Search
Search results
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Daybreakers (2009) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019 (Updated Jun 23, 2019)
In the not too distant future, the majority of the population are vampires and the world has been modified to adjust to the daylight. Remaining humans are "farmed" for blood, but the supply is running thin and the human race is on the verge of extinction. Dr. Edward Dalton (Ethan Hawke) is a hematologist that works at Bromley Marks, the empire of Charles Bromley (Sam Neill), and is put in charge of finding a blood substitute, but has come up empty handed up until this point. Dalton is convinced that the vampire race has its work cut out for them with the blood supply being so low. He runs into a small group of humans one night at work and is eventually introduced to Lionel "Elvis" Cormac (Willem Dafoe), a former vampire who has something better than a blood substitute; a cure. Now Dalton finds himself risking everything on an experimental treatment that could be the key to saving mankind.
Daybreakers had all the ingredients of a film that should be loved by any horror fan. First and foremost, it's a new vampire movie that isn't Twilight. On top of that, it's R-rated so it doesn't pull any punches when it comes to blood and gore (and trust me, there's quite a bit). It also offers a bit of a new twist on what was otherwise exhausted when it comes to stories relating to vampires. With all that being said, however, it still wasn't as good as it should have been.
It was great to see Willem Dafoe and Sam Neill not only as part of the cast, but also both have decent amounts of screen time. Sam Neill was in John Carpenter's In the Mouth of Madness, which is a favorite of mine that managed to make me a fan of the Irish actor. Willem Dafoe just seems underrated and doesn't get the credit he deserves. Not that his role in this will really change anyone's minds regarding him as a great actor or anything, but that's jumping the gun a bit. The story is the film's strong point, but is still pretty flawed. Humans being farmed for blood and dying out is a great concept. The cure is rather different and unique than what you've become used to in vampire films, which lead to an interesting third act. The ending is probably where the film could potentially make someone dislike the film. Not everyone is going to like the finale, but it was a nice change of pace to not have the same recycled storyline or ending for once.
Regarding the acting though, there isn't much of it. Willem Dafoe shows a little personality and has a one-liner or two that will get a few laughs. Sam Neill also shows some signs of life and fits the role as the main villain of the film rather well. Every other character felt rather flat and showed no depth at all. While the blood used in the film was a fantastic color, some of the special effects seemed rather cheesy at times. Mainly the scene where a vampire is hanging from the ceiling fighting Ethan Hawke and his brother comes to mind. The cuts were quick, which seemed to try and cover up the fact, but it still stuck out. That may be nitpicking a bit since it was pretty top notch the rest of the time. The Underworld films (at least the first two) come to mind as they left the same kind of bitter aftertaste and seemed to suffer similar problems.
It's a shame Daybreakers didn't live up to its potential. It contains a strong cast and delivers an original take on something that's been associated with horror for nearly 200 years. The acting is what seems to hurt the film the most though since the way everyone says their lines makes it seem like they don't want to be there. It's still worth viewing, but you may want to rent before buying. In all honesty, it may be worth supporting just to get an R-rated vampire film a bit more recognition and slightly dim the spotlight currently shining on whatever teenage vampire franchise is currently taking off for whatever reason.
Daybreakers had all the ingredients of a film that should be loved by any horror fan. First and foremost, it's a new vampire movie that isn't Twilight. On top of that, it's R-rated so it doesn't pull any punches when it comes to blood and gore (and trust me, there's quite a bit). It also offers a bit of a new twist on what was otherwise exhausted when it comes to stories relating to vampires. With all that being said, however, it still wasn't as good as it should have been.
It was great to see Willem Dafoe and Sam Neill not only as part of the cast, but also both have decent amounts of screen time. Sam Neill was in John Carpenter's In the Mouth of Madness, which is a favorite of mine that managed to make me a fan of the Irish actor. Willem Dafoe just seems underrated and doesn't get the credit he deserves. Not that his role in this will really change anyone's minds regarding him as a great actor or anything, but that's jumping the gun a bit. The story is the film's strong point, but is still pretty flawed. Humans being farmed for blood and dying out is a great concept. The cure is rather different and unique than what you've become used to in vampire films, which lead to an interesting third act. The ending is probably where the film could potentially make someone dislike the film. Not everyone is going to like the finale, but it was a nice change of pace to not have the same recycled storyline or ending for once.
Regarding the acting though, there isn't much of it. Willem Dafoe shows a little personality and has a one-liner or two that will get a few laughs. Sam Neill also shows some signs of life and fits the role as the main villain of the film rather well. Every other character felt rather flat and showed no depth at all. While the blood used in the film was a fantastic color, some of the special effects seemed rather cheesy at times. Mainly the scene where a vampire is hanging from the ceiling fighting Ethan Hawke and his brother comes to mind. The cuts were quick, which seemed to try and cover up the fact, but it still stuck out. That may be nitpicking a bit since it was pretty top notch the rest of the time. The Underworld films (at least the first two) come to mind as they left the same kind of bitter aftertaste and seemed to suffer similar problems.
It's a shame Daybreakers didn't live up to its potential. It contains a strong cast and delivers an original take on something that's been associated with horror for nearly 200 years. The acting is what seems to hurt the film the most though since the way everyone says their lines makes it seem like they don't want to be there. It's still worth viewing, but you may want to rent before buying. In all honesty, it may be worth supporting just to get an R-rated vampire film a bit more recognition and slightly dim the spotlight currently shining on whatever teenage vampire franchise is currently taking off for whatever reason.
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated The Magnificent Seven (2016) in Movies
Jul 15, 2019
Full disclosure, I have never seen The 1960s Magnificent Seven film, nor do I care that at its core it is a retelling of the Japanese legend of the Seven Samurai. This is not a comparison review. Instead this is a simple review of what I watched on screen. Not beholden to anything other than itself as film and it being a western.
That being said, I thoroughly enjoyed this film. The Magnificent Seven hits all the appropriate marks you would expect from a classic western. The sprawling landscapes, big gunfights against all odds, character musical cues, honor bound good guys and dastardly bad guys. The Magnificent Seven is an entertaining gallop for western fans both old and new alike.
That is not to say that this film is anything more thought provoking then a typical “White hats vs Black Hats” western story. However it is the performance of the actors and their portrayal of somewhat typical characters that is the soul and charm of the film. Led by Denzel Washington who plays Sam Chisolm, the deputized bounty hunter hired to free a simple town from under the tyranny of a rich minor who uses violence and intimidation to take what he wants. Chisolm puts together an unlikely posse of the jokester gun-shooter Josh Faraday (Chris Pratt), the civil war veteran sharpshooter Goodnight Robicheaux (Ethan Hawke), his knife welding companion Billy Rocks (Byung-hun Lee), the outlaw Vasquez (Manuel Garcia-Fulfo), the grizzly frontiersman Jack Horne (Vincent D’Onofrio) and the native warrior Red Harvest (Martin Sensmeier). Together they take on the dastardly greedy Bartholomew Bogue (Peter Sarsgaard) and his army of paid mercenaries. The entire ensemble gives solid and entertaining performances, however it is the chemistry among the cast that creates the feeling that they had a blast making this film together, much to our delight.
When we put these elements together the film works on an entertaining level. While some may find it forgettable once it is over, they will no doubt enjoy the ride along the way. In a year where the summer blockbusters have been mostly disappointing and forgettable, The Magnificent Seven is a bright spot on the film landscape than most big budget films this year.
That being said, I thoroughly enjoyed this film. The Magnificent Seven hits all the appropriate marks you would expect from a classic western. The sprawling landscapes, big gunfights against all odds, character musical cues, honor bound good guys and dastardly bad guys. The Magnificent Seven is an entertaining gallop for western fans both old and new alike.
That is not to say that this film is anything more thought provoking then a typical “White hats vs Black Hats” western story. However it is the performance of the actors and their portrayal of somewhat typical characters that is the soul and charm of the film. Led by Denzel Washington who plays Sam Chisolm, the deputized bounty hunter hired to free a simple town from under the tyranny of a rich minor who uses violence and intimidation to take what he wants. Chisolm puts together an unlikely posse of the jokester gun-shooter Josh Faraday (Chris Pratt), the civil war veteran sharpshooter Goodnight Robicheaux (Ethan Hawke), his knife welding companion Billy Rocks (Byung-hun Lee), the outlaw Vasquez (Manuel Garcia-Fulfo), the grizzly frontiersman Jack Horne (Vincent D’Onofrio) and the native warrior Red Harvest (Martin Sensmeier). Together they take on the dastardly greedy Bartholomew Bogue (Peter Sarsgaard) and his army of paid mercenaries. The entire ensemble gives solid and entertaining performances, however it is the chemistry among the cast that creates the feeling that they had a blast making this film together, much to our delight.
When we put these elements together the film works on an entertaining level. While some may find it forgettable once it is over, they will no doubt enjoy the ride along the way. In a year where the summer blockbusters have been mostly disappointing and forgettable, The Magnificent Seven is a bright spot on the film landscape than most big budget films this year.
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated The Falcon and the Winter Soldier in TV
Apr 24, 2021 (Updated Jul 16, 2021)
Contains spoilers, click to show
On the surface, The Falcon and the Winter Soldier starts off in a familiar fashion. The first couple of episodes feel like a (welcome) return to the earlier days of the MCU, but as the story develops, it just blossoms into so much more.
The narrative mainly focuses on the two titular Avengers taking on a revolutionary group, hell bent on returning to a post snap world. It deals head first with the fallout of Thanos' devastating blow in Infinity War, and the subsequent return of the 3.5 billion people who re-materialised after Endgame, and the issues that came with them. It's good to see that Marvel Studios aren't avoiding these complicated plot points that could have potentially just been swept under the rug.
The series also develops the John Walker/U.S. Agent comic story. Its well realised and Wyatt Russell is fantastic in the role. Daniel Brühl returns as Baron Zemo after an underwhelming narrative in Civil War, and unexpectedly is plain hilarious (and finally in full costume, even if it is for one scene).
As well as all this, fans of the comics are treated to a plethora of potential future stories - The introduction of Madripoor marks the first proper acknowledgement of X-Men material. Lesser known comic characters such as Isiah Bradley, Madame Hydra, Battlestar, Batroc, and Ayo are given screentime. There's even some carrots dangled for a potential Young Avengers adaption with the appearance of Eli Bradley/Patriot (and with Kate Bishop incoming, surely this is a thing)
Perhaps most importantly, TFATWS doesn't shy away from tackling race issues, touching upon real world events, and developing them into the plot. This spills over into the future of Captain America, and what the shield represents to the black community. There are some truly powerful moments of dialogue, especially between Isiah and Sam. It's all handled respectfully, and brings new depth the MCU, as they stride into a more diverse future.
With this series, and the preceding WandaVision, this new phase for the MCU is off to an incredibly strong start, and I'm so excited to see where they take it. Between Falcon rightfully taking the reigns as Captain America, the upcoming Shang Chi movie finally adapting the martial arts corner of Marvel for the MCU, and the tantalising promise of the multiverse, it's a good time to be a Marvel fan.
The narrative mainly focuses on the two titular Avengers taking on a revolutionary group, hell bent on returning to a post snap world. It deals head first with the fallout of Thanos' devastating blow in Infinity War, and the subsequent return of the 3.5 billion people who re-materialised after Endgame, and the issues that came with them. It's good to see that Marvel Studios aren't avoiding these complicated plot points that could have potentially just been swept under the rug.
The series also develops the John Walker/U.S. Agent comic story. Its well realised and Wyatt Russell is fantastic in the role. Daniel Brühl returns as Baron Zemo after an underwhelming narrative in Civil War, and unexpectedly is plain hilarious (and finally in full costume, even if it is for one scene).
As well as all this, fans of the comics are treated to a plethora of potential future stories - The introduction of Madripoor marks the first proper acknowledgement of X-Men material. Lesser known comic characters such as Isiah Bradley, Madame Hydra, Battlestar, Batroc, and Ayo are given screentime. There's even some carrots dangled for a potential Young Avengers adaption with the appearance of Eli Bradley/Patriot (and with Kate Bishop incoming, surely this is a thing)
Perhaps most importantly, TFATWS doesn't shy away from tackling race issues, touching upon real world events, and developing them into the plot. This spills over into the future of Captain America, and what the shield represents to the black community. There are some truly powerful moments of dialogue, especially between Isiah and Sam. It's all handled respectfully, and brings new depth the MCU, as they stride into a more diverse future.
With this series, and the preceding WandaVision, this new phase for the MCU is off to an incredibly strong start, and I'm so excited to see where they take it. Between Falcon rightfully taking the reigns as Captain America, the upcoming Shang Chi movie finally adapting the martial arts corner of Marvel for the MCU, and the tantalising promise of the multiverse, it's a good time to be a Marvel fan.
Darren (1599 KP) rated Kidnapping Mr. Heineken (2015) in Movies
Jul 25, 2019
Story: Kidnapping Freddy Heineken starts as we follow our five criminals Cor Van Hout (Sturgess), Willem (Worthington), Cat (Kwanten), Spikes (Eeuwen) and Brakes (Cocquerel) who have always been looking for a way to make money quickly instead of getting real jobs in Holland. Their latest plan is to kidnap beer tycoon Freddy Heineken (Hopkins) and collecting the ransom.
With the plan in place the kidnapping goes well the wait for the ransom is what takes the time and tests the strength of the kidnappers over the victims as we follow what could be the undoing of the men.
Thoughts on Kidnapping Freddy Heineken
Characters – Cor Van Hout is the leader of the gang, he brings his men together to complete the jobs with some failing and others not, he comes up with the latest job while his personal life is about to hit the highs a father could experience. Willem is the hot head of the group who will go past the marks to make the job get done and he could become the biggest problem involved. Freddy Heineken is the beer tycoon that has become the target of this men and he stays extremely calm through his ordeal trying to friend his kidnappers too.
Performance – Jim Sturgess is strong in the leading role of this film throughout feeling like the rest would listen to his every word. Sam Worthington is good in the loose cannon role too. Anthony Hopkins is as always the star of the show here as you want to see all of his scenes.
Story – The story is based on the true story of what happened when a group of criminals kidnap the tycoon and how they were not completely sure things would work and how things could go wrong. This is good because it doesn’t go down a slick as the best heist movies but is also calm enough to feel like it is based on real people human errors through the heist.
Action/Crime – There are a couple of good car chases through the film which do make up the action side of things while the whole story is about the crime being committed.
Settings – The streets involved in Amsterdam show us how tight the car chases can be and escape routes by more than just road, we do feel like this is authentic with how everything unfolds during the crime.
Scene of the Movie – Freddy’s orders.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – The clear choice for a problem is having some Dutch cast members but the leads are not.
Final Thoughts – This is one of the films that didn’t get much talk when it came out but I don’t understand why, it is an enjoyable and one film that is worth watching for all the heist fans out there.
Overall: Good heist film.
With the plan in place the kidnapping goes well the wait for the ransom is what takes the time and tests the strength of the kidnappers over the victims as we follow what could be the undoing of the men.
Thoughts on Kidnapping Freddy Heineken
Characters – Cor Van Hout is the leader of the gang, he brings his men together to complete the jobs with some failing and others not, he comes up with the latest job while his personal life is about to hit the highs a father could experience. Willem is the hot head of the group who will go past the marks to make the job get done and he could become the biggest problem involved. Freddy Heineken is the beer tycoon that has become the target of this men and he stays extremely calm through his ordeal trying to friend his kidnappers too.
Performance – Jim Sturgess is strong in the leading role of this film throughout feeling like the rest would listen to his every word. Sam Worthington is good in the loose cannon role too. Anthony Hopkins is as always the star of the show here as you want to see all of his scenes.
Story – The story is based on the true story of what happened when a group of criminals kidnap the tycoon and how they were not completely sure things would work and how things could go wrong. This is good because it doesn’t go down a slick as the best heist movies but is also calm enough to feel like it is based on real people human errors through the heist.
Action/Crime – There are a couple of good car chases through the film which do make up the action side of things while the whole story is about the crime being committed.
Settings – The streets involved in Amsterdam show us how tight the car chases can be and escape routes by more than just road, we do feel like this is authentic with how everything unfolds during the crime.
Scene of the Movie – Freddy’s orders.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – The clear choice for a problem is having some Dutch cast members but the leads are not.
Final Thoughts – This is one of the films that didn’t get much talk when it came out but I don’t understand why, it is an enjoyable and one film that is worth watching for all the heist fans out there.
Overall: Good heist film.
Lucy Buglass (45 KP) rated Vice (2018) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
A patronising mess of a film
If you want to learn how to completely and utterly fail at satire, look no further than Adam McKay’s Vice. It honestly does pain me to say this was one of the worst experiences I’ve ever had in the cinema. As a matter of fact, I was seconds away from walking out at one point. But, like any good critic, I stayed in my seat. I hoped and prayed it would get better… but it didn’t. If anything, it snowballed.
Vice is a ‘comedy’ (I’ve put this in quotation marks because there’s nothing funny about it) biopic about former American Vice President, Dick Cheney. The film attempts to give us further insight into his life, and how he got away with all the horrible things he did whilst in office. On paper, it actually sounds pretty appealing, especially for someone like me who knows very little about the man. On screen, it is an entirely different experience. 24 hours later, I’m still shocked by how appalling it was.
So, what has Vice done to receive such a scathing review from me? First and foremost, the dialogue is horrendously condescending and talks to the audience like they’re complete idiots. I have never seen such a patronising and immature biopic in my entire life. I’m not sure what’s more obnoxious: Cheney himself or the tone of the film. Maybe they’re on par with each other. I was barely half an hour into this when I was already starting to feel angry about the way they addressed things. You can give your audience context without talking down to them. The film did everything it could to seem edgy and like it was giving the audience the finger, but I just sat there cringing the whole time. It failed.
Secondly, the narrative is all over the place. I’m perfectly fine with non-linear stories, provided they actually make sense. Vice doesn’t know whether it’s coming or going, and changes between the past and future constantly. The pacing is an absolute shambles and makes the film feel longer than it actually is. It runs at just over 2 hours, but feels so much longer than that. I have never wanted a film to end so badly. In fact, I was ready to get up and leave when they decided to throw in a fake ending in an attempt to be funny. Yes, that actually happens. No, I didn’t laugh.
Don’t even get me started on the way it sloppily splices random pictures and video clips throughout the film, making me wonder who on earth nominated this for Best Editing. Are they okay? Without spoiling this too much, Vice’s editing is incredibly jarring and decides to patronise the audience even further by giving visual aids to the idioms that are described by the narrator. At one point it even tries to condescendingly explain Guantanamo Bay, which just caused me to facepalm. What were you thinking guys?
Having said all of this, does the film have some redeeming features? Sure. The quality of the acting is good, I enjoyed Christian Bale as Cheney and Amy Adams as his equally awful wife, Lynne. I also enjoyed Steve Carell as Donald Rumsfeld and Sam Rockwell as George W Bush. It is a shame to waste such great talent on a script as weak as this one. If someone had written this better, maybe I would’ve enjoyed it a lot more. Sadly, I’m stuck with this one. I’m baffled by how anyone can consider this to be a well written script. If anyone wants to enlighten me, by all means, try.
If I never have to watch Vice again, I’ll be fine with that. I feel completely let down by McKay, and this hurts more considering I like some of his other films such as Anchorman and Step Brothers. He’s better than this, and I hope he can redeem himself with whatever he creates next.
https://lucygoestohollywood.com/2019/02/03/a-patronising-mess-of-a-film-my-review-of-vice/
Vice is a ‘comedy’ (I’ve put this in quotation marks because there’s nothing funny about it) biopic about former American Vice President, Dick Cheney. The film attempts to give us further insight into his life, and how he got away with all the horrible things he did whilst in office. On paper, it actually sounds pretty appealing, especially for someone like me who knows very little about the man. On screen, it is an entirely different experience. 24 hours later, I’m still shocked by how appalling it was.
So, what has Vice done to receive such a scathing review from me? First and foremost, the dialogue is horrendously condescending and talks to the audience like they’re complete idiots. I have never seen such a patronising and immature biopic in my entire life. I’m not sure what’s more obnoxious: Cheney himself or the tone of the film. Maybe they’re on par with each other. I was barely half an hour into this when I was already starting to feel angry about the way they addressed things. You can give your audience context without talking down to them. The film did everything it could to seem edgy and like it was giving the audience the finger, but I just sat there cringing the whole time. It failed.
Secondly, the narrative is all over the place. I’m perfectly fine with non-linear stories, provided they actually make sense. Vice doesn’t know whether it’s coming or going, and changes between the past and future constantly. The pacing is an absolute shambles and makes the film feel longer than it actually is. It runs at just over 2 hours, but feels so much longer than that. I have never wanted a film to end so badly. In fact, I was ready to get up and leave when they decided to throw in a fake ending in an attempt to be funny. Yes, that actually happens. No, I didn’t laugh.
Don’t even get me started on the way it sloppily splices random pictures and video clips throughout the film, making me wonder who on earth nominated this for Best Editing. Are they okay? Without spoiling this too much, Vice’s editing is incredibly jarring and decides to patronise the audience even further by giving visual aids to the idioms that are described by the narrator. At one point it even tries to condescendingly explain Guantanamo Bay, which just caused me to facepalm. What were you thinking guys?
Having said all of this, does the film have some redeeming features? Sure. The quality of the acting is good, I enjoyed Christian Bale as Cheney and Amy Adams as his equally awful wife, Lynne. I also enjoyed Steve Carell as Donald Rumsfeld and Sam Rockwell as George W Bush. It is a shame to waste such great talent on a script as weak as this one. If someone had written this better, maybe I would’ve enjoyed it a lot more. Sadly, I’m stuck with this one. I’m baffled by how anyone can consider this to be a well written script. If anyone wants to enlighten me, by all means, try.
If I never have to watch Vice again, I’ll be fine with that. I feel completely let down by McKay, and this hurts more considering I like some of his other films such as Anchorman and Step Brothers. He’s better than this, and I hope he can redeem himself with whatever he creates next.
https://lucygoestohollywood.com/2019/02/03/a-patronising-mess-of-a-film-my-review-of-vice/
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.)
The Bandersnatch (199 KP) rated The Hunger Games in Books
Nov 7, 2019
The Hunger Games is a trilogy of YA dystopian novels written by American author Suzanne Collins. The story is set in an unspecified future, in a dystopian, post-apocalyptic nation of Panem located in North America. The country consists of the Wealthy Capital surrounded by the twelve (Originally thirteen) poorer districts, each one in various states of poverty. The story follows Katniss Everdeen as she takes her sisters place in the annual Hunger Games. The games are a televised event created as punishment for a past rebellion. Over the course of the books Katniss and the rest of Panem are plunged into Civil War thanks to Katniss inadvertently fuelling a hidden rebel fraction led by President Alma Coin of (the previously thought to be destroyed) District 13. After going through hell, loosing friends and the sister she tried to protect Katniss is eventually tried for killing Coin at the execution of Ex-President Snow and sent back to District 12. Katniss eventually marries fellow tribute Peeta Mellark (whom she was tied to during the games as the pair of star-crossed lovers) and eventually have two children a boy and a girl. Author Suzanne Collins stated that the inspiration for the story came to her after channel surfing through TV channels, having seen a reality show on one channel then saw footage of the Iraq invasion. The two began to blur in an unsettling way and the idea started to form. The Greek myth of Theseus also served as a basis for the story, with Collins saying that Katniss could be called a future Theseus and The Hunger Games being an interpretation of the old gladiatorial games.
The Hunger Games the titular book was released on September 14th 2008 under the publishing house Scholastic Press. The book had an initial print run of 50,00 copies eventually being bumped up twice to 200,000 copies. By February 2010 the book had sold 800,000 copies and rights to the novel have been sold in 38 territories. In November 2008 The Hunger Games was placed on the New York Times best seller list where it would remain for 100 weeks (just over three months). By the time the books film adaption released in march 2012 the book had been on USA Today's best seller list for 135 weeks (Four months) and sold over 17.5 million copies. The book received several awards and honours such as Publishers Weekley's “Best book of the year 2008”, the New York Times “Notable children's book 2008” and was the 2009 young adult fiction category winner of the Golden Duck award. The book also received the California Young Reader medal in 2011.
Catching Fire, the second book was published on September 1st 2009 under Scholastic. As the sequel to the Hunger Games book it continues the story of Katniss Everdeen and the post-apocalyptic nation of Panem as rebellion begins. The book received mixed reviews but was placed on Time Magazines Top 100 fiction list of 2009. Catching fire had an initial print of 350,00 copies but was (Like its predecessor) had grown to 750,00 by February 2010. The book has sold over 10 million copies.
Mocking-jay the third and final book in the Hunger Games Trilogy and was published August 24th 2010 by Scholastic. The book had a 1.2 million copy print that was bumped up from 750,000 copies and in its first week sold over 450,00 copies. Reviews were favourable with the book and notes that it thoroughly explores the themes of the other books.
I really love the books and regularly read them. Whenever I do read them I tend to read all three of them in the space of a week. To be fair whilst I had heard of them before the first movie release I didn't start reading them until I'd seen the first movie. I did read Catching Fire and Mockingjay before their movie equivalents hit the screens. Whilst The Hunger Games was a brilliant opener and Mockingjay was a brilliant ender, I agree with a few reviewers that Catching fire had a delayed start and it took a bit of time to get into the action of the story at large.
Suzanne Collins was born in Hartford Connecticut on the 10th of August 1962 as the youngest fourth child to Jane Bradley Collins and Lt. Col. Michael Jon Collins a decorated U. S. Air Force officer. As a daughter of a military man she was constantly moving with her family and spent her childhood in the eastern united states. Collins went to the Alabama school of fine arts in Birmingham 1980 as a theatre arts Major. Collins went on to complete a Bachelor of arts from Indiana University in 1985 and telecommunications and in 1989 Collins earned her M. F. A. in dramatic writing from NYU Tisch school of arts. Collins began her career in 1991 as a writer for children's television shows and won a nomination in animation for co-writing the critically acclaimed Christmas special Santa, Baby!. Collins after meeting James Proimos whilst working on a children's show felt the urge to write children's books and spent the early 2000's writing five books of the Underland Chronicles; Gregor the Overlander, Gregor and the Prophecy of Bane, Gregor and the curse of the Warmbloods, Gregor and the Marks of Secret and Gregor and the Code of Claw. The influence for those books came from Alice in Wonderland. During the late 2000's she ends up writing the Hunger Games trilogy which went onto a famous movie trilogy. As the result of the hunger games trilogy popularity Collins was named one of Times Magazine's most Influential people of 2010. On June 17th 2019 Collins announced she was writing a prequel to the Hunger Games and is scheduled to be released on 19th May 2020, the book is to focus on the failed rebellion 64 years before the Hunger Games trilogy.
I highly respect the Author Suzanne Collins for both her work as a writer of Children's media and for her creativity in creating both the Hunger Games and the Underland Chronicles. Her creativity has been awarded with her books popularity and being announced amongst Time Magazine's 2010's most influential people and Amazons best selling Kindle author in 2012.
In March 2009 Lions Gate Entertainment entered into a co-production agreement with Nina Jacobson's Production company Color Force for the Hunger Games. Novel writer Suzanne Collins adapted the book in collaboration with screenwriter Billy Ray and Director Gary Ross. Actors Jennifer Lawrence, Josh Hutchinson and Liam Hemsworth were hired for the roles of Katniss, Peeta and Gale respectively. Lawrence was four years older than Katniss was in the books but Collins said she would rather the actress be older than the character since it demanded a certain maturity and power. Collins also liked Lawrence stating she was the “only one who truly captured the character I wrote in the book”. The Hunger Games Movie was released on march 23rd 2012. The Hunger Games: Catching Fire was released on November 22nd 2013 with Francis Lawrence being hired as Director and actors Phillip Seymour Hoffman, Jena Malone and Sam Claflin being hired as Plutarch Heavensbee, Johanna Mason and Finneck Odair respectively. The Hunger Games: Mockingjay was split into 2 and Part 1 was released on November 21st 2014 and part 2 on November 20th 2015 Francis Lawrence remained Director for the final movies with Actor Julianne Moore joining the cast as President Alma Coin.
I loved the movies point blank and whilst it has its flaws like most movies often do I think its redeeming quality has been it faithfulness in sticking to the books as closely as possible and the actors representation of Suzanne Collins characters such as Jennifer Lawrence as Katniss, Donald Sunderland and President Snow, Stanley Tucci as Ceaser Flickerman, Woody Harrelson as Haymich Abernathy and Elizabeth Banks as Effie Trinkett. Whilst all the actors were very good and were chosen well for their characters. These actors in particular I feel did exceptionally well in bringing their characters to life especially Elizabeth Banks, Stanley Tucci and Woody Harrelson but then I am a very big fan of theirs so I may be a little biased.
The Hunger Games the titular book was released on September 14th 2008 under the publishing house Scholastic Press. The book had an initial print run of 50,00 copies eventually being bumped up twice to 200,000 copies. By February 2010 the book had sold 800,000 copies and rights to the novel have been sold in 38 territories. In November 2008 The Hunger Games was placed on the New York Times best seller list where it would remain for 100 weeks (just over three months). By the time the books film adaption released in march 2012 the book had been on USA Today's best seller list for 135 weeks (Four months) and sold over 17.5 million copies. The book received several awards and honours such as Publishers Weekley's “Best book of the year 2008”, the New York Times “Notable children's book 2008” and was the 2009 young adult fiction category winner of the Golden Duck award. The book also received the California Young Reader medal in 2011.
Catching Fire, the second book was published on September 1st 2009 under Scholastic. As the sequel to the Hunger Games book it continues the story of Katniss Everdeen and the post-apocalyptic nation of Panem as rebellion begins. The book received mixed reviews but was placed on Time Magazines Top 100 fiction list of 2009. Catching fire had an initial print of 350,00 copies but was (Like its predecessor) had grown to 750,00 by February 2010. The book has sold over 10 million copies.
Mocking-jay the third and final book in the Hunger Games Trilogy and was published August 24th 2010 by Scholastic. The book had a 1.2 million copy print that was bumped up from 750,000 copies and in its first week sold over 450,00 copies. Reviews were favourable with the book and notes that it thoroughly explores the themes of the other books.
I really love the books and regularly read them. Whenever I do read them I tend to read all three of them in the space of a week. To be fair whilst I had heard of them before the first movie release I didn't start reading them until I'd seen the first movie. I did read Catching Fire and Mockingjay before their movie equivalents hit the screens. Whilst The Hunger Games was a brilliant opener and Mockingjay was a brilliant ender, I agree with a few reviewers that Catching fire had a delayed start and it took a bit of time to get into the action of the story at large.
Suzanne Collins was born in Hartford Connecticut on the 10th of August 1962 as the youngest fourth child to Jane Bradley Collins and Lt. Col. Michael Jon Collins a decorated U. S. Air Force officer. As a daughter of a military man she was constantly moving with her family and spent her childhood in the eastern united states. Collins went to the Alabama school of fine arts in Birmingham 1980 as a theatre arts Major. Collins went on to complete a Bachelor of arts from Indiana University in 1985 and telecommunications and in 1989 Collins earned her M. F. A. in dramatic writing from NYU Tisch school of arts. Collins began her career in 1991 as a writer for children's television shows and won a nomination in animation for co-writing the critically acclaimed Christmas special Santa, Baby!. Collins after meeting James Proimos whilst working on a children's show felt the urge to write children's books and spent the early 2000's writing five books of the Underland Chronicles; Gregor the Overlander, Gregor and the Prophecy of Bane, Gregor and the curse of the Warmbloods, Gregor and the Marks of Secret and Gregor and the Code of Claw. The influence for those books came from Alice in Wonderland. During the late 2000's she ends up writing the Hunger Games trilogy which went onto a famous movie trilogy. As the result of the hunger games trilogy popularity Collins was named one of Times Magazine's most Influential people of 2010. On June 17th 2019 Collins announced she was writing a prequel to the Hunger Games and is scheduled to be released on 19th May 2020, the book is to focus on the failed rebellion 64 years before the Hunger Games trilogy.
I highly respect the Author Suzanne Collins for both her work as a writer of Children's media and for her creativity in creating both the Hunger Games and the Underland Chronicles. Her creativity has been awarded with her books popularity and being announced amongst Time Magazine's 2010's most influential people and Amazons best selling Kindle author in 2012.
In March 2009 Lions Gate Entertainment entered into a co-production agreement with Nina Jacobson's Production company Color Force for the Hunger Games. Novel writer Suzanne Collins adapted the book in collaboration with screenwriter Billy Ray and Director Gary Ross. Actors Jennifer Lawrence, Josh Hutchinson and Liam Hemsworth were hired for the roles of Katniss, Peeta and Gale respectively. Lawrence was four years older than Katniss was in the books but Collins said she would rather the actress be older than the character since it demanded a certain maturity and power. Collins also liked Lawrence stating she was the “only one who truly captured the character I wrote in the book”. The Hunger Games Movie was released on march 23rd 2012. The Hunger Games: Catching Fire was released on November 22nd 2013 with Francis Lawrence being hired as Director and actors Phillip Seymour Hoffman, Jena Malone and Sam Claflin being hired as Plutarch Heavensbee, Johanna Mason and Finneck Odair respectively. The Hunger Games: Mockingjay was split into 2 and Part 1 was released on November 21st 2014 and part 2 on November 20th 2015 Francis Lawrence remained Director for the final movies with Actor Julianne Moore joining the cast as President Alma Coin.
I loved the movies point blank and whilst it has its flaws like most movies often do I think its redeeming quality has been it faithfulness in sticking to the books as closely as possible and the actors representation of Suzanne Collins characters such as Jennifer Lawrence as Katniss, Donald Sunderland and President Snow, Stanley Tucci as Ceaser Flickerman, Woody Harrelson as Haymich Abernathy and Elizabeth Banks as Effie Trinkett. Whilst all the actors were very good and were chosen well for their characters. These actors in particular I feel did exceptionally well in bringing their characters to life especially Elizabeth Banks, Stanley Tucci and Woody Harrelson but then I am a very big fan of theirs so I may be a little biased.