Search
Search results
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.)
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated Between Me and You in Books
Dec 23, 2017
confusing (1 more)
repetitive
Repetitive but oddly compelling romance
When Ben Livingston and Tatum Connelly meet, they are both dreaming of success in Hollywood--Ben as a scriptwriter and Tatum as an actress. It's Ben who hits it big first, becoming Hollywood's It Guy and a Sundance favorite. But over time, his star slowly fades while Tatum rises to a stardom neither could have ever fully imagined. Along the way, the two wed, have a son, and experience a variety of ups and downs in their marriage. This includes several losses in their personal lives and slowly drifting apart. They once were incredibly close and deeply in love; can their love sustain everything that life throws at them?
This was a really interesting book, starting with the format. The story is told from both Tatum and Ben's perspectives. No big deal, you think, right? Except Tatum's portions start at the beginning of their journey and go in chronological order, while Ben tells his part of the story backward, starting with how they've fallen apart and going back in time. It's an odd device and definitely takes some getting used to. It was hard to keep some of the dates and timelines straight; it was one of the times where I wished I had a hardcopy of the book so I could flip back and forth more easily.
It also seemed to make the story more repetitive--when you have two people telling the same stories, you're bound to get some repetition. But what was really strange was that it sometimes felt like each chapter was a mini story that needed to reintroduce everything all over again. I don't know why the author felt this was necessary, because it's an oddly compelling book on its own even when neither main character is really that likeable. But we heard over and over about Tatum and Ben's daddy issues, career issues, that he never wrote anything for her. And oh yeah, did we mention that Tatum's an actress and doesn't eat, etc.?
At the core, this isn't really a happy book, despite it being romantic at times. Both Tatum and Ben have a lot of petty issues, but also really serious issues relating to their parents. This is fine, except we hear about it (a lot) due to the repetitive way the story is told. There's a lot of mourning and grieving and there's a dark side that deals with addiction, too. The focus on that fact that Ben has never written a script for Tatum--while this does have a point in the end--this gets to be a little much, too. The problem with all the focus on these things is that I felt like I never really learn a lot about Tatum and Ben in this format. I was always yearning for more. Is the story of two people growing apart interesting? Am I invested in them? (I was.)
It's sad, because despite everything I have said, I found this book weirdly compelling. Maybe it's because Tatum is a famous actress and there's a Hollywood setting, even if it's not really fleshed out. I wanted to know more about Tatum and Ben. I wanted them to work out. I wanted to read the book, even with the odd format and rehashing of things. It's a little hard to describe. It's like watching a romantic comedy where you desperately want the two leads to get together, despite all the odds.
So, I'm still glad I read this one. It was engaging and different. I do wish I knew more about Ben and Tatum and their motivations and what led them together (and apart).
This was a really interesting book, starting with the format. The story is told from both Tatum and Ben's perspectives. No big deal, you think, right? Except Tatum's portions start at the beginning of their journey and go in chronological order, while Ben tells his part of the story backward, starting with how they've fallen apart and going back in time. It's an odd device and definitely takes some getting used to. It was hard to keep some of the dates and timelines straight; it was one of the times where I wished I had a hardcopy of the book so I could flip back and forth more easily.
It also seemed to make the story more repetitive--when you have two people telling the same stories, you're bound to get some repetition. But what was really strange was that it sometimes felt like each chapter was a mini story that needed to reintroduce everything all over again. I don't know why the author felt this was necessary, because it's an oddly compelling book on its own even when neither main character is really that likeable. But we heard over and over about Tatum and Ben's daddy issues, career issues, that he never wrote anything for her. And oh yeah, did we mention that Tatum's an actress and doesn't eat, etc.?
At the core, this isn't really a happy book, despite it being romantic at times. Both Tatum and Ben have a lot of petty issues, but also really serious issues relating to their parents. This is fine, except we hear about it (a lot) due to the repetitive way the story is told. There's a lot of mourning and grieving and there's a dark side that deals with addiction, too. The focus on that fact that Ben has never written a script for Tatum--while this does have a point in the end--this gets to be a little much, too. The problem with all the focus on these things is that I felt like I never really learn a lot about Tatum and Ben in this format. I was always yearning for more. Is the story of two people growing apart interesting? Am I invested in them? (I was.)
It's sad, because despite everything I have said, I found this book weirdly compelling. Maybe it's because Tatum is a famous actress and there's a Hollywood setting, even if it's not really fleshed out. I wanted to know more about Tatum and Ben. I wanted them to work out. I wanted to read the book, even with the odd format and rehashing of things. It's a little hard to describe. It's like watching a romantic comedy where you desperately want the two leads to get together, despite all the odds.
So, I'm still glad I read this one. It was engaging and different. I do wish I knew more about Ben and Tatum and their motivations and what led them together (and apart).
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Casablanca (1942) in Movies
Feb 13, 2019
A classic in every sense of the word
"Of all the gin joints in all the towns, in all the world, she had to walk into mine."
If there was only 1 movie that could be shown to show off "classic", old time Hollywood of the 1930's, '40's and early '50s, look no further than Michael Curtiz' 1942 classic CASABLANCA. While well known for the performances of the leads, the multiple quoted lines, Sam singing AS TIME GOES BY and the iconic ending, this film also is a time capsule to a Hollywood of another year - one that just doesn't exist today.
Starring the great Humphrey Bogart in an Academy Award nominated performance (inexplicably, losing to Paul Lukas for WATCH ON THE RHINE), CASABLANCA tells the tale of Rick Blaine the owner/operator of "Rick's Place" a bar in Casablanca, Morocco in the early days of WWII. He is world-weary, beaten and cynical and is well known as someone who can get things done (for a price) but also one who will not stick his neck out for anyone. When a couple on the run from the Nazi's (Paul Henreid, Ingrid Bergman) enter's Rick's Place, Blaine (for reasons that are revealed in the film) decides to help.
"Here's looking at your kid."
Bogart is marvelous as Blaine, you can see every inch of his world-weariness on his well-worn, craggy face. He is perfectly cast as Rick and his mannerisms and vocal patterns depict a heaviness within. Bogart is often criticized for his lack of acting talent - nothing could be further from the truth here. He is perfectly paired with Bergman as Ilse - a former love of Rick's, who is now the wife of Freedom Fighter Victor Laszlo (Henreid). There is real chemistry between Bogart and Bergman in this film and you can tell that they are former lovers that still has a flame burning inside.
"We'll always have Paris."
But it's not just the leads who are terrific in this, it's the "who's who" of character actors that make up the Supporting Cast that really brings this film to life. From Peter Lorre to Sydney Greenstreet to Conrad Veidt to S.Z. Sakall to Dooley Wilson as Sam (who plays and sings AS TIME GOES BY), all bring interesting faces and characters to Casablanca (and Rick's Place) but the standout is Claude Rains (nominated for Best Supporting Actor - losing, inexplicably, to Charles Coburn in THE MORE THE MERRIER) as Louis, the corrupt Police Captain of Casablanca who becomes an uneasy ally of Rick's. Did I say that Bogart and Bergman had good chemistry? Check out the chemistry between Bogart and Rains, there was talk of a sequel to Casablance featuring these two - I, for one, would love to have seen that buddy flick.
Director Michael Curtiz won an Oscar for his work - and it is richly deserved. Nary a shot is wasted on this film, each picture a rich black and white portrait. It is interesting to note that this entire film was shot in California (not Casablanca), mostly on the Warner Brothers lot, but Curtiz was able to give the look and (more importantly) the feel of the place through the sets, costumes, lighting and atmosphere.
But it's the words that these characters got to say that really brought home the feel and atmosphere of the time, so credit needs to go to Screenwriters Julius and Phillip Epstein as well as Howard Koch who won Oscars for their work here. This is a masterful, classic work. One that stands up to this day. If you haven't seen this film in awhile, do yourself a favor and check it out - you'll be glad you did.
"Louie, I think this is the beginning of a beautiful friendship."
Letter Grade: A+
A rare 10 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
If there was only 1 movie that could be shown to show off "classic", old time Hollywood of the 1930's, '40's and early '50s, look no further than Michael Curtiz' 1942 classic CASABLANCA. While well known for the performances of the leads, the multiple quoted lines, Sam singing AS TIME GOES BY and the iconic ending, this film also is a time capsule to a Hollywood of another year - one that just doesn't exist today.
Starring the great Humphrey Bogart in an Academy Award nominated performance (inexplicably, losing to Paul Lukas for WATCH ON THE RHINE), CASABLANCA tells the tale of Rick Blaine the owner/operator of "Rick's Place" a bar in Casablanca, Morocco in the early days of WWII. He is world-weary, beaten and cynical and is well known as someone who can get things done (for a price) but also one who will not stick his neck out for anyone. When a couple on the run from the Nazi's (Paul Henreid, Ingrid Bergman) enter's Rick's Place, Blaine (for reasons that are revealed in the film) decides to help.
"Here's looking at your kid."
Bogart is marvelous as Blaine, you can see every inch of his world-weariness on his well-worn, craggy face. He is perfectly cast as Rick and his mannerisms and vocal patterns depict a heaviness within. Bogart is often criticized for his lack of acting talent - nothing could be further from the truth here. He is perfectly paired with Bergman as Ilse - a former love of Rick's, who is now the wife of Freedom Fighter Victor Laszlo (Henreid). There is real chemistry between Bogart and Bergman in this film and you can tell that they are former lovers that still has a flame burning inside.
"We'll always have Paris."
But it's not just the leads who are terrific in this, it's the "who's who" of character actors that make up the Supporting Cast that really brings this film to life. From Peter Lorre to Sydney Greenstreet to Conrad Veidt to S.Z. Sakall to Dooley Wilson as Sam (who plays and sings AS TIME GOES BY), all bring interesting faces and characters to Casablanca (and Rick's Place) but the standout is Claude Rains (nominated for Best Supporting Actor - losing, inexplicably, to Charles Coburn in THE MORE THE MERRIER) as Louis, the corrupt Police Captain of Casablanca who becomes an uneasy ally of Rick's. Did I say that Bogart and Bergman had good chemistry? Check out the chemistry between Bogart and Rains, there was talk of a sequel to Casablance featuring these two - I, for one, would love to have seen that buddy flick.
Director Michael Curtiz won an Oscar for his work - and it is richly deserved. Nary a shot is wasted on this film, each picture a rich black and white portrait. It is interesting to note that this entire film was shot in California (not Casablanca), mostly on the Warner Brothers lot, but Curtiz was able to give the look and (more importantly) the feel of the place through the sets, costumes, lighting and atmosphere.
But it's the words that these characters got to say that really brought home the feel and atmosphere of the time, so credit needs to go to Screenwriters Julius and Phillip Epstein as well as Howard Koch who won Oscars for their work here. This is a masterful, classic work. One that stands up to this day. If you haven't seen this film in awhile, do yourself a favor and check it out - you'll be glad you did.
"Louie, I think this is the beginning of a beautiful friendship."
Letter Grade: A+
A rare 10 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Amanda (96 KP) rated The Seven Husbands Of Evelyn in Books
Apr 1, 2019
I’m under absolutely no obligation to make sense to you.
“I’m under absolutely no obligation to make sense to you.”
Why in the world did it take me this long to pick up this book? I mean, seriously, why did it? The audio book was especially enjoyable because of the different voices for different POV’s.
Evelyn Hugo is a renowned actress and when Monique, a journalist who mostly writes puff pieces, is requested to write a piece about her, why in the world would she turn it down? Monique gets more than she bargains for when Evelyn tells her that she has no intention of giving an interview, but instead, giving her, her life story for a tell all book before she dies.
Monique will be privy to everything in Evelyn’s past from her journey to get to Hollywood to her seven husbands, and the one she calls her one true love. How does one pass up an opportunity like that?
When listening to this book, I had to keep in mind that it began in the fifties, so things were different for everybody, especially for women trying to make it in Hollywood. Some decisions were better than others. I loved Evelyn, but not so much as most of the choices she made for where she wanted to go, or who she wanted to be with at the time.
When I listen to Evelyn and how she is with most people than others, I think of how Marilyn Monroe was the same way. Did you know that with that movie she did with Lawrence Olivier that acted those ways intentionally? She knew he was annoyed by her so she just went with it. I find that hysterical and she had a crummy life somewhat.
I really enjoy how the story progressed and certain characters. I loved Harry, but toward the end of the story, I felt that Evelyn didn’t do a lot to help him recover (won’t tell you what from for fear of spoilers). Another character named Celia, she was really not my favorite. I didn’t care for her when she was introduced and while she had some good qualities, I just didn’t like her. That’s just me, though, so don’t take my word for it entirely.
I loved that the story started at a point and ended at the same point. It was a full circle and everything and everyone had a purpose. I almost cried toward the end, I mean I was just so sad but so moved. Please don’t pass this book up because you may or may not cry. I really don’t think there’s a single thing I didn’t like about this book. I hate that people had to go through so much in those time frames. It makes me sad that we live in a world where, while it’s gotten better, but we still have a long way to go and I’m not sure how long it would take to really get there, you know?
“It’s always been fascinating to me how things can be simultaneously true and false, how people can be good and bad all in one, how someone can love you in a way that is beautifully selfless while serving themselves ruthlessly.”
I will say that so far this is my favorite read of this year so far. There will have to be an outstanding book to surpass this one this year. I wonder which one would be up for the challenge next?
I do plan on reading more of Reid’s books. This one is on my top recommended list if you haven’t read anything from her’s yet.
Why in the world did it take me this long to pick up this book? I mean, seriously, why did it? The audio book was especially enjoyable because of the different voices for different POV’s.
Evelyn Hugo is a renowned actress and when Monique, a journalist who mostly writes puff pieces, is requested to write a piece about her, why in the world would she turn it down? Monique gets more than she bargains for when Evelyn tells her that she has no intention of giving an interview, but instead, giving her, her life story for a tell all book before she dies.
Monique will be privy to everything in Evelyn’s past from her journey to get to Hollywood to her seven husbands, and the one she calls her one true love. How does one pass up an opportunity like that?
When listening to this book, I had to keep in mind that it began in the fifties, so things were different for everybody, especially for women trying to make it in Hollywood. Some decisions were better than others. I loved Evelyn, but not so much as most of the choices she made for where she wanted to go, or who she wanted to be with at the time.
When I listen to Evelyn and how she is with most people than others, I think of how Marilyn Monroe was the same way. Did you know that with that movie she did with Lawrence Olivier that acted those ways intentionally? She knew he was annoyed by her so she just went with it. I find that hysterical and she had a crummy life somewhat.
I really enjoy how the story progressed and certain characters. I loved Harry, but toward the end of the story, I felt that Evelyn didn’t do a lot to help him recover (won’t tell you what from for fear of spoilers). Another character named Celia, she was really not my favorite. I didn’t care for her when she was introduced and while she had some good qualities, I just didn’t like her. That’s just me, though, so don’t take my word for it entirely.
I loved that the story started at a point and ended at the same point. It was a full circle and everything and everyone had a purpose. I almost cried toward the end, I mean I was just so sad but so moved. Please don’t pass this book up because you may or may not cry. I really don’t think there’s a single thing I didn’t like about this book. I hate that people had to go through so much in those time frames. It makes me sad that we live in a world where, while it’s gotten better, but we still have a long way to go and I’m not sure how long it would take to really get there, you know?
“It’s always been fascinating to me how things can be simultaneously true and false, how people can be good and bad all in one, how someone can love you in a way that is beautifully selfless while serving themselves ruthlessly.”
I will say that so far this is my favorite read of this year so far. There will have to be an outstanding book to surpass this one this year. I wonder which one would be up for the challenge next?
I do plan on reading more of Reid’s books. This one is on my top recommended list if you haven’t read anything from her’s yet.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Casablanca (1942) in Movies
May 6, 2019
A Classic in Every Sense of the Word
"Of all the gin joints, in all the towns, in all the world, she walks into mine."
"We'll always have Paris."
"Here's looking at you, kid."
"Louis, I think this is the beginning of a beautiful friendship."
And many, many, many other iconic lines were featured in the brilliant 1942 all-time Classic CASABLANCA. Listed as "Warner Brothers Project #410", this film was supposed to be "just another film", but it turned out to be something more.
Starring Humphrey Bogart, Ingrid Bergman and Claude Rains, CASABLANCA tells the story of refugees trying to flee Nazi controlled France (via Casablanca) in WWII. Amongst the denizens of Casablanca, there is Rick Blain, proprieter of Rick's Cafe American - a place where one can buy documents needed to escape, as well as escape - through a bottle.
Humphrey Bogart is perfectly cast as the jaded, "I stick my neck out for no one", Rick. He is cynical, corrupt, selfish...but he also has a heart of gold underneath it all. Bogie plays all of these layers - richly - at once, and was rewarded with an Academy Award nomination. He would lose to Paul Lukas for WATCH ON THE RHINE - a film I haven't seen, so can't judge as to the merits of his win. But...based on Bogart's performance...I'd say he was robbed.
Rick's "partner in crime' is Capt. Louis Renault of the Casablanca police. He is cheerfully and unapologetic-ally played by Claude Rains, who also was nominated (but didn't win) for his performance. These two play off each other brilliantly and the chemistry between these two is evident and I would have LOVED to see another film featuring these two fine performers. I'd say the chemistry between these two actors is a high point in this film, if it weren't for...
Ingrid Bergman as Ilse Lund - a past romance of Rick's. When Ilse and her husband, Viktor Laszlo enters Rick's seeking transit papers to flee the Nazi's, the instant spark and chemistry between Bogart and Bergman is palatable. You can feel the heat between the two of them through the screen and the longing and regret for "what could have been" is heartbreaking. If you were to show an example of "screen chemistry" the scenes between Bogart in Bergman in this film would be "Exhibit A".
Credit for all of this - and for keeping the plot machinations moving forward - is Warner Brothers "contract director" Michael Curtiz - one of the greatest Directors of "old Hollywood." His credits include the Errol Flynn ROBIN HOOD, James Cagney's Oscar turn as George M. Cohan in YANKEE DOODLE DANDY, CASABLANCA, the Bing Crosby/Danny Kaye WHITE CHRISTMAS and John Wayne in THE COMMANCHERO'S - all big budget, big expectations films that delivered the goods. Curtiz won the Oscar for his work in this film.
Assisting him are the two men who wrote so many memorable lines...twin brothers Julius and Phillip Epstein. They (deservedly) won an Oscar for their screenplay - the only set of Twins to win the Oscar.
The supporting cast - including Paul Henreid, Sydney Greenstreet and Peter Lorre - are exceptional as well, as are great scene after great scene - including the "Marseilles" scene and, of course, the fog covered airport scene at the end.
If you haven't seen this film in awhile, do yourself a favor and check it out. If you have NEVER seen it, I envy you the experience of seeing this wonderful black and white film for the first time. It is consistently listed as one of the top 5 films of all time - and earns that ranking. It truly is one of the greatest films - with some of the greatest performances - of all time.
Certainly, if you wanted just one example of Studio "Old Hollywood" movie making, this would be the one movie to watch.
Letter Grade: A+
10 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
"We'll always have Paris."
"Here's looking at you, kid."
"Louis, I think this is the beginning of a beautiful friendship."
And many, many, many other iconic lines were featured in the brilliant 1942 all-time Classic CASABLANCA. Listed as "Warner Brothers Project #410", this film was supposed to be "just another film", but it turned out to be something more.
Starring Humphrey Bogart, Ingrid Bergman and Claude Rains, CASABLANCA tells the story of refugees trying to flee Nazi controlled France (via Casablanca) in WWII. Amongst the denizens of Casablanca, there is Rick Blain, proprieter of Rick's Cafe American - a place where one can buy documents needed to escape, as well as escape - through a bottle.
Humphrey Bogart is perfectly cast as the jaded, "I stick my neck out for no one", Rick. He is cynical, corrupt, selfish...but he also has a heart of gold underneath it all. Bogie plays all of these layers - richly - at once, and was rewarded with an Academy Award nomination. He would lose to Paul Lukas for WATCH ON THE RHINE - a film I haven't seen, so can't judge as to the merits of his win. But...based on Bogart's performance...I'd say he was robbed.
Rick's "partner in crime' is Capt. Louis Renault of the Casablanca police. He is cheerfully and unapologetic-ally played by Claude Rains, who also was nominated (but didn't win) for his performance. These two play off each other brilliantly and the chemistry between these two is evident and I would have LOVED to see another film featuring these two fine performers. I'd say the chemistry between these two actors is a high point in this film, if it weren't for...
Ingrid Bergman as Ilse Lund - a past romance of Rick's. When Ilse and her husband, Viktor Laszlo enters Rick's seeking transit papers to flee the Nazi's, the instant spark and chemistry between Bogart and Bergman is palatable. You can feel the heat between the two of them through the screen and the longing and regret for "what could have been" is heartbreaking. If you were to show an example of "screen chemistry" the scenes between Bogart in Bergman in this film would be "Exhibit A".
Credit for all of this - and for keeping the plot machinations moving forward - is Warner Brothers "contract director" Michael Curtiz - one of the greatest Directors of "old Hollywood." His credits include the Errol Flynn ROBIN HOOD, James Cagney's Oscar turn as George M. Cohan in YANKEE DOODLE DANDY, CASABLANCA, the Bing Crosby/Danny Kaye WHITE CHRISTMAS and John Wayne in THE COMMANCHERO'S - all big budget, big expectations films that delivered the goods. Curtiz won the Oscar for his work in this film.
Assisting him are the two men who wrote so many memorable lines...twin brothers Julius and Phillip Epstein. They (deservedly) won an Oscar for their screenplay - the only set of Twins to win the Oscar.
The supporting cast - including Paul Henreid, Sydney Greenstreet and Peter Lorre - are exceptional as well, as are great scene after great scene - including the "Marseilles" scene and, of course, the fog covered airport scene at the end.
If you haven't seen this film in awhile, do yourself a favor and check it out. If you have NEVER seen it, I envy you the experience of seeing this wonderful black and white film for the first time. It is consistently listed as one of the top 5 films of all time - and earns that ranking. It truly is one of the greatest films - with some of the greatest performances - of all time.
Certainly, if you wanted just one example of Studio "Old Hollywood" movie making, this would be the one movie to watch.
Letter Grade: A+
10 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated House of Wax (2005) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
As sure as the winter season brings snow and rain, summer is sure to bring sequels and remakes to theaters across the land. With many classic horror films such as “The Amityville Horror:”, “The Texas Chainsaw Massacre” already released and with “The Fog”, pending, Hollywood is trying to find gold from the past.
The latest remake to make the screen is The House of Wax which shares precious little with the 1953 Vincent Price classic aside from the title house and an abundance of wax figures. The story follows Carly Jones, (Elisa Cuthbert), a young college graduate who is planning to move from her small town to take an internship in New York. Her boyfriend Wade (Jared Padalecki) is unsure if he will follow her to the big city which is a source of tension between the otherwise happy couple.
Carly and Wade decide to take a road trip to a big sporting event, and have their friends Paige (Paris Hilton), Blake (Robert Ri’chard), Dalton (John Abrahams), and Carly’s brother Nick (Chad Michael Murray), along for the ride. In a true horror film cliche, the road trip becomes and overnight campout in a remote backwoods area where drinking, sex, and other youthful merriment abounds.
Of course the merriment is interrupted when a strange encounter with a mysterious truck and an unexpectedly broken car fan belt in the morning forces Carly and wade to stay behind to locate the needed part in a nearby town while their friends continue on to the game.
The local town is mostly empty, and looks like something out of the 60’s aside from numerous signs that tout the local wax museum. While exploring the empty town, Carly and Wade stumble upon a church where a service is in session, and meet Bo, (Brian Van Holt), who is the local mechanic who tells them he can get the needed part as soon as the service has ended. With time on their hands, Carly and Wade visit the local wax museum which is equally deserted, but filled with life like figures.
When Carly suddenly sees a bizarre figure lurking in the shadows the events soon unfold leaving Carly and Wade trapped in a nightmare that is out of control. As if that was not bad enough, their friends have become stuck in traffic and decide to forgo the big game and return to pick up Carly and Wade not knowing bizarre nightmare they are about to encounter.
Despite some flaws, House generally works and as horror films go, is entertaining. Sure the characters and plot are paper thin and characters seem to have a severe lack of common sense, yet despite the flaws, there are some good moments. The film goes almost 50 minutes before the mayhem starts, but when it does, the killings are some of the most brutal in horror film history. On more than one occasion during my press screener did I see a member of the audience hiding their face in the shoulder of a significant other during some of the films more intense moments.
The film also has a good villain that while not well defined, is nevertheless chilling and projects menace very well. The cast works well with one another given the limitations of the genre, and the pacing of the film by first time director Jaume Serra is effective in adding a bit of tension yet keeping the adrenalin moving during key parts.
My biggest issue with the film would be the ending that I thought took the Hollywood way out, with a big effects spectacle instead of staying focused on the characters and their plight, That being said, as mindless Summer thrills The House of Wax is a decent if albeit at times lacking film.
The latest remake to make the screen is The House of Wax which shares precious little with the 1953 Vincent Price classic aside from the title house and an abundance of wax figures. The story follows Carly Jones, (Elisa Cuthbert), a young college graduate who is planning to move from her small town to take an internship in New York. Her boyfriend Wade (Jared Padalecki) is unsure if he will follow her to the big city which is a source of tension between the otherwise happy couple.
Carly and Wade decide to take a road trip to a big sporting event, and have their friends Paige (Paris Hilton), Blake (Robert Ri’chard), Dalton (John Abrahams), and Carly’s brother Nick (Chad Michael Murray), along for the ride. In a true horror film cliche, the road trip becomes and overnight campout in a remote backwoods area where drinking, sex, and other youthful merriment abounds.
Of course the merriment is interrupted when a strange encounter with a mysterious truck and an unexpectedly broken car fan belt in the morning forces Carly and wade to stay behind to locate the needed part in a nearby town while their friends continue on to the game.
The local town is mostly empty, and looks like something out of the 60’s aside from numerous signs that tout the local wax museum. While exploring the empty town, Carly and Wade stumble upon a church where a service is in session, and meet Bo, (Brian Van Holt), who is the local mechanic who tells them he can get the needed part as soon as the service has ended. With time on their hands, Carly and Wade visit the local wax museum which is equally deserted, but filled with life like figures.
When Carly suddenly sees a bizarre figure lurking in the shadows the events soon unfold leaving Carly and Wade trapped in a nightmare that is out of control. As if that was not bad enough, their friends have become stuck in traffic and decide to forgo the big game and return to pick up Carly and Wade not knowing bizarre nightmare they are about to encounter.
Despite some flaws, House generally works and as horror films go, is entertaining. Sure the characters and plot are paper thin and characters seem to have a severe lack of common sense, yet despite the flaws, there are some good moments. The film goes almost 50 minutes before the mayhem starts, but when it does, the killings are some of the most brutal in horror film history. On more than one occasion during my press screener did I see a member of the audience hiding their face in the shoulder of a significant other during some of the films more intense moments.
The film also has a good villain that while not well defined, is nevertheless chilling and projects menace very well. The cast works well with one another given the limitations of the genre, and the pacing of the film by first time director Jaume Serra is effective in adding a bit of tension yet keeping the adrenalin moving during key parts.
My biggest issue with the film would be the ending that I thought took the Hollywood way out, with a big effects spectacle instead of staying focused on the characters and their plight, That being said, as mindless Summer thrills The House of Wax is a decent if albeit at times lacking film.
Darren (1599 KP) rated Swingers (1996) in Movies
Nov 24, 2019
Verdict: Reality Check Comedy
Story: Swingers starts when two friends Trent (Vaughn) and Mike (Favreau) head from LA to Las Vegas for a night to try and help Mike shake off his breakup with his girlfriend. Trent does have a way with women, which he is trying to teach Mike for their return to LA. Joined with Rob (Livingston) the three struggling actors talk shop about how they haven’t gotten their big break yet.
We continue to follow the friends around the town as they try to help Mike rebound from his breakup, pushing him to take risks, despite the group of aspiring actors just going through the same routine, not partying till late and Mike wanting to get back together with his ex.
Thoughts on Swingers
Characters – Mike is one of the aspiring actors, he has had the most gigs of the rest of the friends, he is struggling with a break up which has been holding him back for 6 months and now, the friends are trying to help him break out of his shell, as he always ends up getting nervous about everything whenever he is put on the spot. Trent is the confident ladies man, he is always trying to teach Mike about how to pick up women, showing his confidence through any chatting up situation. Rob is the friend that followed Mike, he looks up to him and wants to follow in his footsteps despite the constant job rejections. Sue is another one of the group, he has a different attitude which could see them getting into trouble. Between the three of them of the friends they all want to help Mike in their own way.
Performances – Jon Favreau as the down on his luck actor is great to watch in this role, he makes us understand why he feels life isn’t going his way. Vince Vaughn brings all the energy to his role, showing that he was always going to be great to watch in the fast-talking roles. Ron Livingston bring gravity to his role, showing a man with his feet on the ground, while Patrick Van Horn brings a mix of the three while not knowing his own motivation.
Story – The story here follows four struggling actors as they look for women every night which sees them trying to help one of them get over their blues of a breakup, each has their own style which they try to imprint on the others. This story mixes up the styles of helping a friend with a breakup and highlights how difficult it is to make it as an actor in Hollywood. We might spend a lot of time just watching the guys party, which is mean to highlight their struggles and watching them all give advice to Mike shows that friends will always be there for you, but you will need to make the biggest step in changing your future.
Comedy – The comedy in the film comes from the mishaps that happen to the guys on their adventures through the night showing how not every plan is as well exercised as the next.
Settings – The film is mostly set in LA, it shows the bars that people would go to hoping for a late night party, the ones that only the locals would truly know about.
Scene of the Movie – The awkward phone, mainly because it is and can be so real for people.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – It doesn’t show any of their acting lives.
Final Thoughts – This is a comedy that shows the struggles being an actor really are, while also trying to highlight the party lifestyle people in LA like.
Overall: Strong Look at Hollywood Lifestyle.
Story: Swingers starts when two friends Trent (Vaughn) and Mike (Favreau) head from LA to Las Vegas for a night to try and help Mike shake off his breakup with his girlfriend. Trent does have a way with women, which he is trying to teach Mike for their return to LA. Joined with Rob (Livingston) the three struggling actors talk shop about how they haven’t gotten their big break yet.
We continue to follow the friends around the town as they try to help Mike rebound from his breakup, pushing him to take risks, despite the group of aspiring actors just going through the same routine, not partying till late and Mike wanting to get back together with his ex.
Thoughts on Swingers
Characters – Mike is one of the aspiring actors, he has had the most gigs of the rest of the friends, he is struggling with a break up which has been holding him back for 6 months and now, the friends are trying to help him break out of his shell, as he always ends up getting nervous about everything whenever he is put on the spot. Trent is the confident ladies man, he is always trying to teach Mike about how to pick up women, showing his confidence through any chatting up situation. Rob is the friend that followed Mike, he looks up to him and wants to follow in his footsteps despite the constant job rejections. Sue is another one of the group, he has a different attitude which could see them getting into trouble. Between the three of them of the friends they all want to help Mike in their own way.
Performances – Jon Favreau as the down on his luck actor is great to watch in this role, he makes us understand why he feels life isn’t going his way. Vince Vaughn brings all the energy to his role, showing that he was always going to be great to watch in the fast-talking roles. Ron Livingston bring gravity to his role, showing a man with his feet on the ground, while Patrick Van Horn brings a mix of the three while not knowing his own motivation.
Story – The story here follows four struggling actors as they look for women every night which sees them trying to help one of them get over their blues of a breakup, each has their own style which they try to imprint on the others. This story mixes up the styles of helping a friend with a breakup and highlights how difficult it is to make it as an actor in Hollywood. We might spend a lot of time just watching the guys party, which is mean to highlight their struggles and watching them all give advice to Mike shows that friends will always be there for you, but you will need to make the biggest step in changing your future.
Comedy – The comedy in the film comes from the mishaps that happen to the guys on their adventures through the night showing how not every plan is as well exercised as the next.
Settings – The film is mostly set in LA, it shows the bars that people would go to hoping for a late night party, the ones that only the locals would truly know about.
Scene of the Movie – The awkward phone, mainly because it is and can be so real for people.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – It doesn’t show any of their acting lives.
Final Thoughts – This is a comedy that shows the struggles being an actor really are, while also trying to highlight the party lifestyle people in LA like.
Overall: Strong Look at Hollywood Lifestyle.
Neil Goddard (3 KP) rated Godzilla: King of the Monsters (2019) in Movies
Feb 27, 2020
No Actors Required
Contains spoilers, click to show
I have a theory about movies that are 100% CGI; when someone isn’t a great actor and they are required only to supply a voice and they still aren’t very good, it really stands out.
Now, imagine you’re watching a film. I don’t know, maybe a bit creature epic, larger than life with whole cities being destroyed. The creature’s look amazing and the carnage they are wreaking is fabulous; buildings, helicopters, cars, all flying around the screen with a swish of a mighty reptilian tale. Now imagine that the actors, real people, not CGI, are, at best, bland and in some instances just outright terrible.
Annoying isn’t it?
It would lead one to believe that the film makers didn’t really put any stock in the human interactions, rather just gave a huge wad of cash to an SFX company and said, “Fill your boots, the more the merrier, make everything f---ing enormous!”
Godzilla (2014) was the second time Hollywood has attempted to make a film featuring Japan’s kaiju supremo and it was the first successful attempt from Hollywood, given that the 1998 Roland Emmerich attempt was basically Lost World: Jurassic Park (1997) but with added daddy issues (Roland Emmerich’s trademark).
Gareth Edwards 2014 first entry in the MonsterVerse was a huge success, financially and artistically. We saw a Godzilla that was of a scale we’d always wanted, towering over buildings, a reptilian God and we’re just the ants trying to not get squished.
Godzilla: King of Monsters attempts to up the ante by throwing a dozen or so monsters at the story. “Godzilla fought two MUTO’s did he, well… hold my beer!” Yeah, we’ll hold your beer while you get Millie Bobby Brown to stand there teary eyed for most of the film (a waste), Vera Farmiga to go from bereaved workaholic, to eco-terrorist to pointless self-sacrifice (unfathomable), and for Kyle Chandler to… well, Christ knows what Kyle Chandler was doing, apart from spitting terrible dialogue badly and then standing/sitting/walking looking angry but unconvincingly. Bradley Whitford provided some nice comic relief, he does droll sarcasm immensely well, Charles Dance is underused (and then forgotten about) and Zhang Ziyi tries to out-Kyle-Chandler Kyle Chandler in the bland, borderline useless stakes.
Worse than any failing on the human emotion side of the story are the huge liberties they take with global travel, like, one of side of the world to the other in a very short space of time. I mean Godzilla can do it because of some tunnels under the sea that he uses, possible the ones used in the science-denying sci-fi car crash abomination The Core (2003), but for the humans to just pop to Venezuela or the Antarctic is unforgivable.
This kind of leaps of reality always leads me to lose interest in the events in a film and start thinking around the script. In a film where everything everyone says is of dire emergency or import and then we see them in another part of the world some time later, what have they been talking about for all that time. Have they been napping? If so, it’s hasn’t eased any of the pointless angry posturing. Have they been chatting about boring everyday stuff? There is no hint of a relationship between any of these people who are spending potentially their last moments on earth together with alarming regularity. The world is possible about to get destroyed and you are in direct harm’s way! Shut up and nut up.
Now, imagine you’re watching a film. I don’t know, maybe a bit creature epic, larger than life with whole cities being destroyed. The creature’s look amazing and the carnage they are wreaking is fabulous; buildings, helicopters, cars, all flying around the screen with a swish of a mighty reptilian tale. Now imagine that the actors, real people, not CGI, are, at best, bland and in some instances just outright terrible.
Annoying isn’t it?
It would lead one to believe that the film makers didn’t really put any stock in the human interactions, rather just gave a huge wad of cash to an SFX company and said, “Fill your boots, the more the merrier, make everything f---ing enormous!”
Godzilla (2014) was the second time Hollywood has attempted to make a film featuring Japan’s kaiju supremo and it was the first successful attempt from Hollywood, given that the 1998 Roland Emmerich attempt was basically Lost World: Jurassic Park (1997) but with added daddy issues (Roland Emmerich’s trademark).
Gareth Edwards 2014 first entry in the MonsterVerse was a huge success, financially and artistically. We saw a Godzilla that was of a scale we’d always wanted, towering over buildings, a reptilian God and we’re just the ants trying to not get squished.
Godzilla: King of Monsters attempts to up the ante by throwing a dozen or so monsters at the story. “Godzilla fought two MUTO’s did he, well… hold my beer!” Yeah, we’ll hold your beer while you get Millie Bobby Brown to stand there teary eyed for most of the film (a waste), Vera Farmiga to go from bereaved workaholic, to eco-terrorist to pointless self-sacrifice (unfathomable), and for Kyle Chandler to… well, Christ knows what Kyle Chandler was doing, apart from spitting terrible dialogue badly and then standing/sitting/walking looking angry but unconvincingly. Bradley Whitford provided some nice comic relief, he does droll sarcasm immensely well, Charles Dance is underused (and then forgotten about) and Zhang Ziyi tries to out-Kyle-Chandler Kyle Chandler in the bland, borderline useless stakes.
Worse than any failing on the human emotion side of the story are the huge liberties they take with global travel, like, one of side of the world to the other in a very short space of time. I mean Godzilla can do it because of some tunnels under the sea that he uses, possible the ones used in the science-denying sci-fi car crash abomination The Core (2003), but for the humans to just pop to Venezuela or the Antarctic is unforgivable.
This kind of leaps of reality always leads me to lose interest in the events in a film and start thinking around the script. In a film where everything everyone says is of dire emergency or import and then we see them in another part of the world some time later, what have they been talking about for all that time. Have they been napping? If so, it’s hasn’t eased any of the pointless angry posturing. Have they been chatting about boring everyday stuff? There is no hint of a relationship between any of these people who are spending potentially their last moments on earth together with alarming regularity. The world is possible about to get destroyed and you are in direct harm’s way! Shut up and nut up.
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Beasts of No Nation (2015) in Movies
Mar 3, 2020 (Updated Jul 9, 2020)
As I may have mentioned, a lot of my film viewing over the last wee while has been part of a project that hopes to be called 21st Century Cinema: 200 Essential films of the new millennium – which utilises the Decinemal system you will see at the bottom of each of my reviews. It aims to judge each film objectively with a score out of 10 over 10 categories, to give an overall rating out of 100.
Cary Joyi Fukunaga’s personal opus Beasts of no Nation, made for Netflix but good enough for a cinema release, falls into the category of films that have garnered enough critical acclaim to demand consideration for the top 200. It is the kind of film that you would always recommend, but may choose to overlook in search of a more basically entertaining watch.
Fukunaga has a fine pedigree already in his career, with credits on True Detective and the under-rated Sin Nombre from 2009. He has also been tasked with directing duties on the delayed Bond No Time To Die, which we hope to see before the new year now. He is a hands on, no messing about kind of guy, seemingly, taking on writing and cinematography duties also for this sad tale of child exploitation in an unnamed African war.
At times, it borders on documentary style, with an eye for strong visual images and extended silences, favoured over extraneous exposition and needless dialogue. A technique that makes the subject matter all the more uncomfortable to watch. Idris Elba adds big name weight in a fine supporting role, but the lion’s share of acting responsibility falls to young Abraham Attah, who is nothing short of astonishing in the most harrowing moments of this stark and sincere story.
I have to confess, this was another pre-lockdown watch for me, and as much as I can recall the feel and impact of it as a whole, I would struggle to talk about it in any detail after one viewing three months ago. And that is partly the reason it won’t quite make the lower benchmark of a strong 73 Decinemal score; for all its power it just isn’t quite memorable enough on every level, in the way something like City Of God, or even Beasts of the Southern Wild most definitely are.
Perhaps those are unfair comparisons, but it strives for the impact of the former without the flair, and has an independant feel without the charm of the latter. Not that flair or charm are priorities here. It simply wants to show you an issue you may not have been overly aware of, and demands that you empathise both with the complexity of the problem and with the tragic journey of Agu – a child robbed of all innocence by a terrible world.
The photography sits with the strong performances as a notable highlight; giving contrast to the devastation, depredation and desperation under the skin, and showing an angry beauty that dances beside it, showing brief moments of hope when we need them most, and therefore avoiding the trap of being too brutal to enjoy on any level. Which is a mistake similar films can fall prey too.
Violence and war are not light subjects. When the focus is also the lost soul of a child, the tightrope of melodrama and sentimentality is very fine. All involved here walk that line expertly, never once resorting to having to buy your care with familiar Hollywood tricks. In fact it couldn’t be further from Hollywood if it tried. And the drama is all the better for that.
A solid, fine movie, that is narrowly short of being truly great. But you should most definitely see it at some point if you haven’t already.
Cary Joyi Fukunaga’s personal opus Beasts of no Nation, made for Netflix but good enough for a cinema release, falls into the category of films that have garnered enough critical acclaim to demand consideration for the top 200. It is the kind of film that you would always recommend, but may choose to overlook in search of a more basically entertaining watch.
Fukunaga has a fine pedigree already in his career, with credits on True Detective and the under-rated Sin Nombre from 2009. He has also been tasked with directing duties on the delayed Bond No Time To Die, which we hope to see before the new year now. He is a hands on, no messing about kind of guy, seemingly, taking on writing and cinematography duties also for this sad tale of child exploitation in an unnamed African war.
At times, it borders on documentary style, with an eye for strong visual images and extended silences, favoured over extraneous exposition and needless dialogue. A technique that makes the subject matter all the more uncomfortable to watch. Idris Elba adds big name weight in a fine supporting role, but the lion’s share of acting responsibility falls to young Abraham Attah, who is nothing short of astonishing in the most harrowing moments of this stark and sincere story.
I have to confess, this was another pre-lockdown watch for me, and as much as I can recall the feel and impact of it as a whole, I would struggle to talk about it in any detail after one viewing three months ago. And that is partly the reason it won’t quite make the lower benchmark of a strong 73 Decinemal score; for all its power it just isn’t quite memorable enough on every level, in the way something like City Of God, or even Beasts of the Southern Wild most definitely are.
Perhaps those are unfair comparisons, but it strives for the impact of the former without the flair, and has an independant feel without the charm of the latter. Not that flair or charm are priorities here. It simply wants to show you an issue you may not have been overly aware of, and demands that you empathise both with the complexity of the problem and with the tragic journey of Agu – a child robbed of all innocence by a terrible world.
The photography sits with the strong performances as a notable highlight; giving contrast to the devastation, depredation and desperation under the skin, and showing an angry beauty that dances beside it, showing brief moments of hope when we need them most, and therefore avoiding the trap of being too brutal to enjoy on any level. Which is a mistake similar films can fall prey too.
Violence and war are not light subjects. When the focus is also the lost soul of a child, the tightrope of melodrama and sentimentality is very fine. All involved here walk that line expertly, never once resorting to having to buy your care with familiar Hollywood tricks. In fact it couldn’t be further from Hollywood if it tried. And the drama is all the better for that.
A solid, fine movie, that is narrowly short of being truly great. But you should most definitely see it at some point if you haven’t already.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Mister Roberts (1955) in Movies
Apr 10, 2020
Well Acted
A staple of Old Hollywood under the Studio System was to adapt to the film Broadway shows that were a big hit. One such hit was the 1948 WWII play MISTER ROBERTS starring Henry Fonda (who would win a Tony Award for his performance).
In 1955, Paramount Studios mounted a film production of MISTER ROBERTS starring Fonda, James Cagney (in his last film role for Paramount - who he had been under contract to for 25 years), William Powell (in his last film role) and a young "up-and-comer" by the name of Jack Lemon.
Set in the waning days of World War II aboard a "cargo vessel", MISTER ROBERTS tells the tale of...well...Mister Roberts, the cargo officer who is keeping the ship afloat - serving as a buffer between the crew and the tyrannical Captain. Roberts longs for one thing - to join the war on a battleship, but the Captain knows his success is dependent on Roberts.
Paramount considered Fonda too old for the role, so they sought out younger stars like Marlon Brando and William Holden, but Director John Ford insisted on Fonda - and a wise choice it was. Fonda's easy-going natural personality - tinged with anger and regret - is perfectly suited for this role. He is just as at home joking around with the sailors as he is going mano-a-mano with the Captain. Also perfectly cast is the great James Cagney as the Captain who is only concerned about 1 thing - how he is perceived by the higher ups in the Navy. The conflict between Cagney and Fonda is dynamite and it is worth the price of admission just to watch these 2 Hollywood heavyweights go at it.
Jack Lemon won his first Oscar (as Best Supporting Actor) for portraying Mr. Roberts bunkmate, Ensign Pulver. It is a perfect match of character and actor and you can see where the greatness that is Jack Lemon (an under-rated actor) stems from. The surprise to me at this viewing was the strong work of William Powell (THE THIN MAN movie series) as Doc, the best friend of Mr. Roberts aboard the ship. He has an ease and rapport with Fonda and when Fonda, Powell and Lemon share the screen together the film sparkles.
And that's the best part - and the worst part - of this great film. It looks like a filmed stage play. Veteran Director John Ford looks like he was "mailing it in" on this one, in that he would just put his camera in one stationary position and let his actors play the scenes like they were in a play. This is either laziness - or genius - at the hands of Ford (I would argue probably a little of each). He was wise enough to know he had some incredible talent (Fonda, Cagney, Powell and Lemon) - and a strong script by Frank S. Nugent and Joshua Logan (based on the stage play by Logan and Thomas Hagen...based on Hagen's book), so he stayed out of the way as much as possible.
Consequently, the first part of this film is a bit talky and stagey looking and drags just a bit, but once the film catches it's steam - and these 4 stars light up the screen - this film is well worth watching.
Letter Grade: A
9 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
P.S.: I caught Mister Roberts on the great cable channel TURNER CLASSIC MOVIES - but (as far as I can tell) it's not scheduled to be re-run there anytime soon (and is not streamable on the Watch TCM app), so you'll need to rent it at all the "normal" places (YouTube, GoogePLay, iTunes and Vudu)
In 1955, Paramount Studios mounted a film production of MISTER ROBERTS starring Fonda, James Cagney (in his last film role for Paramount - who he had been under contract to for 25 years), William Powell (in his last film role) and a young "up-and-comer" by the name of Jack Lemon.
Set in the waning days of World War II aboard a "cargo vessel", MISTER ROBERTS tells the tale of...well...Mister Roberts, the cargo officer who is keeping the ship afloat - serving as a buffer between the crew and the tyrannical Captain. Roberts longs for one thing - to join the war on a battleship, but the Captain knows his success is dependent on Roberts.
Paramount considered Fonda too old for the role, so they sought out younger stars like Marlon Brando and William Holden, but Director John Ford insisted on Fonda - and a wise choice it was. Fonda's easy-going natural personality - tinged with anger and regret - is perfectly suited for this role. He is just as at home joking around with the sailors as he is going mano-a-mano with the Captain. Also perfectly cast is the great James Cagney as the Captain who is only concerned about 1 thing - how he is perceived by the higher ups in the Navy. The conflict between Cagney and Fonda is dynamite and it is worth the price of admission just to watch these 2 Hollywood heavyweights go at it.
Jack Lemon won his first Oscar (as Best Supporting Actor) for portraying Mr. Roberts bunkmate, Ensign Pulver. It is a perfect match of character and actor and you can see where the greatness that is Jack Lemon (an under-rated actor) stems from. The surprise to me at this viewing was the strong work of William Powell (THE THIN MAN movie series) as Doc, the best friend of Mr. Roberts aboard the ship. He has an ease and rapport with Fonda and when Fonda, Powell and Lemon share the screen together the film sparkles.
And that's the best part - and the worst part - of this great film. It looks like a filmed stage play. Veteran Director John Ford looks like he was "mailing it in" on this one, in that he would just put his camera in one stationary position and let his actors play the scenes like they were in a play. This is either laziness - or genius - at the hands of Ford (I would argue probably a little of each). He was wise enough to know he had some incredible talent (Fonda, Cagney, Powell and Lemon) - and a strong script by Frank S. Nugent and Joshua Logan (based on the stage play by Logan and Thomas Hagen...based on Hagen's book), so he stayed out of the way as much as possible.
Consequently, the first part of this film is a bit talky and stagey looking and drags just a bit, but once the film catches it's steam - and these 4 stars light up the screen - this film is well worth watching.
Letter Grade: A
9 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
P.S.: I caught Mister Roberts on the great cable channel TURNER CLASSIC MOVIES - but (as far as I can tell) it's not scheduled to be re-run there anytime soon (and is not streamable on the Watch TCM app), so you'll need to rent it at all the "normal" places (YouTube, GoogePLay, iTunes and Vudu)