Search
Search results
John Irving recommended Fifth Business in Books (curated)
Sean Lennon recommended Live Evil by Miles Davis in Music (curated)
Harrison Boyer (6 KP) rated Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981) in Movies
Jun 1, 2020
Action Serials in the 1980s? Yes Please
Released in the summer of 1981 and the idea of George Lucas after American Graffiti and the film he'd pursue with Steven Spielberg after the hit known as Star Wars, Raiders of the Lost Ark is a film that plays upon the cliches and tricks of the classic action serials of the 40s and 50s that both men grew up on. Starring Harrison Ford, Karen Allen, John Rhys Davies, Paul Freeman and became the highest grossing film of 1981. Lucas and Spielberg also wanted this to be shit quick and really dirty like the action serials of the past. What we get is an adventure that has not only been regarded as one of the best action films ever made, but for some, one of the greatest movies ever made. And it truly is a tour de force. Visuals amazing. Acting is great
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated FIRESTARTER (2022) in Movies
May 25, 2022
I have a soft spot for the original Firestarter. It's not perfect by any means but it possesses a certain brand of charm. This new version from Blumhouse sucks all of that charm out and then some. The annoying thing is, it's not the worst thing I've ever sat through, but I genuinely don't think I've ever been so fucking bored watching a movie in my life. Every fibre of the finished product is just bland and forgettable, to the point that I had mostly purged it from my mind with minimal effort by the time I got home from the cinema. Kudos to Ryan Kiera Armstrong for doing the best she can with what she was given, and the soundtrack from John and Cody Carpenter, and Daniel A. Davies goes pretty hard, but it's not enough to save this flaming pile of miserable wank.
Anand Wilder recommended Muswell Hillbillies by The Kinks in Music (curated)
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade (1989) in Movies
Jan 28, 2021
Returning to a much more balanced tone that the overly "cooky" Temple of Doom, the third Indiana Jones adventure gives Raiders of the Lost Ark some serious competition for best entry in the franchise (Raiders just about beats it for me based on the ratio of melting nazi face content).
The Last Crusade is a hugely entertaining movie from start to finish. It has a fantastic cast from the ever reliable Harrison Ford in the title role, to the convincingly menacing antagonist played by Julian Glover. Of course, Sean Connery is here for the ride this time around, as Indy's old man. The dynamic between Connery and Ford is great, and every scene with the two of them is cinema gold. Alison Doody makes for a welcome change with this films female protagonist (sort of), her character finally bucking the trend of typical love interest and having some depth, and a hell of a mean streak. Its nice to see John Rhys-Davies return from his ToD absence, and River Phoenix makes for an extremely memorable young Indiana in the movies opening flashback scene - on the subject of that scene, the transition from young Indy to Harrison Ford Indy is epic, thanks in part to another wonderful John Williams score, and is one of my highlights of the entire franchise!
The pacing is spot on - the over-two-hour runtime never once feels like a slog. The constant action is some of Spielberg's best work, and is suitably high octane. Everything in between boasts an engaging screenplay that develops all of the characters nicely, and the comedy elements are well done and sporadically placed, making the sillier moments genuinely funny (even the ridiculous Hitler scene)
All in all, The Last Crusade is a wonderful conclusion to the original trilogy, and is a genuinely fantastic adventure movie that stands toe to toe with the first film in its quality.
The Last Crusade is a hugely entertaining movie from start to finish. It has a fantastic cast from the ever reliable Harrison Ford in the title role, to the convincingly menacing antagonist played by Julian Glover. Of course, Sean Connery is here for the ride this time around, as Indy's old man. The dynamic between Connery and Ford is great, and every scene with the two of them is cinema gold. Alison Doody makes for a welcome change with this films female protagonist (sort of), her character finally bucking the trend of typical love interest and having some depth, and a hell of a mean streak. Its nice to see John Rhys-Davies return from his ToD absence, and River Phoenix makes for an extremely memorable young Indiana in the movies opening flashback scene - on the subject of that scene, the transition from young Indy to Harrison Ford Indy is epic, thanks in part to another wonderful John Williams score, and is one of my highlights of the entire franchise!
The pacing is spot on - the over-two-hour runtime never once feels like a slog. The constant action is some of Spielberg's best work, and is suitably high octane. Everything in between boasts an engaging screenplay that develops all of the characters nicely, and the comedy elements are well done and sporadically placed, making the sillier moments genuinely funny (even the ridiculous Hitler scene)
All in all, The Last Crusade is a wonderful conclusion to the original trilogy, and is a genuinely fantastic adventure movie that stands toe to toe with the first film in its quality.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Indiana jones and the dial of destiny (2023) in Movies
Jul 9, 2023
Needed A Spark
Have you ever gone to a live stage play/musical on a Friday or Saturday evening and you can just feel the crackle of excitement and energy in the air and the performers on stage seem to catch that surge of energy and their performances are turned up a notch because of it?
And then, you return to that same theater - for the same show - for a Wednesday matinee and things are just flat. Same show, same performers, same entertainment, but that “spark” just isn’t there?
Such is the case of INDIANA JONES AND THE DIAL OF DESTINY - the Wednesday Matinee performance of an Indiana Jones adventures.
This James Mangold (FORD v FERRARI) Directed Indiana Jones adventure hits all the right notes - chase scenes, fights on a moving train, treasure hunt/quest for an ancient artifact, Indy getting into (and out of) trouble, etc…but Dial of Destiny never quite elevated itself above the norm.
80 year old Harrison Ford (and some stunt doubles and a boatload of de-aging software) is back, of course, as Indiana Jones and it is like pulling on an old, tattered sweatshirt - very comfortable and comforting. He is aided (in a cameo) by John Rhys-Davies’ Sallah (good to see him in an Indy movie again) and by rock solid additions of Antonio Banderas (ZORRO) and good ol’ Toby Jones (INFAMOUS) as colleagues and fellow adventurers as well as an above-average turn by Phoebe Waller-Bridge (TV’s FLEABAG).
These folks fight Nazis (naturally) and a bad guy played by Mads Mikkelsen (ROGUE ONE: A STAR WARS STORY) in an adventure that was “just fine” but “nothing special”, all set to a score by 90 year old John Williams(!). Oh, and don’t forget the welcome appearance of Karen Allen as Marion Ravenswood in what was one of the highlight scenes of the film.
Unfortunately, Mangold never elevates these characters, the chases, the escapes, the call backs to earlier Indiana Jones films above a pleasant warmth of memory, recalling all the good times/grand adventures that Indy has taken the audience on throughout the years. This film needed someone/some THING to help elevate it above the norm.
It needed Steven Spielberg to Direct.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
And then, you return to that same theater - for the same show - for a Wednesday matinee and things are just flat. Same show, same performers, same entertainment, but that “spark” just isn’t there?
Such is the case of INDIANA JONES AND THE DIAL OF DESTINY - the Wednesday Matinee performance of an Indiana Jones adventures.
This James Mangold (FORD v FERRARI) Directed Indiana Jones adventure hits all the right notes - chase scenes, fights on a moving train, treasure hunt/quest for an ancient artifact, Indy getting into (and out of) trouble, etc…but Dial of Destiny never quite elevated itself above the norm.
80 year old Harrison Ford (and some stunt doubles and a boatload of de-aging software) is back, of course, as Indiana Jones and it is like pulling on an old, tattered sweatshirt - very comfortable and comforting. He is aided (in a cameo) by John Rhys-Davies’ Sallah (good to see him in an Indy movie again) and by rock solid additions of Antonio Banderas (ZORRO) and good ol’ Toby Jones (INFAMOUS) as colleagues and fellow adventurers as well as an above-average turn by Phoebe Waller-Bridge (TV’s FLEABAG).
These folks fight Nazis (naturally) and a bad guy played by Mads Mikkelsen (ROGUE ONE: A STAR WARS STORY) in an adventure that was “just fine” but “nothing special”, all set to a score by 90 year old John Williams(!). Oh, and don’t forget the welcome appearance of Karen Allen as Marion Ravenswood in what was one of the highlight scenes of the film.
Unfortunately, Mangold never elevates these characters, the chases, the escapes, the call backs to earlier Indiana Jones films above a pleasant warmth of memory, recalling all the good times/grand adventures that Indy has taken the audience on throughout the years. This film needed someone/some THING to help elevate it above the norm.
It needed Steven Spielberg to Direct.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated Bad Teacher (2011) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
Recently jilted by the sugar daddy of her dreams apathetic schoolteacher Elizabeth Halsey (Cameron Diaz) must return to her day job. Just as Elizabeth has settled in to her listless career reality, a single and wealthy substitute teacher (Scott Delacorte played by Justin Timberlake) appears. Elizabeth must now prove that she is the best teacher in the school to win Delecorte’s attention and wallet. However her nemesis the overachieving and oddly bubbly educator, Amy Squirrel (Lucy Punch) also has eyes for the new faculty member.
Rounding out the eccentric cast of characters is the shy teacher Lynn Davies (Phyllis Smith), the lazy yet funny gym teacher Russell Gettis (Jason Segel), and the dolphin obsessed principal Wally Snur (John Michael Higgins). Further supporting the leads are a number of up and coming child-actors such as Kaitlyn Dever who plays know-it-all student Shasha Abernathy to crush obsessed sad sack Garrett Tiara (Matthew J. Evans).
Despite the strong cast, “Bad Teacher” will likely become associated with Cameron Diaz who uses her intense and direct comedic strength to shine in the nefarious role. Portrayed by Diaz, the character of Elizabeth comes across as wickedly manipulative yet manages to remain likeable.
But, “Bad Teacher” will not have you gasping for air between fits of laughter. The film has slow moments and a number of letdowns. Among the worst is the lackluster comical styling of Justin Timberlake as Scott Delacorte. While the role is critical to the film’s plot, the character is underdeveloped. Moreover Justin Timberlake does nothing for the part which is an unwelcome shock to audiences who associate his name with some of the funniest moments in recent “Saturday Night Live” history as well as his impressive performance in “The Social Network”.
Brimming with vulgar language and shockingly bold comedic scene choices “Bad Teacher” will surely offend bashful audiences. Still, the film is funnier than “There’s Something About Mary” and the recently disappointing “The Hangover: Part II”.
It is not a slam-dunk but “Bad Teacher” will give audiences some unexpected summer laughs, if they are prepared for the onslaught of vulgarity that this film hinges upon.
Rounding out the eccentric cast of characters is the shy teacher Lynn Davies (Phyllis Smith), the lazy yet funny gym teacher Russell Gettis (Jason Segel), and the dolphin obsessed principal Wally Snur (John Michael Higgins). Further supporting the leads are a number of up and coming child-actors such as Kaitlyn Dever who plays know-it-all student Shasha Abernathy to crush obsessed sad sack Garrett Tiara (Matthew J. Evans).
Despite the strong cast, “Bad Teacher” will likely become associated with Cameron Diaz who uses her intense and direct comedic strength to shine in the nefarious role. Portrayed by Diaz, the character of Elizabeth comes across as wickedly manipulative yet manages to remain likeable.
But, “Bad Teacher” will not have you gasping for air between fits of laughter. The film has slow moments and a number of letdowns. Among the worst is the lackluster comical styling of Justin Timberlake as Scott Delacorte. While the role is critical to the film’s plot, the character is underdeveloped. Moreover Justin Timberlake does nothing for the part which is an unwelcome shock to audiences who associate his name with some of the funniest moments in recent “Saturday Night Live” history as well as his impressive performance in “The Social Network”.
Brimming with vulgar language and shockingly bold comedic scene choices “Bad Teacher” will surely offend bashful audiences. Still, the film is funnier than “There’s Something About Mary” and the recently disappointing “The Hangover: Part II”.
It is not a slam-dunk but “Bad Teacher” will give audiences some unexpected summer laughs, if they are prepared for the onslaught of vulgarity that this film hinges upon.
Janeeny (200 KP) rated How to Be Famous in Books
Jul 8, 2019
I’ve been ‘aware’ of Caitlin Moran’s work for a number of years. I think she first came to my attention in 2011. I worked in a bookshop and Morans book ‘How to be a Woman’ was in the charts. The cover art just seemed to exude a quirky confidence and it went straight into my ‘theoretical’ TBR pile.
As you can imagine, a booksellers TBR pile is a challenging Behemoth, so when ‘Raised by Wolves’ (a sitcom written by Caitlin Moran and her sister Caroline) came on the telly in 2013 I still hadn’t read ‘How to be a Woman’.
Happily, ‘Raised by Wolves’ was hilarious, putting Caitlin Moran well and truly on my radar as someone who had a lot of interesting and humorous opinions that I would really need to read about some day.
(On a little side note Alexa davies who plays Aretha in this is hilarious and worth keeping an eye on.)
Cut to 2019 Caitlin Moran has released 4 more books and I haven’t read a single one of them! So when NETgalley offered me a copy of ‘How to be famous’ in exchange for an honest review I had to say yes, as despite the fact that I actually own a copy of ‘How to be a girl’ I still haven’t read it, so I figured, if I have a deadline for a review that is going to spur me on to actually read this one!
It worked, I read it, and it was everything I thought it would be.
It had some definite laugh out loud moments, Morans humorous writing style comes through triumphantly.
So, the blurb . . .
“Johanna Morrigan (AKA Dolly Wilde) has it all: at eighteen, she lives in her own flat in London and writes for the coolest music magazine in Britain. But Johanna is miserable. Her best friend and man of her dreams John Kite has just made it big in 1994’s hot new BritPop scene. Suddenly John exists on another plane of reality: that of the Famouses.
Never one to sit on the sidelines, Johanna hatches a plan: she will Saint Paul his Corinthians, she will Jimmy his Pinocchio—she will write a monthly column, by way of a manual to the famous, analyzing fame, its power, its dangers, and its amusing aspects. In stories, girls never win the girl—they are won. Well, Johanna will re-write the stories, and win John, through her writing.
But as Johanna’s own star rises, an unpleasant one-night stand she had with a stand-up comedian, Jerry Sharp, comes back to haunt in her in a series of unfortunate consequences. How can a girl deal with public sexual shaming? Especially when her new friend, the up-and-coming feminist rock icon Suzanne Banks, is Jimmy Cricketing her?”
First off, despite the fact that this is the second book in a series, you don’t lose anything of the story by not having read the first one. If anything it makes you want to read the first one even more, as you want to know how Dolly got to where she is and the adventures she’s had on the way.
Secondly, the characters were just brilliant not a two-dimensional one among them, the dialogue just flows beautifully, and you’ll end the book wishing you were friends with them.
Thirdly, in my inexpert opinion its really well written, the story flows effortlessly and you are just grabbed by the collar and dragged along on this adventure.
I quite literally cannot find the words to say how much I admire Morans writing style, as I said before, this is so well written and the characters are so relatable. It’s full of many laugh out loud moments and some very frank and hilarious conversations about sex, and amongst the humour are actually some quite serious issues, like the clear displays of the inequality of women within the music industry (even though this was set in the 90s, I’m sure much of it is still true today)
And coming from somebody who never seems to get symbolism or messages from books, I took away a LOT from this one
One of my favourite moments was a letter that Dolly writes to her musician friend (Johnny) who is troubled by accusations of ‘selling out’
It basically addresses the scorn heaped on bands, with a predominantly teenage female following, by ‘Elitist’ fans and the music industry. She asks Johnny to appreciate his ‘screaming’ girls fans, as just because they’re louder, more emotional, younger, and haven’t been part of the fanbase since day one, doesn’t mean they don’t appreciate the music any less or feel any less. Yes, they are the ones putting money in your bank account, putting you in the charts, but just because they are part of the mass market doesn’t make their feelings any less valid.
Seeing as I’ve been both a ‘screaming girl fan’ and an ‘Elitist Fan’ I understand and appreciate what’s being said here.
There is so much to love bout this book, the strong female characters, the humour, the feminist message, and underneath it all a good old fashioned love story
As you can imagine, a booksellers TBR pile is a challenging Behemoth, so when ‘Raised by Wolves’ (a sitcom written by Caitlin Moran and her sister Caroline) came on the telly in 2013 I still hadn’t read ‘How to be a Woman’.
Happily, ‘Raised by Wolves’ was hilarious, putting Caitlin Moran well and truly on my radar as someone who had a lot of interesting and humorous opinions that I would really need to read about some day.
(On a little side note Alexa davies who plays Aretha in this is hilarious and worth keeping an eye on.)
Cut to 2019 Caitlin Moran has released 4 more books and I haven’t read a single one of them! So when NETgalley offered me a copy of ‘How to be famous’ in exchange for an honest review I had to say yes, as despite the fact that I actually own a copy of ‘How to be a girl’ I still haven’t read it, so I figured, if I have a deadline for a review that is going to spur me on to actually read this one!
It worked, I read it, and it was everything I thought it would be.
It had some definite laugh out loud moments, Morans humorous writing style comes through triumphantly.
So, the blurb . . .
“Johanna Morrigan (AKA Dolly Wilde) has it all: at eighteen, she lives in her own flat in London and writes for the coolest music magazine in Britain. But Johanna is miserable. Her best friend and man of her dreams John Kite has just made it big in 1994’s hot new BritPop scene. Suddenly John exists on another plane of reality: that of the Famouses.
Never one to sit on the sidelines, Johanna hatches a plan: she will Saint Paul his Corinthians, she will Jimmy his Pinocchio—she will write a monthly column, by way of a manual to the famous, analyzing fame, its power, its dangers, and its amusing aspects. In stories, girls never win the girl—they are won. Well, Johanna will re-write the stories, and win John, through her writing.
But as Johanna’s own star rises, an unpleasant one-night stand she had with a stand-up comedian, Jerry Sharp, comes back to haunt in her in a series of unfortunate consequences. How can a girl deal with public sexual shaming? Especially when her new friend, the up-and-coming feminist rock icon Suzanne Banks, is Jimmy Cricketing her?”
First off, despite the fact that this is the second book in a series, you don’t lose anything of the story by not having read the first one. If anything it makes you want to read the first one even more, as you want to know how Dolly got to where she is and the adventures she’s had on the way.
Secondly, the characters were just brilliant not a two-dimensional one among them, the dialogue just flows beautifully, and you’ll end the book wishing you were friends with them.
Thirdly, in my inexpert opinion its really well written, the story flows effortlessly and you are just grabbed by the collar and dragged along on this adventure.
I quite literally cannot find the words to say how much I admire Morans writing style, as I said before, this is so well written and the characters are so relatable. It’s full of many laugh out loud moments and some very frank and hilarious conversations about sex, and amongst the humour are actually some quite serious issues, like the clear displays of the inequality of women within the music industry (even though this was set in the 90s, I’m sure much of it is still true today)
And coming from somebody who never seems to get symbolism or messages from books, I took away a LOT from this one
One of my favourite moments was a letter that Dolly writes to her musician friend (Johnny) who is troubled by accusations of ‘selling out’
It basically addresses the scorn heaped on bands, with a predominantly teenage female following, by ‘Elitist’ fans and the music industry. She asks Johnny to appreciate his ‘screaming’ girls fans, as just because they’re louder, more emotional, younger, and haven’t been part of the fanbase since day one, doesn’t mean they don’t appreciate the music any less or feel any less. Yes, they are the ones putting money in your bank account, putting you in the charts, but just because they are part of the mass market doesn’t make their feelings any less valid.
Seeing as I’ve been both a ‘screaming girl fan’ and an ‘Elitist Fan’ I understand and appreciate what’s being said here.
There is so much to love bout this book, the strong female characters, the humour, the feminist message, and underneath it all a good old fashioned love story
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.)
