Search
Search results
Entertainment Editor (1988 KP) created a video about The Little Drummer Girl in TV
Jan 16, 2019
Guillermo Del Toro recommended The Seventh Seal (Det Sjunde inseglet) (1957) in Movies (curated)
Guillermo Del Toro recommended Fanny and Alexander (1982) in Movies (curated)
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated The Legend of Tarzan (2016) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
It’s a story we’re pretty much all familiar with – Tarzan, a man who was raised in the jungle by apes that took him in as a baby after his parents died.
In “The Legend of Tarzan,” it is the 1880’s and royal corruption brews beneath the surface. Tarzan (Alexander Skarsgard), now an adult, is living as John Clayton III, Lord Greystoke with his wife Jane (Margot Robbie).
His civilized life is interrupted when he is sent back to the Congo as a trade emissary. Unfortunately, he is at the center of the wicked plans of Captain Léon Rom (Christoph Waltz). Rom has made a deal to trade Tarzan in exchange for diamonds to a tribal chief who plans to butcher and eat him. Waltz does a great job playing a sleazy political criminal with beady eyes and a greasy mustache.
Samuel L. Jackson is also fun to watch as George Washington Williams, who accompanies Tarzan to the Congo when he follows up on his own suspicions.
While the film is quite enjoyable, and very pretty to look at (special thanks to Skarsgard). Tarzan isn’t as animalistic as you would expect, Jane lacks authentic emotion, and at times the CGI is a bit low quality.
“The Legend of Tarzan” is one of those short, sweet, and fun summer movies and is definitely worth watching. With political undertones of greed, slavery, and human destruction, it also has deeper value.
This is one that everyone can watch. It’s not too violent, it’s not to edgy, and it’s not too long. I give “The Legend of Tarzan” 3.5 out of 5 stars.
In “The Legend of Tarzan,” it is the 1880’s and royal corruption brews beneath the surface. Tarzan (Alexander Skarsgard), now an adult, is living as John Clayton III, Lord Greystoke with his wife Jane (Margot Robbie).
His civilized life is interrupted when he is sent back to the Congo as a trade emissary. Unfortunately, he is at the center of the wicked plans of Captain Léon Rom (Christoph Waltz). Rom has made a deal to trade Tarzan in exchange for diamonds to a tribal chief who plans to butcher and eat him. Waltz does a great job playing a sleazy political criminal with beady eyes and a greasy mustache.
Samuel L. Jackson is also fun to watch as George Washington Williams, who accompanies Tarzan to the Congo when he follows up on his own suspicions.
While the film is quite enjoyable, and very pretty to look at (special thanks to Skarsgard). Tarzan isn’t as animalistic as you would expect, Jane lacks authentic emotion, and at times the CGI is a bit low quality.
“The Legend of Tarzan” is one of those short, sweet, and fun summer movies and is definitely worth watching. With political undertones of greed, slavery, and human destruction, it also has deeper value.
This is one that everyone can watch. It’s not too violent, it’s not to edgy, and it’s not too long. I give “The Legend of Tarzan” 3.5 out of 5 stars.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated The Legend of Tarzan (2016) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
CPR Needed
As tends to be the case with Hollywood, studios pay very close attention to their rivals release schedules, eyeing up potential competition to pit their films against, maxing box-office returns in the process.
And when Disney announced they were rebooting The Jungle Book in March this year, Warner Bros quickly responded with another jungle-themed film; The Legend of Tarzan. But does this interpretation on the classic character swing or fall?
It’s been nearly a decade since Tarzan (Alexander Skarsgård), aka John Clayton III, left Africa to live in Victorian England with his wife Jane (Margot Robbie). Danger lurks on the horizon as Leon Rom (Christoph Waltz), a treacherous envoy for King Leopold, devises a scheme that lures the couple and friend George Williams (Samuel L Jackson) to the Congo. Rom plans to capture Tarzan and deliver him to an old enemy in exchange for diamonds. When Jane becomes a pawn in his devious plot, Tarzan must return to the jungle to save the woman he loves.
Directed by David Yates (Harry Potter & the Deathly Hallows), Legend of Tarzan features committed performances from its lead cast, immersive scenery and impressive special effects, but all of the glitz can’t save a film that plods along at a dreadful pace. Not since Peter Jackson’s King Kong has there been a movie that wastes so much of its opening act.
Alexander Skarsgård is likeable and commanding as the titular character, but lacks enough acting prowess to tackle the deeper, more emotional side that writers Adam Cozad and Craig Brewer have brought to the table here. Therefore, the scenes featuring a solo Tarzan suffer somewhat and Samuel L Jackson feels wasted in a poorly written and half-hearted role.
It is in Margot Robbie and Christoph Waltz that we find the film’s saving graces. Their characters leap off the screen with Waltz in particular being a highlight throughout. It’s unfortunate that one of our greatest living actors is lambasted with poor dialogue however, though the script just about keeps him afloat.
David Yates brings a similar filming style here to that of his foray into Harry Potter. The action is confidently filmed, but he avoids the use of shaky-cam that many directors seem to find appealing nowadays. The CGI is on the whole very good, especially in the finale which is breath-taking to watch.
It’s just a shame the rest of the film is such a drag. The first hour is incredibly poorly paced with very brief, albeit well-filmed, action sequences not doing enough to brighten Legend of Tarzan up. Elsewhere, the use of flashbacks is at first a decent way of giving the audience some exposition, but after the tenth one, they’re a nuisance.
Overall, The Legend of Tarzan does a lot more with its iconic character than other films have done, but that doesn’t excuse its poor pacing. Thankfully, the exciting finale lifts the final act above the standard of the first hour, and commanding performances from all the cast sustain interest just about enough to see it through to the end.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/07/07/cpr-needed-the-legend-of-tarzan-review/
And when Disney announced they were rebooting The Jungle Book in March this year, Warner Bros quickly responded with another jungle-themed film; The Legend of Tarzan. But does this interpretation on the classic character swing or fall?
It’s been nearly a decade since Tarzan (Alexander Skarsgård), aka John Clayton III, left Africa to live in Victorian England with his wife Jane (Margot Robbie). Danger lurks on the horizon as Leon Rom (Christoph Waltz), a treacherous envoy for King Leopold, devises a scheme that lures the couple and friend George Williams (Samuel L Jackson) to the Congo. Rom plans to capture Tarzan and deliver him to an old enemy in exchange for diamonds. When Jane becomes a pawn in his devious plot, Tarzan must return to the jungle to save the woman he loves.
Directed by David Yates (Harry Potter & the Deathly Hallows), Legend of Tarzan features committed performances from its lead cast, immersive scenery and impressive special effects, but all of the glitz can’t save a film that plods along at a dreadful pace. Not since Peter Jackson’s King Kong has there been a movie that wastes so much of its opening act.
Alexander Skarsgård is likeable and commanding as the titular character, but lacks enough acting prowess to tackle the deeper, more emotional side that writers Adam Cozad and Craig Brewer have brought to the table here. Therefore, the scenes featuring a solo Tarzan suffer somewhat and Samuel L Jackson feels wasted in a poorly written and half-hearted role.
It is in Margot Robbie and Christoph Waltz that we find the film’s saving graces. Their characters leap off the screen with Waltz in particular being a highlight throughout. It’s unfortunate that one of our greatest living actors is lambasted with poor dialogue however, though the script just about keeps him afloat.
David Yates brings a similar filming style here to that of his foray into Harry Potter. The action is confidently filmed, but he avoids the use of shaky-cam that many directors seem to find appealing nowadays. The CGI is on the whole very good, especially in the finale which is breath-taking to watch.
It’s just a shame the rest of the film is such a drag. The first hour is incredibly poorly paced with very brief, albeit well-filmed, action sequences not doing enough to brighten Legend of Tarzan up. Elsewhere, the use of flashbacks is at first a decent way of giving the audience some exposition, but after the tenth one, they’re a nuisance.
Overall, The Legend of Tarzan does a lot more with its iconic character than other films have done, but that doesn’t excuse its poor pacing. Thankfully, the exciting finale lifts the final act above the standard of the first hour, and commanding performances from all the cast sustain interest just about enough to see it through to the end.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/07/07/cpr-needed-the-legend-of-tarzan-review/
Darren (1599 KP) rated Night Crossing (1982) in Movies
Jul 2, 2019
Story: Night Crossing starts as we go to East Germany in 1979, The Strelzyk family, Peter (Hurt), Doris (Alexander), Frank (D.McKeon) and Fitscher (K.McKeon) who are getting tired of not being able to go to the west side of Germany, one they see as fairer. The friendship between this family and the Wetzel’s Gunter (Bridges) and Petra (O’Connor) keeps them strong, while they see the friends trying to escape getting killed.
When Peter comes up with up the idea to build a balloon with Gunter to escape, it will mean working in secret because getting caught will only see him killed. When Gunter leaves for family reasons, Peter must keep the idea within the family for the hope for their future.
Characters – Peter is a father that has been living with his family in Eastern Germany, he is getting tired of the lack of change or unity with the Western side and decides he wants to risk his family’s life to escape, he plans to build a balloon which would fly over the borders in place. Doris is the wife of Peter, she is reluctant to help at first, but soon sees this being the only option. Gunter is the friend that wants to help build the balloon, only for his wife to push him into staying behind because of the young age of their children. Petra is Gunter’s wife that doesn’t want to risk their infant children with an escape plan so dangerous.
Performances – John Hurt in the leading role is the strongest member of the cast, he shows that even a common man can have the hope required for his character. Jane Alexander and Glynnis O’Connor are both fitting the wife type of role which doesn’t get much else to do. Beau Bridges completes the cast with a performance that shows just how young men would have been affected in this world.
Story – The story follows two families that work together to find a way to escape East Germany and get into West Germany in the late 70s, they must risk everything for this, which is failing would see them face certain death. this is a story of inspiration that showed us just how much people were willing to risk escaping a land they couldn’t live their natural life without being dictated too, it shows the patience to make it happen and how family can inspire you to risk everything.
Family/History – This might be classed as a family film that is because of the families involved in trying to make this high risk situation happen, the history of their escape is one that could inspire many who were trapped in the land.
Settings – The film is set in the harsh living conditions the families would have been living in and how secretive their plan would have been to make happen.
Scene of the Movie – Are we in the West?
That Moment That Annoyed Me – It could have been a lot darker.
Final Thoughts – This is an inspiration story of two family’s determination to make it out of a life which didn’t offer them a true future.
Overall: True story that shows bravery and inspiration.
When Peter comes up with up the idea to build a balloon with Gunter to escape, it will mean working in secret because getting caught will only see him killed. When Gunter leaves for family reasons, Peter must keep the idea within the family for the hope for their future.
Characters – Peter is a father that has been living with his family in Eastern Germany, he is getting tired of the lack of change or unity with the Western side and decides he wants to risk his family’s life to escape, he plans to build a balloon which would fly over the borders in place. Doris is the wife of Peter, she is reluctant to help at first, but soon sees this being the only option. Gunter is the friend that wants to help build the balloon, only for his wife to push him into staying behind because of the young age of their children. Petra is Gunter’s wife that doesn’t want to risk their infant children with an escape plan so dangerous.
Performances – John Hurt in the leading role is the strongest member of the cast, he shows that even a common man can have the hope required for his character. Jane Alexander and Glynnis O’Connor are both fitting the wife type of role which doesn’t get much else to do. Beau Bridges completes the cast with a performance that shows just how young men would have been affected in this world.
Story – The story follows two families that work together to find a way to escape East Germany and get into West Germany in the late 70s, they must risk everything for this, which is failing would see them face certain death. this is a story of inspiration that showed us just how much people were willing to risk escaping a land they couldn’t live their natural life without being dictated too, it shows the patience to make it happen and how family can inspire you to risk everything.
Family/History – This might be classed as a family film that is because of the families involved in trying to make this high risk situation happen, the history of their escape is one that could inspire many who were trapped in the land.
Settings – The film is set in the harsh living conditions the families would have been living in and how secretive their plan would have been to make happen.
Scene of the Movie – Are we in the West?
That Moment That Annoyed Me – It could have been a lot darker.
Final Thoughts – This is an inspiration story of two family’s determination to make it out of a life which didn’t offer them a true future.
Overall: True story that shows bravery and inspiration.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Cider House Rules (1999) in Movies
Apr 26, 2020
Great acting, great writing, great directing
When we do our "Secret Cinema" adventures at our house (one person picks the film and the rest of the family doesn't know what it is until it starts running), we try to give clues. This film was nominated for 7 Oscars for the 1999 season, winning 2 - including a 2nd BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR OSCAR for a veteran actor. It is based on a wonderful novel and features 3 young actors well before they became stars.
Sound interesting? Then check out THE CIDER HOUSE RULES.
Based on the novel by John Irving, THE CIDER HOUSE RULES follows the life of Homer Wells (a pre-SPIDERMAN Tobey Maguire), a young orphan who is raised/mentored by the head of his Orphanage, Dr. Wilbur Larch (Michael Caine). When Homer decides to leave the orphanage and experience the world, he learns quite a bit about life including THE CIDER HOUSE RULES.
This is one of those "coming of age/follow a person through their life"-type films that relies heavily on style, substance and the performance of the actors on the screen. And under the Direction of Swedish Director Lasse Hallstrom and with words of the Screenplay by the author of the novel, John Irving, and with terrific actors like Maguire and Caine (amongst others) speaking those lines - a spell is cast and a heartwarming, life-affirming experience unfolds.
Caine won his 2nd Oscar for his role as Dr. Larch. This is a complex character who has his own, very certain, views on the world and is uncompromising in his care for others. It is a wonderful performance - even taking into account the peculiar Maine/United States accent Caine puts on. His character's empathy, strength and vulnerability are at play throughout this performance and he is a very deserving recipient of the Oscar.
A very young Charlize Theron and a (then) unknown Paul Rudd are engaging, charming and extremely photogenic as a young couple that Homer leaves the orphanage to see the world with. Rudd is the embodiment of the "nice guy" in this film - you can see the seeds of a career of playing "the nice guy" in this performance. Theron radiates beauty, power and a self-reliance that shows the strong actress she will become. While Homer's relationship with Dr. Larch is the heart and conflict of this film, the trio of McGuire/Theron/Rudd are the soul. The film also features a bevy of strong character actors in smaller roles that prop this film up. Jane Alexander, Kathy Baker, J.K. Simmons, Kate Nelligan and Delroy Lindo all shine in smaller roles - as do some of the child actors that portray other orphans like Keiran Caulkin and (especially) Per Erik Sullivan as the physically compromised Fuzzy.
But...none of this works if Maguire doesn't hold this film together (for we see this world/film through his eyes and he is in every scene) and he brings it. He has a quiet charm and innocence that helps bring us into his world in a welcoming way. Certainly, the awkwardness that Homer shows around Theron will be in evidence when he plays Peter Parker years later, but it is the inner strength that Maguire shows that really makes this character shine.
John Irving wrote the screen play based on his novel - and the results are satisfying, both to those who've never read the book (or have encountered an Irving novel/book before) or veteran readers/lovers of Irving's work (like myself).
All of this is wrapped in a package by Director Lasse Hallstrom (MY LIFE AS A DOG) in a charming, loving way that show the people, events and times through a lens that amplifies the proceedings in a way that is welcoming and engaging.
It is always a bit of a concern of mine to revisit a film that I remember fondly, but in this case, I am glad I jumped at the chance to revisit this charming film.
And you'll be glad you did, too.
Letter Grade: A
9 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Sound interesting? Then check out THE CIDER HOUSE RULES.
Based on the novel by John Irving, THE CIDER HOUSE RULES follows the life of Homer Wells (a pre-SPIDERMAN Tobey Maguire), a young orphan who is raised/mentored by the head of his Orphanage, Dr. Wilbur Larch (Michael Caine). When Homer decides to leave the orphanage and experience the world, he learns quite a bit about life including THE CIDER HOUSE RULES.
This is one of those "coming of age/follow a person through their life"-type films that relies heavily on style, substance and the performance of the actors on the screen. And under the Direction of Swedish Director Lasse Hallstrom and with words of the Screenplay by the author of the novel, John Irving, and with terrific actors like Maguire and Caine (amongst others) speaking those lines - a spell is cast and a heartwarming, life-affirming experience unfolds.
Caine won his 2nd Oscar for his role as Dr. Larch. This is a complex character who has his own, very certain, views on the world and is uncompromising in his care for others. It is a wonderful performance - even taking into account the peculiar Maine/United States accent Caine puts on. His character's empathy, strength and vulnerability are at play throughout this performance and he is a very deserving recipient of the Oscar.
A very young Charlize Theron and a (then) unknown Paul Rudd are engaging, charming and extremely photogenic as a young couple that Homer leaves the orphanage to see the world with. Rudd is the embodiment of the "nice guy" in this film - you can see the seeds of a career of playing "the nice guy" in this performance. Theron radiates beauty, power and a self-reliance that shows the strong actress she will become. While Homer's relationship with Dr. Larch is the heart and conflict of this film, the trio of McGuire/Theron/Rudd are the soul. The film also features a bevy of strong character actors in smaller roles that prop this film up. Jane Alexander, Kathy Baker, J.K. Simmons, Kate Nelligan and Delroy Lindo all shine in smaller roles - as do some of the child actors that portray other orphans like Keiran Caulkin and (especially) Per Erik Sullivan as the physically compromised Fuzzy.
But...none of this works if Maguire doesn't hold this film together (for we see this world/film through his eyes and he is in every scene) and he brings it. He has a quiet charm and innocence that helps bring us into his world in a welcoming way. Certainly, the awkwardness that Homer shows around Theron will be in evidence when he plays Peter Parker years later, but it is the inner strength that Maguire shows that really makes this character shine.
John Irving wrote the screen play based on his novel - and the results are satisfying, both to those who've never read the book (or have encountered an Irving novel/book before) or veteran readers/lovers of Irving's work (like myself).
All of this is wrapped in a package by Director Lasse Hallstrom (MY LIFE AS A DOG) in a charming, loving way that show the people, events and times through a lens that amplifies the proceedings in a way that is welcoming and engaging.
It is always a bit of a concern of mine to revisit a film that I remember fondly, but in this case, I am glad I jumped at the chance to revisit this charming film.
And you'll be glad you did, too.
Letter Grade: A
9 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Mank (2020) in Movies
Dec 10, 2020
Cinematography - glorious to look at (1 more)
A fabulous ensemble cast, with Oldham, Seyfried, Arliss and Dance excelling
"Mank" is a biopic slice of the career of Herman Jacob Mankiewicz (Gary Oldman), the Hollywood screenwriter who was the pen behind what is regularly voted by critics as being the greatest movie of all time - "Citizen Kane". "Citizen Kane" was written in 1940 (and released the following year) and much of the action in "Mank" takes place in a retreat in the Mojave desert when Mank, crippled by a full-cast on the leg, has been 'sent' by Orson Welles (Tom Burke) to complete the screenplay without alcohol and other worldly distractions. Helping administer to his writing and care needs are English typist Rita Alexander (Lily Collins) and carer Fraulein Freda (Monika Gossmann). However, although Mank produces brilliant stuff, his speed of progress exasperates his 'minder' and editor John Houseman (Sam Troughton). (Yes, THAT John Houseman, the actor.)
In developing the story, we continuously flash-back six years - - nicely indicated by typed 'script notes' - - to 1934 where Mank is working at MGM studios for Louis B. Mayer (Arliss Howard) and mixing in the circles of millionaire publisher William Randolph Hearst (Charles Dance) and his glamorous young wife, actress Marion Davies (Amanda Seyfried). Allegedly, the "Citizen Kane" script was based on Hearst. But what souring of the relationship could have led to such a stinging betrayal during those six years?
Mank has an embarrassment of acting riches. Mankiewicz is a fascinating character: charismatic, reckless, passionate and the definition of a loose cannon. Basically, a dream for a great actor to portray. And Gary Oldham IS a great actor. After doing Churchill in "Darkest Hour", he here turns in a magnificent performance as the alcoholic writer. Never more so than in a furious tirade at a dinner table late in the film, which will likely be the equivalent to the Churchill "tiger" speech come Oscar time. Surely, there's a Best Actor nomination there?
Equally impressive though are some of the supporting cast.
- Tom Burke - so good as TV's "Strike" - gives a fine impersonation of the great Orson Welles: full of confidence and swagger. It's only a cameo role, but he genuinely 'feels' like the young Welles.
- Amanda Seyfried: It took me almost half of the film to recognize her as Marion Davies, and her performance is pitch perfect - the best of her career in my view, and again Oscar-worthy.
- Arliss Howard for me almost steals the show as the megalomaniac Mayer: his introduction to Mank's brother Joe (Tom Pelphrey) has a memorable "walk with me" walkthrough of the studio with Mayer preaching on the real meaning of MGM and the movies in general. Breathtakingly good.
- But - I said "nearly steals the show".... the guy who made off with it in a swag-bag for me was our own Charles Dance as Hearst. Quietly impressive throughout, he just completely nails it with his "organ-grinder's monkey" speech towards the end of the movie. Probably my favourite monologue of 2020. Chilling. I'd really like to see Dance get a Supporting Actor nomination for this.
The screenplay was originally written by director David Fincher's late father Jack. Jack Fincher died in 2002, and this project has literally been decades in the planning. Mankiewicz has a caustic turn of phrase, and there are laugh-out lines of dialogue scattered throughout the script. "Write hard, aim low" implores Houseman at one point. And my personal favourite: Mank's puncturing of the irony that the Screen Writers Guild has been formed without an apostrophe! A huge LOL!
Aside from the witty dialogue, the script has a nuance to the storytelling that continually surprises. A revelation from Freda about Mank's philanthropic tendencies brings you up short in your face-value impression of his character. And the drivers that engineer the rift between Mankiewicz and Hearst - based around the story of the (fictional) director Shelly Metcalf (Jamie McShane) - are not slapped in your face, but elegantly slipped into your subconscious.
In addition, certain aspects are frustratingly withheld from you. Mank's long-suffering wife (a definition of the phrase) Sara (Tuppence Middleton) only occasionally comes into focus. The only reference to his kids are a crash in the background as they "remodel" the family home. Is the charismatic Mank a faithful husband or a philanderer? Is the relationship with Rita Alexander just professional and platonic (you assume so), or is there more going on? There's a tension there in the storytelling that never quite gets resolved: and that's a good thing.
Mank also has an embarrassment of technical riches. Even from the opening titles, you get the impression that this is a work of genius. All in black and white, and with the appearance of 40's titling, they scroll majestically in the sky and then - after "Charles Dance" - effortlessly scroll down to the desert highway. It's evidence of an attention to detail perhaps forced by lockdown. ("MUM - I'm bored". "Go up to your room and do some more work on that movie then".)
It's deliciously modern, yet retro. I love the fact that the cross-reel "circle" cue-marks appear so prominently... the indicators that the projectionist needs to spin up the next reel. I think they are still used in most modern films, but not as noticeably as in the old films... and this one!
A key contributor to the movie is cinematographer Erik Messerschmidt. Everything looks just BEAUTIFUL, and it is now a big regret that I didn't go to watch this on the big screen after all. Surely there will be a cinematography Oscar nomination for this one. Unbelievably, this is Messerschmidt's debut feature as director of cinematography!
Elsewhere, you can imagine multiple other technical Oscar noms. The tight and effective editing is by Kirk Baxter. And the combination of the glorious production design (Donald Graham Burt) and the costume design (Trish Summerville) make the movie emanate the same nostalgia for Hollywood as did last year's "Once Upon a Time... In Hollywood".... albeit set forty years earlier. Even the music (by the regular team of Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross) might get nominated, since I had to go back and check that it actually HAD music at all: it's subtly unobtrusive and effective.
The only area I had any issue with here was the sound mixing, since I had trouble picking up some of the dialogue.
Although I can gush about this movie as a technical work of art, I'm going to hold off a 10* review on this one. For one reason only. I just didn't feel 100% engaged with the story (at least with a first watch). The illustrious Mrs Movie Man summed it up with the phrase "I just didn't care enough what happened to any of the characters". I think though that this one is sufficiently subtle and cerebral that it deserves another watch.
Will it win Oscars. Yes, for sure. Hell, I would like to put a bet on that "Mank" will top the list of the "most nominations" when they are announced. (Hollywood likes nothing more than a navel-gazing look at its history of course). And an obvious nomination here will be David Fincher for Best Director. But, for me, this falls into a similar bucket as that other black and white multi-Oscar winner of two year's ago "Roma". It's glorious to look at; brilliantly directed; but not a movie I would choose to readily reach for to repeatedly watch again.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/12/10/mank-divines-for-oscar-gold-in-a-sea-of-pyrites/. Thanks.)
In developing the story, we continuously flash-back six years - - nicely indicated by typed 'script notes' - - to 1934 where Mank is working at MGM studios for Louis B. Mayer (Arliss Howard) and mixing in the circles of millionaire publisher William Randolph Hearst (Charles Dance) and his glamorous young wife, actress Marion Davies (Amanda Seyfried). Allegedly, the "Citizen Kane" script was based on Hearst. But what souring of the relationship could have led to such a stinging betrayal during those six years?
Mank has an embarrassment of acting riches. Mankiewicz is a fascinating character: charismatic, reckless, passionate and the definition of a loose cannon. Basically, a dream for a great actor to portray. And Gary Oldham IS a great actor. After doing Churchill in "Darkest Hour", he here turns in a magnificent performance as the alcoholic writer. Never more so than in a furious tirade at a dinner table late in the film, which will likely be the equivalent to the Churchill "tiger" speech come Oscar time. Surely, there's a Best Actor nomination there?
Equally impressive though are some of the supporting cast.
- Tom Burke - so good as TV's "Strike" - gives a fine impersonation of the great Orson Welles: full of confidence and swagger. It's only a cameo role, but he genuinely 'feels' like the young Welles.
- Amanda Seyfried: It took me almost half of the film to recognize her as Marion Davies, and her performance is pitch perfect - the best of her career in my view, and again Oscar-worthy.
- Arliss Howard for me almost steals the show as the megalomaniac Mayer: his introduction to Mank's brother Joe (Tom Pelphrey) has a memorable "walk with me" walkthrough of the studio with Mayer preaching on the real meaning of MGM and the movies in general. Breathtakingly good.
- But - I said "nearly steals the show".... the guy who made off with it in a swag-bag for me was our own Charles Dance as Hearst. Quietly impressive throughout, he just completely nails it with his "organ-grinder's monkey" speech towards the end of the movie. Probably my favourite monologue of 2020. Chilling. I'd really like to see Dance get a Supporting Actor nomination for this.
The screenplay was originally written by director David Fincher's late father Jack. Jack Fincher died in 2002, and this project has literally been decades in the planning. Mankiewicz has a caustic turn of phrase, and there are laugh-out lines of dialogue scattered throughout the script. "Write hard, aim low" implores Houseman at one point. And my personal favourite: Mank's puncturing of the irony that the Screen Writers Guild has been formed without an apostrophe! A huge LOL!
Aside from the witty dialogue, the script has a nuance to the storytelling that continually surprises. A revelation from Freda about Mank's philanthropic tendencies brings you up short in your face-value impression of his character. And the drivers that engineer the rift between Mankiewicz and Hearst - based around the story of the (fictional) director Shelly Metcalf (Jamie McShane) - are not slapped in your face, but elegantly slipped into your subconscious.
In addition, certain aspects are frustratingly withheld from you. Mank's long-suffering wife (a definition of the phrase) Sara (Tuppence Middleton) only occasionally comes into focus. The only reference to his kids are a crash in the background as they "remodel" the family home. Is the charismatic Mank a faithful husband or a philanderer? Is the relationship with Rita Alexander just professional and platonic (you assume so), or is there more going on? There's a tension there in the storytelling that never quite gets resolved: and that's a good thing.
Mank also has an embarrassment of technical riches. Even from the opening titles, you get the impression that this is a work of genius. All in black and white, and with the appearance of 40's titling, they scroll majestically in the sky and then - after "Charles Dance" - effortlessly scroll down to the desert highway. It's evidence of an attention to detail perhaps forced by lockdown. ("MUM - I'm bored". "Go up to your room and do some more work on that movie then".)
It's deliciously modern, yet retro. I love the fact that the cross-reel "circle" cue-marks appear so prominently... the indicators that the projectionist needs to spin up the next reel. I think they are still used in most modern films, but not as noticeably as in the old films... and this one!
A key contributor to the movie is cinematographer Erik Messerschmidt. Everything looks just BEAUTIFUL, and it is now a big regret that I didn't go to watch this on the big screen after all. Surely there will be a cinematography Oscar nomination for this one. Unbelievably, this is Messerschmidt's debut feature as director of cinematography!
Elsewhere, you can imagine multiple other technical Oscar noms. The tight and effective editing is by Kirk Baxter. And the combination of the glorious production design (Donald Graham Burt) and the costume design (Trish Summerville) make the movie emanate the same nostalgia for Hollywood as did last year's "Once Upon a Time... In Hollywood".... albeit set forty years earlier. Even the music (by the regular team of Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross) might get nominated, since I had to go back and check that it actually HAD music at all: it's subtly unobtrusive and effective.
The only area I had any issue with here was the sound mixing, since I had trouble picking up some of the dialogue.
Although I can gush about this movie as a technical work of art, I'm going to hold off a 10* review on this one. For one reason only. I just didn't feel 100% engaged with the story (at least with a first watch). The illustrious Mrs Movie Man summed it up with the phrase "I just didn't care enough what happened to any of the characters". I think though that this one is sufficiently subtle and cerebral that it deserves another watch.
Will it win Oscars. Yes, for sure. Hell, I would like to put a bet on that "Mank" will top the list of the "most nominations" when they are announced. (Hollywood likes nothing more than a navel-gazing look at its history of course). And an obvious nomination here will be David Fincher for Best Director. But, for me, this falls into a similar bucket as that other black and white multi-Oscar winner of two year's ago "Roma". It's glorious to look at; brilliantly directed; but not a movie I would choose to readily reach for to repeatedly watch again.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/12/10/mank-divines-for-oscar-gold-in-a-sea-of-pyrites/. Thanks.)
Hazel (1853 KP) rated Blood, Ink & Fire in Books
Dec 14, 2018
<i>This eBook was provided by the publisher via NetGalley in exchange for an honest review </i>
Imagine a world without books… In this dystopian novel by Ashley Mansour, that is exactly what the world is like. <i>Blood, Ink & Fire</i> is set in the future where not only are books non-existent, it is illegal to know how to read. Noelle Hartley has grown up in the United Vales of Fell, where a computer controls what she hears, sees and feels by showing her a constant stream of artificial images. But, Noelle knows she is different. Unlike her parents she is able to question the meanings of the pictures, and when a rebellious group hacks into the system, forcing words onto their screens, Noelle is able to read them.
With the help of her blind friend, John, Noelle and her grandfather escape from this controlling society and find people living on the outside who are against what Fell is doing to humanity. Noelle learns facts about her grandfather’s past that she could never have imagined as well as discovering secrets about herself. Noelle is a reader and is told by members of the past generations that it is not true that all the books were destroyed. There are nine volumes hidden in various locations, which when brought together will become the key to unlock the knowledge that has been banned for so long. It is Noelle’s job to find them.
It is scary how plausible this post-literacy world is. Mansour includes three quotes before the beginning of the novel from the years 1987, 2008 and 2014 that put forward fears that books and our ability to read is becoming less important with the advancement of the internet. Humanity is becoming less intelligent and more controlled by what they see on their computers. Brains do not need to think as much as the answers are all online. Even whilst reading the narrative, there are aspects that are frighteningly familiar. The idea of a continuous stream of images is similar to current social medias such as Tumblr and Pinterest, where users feel compelled to scroll through the entire feed to view all of the latest posts.
There is however a part of this novel that is entirely fiction and would be impossible to ever occur. One of the characters is a bit of an enigma, a piece of the past inhabiting a human body. Literacy personified. This causes the storyline to be less credible, thus readers will view this as a piece of fiction (which it is) and be less likely to take the warning about the Internet changing people’s brains to heart.
<i>Blood, Ink & Fire</i> is a really fascinating story that is exciting from start to finish. It is full of clever ideas, making it unique from other books in this genre. It is also evident that Mansour undertook a vast amount of research, particularly of Shakespeare’s plays, as there was a reference to the playwright and his work in nearly every chapter, from character names to plots. Those familiar with Shakespeare will benefit from these allusions as they make the narrative flow effectively from beginning to end. It is, however, possible to read and enjoy without any prior knowledge of Shakespeare – you may even learn something new from reading this book.
I highly recommend <i>Blood, Ink & Fire</i> to book lovers and dystopian fiction fans. It feels similar in style to <i>The Darkest Minds</i> trilogy by Alexander Bracken, and with series such as <i>The Hunger Games</i> and <i>Divergent</i> being brought to the big screen, this new young adult book is bound to be popular. This was Ashley Mansour’s debut novel and I am keen to discover what she will write next.
Imagine a world without books… In this dystopian novel by Ashley Mansour, that is exactly what the world is like. <i>Blood, Ink & Fire</i> is set in the future where not only are books non-existent, it is illegal to know how to read. Noelle Hartley has grown up in the United Vales of Fell, where a computer controls what she hears, sees and feels by showing her a constant stream of artificial images. But, Noelle knows she is different. Unlike her parents she is able to question the meanings of the pictures, and when a rebellious group hacks into the system, forcing words onto their screens, Noelle is able to read them.
With the help of her blind friend, John, Noelle and her grandfather escape from this controlling society and find people living on the outside who are against what Fell is doing to humanity. Noelle learns facts about her grandfather’s past that she could never have imagined as well as discovering secrets about herself. Noelle is a reader and is told by members of the past generations that it is not true that all the books were destroyed. There are nine volumes hidden in various locations, which when brought together will become the key to unlock the knowledge that has been banned for so long. It is Noelle’s job to find them.
It is scary how plausible this post-literacy world is. Mansour includes three quotes before the beginning of the novel from the years 1987, 2008 and 2014 that put forward fears that books and our ability to read is becoming less important with the advancement of the internet. Humanity is becoming less intelligent and more controlled by what they see on their computers. Brains do not need to think as much as the answers are all online. Even whilst reading the narrative, there are aspects that are frighteningly familiar. The idea of a continuous stream of images is similar to current social medias such as Tumblr and Pinterest, where users feel compelled to scroll through the entire feed to view all of the latest posts.
There is however a part of this novel that is entirely fiction and would be impossible to ever occur. One of the characters is a bit of an enigma, a piece of the past inhabiting a human body. Literacy personified. This causes the storyline to be less credible, thus readers will view this as a piece of fiction (which it is) and be less likely to take the warning about the Internet changing people’s brains to heart.
<i>Blood, Ink & Fire</i> is a really fascinating story that is exciting from start to finish. It is full of clever ideas, making it unique from other books in this genre. It is also evident that Mansour undertook a vast amount of research, particularly of Shakespeare’s plays, as there was a reference to the playwright and his work in nearly every chapter, from character names to plots. Those familiar with Shakespeare will benefit from these allusions as they make the narrative flow effectively from beginning to end. It is, however, possible to read and enjoy without any prior knowledge of Shakespeare – you may even learn something new from reading this book.
I highly recommend <i>Blood, Ink & Fire</i> to book lovers and dystopian fiction fans. It feels similar in style to <i>The Darkest Minds</i> trilogy by Alexander Bracken, and with series such as <i>The Hunger Games</i> and <i>Divergent</i> being brought to the big screen, this new young adult book is bound to be popular. This was Ashley Mansour’s debut novel and I am keen to discover what she will write next.
