Search
Search results
Kim Newman recommended Seconds (1966) in Movies (curated)
Sarah (7798 KP) rated Bombshell (2019) in Movies
Sep 12, 2020
Powerful viewing
I'd really wanted to see this at the cinema but sadly never got round to it as it had such a limited run at my local, and to be honest seeing it now I'm a little frustrated I never got the chance.
This is a powerful film in more than one way - powerful story, powering acting and powerful in it's way of highlighting a very real problem. The acting is tremendous by everyone involved, even those with smaller bit parts like Kate McKinnon, Alison Janney etc, they all shone with whatever they had to work with. The three leads, Theron and Robbie especially, were brilliant. I'll admit it took me a while to get used to Theron's prosthetics and voice, and to be frank whilst I rate Nicole Kidman as an actress, her botox and far too smooth skin with an inability to emote really lets her down. And then there's John Lithgow too, he's faultless and nails that slimy yet charming and likeable character that Ailes is portrayed as being.
The main thing that let this down was the beginning. The direct address to camera/breaking 4th wall might have worked in The Big Short for writer Charles Randolph, it really didn't work here. It was no doubt meant to lighten the mood and provide some comic relief as it did in TBS, but here it just felt inappropriate. This is a serious issue and a serious story, and shouldn't be made light of.
Once it gets over this initial blip, this film really gets going. I was gripped by this fascinating story that I didnt know a huge amount about and this was helped by the decent pace and under 2 hour runtime - have filmmakers finally realised a film doesn't have to be over 2 hours to be good?!
Whilst 'enjoyed' isn't probably the right word considering the subject matter, this is a fantastic and powerful film. I found it gave me a massive sense of empowerment and if it hadn't have been for the initial blip in storytelling device, I wouldve rated this higher.
This is a powerful film in more than one way - powerful story, powering acting and powerful in it's way of highlighting a very real problem. The acting is tremendous by everyone involved, even those with smaller bit parts like Kate McKinnon, Alison Janney etc, they all shone with whatever they had to work with. The three leads, Theron and Robbie especially, were brilliant. I'll admit it took me a while to get used to Theron's prosthetics and voice, and to be frank whilst I rate Nicole Kidman as an actress, her botox and far too smooth skin with an inability to emote really lets her down. And then there's John Lithgow too, he's faultless and nails that slimy yet charming and likeable character that Ailes is portrayed as being.
The main thing that let this down was the beginning. The direct address to camera/breaking 4th wall might have worked in The Big Short for writer Charles Randolph, it really didn't work here. It was no doubt meant to lighten the mood and provide some comic relief as it did in TBS, but here it just felt inappropriate. This is a serious issue and a serious story, and shouldn't be made light of.
Once it gets over this initial blip, this film really gets going. I was gripped by this fascinating story that I didnt know a huge amount about and this was helped by the decent pace and under 2 hour runtime - have filmmakers finally realised a film doesn't have to be over 2 hours to be good?!
Whilst 'enjoyed' isn't probably the right word considering the subject matter, this is a fantastic and powerful film. I found it gave me a massive sense of empowerment and if it hadn't have been for the initial blip in storytelling device, I wouldve rated this higher.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Bombshell (2019) in Movies
Jan 26, 2020
Power-house female lead roles, times 3. (1 more)
John Lithgow (who should have got a supporting actor nom)
Sleazy old Fox.
This is a curious one. I wonder whether the audience reaction to this one will polarize along gender lines as it did for my wife and I? For I thought this one was "good, but nothing special"... but the illustrious Mrs Movie Man thought it was excellent and would be "memorable".
The movie is based on the true story of the first "Me Too" case against a prominent man in power. Before Harvey Weinstein (allegedly!) there was Roger Ailes (John Lithgow), CEO of the Fox Network. Under the shadowy gaze of the Murdoch brothers (Ben Lawson and Josh Lawson), Ailes rules Fox with a rod of iron. Unfortunately, it's Ailes' - ahem - 'rod of iron' that is part of the problem.
Three women are at the centre of the drama. Megyn Kelly (Charlize Theron) is a leading anchorwoman, fighting her own battles in a man's world. She is currently in trouble with 50% of the US population for taking a firm stand on-screen against Trump's treatment of women; Gretchen Carlson (Nicole Kidman) is a broadcaster approaching her 50's and being shunted progressively towards the door, via afternoon shows, in favour of 'younger models'; Kayla Pospisil (Margot Robbie) is a keen new-starter, ambitious and keen as mustard to impress her bosses, including Ailes.
The three women seldom interact (a scene in a lift is a study in awkwardness) but are all on different stages of the same journey.
I clearly saw a review which referenced the movie as being "Adam McKay-like" since I went in assuming that McKay ("Vice", "The Big Short") was the director of this one. For that reason, I was puzzled. Yes, there were occasions where the actors broke the 4th wall; and there were little visual tricks (a burned in Fox logo for example) that entertained. But it wasn't the close-to-the-edge roller-coaster of innovation that I have come to expect from a McKay film.
When the titles rolled, it was an "Aha" moment! Actually, the director is the Austin Powers director Jay Roach. Not that he hasn't done drama as well: he did the Bryan Cranston vehicle "Trumbo" a few years back. And another MacKay link is the writer: the screenplay is by Charles Randolph, the writer of "The Big Short".
The leading ladies in this really are leading, with Charlize Theron picking up a well-deserved Best Actress Oscar nomination and Margot Robbie getting the Best Supporting nom. Theron is brilliant in everything she does, and here she is chameleon-like in disappearing into her character. I wasn't as sure about Robbie early in the film, but an excruciating "twirl" for Ailes is brilliantly done and an emotional scene during a date is Oscar-reel worthy.
Great supporting turns come from "The West Wing's" Allison Janney and from Kate McKinnon. McKinnon was the most annoying thing in "Yesterday", as the brash US agent, but here she is effective as the lesbian friend of Kayla.
Holding up the male end (as it were) is a fantastic performance from John Lithgow (surprisingly overlooked during the awards season) and Malcolm McDowell delivering an uncanny Rupert Murdoch.
Overall, the "Me Too" movement has created an earthquake in popular culture. Many more movies featuring strong female leads have appeared in the last few years, and that's great. This is a reminder of the time before that, when men openly used their power to force unwanted sex on employees. And its horrifying and disconcerting to watch.
And it was a good movie. But it just wasn't a "wow" movie for me. A female audience will by definition have more experience of this than a male one. Perhaps there is a sense of 'collective guilt' that we blokes need to work through. And perhaps that's a subconscious reason why I didn't 100% engage with the film. (Though I'd like to make it perfectly clear that I don't have any skeletons in that particular closet!)
(For the graphical review, please check out the review on One Mann's Movies here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/01/24/one-manns-movies-film-review-bombshell-2020/).
The movie is based on the true story of the first "Me Too" case against a prominent man in power. Before Harvey Weinstein (allegedly!) there was Roger Ailes (John Lithgow), CEO of the Fox Network. Under the shadowy gaze of the Murdoch brothers (Ben Lawson and Josh Lawson), Ailes rules Fox with a rod of iron. Unfortunately, it's Ailes' - ahem - 'rod of iron' that is part of the problem.
Three women are at the centre of the drama. Megyn Kelly (Charlize Theron) is a leading anchorwoman, fighting her own battles in a man's world. She is currently in trouble with 50% of the US population for taking a firm stand on-screen against Trump's treatment of women; Gretchen Carlson (Nicole Kidman) is a broadcaster approaching her 50's and being shunted progressively towards the door, via afternoon shows, in favour of 'younger models'; Kayla Pospisil (Margot Robbie) is a keen new-starter, ambitious and keen as mustard to impress her bosses, including Ailes.
The three women seldom interact (a scene in a lift is a study in awkwardness) but are all on different stages of the same journey.
I clearly saw a review which referenced the movie as being "Adam McKay-like" since I went in assuming that McKay ("Vice", "The Big Short") was the director of this one. For that reason, I was puzzled. Yes, there were occasions where the actors broke the 4th wall; and there were little visual tricks (a burned in Fox logo for example) that entertained. But it wasn't the close-to-the-edge roller-coaster of innovation that I have come to expect from a McKay film.
When the titles rolled, it was an "Aha" moment! Actually, the director is the Austin Powers director Jay Roach. Not that he hasn't done drama as well: he did the Bryan Cranston vehicle "Trumbo" a few years back. And another MacKay link is the writer: the screenplay is by Charles Randolph, the writer of "The Big Short".
The leading ladies in this really are leading, with Charlize Theron picking up a well-deserved Best Actress Oscar nomination and Margot Robbie getting the Best Supporting nom. Theron is brilliant in everything she does, and here she is chameleon-like in disappearing into her character. I wasn't as sure about Robbie early in the film, but an excruciating "twirl" for Ailes is brilliantly done and an emotional scene during a date is Oscar-reel worthy.
Great supporting turns come from "The West Wing's" Allison Janney and from Kate McKinnon. McKinnon was the most annoying thing in "Yesterday", as the brash US agent, but here she is effective as the lesbian friend of Kayla.
Holding up the male end (as it were) is a fantastic performance from John Lithgow (surprisingly overlooked during the awards season) and Malcolm McDowell delivering an uncanny Rupert Murdoch.
Overall, the "Me Too" movement has created an earthquake in popular culture. Many more movies featuring strong female leads have appeared in the last few years, and that's great. This is a reminder of the time before that, when men openly used their power to force unwanted sex on employees. And its horrifying and disconcerting to watch.
And it was a good movie. But it just wasn't a "wow" movie for me. A female audience will by definition have more experience of this than a male one. Perhaps there is a sense of 'collective guilt' that we blokes need to work through. And perhaps that's a subconscious reason why I didn't 100% engage with the film. (Though I'd like to make it perfectly clear that I don't have any skeletons in that particular closet!)
(For the graphical review, please check out the review on One Mann's Movies here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/01/24/one-manns-movies-film-review-bombshell-2020/).
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Bombshell (2019) in Movies
Jan 31, 2020
Well acted - and important - film
The new Jay Roach film, BOMBSHELL - the Fox News sex scandal film - focuses on the struggles of 3 female protagonists - Gretchen Carlson (Nicole Kidman), Megyn Kelly (Charlize Theron) and Kayla Pospisil (Margot Robbie) - as they attempt to climb (or stay at the top of) the Corporate Ladder while battling sexism and a toxic work culture at Fox News. It is a powerful story that is a necessary tale in the "#MeToo" era that demands viewers to stand up and take notice.
And with powerhouse actresses leading this film - standing up and taking notice is an easy thing to do.
Based on factual events, BOMBSHELL portrays the sexism that female on air personalities encounter at FoxNews - a place filled with "good ol' boys" who patronize and sexualize the females in the office to the detriment of the females and the benefit and gratification of the males. Surprisingly, they are joined in this by some other females in the office who figure "better them than me". At the top of the office - and the toxic work culture - is Roger Ailes (an almost unrecognizable John Lithgow) who is hailed by Fox as the man who can create the news - and profits.
Kidman, Theron and Robbie are well cast in their roles, showing nuance, concern and strength as these negative conditions rear their ugly heads over and over again. All 3 produce powerhouse performances - certainly up there amongst the best of their careers - and Theron and Robbie are well deserved Oscar nominees for their performances. Kidman was NOT nominated for her performance, but she is just as deserving as the other two.
But, for me, the real surprise - and the best performance - of this film belongs to Lithgow's portrayal of Ailes. His characterization shows a real wolf, taking advantage of his status and position, to prey upon those in his office. It is a sly, evil performance of a sly, evil man. What impressed me the most is that this performance - and this character - could have easily gone "over the top" into "pure villain" territory and Lithgow resists this temptation - to the betterment of this film, but to the detriment of his Oscar chances.
As written by Charles Randolph (THE BIG SHORT) this film has a pacing/theming issue for the first 1/2 hour of this film. Is it a serious film? Is it sarcastic look at toxic masculinity work culture? Is it an indictment on our current society as a whole? Randolph's script uses some of the same tactics as THE BIG SHORT, having performers breaking the 4th wall and commenting and narrating the events while looking directly at the camera. While this tactic worked very well in THE BIG SHORT (if you haven't seen this film, I highly recommend you do), it works less well here and Director Jay Roach (TRUMBO) wisely drops that "gimmick" after the first 1/2 hour.
This film is filled with wonderful character actors making extended (and powerful) cameos. The likes of Kate McKinnon, Allyson Janney, Holland Taylor, Connie Britton, Stephen Root, Malcolm McDowell, Robin Weigert, Mark Duplass, Richard Kind, Mark Moses and Tricia Helfer all contribute greatly to the film while shining in the little screen time they have.
A necessary - and powerful - film filled with tremendous performances that shine a light on a problem that is pervasive today. Which makes this film a must watch - as difficult as it is to watch at times.
Letter Grade: A- (the first 1/2 hour brings it down a point)
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(OfMarquis)
And with powerhouse actresses leading this film - standing up and taking notice is an easy thing to do.
Based on factual events, BOMBSHELL portrays the sexism that female on air personalities encounter at FoxNews - a place filled with "good ol' boys" who patronize and sexualize the females in the office to the detriment of the females and the benefit and gratification of the males. Surprisingly, they are joined in this by some other females in the office who figure "better them than me". At the top of the office - and the toxic work culture - is Roger Ailes (an almost unrecognizable John Lithgow) who is hailed by Fox as the man who can create the news - and profits.
Kidman, Theron and Robbie are well cast in their roles, showing nuance, concern and strength as these negative conditions rear their ugly heads over and over again. All 3 produce powerhouse performances - certainly up there amongst the best of their careers - and Theron and Robbie are well deserved Oscar nominees for their performances. Kidman was NOT nominated for her performance, but she is just as deserving as the other two.
But, for me, the real surprise - and the best performance - of this film belongs to Lithgow's portrayal of Ailes. His characterization shows a real wolf, taking advantage of his status and position, to prey upon those in his office. It is a sly, evil performance of a sly, evil man. What impressed me the most is that this performance - and this character - could have easily gone "over the top" into "pure villain" territory and Lithgow resists this temptation - to the betterment of this film, but to the detriment of his Oscar chances.
As written by Charles Randolph (THE BIG SHORT) this film has a pacing/theming issue for the first 1/2 hour of this film. Is it a serious film? Is it sarcastic look at toxic masculinity work culture? Is it an indictment on our current society as a whole? Randolph's script uses some of the same tactics as THE BIG SHORT, having performers breaking the 4th wall and commenting and narrating the events while looking directly at the camera. While this tactic worked very well in THE BIG SHORT (if you haven't seen this film, I highly recommend you do), it works less well here and Director Jay Roach (TRUMBO) wisely drops that "gimmick" after the first 1/2 hour.
This film is filled with wonderful character actors making extended (and powerful) cameos. The likes of Kate McKinnon, Allyson Janney, Holland Taylor, Connie Britton, Stephen Root, Malcolm McDowell, Robin Weigert, Mark Duplass, Richard Kind, Mark Moses and Tricia Helfer all contribute greatly to the film while shining in the little screen time they have.
A necessary - and powerful - film filled with tremendous performances that shine a light on a problem that is pervasive today. Which makes this film a must watch - as difficult as it is to watch at times.
Letter Grade: A- (the first 1/2 hour brings it down a point)
8 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.)
