to missing explanations, plot holes (like the lack of King), and several other missteps. Normally, I can look past plot holes. A strong enough movie will keep me from noticing them until I’m rethinking it later. In this case, they were too distracting. The music was unimpressive and not at all memorable. The one liners were forced and distracting, instead of powerful and emotional.
This movie is worth seeing if you’re a fan of vampires in general or Dracula in particular. That said, I wouldn’t advise high expectations. Great aspects were abundant, but there were just as many failings. If you feel compelled to see it, wait until you can see it at home, and save the money.
Dracula Untold, as the name implies, is an origin story for the pop culture father-of-all-vampires. Luke Evans bears the mantle of Prince Vlad Tepes of the Dracula Clan. (Not Count, but Prince.) What about the King, you ask? Well, they didn’t cover this, but there is no King.
Luke Evans is one of my favorite actors in Hollywood right now, and he does this role justice. The rest of the cast contributed solid performances as well, as best they could with sub par script, and poor direction. Charles Dance was a particular pleasure to witness.
This film is Gary Shore’s directorial debut, and it’s easy to see the marks of a neophyte director. Had it been in the hands of someone more experienced, it would have been a juggernaut of a Fall film. Even so, he did pretty well enough, all things considered. According to his work history, Shore was an electrician until 1998, then disappeared until 2014. This is his second film so far this year.
Dracula Untold opens with the story of Vlad the Impaler, as told by his son. Vlad was shipped off to the Turks to become a trained and conditioned weapon. He earned his title by impaling an entire village for the Turkish army. Vlad was a deadly force on the battlefield, but they eventually allowed him to go home, where he could start a family and rule Transylvania. It is painfully obvious that the usual blood-thirsty character was meant to become a hero for this new tale.
The Turks return to take more boys, like they did him, but he refuses. This draws the Turks’ ire, and they demand retribution for the insult and insubordination. Desperate, he seeks out a monster in the mountains who was the REAL first vampire — a man who made a deal with a demon.
Vlad is granted temporary powers, paying a heavy price in the process. After this, the story really ramps up.
This film left me feeling as if something was missing. I attribute this to missing explanations, plot holes (like the lack of King), and several other missteps. Normally, I can look past plot holes. A strong enough movie will keep me from noticing them until I’m rethinking it later. In this case, they were too distracting. The music was unimpressive and not at all memorable. The one liners were forced and distracting, instead of powerful and emotional.
This movie is worth seeing if you’re a fan of vampires in general or Dracula in particular. That said, I wouldn’t advise high expectations. Great aspects were abundant, but there were just as many failings. If you feel compelled to see it, wait until you can see it at home, and save the money.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Licorice Pizza (2021) in Movies
Mar 9, 2022
Disjointed
The films of Director Paul Thomas Anderson is a bit of an “acquired taste”, moviegoers generally fall into one of 2 camps. (1) those that LOVE what he does (and thinks he is one of the greatest Directors of All Time) and (2) those that don’t.
I thought I fell into the 2nd camp, but upon reviewing his portfolio of work for this review (HARD EIGHT, BOOGIE NIGHTS, PUNCH-DRUNK LOVE and THERE WILL BE BLOOD), I realized that I pretty much liked whatever he had done, but with his last few films (THE MASTER, INHERENT VICE, THE PHANTOM THREAD) I am finding that “PTA” (as his fans call him) is becoming just a little too “artsy” and pretentious for my tastes. He has fallen too in love with his material - and artistic style - to objectively look at a film and realize that it needs to move along at a brisker pace.
Such is the case with his latest film, LICORICE PIZZA.
A memory of his youth, LICORICE PIZZA follows the relationship of a pair of mismatched young adults as they work their way through the early 1970’s in search of themselves and love.
This film is a series of scenes stitched together to tell a story and the problem with it is that it made this film seem disjointed. The central “get together already” love story of the main 2 characters is supposed to be the through-line of the film, but when this through-line breaks (as it often does here) it is detrimental to the flow of the story.
Based, loosely, on the real-life exploits of PTA’s friend, Producer Gary Goetzman, LICORICE PIZZA stars Cooper Hoffman (son of Phillip Seymour Hoffman) as Gary Valentine and Alana Haim (of the Sister Act Musical Group HAIM) as Alana as they have an on-again/off-again friendship that SHOULD BE a romance, but isn’t (kind of like WHEN HARRY MET SALLY). They circumnavigate circa 1973 Los Angeles running into fictionalized portrayals of famous people like Producer Jon Peters (Bradley Cooper) and Film Actor Jack Holden (Sean Penn) an amalgamation of William Holden and Steve McQueen.
The central performances of Hoffman and Haim are competent enough, but never rises to anything more than that, which pulls this film down for one or the other of them is in every scene . The various actors doing extended cameos (like Cooper and Penn) seem to be having fun chewing up the scenery, but they are acting in a completely different style of film than Hoffman and Haim are and our 2 leads don’t stand a chance of standing out compared to these over-the-top performances.
Blame for all of this needs to be laid on Anderson (Oscar Nominated for his Direction in this film). He tried to give us a “slice of life” nostalgia piece like AMERICAN GRAFFITI or ONCE UPON A TIME IN HOLLYWOOD, but he just doesn’t pull it off.
An Oscar Nominee for Best Picture, LICORICE PIZZA seems to be riding the wave of nostalgia both for the times depicted - and the artist who put this film on the screen - but it just isn’t that good of a film.
Letter Grade B- (for Cooper’s and Penn’s scenes in this)
6 stars (out of 10) and you can take this to the Bank(ofMarquis)
I thought I fell into the 2nd camp, but upon reviewing his portfolio of work for this review (HARD EIGHT, BOOGIE NIGHTS, PUNCH-DRUNK LOVE and THERE WILL BE BLOOD), I realized that I pretty much liked whatever he had done, but with his last few films (THE MASTER, INHERENT VICE, THE PHANTOM THREAD) I am finding that “PTA” (as his fans call him) is becoming just a little too “artsy” and pretentious for my tastes. He has fallen too in love with his material - and artistic style - to objectively look at a film and realize that it needs to move along at a brisker pace.
Such is the case with his latest film, LICORICE PIZZA.
A memory of his youth, LICORICE PIZZA follows the relationship of a pair of mismatched young adults as they work their way through the early 1970’s in search of themselves and love.
This film is a series of scenes stitched together to tell a story and the problem with it is that it made this film seem disjointed. The central “get together already” love story of the main 2 characters is supposed to be the through-line of the film, but when this through-line breaks (as it often does here) it is detrimental to the flow of the story.
Based, loosely, on the real-life exploits of PTA’s friend, Producer Gary Goetzman, LICORICE PIZZA stars Cooper Hoffman (son of Phillip Seymour Hoffman) as Gary Valentine and Alana Haim (of the Sister Act Musical Group HAIM) as Alana as they have an on-again/off-again friendship that SHOULD BE a romance, but isn’t (kind of like WHEN HARRY MET SALLY). They circumnavigate circa 1973 Los Angeles running into fictionalized portrayals of famous people like Producer Jon Peters (Bradley Cooper) and Film Actor Jack Holden (Sean Penn) an amalgamation of William Holden and Steve McQueen.
The central performances of Hoffman and Haim are competent enough, but never rises to anything more than that, which pulls this film down for one or the other of them is in every scene . The various actors doing extended cameos (like Cooper and Penn) seem to be having fun chewing up the scenery, but they are acting in a completely different style of film than Hoffman and Haim are and our 2 leads don’t stand a chance of standing out compared to these over-the-top performances.
Blame for all of this needs to be laid on Anderson (Oscar Nominated for his Direction in this film). He tried to give us a “slice of life” nostalgia piece like AMERICAN GRAFFITI or ONCE UPON A TIME IN HOLLYWOOD, but he just doesn’t pull it off.
An Oscar Nominee for Best Picture, LICORICE PIZZA seems to be riding the wave of nostalgia both for the times depicted - and the artist who put this film on the screen - but it just isn’t that good of a film.
Letter Grade B- (for Cooper’s and Penn’s scenes in this)
6 stars (out of 10) and you can take this 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 (980 KP) rated The Book of Eli (2010) in Movies
Aug 8, 2019
In a post apocalyptic future, a loan man travels the desolate roads on a solitary quest. The man known only as Eli (Denzel Washington), has been travelling west for decades on a mission of faith after receiving what he believes to be a mission of divine origin.
The solitary life of Eli is interrupted now and then by bandits that roam the lands causing death and mayhem to all those unfortunate enough to cross their path.
This often ends very badly for the bandits as Eli is highly skilled at defending himself with all manner of weapons, especially a very large knife.
It is his deadly skills that lands Eli on the radar of as local dictator named Carnegie (Gary Oldman), who desires to add Eli to his army as he plans to restore society under his rule. The town Eli finds himself in is the first in a planned series of towns that Carnegie plans to rule, and a man with the knowledge and skill of Eli is simply too good to let get away.
In an attempt to entice Eli into his service, Carnegie provides Eli with food, water, shelter, and women. When Eli is presented with the lovely Solara (Mila Kunis), he refuses to take advantage of her and instead leads her in a prayer before sharing his food with her.
This kind act touches Solara who recites the mysterious words of the prayer to her mother in an attempt to learn the meaning of what Eli was saying. Carnegie discovers what Eli has said, and learns of a book in Eli’s possession that he has been guarding for many years.
Carnegie is obsessed with obtaining the book as he sees this as the missing piece to his planned empire and will stop at nothing to obtain it.
What follows is a deadly game of cat and mouse as Carnegie and his minions are in hot pursuit of Eli and Solara as the future of humanity rests in the balance.
“The Book of Eli” is a winning mix of action and story that cleverly balances the two so that one side never overshadows the other.
The film is driven by the strong performances of Oldman and Washington as well as the simple yet strong message of faith and determination.
Both lead characters have a mystery to them that is never fully explored as the audience is given only what we need to know about each character for the purpose of the story.
The most surprising thing about the film was the strong and inspirational message it contained that may be too strong for some, but to me was not only inspiring but unexpected in a Hollywood film.
In the end, the strong cast, good action, and story makes this a film worth seeing and a pleasant surprise.
The solitary life of Eli is interrupted now and then by bandits that roam the lands causing death and mayhem to all those unfortunate enough to cross their path.
This often ends very badly for the bandits as Eli is highly skilled at defending himself with all manner of weapons, especially a very large knife.
It is his deadly skills that lands Eli on the radar of as local dictator named Carnegie (Gary Oldman), who desires to add Eli to his army as he plans to restore society under his rule. The town Eli finds himself in is the first in a planned series of towns that Carnegie plans to rule, and a man with the knowledge and skill of Eli is simply too good to let get away.
In an attempt to entice Eli into his service, Carnegie provides Eli with food, water, shelter, and women. When Eli is presented with the lovely Solara (Mila Kunis), he refuses to take advantage of her and instead leads her in a prayer before sharing his food with her.
This kind act touches Solara who recites the mysterious words of the prayer to her mother in an attempt to learn the meaning of what Eli was saying. Carnegie discovers what Eli has said, and learns of a book in Eli’s possession that he has been guarding for many years.
Carnegie is obsessed with obtaining the book as he sees this as the missing piece to his planned empire and will stop at nothing to obtain it.
What follows is a deadly game of cat and mouse as Carnegie and his minions are in hot pursuit of Eli and Solara as the future of humanity rests in the balance.
“The Book of Eli” is a winning mix of action and story that cleverly balances the two so that one side never overshadows the other.
The film is driven by the strong performances of Oldman and Washington as well as the simple yet strong message of faith and determination.
Both lead characters have a mystery to them that is never fully explored as the audience is given only what we need to know about each character for the purpose of the story.
The most surprising thing about the film was the strong and inspirational message it contained that may be too strong for some, but to me was not only inspiring but unexpected in a Hollywood film.
In the end, the strong cast, good action, and story makes this a film worth seeing and a pleasant surprise.
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)