Search
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Good Time (2017) in Movies
Jan 22, 2021
Here is another example of a very watchable low budget film that may have passed by your radar undetected. It came to my attention in two ways. The first because I disliked Uncut Gems so much folk started telling me to watch Good Time to get a better idea of what the Safdie brothers were all about. The second because Robert Pattinson kept popping up and being good in things, when again, there was a time I wouldn’t have thought that possible.
Josh and Benny Safdie have a lot of energy as filmmakers it seems; if the two films I’ve seen so far indicate a motif then it is people forced to act without much thought when the stakes are pretty much life and death. A raw, desperate energy exists in their work that comes straight at you through the screen. In Uncut Gems I found they pushed that feeling too hard, and what we were left with was a massively uncomfortable experience that felt like drinking too much coffee and then being screamed at by someone you hated. Good Time tempers that a little by having a protagonist whose motives you can at least identify with, played by a better, less shouty, more subtle and more likeable actor.
The plot revolves around Pattinson’s Connie frantically trying to find and save his mentally challenged brother, Nick, played by co-director Benny Safdie, after forcing him to participate in a bank robbery that goes wrong. Safdie as an actor is superb and memorable in the role, as is Pattinson. The chemistry between the two is simultaneously edgy, heartbreaking and somehow genuine. You believe they are brothers and invest in it – feeling Nick’s guilt and need to atone driving every bad decision along the grimy path he treads through the seedier parts of the city.
The camerawork and direction make the lights and sounds of the city a character in itself. It may not be true, but I see this film in my head, now as I think of it, as being 90% at night, lit by flashing headlights. Certainly that feel of running head-on into traffic is a big part of it. But there are slower, more sensitive scenes that spring to mind too. Constantly we are being asked if we can forgive Nick, or at least understand why he is making the choices he is making. Essentially he wants the panic to stop, but can’t ever get himself to a place of peace. An idea beautifully illustrated in the scenes involving the female characters of Corey and Crystal (the former played by Jennifer Jason Leigh with typical edge); Nick wants to be loved and respected, but how will that ever be possible?
Contrasting Pattinson’s work here with other recent efforts, including Tenet, The Lighthouse and The Lost City of Z, you can see an impressive range where his true personality disappears into his character. Something not every actor can do by any means, and something Adam Sandler failed to do in Uncut Gems, for example. I continue to be more impressed by him from film to film, to the extent that if I saw him in a cast it would be reason enough to see something. He has that ability to make an average film watchable, often being the best thing about the project. And I have to admit that has surprised me. But I like Kristen Stewart too these days, so it just shows how much the Twilight franchise has to answer for!
I wouldn’t go mad recommending this to everyone, but there is a time and a place for it, and I’m pleased I can appreciate the talent and potential the Safdie Brothers have inherently. There certainly aren’t enough young filmmakers taking risks in this way any more. It wouldn’t surprise me at all to see their formula strike true gold before too long.
Josh and Benny Safdie have a lot of energy as filmmakers it seems; if the two films I’ve seen so far indicate a motif then it is people forced to act without much thought when the stakes are pretty much life and death. A raw, desperate energy exists in their work that comes straight at you through the screen. In Uncut Gems I found they pushed that feeling too hard, and what we were left with was a massively uncomfortable experience that felt like drinking too much coffee and then being screamed at by someone you hated. Good Time tempers that a little by having a protagonist whose motives you can at least identify with, played by a better, less shouty, more subtle and more likeable actor.
The plot revolves around Pattinson’s Connie frantically trying to find and save his mentally challenged brother, Nick, played by co-director Benny Safdie, after forcing him to participate in a bank robbery that goes wrong. Safdie as an actor is superb and memorable in the role, as is Pattinson. The chemistry between the two is simultaneously edgy, heartbreaking and somehow genuine. You believe they are brothers and invest in it – feeling Nick’s guilt and need to atone driving every bad decision along the grimy path he treads through the seedier parts of the city.
The camerawork and direction make the lights and sounds of the city a character in itself. It may not be true, but I see this film in my head, now as I think of it, as being 90% at night, lit by flashing headlights. Certainly that feel of running head-on into traffic is a big part of it. But there are slower, more sensitive scenes that spring to mind too. Constantly we are being asked if we can forgive Nick, or at least understand why he is making the choices he is making. Essentially he wants the panic to stop, but can’t ever get himself to a place of peace. An idea beautifully illustrated in the scenes involving the female characters of Corey and Crystal (the former played by Jennifer Jason Leigh with typical edge); Nick wants to be loved and respected, but how will that ever be possible?
Contrasting Pattinson’s work here with other recent efforts, including Tenet, The Lighthouse and The Lost City of Z, you can see an impressive range where his true personality disappears into his character. Something not every actor can do by any means, and something Adam Sandler failed to do in Uncut Gems, for example. I continue to be more impressed by him from film to film, to the extent that if I saw him in a cast it would be reason enough to see something. He has that ability to make an average film watchable, often being the best thing about the project. And I have to admit that has surprised me. But I like Kristen Stewart too these days, so it just shows how much the Twilight franchise has to answer for!
I wouldn’t go mad recommending this to everyone, but there is a time and a place for it, and I’m pleased I can appreciate the talent and potential the Safdie Brothers have inherently. There certainly aren’t enough young filmmakers taking risks in this way any more. It wouldn’t surprise me at all to see their formula strike true gold before too long.
Budget- Expense Tracker,Bill Reminder,Debt Manager
Finance and Business
App
Have been on the TOP-1 category in 58 countries such as America, Japan, Russia, Canada, Italy and...
Budget~ Expense Tracker,Bill Reminder,Debt Manager
Finance
App
Have been on the TOP-1 category in 58 countries such as America, Japan, Russia, Canada, Italy and...
TB MIDI Stuff
Music and Utilities
App
TB MIDI Stuff is a highly intuitive full-featured modular MIDI & OSC control surface for iPad and...
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated No Time to Die (2021) in Movies
Oct 16, 2021
Works well enough - despite a weak villain
The Daniel Craig James Bond films are a different breed of Bond films. Instead of each one being a “one-off, fun romp” filled with Gadgets, Villains, Beautiful Ladies and Wild Stunts, the 5 films of the “Daniel Craig era” of Bond films was something else…gritty, serious and serialized, each film standing on it’s own but also building on the previous one to tell one long story.
It will be up to the individual to decide whether this type of storytelling works for Bond.
For me, it does.
Picking up where SPECTRE left off, NO TIME TO DIE follows Bond and his lady love from that film, Madeliene (Lea Seydoux) as they are followed and threatened by agents from SPECTRE. After an action-packed opening, Bond heads into retirement only to be drawn back in.
Director Cary Fukunaga (BEASTS OF NO NATION) crafts a satisfying, if somewhat too long and dragged out, finale for Craig as Bond battles villains joined by old friends (and fiends) along the way (as a bit of a final Curtain Call for them all), meets some new allies (and adversaries) all while dealing with his own feelings.
And it is this part of the film that “Bond purists” will be the most annoyed about. JAMES BOND HAS FEELINGS! He isn’t just a “Super-Spy” with a quip and a gadget, Fukunaga and perennial Bond writers Neal Purvis & Robert Wade (along with Fukunaga and Phoebe Waller-Bridge) craft a Bond that has cracks in his veneer that show doubts and fears underneath.
This rounding out of the character works for me in this film, especially if you put this film in the context of all 5 Craig Bond films. It is a natural growth for the character and one that Craig handles well.
As for the performances, regular Bond players Ralph Fiennes (M), Naomi Harris (Moneypenny), Ben Whishaw (Q), Rory Kinnear (Tanner) and Jeffrey Wright (CIA Agent Felix Leiter) all have a moment (or 2) to shine and they show up on the screen like old friends showing up at a going away party. Christoph Walz also reprises his role of Blofeld from SPECTRE (it’s not a spoiler, it’s in the trailers) and it was good to see Blofeld and Bond play chess one last time and Seydoux’s performance as Bond’s “lady love” is “good enough”.
But it is the newcomers to this story that stand out to me - with one strong exception. Lashana Lynch (as a fellow 00 agent) and Billy Magnussen both shine in this film as do Ana de Armas as another femme that Bond encounters - this is the 3rd strong performance I’ve seen from the former model (following strong turns in BLADE RUNNER 2049 and opposite Craig in KNIVES OUT) and am eagerly awaiting what she will do next.
Only Rami Malek as villain Safin fails to be interesting and that’s where this film falls down. Safin’s encounters with Bond bring the energy and excitement down, thanks to Malek’s “underplaying” of a role that should have been overplayed. His performance just doesn’t work.
But, this is a Bond film, so the acting and plot always take a backseat to the action - and the action in this film is better than average, but not A-M-A-Z-I-N-G as one expects from Bond films. Couple that with Malek’s underwhelming performance and this Bond film will leave audiences with an unfulfilled feeling.
Unless, you are invested in the journey that Craig has taken Bond on - and the culmination of that journey to conclude this film. If you are invested in that, this film work. If you are not, it will not.
It worked for me.
Letter Grade: B+
7 1/2 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
It will be up to the individual to decide whether this type of storytelling works for Bond.
For me, it does.
Picking up where SPECTRE left off, NO TIME TO DIE follows Bond and his lady love from that film, Madeliene (Lea Seydoux) as they are followed and threatened by agents from SPECTRE. After an action-packed opening, Bond heads into retirement only to be drawn back in.
Director Cary Fukunaga (BEASTS OF NO NATION) crafts a satisfying, if somewhat too long and dragged out, finale for Craig as Bond battles villains joined by old friends (and fiends) along the way (as a bit of a final Curtain Call for them all), meets some new allies (and adversaries) all while dealing with his own feelings.
And it is this part of the film that “Bond purists” will be the most annoyed about. JAMES BOND HAS FEELINGS! He isn’t just a “Super-Spy” with a quip and a gadget, Fukunaga and perennial Bond writers Neal Purvis & Robert Wade (along with Fukunaga and Phoebe Waller-Bridge) craft a Bond that has cracks in his veneer that show doubts and fears underneath.
This rounding out of the character works for me in this film, especially if you put this film in the context of all 5 Craig Bond films. It is a natural growth for the character and one that Craig handles well.
As for the performances, regular Bond players Ralph Fiennes (M), Naomi Harris (Moneypenny), Ben Whishaw (Q), Rory Kinnear (Tanner) and Jeffrey Wright (CIA Agent Felix Leiter) all have a moment (or 2) to shine and they show up on the screen like old friends showing up at a going away party. Christoph Walz also reprises his role of Blofeld from SPECTRE (it’s not a spoiler, it’s in the trailers) and it was good to see Blofeld and Bond play chess one last time and Seydoux’s performance as Bond’s “lady love” is “good enough”.
But it is the newcomers to this story that stand out to me - with one strong exception. Lashana Lynch (as a fellow 00 agent) and Billy Magnussen both shine in this film as do Ana de Armas as another femme that Bond encounters - this is the 3rd strong performance I’ve seen from the former model (following strong turns in BLADE RUNNER 2049 and opposite Craig in KNIVES OUT) and am eagerly awaiting what she will do next.
Only Rami Malek as villain Safin fails to be interesting and that’s where this film falls down. Safin’s encounters with Bond bring the energy and excitement down, thanks to Malek’s “underplaying” of a role that should have been overplayed. His performance just doesn’t work.
But, this is a Bond film, so the acting and plot always take a backseat to the action - and the action in this film is better than average, but not A-M-A-Z-I-N-G as one expects from Bond films. Couple that with Malek’s underwhelming performance and this Bond film will leave audiences with an unfulfilled feeling.
Unless, you are invested in the journey that Craig has taken Bond on - and the culmination of that journey to conclude this film. If you are invested in that, this film work. If you are not, it will not.
It worked for me.
Letter Grade: B+
7 1/2 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Fantastic Beasts: The Secrets of Dumbledore (2022) in Movies
Apr 30, 2022
The Magic is Fading
Alas, the magic is fading in the Wizarding World
The 3rd installment of the Fantastic Beasts saga, THE SECRETS OF DUMBLEDORE is satisfying enough for fans of the ongoing Wizarding World of Harry Potter universe and will be time well spent for those of you that have watched all 8 Harry Potter films and the first 2 FANTASTIC BEASTS films, but it is nothing…magical.
Picking up where the 2nd film (THE CRIMES OF GRINDEWALD) left off, the arch-nemesis of Dumbledore (a game Jude Law) is in power and looking to start a war with the Muggles (non-magic folk). A ragtag group of heroes (are there any other kind) led by Newt Scamander (Eddie Redmayne) are humanity’s only hope.
And…while this worked well in the first series of film…this setup falls rather flat as it has a “been there done that” feel to it that is not really elevated above the ordinary.
The reason are numerous:
First, Newt Scamander is no Harry Potter. While Eddie Redymayne plays an interesting, quirky, central character - a character who’s unique skills were needed to defeat the bad guy in the first film - he is, really, a secondary character, yet he is the one we follow throughout the film. Kind of like watching the Harry Potter films through the eyes of Neville Longbottom.
Secondly, Grindewald (this time played by Mads Mikkelsen, replacing Johnny Depp) is no Voldemort. Grindewald was an interesting character set up in the first film, but by this film, he is pretty bland (and pretty blandly played by Mikkeslen who is, frankly, miscast).
Thirdly, Dumbledore (Jude Law in a very good performance, one that needed to be larger and more central) is sidelined for most of this film - a film about the battle between Grindewald and Dumbledore, a stumble (plotwise) to be sure in an awkward attempt to keeping the Newt Scamander character front and center.
Fortunately, the supporting cast is strong from Dan Fogler’s muggle, Jacob Kowalski to his love, Queenie (Alison Sudol) to Newt’s brother, Theseus (Callum Turner) to Newt’s assistant Bunty (Victoria Yeates) to Dumbledore’s brother, Aberforth (Richard Coyle) - all have their moments and are interesting (enough) to watch.
Unfortunately, Ezra Miller’s conflicted villain, Credence is poorly written with a crescendo to his character that lands with a thud. And, the inexplicable reason that Katherine Waterston’s main character of Tina is sidelined (rumors are she conflicted with J.K. Rowling) just doesn’t land, so, consequently, 2 major pieces from the first 2 films just don’t work.
What does work in this film is the magical sequences, as handled by Harry Potter veteran David Yates (who has now helmed 6 films in the Wizarding World franchise), the magical scenes are truly…magical. They are fun to watch and the real reason to watch this film, but the story is weak with a misguided viewpoint character that diminishes the fantasy for all.
Rumors are that this was supposed to be a 5 film franchise, but with box office diminishing for each successive Fantastic Beasts films, the filmmakers wisely decided to wrap up most storylines in this film.
It’s time to say goodbye to FANTASTIC BEASTS, but it should be time for the Wizarding World to go the way of Star Wars, Marvel and Star Trek - streaming TV series that breathes new life - and new, interesting characters - to a sagging franchise.
In the meantime, FANTASTIC BEASTS: THE SECRETS OF DUMBLEDORE is “good enough” and since it is all we have at the moment, it will have to do.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10) - and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
The 3rd installment of the Fantastic Beasts saga, THE SECRETS OF DUMBLEDORE is satisfying enough for fans of the ongoing Wizarding World of Harry Potter universe and will be time well spent for those of you that have watched all 8 Harry Potter films and the first 2 FANTASTIC BEASTS films, but it is nothing…magical.
Picking up where the 2nd film (THE CRIMES OF GRINDEWALD) left off, the arch-nemesis of Dumbledore (a game Jude Law) is in power and looking to start a war with the Muggles (non-magic folk). A ragtag group of heroes (are there any other kind) led by Newt Scamander (Eddie Redmayne) are humanity’s only hope.
And…while this worked well in the first series of film…this setup falls rather flat as it has a “been there done that” feel to it that is not really elevated above the ordinary.
The reason are numerous:
First, Newt Scamander is no Harry Potter. While Eddie Redymayne plays an interesting, quirky, central character - a character who’s unique skills were needed to defeat the bad guy in the first film - he is, really, a secondary character, yet he is the one we follow throughout the film. Kind of like watching the Harry Potter films through the eyes of Neville Longbottom.
Secondly, Grindewald (this time played by Mads Mikkelsen, replacing Johnny Depp) is no Voldemort. Grindewald was an interesting character set up in the first film, but by this film, he is pretty bland (and pretty blandly played by Mikkeslen who is, frankly, miscast).
Thirdly, Dumbledore (Jude Law in a very good performance, one that needed to be larger and more central) is sidelined for most of this film - a film about the battle between Grindewald and Dumbledore, a stumble (plotwise) to be sure in an awkward attempt to keeping the Newt Scamander character front and center.
Fortunately, the supporting cast is strong from Dan Fogler’s muggle, Jacob Kowalski to his love, Queenie (Alison Sudol) to Newt’s brother, Theseus (Callum Turner) to Newt’s assistant Bunty (Victoria Yeates) to Dumbledore’s brother, Aberforth (Richard Coyle) - all have their moments and are interesting (enough) to watch.
Unfortunately, Ezra Miller’s conflicted villain, Credence is poorly written with a crescendo to his character that lands with a thud. And, the inexplicable reason that Katherine Waterston’s main character of Tina is sidelined (rumors are she conflicted with J.K. Rowling) just doesn’t land, so, consequently, 2 major pieces from the first 2 films just don’t work.
What does work in this film is the magical sequences, as handled by Harry Potter veteran David Yates (who has now helmed 6 films in the Wizarding World franchise), the magical scenes are truly…magical. They are fun to watch and the real reason to watch this film, but the story is weak with a misguided viewpoint character that diminishes the fantasy for all.
Rumors are that this was supposed to be a 5 film franchise, but with box office diminishing for each successive Fantastic Beasts films, the filmmakers wisely decided to wrap up most storylines in this film.
It’s time to say goodbye to FANTASTIC BEASTS, but it should be time for the Wizarding World to go the way of Star Wars, Marvel and Star Trek - streaming TV series that breathes new life - and new, interesting characters - to a sagging franchise.
In the meantime, FANTASTIC BEASTS: THE SECRETS OF DUMBLEDORE is “good enough” and since it is all we have at the moment, it will have to do.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10) - and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Drag Me to Hell (2009) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
I’m just going to be honest. Drag Me To Hell is the movie we would have seen 22 years ago had Sam Raimi been given several million dollars, had Bruce Campbell been a woman and had there been no chainsaws handy. Not that this is a bad thing. I believe that Raimi fans will be quite pleased to see the cult and blockbuster director’s return to his roots.
Christine Brown (Alison Lohman) is a soft-spoken loan officer competing for the open position of assistant manager at the bank branch she works for. She has a predominantly sunny life with her boyfriend, Clay Dalton, (Justin Long) and a new kitten.
When an old woman in an Oldsmobile (Lorna Raver) comes to beg for an extension on her mortgage, Christine is unaware of how much her ideal life is about to change.
Desperate to impress her boss and prove her prowess over the only other candidate, Christine refuses the woman help. Angered and shamed, the woman curses Christine, calling upon the demon Lamia (voiced by Art Kimbro) to torment her for three days and then damn her soul.
Acting upon the advice of a Seer (Dileep Rao), Christine struggles to free herself from this terrible fate. She alienates herself from Clay’s parents, sacrifices her cat, participates in a séance, crashes a funeral, defiles the dead and is eventually forced to choose whether or not she can in turn damn her business rival.
But I wouldn’t want you to start thinking that you’re dealing with some far-too-serious classic horror revival (not that that would be a bad thing). Let’s not forget the projectile blood and vomit, the mud and maggots, the stapler to the face and ruler to the back of the throat; all done in that comical slapstick that only Raimi can produce. The utterly gory, disgusting images that make you laugh hysterically while simultaneously cringeing in disbelief. This is the stuff that made him a cult hero.
There are certainly some creepy moments, quite a few in fact. Things that pleased the horror fan in me very much. And there are plenty of scares to be had as creatures and characters launch themselves from the shadows. I only jumped a couple of times (and I scare easily) but that might have been due more to the people sitting around us than the movie itself.
Drag Me To Hell opens with a classic Universal logo, one that hasn’t been seen since the 70s. It was so appropriate that as soon as I saw it I was sure I was going to walk away happy. Then the opening credits began and I was blown away. They are so absolutely gorgeous that they almost deserve to be a short of their own rather than find themselves pinned to a feature. The special effects continue to be a remarkable strong point throughout the rest of the movie. Several scenes blew me away with their execution and look.
When it comes down to what was missing, characterization was the one thing this film lacked. I didn’t feel very connected to any of the characters and certainly didn’t care about their plight. It seemed rather two dimensional. The characters are barely introduced and we aren’t ushered into their lives and minds before the action begins. We are just expected to care.
On top of this, Lohman’s acting wasn’t the greatest and Long, while doing a decent job, didn’t seem to fit the role terribly well. The cat-sacrificing didn’t go far for making me feel any sympathy toward Christine or her dilemma. This was all very disappointing since I feel as though everything else was so strong that had this been reinforced rather than left flat it would have been exceedingly excellent.
But it is worth a watch. If you love anything by Sam Raimi you will not be disappointed and if you’ve never seen any of his work then you might find yourself pleasantly surprised. This is one of the few things I have ever watched that was exactly what it promised to be.
Thank you, Mr. Raimi, for this excellent return to horror. We are all grateful.
Christine Brown (Alison Lohman) is a soft-spoken loan officer competing for the open position of assistant manager at the bank branch she works for. She has a predominantly sunny life with her boyfriend, Clay Dalton, (Justin Long) and a new kitten.
When an old woman in an Oldsmobile (Lorna Raver) comes to beg for an extension on her mortgage, Christine is unaware of how much her ideal life is about to change.
Desperate to impress her boss and prove her prowess over the only other candidate, Christine refuses the woman help. Angered and shamed, the woman curses Christine, calling upon the demon Lamia (voiced by Art Kimbro) to torment her for three days and then damn her soul.
Acting upon the advice of a Seer (Dileep Rao), Christine struggles to free herself from this terrible fate. She alienates herself from Clay’s parents, sacrifices her cat, participates in a séance, crashes a funeral, defiles the dead and is eventually forced to choose whether or not she can in turn damn her business rival.
But I wouldn’t want you to start thinking that you’re dealing with some far-too-serious classic horror revival (not that that would be a bad thing). Let’s not forget the projectile blood and vomit, the mud and maggots, the stapler to the face and ruler to the back of the throat; all done in that comical slapstick that only Raimi can produce. The utterly gory, disgusting images that make you laugh hysterically while simultaneously cringeing in disbelief. This is the stuff that made him a cult hero.
There are certainly some creepy moments, quite a few in fact. Things that pleased the horror fan in me very much. And there are plenty of scares to be had as creatures and characters launch themselves from the shadows. I only jumped a couple of times (and I scare easily) but that might have been due more to the people sitting around us than the movie itself.
Drag Me To Hell opens with a classic Universal logo, one that hasn’t been seen since the 70s. It was so appropriate that as soon as I saw it I was sure I was going to walk away happy. Then the opening credits began and I was blown away. They are so absolutely gorgeous that they almost deserve to be a short of their own rather than find themselves pinned to a feature. The special effects continue to be a remarkable strong point throughout the rest of the movie. Several scenes blew me away with their execution and look.
When it comes down to what was missing, characterization was the one thing this film lacked. I didn’t feel very connected to any of the characters and certainly didn’t care about their plight. It seemed rather two dimensional. The characters are barely introduced and we aren’t ushered into their lives and minds before the action begins. We are just expected to care.
On top of this, Lohman’s acting wasn’t the greatest and Long, while doing a decent job, didn’t seem to fit the role terribly well. The cat-sacrificing didn’t go far for making me feel any sympathy toward Christine or her dilemma. This was all very disappointing since I feel as though everything else was so strong that had this been reinforced rather than left flat it would have been exceedingly excellent.
But it is worth a watch. If you love anything by Sam Raimi you will not be disappointed and if you’ve never seen any of his work then you might find yourself pleasantly surprised. This is one of the few things I have ever watched that was exactly what it promised to be.
Thank you, Mr. Raimi, for this excellent return to horror. We are all grateful.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Mank (2020) in Movies
Jan 7, 2021
Good companion piece to CITIZEN KANE
Orson Welles’ 1941 masterpiece CITIZEN KANE is truly a remarkable work of art (especially for the time it was created) and it regularly lands in either the #1 or #2 spot on my list of all-time favorite films (battling back and forth with THE GODFATHER - the one that ends up at #1 is usually the one I have watched most recently), so I am a sucker for films that are about (or around) the making of this classic.
And…the Netflix film MANK does not disappoint in this regard.
Starring Oscar winning actor Gary Oldman (he won the Oscar for portraying Sir Winston Churchill in DARKEST HOUR), Mank tells the tale of the writing of the screenplay of CITIZEN KANE by screenwriter Herman Mankiewicz. It is an intriguing story of a self-destructive, alcoholic artist (is there any other kind in this kind of film) that (ultimately) produces one of the best scripts in Hollywood history, despite (or maybe because of) his condition and the people he interacts with along the way.
Directed by David Fincher (FIGHT CLUB) - who is one of my favorite Directors working today - MANK starts slow but brews to a satisfying conclusion as Fincher focuses on the man and the relationships he has with the people around him, rather than the circumstances, which then draws to a forceful conclusion.
Gary Oldman is, of course, stellar as Herman “Mank” Mankiewicz, the writer at the center of the story. This film hinges on this performance as the titular Mank is in almost every scene of this film - and at the beginning I was worried that Fincher was going to let Oldman revert to his “hammy” ways (a very real possibility with Oldman if he is left unchecked by a Director), but Fincher reels Oldman in just enough for him to bring a portrait of a troubled man, who has sold his soul to work and alcohol. This character needs to find that soul if he is to succeed. Since Mank won the Oscar for his screenplay - and I’ve already stated that I think the CITIZEN KANE screenplay is one of the best written of all time - you know how it will turn out, but it is fascinating (and satisfying) to watch Oldman on this journey.
Fincher, of course, is smart enough to surround Oldman with some very good Supporting Actors, most notably the always evil Charles Dance (Tywin Lannister on GAME OF THRONES) as William Randolph Hearst (the inspiration for Charles Foster Kane). Dance spends most of the film observing Mank but in the final “confrontation” scene between the two, the screen sparkles as two wonderful thespians throw down.
Others in the Supporting cast - like Lilly Collins, Tom Burke (as Orson Welles), Jamie McShane and, especially Arliss Howard (as Louis B. Mayer) bring heft and the ability to go “toe to toe” with Oldman, not a small task.
Special notice has to be made of the work of Amanda Seyfried as Marion Davies - Hearst’s mistress and a character that is used as a “throw away toy” in Citizen Kane. Davis and Mank form an interesting bond and the platonic chemistry between Seyfried and Oldman is strong. I gotta admit that when Seyfried first burst on the scene in such films as MAMA MIA and MEAN GIRLS, I figured she was just the “pretty young Rom-Com girl of the time” and would come and go quickly, but she has rounded into a very impressive actress and I can unequivocally state that I was wrong about her. She can act with the best of them.
The Cinematography by Erik Messerschmidt is also a very important part of this film - as he (and Fincher) attempt to recreate in this film the look/feel of CITIZEN KANE and they pull this off very, very well.
If you can get through the slow start of the film - and if you can stomach a protagonist that is not a very nice person in most of this film, than you’ll be rewarded by a rich film experience.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
And…the Netflix film MANK does not disappoint in this regard.
Starring Oscar winning actor Gary Oldman (he won the Oscar for portraying Sir Winston Churchill in DARKEST HOUR), Mank tells the tale of the writing of the screenplay of CITIZEN KANE by screenwriter Herman Mankiewicz. It is an intriguing story of a self-destructive, alcoholic artist (is there any other kind in this kind of film) that (ultimately) produces one of the best scripts in Hollywood history, despite (or maybe because of) his condition and the people he interacts with along the way.
Directed by David Fincher (FIGHT CLUB) - who is one of my favorite Directors working today - MANK starts slow but brews to a satisfying conclusion as Fincher focuses on the man and the relationships he has with the people around him, rather than the circumstances, which then draws to a forceful conclusion.
Gary Oldman is, of course, stellar as Herman “Mank” Mankiewicz, the writer at the center of the story. This film hinges on this performance as the titular Mank is in almost every scene of this film - and at the beginning I was worried that Fincher was going to let Oldman revert to his “hammy” ways (a very real possibility with Oldman if he is left unchecked by a Director), but Fincher reels Oldman in just enough for him to bring a portrait of a troubled man, who has sold his soul to work and alcohol. This character needs to find that soul if he is to succeed. Since Mank won the Oscar for his screenplay - and I’ve already stated that I think the CITIZEN KANE screenplay is one of the best written of all time - you know how it will turn out, but it is fascinating (and satisfying) to watch Oldman on this journey.
Fincher, of course, is smart enough to surround Oldman with some very good Supporting Actors, most notably the always evil Charles Dance (Tywin Lannister on GAME OF THRONES) as William Randolph Hearst (the inspiration for Charles Foster Kane). Dance spends most of the film observing Mank but in the final “confrontation” scene between the two, the screen sparkles as two wonderful thespians throw down.
Others in the Supporting cast - like Lilly Collins, Tom Burke (as Orson Welles), Jamie McShane and, especially Arliss Howard (as Louis B. Mayer) bring heft and the ability to go “toe to toe” with Oldman, not a small task.
Special notice has to be made of the work of Amanda Seyfried as Marion Davies - Hearst’s mistress and a character that is used as a “throw away toy” in Citizen Kane. Davis and Mank form an interesting bond and the platonic chemistry between Seyfried and Oldman is strong. I gotta admit that when Seyfried first burst on the scene in such films as MAMA MIA and MEAN GIRLS, I figured she was just the “pretty young Rom-Com girl of the time” and would come and go quickly, but she has rounded into a very impressive actress and I can unequivocally state that I was wrong about her. She can act with the best of them.
The Cinematography by Erik Messerschmidt is also a very important part of this film - as he (and Fincher) attempt to recreate in this film the look/feel of CITIZEN KANE and they pull this off very, very well.
If you can get through the slow start of the film - and if you can stomach a protagonist that is not a very nice person in most of this film, than you’ll be rewarded by a rich film experience.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Ivana A. | Diary of Difference (1171 KP) rated The Wives in Books
Oct 5, 2020
Contains spoilers, click to show
The Wives by Tarryn Fisher is a very fast-paced domestic thriller. Expect many plot twists and disturbing revelations.
Synopsis:
Thursday is married to Seth. But he has two other wives, that he sees during the week. Thursday gets to see Seth on Thursday, while the other wives each have a day for themselves as well. The main rule is - she is not supposed to know the other wives, nor contact them.
When Thursday finds the name of his newest wife, Hannah, in Seth’s pocket, she does what every woman would - looks her up. She meets up with Hannah under a false name, trying to find out more about her and the husband that they share. But Hannah is not only pregnant with Seth’s baby; she also has bruises on her body. Is Seth capable of that? The Seth she is married to?
Realising she might not know who Seth really is, Thursday is on a mission to find out as much as possible about him and the other two wives, before he realises something’s up. With many twists and turns, Thursday realises things are not as they seem. At all.
My Thoughts:
The first half of the book gives us the idea of the situation. From Thursday’s point of view, we get a glimpse of a very rare situation. How a woman feels when she is sharing a man with other women. The challenges and worries this entails. The constant battle to be better than the others, even though she doesn’t know them. The constant curiosity to know how they treat him, whether they are more beautiful than her, whether they can give him more than she can. The battle with herself, on why isn’t she enough. Why does he need other women to be happy? The loss of her baby, that changed everything.
The second half of the book is filled with plot twists, and I cannot say much more without revealing anything. It involves finding out the truth, violence, mental health hospital and many lies told by many people. I was very disappointed with the ending, and I will have to explain why below.
SPOILER ALERT - The below paragraph contains spoilers.
During the book, we kept having more and more plot twists. The story started becoming more and more twisted and tricky to unravel. And then, a few chapters before the end, the author explains this as one of Thursday’s delusions. Seth divorced her when they lost the baby, but she could never move on and started believing this delusion that he has multiple wives. However, there are many inconsistencies to this, and they are all left for us to believe they are part of Thursday’s delusions. Also, there are facts that don’t correspond. He still came to see her every Thursday (which was explained as cheating). Furthermore. he stole money from her bank account. He brewed some weird tea for her before she lost her baby. Somehow, I keep thinking that the plot became too twisted for the author as well, and she just decided to blame it all on Thursday’s delusions.
SPOILER FINISHED.
I am still unsure on how I feel about this book. Perhaps I would’ve been more satisfied if the explanation and the ending were different. The very last scene was shocking, and completely out of character. I cannot understand why this is how the book ended and I am very conflicted. This type of plot seems very similar to other books I have read before, and I don’t find it unique. However, I read this book in a day and it did intrigue me to find out more. Once you start reading, you cannot put this book down. But once you get to the ending, there is the conflict of whether it was a good ending of such a twisty book.
I definitely recommend it, if you love this genre. It will keep you on your toes. It also might make you think whether your husband has other wives as well. Just kidding :)
BLOG TOUR
This review is part of the blog tour for The Wives, organised by the HQ Team. Thank you to the publisher and the author, for sending me a copy of this book in exchange for an honest review.
Synopsis:
Thursday is married to Seth. But he has two other wives, that he sees during the week. Thursday gets to see Seth on Thursday, while the other wives each have a day for themselves as well. The main rule is - she is not supposed to know the other wives, nor contact them.
When Thursday finds the name of his newest wife, Hannah, in Seth’s pocket, she does what every woman would - looks her up. She meets up with Hannah under a false name, trying to find out more about her and the husband that they share. But Hannah is not only pregnant with Seth’s baby; she also has bruises on her body. Is Seth capable of that? The Seth she is married to?
Realising she might not know who Seth really is, Thursday is on a mission to find out as much as possible about him and the other two wives, before he realises something’s up. With many twists and turns, Thursday realises things are not as they seem. At all.
My Thoughts:
The first half of the book gives us the idea of the situation. From Thursday’s point of view, we get a glimpse of a very rare situation. How a woman feels when she is sharing a man with other women. The challenges and worries this entails. The constant battle to be better than the others, even though she doesn’t know them. The constant curiosity to know how they treat him, whether they are more beautiful than her, whether they can give him more than she can. The battle with herself, on why isn’t she enough. Why does he need other women to be happy? The loss of her baby, that changed everything.
The second half of the book is filled with plot twists, and I cannot say much more without revealing anything. It involves finding out the truth, violence, mental health hospital and many lies told by many people. I was very disappointed with the ending, and I will have to explain why below.
SPOILER ALERT - The below paragraph contains spoilers.
During the book, we kept having more and more plot twists. The story started becoming more and more twisted and tricky to unravel. And then, a few chapters before the end, the author explains this as one of Thursday’s delusions. Seth divorced her when they lost the baby, but she could never move on and started believing this delusion that he has multiple wives. However, there are many inconsistencies to this, and they are all left for us to believe they are part of Thursday’s delusions. Also, there are facts that don’t correspond. He still came to see her every Thursday (which was explained as cheating). Furthermore. he stole money from her bank account. He brewed some weird tea for her before she lost her baby. Somehow, I keep thinking that the plot became too twisted for the author as well, and she just decided to blame it all on Thursday’s delusions.
SPOILER FINISHED.
I am still unsure on how I feel about this book. Perhaps I would’ve been more satisfied if the explanation and the ending were different. The very last scene was shocking, and completely out of character. I cannot understand why this is how the book ended and I am very conflicted. This type of plot seems very similar to other books I have read before, and I don’t find it unique. However, I read this book in a day and it did intrigue me to find out more. Once you start reading, you cannot put this book down. But once you get to the ending, there is the conflict of whether it was a good ending of such a twisty book.
I definitely recommend it, if you love this genre. It will keep you on your toes. It also might make you think whether your husband has other wives as well. Just kidding :)
BLOG TOUR
This review is part of the blog tour for The Wives, organised by the HQ Team. Thank you to the publisher and the author, for sending me a copy of this book in exchange for an honest review.
The Vintage Tea Room Collection
9.0
Rate It
Book
A collection of all three books in the Vintage Tea Room series. Ellie and her twin daughters, Marie...