Search
Search results
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.)
Suswatibasu (1701 KP) rated The Zookeeper's Wife (2017) in Movies
Nov 24, 2017 (Updated Nov 24, 2017)
Story is harrowing and essential but film could have been made better
As a massive fan of biopics, The Zookeeper's Wife is an incredibly important tale of a the real life Polish couple who sheltered Jews in their zoo during the Second World War, helping 300 people to escape from Warsaw.
Dr. Jan Zabinski was the director of the Warsaw Zoo in the 1930's, and along with his wife Antonina and young son, they ensured the safety and care of animals in the area. Their life came to an abrupt halt with the German invasion of Poland in 1939, when most of their animals and structures were destroyed in the bombings and siege of the city. The zoo was closed under German occupation, but the Zabinskis continued to occupy the villa, and the zoo itself was used first as a pig farm and subsequently as a fur farm. All the while, Dr Zabinski smuggled Jewish people out of the Warsaw Ghetto and aided their way out of city, not before allowing them to stay in their own house. He was injured while fighting in the Polish resistance, but the couple were given an honorary title by Yad Vashem (Israel's official memorial for Jewish victims of the Holocaust) for their brave efforts.
Similar in the vein of films such as @Schindler's List (1993), there is an element of a saviour complex in these films, but unlike Steven Spielberg's Oscar-winner, it is less extravagant and less well-made, as there was very little engagement with the Jewish characters - focusing more on Antonina, played by Jessica Chastain. It is definitely heart-wrenching watching films based on the holocaust, and there were scenes I had to turn away from, such as when an elderly woman and her mother were shot dead in the streets by soldiers. The script and cinematography weren't at a high standard, however, and as a result the film definitely fell short. I would suggest reading the book @The Zookeeper's Wife - it has far more detail than the film, in which there were glaringly obvious plot holes.
Dr. Jan Zabinski was the director of the Warsaw Zoo in the 1930's, and along with his wife Antonina and young son, they ensured the safety and care of animals in the area. Their life came to an abrupt halt with the German invasion of Poland in 1939, when most of their animals and structures were destroyed in the bombings and siege of the city. The zoo was closed under German occupation, but the Zabinskis continued to occupy the villa, and the zoo itself was used first as a pig farm and subsequently as a fur farm. All the while, Dr Zabinski smuggled Jewish people out of the Warsaw Ghetto and aided their way out of city, not before allowing them to stay in their own house. He was injured while fighting in the Polish resistance, but the couple were given an honorary title by Yad Vashem (Israel's official memorial for Jewish victims of the Holocaust) for their brave efforts.
Similar in the vein of films such as @Schindler's List (1993), there is an element of a saviour complex in these films, but unlike Steven Spielberg's Oscar-winner, it is less extravagant and less well-made, as there was very little engagement with the Jewish characters - focusing more on Antonina, played by Jessica Chastain. It is definitely heart-wrenching watching films based on the holocaust, and there were scenes I had to turn away from, such as when an elderly woman and her mother were shot dead in the streets by soldiers. The script and cinematography weren't at a high standard, however, and as a result the film definitely fell short. I would suggest reading the book @The Zookeeper's Wife - it has far more detail than the film, in which there were glaringly obvious plot holes.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Deerskin (Le Daim) (2019) in Movies
Jul 15, 2021
Anarchic concept and lots of surprises (1 more)
Dujardin and Haenel act well
Killer style… but bloody bonkers.
This French movie (with subtitles) by Quentin Dupieux is a black comedy that veers towards the violently absurd. So it certainly won't be for everyone.
Positives:
- There's an anarchy to the black comedy on show in Deerskin that's mildly exhilarating. It really IS bloody bonkers. But the absurd story, of a man spiralling into a deerskin-lined black hole, is delivered in an extremely entertaining way.
- It's all delivered with a straight face by Dujardin (famous of course as the Oscar-winner from "The Artist"). And very good he is at it too.
- Adèle Haenel was one of the two lovers in "Portrait of a Lady on Fire" (actually completed after this movie, which has been on the Covid-shelf since 2019). Here she again shows star-power as the barmaid with dreams of hitting the movie-making big-time. Every absurd twist and turn seems to be believable in her hands, once you understand that she is "into it".
Negatives:
- The anarchic story and the extreme violence will not be for everyone. There were 2 walk-outs in my cinema (about 10% of the Cineworld Unlimited audience).
- A few of the lines irritate: Georges mistakenly saying "creditor" instead of "editor" was an example.
Summary Thoughts on "Deerskin": Based on the trailer, I really wasn't sure I was going to enjoy this one. But it has a style about it that is unmistakable. I had no idea where it was going, and the denouement was surprising and satisfying.
It'll be a "marmite" film for sure - some will love it; many will hate it. I doubt there will be much middle ground for this one.
BTW, there is a mid-credits scene, a few seconds into the end credits. Doesn't add much, to be honest.
(For the full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies on t'interweb here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/07/15/deerskin-killer-style-but-bloody-bonkers/ . There's also a new Tiktok channel at @onemannsmovies. Thanks).
Positives:
- There's an anarchy to the black comedy on show in Deerskin that's mildly exhilarating. It really IS bloody bonkers. But the absurd story, of a man spiralling into a deerskin-lined black hole, is delivered in an extremely entertaining way.
- It's all delivered with a straight face by Dujardin (famous of course as the Oscar-winner from "The Artist"). And very good he is at it too.
- Adèle Haenel was one of the two lovers in "Portrait of a Lady on Fire" (actually completed after this movie, which has been on the Covid-shelf since 2019). Here she again shows star-power as the barmaid with dreams of hitting the movie-making big-time. Every absurd twist and turn seems to be believable in her hands, once you understand that she is "into it".
Negatives:
- The anarchic story and the extreme violence will not be for everyone. There were 2 walk-outs in my cinema (about 10% of the Cineworld Unlimited audience).
- A few of the lines irritate: Georges mistakenly saying "creditor" instead of "editor" was an example.
Summary Thoughts on "Deerskin": Based on the trailer, I really wasn't sure I was going to enjoy this one. But it has a style about it that is unmistakable. I had no idea where it was going, and the denouement was surprising and satisfying.
It'll be a "marmite" film for sure - some will love it; many will hate it. I doubt there will be much middle ground for this one.
BTW, there is a mid-credits scene, a few seconds into the end credits. Doesn't add much, to be honest.
(For the full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies on t'interweb here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/07/15/deerskin-killer-style-but-bloody-bonkers/ . There's also a new Tiktok channel at @onemannsmovies. Thanks).
Sarah (7798 KP) rated Ma Rainey's Black Bottom (2020) in Movies
Jan 30, 2021
Boseman is amazing
Ma Rainey’s Black Bottom is the latest adaptation of the works of August Wilson brought to us by producer Denzel Washington, following on from the 2016 adaptation of Fences that earned Viola Davis a Best Supporting Actress Oscar. Here Washington hands over the directing reins to Tony award winner George C. Wolfe, while Viola Davis returns as the titular Ma Rainey.
Set in 1920s Chicago, the film follows a tense and fractious recording session with Ma Rainey and her backing band, old hands Toledo (Glynn Turman), Cutler (Colman Domingo) and Slow Drag (Michael Potts) alongside ambitious young horn player Levee (Chadwick Boseman). Tensions rise between Ma, Levee and the recording studio management (Jeremy Shamos as Irvin and Jonny Coyne as Sturdyvant) as each attempts to control the recording session and play songs that fit best with their own motives. Contributing to the frictions are Levee’s flirtation with Ma’s girlfriend Dussie Mae (Taylour Paige) and her Ma’s stuttering nephew Sylvester (Dusan Brown) as he attempts to introduce Ma’s signature song, Black Bottom.
Ma Rainey’s Black Bottom undoubtedly looks and sounds good. The cinematography and costumes are perfect and entirely in keeping with the 20s Chicago setting. And the blues music is captivating and beautifully made. To be quite honest I would’ve been quite happy to watch and listen to an entire film solely following the band and their music. However whilst it does look and sound good, it is so obviously a film adapted from a stage play and I’m afraid this isn’t a good thing. There’s a limited number of sets and virtually the entirety of the 90 minute run time is set within two rooms in the recording studio, which makes such a short film feel ridiculously drawn out. This isn’t helped by the huge reliance on very long scripted dialogue and conversational scenes. I can’t deny that the writing is good and is helped by strong performances from everyone involved, but there’s just too much dialogue. This might work on the stage, but on screen it doesn’t quite translate. There’s that much dialogue that the majority of scenes become too heavy and bogged down and sadly almost entirely forgettable. For me a film needs to balance dialogue with actual events and actions, and I’m afraid aside from the final act, nothing much happens here.
Fortunately this is at least boosted by some stellar performances. Viola Davis is brilliant as the spirited Ma Rainey, even if Ma herself as a character is rather unlikeable with some questionable motives for her actions and manners. The star however is the late Chadwick Boseman. While it’s very off putting to see how obviously thin and ill he was filming this, his performance is outstanding. He brings life and fun and heart to every scene he’s in and gives this film a massive boost. Even the drawn out dialogue heavy scenes become enthralling when he’s talking and the emotions on show are spectacular. Despite Viola Davis being the star as Ma, it’s Boseman that carried this film entirely on his shoulders. If he doesn’t win a posthumous Oscar for this, it’d be criminal.
Ma Rainey’s Black Bottom is a shining example of stellar performances, most notably Chadwick Boseman. It’s just a shame that the rest of the film doesn’t quite meet the high standards set by its stars.
Set in 1920s Chicago, the film follows a tense and fractious recording session with Ma Rainey and her backing band, old hands Toledo (Glynn Turman), Cutler (Colman Domingo) and Slow Drag (Michael Potts) alongside ambitious young horn player Levee (Chadwick Boseman). Tensions rise between Ma, Levee and the recording studio management (Jeremy Shamos as Irvin and Jonny Coyne as Sturdyvant) as each attempts to control the recording session and play songs that fit best with their own motives. Contributing to the frictions are Levee’s flirtation with Ma’s girlfriend Dussie Mae (Taylour Paige) and her Ma’s stuttering nephew Sylvester (Dusan Brown) as he attempts to introduce Ma’s signature song, Black Bottom.
Ma Rainey’s Black Bottom undoubtedly looks and sounds good. The cinematography and costumes are perfect and entirely in keeping with the 20s Chicago setting. And the blues music is captivating and beautifully made. To be quite honest I would’ve been quite happy to watch and listen to an entire film solely following the band and their music. However whilst it does look and sound good, it is so obviously a film adapted from a stage play and I’m afraid this isn’t a good thing. There’s a limited number of sets and virtually the entirety of the 90 minute run time is set within two rooms in the recording studio, which makes such a short film feel ridiculously drawn out. This isn’t helped by the huge reliance on very long scripted dialogue and conversational scenes. I can’t deny that the writing is good and is helped by strong performances from everyone involved, but there’s just too much dialogue. This might work on the stage, but on screen it doesn’t quite translate. There’s that much dialogue that the majority of scenes become too heavy and bogged down and sadly almost entirely forgettable. For me a film needs to balance dialogue with actual events and actions, and I’m afraid aside from the final act, nothing much happens here.
Fortunately this is at least boosted by some stellar performances. Viola Davis is brilliant as the spirited Ma Rainey, even if Ma herself as a character is rather unlikeable with some questionable motives for her actions and manners. The star however is the late Chadwick Boseman. While it’s very off putting to see how obviously thin and ill he was filming this, his performance is outstanding. He brings life and fun and heart to every scene he’s in and gives this film a massive boost. Even the drawn out dialogue heavy scenes become enthralling when he’s talking and the emotions on show are spectacular. Despite Viola Davis being the star as Ma, it’s Boseman that carried this film entirely on his shoulders. If he doesn’t win a posthumous Oscar for this, it’d be criminal.
Ma Rainey’s Black Bottom is a shining example of stellar performances, most notably Chadwick Boseman. It’s just a shame that the rest of the film doesn’t quite meet the high standards set by its stars.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Fences (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
The Last Post.
In “Fences” Denzel Washington plays Troy – a bitter, self-centred and selfish man in his mid-fifties who loves the sound of his own voice. They say “empty vessels make the most noise” and here is a case in point. Set in the early fifties, race plays a strong card in every aspect of life, and Troy feels betrayed by a failed baseball career that – in his eyes at least – looked over his skills to the colour of his skin. But Troy is also a stubborn cuss, and refuses to acknowledge that even in the 50’s “The times they are a changing’”. His cussedness puts him on a collision course with his teenage son Cory (Jovan Adepo), given his aspirations for a college football scholarship, and his mother (Viola Davis, “The Help”) tries to keep the peace between the two of them.
This is a film primarily about resistance to change. All those changes in the outside world are on the ‘other side of the fence’ that Troy habitually tries to finish but never seems to put his mind to. Fences keep things out; but they also keep things in, and Troy is in a cocoon of his own making. He justifies his actions as a ‘family provider’ with lengthy speeches but ultimately they deliver hollow words and assertions that don’t stand up to scrutiny.
This is a pressure cooker of family life that is primed to blow, and a revelation (which I didn’t see coming) sets that fuse alight.
This is a film worth watching for the acting performances of Denzel Washington and (particularly) Viola Davis, winner of the Best Supporting Actress BAFTA and a strong contender for the Oscar. Both give assured performances, although Troy is such an instantly dis-likable and pitiable character that I could feel my emotions influencing my judgement about his performance.
But this is also a strong ensemble cast, with Mykelti Williamson (famously appearing as Bubba of the ‘Bubba Gump Shrimp Factory’ fame) being effective as Troy’s disabled brother and English-born Jovan Adepo being particularly impressive in an extremely assured feature debut.
However, the Broadway roots of the piece are highly visible with 98% of the film set either in the back yard, in the house, or on the front steps (the set could clearly rotate!). For such a claustrophobic topic, this is perhaps apt. But as a feature film I longed for the action to go elsewhere. The film version of the story – with a few tweaks to the screenplay – has lots of opportunities for this, but these are never taken. This makes the whole piece feel ‘worthy but dull’. In particular, anyone looking for a useful tutorial on fence building needs to look elsewhere!
As for the recent “Moonlight” there is also excessive use of the “N” word and other outdated racial references that have the potential to offend.
Good luck to Viola Davis and Denzel Washington (who also directed this) for their Best Supporting Actress and Best Actor Oscars nominations. But “Best Film” Oscar? No, I don’t think so. In truth this is a film that I will struggle to remember or get excited about in a month’s time and it will not be on my re-watch list.
This is a film primarily about resistance to change. All those changes in the outside world are on the ‘other side of the fence’ that Troy habitually tries to finish but never seems to put his mind to. Fences keep things out; but they also keep things in, and Troy is in a cocoon of his own making. He justifies his actions as a ‘family provider’ with lengthy speeches but ultimately they deliver hollow words and assertions that don’t stand up to scrutiny.
This is a pressure cooker of family life that is primed to blow, and a revelation (which I didn’t see coming) sets that fuse alight.
This is a film worth watching for the acting performances of Denzel Washington and (particularly) Viola Davis, winner of the Best Supporting Actress BAFTA and a strong contender for the Oscar. Both give assured performances, although Troy is such an instantly dis-likable and pitiable character that I could feel my emotions influencing my judgement about his performance.
But this is also a strong ensemble cast, with Mykelti Williamson (famously appearing as Bubba of the ‘Bubba Gump Shrimp Factory’ fame) being effective as Troy’s disabled brother and English-born Jovan Adepo being particularly impressive in an extremely assured feature debut.
However, the Broadway roots of the piece are highly visible with 98% of the film set either in the back yard, in the house, or on the front steps (the set could clearly rotate!). For such a claustrophobic topic, this is perhaps apt. But as a feature film I longed for the action to go elsewhere. The film version of the story – with a few tweaks to the screenplay – has lots of opportunities for this, but these are never taken. This makes the whole piece feel ‘worthy but dull’. In particular, anyone looking for a useful tutorial on fence building needs to look elsewhere!
As for the recent “Moonlight” there is also excessive use of the “N” word and other outdated racial references that have the potential to offend.
Good luck to Viola Davis and Denzel Washington (who also directed this) for their Best Supporting Actress and Best Actor Oscars nominations. But “Best Film” Oscar? No, I don’t think so. In truth this is a film that I will struggle to remember or get excited about in a month’s time and it will not be on my re-watch list.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse (2023) in Movies
Jun 8, 2023
A Feast for the Eyes and the Heart
In 2018, Producer/Writers Phil Lord and Christopher Miller (THE LEGO MOVIE) presented the animated film SPIDER-MAN INTO THE SPIDERVERSE to unsuspecting audiences and this film burst onto the scene - and into our senses - with a visual cornucopia of comic-book styles that ushered in a new way to present a comic-book movie. In this film, multiple Spider-Mans from different “SpiderVerses” came to the home universe of the lead Spiderman (in this Universe, Spiderman is NOT Peter Parker, but rather Miles Morales), and they kept the comic book styles of their own universes while in the home universe of Miles.
Get it? If not, hang onto your hats, for these two just took it to a whole new level.
In SPIDER-MAN ACROSS THE SPIDER-VERSE, our hero, Miles Morales (voiced again by Shameik Moore) leaves his home universe and travels TO multiple other Spider-verses with multiple other animated styles - as well as meeting a plethora of other Spider-folk.
The result of this is a visual feast that should be seen on the big screen. The artistry at work here is “next level” as the differing styles blend seamlessly with each other without becoming head-ache inducing. It is a master class of “Going for it” but wisely knowing how to “not go too far” and the filmmakers of this animated gem thread that the needle expertly.
But…that isn’t the best part of this film.
There is an underlying storyline that sets Miles off on his adventure and this part of the film is built upon relationships, love, duty and devotion. This film delves deeper into Miles’ relationship with his parents (voiced by Brian Tyree Henry, off of his Oscar Nominated role in CAUSEWAY and Luna Lauren Velez best known as Lt. LaGuerta on DEXTER) and this gives the film some heart.
But…that isn’t the best part of the film.
The best part of this film is Miles’ relationship with another Spider-person, Spider Gwen (Stacy) - voiced by Hailee Steinfeld (THE EDGE OF SEVENTEEN), this film wisely (there’s that word again) decide to have 1/2 of this film shown from her perspective and the depth of performance of love, loss and longing from Steinfeld is surprisingly deep and moving for an animated film and it is THIS relationship that really cements this film as something special.
Oh…and did I fail to mention the wonderful voice work by Jake Johnson, Jason Schwartzman, Issa Rae, Daniel Kaluuya and Oscar Isaac (amongst many, many others)? They all brought their “A” game to what is a tremendous movie going experience.
One does not need to see the first SPIDERVERSE film to enjoy this one - but it does help and one very much will need to see this film to enjoy the NEXT one (the 3rd film of the trilogy, SPIDER-MAN BEYOND THE SPIDERVERSE is set to be released next year), so if one is going to invest in these films, one should probably go “all-in”.
The filmmakers certainly did that - and the audience is the winner for their efforts.
Letter Grade: A
9 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Get it? If not, hang onto your hats, for these two just took it to a whole new level.
In SPIDER-MAN ACROSS THE SPIDER-VERSE, our hero, Miles Morales (voiced again by Shameik Moore) leaves his home universe and travels TO multiple other Spider-verses with multiple other animated styles - as well as meeting a plethora of other Spider-folk.
The result of this is a visual feast that should be seen on the big screen. The artistry at work here is “next level” as the differing styles blend seamlessly with each other without becoming head-ache inducing. It is a master class of “Going for it” but wisely knowing how to “not go too far” and the filmmakers of this animated gem thread that the needle expertly.
But…that isn’t the best part of this film.
There is an underlying storyline that sets Miles off on his adventure and this part of the film is built upon relationships, love, duty and devotion. This film delves deeper into Miles’ relationship with his parents (voiced by Brian Tyree Henry, off of his Oscar Nominated role in CAUSEWAY and Luna Lauren Velez best known as Lt. LaGuerta on DEXTER) and this gives the film some heart.
But…that isn’t the best part of the film.
The best part of this film is Miles’ relationship with another Spider-person, Spider Gwen (Stacy) - voiced by Hailee Steinfeld (THE EDGE OF SEVENTEEN), this film wisely (there’s that word again) decide to have 1/2 of this film shown from her perspective and the depth of performance of love, loss and longing from Steinfeld is surprisingly deep and moving for an animated film and it is THIS relationship that really cements this film as something special.
Oh…and did I fail to mention the wonderful voice work by Jake Johnson, Jason Schwartzman, Issa Rae, Daniel Kaluuya and Oscar Isaac (amongst many, many others)? They all brought their “A” game to what is a tremendous movie going experience.
One does not need to see the first SPIDERVERSE film to enjoy this one - but it does help and one very much will need to see this film to enjoy the NEXT one (the 3rd film of the trilogy, SPIDER-MAN BEYOND THE SPIDERVERSE is set to be released next year), so if one is going to invest in these films, one should probably go “all-in”.
The filmmakers certainly did that - and the audience is the winner for their efforts.
Letter Grade: A
9 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Marriage Story (2019) in Movies
Mar 3, 2020
To say I found this hard to watch could not be more understated. Any adult that has risked their whole life on a true love that runs its course and then fails must surely feel the same. It happens to most of us once or twice in a lifetime, and resonates forever. Such is the level of truth and sadness on display in Noah Baumbach’s beautifully written and directed tale of two people in turmoil, whose biggest obstacle is not one another, but the dispassion and ineffectiveness of legality, and even friends and family, to resolve big issues of a personal nature.
As with the obvious reference point of the seminal take on divorce, Robert Benton’s 1979 Oscar winner Kramer Vs. Kramer, the point is not at all about taking sides and choosing a winner… because everyone loses in a break-up. The only thing you can hope is that it doesn’t tear the child / children apart, and that at least some memory of the love that once was isn’t entirely forgotten. You also hope that you will survive, once you realise you are not part of a whole any more, and you must now figure out who you are and where to go. Even the grief of death is sometimes not as devastating. And this beyond mature film acknowledges that.
Not that it is all doom and gloom. There is some real humour and joy wrapped up inside the detail of Marriage Story’s script. As you would expect from the guy who gave us the massively under-rated The Squid and the Whale, from 2005. It assumes an emotional intelligence similar to the best films of Woody Allen, with which he clearly shares some sense of creative style and sensibility. But let’s not open that can of worms at this juncture.
The idea that Scarlett Johansson can even be thought of as a double Oscar nominee this year may be galling to some naysayers, but it comes as no surprise to me at all. Despite a career touching on the lighter side of cinema, there are some bold artistic choices in there too, and personally I have always seen that potential. As Nicole, she not only creates a fully rounded character different from anything I have ever seen her do; believable and interesting in every way, but also holds her own against one of the major talents working in film today – Mr Adam Driver. And that is no mean feat! Another balance comparison that can be made to the epic battle of Streep Vs Hoffman, decades before. And as with Streep before her, there are moments where we entirely see her side of things and stop questioning male vs female politics and just see the person battling underneath it all.
However, and not remotely because I am likely to relate to the male point of view, the work Adam Driver is doing here is close to transcendent! I have made no secret of wanting Joaquin Phoenix to win every accolade going for his turn in Joker. And what a shame the two have to be compared, because Driver’s work here is second to none! I find it so completely exciting for the future of cinema that he is out there doing his thing – evidently, it is about as breath-taking as screen acting has ever been!
It is not only his ability to convey vulnerability and humanity in every role he takes on; it his control that really impresses. To such an extent that I begin to wonder if there is anything he could not do better than 99% of anyone working today, if well cast. Make no mistake, at any level, this is one of hell of a talent, making the right choices in the roles he does at almost every crossroads. Consider the latest Star Wars trilogy without him, and ponder what weak popcorn fare it might have been without him?
Marriage Story as a complete piece is worthy of dissection and multiple re-watches. I am happy to say that, only hours after seeing it myself. There simply isn’t a doubt. As a serious commentary on break-ups then it may be, at the moment, tertiary in my mind to both the aforementioned Kramer Vs Kramer and the sickeningly sad Blue Valentine. But, it is perhaps more real than either of those, and will certainly build in my psyche as time passes.
In conclusion: Yes! I have no inclination to fault it. And may have more to say at a different point…
As with the obvious reference point of the seminal take on divorce, Robert Benton’s 1979 Oscar winner Kramer Vs. Kramer, the point is not at all about taking sides and choosing a winner… because everyone loses in a break-up. The only thing you can hope is that it doesn’t tear the child / children apart, and that at least some memory of the love that once was isn’t entirely forgotten. You also hope that you will survive, once you realise you are not part of a whole any more, and you must now figure out who you are and where to go. Even the grief of death is sometimes not as devastating. And this beyond mature film acknowledges that.
Not that it is all doom and gloom. There is some real humour and joy wrapped up inside the detail of Marriage Story’s script. As you would expect from the guy who gave us the massively under-rated The Squid and the Whale, from 2005. It assumes an emotional intelligence similar to the best films of Woody Allen, with which he clearly shares some sense of creative style and sensibility. But let’s not open that can of worms at this juncture.
The idea that Scarlett Johansson can even be thought of as a double Oscar nominee this year may be galling to some naysayers, but it comes as no surprise to me at all. Despite a career touching on the lighter side of cinema, there are some bold artistic choices in there too, and personally I have always seen that potential. As Nicole, she not only creates a fully rounded character different from anything I have ever seen her do; believable and interesting in every way, but also holds her own against one of the major talents working in film today – Mr Adam Driver. And that is no mean feat! Another balance comparison that can be made to the epic battle of Streep Vs Hoffman, decades before. And as with Streep before her, there are moments where we entirely see her side of things and stop questioning male vs female politics and just see the person battling underneath it all.
However, and not remotely because I am likely to relate to the male point of view, the work Adam Driver is doing here is close to transcendent! I have made no secret of wanting Joaquin Phoenix to win every accolade going for his turn in Joker. And what a shame the two have to be compared, because Driver’s work here is second to none! I find it so completely exciting for the future of cinema that he is out there doing his thing – evidently, it is about as breath-taking as screen acting has ever been!
It is not only his ability to convey vulnerability and humanity in every role he takes on; it his control that really impresses. To such an extent that I begin to wonder if there is anything he could not do better than 99% of anyone working today, if well cast. Make no mistake, at any level, this is one of hell of a talent, making the right choices in the roles he does at almost every crossroads. Consider the latest Star Wars trilogy without him, and ponder what weak popcorn fare it might have been without him?
Marriage Story as a complete piece is worthy of dissection and multiple re-watches. I am happy to say that, only hours after seeing it myself. There simply isn’t a doubt. As a serious commentary on break-ups then it may be, at the moment, tertiary in my mind to both the aforementioned Kramer Vs Kramer and the sickeningly sad Blue Valentine. But, it is perhaps more real than either of those, and will certainly build in my psyche as time passes.
In conclusion: Yes! I have no inclination to fault it. And may have more to say at a different point…
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood (2019) in Movies
Dec 6, 2019
Gentle, slow-paced and full of HEART
The new "Mr. Rogers" movie, A BEAUTIFUL DAY IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD is gentle, warm, slow, kind and heartfelt - just the type of film that is antithetical to how life is bounding past all of us on a daily basis. It would be well worth your time to slow down, turn off the electronics, and take in this wonderfully loving film.
Tom Hanks, of course, stars as Mr. Rogers - the beloved TV Host of the beloved children's show MR. ROGERS NEIGHBORHOOD and he does a remarkable job of bringing this kind gentle soul to life. Hanks embodies all of what is good and right to this character, while still making him a real person. Hanks, no doubt, will be named an Oscar nominee for this performance - but it is in what category that might be a surprise to most.
For, it will be as Supporting (not Lead) Actor for this is NOT a movie ABOUT Mr. Rogers. It is a movie that Mr. Rogers plays a strong Supporting part.
This film is about the real, true-to-life relationship that Fred Rogers forged with troubled writer Lloyd Vogel (Matthew Rhys). Vogel is assigned by his boss at Esquire (Christine Lahti - who it was GREAT to see in a film) to do a quick "puff piece" on Rogers. This hard-boiled reporter is hell-bent on peeling the layers back on this man. The surface of Mr. Rogers is just "too good to be true" to this writer. What happens, of course, is that Fred Rogers peels back the layers on Vogel to help him understand his troubled relationship with his father (Chris Cooper) - and it is this relationship that is at the heart of this movie.
And heart is what is at the center of this film. This film is filled with love, understanding, warmth and HEART in abundance. Fred Rogers helps Lloyd Vogel to slow down and understand - and deal with - his feelings that are impeding his relationship with his father. And it is this heart and warmth that touched me. I was brought to the edge of tears more than once during the course of the 1 hour and 49 minute length of this film (and I am not a cryer) it was that well done - and emotional - without being cloying.
Credit Writers Micah Fitzerman-Blue and Noah Harpster (both of TV's TRANSPARENT) for adapting Tom Junod's real life Esquire article on Rogers in such a way that it is powerful, thoughtful and effective. They accomplished this by placing the events of this film, loosely, in the format of Rogers' beloved TV show and it worked well.
What also worked well was the Direction of Marielle Heller (CAN YOU EVER FORGIVE ME) like her previous film (which garnered Melissa McCarthy a well deserved Oscar nomination), Heller keeps her camera relatively still and lets her actors act - relying on tight. lingering close-ups and lingering, quiet pauses for the full effect of the emotions behind the words to land on the audience and resonate.
She would not be able to do this without a strong cast - and a strong cast she has. Besides Hanks, Matthew Rhys (TV's THE AMERICANS) is a steady calm. angry presence that anchors the film in the "no way Mr. Rogers can be that nice" mindset that almost all of us have at the beginning of the film to be slowly peeled away to reveal what is really causing the anger and cynicism emitting from his character. The always reliable Chris Cooper (Oscar winner for ADAPTATION back in 2002) brings pathos and regret as Jerry Vogel, Lloyds father. The relationship between these two is the balancing point of this film and it is balanced well. They are joined by a strong list of Supporting Actors (like Enrico Colantoni, Susan Kelechi Watson and Wendy Makkena) that bring strength and warmth to the proceedings without stealing focus on the main players. They all are SUPPORTING players and they SUPPORT the events of the film wonderfully
I strongly urge you to see this film in a "closed environment" - a movie theater, in a darkened room - without distractions (turn off your phone, close the shades if you are home) and let the warmth, gentleness, humanity and slow-pace wash over you. You'll be glad you did.
Letter Grade: A- (Did I mention that this film is paced VERY slowly)
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Tom Hanks, of course, stars as Mr. Rogers - the beloved TV Host of the beloved children's show MR. ROGERS NEIGHBORHOOD and he does a remarkable job of bringing this kind gentle soul to life. Hanks embodies all of what is good and right to this character, while still making him a real person. Hanks, no doubt, will be named an Oscar nominee for this performance - but it is in what category that might be a surprise to most.
For, it will be as Supporting (not Lead) Actor for this is NOT a movie ABOUT Mr. Rogers. It is a movie that Mr. Rogers plays a strong Supporting part.
This film is about the real, true-to-life relationship that Fred Rogers forged with troubled writer Lloyd Vogel (Matthew Rhys). Vogel is assigned by his boss at Esquire (Christine Lahti - who it was GREAT to see in a film) to do a quick "puff piece" on Rogers. This hard-boiled reporter is hell-bent on peeling the layers back on this man. The surface of Mr. Rogers is just "too good to be true" to this writer. What happens, of course, is that Fred Rogers peels back the layers on Vogel to help him understand his troubled relationship with his father (Chris Cooper) - and it is this relationship that is at the heart of this movie.
And heart is what is at the center of this film. This film is filled with love, understanding, warmth and HEART in abundance. Fred Rogers helps Lloyd Vogel to slow down and understand - and deal with - his feelings that are impeding his relationship with his father. And it is this heart and warmth that touched me. I was brought to the edge of tears more than once during the course of the 1 hour and 49 minute length of this film (and I am not a cryer) it was that well done - and emotional - without being cloying.
Credit Writers Micah Fitzerman-Blue and Noah Harpster (both of TV's TRANSPARENT) for adapting Tom Junod's real life Esquire article on Rogers in such a way that it is powerful, thoughtful and effective. They accomplished this by placing the events of this film, loosely, in the format of Rogers' beloved TV show and it worked well.
What also worked well was the Direction of Marielle Heller (CAN YOU EVER FORGIVE ME) like her previous film (which garnered Melissa McCarthy a well deserved Oscar nomination), Heller keeps her camera relatively still and lets her actors act - relying on tight. lingering close-ups and lingering, quiet pauses for the full effect of the emotions behind the words to land on the audience and resonate.
She would not be able to do this without a strong cast - and a strong cast she has. Besides Hanks, Matthew Rhys (TV's THE AMERICANS) is a steady calm. angry presence that anchors the film in the "no way Mr. Rogers can be that nice" mindset that almost all of us have at the beginning of the film to be slowly peeled away to reveal what is really causing the anger and cynicism emitting from his character. The always reliable Chris Cooper (Oscar winner for ADAPTATION back in 2002) brings pathos and regret as Jerry Vogel, Lloyds father. The relationship between these two is the balancing point of this film and it is balanced well. They are joined by a strong list of Supporting Actors (like Enrico Colantoni, Susan Kelechi Watson and Wendy Makkena) that bring strength and warmth to the proceedings without stealing focus on the main players. They all are SUPPORTING players and they SUPPORT the events of the film wonderfully
I strongly urge you to see this film in a "closed environment" - a movie theater, in a darkened room - without distractions (turn off your phone, close the shades if you are home) and let the warmth, gentleness, humanity and slow-pace wash over you. You'll be glad you did.
Letter Grade: A- (Did I mention that this film is paced VERY slowly)
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Mary Poppins (1964) in Movies
Apr 20, 2019
Practically Perfect In Every Way
After watching MARY POPPINS RETURNS, the BankofMarquis was itching to check out the original 1964 Julie Andrews/Dick Van Dyke/Walt Disney production of MARY POPPINS to see if it holds up as well as my memory has held it up. I was a little nervous when I put the DVD in the player and hit go.
And I shouldn't have worried, for MARY POPPINS is...pardon the expression..."Practically Perfect in Every Way".
Based on the series of books by P.L. Travers and set right around 1900, the film tells the tale of the London Banks' Family - Mr., Mrs., Jane and Michael - who need a new nanny. Both parents are too busy to spend time with their children - he with his job at the Bank (get it - Mr. Banks works at a Bank) and her involvement in the Women's Suffragette movement. Into their lives flies (quite literally) Mary Poppins - a nanny with magical qualities who, along with her friend and cohort Bert, casts a spell on the children - and the Banks' family.
Julie Andrews earned the Oscar for Best Actress for her feature film debut - and it is richly deserved. Her Poppins is stern, smart, brassy and loving - oh...and a marvelous singer and dancer. Just as strong as Andrews is Dick Van Dyke as Bert (though some will quibble with his Cockney accent). I say...don't worry about his accent and watch the wonderful comedic timing, dancing and joi de vivre that Van Dyke brings to this film. He is the "secret sauce" that makes this work. Julie would not be as good - nor would this film be as interesting - without Bert by her side.
EVERY major player shines in this film from David Tomlinson's befuddled, straight-laced British Gentleman Mr. Banks to Glynnis Johns as the enthusiastic supporter of Votes for Women, Mrs. Banks, to the children - Karen Dotrice and Matthew Garber. Special notice should be made to Ed Wynn who's one scene/song/cameo as Uncle Albert - the "I Love To Laugh" scene - is pure gold.
Even the smaller, supporting roles are stellar. Reta Shaw and Hermione Baddely as the "domestics", Arthur Treacher (yes - he, of FISH AND CHIPS fame) as the Constable and Reginald Owen (Scrooge in the 1930's version of A CHRISTMAS CAROL) as Admiral Boom are all fun to watch and match the energy and timing of the leads in their limited screen time.
And...the music...Oh, the Music! Written by Richard M and Robert B Sherman - these songs are classic. Starting with the Oscar Winner for Best Song - Chim Chim Cheree and continuing through Feed The Birds, I Love To Laugh, Jolly Holiday and Let's Go Fly A Kite - ALL the songs are magical and lend a hand to the story - they serve a purpose and are not just a distraction. This film is worth watching just for the rooftop Step-In-Time song and dance number alone.
But the thing that makes this film go is the story - the characters, settings, costumes, songs and dances - are all in service to a touching, sentimental (but not cloying) simple story of a family coming together. It is charming in it's simplicity and leaves everyone with a heart full of joy.
Surprisingly to a modern audience, the special effects (especially the "Live Action and Animation" sequence) holds up really, really well. It is amazing to me how strong these effects are - even over 50 years later.
This is a wonderful, heartfelt family film that deserves a re-watch if you haven't seen it in awhile.
Letter Grade A+
10 Stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank (OfMarquis)
And I shouldn't have worried, for MARY POPPINS is...pardon the expression..."Practically Perfect in Every Way".
Based on the series of books by P.L. Travers and set right around 1900, the film tells the tale of the London Banks' Family - Mr., Mrs., Jane and Michael - who need a new nanny. Both parents are too busy to spend time with their children - he with his job at the Bank (get it - Mr. Banks works at a Bank) and her involvement in the Women's Suffragette movement. Into their lives flies (quite literally) Mary Poppins - a nanny with magical qualities who, along with her friend and cohort Bert, casts a spell on the children - and the Banks' family.
Julie Andrews earned the Oscar for Best Actress for her feature film debut - and it is richly deserved. Her Poppins is stern, smart, brassy and loving - oh...and a marvelous singer and dancer. Just as strong as Andrews is Dick Van Dyke as Bert (though some will quibble with his Cockney accent). I say...don't worry about his accent and watch the wonderful comedic timing, dancing and joi de vivre that Van Dyke brings to this film. He is the "secret sauce" that makes this work. Julie would not be as good - nor would this film be as interesting - without Bert by her side.
EVERY major player shines in this film from David Tomlinson's befuddled, straight-laced British Gentleman Mr. Banks to Glynnis Johns as the enthusiastic supporter of Votes for Women, Mrs. Banks, to the children - Karen Dotrice and Matthew Garber. Special notice should be made to Ed Wynn who's one scene/song/cameo as Uncle Albert - the "I Love To Laugh" scene - is pure gold.
Even the smaller, supporting roles are stellar. Reta Shaw and Hermione Baddely as the "domestics", Arthur Treacher (yes - he, of FISH AND CHIPS fame) as the Constable and Reginald Owen (Scrooge in the 1930's version of A CHRISTMAS CAROL) as Admiral Boom are all fun to watch and match the energy and timing of the leads in their limited screen time.
And...the music...Oh, the Music! Written by Richard M and Robert B Sherman - these songs are classic. Starting with the Oscar Winner for Best Song - Chim Chim Cheree and continuing through Feed The Birds, I Love To Laugh, Jolly Holiday and Let's Go Fly A Kite - ALL the songs are magical and lend a hand to the story - they serve a purpose and are not just a distraction. This film is worth watching just for the rooftop Step-In-Time song and dance number alone.
But the thing that makes this film go is the story - the characters, settings, costumes, songs and dances - are all in service to a touching, sentimental (but not cloying) simple story of a family coming together. It is charming in it's simplicity and leaves everyone with a heart full of joy.
Surprisingly to a modern audience, the special effects (especially the "Live Action and Animation" sequence) holds up really, really well. It is amazing to me how strong these effects are - even over 50 years later.
This is a wonderful, heartfelt family film that deserves a re-watch if you haven't seen it in awhile.
Letter Grade A+
10 Stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank (OfMarquis)
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated A Haunting in Venice (2023) in Movies
Sep 30, 2023
Well Crafted
Famed Agatha Christie Belgian Sleuth Hercule Poirot is a familiar figure on the screen - both large and small. He has been played numerous times by numerous performers, each one riffing on the famed mustached Detective and his “little grey cells” and and any performer who takes on this character must bear the weight of those who played the role before him.
In A HAUNTING IN VENICE, Kenneth Branagh’s 3rd go around as Poirot, Branagh has finally shaken off the Ghosts of Poirot’s Past and has made the part his own.
Based on the 1969 novel by Agatha Christie, HALLOWE’EN PARTY, Branagh (who also directed the film) imbues horror elements and the macabre to the whoddunit detective genre - largely to positive results.
As stated above, Branagh has finally made this version of Hercule Poirot his own, giving the detective (who, at the beginning of this film/novel, is in self-imposed retirement) some self-doubt and self-retrospection which helps drive the story, plot and intrigue of the story.
Branagh has populated this murder-mystery with strong performers from recent Oscar-winner Michelle Yeoh (EVERYTHING, EVERYWHERE, ALL AT ONCE) to Jamie Dornan (Branagh’s BELFAST) to YELLOWSTONE’s Kelly Reilly. Each brings mystery and star power to their roles.
Special notice needs to be made of Comedienne Tina Fey who is tackling her first non-comedic role and largely sticks the landing. As a friend of the Detective from NYC, Fey more than holds her own in the many, many scenes she shares with Branagh. As is often the case with comediennes, there is more to be mined in Fey’s acting chops and here’s hoping she dives deeper into more serious roles.
Director Branagh smartly uses the setting and mood of this piece to craft a film experience that is eerie, spooky and claustrophobic. While it is being billed as a HORROR film, it is not. It is a tense, taught, macabre film, filled with fish-eye lens and blurred-focus shots, which makes the set design and cinematography complimentary to the story.
Which is important for this is, in the end, a drawing room murder-mystery and the audience’s enjoyment of this film will be in direct alignment with how the mystery plays out…and this mystery plays out well (enough). What it lacks in surprises, it more than makes up for in mood, atmosphere and character
And that makes for a very entertaining time at the Cinema.
Letter Grade: B+
7 1/2 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis).
In A HAUNTING IN VENICE, Kenneth Branagh’s 3rd go around as Poirot, Branagh has finally shaken off the Ghosts of Poirot’s Past and has made the part his own.
Based on the 1969 novel by Agatha Christie, HALLOWE’EN PARTY, Branagh (who also directed the film) imbues horror elements and the macabre to the whoddunit detective genre - largely to positive results.
As stated above, Branagh has finally made this version of Hercule Poirot his own, giving the detective (who, at the beginning of this film/novel, is in self-imposed retirement) some self-doubt and self-retrospection which helps drive the story, plot and intrigue of the story.
Branagh has populated this murder-mystery with strong performers from recent Oscar-winner Michelle Yeoh (EVERYTHING, EVERYWHERE, ALL AT ONCE) to Jamie Dornan (Branagh’s BELFAST) to YELLOWSTONE’s Kelly Reilly. Each brings mystery and star power to their roles.
Special notice needs to be made of Comedienne Tina Fey who is tackling her first non-comedic role and largely sticks the landing. As a friend of the Detective from NYC, Fey more than holds her own in the many, many scenes she shares with Branagh. As is often the case with comediennes, there is more to be mined in Fey’s acting chops and here’s hoping she dives deeper into more serious roles.
Director Branagh smartly uses the setting and mood of this piece to craft a film experience that is eerie, spooky and claustrophobic. While it is being billed as a HORROR film, it is not. It is a tense, taught, macabre film, filled with fish-eye lens and blurred-focus shots, which makes the set design and cinematography complimentary to the story.
Which is important for this is, in the end, a drawing room murder-mystery and the audience’s enjoyment of this film will be in direct alignment with how the mystery plays out…and this mystery plays out well (enough). What it lacks in surprises, it more than makes up for in mood, atmosphere and character
And that makes for a very entertaining time at the Cinema.
Letter Grade: B+
7 1/2 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis).