Search
Search results
Jenni Olson recommended God's Country (2012) in Movies (curated)
Ryan Hill (152 KP) rated The Incredible Hulk (2008) in Movies
May 9, 2019
"As far as I'm concerned, that man's whole body is property of the U.S. army."
I will defend this gem until the day I die.
The Incredible Hulk is without a doubt one of the most underrated, underappreciated film's that I have ever seen. There it is. I'm just putting it out there. Don't worry, I have my reasons that I'll get into but if you don't like this film, if you hate this film even, I encourage you to read this review. I encourage this because I hope to open your eyes to how beautiful and tragic The Incredible Hulk is.
For one, let's take it back to May 1962 when Stan Lee and Jack Kirby introduced to us, in his very own debut issue, the Hulk himself. According to interviews, Lee spoke of how this film truly captured the essence of the character and the comics. In those comics, General Thunderbolt Ross, along with the military, was always chasing Dr. Banner ever since the accident. This is portrayed brilliantly here by Louis Leterrier. I'm not a huge fan of his work but I got to give credit where credit's due.
I don't even know where to start for positives because there's so many. For one, Edward Norton is brilliant (yes brilliant) as Bruce Banner. His performance is so emotionally subdued, filled with great sadness and longing. They even show him suffering from PTSD, which has never been touched on with this character on film. Really great stuff on Norton's part. We also get to finally see Bruce Banner be a scientist. We've seen it in the future films sure, but not to this extent. Bruce is working with scraps, using solely his wits, in a third world country . . . just like in the comics.
The story of Hulk is really a tragic love story. I got serious King Kong vibes from the similar dynamic here and it's beautiful. The chemistry between Banner and Elizabeth Ross is great. It's so believable; two people put in an impossible situation and making it work. That's love.
Hulk's character is so well realized here. He suffers from PTSD like I said, but the actual monster himself is perfect. They even throw in a bit of a horror vibe for the first Hulk-out scene. Oh yeah, there's numerous Hulk-out scenes!!! There's so many great omages to the comics as well and I loved every bit of it.
Lastly, looking at it from a technical side it's great. The cinematography is extremely well done and a total feast for the eyes. The pacing is great and goes by like the snap of Thanos himself. The editing is top-notch. The soundtrack by Craig Armstrong is one of my favorites of all time and is so iconic and beautiful. Finally, there's a serious tone. FINALLY. There are some well incorporated jokes but unlike some other Marvel films, it's not overbearing.
As for negatives, they are almost none to nonexistent. Really just nitpicks. The taxi scene is a bit unrealistic and silly. It's the only scene of humor that felt a bit forced and silly, yet I can easily ignore it. But since this is an analysis, I had to mention it. Also, unlike Ruffalo's Hulk, Norton's Hulk doesn't look very similar to Norton himself. Again, purely a nitpick.
Overall, I absolutely love The Incredible Hulk
The Incredible Hulk is without a doubt one of the most underrated, underappreciated film's that I have ever seen. There it is. I'm just putting it out there. Don't worry, I have my reasons that I'll get into but if you don't like this film, if you hate this film even, I encourage you to read this review. I encourage this because I hope to open your eyes to how beautiful and tragic The Incredible Hulk is.
For one, let's take it back to May 1962 when Stan Lee and Jack Kirby introduced to us, in his very own debut issue, the Hulk himself. According to interviews, Lee spoke of how this film truly captured the essence of the character and the comics. In those comics, General Thunderbolt Ross, along with the military, was always chasing Dr. Banner ever since the accident. This is portrayed brilliantly here by Louis Leterrier. I'm not a huge fan of his work but I got to give credit where credit's due.
I don't even know where to start for positives because there's so many. For one, Edward Norton is brilliant (yes brilliant) as Bruce Banner. His performance is so emotionally subdued, filled with great sadness and longing. They even show him suffering from PTSD, which has never been touched on with this character on film. Really great stuff on Norton's part. We also get to finally see Bruce Banner be a scientist. We've seen it in the future films sure, but not to this extent. Bruce is working with scraps, using solely his wits, in a third world country . . . just like in the comics.
The story of Hulk is really a tragic love story. I got serious King Kong vibes from the similar dynamic here and it's beautiful. The chemistry between Banner and Elizabeth Ross is great. It's so believable; two people put in an impossible situation and making it work. That's love.
Hulk's character is so well realized here. He suffers from PTSD like I said, but the actual monster himself is perfect. They even throw in a bit of a horror vibe for the first Hulk-out scene. Oh yeah, there's numerous Hulk-out scenes!!! There's so many great omages to the comics as well and I loved every bit of it.
Lastly, looking at it from a technical side it's great. The cinematography is extremely well done and a total feast for the eyes. The pacing is great and goes by like the snap of Thanos himself. The editing is top-notch. The soundtrack by Craig Armstrong is one of my favorites of all time and is so iconic and beautiful. Finally, there's a serious tone. FINALLY. There are some well incorporated jokes but unlike some other Marvel films, it's not overbearing.
As for negatives, they are almost none to nonexistent. Really just nitpicks. The taxi scene is a bit unrealistic and silly. It's the only scene of humor that felt a bit forced and silly, yet I can easily ignore it. But since this is an analysis, I had to mention it. Also, unlike Ruffalo's Hulk, Norton's Hulk doesn't look very similar to Norton himself. Again, purely a nitpick.
Overall, I absolutely love The Incredible Hulk
Gareth von Kallenbach (968 KP) rated The Incredible Hulk (2008) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
Anyone familiar with the comic book or the TV series that starred the late Bill Bixby will be familiar with the setup of “The Incredible Hulk,” the new film version of the classic tale by director Louis Leterrier of “The Transporter” fame.
For those of you unfamiliar with the tale, after Dr. Banner (Edward Norton), is exposed to an accidental overdose of Gamma radiation his body chemistry is altered in such a way that he transforms into a large, green, and destructive creature when he is angered.
Naturally, this puts him at odds with the authorities and the military; thus, Banner is forced to live a vagabond existence while he searches for a way to contain his inner rage.
As the film opens, Banner has already has his accident, and this is shown via a series of clips during the opening credits. Living a simple life in Brazil, Banner works as a laborer in a bottling plant, and attempts to keep as low a profile as he possible can.
Banner communicates in secret via encrypted IM’s with a person he knows as Mr. Blue, and he hopes to extract the creature from his body by means of a plant. Mr. Blue offers Banner some ways to help his problem, but insists that he needs to seek more drastic treatment steps and needs to open up with him and let him try to help.
Since the military was funding his experiments and has huge interest in the creature Banner becomes, he decides the risk is too great and continues to find a cure in secret while he works on methods to control his anger via meditation.
Despite his best efforts, Banner is discovered by General Ross (William Hurt), who is the person in command of the program that Banner used to lead and dispatches a team led by a special operative named Emil Blonsky (Tim Roth), attempt to capture Banner. Things do not go as planned, and the attempt only succeeds in angering Banner who transforms into the Hulk with devastating results.
Forced to flee once again, Banner travels back to the United States in an effort to find Mr. Blue in order to rid the menace inside him.
Things become even more complicated for Banner when Blonsky and General Ross decide that Blonsky should seek physical enhancements in an effort to combat the Hulk, and begin a series of treatments that increase Brodsky’s strength and abilities.
Banner finds refuge with an old friend, and soon runs into his old flame Betty (Liv Tyler), whom he has avoided since the accident in an effort to protect her for the potential danger within him.
Fate is soon to step in, and Banner will soon find himself on the run with Betty, but facing the General and his troops as well as a threat even more dangerous than The Hulk.
The new version of the film is light years ahead of the disaster that was the Ang Lee directed film. Norton despite being a soft spoken individual has much more charisma for the part than did Eric Bana as he mixed pathos and humor to make Banner a well- rounded and more believable character. Since Norton co-wrote the script with Zack Penn, he clearly has put a lot of preparation in the characters as despite being comic book characters; they have more depth and humanity than most genre film characters do.
This allows the audience to become better immersed with the characters as his Banner is not some egghead whom the audience cannot connect with, but a real flesh and blood being who is dealing with extra ordinary circumstances.
Roth is solid as the greasy and power mad Blonsky and Hurt and Tyler do well with characters that would normally be stock parts in similar films.
What really impressed me besides the story and FX was the solid acting by Norton as well as the abundant respect for the source material. The film has very clever cameos by Stan Lee, Lou Ferrigno, as well as Bill Bixby which fit and does not come across as cheesy.
Without spoiling the surprise, there is a very nice moment at the end of the film that sets up future adventures as with the recent success of “Iron Man”, I for one and looking forward to more quality films about the Marvel Comics characters in the future, and especially more outings for Big Green.
For those of you unfamiliar with the tale, after Dr. Banner (Edward Norton), is exposed to an accidental overdose of Gamma radiation his body chemistry is altered in such a way that he transforms into a large, green, and destructive creature when he is angered.
Naturally, this puts him at odds with the authorities and the military; thus, Banner is forced to live a vagabond existence while he searches for a way to contain his inner rage.
As the film opens, Banner has already has his accident, and this is shown via a series of clips during the opening credits. Living a simple life in Brazil, Banner works as a laborer in a bottling plant, and attempts to keep as low a profile as he possible can.
Banner communicates in secret via encrypted IM’s with a person he knows as Mr. Blue, and he hopes to extract the creature from his body by means of a plant. Mr. Blue offers Banner some ways to help his problem, but insists that he needs to seek more drastic treatment steps and needs to open up with him and let him try to help.
Since the military was funding his experiments and has huge interest in the creature Banner becomes, he decides the risk is too great and continues to find a cure in secret while he works on methods to control his anger via meditation.
Despite his best efforts, Banner is discovered by General Ross (William Hurt), who is the person in command of the program that Banner used to lead and dispatches a team led by a special operative named Emil Blonsky (Tim Roth), attempt to capture Banner. Things do not go as planned, and the attempt only succeeds in angering Banner who transforms into the Hulk with devastating results.
Forced to flee once again, Banner travels back to the United States in an effort to find Mr. Blue in order to rid the menace inside him.
Things become even more complicated for Banner when Blonsky and General Ross decide that Blonsky should seek physical enhancements in an effort to combat the Hulk, and begin a series of treatments that increase Brodsky’s strength and abilities.
Banner finds refuge with an old friend, and soon runs into his old flame Betty (Liv Tyler), whom he has avoided since the accident in an effort to protect her for the potential danger within him.
Fate is soon to step in, and Banner will soon find himself on the run with Betty, but facing the General and his troops as well as a threat even more dangerous than The Hulk.
The new version of the film is light years ahead of the disaster that was the Ang Lee directed film. Norton despite being a soft spoken individual has much more charisma for the part than did Eric Bana as he mixed pathos and humor to make Banner a well- rounded and more believable character. Since Norton co-wrote the script with Zack Penn, he clearly has put a lot of preparation in the characters as despite being comic book characters; they have more depth and humanity than most genre film characters do.
This allows the audience to become better immersed with the characters as his Banner is not some egghead whom the audience cannot connect with, but a real flesh and blood being who is dealing with extra ordinary circumstances.
Roth is solid as the greasy and power mad Blonsky and Hurt and Tyler do well with characters that would normally be stock parts in similar films.
What really impressed me besides the story and FX was the solid acting by Norton as well as the abundant respect for the source material. The film has very clever cameos by Stan Lee, Lou Ferrigno, as well as Bill Bixby which fit and does not come across as cheesy.
Without spoiling the surprise, there is a very nice moment at the end of the film that sets up future adventures as with the recent success of “Iron Man”, I for one and looking forward to more quality films about the Marvel Comics characters in the future, and especially more outings for Big Green.
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated Watchmen - Season 1 in TV
Dec 26, 2019 (Updated Dec 27, 2019)
Pretty much perfect
Watchmen, in my opinion, is one of the best, if not the best graphic novels ever released. It's neon lit alternate reality setting and it's collection of jaded, flawed, and sometimes toxic characters were a far cry from usual comic book territory.
I was absolutely buzzing when I heard that HBO were going to be airing a series based on the property. A series would have more room to breathe and for exploration than the movie (that I still like, for the record). When it became apparent that it would be set some time after the comic, I was honestly a bit miffed. I was looking forward to seeing Rorschach and Co on the small screen...
But it turns out, I had no reason to be worried. Watchmen is outstanding through and through.
Plot wise, it's set in present day, and maintains the events of the comic in the 1980s. The world we're presented with is a world still feeling the effects from the mass killing via giant squid monster from the comic. A world where the police cover their faces to protect their identities. A world where racism is still rife and peddled by a white supremacist group calling themselves The Seventh Cavalry, a group that happen to wear Rorschach masks.
It's set mainly in Tulsa, Oklahoma, and it's distance from the neon New York setting of the comic gives it a more realistic feeling.
Angela Abar, aka Sister Night (Regina King), is heading the investigation into the Cavalry, and when things start to spiral out of control, the FBI send Laurie Blake (Jean Smart) - the retired Silk Spectre - to Tulsa to take over proceedings and figure out what's really happening behind the scenes.
To discuss the plot anymore than this would be spoiling it, but rest assured, after a fairly slow burning start, Watchmen quickly hits an ascending slope of quality that doesn't waver, and when concrete connections to the comic come out to play, the show hits some extremely lofty heights.
The cast are all brilliant. Regina King takes centre stage, and she manages to be badass, relatable, and sympathetic. Her relationship with her husband Cal (Yahya Abdul-Mateen II) is one of the best character elements throughout.
Characters that could be described more as 'side characters' played by the likes of Tim Blake Nelson, Louis Gossett Jr, James Woke, and Hong Chau (just to name a few), all end up with surprisingly strong development.
As for the characters from the original comic, we have the aforementioned Laurie Blake played by Jean Smart, and Adrian Veidt aka Ozymandius played by Jeremy Irons.
Jeremy Irons is a undoubtable highlight of the whole series. His portrayal of an older Veidt is pretty spot on, and his plot line is equal parts bizarre and humorous.
As seen from the trailers, Dr. Manhattan has a part to play here as well, but again, no spoilers here. Just have a look for yourself. It's great.
As the narrative jumps around and steams ahead, Watchmen still manages to touch on important subjects, such as war, family, and especially that of race and racism. There are some powerful moments littered throughout, and some genuinely emotional scenes that had me tearing up at times.
The direction and dialogue are brilliant, and the use of digital effects are mostly subtle and look great. The whole season is filled to the brim with amazing shots.
The music score is great as well, especially the original stuff, penned by Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross. Reznor's distinctive industrial sound suits the series down to the ground.
I absolutely loved Watchmen from start to finish. It's shows consistent willingness to do something new and it's a hugely ambitious project that's pulled off so damn well. I really hope that a second season comes about, but if it doesn't, then I'm suitably satisfied by what we've already been given. Just fantastic.
I was absolutely buzzing when I heard that HBO were going to be airing a series based on the property. A series would have more room to breathe and for exploration than the movie (that I still like, for the record). When it became apparent that it would be set some time after the comic, I was honestly a bit miffed. I was looking forward to seeing Rorschach and Co on the small screen...
But it turns out, I had no reason to be worried. Watchmen is outstanding through and through.
Plot wise, it's set in present day, and maintains the events of the comic in the 1980s. The world we're presented with is a world still feeling the effects from the mass killing via giant squid monster from the comic. A world where the police cover their faces to protect their identities. A world where racism is still rife and peddled by a white supremacist group calling themselves The Seventh Cavalry, a group that happen to wear Rorschach masks.
It's set mainly in Tulsa, Oklahoma, and it's distance from the neon New York setting of the comic gives it a more realistic feeling.
Angela Abar, aka Sister Night (Regina King), is heading the investigation into the Cavalry, and when things start to spiral out of control, the FBI send Laurie Blake (Jean Smart) - the retired Silk Spectre - to Tulsa to take over proceedings and figure out what's really happening behind the scenes.
To discuss the plot anymore than this would be spoiling it, but rest assured, after a fairly slow burning start, Watchmen quickly hits an ascending slope of quality that doesn't waver, and when concrete connections to the comic come out to play, the show hits some extremely lofty heights.
The cast are all brilliant. Regina King takes centre stage, and she manages to be badass, relatable, and sympathetic. Her relationship with her husband Cal (Yahya Abdul-Mateen II) is one of the best character elements throughout.
Characters that could be described more as 'side characters' played by the likes of Tim Blake Nelson, Louis Gossett Jr, James Woke, and Hong Chau (just to name a few), all end up with surprisingly strong development.
As for the characters from the original comic, we have the aforementioned Laurie Blake played by Jean Smart, and Adrian Veidt aka Ozymandius played by Jeremy Irons.
Jeremy Irons is a undoubtable highlight of the whole series. His portrayal of an older Veidt is pretty spot on, and his plot line is equal parts bizarre and humorous.
As seen from the trailers, Dr. Manhattan has a part to play here as well, but again, no spoilers here. Just have a look for yourself. It's great.
As the narrative jumps around and steams ahead, Watchmen still manages to touch on important subjects, such as war, family, and especially that of race and racism. There are some powerful moments littered throughout, and some genuinely emotional scenes that had me tearing up at times.
The direction and dialogue are brilliant, and the use of digital effects are mostly subtle and look great. The whole season is filled to the brim with amazing shots.
The music score is great as well, especially the original stuff, penned by Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross. Reznor's distinctive industrial sound suits the series down to the ground.
I absolutely loved Watchmen from start to finish. It's shows consistent willingness to do something new and it's a hugely ambitious project that's pulled off so damn well. I really hope that a second season comes about, but if it doesn't, then I'm suitably satisfied by what we've already been given. Just fantastic.
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.)
