Search
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Casablanca (1942) in Movies
Feb 13, 2019
A classic in every sense of the word
"Of all the gin joints in all the towns, in all the world, she had to walk into mine."
If there was only 1 movie that could be shown to show off "classic", old time Hollywood of the 1930's, '40's and early '50s, look no further than Michael Curtiz' 1942 classic CASABLANCA. While well known for the performances of the leads, the multiple quoted lines, Sam singing AS TIME GOES BY and the iconic ending, this film also is a time capsule to a Hollywood of another year - one that just doesn't exist today.
Starring the great Humphrey Bogart in an Academy Award nominated performance (inexplicably, losing to Paul Lukas for WATCH ON THE RHINE), CASABLANCA tells the tale of Rick Blaine the owner/operator of "Rick's Place" a bar in Casablanca, Morocco in the early days of WWII. He is world-weary, beaten and cynical and is well known as someone who can get things done (for a price) but also one who will not stick his neck out for anyone. When a couple on the run from the Nazi's (Paul Henreid, Ingrid Bergman) enter's Rick's Place, Blaine (for reasons that are revealed in the film) decides to help.
"Here's looking at your kid."
Bogart is marvelous as Blaine, you can see every inch of his world-weariness on his well-worn, craggy face. He is perfectly cast as Rick and his mannerisms and vocal patterns depict a heaviness within. Bogart is often criticized for his lack of acting talent - nothing could be further from the truth here. He is perfectly paired with Bergman as Ilse - a former love of Rick's, who is now the wife of Freedom Fighter Victor Laszlo (Henreid). There is real chemistry between Bogart and Bergman in this film and you can tell that they are former lovers that still has a flame burning inside.
"We'll always have Paris."
But it's not just the leads who are terrific in this, it's the "who's who" of character actors that make up the Supporting Cast that really brings this film to life. From Peter Lorre to Sydney Greenstreet to Conrad Veidt to S.Z. Sakall to Dooley Wilson as Sam (who plays and sings AS TIME GOES BY), all bring interesting faces and characters to Casablanca (and Rick's Place) but the standout is Claude Rains (nominated for Best Supporting Actor - losing, inexplicably, to Charles Coburn in THE MORE THE MERRIER) as Louis, the corrupt Police Captain of Casablanca who becomes an uneasy ally of Rick's. Did I say that Bogart and Bergman had good chemistry? Check out the chemistry between Bogart and Rains, there was talk of a sequel to Casablance featuring these two - I, for one, would love to have seen that buddy flick.
Director Michael Curtiz won an Oscar for his work - and it is richly deserved. Nary a shot is wasted on this film, each picture a rich black and white portrait. It is interesting to note that this entire film was shot in California (not Casablanca), mostly on the Warner Brothers lot, but Curtiz was able to give the look and (more importantly) the feel of the place through the sets, costumes, lighting and atmosphere.
But it's the words that these characters got to say that really brought home the feel and atmosphere of the time, so credit needs to go to Screenwriters Julius and Phillip Epstein as well as Howard Koch who won Oscars for their work here. This is a masterful, classic work. One that stands up to this day. If you haven't seen this film in awhile, do yourself a favor and check it out - you'll be glad you did.
"Louie, I think this is the beginning of a beautiful friendship."
Letter Grade: A+
A rare 10 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
If there was only 1 movie that could be shown to show off "classic", old time Hollywood of the 1930's, '40's and early '50s, look no further than Michael Curtiz' 1942 classic CASABLANCA. While well known for the performances of the leads, the multiple quoted lines, Sam singing AS TIME GOES BY and the iconic ending, this film also is a time capsule to a Hollywood of another year - one that just doesn't exist today.
Starring the great Humphrey Bogart in an Academy Award nominated performance (inexplicably, losing to Paul Lukas for WATCH ON THE RHINE), CASABLANCA tells the tale of Rick Blaine the owner/operator of "Rick's Place" a bar in Casablanca, Morocco in the early days of WWII. He is world-weary, beaten and cynical and is well known as someone who can get things done (for a price) but also one who will not stick his neck out for anyone. When a couple on the run from the Nazi's (Paul Henreid, Ingrid Bergman) enter's Rick's Place, Blaine (for reasons that are revealed in the film) decides to help.
"Here's looking at your kid."
Bogart is marvelous as Blaine, you can see every inch of his world-weariness on his well-worn, craggy face. He is perfectly cast as Rick and his mannerisms and vocal patterns depict a heaviness within. Bogart is often criticized for his lack of acting talent - nothing could be further from the truth here. He is perfectly paired with Bergman as Ilse - a former love of Rick's, who is now the wife of Freedom Fighter Victor Laszlo (Henreid). There is real chemistry between Bogart and Bergman in this film and you can tell that they are former lovers that still has a flame burning inside.
"We'll always have Paris."
But it's not just the leads who are terrific in this, it's the "who's who" of character actors that make up the Supporting Cast that really brings this film to life. From Peter Lorre to Sydney Greenstreet to Conrad Veidt to S.Z. Sakall to Dooley Wilson as Sam (who plays and sings AS TIME GOES BY), all bring interesting faces and characters to Casablanca (and Rick's Place) but the standout is Claude Rains (nominated for Best Supporting Actor - losing, inexplicably, to Charles Coburn in THE MORE THE MERRIER) as Louis, the corrupt Police Captain of Casablanca who becomes an uneasy ally of Rick's. Did I say that Bogart and Bergman had good chemistry? Check out the chemistry between Bogart and Rains, there was talk of a sequel to Casablance featuring these two - I, for one, would love to have seen that buddy flick.
Director Michael Curtiz won an Oscar for his work - and it is richly deserved. Nary a shot is wasted on this film, each picture a rich black and white portrait. It is interesting to note that this entire film was shot in California (not Casablanca), mostly on the Warner Brothers lot, but Curtiz was able to give the look and (more importantly) the feel of the place through the sets, costumes, lighting and atmosphere.
But it's the words that these characters got to say that really brought home the feel and atmosphere of the time, so credit needs to go to Screenwriters Julius and Phillip Epstein as well as Howard Koch who won Oscars for their work here. This is a masterful, classic work. One that stands up to this day. If you haven't seen this film in awhile, do yourself a favor and check it out - you'll be glad you did.
"Louie, I think this is the beginning of a beautiful friendship."
Letter Grade: A+
A rare 10 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Goddess in the Stacks (553 KP) rated Clock Dance in Books
Aug 11, 2018
Clock Dance was the second pick for Barnes & Noble's nation-wide Book Club. (The first was Meg Wolitzer's The Female Persuasion, back in May.) Like the first one, it was contemporary fiction, which I'm pretty meh about. When I learned it was set mostly in Baltimore, and written by a local author, I became more interested. I'm originally from Oregon, but Baltimore has become my home, and I enjoy reading about it. We had a slightly larger group than last time, but I was the only returning attendee besides the store employee, Sam, who led the discussion.
Sam opened the discussion with the same question that she started the last one with - "Did you like the main character?" It's an interesting question because most people ask "Did you like the book?" which can have a different answer. I don't usually read books in which I don't like the main character, but that's usually because I choose my books. I'm not choosing my Book Club books, so it's a good question. Unlike last time, I did like Willa. I disagreed with her judgment when it came to husbands, but I still sympathized with her. I mentioned that I didn't like that she just floated through most of her life without any real ambition, but to be honest, I've done that too. I'm not a very ambitious person - or my ambitions are quite low. I think that, perhaps, is the difference. I find a lot of fulfillment in being, effectively, my husband's personal assistant. It's fun. Willa did not seem to find it fulfilling, she just - didn't want to rock the boat.
I like how we saw each of Willa's "defining moments" - the book opens on her as a child, her volatile mother having stormed out of the house during an argument. Her mother really does a number on her as a child. I think it's why she hates to rock the boat so much. From here, we fast forward to college, and Willa's boyfriend proposing to her after gaslighting her about an event that happened on the plane. Willa's mother disapproves. Vehemently. I think that's part of why Willa accepts. Our next view of Willa's life is the accident that takes her husband's life, and its aftermath.
Then we finally start into the real meat of the book, twenty years after the death of her first husband. Her sons have grown and moved away, she has remarried, and both of her parents have passed. Her husband is a little distant, and she seems rather untethered. Then she gets the strangest phone call. It turns out her eldest son lived with a woman (Denise) and her daughter for a little while in Baltimore; he has since moved on, but "Sean's mother" is still a phone number on Denise's emergency contact list. So when Denise is shot in the leg and put in the hospital, a neighbor lady sees it, assumes Willa is the grandmother of the child, and calls her to come take care of her. It's a little convoluted, and Willa can't even adequately explain to her husband why she's decided to fly to Baltimore to take care of a child she has no relation to, but she does so anyway.
This is where we get to Baltimore, and, in Anne Tyler's own words, "when her story changes to Technicolor."
I actually live just outside Baltimore myself, but one of my best friends lives in Charles Village, and I could SO EASILY envision Willa's neighborhood as a street of rowhomes. (Turns out it's probably based on a neighborhood in Hamilton, according to the Baltimore Sun.) I was even mapping locations in Willa's house to my friend's rowhome! Anne Tyler really captures the spirit of Baltimore, and now I want to read more of her books, even if they are contemporary fiction!
Overall I enjoyed Clock Dance; Anne Tyler is very good at subtle character growth, which is quite realistic. People don't often change all at once. Sometimes it takes a lifetime of being told what to do before finally waking up to what you WANT to do.
You can find all my reviews at http://goddessinthestacks.wordpress.com
Sam opened the discussion with the same question that she started the last one with - "Did you like the main character?" It's an interesting question because most people ask "Did you like the book?" which can have a different answer. I don't usually read books in which I don't like the main character, but that's usually because I choose my books. I'm not choosing my Book Club books, so it's a good question. Unlike last time, I did like Willa. I disagreed with her judgment when it came to husbands, but I still sympathized with her. I mentioned that I didn't like that she just floated through most of her life without any real ambition, but to be honest, I've done that too. I'm not a very ambitious person - or my ambitions are quite low. I think that, perhaps, is the difference. I find a lot of fulfillment in being, effectively, my husband's personal assistant. It's fun. Willa did not seem to find it fulfilling, she just - didn't want to rock the boat.
I like how we saw each of Willa's "defining moments" - the book opens on her as a child, her volatile mother having stormed out of the house during an argument. Her mother really does a number on her as a child. I think it's why she hates to rock the boat so much. From here, we fast forward to college, and Willa's boyfriend proposing to her after gaslighting her about an event that happened on the plane. Willa's mother disapproves. Vehemently. I think that's part of why Willa accepts. Our next view of Willa's life is the accident that takes her husband's life, and its aftermath.
Then we finally start into the real meat of the book, twenty years after the death of her first husband. Her sons have grown and moved away, she has remarried, and both of her parents have passed. Her husband is a little distant, and she seems rather untethered. Then she gets the strangest phone call. It turns out her eldest son lived with a woman (Denise) and her daughter for a little while in Baltimore; he has since moved on, but "Sean's mother" is still a phone number on Denise's emergency contact list. So when Denise is shot in the leg and put in the hospital, a neighbor lady sees it, assumes Willa is the grandmother of the child, and calls her to come take care of her. It's a little convoluted, and Willa can't even adequately explain to her husband why she's decided to fly to Baltimore to take care of a child she has no relation to, but she does so anyway.
This is where we get to Baltimore, and, in Anne Tyler's own words, "when her story changes to Technicolor."
I actually live just outside Baltimore myself, but one of my best friends lives in Charles Village, and I could SO EASILY envision Willa's neighborhood as a street of rowhomes. (Turns out it's probably based on a neighborhood in Hamilton, according to the Baltimore Sun.) I was even mapping locations in Willa's house to my friend's rowhome! Anne Tyler really captures the spirit of Baltimore, and now I want to read more of her books, even if they are contemporary fiction!
Overall I enjoyed Clock Dance; Anne Tyler is very good at subtle character growth, which is quite realistic. People don't often change all at once. Sometimes it takes a lifetime of being told what to do before finally waking up to what you WANT to do.
You can find all my reviews at http://goddessinthestacks.wordpress.com
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated 1917 (2020) in Movies
Nov 28, 2019
World War I was called “The Great War” and “The War to End All Wars” as the sheer number of nations and continents involved in the conflict as well as the tremendous loss of life; was thought to be so horrific that war would become a thing of the past.
As we know this did not happen as a generation later the world was once again at war with even great death and destruction to follow. However in “1917” we see the conflict from the viewpoint of a lowly Corporal Schofield (George MacKay) who along with his friend Blake (Dean-Charles Chapman) are tasked with delivering a message across enemy lines to warn advanced units to call of an attack due to an ambush being set by the Germans.
The duo are told that the enemy has pulled back and as such; the dreaded No Man’s Land between the opposing trenches are likely to be abandoned as well their approach to a town near their destination. With the phone lines down; the duo are the only option and they are at first shocked to learn that it would just the two of them.
As they make their way across a grim and corpse-laden battlefield, the audience as well as the two men get a look at the horrific conditions that combat took place under and how fallen individuals were left to decompose where they fell due to the entrenched and stagnant nature of Trench Warfare.
As complications mount, the two must face up to their greatest fears and challenges; driven by a sense of mission and purpose for a conflict they just want to see end so they can return home to their families.
Director Sam Mendes has crafted an Oscar Caliber film as it is gripping as it is breathtaking thanks to the amazing visuals. The contrast between the beauty of the landscape and the carnage of war has rarely been captured as well as it was in this film and the fact that Mendes had a hand in writing the story based on stories told by a relative really help to bring the full impact of the story home.
The film has some amazing sequences like sustained and extended shots where you wonder how Mendes was able to film scenes with so many things going on in one take as there is a scene near the start that looks as if it is an extended scene with no breaks or cutaways.
In the end the biggest selling point for the film is that it is a human drama at its core. While there is combat and action, they are not the focal points as much of the film centers around the young men and their conversations.
The film will stay with you after the credits roll and I consider “1917” to be one of the best films of 2019 and one not to be missed.
As we know this did not happen as a generation later the world was once again at war with even great death and destruction to follow. However in “1917” we see the conflict from the viewpoint of a lowly Corporal Schofield (George MacKay) who along with his friend Blake (Dean-Charles Chapman) are tasked with delivering a message across enemy lines to warn advanced units to call of an attack due to an ambush being set by the Germans.
The duo are told that the enemy has pulled back and as such; the dreaded No Man’s Land between the opposing trenches are likely to be abandoned as well their approach to a town near their destination. With the phone lines down; the duo are the only option and they are at first shocked to learn that it would just the two of them.
As they make their way across a grim and corpse-laden battlefield, the audience as well as the two men get a look at the horrific conditions that combat took place under and how fallen individuals were left to decompose where they fell due to the entrenched and stagnant nature of Trench Warfare.
As complications mount, the two must face up to their greatest fears and challenges; driven by a sense of mission and purpose for a conflict they just want to see end so they can return home to their families.
Director Sam Mendes has crafted an Oscar Caliber film as it is gripping as it is breathtaking thanks to the amazing visuals. The contrast between the beauty of the landscape and the carnage of war has rarely been captured as well as it was in this film and the fact that Mendes had a hand in writing the story based on stories told by a relative really help to bring the full impact of the story home.
The film has some amazing sequences like sustained and extended shots where you wonder how Mendes was able to film scenes with so many things going on in one take as there is a scene near the start that looks as if it is an extended scene with no breaks or cutaways.
In the end the biggest selling point for the film is that it is a human drama at its core. While there is combat and action, they are not the focal points as much of the film centers around the young men and their conversations.
The film will stay with you after the credits roll and I consider “1917” to be one of the best films of 2019 and one not to be missed.
Assassin's Creed Pirates
Games
App
***More than 10 million pirates already*** ***More than 200 million heroic naval battles fought***...
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated 1917 (2020) in Movies
Jan 12, 2020
Cinematography (1 more)
Visceral and enormously tense movie experience
Visceral, brilliant and a far from relaxing evening at the movies.
It's already won Best Film at the Golden Globes, and seems set for Oscar glory too. Is Sam Mendes's WW1 epic any good?
"The Man is the Mission" - The similarities with the storyline of Spielberg's "Saving Private Ryan" are evident. Lance Corporal Blake (Dean-Charles Chapman) has a brother serving in another battalion of 1,600 men under the command of Colonel Mackenzie (Benedict Cumberbatch). The problem is that they are walking into a trap and are about to be slaughtered when they go over the top at dawn. General Erinmore (Colin Firth) picks Blake and his mate Lance Corporal Will Schofield (George MacKay) to run a dangerous mission to cross no-mans land, break through the German lines and get the message to Mackenzie to call the attack off.
Famously, the movie uses the "Rope" / "Birdman" technique of appearing to film the action as a single continuous take. This adds enormously to the tension as the duo proceed into danger. Aside from a chance meeting with a French foster mother (Claire Duburcq), the tension is maintained at 110% for the film's duration. Which makes for an exhausting watch! Congratulations by the way to Ms Duburcq for bagging the one female role in the whole movie! This is the anti-dote to the female-heavy movies of 2019!
This is a movie you MUST go to see in the cinema. A star of the show is Roger Deakins' cinematography which is just glorious to look at. The hell-holes (literally) of no-mans land are one thing, but then we get the sweeping landscapes of the green french countryside (actually Wiltshire, just a few miles from where I live!). But the really jaw-dropping cinematography for me came in a flare-lit ruined French town. The effect of a raging fire in the distance and the constantly shifting shadows of the ruins is truly spectacular.
All of this is helped by a great score by Thomas Newman, particularly at this moment in the film. The music suits the action perfectly, which is all you can ask for from a score.
I first noticed George MacKay in one of the lead roles in the Proclaimers musical "Sunshine on Leith" and then again in "Pride": both relatively low-key British films. Here he is catapulted onto the global blockbuster stage, and has nowhere to hide being on-screen literally for the whole running time (and he is running!). He doesn't disappoint: the performance is a stellar one and he holds the drama together.
He's got good support though: small but important supporting roles come from not only Firth and Cumberbatch but also Daniel ("Line of Duty") Mays; Andrew ("Kneel!") Scott; Adrian ("Killing Eve") Scarborough and Richard Madden. But my favourite was a quietly strong (no pun intended) from Mark Strong as a friendly captain with good advice for our hero.
Is the single-shot idea a gimmick? Perhaps. But it is extremely effective at maintaining the momentum. Perhaps to a degree it is a bit of a distraction, since I was constantly looking for the cuts (and very clever they are too). But it is undeniably a marvelous piece of film-making. The choreography involved with getting all of those actors and extras moving in unison for the length of some of those takes would make even Busby Berkeley sweat!
There are also some truly extraordinary action shots: a barn scene (and its dramatic aftermath) is one of the most incredible bits of film-making I've seen not just this year (that's not saying much!) but also last year.
The movie is not for the faint-hearted, with some truly gruesome scenes that stick in the mind afterwards. The illustrious Mrs Movie Man spent most of the movie with her hands over her eyes! But in general, this feels authentic. My own grandfather spent 3 days and nights lying wounded in the French mud, before being rescued... by the Germans. War is hell, and the film reflects that.
Director Sam Mendes - also a Golden Globe winner - only goes a bit Hollywood at one point: a musical interlude where an exhausted Schofield creeps into camp (what? no guards?) and listens to a wistful acappella. The realism felt like it went from 10/10 to 7/10.
This is a top-class piece of movie-making and deserves all its award success. I went in with a bit of an "Oscar-bait" attitude; the one-take gimmick peaking my interest but also stoking my cynicism. Was this to be just a technically fabulous movie that would win the awards but not really entertain? But my cynicism was unfounded. It's a gripping watch and a truly memorable movie.
See it. See it at the cinema. And see it at a cinema with as big a screen and with as great a sound system as possible!
(For the full graphical review, please check out the review on One Mann's Movies at https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/01/12/one-manns-movies-film-review-1917-2019/ )
"The Man is the Mission" - The similarities with the storyline of Spielberg's "Saving Private Ryan" are evident. Lance Corporal Blake (Dean-Charles Chapman) has a brother serving in another battalion of 1,600 men under the command of Colonel Mackenzie (Benedict Cumberbatch). The problem is that they are walking into a trap and are about to be slaughtered when they go over the top at dawn. General Erinmore (Colin Firth) picks Blake and his mate Lance Corporal Will Schofield (George MacKay) to run a dangerous mission to cross no-mans land, break through the German lines and get the message to Mackenzie to call the attack off.
Famously, the movie uses the "Rope" / "Birdman" technique of appearing to film the action as a single continuous take. This adds enormously to the tension as the duo proceed into danger. Aside from a chance meeting with a French foster mother (Claire Duburcq), the tension is maintained at 110% for the film's duration. Which makes for an exhausting watch! Congratulations by the way to Ms Duburcq for bagging the one female role in the whole movie! This is the anti-dote to the female-heavy movies of 2019!
This is a movie you MUST go to see in the cinema. A star of the show is Roger Deakins' cinematography which is just glorious to look at. The hell-holes (literally) of no-mans land are one thing, but then we get the sweeping landscapes of the green french countryside (actually Wiltshire, just a few miles from where I live!). But the really jaw-dropping cinematography for me came in a flare-lit ruined French town. The effect of a raging fire in the distance and the constantly shifting shadows of the ruins is truly spectacular.
All of this is helped by a great score by Thomas Newman, particularly at this moment in the film. The music suits the action perfectly, which is all you can ask for from a score.
I first noticed George MacKay in one of the lead roles in the Proclaimers musical "Sunshine on Leith" and then again in "Pride": both relatively low-key British films. Here he is catapulted onto the global blockbuster stage, and has nowhere to hide being on-screen literally for the whole running time (and he is running!). He doesn't disappoint: the performance is a stellar one and he holds the drama together.
He's got good support though: small but important supporting roles come from not only Firth and Cumberbatch but also Daniel ("Line of Duty") Mays; Andrew ("Kneel!") Scott; Adrian ("Killing Eve") Scarborough and Richard Madden. But my favourite was a quietly strong (no pun intended) from Mark Strong as a friendly captain with good advice for our hero.
Is the single-shot idea a gimmick? Perhaps. But it is extremely effective at maintaining the momentum. Perhaps to a degree it is a bit of a distraction, since I was constantly looking for the cuts (and very clever they are too). But it is undeniably a marvelous piece of film-making. The choreography involved with getting all of those actors and extras moving in unison for the length of some of those takes would make even Busby Berkeley sweat!
There are also some truly extraordinary action shots: a barn scene (and its dramatic aftermath) is one of the most incredible bits of film-making I've seen not just this year (that's not saying much!) but also last year.
The movie is not for the faint-hearted, with some truly gruesome scenes that stick in the mind afterwards. The illustrious Mrs Movie Man spent most of the movie with her hands over her eyes! But in general, this feels authentic. My own grandfather spent 3 days and nights lying wounded in the French mud, before being rescued... by the Germans. War is hell, and the film reflects that.
Director Sam Mendes - also a Golden Globe winner - only goes a bit Hollywood at one point: a musical interlude where an exhausted Schofield creeps into camp (what? no guards?) and listens to a wistful acappella. The realism felt like it went from 10/10 to 7/10.
This is a top-class piece of movie-making and deserves all its award success. I went in with a bit of an "Oscar-bait" attitude; the one-take gimmick peaking my interest but also stoking my cynicism. Was this to be just a technically fabulous movie that would win the awards but not really entertain? But my cynicism was unfounded. It's a gripping watch and a truly memorable movie.
See it. See it at the cinema. And see it at a cinema with as big a screen and with as great a sound system as possible!
(For the full graphical review, please check out the review on One Mann's Movies at https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/01/12/one-manns-movies-film-review-1917-2019/ )
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.)
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated 1917 (2020) in Movies
Jan 12, 2020
Tour-de-Force filmmaking
I have just viewed the film that WILL WIN the Oscars for Best Picture, Director and Cinematography (and probably many, many more).
Yes, 1917 is that good.
A tour-de-force presentation of a film, 1917 tells the tale of 2 soldiers in WW 1 that are tasked with bringing a message across "no man's land" to prevent a company of soldiers from walking into an ambush.
Director Sam Mendes (SKYFALL) chose to shoot this film in such a way as to give the impression that this film is just one long shot. While it is not (he shot it in about 8 minute bursts), the choreography of the action is staged in such a way that the cuts are seamless and unnoticeable. It is a master class in Directing from Mendes, for - though it is an interesting "gimmick" that puts us (literally) in the shoes (and steps) of the 2 young soldiers on their mission - this gimmick does not get in the way of the film. It helps and enhances the film, you can sit back in your chair and forget about "the gimmick" and just get wrapped up, emotionally, in the story that is being told.
And...getting wrapped up, emotionally, you will be. For the story, events, struggles and triumphs of these 2 soldiers are brilliantly brought to the screen from Director Mendes and Cinematograper-extraordinaire Roger Deakins (14 time Oscar nominee - from SHAWSHANK REDEMPTION to his win, finally, in BLADE RUNNER 2049). These 2 (and their crew) suck you into the action and tensions of the situation. You feel every step that these soldiers take.
Since you spend the entire movie with them, Mendes has done a tremendous job of casting 2 charismatic (but not overly so) actors as the 2 soldiers. Dean-Charles Chapman (Tommen Baratheon in GAME OF THRONES) is determined, focused and single-minded as the lead soldier on this trek - he has personal stakes in this mission - as his brother is in the invasion force that is going to be ambushed. Chapman does a nice job of finding the balance - and making a true person - out of a character that has a single, over-arching mission. It is strong subtle work.
But, to me, the standout in this film is George MacKay (CAPTAIN FANTASTIC) as the buddy who is "brought along". This could have been just another "reluctant war hero" character, but MacKay brings a sense of decency and vulnerability to the early scenes of his character (where he could have just as easily played the "reluctant companion"). These nuanced character dimensions take root later on in the film and elevate this actor - and this role - above the norm.
Mendes brings in a "who's who" of modern British acting stars to fill important extended cameo roles - Colin Firth, Andrew Scott, Mark Strong and Benedict Cumberbatch all bring gravitas and heft to their brief appearances on screen.
This is not the fastest paced film you will ever see - and I think that this serves the film well. It earns its pace and I was drawn in, emotionally, in a way that would not have worked had Mendes rushed the pace (especially early on).
But this film (and Mendes and Deakins) shines during the battle scenes. Even though we are following 2 foot soldiers, they set up the boundaries of these battles in such a way that you understand what is going on - and what is at stake - at least to the 2 soldiers we are following. It is in these scenes that this film really finds its footing. I was drawn even further into the intimate, emotional stakes of these characters at those moments.
A marvelous piece of film making that shows a Director and Cinematographer at the top of their games.
Letter Grade: A
9 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Yes, 1917 is that good.
A tour-de-force presentation of a film, 1917 tells the tale of 2 soldiers in WW 1 that are tasked with bringing a message across "no man's land" to prevent a company of soldiers from walking into an ambush.
Director Sam Mendes (SKYFALL) chose to shoot this film in such a way as to give the impression that this film is just one long shot. While it is not (he shot it in about 8 minute bursts), the choreography of the action is staged in such a way that the cuts are seamless and unnoticeable. It is a master class in Directing from Mendes, for - though it is an interesting "gimmick" that puts us (literally) in the shoes (and steps) of the 2 young soldiers on their mission - this gimmick does not get in the way of the film. It helps and enhances the film, you can sit back in your chair and forget about "the gimmick" and just get wrapped up, emotionally, in the story that is being told.
And...getting wrapped up, emotionally, you will be. For the story, events, struggles and triumphs of these 2 soldiers are brilliantly brought to the screen from Director Mendes and Cinematograper-extraordinaire Roger Deakins (14 time Oscar nominee - from SHAWSHANK REDEMPTION to his win, finally, in BLADE RUNNER 2049). These 2 (and their crew) suck you into the action and tensions of the situation. You feel every step that these soldiers take.
Since you spend the entire movie with them, Mendes has done a tremendous job of casting 2 charismatic (but not overly so) actors as the 2 soldiers. Dean-Charles Chapman (Tommen Baratheon in GAME OF THRONES) is determined, focused and single-minded as the lead soldier on this trek - he has personal stakes in this mission - as his brother is in the invasion force that is going to be ambushed. Chapman does a nice job of finding the balance - and making a true person - out of a character that has a single, over-arching mission. It is strong subtle work.
But, to me, the standout in this film is George MacKay (CAPTAIN FANTASTIC) as the buddy who is "brought along". This could have been just another "reluctant war hero" character, but MacKay brings a sense of decency and vulnerability to the early scenes of his character (where he could have just as easily played the "reluctant companion"). These nuanced character dimensions take root later on in the film and elevate this actor - and this role - above the norm.
Mendes brings in a "who's who" of modern British acting stars to fill important extended cameo roles - Colin Firth, Andrew Scott, Mark Strong and Benedict Cumberbatch all bring gravitas and heft to their brief appearances on screen.
This is not the fastest paced film you will ever see - and I think that this serves the film well. It earns its pace and I was drawn in, emotionally, in a way that would not have worked had Mendes rushed the pace (especially early on).
But this film (and Mendes and Deakins) shines during the battle scenes. Even though we are following 2 foot soldiers, they set up the boundaries of these battles in such a way that you understand what is going on - and what is at stake - at least to the 2 soldiers we are following. It is in these scenes that this film really finds its footing. I was drawn even further into the intimate, emotional stakes of these characters at those moments.
A marvelous piece of film making that shows a Director and Cinematographer at the top of their games.
Letter Grade: A
9 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Me Before You (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
“You are scored on my heart Clark”
“Me Before You” is a bit of a queer fish of a movie. It never quite decides whether it wants to be a romantic weepy, a drama, or a rom-com and as such ends up rather falling between all three stools.
Emelia Clarke (“Game of Thrones”, “Terminator: Genesys”) plays Lou Clark, an ‘invisible’ girl “with potential” who is trapped – due to unemployment-led poverty – living with her parents in a provincial castle town (a picturesque Pembroke, though notably hardly a Welsh accent in earshot). Her boyfriend Patrick (“Harry Potter”’s Matthew Lewis) is a running nut that doesn’t play to her romantic needs in any way. Circumstance leads her into the job of a carer for a quadriplegic, Will Traynor (Sam Claflin, from “The Hunger Games” sequels) who also happens to be the son of the local millionaire couple (played by Charles Dance and Janet McTeer). They own the castle, a large mansion and most of the surrounding countryside too.
Will – previously a sports jock – is paralyzed from the neck down after an accident and is a frustrated and suicidal mind in a useless body. Can the quirky and vivacious Lou bring him out of his morbid shell and find him a life worth living again?
From this outline, you might think the story almost writes itself, and for most of the film it does. But the writers have a number of twists and turns in store which – depending on your sentiments – might entertain or appall.
As her first leading actress role in a non-action feature it’s a bit difficult to sum up Emilia Clarke’s performance. At face value it could be described as an advanced case of over-acting, with an extensive array of kooky looks and gurning facial expressions. (Those eyebrows! At some point we’re going to have to see her acting opposite Cara DeLevingne in a “Batman v Superman” eye-brow-off). On the other hand, she plays the part with such vivacity and charm – and notably in a manner so in keeping with the character she portrays – that it is hard not to be enchanted by her: I certainly was.
Claflin plays the brooding and resentful Traynor well and Matthew Lewis shows he is growing into a really professional jobbing actor as he enters his mid-20’s.
Also radiant (she always is… sorry to break it to the wife like this… but I am basically in love with her!!) is the ever-gorgeous Jenna Coleman (“Dr Who”, “Victoria”) in what is to date a rare outing for her onto the big screen (she previously has only had a small role in the first “Captain America” film: she really needs a breakout movie like Carey Mulligan’s “An Education”). Coleman and Clarke make a very credible pair of sisters, with the “bed” discussion scene being very touching.
Elsewhere a number of other well-known faces crop up including Brendan Coyle (“Downton Abbey”) as Lou’s father and Joanna Lumley as a wedding guest with a handy line in references.
The soundtrack by Craig (“Love Actually”) Armstrong is top notch with pleasing songs from Ed Sheeran, Imagine Dragons, Cloves and We The Kings.
The production quality is as professional as you would expect from a British-made movie, although the Mallorca and Paris locations are not particularly well exploited, since for a large chunk of these scenes I was convinced they hadn’t left Pinewood!
So, a bit of a mixed bag, but enjoyable nonetheless. A guilty pleasure. If you like a romantic piece of escapism this is one for a wet Sunday afternoon, provided you have a box of tissues handy.
Emelia Clarke (“Game of Thrones”, “Terminator: Genesys”) plays Lou Clark, an ‘invisible’ girl “with potential” who is trapped – due to unemployment-led poverty – living with her parents in a provincial castle town (a picturesque Pembroke, though notably hardly a Welsh accent in earshot). Her boyfriend Patrick (“Harry Potter”’s Matthew Lewis) is a running nut that doesn’t play to her romantic needs in any way. Circumstance leads her into the job of a carer for a quadriplegic, Will Traynor (Sam Claflin, from “The Hunger Games” sequels) who also happens to be the son of the local millionaire couple (played by Charles Dance and Janet McTeer). They own the castle, a large mansion and most of the surrounding countryside too.
Will – previously a sports jock – is paralyzed from the neck down after an accident and is a frustrated and suicidal mind in a useless body. Can the quirky and vivacious Lou bring him out of his morbid shell and find him a life worth living again?
From this outline, you might think the story almost writes itself, and for most of the film it does. But the writers have a number of twists and turns in store which – depending on your sentiments – might entertain or appall.
As her first leading actress role in a non-action feature it’s a bit difficult to sum up Emilia Clarke’s performance. At face value it could be described as an advanced case of over-acting, with an extensive array of kooky looks and gurning facial expressions. (Those eyebrows! At some point we’re going to have to see her acting opposite Cara DeLevingne in a “Batman v Superman” eye-brow-off). On the other hand, she plays the part with such vivacity and charm – and notably in a manner so in keeping with the character she portrays – that it is hard not to be enchanted by her: I certainly was.
Claflin plays the brooding and resentful Traynor well and Matthew Lewis shows he is growing into a really professional jobbing actor as he enters his mid-20’s.
Also radiant (she always is… sorry to break it to the wife like this… but I am basically in love with her!!) is the ever-gorgeous Jenna Coleman (“Dr Who”, “Victoria”) in what is to date a rare outing for her onto the big screen (she previously has only had a small role in the first “Captain America” film: she really needs a breakout movie like Carey Mulligan’s “An Education”). Coleman and Clarke make a very credible pair of sisters, with the “bed” discussion scene being very touching.
Elsewhere a number of other well-known faces crop up including Brendan Coyle (“Downton Abbey”) as Lou’s father and Joanna Lumley as a wedding guest with a handy line in references.
The soundtrack by Craig (“Love Actually”) Armstrong is top notch with pleasing songs from Ed Sheeran, Imagine Dragons, Cloves and We The Kings.
The production quality is as professional as you would expect from a British-made movie, although the Mallorca and Paris locations are not particularly well exploited, since for a large chunk of these scenes I was convinced they hadn’t left Pinewood!
So, a bit of a mixed bag, but enjoyable nonetheless. A guilty pleasure. If you like a romantic piece of escapism this is one for a wet Sunday afternoon, provided you have a box of tissues handy.
Andy K (10821 KP) rated Daybreakers (2009) in Movies
Sep 8, 2019
A nice vampire surprise!
A vampire "plague" has killed off most of the human population, only about 5% or less now survives. (This film was made in 2009, so 2019 is the year this will happen!). Vampires now occupy our cities and have transformed the Earth to suit their needs including conduit walkways between buildings, underground tunnels they can walk so they don't have to walk through the sun and even automated cars which close off the sunlight so no risk of frying on the way to work.
Their culture is just like humans now: the rich get richer and the poor stay the same, but now there is a growing problem. Since there are so few humans left, blood is now a hot commodity since it is needed for survival. The search is on for a cure or a blood substitute which could pacify the population and prevent the newly discovered evolution from taking place. It has been discovered without blood, vampires will "de=evolve" into their more primal form becoming mindless bat-like creatures who will do anything for their next fix.
Enter Ed Dalton, a hematologist working to secure a blood substitute to ensure vampire continued survival. A synthetic blood serum has been found, tested and proven to be not successful. A chance "bat" encounter at Ed's home soon afterwards takes the vampire vampire plight close to home and scares Ed tremendously. If not for the appearance of Ed's brother, the situation could have ended a lot worse.
Ed has a chance encounter with some humans who come to trust Ed as a "friendly" vampire and take them in their ranks. They may have discovered a "cure" for vampirism which intrigues Ed. His brother has decided to covertly follow Ed and take matters into his own hands at the direction of Ed's employer, Charles Bromley.
Ed eventually has to decide on which side he is taking as he grows to know his new human friends. The situation is becoming quickly perilous and skirmishes with the ruling vampire forces become inevitable and more frequent.
What will they do to survive?
Writer/Directors The Spierig Brothers manage to forage a very interesting premise which I bought into almost immediately. The audience actually begins to sympathize with the bloodthirsty population as their situation becomes more desperate even to the point of killing one another for survival.
Very interesting to feature vampires as the ruling class of society just going to work and existing on a more "human" level most of the time than we normally see them portrayed onscreen.
If you round up the trio of Ethan Hawke, Willem Defoe, and Sam Neill in a genre-type film you should be ensured of some intense, spectacular acting and these three do not disappoint. Hawke plays Ed so well you are really not sure which side he will end up on and are constantly rooting for him. Dafoe isn't given as much to do, but his role as a human freedom fighter is crucial for Ed to start and see the truth of his situation. The antagonist Neill is a role he must love to play since he has done so several times in his career including The Final Conflict and Event Horizon.
As you would expect with a vampire film, there are a lot of scenes at night where the bloodthirsty can run amok, but also a surprising amount of daytime scenes as well since the vampires have adapted their environment to work for them.
The production value is well designed and the look of the cities is well thought out and a visual splendor. The creature effects are very believable and well put together and there is no scene where the bad CGI takes you out of the scene. There is no shortage of blood (of course), but it is also done well and there are plenty of gruesome bits for those who enjoy their gore.
At the end, I was left actually wanting the film to go one longer as I was really having a good time with the action and bloody carnage. Something I do not say very often.
Their culture is just like humans now: the rich get richer and the poor stay the same, but now there is a growing problem. Since there are so few humans left, blood is now a hot commodity since it is needed for survival. The search is on for a cure or a blood substitute which could pacify the population and prevent the newly discovered evolution from taking place. It has been discovered without blood, vampires will "de=evolve" into their more primal form becoming mindless bat-like creatures who will do anything for their next fix.
Enter Ed Dalton, a hematologist working to secure a blood substitute to ensure vampire continued survival. A synthetic blood serum has been found, tested and proven to be not successful. A chance "bat" encounter at Ed's home soon afterwards takes the vampire vampire plight close to home and scares Ed tremendously. If not for the appearance of Ed's brother, the situation could have ended a lot worse.
Ed has a chance encounter with some humans who come to trust Ed as a "friendly" vampire and take them in their ranks. They may have discovered a "cure" for vampirism which intrigues Ed. His brother has decided to covertly follow Ed and take matters into his own hands at the direction of Ed's employer, Charles Bromley.
Ed eventually has to decide on which side he is taking as he grows to know his new human friends. The situation is becoming quickly perilous and skirmishes with the ruling vampire forces become inevitable and more frequent.
What will they do to survive?
Writer/Directors The Spierig Brothers manage to forage a very interesting premise which I bought into almost immediately. The audience actually begins to sympathize with the bloodthirsty population as their situation becomes more desperate even to the point of killing one another for survival.
Very interesting to feature vampires as the ruling class of society just going to work and existing on a more "human" level most of the time than we normally see them portrayed onscreen.
If you round up the trio of Ethan Hawke, Willem Defoe, and Sam Neill in a genre-type film you should be ensured of some intense, spectacular acting and these three do not disappoint. Hawke plays Ed so well you are really not sure which side he will end up on and are constantly rooting for him. Dafoe isn't given as much to do, but his role as a human freedom fighter is crucial for Ed to start and see the truth of his situation. The antagonist Neill is a role he must love to play since he has done so several times in his career including The Final Conflict and Event Horizon.
As you would expect with a vampire film, there are a lot of scenes at night where the bloodthirsty can run amok, but also a surprising amount of daytime scenes as well since the vampires have adapted their environment to work for them.
The production value is well designed and the look of the cities is well thought out and a visual splendor. The creature effects are very believable and well put together and there is no scene where the bad CGI takes you out of the scene. There is no shortage of blood (of course), but it is also done well and there are plenty of gruesome bits for those who enjoy their gore.
At the end, I was left actually wanting the film to go one longer as I was really having a good time with the action and bloody carnage. Something I do not say very often.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Pride and Prejudice and Zombies (2016) in Movies
Sep 25, 2019
A film for all those women who dream of chivalry, but want to kick some ass.
Contains spoilers, click to show
"It is a truth universally acknowledged that a zombie in possession of brains must be in want of more brains."
A mysterious plague has fallen across England. The countryside is a relative haven, where the city has become a playground for unmentionables. The oriental arts have become the fashion and a desirable young lady no longer needs to be the prim and proper wife, unless your name is Mr Collins.
The Bennet's lovely daughters, beautiful and strong of body and mind are accustomed to a regimented life of training, until the handsome stranger Mr Bingley comes to the country. A whirlwind of romance and the undead lead them into a battle for family and love.
Heaving bosoms, country estates. Brain eating corpses and assorted weaponry. Everything you'd expect when the undead meets Jane Austen. As if on cue my playlist has shuffled to Zombie by The Cranberries. I can't deny enjoying this film, I should point out that I was always going to enjoy it, be it Oscar or Razzie worthy. It definitely had the potential to be an epic re-watchable classic or the B-movie winner that shone from the book.
When it was first published I picked it up almost instantly and soon found Quirk Books and other crossover books developing a little shrine-like area. [Now given pride of place in my nerd room.] Having a dislike of classics embedded in me from school and enjoying the general kick-assery of action films, it was a great crossover to bring those classics back into my life.
Admission time, while I've read the book I can't actually remember when, it was dozens of books ago. I loved it but not everyone did. I'm going to make a big sweeping statement. [Sorry, not sorry] It's not a Jane Austen book people, get over it. "He's ruined Elizabeth Bennet!" No he's taken a strong minded female character and put her in a new fantasy setting. I'm sure there would have been less objections if all the names were different (and the title too) and it was just described as "loosely based on Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice". But swings and roundabouts, because it probably wouldn't have been as popular if it wasn't called Pride and Prejudice and Zombies.
Sam Riley's Mr Darcy was no Colin Firth, but it was still very good. It did kind of seem like they threw him in a lake because they felt they should pay homage to Firth's dunking.
Note to those who see the film, Liz Bennet's heaving bosom is seen on a regular basis and is entirely distracting. I'm not sure there's a plot line linked to them, they're just always there, they probably should have got their own credit for the part.
I think my favourite scene was where Darcy came to Elizabeth to proclaim his love... and then they proceed to beat each other with sticks, books, basically whatever is to hand. Heated and packed with sexual tension it made for entertaining viewing. It also reminded me of the scene in Buffy where the slayer and Spike fight in an abandoned building, and the amount of sexual tension between the pair results in breaking the building, amongst other things... but those other things probably wouldn't work so well in Austen's time.
Even with all the bits that brought a smile to my face and made for enjoyable watching, there were some things I couldn't help but be annoyed with.
Firstly, Matt Smith, my dear number 11... [insert long silence here] I know Mr Collins is there for the annoying comic relief and awkwardness but oh my god. It was too much and I was overcome with annoyance. The cast is made up of relatively unknown people, with the exceptions of Charles Dance, Sally Phillips and Matt Smith. I can't help but wonder if Mr Collins would have been easier to deal with if he was an unknown actor.
The camera work had its own peculiarities. Some shots were taken from the zombies point of view. They were blurred and frustrating to watch, I can't really tell what it added. I'm sure it would have added a bit more drama if you'd seen the potential victim being run at. Again, I'm not an expert in showbiz filming but I'm fairly certain that making your audience want to throw up is not the idea. Right near the end there is a shot that perfectly portrays the devastation of the situation...
"How should we get across the devastation of the city and cut out to the next scene?"
"Spin the camera round until people want to vomit?"
"GENIUS!"
I sat there feeling a bit woozy, trying to avoid looking at the screen for the whole thing. I'm not sure either of the fancy styles really improved anything.
My only other wonder about the film is whether it should have gone all out spoof. This was a sensible spoof [relatively speaking], in that it wasn't made specifically for laughs. It did have some, but there were also some moments of emotion too. Should they have played the film out for more comedy? Who knows, but I feel the scene where Darcy and Elizabeth are stabbing a field to kill zombies that are buried underneath was completely wasted in a sensible spoof!
All in all I did enjoy it, but for those of you looking to see it at the cinema I'm not sure it's worth a £10 ticket. Well worth it if you have an offer of some description though. Just remember going in to it that it isn't Jane Austen, it's just your run of the mill zombie period drama... wow, never thought I'd say that sentence.
A mysterious plague has fallen across England. The countryside is a relative haven, where the city has become a playground for unmentionables. The oriental arts have become the fashion and a desirable young lady no longer needs to be the prim and proper wife, unless your name is Mr Collins.
The Bennet's lovely daughters, beautiful and strong of body and mind are accustomed to a regimented life of training, until the handsome stranger Mr Bingley comes to the country. A whirlwind of romance and the undead lead them into a battle for family and love.
Heaving bosoms, country estates. Brain eating corpses and assorted weaponry. Everything you'd expect when the undead meets Jane Austen. As if on cue my playlist has shuffled to Zombie by The Cranberries. I can't deny enjoying this film, I should point out that I was always going to enjoy it, be it Oscar or Razzie worthy. It definitely had the potential to be an epic re-watchable classic or the B-movie winner that shone from the book.
When it was first published I picked it up almost instantly and soon found Quirk Books and other crossover books developing a little shrine-like area. [Now given pride of place in my nerd room.] Having a dislike of classics embedded in me from school and enjoying the general kick-assery of action films, it was a great crossover to bring those classics back into my life.
Admission time, while I've read the book I can't actually remember when, it was dozens of books ago. I loved it but not everyone did. I'm going to make a big sweeping statement. [Sorry, not sorry] It's not a Jane Austen book people, get over it. "He's ruined Elizabeth Bennet!" No he's taken a strong minded female character and put her in a new fantasy setting. I'm sure there would have been less objections if all the names were different (and the title too) and it was just described as "loosely based on Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice". But swings and roundabouts, because it probably wouldn't have been as popular if it wasn't called Pride and Prejudice and Zombies.
Sam Riley's Mr Darcy was no Colin Firth, but it was still very good. It did kind of seem like they threw him in a lake because they felt they should pay homage to Firth's dunking.
Note to those who see the film, Liz Bennet's heaving bosom is seen on a regular basis and is entirely distracting. I'm not sure there's a plot line linked to them, they're just always there, they probably should have got their own credit for the part.
I think my favourite scene was where Darcy came to Elizabeth to proclaim his love... and then they proceed to beat each other with sticks, books, basically whatever is to hand. Heated and packed with sexual tension it made for entertaining viewing. It also reminded me of the scene in Buffy where the slayer and Spike fight in an abandoned building, and the amount of sexual tension between the pair results in breaking the building, amongst other things... but those other things probably wouldn't work so well in Austen's time.
Even with all the bits that brought a smile to my face and made for enjoyable watching, there were some things I couldn't help but be annoyed with.
Firstly, Matt Smith, my dear number 11... [insert long silence here] I know Mr Collins is there for the annoying comic relief and awkwardness but oh my god. It was too much and I was overcome with annoyance. The cast is made up of relatively unknown people, with the exceptions of Charles Dance, Sally Phillips and Matt Smith. I can't help but wonder if Mr Collins would have been easier to deal with if he was an unknown actor.
The camera work had its own peculiarities. Some shots were taken from the zombies point of view. They were blurred and frustrating to watch, I can't really tell what it added. I'm sure it would have added a bit more drama if you'd seen the potential victim being run at. Again, I'm not an expert in showbiz filming but I'm fairly certain that making your audience want to throw up is not the idea. Right near the end there is a shot that perfectly portrays the devastation of the situation...
"How should we get across the devastation of the city and cut out to the next scene?"
"Spin the camera round until people want to vomit?"
"GENIUS!"
I sat there feeling a bit woozy, trying to avoid looking at the screen for the whole thing. I'm not sure either of the fancy styles really improved anything.
My only other wonder about the film is whether it should have gone all out spoof. This was a sensible spoof [relatively speaking], in that it wasn't made specifically for laughs. It did have some, but there were also some moments of emotion too. Should they have played the film out for more comedy? Who knows, but I feel the scene where Darcy and Elizabeth are stabbing a field to kill zombies that are buried underneath was completely wasted in a sensible spoof!
All in all I did enjoy it, but for those of you looking to see it at the cinema I'm not sure it's worth a £10 ticket. Well worth it if you have an offer of some description though. Just remember going in to it that it isn't Jane Austen, it's just your run of the mill zombie period drama... wow, never thought I'd say that sentence.