Search
Search results
David McK (3453 KP) rated Last Argument of Kings in Books
Jan 28, 2019
The final part in [a:Joe Abercrombie|276660|Joe Abercrombie|https://d.gr-assets.com/authors/1421267339p2/276660.jpg]'s 'The First Law' series, I have to say that I found this one pretty heavy going at times, at times almost a chore to read through.
The title, apparently, comes from an inscription made on his cannons by Louis XIV and is pretty apt for this novel, dealing (as it does) pretty much with all-out war (even if it does take about halfway throught the book before that actually happens). Once again following it's protaganists more-or-less chapter about, I can understand where this is coming from in showing that life isn't fair, but since I found none of those protaganists not really all that engaging, and with the only one who even seems to show any redeeming qualities being the one that doesn't make it all the way to the end ...
Not that impressed (sorry).
The title, apparently, comes from an inscription made on his cannons by Louis XIV and is pretty apt for this novel, dealing (as it does) pretty much with all-out war (even if it does take about halfway throught the book before that actually happens). Once again following it's protaganists more-or-less chapter about, I can understand where this is coming from in showing that life isn't fair, but since I found none of those protaganists not really all that engaging, and with the only one who even seems to show any redeeming qualities being the one that doesn't make it all the way to the end ...
Not that impressed (sorry).
Nick Beaty (70 KP) rated The Irishman (2019) in Movies
Jan 26, 2020 (Updated Jan 26, 2020)
De Niro is the best he has been in a long time...
First off any movie that has Robert De Niro, Al Pacino, Joe Pesci and Martin Scorsese connected to it has me from the get go.
De Niro is the best he has been in a long time as mob hitman Frank Sheeran, Joe Pesci is excellent in a much more reserved role as Russell Bufalino and Al Pacino is superb as the loud and brash Jimmy Hoffa. All the buzz is around the three lead actors, as all have been nominated for Oscars. Although for me Stephen Graham more than holds his own alongside these legends, as the cocky and destructive 'Tony Pro'. Some of the best scenes are with him and Pacino not seeing eye to eye on various occasions.
Personally I felt it wasn't as Scorsese as I expected, it didn't have the same narrative or feel as say Goodfellas or Casino, I'm not saying that is a bad thing as it's still a very good movie, it's just not on their level in my opinion.
There has been a lot of talk about the 3 hour 29 minutes running time. I personally don't understand all the fuss, as there have been many classic, award winning movies even longer than this. Gone with the Wind took home the Oscar in 1940 and ran a whopping 3h 58m. Ben Hur won best picture in 1960 at 3h 32m and more recently Titanic in 1998 was slightly less at 3h 14m.
I also feel the need to mention a couple of scenes that felt very reminiscent of one of my favourite movies Pulp Fiction. The opening sequence when the words 'I heard you paint houses' flash on the screen felt very Tarantino and the whole car scene with Jesse Plemons & Louis Cancelmi talking about the fish, was very Jule's & Vincent like. I'm not sure if that is just me or whether other people agree.
Overall I get that it is a long movie and people have very busy lives but if you get the chance you really should watch it, just to see these big screen legends at work and doing what they do best.
De Niro is the best he has been in a long time as mob hitman Frank Sheeran, Joe Pesci is excellent in a much more reserved role as Russell Bufalino and Al Pacino is superb as the loud and brash Jimmy Hoffa. All the buzz is around the three lead actors, as all have been nominated for Oscars. Although for me Stephen Graham more than holds his own alongside these legends, as the cocky and destructive 'Tony Pro'. Some of the best scenes are with him and Pacino not seeing eye to eye on various occasions.
Personally I felt it wasn't as Scorsese as I expected, it didn't have the same narrative or feel as say Goodfellas or Casino, I'm not saying that is a bad thing as it's still a very good movie, it's just not on their level in my opinion.
There has been a lot of talk about the 3 hour 29 minutes running time. I personally don't understand all the fuss, as there have been many classic, award winning movies even longer than this. Gone with the Wind took home the Oscar in 1940 and ran a whopping 3h 58m. Ben Hur won best picture in 1960 at 3h 32m and more recently Titanic in 1998 was slightly less at 3h 14m.
I also feel the need to mention a couple of scenes that felt very reminiscent of one of my favourite movies Pulp Fiction. The opening sequence when the words 'I heard you paint houses' flash on the screen felt very Tarantino and the whole car scene with Jesse Plemons & Louis Cancelmi talking about the fish, was very Jule's & Vincent like. I'm not sure if that is just me or whether other people agree.
Overall I get that it is a long movie and people have very busy lives but if you get the chance you really should watch it, just to see these big screen legends at work and doing what they do best.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Judy (2019) in Movies
Oct 2, 2019
Judy, is the biopic based on the stage play “End of the Rainbow” which chronicles Judy Garland’s five week run in 1968 London, at The Talk of the Town Nightclub. Ms. Garland, one of the victims of the old Hollywood studio treatments that contributed to her tragic upbringing.
The ever malleable Renee Zellweger embodies Judy Garland throughout this film. Ms. Garland’s physical affectations are translated to the screen so much that we are transported , convinced that she is Judy. Yet, there are a couple of moments where the mask slips and we see Ms. Zellweger instead .
The film begins with Judy working, doing a show at an event and being paid very much less than she has in the past. She is uninsurable, unreliable and absolutely inconsistent. Her lifelong habits have taken most of who she was and she keeps getting up every time to keep fighting.
She also has custody of her two kids, Lorna and Joe Luft. She does not have a place to call home to provide a stable environment for the children. Their father Sid Luft is challenging custody and Judy has provided enough fodder to have custody of her children revert to their father. Her intent is to be a good mother, as opposed to the parent she had growing up.
Flashbacks are cut in throughout the movie, showing her on the set of the Wizard of Oz with Louis B. Mayer, at a movie set where they film a choreographed birthday party for Judy.
We are shown how terribly manipulative and cruel the studio system was towards the actresses back then. The pills, starvation, demands, and gaslighting had created the person that was Judy.
The movie is about the tragedy that was Judy Garland’s life. However, there are many points of light in her life and we are shown that in the movie. Judy is definitely a film blanketed with the shadows of sadness from her life.
The transition of Zellweger to Judy who explained had a distracting flaw that I struggled with. Ms. Zellweger has a pleasant voice, but she is not Ms. Garland who’s lovely voice with rich timbre is beautifully unique.
Very dramatic film, such a transformative performance by Renee Zellweger.
The ever malleable Renee Zellweger embodies Judy Garland throughout this film. Ms. Garland’s physical affectations are translated to the screen so much that we are transported , convinced that she is Judy. Yet, there are a couple of moments where the mask slips and we see Ms. Zellweger instead .
The film begins with Judy working, doing a show at an event and being paid very much less than she has in the past. She is uninsurable, unreliable and absolutely inconsistent. Her lifelong habits have taken most of who she was and she keeps getting up every time to keep fighting.
She also has custody of her two kids, Lorna and Joe Luft. She does not have a place to call home to provide a stable environment for the children. Their father Sid Luft is challenging custody and Judy has provided enough fodder to have custody of her children revert to their father. Her intent is to be a good mother, as opposed to the parent she had growing up.
Flashbacks are cut in throughout the movie, showing her on the set of the Wizard of Oz with Louis B. Mayer, at a movie set where they film a choreographed birthday party for Judy.
We are shown how terribly manipulative and cruel the studio system was towards the actresses back then. The pills, starvation, demands, and gaslighting had created the person that was Judy.
The movie is about the tragedy that was Judy Garland’s life. However, there are many points of light in her life and we are shown that in the movie. Judy is definitely a film blanketed with the shadows of sadness from her life.
The transition of Zellweger to Judy who explained had a distracting flaw that I struggled with. Ms. Zellweger has a pleasant voice, but she is not Ms. Garland who’s lovely voice with rich timbre is beautifully unique.
Very dramatic film, such a transformative performance by Renee Zellweger.
Scott Tostik (389 KP) rated Blood Sucking Freaks (1976) in Movies
Apr 26, 2020
Excellent kills (2 more)
A dwarf... A torturing foul mouthed hilarious dwarf
Exploitation at its finest
If Le Champion Likes it... What could be wrong with it
When sitting down to watch The Last Drive In with Joe Bob Briggs, you never know what you're going to get.
His weekly double feature show on Shudder can bring some surprises to my tv screen and for that I thank him.
This past week, he double featured Chopping Mall and Joel M Reed's classic torture fest Blood Sucking Freaks.
1976 was a weird time in horror. Classics such as The Texas Chainsaw Massacre set the bar pretty high in the early 70's. So directors had to push the bar to try and compete with the instant classic.
Reed decided to make this film in the spirit of Master Gore technician Herschell Gordon Lewis. There is plenty of blood and gore to go around. People have been known to leave during a screening of this slashic. I for one, am not one of them. When I watch a movie, no matter how shitty it is. I have already made a commitment to sit through the bullshit and hope it gets better.
Freaks is just that kind of flick. But it makes you view it, you just have to see what Ralphus(the torturing wonder dwarf excellently played by the late Louis DeJesus) will do next to these women Sardu( Seamus....something or another... Yeah yeah, bad reviewer) has caged up in his basement.
The blood flows, the body parts roll and, yes, there is plenty of boobs and butts if that's your thing too.
I rated it 8/10 for a few reasons that some may not understand. I am a Horror Fanatic. No matter the plot, hole filled and silly... The script, if there is one... And the acting, if you could call it that... I seem to find the good in all films.
The gore, violence and total insanity that stems from the screen to your damaged brain is what should make the movie good/bad. And this movie is full of some of the most disgusting imagery that these eyes have ever fell upon. From playing backgammon for fingers to a woman guillotining herself because she was being spanked...and she had the rope holding the blade in her mouth... Heart removal, stretching, quartering, severed limbs and pulled out teeth... This flick has it all
Shout out to the cop who looks like David Berkowitz... I actually did a double take because at first glance I was like WTF???
Also a shout out to AEW Wrestler and all time wrestling G.O.A.T. Chris Jericho who, like me, is a huge fan of exploitation and gore films. And his own review of this film on his podcast, Talk is Jericho.
I recommend this film if you have a few hours to kill. I highly recommend you get Shudder... Its cheap 5.99 a month in Canada and its full of some great horror films and documentaries. But it's also the only place you can find THE LAST DRIVE-IN with Joe Bob Briggs... Friday nights at 9p.m. EST for the next 6-8 weeks.
Enjoy this film, horror fans. Because you will never see anything else like it....
His weekly double feature show on Shudder can bring some surprises to my tv screen and for that I thank him.
This past week, he double featured Chopping Mall and Joel M Reed's classic torture fest Blood Sucking Freaks.
1976 was a weird time in horror. Classics such as The Texas Chainsaw Massacre set the bar pretty high in the early 70's. So directors had to push the bar to try and compete with the instant classic.
Reed decided to make this film in the spirit of Master Gore technician Herschell Gordon Lewis. There is plenty of blood and gore to go around. People have been known to leave during a screening of this slashic. I for one, am not one of them. When I watch a movie, no matter how shitty it is. I have already made a commitment to sit through the bullshit and hope it gets better.
Freaks is just that kind of flick. But it makes you view it, you just have to see what Ralphus(the torturing wonder dwarf excellently played by the late Louis DeJesus) will do next to these women Sardu( Seamus....something or another... Yeah yeah, bad reviewer) has caged up in his basement.
The blood flows, the body parts roll and, yes, there is plenty of boobs and butts if that's your thing too.
I rated it 8/10 for a few reasons that some may not understand. I am a Horror Fanatic. No matter the plot, hole filled and silly... The script, if there is one... And the acting, if you could call it that... I seem to find the good in all films.
The gore, violence and total insanity that stems from the screen to your damaged brain is what should make the movie good/bad. And this movie is full of some of the most disgusting imagery that these eyes have ever fell upon. From playing backgammon for fingers to a woman guillotining herself because she was being spanked...and she had the rope holding the blade in her mouth... Heart removal, stretching, quartering, severed limbs and pulled out teeth... This flick has it all
Shout out to the cop who looks like David Berkowitz... I actually did a double take because at first glance I was like WTF???
Also a shout out to AEW Wrestler and all time wrestling G.O.A.T. Chris Jericho who, like me, is a huge fan of exploitation and gore films. And his own review of this film on his podcast, Talk is Jericho.
I recommend this film if you have a few hours to kill. I highly recommend you get Shudder... Its cheap 5.99 a month in Canada and its full of some great horror films and documentaries. But it's also the only place you can find THE LAST DRIVE-IN with Joe Bob Briggs... Friday nights at 9p.m. EST for the next 6-8 weeks.
Enjoy this film, horror fans. Because you will never see anything else like it....
Lee (2222 KP) rated The Kid Who Would Be King (2019) in Movies
Feb 18, 2019
We've had plenty of spins on the legend of King Arthur over the years. Probably the most enjoyable for me was BBC show 'Merlin', which ran for 5 seasons between 2008 and 2012, focusing on the early life of the famous sorcerer and King Arthur. Probably the worst take on it all was Guy Ritchie's god awful 'Legend Of The Sword' back in 2017. Joe Cornish, writer/director of the brilliant 2011 movie 'Attack The Block', follows that movie with a fresh spin of his own in 'The Kid Who Would Be King'.
For those of us who are unfamiliar with the legend of Arthur, or who had it's memory tarnished by Mr Guy Ritchie, it's recapped for us here in a nice little animated sequence right at the start of the movie. It tells how the evil Morgana was banished to the underworld, vowing to return once more when the world is again divided and at its weakest.
We then join Alex (played by Louis Serkis, son of Andy Serkis), a 12 year old schoolboy living with his mother. He's having some trouble with bullies at school, made worse by his attempts to stand up to them as they terrorise his friend Bedders. One night, while fleeing from bullies Lance and Kay, he stumbles into a building site where he discovers a sword set in stone. He manages to pull it free and takes it home in his backpack, where he and Bedders determine that the sword is in fact the legendary Excalibur.
The next day a mysterious new boy joins them at school. Turns out, he is in fact Merlin, taking the form of a younger boy. He informs Alex and Bedders that they must form a team of knights in order to prepare for the imminent return of Morgana and her army of dead soldiers. They have just 4 days, with her arrival taking place during an upcoming solar eclipse. If they cannot stop her, then she will enslave the Earths inhabitants.
Alex believes that his father is key to all of this, and that he is in fact descended from Arthur, so he decides to go on a quest to Tintagel, the last place that he saw his father. Alex leaves a note for his mum - "Gone on quest to save Britain, don’t worry!” and begins 'knighting' Bedders, and eventually bullies Lance and Kay, as only those that have been knighted are able to see and fight the dead soldiers that come at night.
Their journey takes them via coach, through a portal at Stone Henge, and on a trek across the English countryside where they stop to allow Merlin time to provide them with the sword training they need in order to stand any chance of defeating Morgana. Merlin regularly changes his form, switching between young boy, an owl and his true elderly self (played by Patrick Stewart). In the form of a boy, Merlin is a little bit wacky, performing his magic with a series of clicking hand movements, something which became very annoying for me after the first few times. I get that this is a story about kids banding together and overcoming evil, but part of me just wishes that Merlin had stayed in his adult form of Patrick Stewart as I really wasn't so keen on the younger version at all.
It's also around this time, for a fairly lengthy period in the middle, that I felt the movie slowed and struggled a little. Thankfully though, things improved considerably for the final act, pulling everything together and delivering a hugely enjoyable finale. As the solar eclipse plunges their school into darkness, an army of armour clad school children battle the flame engulfed skeletal warriors and attempt to defeat the dragon-like Morgana. It's the kind of movie you'd love to watch as a child - no adults, just the kids rising up and overpowering evil. In fact, my daughter enjoyed this a lot more than I did, offering up her own 4.5 rating, so there you go!
I would have liked a little more from the great Patrick Stewart, and Rebecca Ferguson as Morgana isn't quite evil enough for me, but overall this is a really fun family movie and that's largely down to it's young stars, who are all fantastic. As shown in Attack the Block, Joe Cornish has a real skill for blending the ordinary with the fantastical and empowering his young characters with the traits of a hero or a leader.
For those of us who are unfamiliar with the legend of Arthur, or who had it's memory tarnished by Mr Guy Ritchie, it's recapped for us here in a nice little animated sequence right at the start of the movie. It tells how the evil Morgana was banished to the underworld, vowing to return once more when the world is again divided and at its weakest.
We then join Alex (played by Louis Serkis, son of Andy Serkis), a 12 year old schoolboy living with his mother. He's having some trouble with bullies at school, made worse by his attempts to stand up to them as they terrorise his friend Bedders. One night, while fleeing from bullies Lance and Kay, he stumbles into a building site where he discovers a sword set in stone. He manages to pull it free and takes it home in his backpack, where he and Bedders determine that the sword is in fact the legendary Excalibur.
The next day a mysterious new boy joins them at school. Turns out, he is in fact Merlin, taking the form of a younger boy. He informs Alex and Bedders that they must form a team of knights in order to prepare for the imminent return of Morgana and her army of dead soldiers. They have just 4 days, with her arrival taking place during an upcoming solar eclipse. If they cannot stop her, then she will enslave the Earths inhabitants.
Alex believes that his father is key to all of this, and that he is in fact descended from Arthur, so he decides to go on a quest to Tintagel, the last place that he saw his father. Alex leaves a note for his mum - "Gone on quest to save Britain, don’t worry!” and begins 'knighting' Bedders, and eventually bullies Lance and Kay, as only those that have been knighted are able to see and fight the dead soldiers that come at night.
Their journey takes them via coach, through a portal at Stone Henge, and on a trek across the English countryside where they stop to allow Merlin time to provide them with the sword training they need in order to stand any chance of defeating Morgana. Merlin regularly changes his form, switching between young boy, an owl and his true elderly self (played by Patrick Stewart). In the form of a boy, Merlin is a little bit wacky, performing his magic with a series of clicking hand movements, something which became very annoying for me after the first few times. I get that this is a story about kids banding together and overcoming evil, but part of me just wishes that Merlin had stayed in his adult form of Patrick Stewart as I really wasn't so keen on the younger version at all.
It's also around this time, for a fairly lengthy period in the middle, that I felt the movie slowed and struggled a little. Thankfully though, things improved considerably for the final act, pulling everything together and delivering a hugely enjoyable finale. As the solar eclipse plunges their school into darkness, an army of armour clad school children battle the flame engulfed skeletal warriors and attempt to defeat the dragon-like Morgana. It's the kind of movie you'd love to watch as a child - no adults, just the kids rising up and overpowering evil. In fact, my daughter enjoyed this a lot more than I did, offering up her own 4.5 rating, so there you go!
I would have liked a little more from the great Patrick Stewart, and Rebecca Ferguson as Morgana isn't quite evil enough for me, but overall this is a really fun family movie and that's largely down to it's young stars, who are all fantastic. As shown in Attack the Block, Joe Cornish has a real skill for blending the ordinary with the fantastical and empowering his young characters with the traits of a hero or a leader.
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.)
