Search
Search results
Darren (1599 KP) rated Little Monsters (2019) in Movies
Nov 15, 2019
Verdict: Delightful
Story: Little Monsters starts when a washed up musician Dave (England) breaks up with his girlfriend Sara (Townsend) moving in with his sister Tess (Stewart) and her son Felix (Le Torraca), after getting his heart broken, Dave gets left on his last warning with Tess and after he meets Felix’s teacher Miss Caroline (Nyong’o) he ends up agreeing to go on a school trip.
When the trip seems to be going well, the school kids, Miss Caroline and Dave must find safety as zombies have broken free and heading to the petting zoo, joined by celebrity children’s host Teddy McGiggle (Gad) they must stay safe or face death.
Thoughts on Little Monsters
Characters – Miss Caroline is the kindergarten teacher that has the respect from all her students, treating them like nothing is going wrong no matter what is happening, she will always remain calm, with a smile on her face she takes complete control of the zombie outbreak. She has seen the father hit on her in the past which makes it easy for her to ignore them. Dave was once in a metal band, he had a girlfriend he always fought with him leading to him moving in with his sister and nephew. He is a terrible role model for Felix with his swearing, not listening and accepting it ok for a 5-year-old to play zombie games. He wants to get to know Miss Caroline and over this school trip he learns that there is more to life. Teddy McGiggle is a children’s entertainer who is world famous with every kid loving his work, when the zombies arrive, he shows the worst in mankind. The kids are all brilliant without being annoying like most would become in zombie films.
Performances – Lupita Nyong’o is wonderful to watch being a ray of sunshine through the film, bring a character that is completely different to anything we have seen before. Alexander England is excellent too, being someone, you could never see around children, getting so many laughs in the film. Josh Gad is great too, though it does seem like his character is slightly too much over the top at times. The young actors look like they are having a ball which is important for a film like this.
Story – The story here follows a teacher, a washed up musician and a group of school kids that get trapped during a zombie outbreak in a petting zoo. The best way to describe this story would be that we be, that we are focused on the human factors over the zombies, who are just background problem. We get to see how one man must learn about his life and start taking it more serious after years of wasting his time. We see zombies tackled a different way without needing to give us any sort of flashy zombie kill, which most all try to do, this is a character piece that shows positivity can give you hope no matter what is in your way. If you don’t end up smiling by the end of this film, it will be a surprise.
Comedy/Horror – The comedy is the highlight of this film, we get plenty of laughs, being part of the idea of Dave saying things or doing things around children along with how relaxing the survival attempts end up looking.
Settings – The film is mostly set on a petting zoo, which is meant to be a happy place for the children, despite it turning into a nightmare situation for the adults once the zombies come out.
Special Effects – The zombies are done with great practical effects, while any of the violence is withheld away from the camera.
Scene of the Movie – The tractor rescue.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – It seems like we didn’t need Teddy’s character if we are being completely honest.
Final Thoughts – This is a truly delightful watch, with loveable characters, adorable kids and a fresh take on the zombie genre, showing it is about the characters, not the zombies.
Overall: Enjoyable from start to finish.
Story: Little Monsters starts when a washed up musician Dave (England) breaks up with his girlfriend Sara (Townsend) moving in with his sister Tess (Stewart) and her son Felix (Le Torraca), after getting his heart broken, Dave gets left on his last warning with Tess and after he meets Felix’s teacher Miss Caroline (Nyong’o) he ends up agreeing to go on a school trip.
When the trip seems to be going well, the school kids, Miss Caroline and Dave must find safety as zombies have broken free and heading to the petting zoo, joined by celebrity children’s host Teddy McGiggle (Gad) they must stay safe or face death.
Thoughts on Little Monsters
Characters – Miss Caroline is the kindergarten teacher that has the respect from all her students, treating them like nothing is going wrong no matter what is happening, she will always remain calm, with a smile on her face she takes complete control of the zombie outbreak. She has seen the father hit on her in the past which makes it easy for her to ignore them. Dave was once in a metal band, he had a girlfriend he always fought with him leading to him moving in with his sister and nephew. He is a terrible role model for Felix with his swearing, not listening and accepting it ok for a 5-year-old to play zombie games. He wants to get to know Miss Caroline and over this school trip he learns that there is more to life. Teddy McGiggle is a children’s entertainer who is world famous with every kid loving his work, when the zombies arrive, he shows the worst in mankind. The kids are all brilliant without being annoying like most would become in zombie films.
Performances – Lupita Nyong’o is wonderful to watch being a ray of sunshine through the film, bring a character that is completely different to anything we have seen before. Alexander England is excellent too, being someone, you could never see around children, getting so many laughs in the film. Josh Gad is great too, though it does seem like his character is slightly too much over the top at times. The young actors look like they are having a ball which is important for a film like this.
Story – The story here follows a teacher, a washed up musician and a group of school kids that get trapped during a zombie outbreak in a petting zoo. The best way to describe this story would be that we be, that we are focused on the human factors over the zombies, who are just background problem. We get to see how one man must learn about his life and start taking it more serious after years of wasting his time. We see zombies tackled a different way without needing to give us any sort of flashy zombie kill, which most all try to do, this is a character piece that shows positivity can give you hope no matter what is in your way. If you don’t end up smiling by the end of this film, it will be a surprise.
Comedy/Horror – The comedy is the highlight of this film, we get plenty of laughs, being part of the idea of Dave saying things or doing things around children along with how relaxing the survival attempts end up looking.
Settings – The film is mostly set on a petting zoo, which is meant to be a happy place for the children, despite it turning into a nightmare situation for the adults once the zombies come out.
Special Effects – The zombies are done with great practical effects, while any of the violence is withheld away from the camera.
Scene of the Movie – The tractor rescue.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – It seems like we didn’t need Teddy’s character if we are being completely honest.
Final Thoughts – This is a truly delightful watch, with loveable characters, adorable kids and a fresh take on the zombie genre, showing it is about the characters, not the zombies.
Overall: Enjoyable from start to finish.
Piano with Songs
Music and Games
5.0
Rate It
App
Piano Free has the largest song catalog of any piano on the app store. With over 1,500 songs to...
Sophia (Bookwyrming Thoughts) (530 KP) rated 27 hours: Nightside Saga Series, Book One in Books
Jan 23, 2020
DNF at a place I don't remember because I read this book ages ago and apparently I didn't upload a review. (Also will not be supporting further on after this due to reasons.)
<b><i>I received this book for free from the publisher via Netgalley in exchange for an honest review. This does not affect my opinion of the book or the content of my review.</b></i>
I wish I could’ve enjoyed 27 Hours as much as most people I know seem to have enjoyed the book, but alas, that is not the case.
Also I’ve been keeping a wonderful streak of finishing every book this year, and I wanted to keep that streak. But...
27 Hours was an absolute pain for me to read, and this was the situation I found myself in constantly:
Me: *picks up book, starts reading*
Me (ten minutes later): Ugh, this is painful. I’m bored.
Me (while trying to read): I’m going to do some blogging and maybe quest on my balance wizard. Maybe this will motivate me.
Me (two hours later): *finishes a dungeon in game, finds myself reading maybe two sentences in between battles* Please note that I'm actually good at reading while waiting for my turn, especially when I'm in a team.
Me (two days later): Ooo shiny book! *starts new book*
Me (another two days later): Oh, yeah. I was supposed to read you, right? *eyes book warily* Let's try this again.
This cycle repeated itself for days and weeks. Eventually, I just called it quits because when I’ve been repeating the same thing over and over again and have progressed more in a game than a book, we’ve got issues and it’s time for me to move on to other books.
27 Hours has a lot of representation among the characters, I won’t deny that. But that’s honestly the only thing I can think of that’s good about this book. Anything I might have missed has been clouded over by the cons.
<b>Why 27 Hours Is Not My Cup of Tea</b>
Rumor - I’m being very nitpicky, but the name Rumor instantly reminded me of Adele’s song. Every time “Rumor” came up in the book (which is a lot, considering the fact he’s a main character), the song blasted in my brain.
The name Rumor, however, is the least of my worries.
The world building is a mass of confusion - I have no clue what things are and honestly the world is a jumbled mess of a confusion. Is a dragon the same as a gargoyle, is a chimera the same as a gargoyle, are they simply the same creatures with different names depending on which group the person belongs to… or what? Is it a group of rebellious humans? Also what is this about hellhounds and gargoyles? The world building feels like a melting pot gone very wrong on the moon hundreds of years in the future.
Not only is the world building is a mass of confusion, but it feels way too modern for a book that is supposedly set 200 years from now.
I’m mainly concerned about the world building to focus on the logistics of book year and present year, though.
Too many characters - There are too many to keep track of in 27 Hours, and the fun part? They’re introduced early. I don’t… I don’t even know who this random dude is and boom! We’ve got another one. I knew for sure there were going to be at least four POVs, which is a lot, but it’s not too much. BUT… not only do we have Jude, Rumor, Nyx, Braedon, etc. etc. we have some person named Colt, Wren, Eric, Sara… that’s just some of the characters.
This is by chapter three. Chapter freaking THREE. My brain was already hurting from the world building and then there are all of these characters being introduced and OMG I just wanted to scream.
I just… I just can’t handle all of these characters because I don’t even remember who does what by the time character #2244 pops up.
I really wished I could’ve finished 27 Hours and continued my streak for this year, but the huge cast of characters being introduced so early into the story and massively confusing world is a no go for me.
<a href="https://thenovelistics.blogspot.com/2017/11/27-hours-by-tristina-wright-arc-review.html">This review is originally posted on The Novelistics</a>
<b><i>I received this book for free from the publisher via Netgalley in exchange for an honest review. This does not affect my opinion of the book or the content of my review.</b></i>
I wish I could’ve enjoyed 27 Hours as much as most people I know seem to have enjoyed the book, but alas, that is not the case.
Also I’ve been keeping a wonderful streak of finishing every book this year, and I wanted to keep that streak. But...
27 Hours was an absolute pain for me to read, and this was the situation I found myself in constantly:
Me: *picks up book, starts reading*
Me (ten minutes later): Ugh, this is painful. I’m bored.
Me (while trying to read): I’m going to do some blogging and maybe quest on my balance wizard. Maybe this will motivate me.
Me (two hours later): *finishes a dungeon in game, finds myself reading maybe two sentences in between battles* Please note that I'm actually good at reading while waiting for my turn, especially when I'm in a team.
Me (two days later): Ooo shiny book! *starts new book*
Me (another two days later): Oh, yeah. I was supposed to read you, right? *eyes book warily* Let's try this again.
This cycle repeated itself for days and weeks. Eventually, I just called it quits because when I’ve been repeating the same thing over and over again and have progressed more in a game than a book, we’ve got issues and it’s time for me to move on to other books.
27 Hours has a lot of representation among the characters, I won’t deny that. But that’s honestly the only thing I can think of that’s good about this book. Anything I might have missed has been clouded over by the cons.
<b>Why 27 Hours Is Not My Cup of Tea</b>
Rumor - I’m being very nitpicky, but the name Rumor instantly reminded me of Adele’s song. Every time “Rumor” came up in the book (which is a lot, considering the fact he’s a main character), the song blasted in my brain.
The name Rumor, however, is the least of my worries.
The world building is a mass of confusion - I have no clue what things are and honestly the world is a jumbled mess of a confusion. Is a dragon the same as a gargoyle, is a chimera the same as a gargoyle, are they simply the same creatures with different names depending on which group the person belongs to… or what? Is it a group of rebellious humans? Also what is this about hellhounds and gargoyles? The world building feels like a melting pot gone very wrong on the moon hundreds of years in the future.
Not only is the world building is a mass of confusion, but it feels way too modern for a book that is supposedly set 200 years from now.
I’m mainly concerned about the world building to focus on the logistics of book year and present year, though.
Too many characters - There are too many to keep track of in 27 Hours, and the fun part? They’re introduced early. I don’t… I don’t even know who this random dude is and boom! We’ve got another one. I knew for sure there were going to be at least four POVs, which is a lot, but it’s not too much. BUT… not only do we have Jude, Rumor, Nyx, Braedon, etc. etc. we have some person named Colt, Wren, Eric, Sara… that’s just some of the characters.
This is by chapter three. Chapter freaking THREE. My brain was already hurting from the world building and then there are all of these characters being introduced and OMG I just wanted to scream.
I just… I just can’t handle all of these characters because I don’t even remember who does what by the time character #2244 pops up.
I really wished I could’ve finished 27 Hours and continued my streak for this year, but the huge cast of characters being introduced so early into the story and massively confusing world is a no go for me.
<a href="https://thenovelistics.blogspot.com/2017/11/27-hours-by-tristina-wright-arc-review.html">This review is originally posted on The Novelistics</a>
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Daddy's Home 2 (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Some good comedy moments drowned in schmaltz.
Comedy and tragedy have always gone together hand-in-hand. Every great comedy tends to have its bitter-sweet moments: Roberts Blossom as the “shovel-killer” grandad in “Home Alone” (who always reminds me of my late Dad… in appearance I might add, not that he was a shovel killer!); John Candy’s depressed shower-ring salesman in “Planes Trains and Automobiles”; Ron Burgundy bawling in a phone box in “Anchorman”. The balance between the two is the key thing and comedies can sometimes get it wrong (the Bird Woman in “Home Alone 2” for example!).
Here is another case in point: “Daddy’s Home 2”, which has some laugh-out-loud comedy moments, but is generally so utterly drenched in schmaltz and sentimentality that the film becomes far harder work than it should be. (By the way, I never saw “Daddy’s Home” (but read the IMDB synopsys): it was not a prerequisite for seeing this movie).
A Christmas cast. From left, Alessandra Ambrosio, Didi Costine, Mark Wahlberg, Scarlett Estevez, Will Ferrell, Owen Vaccaro, Linda Cardellini, Conor or Daphne or Dylan Wise(!) and Mel Gibson.
Will Ferrell (“Get Hard“, “Anchorman“) reprises his role as the somewhat incompetent Brad, ‘sharing’ his family of kids and stepkids with the much more streetwise Dusty (Mark Wahlberg, “Patriot’s Day“). After a poignant school recital, the pair realise the damage that a distributed Christmas is doing to their offspring and they determine to spend Christmas all together this year. In the process they vow to try to put aside their attempts at one-upmanship – “the harbour is closed” – in the interests of giving everyone the best Christmas ever.
But their plans are turned upside down when their fathers also turn up for Christmas: Mel Gibson (in a sublime piece of casting) plays Dusty’s dad, astronaut-hero Kurt, who is even more macho and extreme than Dusty, and John Lithgow (“Miss Sloane“; “The Accountant“) plays Brad’s airy-fairy father Don… the apple has not fallen far from the tree there.
Kurt forces the family to ‘fight’ Christmas on a neutral turf by renting a palatial AirBnB in a snowy wilderness. Tensions rise between the diverse individuals until a breaking point is inevitably reached.
There are some great farcical sight-gags in this movie. Quite a few of the funniest ones are spoiled by the trailer, but there are still a few standout routines that made me guffaw. A hi-tech shower is predictable but funny; and Brad’s use of a snowblower to apocalyptic ends is the funniest scene in the movie.
Wahlberg and Ferrell are a trustworthy double act (after their initial surprise pairing in “The Other Guys”). Gibson and Lithgow also inhabit their roles perfectly, although it was hard of me to relate to either of them. The scene on the airport escalator as they arrive is very well done.
The supporting cast all play their parts well: ER’s Linda Cardellini as Brad’s wife and Dusty’s ex-wife; Brazilian model and actress Alessandra Ambrosio, as Dusty’s (almost unbelievably good-looking) new wife Karen; and WWE star John Cena as Karen’s ex-husband. (Doesn’t ANYONE stay married in the US any more?). The kid stars – Didi Costine, Scarlett Estevez and Owen Vaccaro – are also good, with Estevez being particularly appealing.
Watch out for a funny cameo in the final scene as well, which I found very amusing (“You only have one story” … LoL).
“Will my bum look big in this?” – erm… no! Sara (Linda Cardellini) and Karen (Alessandra Ambrosio) on a shopping trip.
What drowns out the comedy though is the sentimental storyline around a personal tragedy being lived out by one of the family. The angst and nasty back-biting that surrounds this I found neither funny nor pleasant. The story builds to a snow-bound cinema (showing “Missile Tow” starring Liam Neeson… a great “pointless answer” for the BBC’s “Pointless” quiz!) and a finale song that is just so over the top that it has both an “awww” factor and is bile-inducing all at the same time. The screenplay is by Sean Anders and John Morris, with Anders also directing.
Will Ferrell films can be like a game of Russian Roulette, and I fully expected this to be truly awful. It wasn’t, and as a Christmas comedy it is an OK watch… and thankfully significantly above “Jingle all the Way”!
Here is another case in point: “Daddy’s Home 2”, which has some laugh-out-loud comedy moments, but is generally so utterly drenched in schmaltz and sentimentality that the film becomes far harder work than it should be. (By the way, I never saw “Daddy’s Home” (but read the IMDB synopsys): it was not a prerequisite for seeing this movie).
A Christmas cast. From left, Alessandra Ambrosio, Didi Costine, Mark Wahlberg, Scarlett Estevez, Will Ferrell, Owen Vaccaro, Linda Cardellini, Conor or Daphne or Dylan Wise(!) and Mel Gibson.
Will Ferrell (“Get Hard“, “Anchorman“) reprises his role as the somewhat incompetent Brad, ‘sharing’ his family of kids and stepkids with the much more streetwise Dusty (Mark Wahlberg, “Patriot’s Day“). After a poignant school recital, the pair realise the damage that a distributed Christmas is doing to their offspring and they determine to spend Christmas all together this year. In the process they vow to try to put aside their attempts at one-upmanship – “the harbour is closed” – in the interests of giving everyone the best Christmas ever.
But their plans are turned upside down when their fathers also turn up for Christmas: Mel Gibson (in a sublime piece of casting) plays Dusty’s dad, astronaut-hero Kurt, who is even more macho and extreme than Dusty, and John Lithgow (“Miss Sloane“; “The Accountant“) plays Brad’s airy-fairy father Don… the apple has not fallen far from the tree there.
Kurt forces the family to ‘fight’ Christmas on a neutral turf by renting a palatial AirBnB in a snowy wilderness. Tensions rise between the diverse individuals until a breaking point is inevitably reached.
There are some great farcical sight-gags in this movie. Quite a few of the funniest ones are spoiled by the trailer, but there are still a few standout routines that made me guffaw. A hi-tech shower is predictable but funny; and Brad’s use of a snowblower to apocalyptic ends is the funniest scene in the movie.
Wahlberg and Ferrell are a trustworthy double act (after their initial surprise pairing in “The Other Guys”). Gibson and Lithgow also inhabit their roles perfectly, although it was hard of me to relate to either of them. The scene on the airport escalator as they arrive is very well done.
The supporting cast all play their parts well: ER’s Linda Cardellini as Brad’s wife and Dusty’s ex-wife; Brazilian model and actress Alessandra Ambrosio, as Dusty’s (almost unbelievably good-looking) new wife Karen; and WWE star John Cena as Karen’s ex-husband. (Doesn’t ANYONE stay married in the US any more?). The kid stars – Didi Costine, Scarlett Estevez and Owen Vaccaro – are also good, with Estevez being particularly appealing.
Watch out for a funny cameo in the final scene as well, which I found very amusing (“You only have one story” … LoL).
“Will my bum look big in this?” – erm… no! Sara (Linda Cardellini) and Karen (Alessandra Ambrosio) on a shopping trip.
What drowns out the comedy though is the sentimental storyline around a personal tragedy being lived out by one of the family. The angst and nasty back-biting that surrounds this I found neither funny nor pleasant. The story builds to a snow-bound cinema (showing “Missile Tow” starring Liam Neeson… a great “pointless answer” for the BBC’s “Pointless” quiz!) and a finale song that is just so over the top that it has both an “awww” factor and is bile-inducing all at the same time. The screenplay is by Sean Anders and John Morris, with Anders also directing.
Will Ferrell films can be like a game of Russian Roulette, and I fully expected this to be truly awful. It wasn’t, and as a Christmas comedy it is an OK watch… and thankfully significantly above “Jingle all the Way”!
Matthew Krueger (10051 KP) rated A Nightmare on Elm Street (1984) in Movies
Jul 3, 2020
Introduce a horror icon (3 more)
Robert Englund
Freddy
Wes Craven
Whatever you do, don’t fall asleep!
Contains spoilers, click to show
A Nightmare on Elm Street- is one of my all time favorite horror films. Its also one of the greatest horror movies of all time. That being said, the ending sucks and i will get to that, but first lets talk more about the film.
I just love the idea of someone who appears in your dreams. Someone who stalks you, someone who messes with you, someone who kills you in your dreams. Now Wes got the idea from several newspaper articles printed in the Los Angeles Times in the 1970s about Southeast Asian refugees, who, after fleeing to the United States because of war and genocide in Laos, Cambodia, and Vietnam, suffered disturbing nightmares and refused to sleep. Some of the men died in their sleep soon after and some of his own childhood nightmares.
The idea of Freddy was Craven's early life. One night, a young Craven saw an elderly man walking on the sidepath outside the window of his home. The man stopped to glance at a startled Craven and walked off. Now Initially, Fred Krueger was intended to be a child molester, but Craven eventually characterized him as a child murderer to avoid being accused of exploiting a spate of highly publicized child molestation cases that occurred in California around the time of production of the film. This idea happened in the 2010 remake.
Lets talk about the plot: In Wes Craven's classic slasher film, several Midwestern teenagers fall prey to Freddy Krueger (Robert Englund), a disfigured midnight mangler who preys on the teenagers in their dreams -- which, in turn, kills them in reality. After investigating the phenomenon, Nancy (Heather Langenkamp) begins to suspect that a dark secret kept by her and her friends' parents may be the key to unraveling the mystery, but can Nancy and her boyfriend Glen (Johnny Depp) solve the puzzle before it's too late?
The plot/story is excellent, the mystery surrounded of Krueger. Who he exactly is, why is he do this, what made him do this, how do the parnets know about Krueger? All of these questions and more your trying to figure out and the movie does a excellent job explaining them.
The deaths: the death scenes are excellent. Tina revolving around her room, Rod's bed sheets wrapping around him while he is in a prison cell and dies hanging and Glen getting pulled through his bed and then his blood gushes to the ceiling. Excellent deaths and memorable.
The Ending: Craven originally planned for the film to have a more evocative ending: Nancy kills Krueger by ceasing to believe in him, then awakens to discover that everything that happened in the film was an elongated nightmare. However, New Line leader Robert Shaye demanded a twist ending, in which Krueger disappears and all seems to have been a dream, only for the audience to discover that it was a dream-within-a-dream-within-a-dream.
According to Craven, "The original ending of the script has Nancy come out the door. It's an unusually cloudy and foggy day. A car pulls up with her dead friends in it. She's startled. She goes out and gets in the car wondering what the hell is going on, and they drive off into the fog, with the mother left standing on the doorstep and that's it. It was very brief, and suggestive that maybe life is sort of dream-like too. Shaye wanted Freddy Krueger to be driving the car, and have the kids screaming. It all became very negative. I felt a philosophical tension to my ending. Shaye said, "That's so 60s, it's stupid." I refused to have Freddy in the driver's seat, and we thought up about five different endings. The one we used, with Freddy pulling the mother through the doorway amused us all so much, we couldn't not use it."
Heather Langenkamp states that "there always was this sense that Freddy was the car", while according to Sara Risher, "it was always Wes' idea to pan to the little girls' jumping rope". Both a happy ending and a twist ending were filmed, but the final film used the twist ending. As a result, Craven who never wanted the film to be an ongoing franchise, did not work on the first sequel, Freddy's Revenge (1985).
Also Nancy's mom getting pulles through the window door was wierd and you can tell it was a blow up doll.
The Music: The lyrics for Freddy's theme song, sung by the jumprope children throughout the series and based on One, Two, Buckle My Shoe, was already written and included in the script when Bernstein started writing the soundtrack, while the melody for it was not set by Bernstein, but by Heather Langenkamp's boyfriend and soon-to-be husband at the time, Alan Pasqua, who was a musician himself. One of the three girls who recorded the vocal part of the theme was Robert Shaye's then 14-year-old daughter. Per the script, the lyrics are as follow: One two, Freddie's coming for you.Three four, better lock your door. Five six, grab your crucifix. Seven eight, gonna stay up late. Nine ten, never sleep again.
End Thoughts: A Nightmare on Elm Street is a excellent horror movie, it introduces a horror icon, has great charcters, has great death scenes and above all is perfect. Thank you Wes for giving us this movie.
I just love the idea of someone who appears in your dreams. Someone who stalks you, someone who messes with you, someone who kills you in your dreams. Now Wes got the idea from several newspaper articles printed in the Los Angeles Times in the 1970s about Southeast Asian refugees, who, after fleeing to the United States because of war and genocide in Laos, Cambodia, and Vietnam, suffered disturbing nightmares and refused to sleep. Some of the men died in their sleep soon after and some of his own childhood nightmares.
The idea of Freddy was Craven's early life. One night, a young Craven saw an elderly man walking on the sidepath outside the window of his home. The man stopped to glance at a startled Craven and walked off. Now Initially, Fred Krueger was intended to be a child molester, but Craven eventually characterized him as a child murderer to avoid being accused of exploiting a spate of highly publicized child molestation cases that occurred in California around the time of production of the film. This idea happened in the 2010 remake.
Lets talk about the plot: In Wes Craven's classic slasher film, several Midwestern teenagers fall prey to Freddy Krueger (Robert Englund), a disfigured midnight mangler who preys on the teenagers in their dreams -- which, in turn, kills them in reality. After investigating the phenomenon, Nancy (Heather Langenkamp) begins to suspect that a dark secret kept by her and her friends' parents may be the key to unraveling the mystery, but can Nancy and her boyfriend Glen (Johnny Depp) solve the puzzle before it's too late?
The plot/story is excellent, the mystery surrounded of Krueger. Who he exactly is, why is he do this, what made him do this, how do the parnets know about Krueger? All of these questions and more your trying to figure out and the movie does a excellent job explaining them.
The deaths: the death scenes are excellent. Tina revolving around her room, Rod's bed sheets wrapping around him while he is in a prison cell and dies hanging and Glen getting pulled through his bed and then his blood gushes to the ceiling. Excellent deaths and memorable.
The Ending: Craven originally planned for the film to have a more evocative ending: Nancy kills Krueger by ceasing to believe in him, then awakens to discover that everything that happened in the film was an elongated nightmare. However, New Line leader Robert Shaye demanded a twist ending, in which Krueger disappears and all seems to have been a dream, only for the audience to discover that it was a dream-within-a-dream-within-a-dream.
According to Craven, "The original ending of the script has Nancy come out the door. It's an unusually cloudy and foggy day. A car pulls up with her dead friends in it. She's startled. She goes out and gets in the car wondering what the hell is going on, and they drive off into the fog, with the mother left standing on the doorstep and that's it. It was very brief, and suggestive that maybe life is sort of dream-like too. Shaye wanted Freddy Krueger to be driving the car, and have the kids screaming. It all became very negative. I felt a philosophical tension to my ending. Shaye said, "That's so 60s, it's stupid." I refused to have Freddy in the driver's seat, and we thought up about five different endings. The one we used, with Freddy pulling the mother through the doorway amused us all so much, we couldn't not use it."
Heather Langenkamp states that "there always was this sense that Freddy was the car", while according to Sara Risher, "it was always Wes' idea to pan to the little girls' jumping rope". Both a happy ending and a twist ending were filmed, but the final film used the twist ending. As a result, Craven who never wanted the film to be an ongoing franchise, did not work on the first sequel, Freddy's Revenge (1985).
Also Nancy's mom getting pulles through the window door was wierd and you can tell it was a blow up doll.
The Music: The lyrics for Freddy's theme song, sung by the jumprope children throughout the series and based on One, Two, Buckle My Shoe, was already written and included in the script when Bernstein started writing the soundtrack, while the melody for it was not set by Bernstein, but by Heather Langenkamp's boyfriend and soon-to-be husband at the time, Alan Pasqua, who was a musician himself. One of the three girls who recorded the vocal part of the theme was Robert Shaye's then 14-year-old daughter. Per the script, the lyrics are as follow: One two, Freddie's coming for you.Three four, better lock your door. Five six, grab your crucifix. Seven eight, gonna stay up late. Nine ten, never sleep again.
End Thoughts: A Nightmare on Elm Street is a excellent horror movie, it introduces a horror icon, has great charcters, has great death scenes and above all is perfect. Thank you Wes for giving us this movie.
Charlie Cobra Reviews (1840 KP) rated Resident Alien in TV
Apr 14, 2021 (Updated Apr 14, 2021)
Laugh out loud funny (3 more)
Excellent mix of comedy, drama, and sci-fi
Full of unique and different characters
Decent special effects and CGI
Not for everyone kind of show (2 more)
Sometimes the CGI and effects can be lacking
Some characters can be a little annoying at times
A Comedy That's Out Of This World Funny
https://youtu.be/v9iwDu2OP3E
This show is just great and a real treat. I have to admit that I had no idea what I was in store for watching this show and I think that was half the fun of watching it. This show is part mystery and part CSI but also equal parts comedy and drama. It's full of scenes that are laugh out loud funny and some that are quite drama filled and serious in-tone at times. I really like the way it balances them and how each episode gets us a little bit further into the mystery of who killed the town doctor and if anyone is close to finding out the alien's secret identity or his secret mission. The character of the alien; who takes on the name Harry, after the doctor whose identity he steals, Dr. Harry Vanderspiegle, is a pretty funny character. It really shows in how he is trying his best to navigate through everyday situations with no prior knowledge of how or what it is to be human and really understand the subtle nuances of human nature and interaction while having a superiority complex and believing all humans are barely smarter than lizards in his opinion. He is totally oblivious to many things that are second nature to people like sarcasm and sense of humor. There are actually quite a few likeable characters on the show like Asta Twelvetrees played by Sara Tomko who is arguably the heart of the show, a central and integral character and super relatable. She is an important character to "Harry" learning to be more human. Also there's Sheriff Mike who is played by Corey Reynolds and is full of catch-phrases and just ridiculous things he says that are funny as hell. His completely blunt personality and no non-sense approach to crime leaves him to rub people the wrong way but he never apologies for himself or tries to tip-toe around people either. Then there's D'arcy who's played by Alice Wetterlund who is the town's bar owner and ex-Olympic athlete. She's a pretty cool character and quite different from the others and really kind of compliments the other characters by rounding them out. The whole mix of characters in the show are pretty diverse personality wise and how the show revolves around them and it's just a really funny show that's also full of alien sci-fi things going on at the same time but manages to ring through on an emotional level as "Harry" the alien begins to understand more and more about humans. I'll go over more in the spoiler section but I give this show a 8/10 and you should definitely check it out, especially if you are into sci-fi and looking for something that'll make you laugh at the same time too.
-------------------------------------------------------
Spoiler Section Review:
This show is just one of those shows that you don't expect for it to be as good as it is. I was really surprised when I saw the first episode and decided that I had to show my brother the first episode too and we actually got our dad into it too. I really like Alan Tudyk and how he not only plays the alien "Harry" but also the actual Dr. Harry Vanderspeigle in the flashbacks that happen as well. He's pretty talented and extremely funny in playing the alien, especially the parts where he's learning how to walk and talk and watching "Law & Order". So the whole thing with the show is that "Harry" is an alien that has crash-landed on Earth before he could finish his mission and is looking for his ship or parts of it that he needs to recover so he can finish his mission. He wakes up and searches the mountainside where he believes it is and pretty much avoids all human contact. That's when things change and the local authorities seek him out because the person whose identity he has taken is a known doctor and they need him to investigate the death of the town doctor. He now has to not only go into town where there are humans everywhere but also interact with them and hope that no one can tell that he's really an alien in disguise. The storytelling, plot and character development in the show are done in such a great way in how it progresses forward but also shows things that occurred earlier in flashbacks and you get to know or see things that make the characters more 3-dimensional and feel more realistic. Harry is very smart for an alien but has no clue when it comes to a lot of the things we take for granted when it comes to being human, things like sarcasm, humor, and more. So his behavior is off-putting but tolerated and accepted for the most part. He reluctantly takes on the job of the town doctor when asked because he doesn't want for anyone to suspect anything which makes it harder for him especially when he learns the Mayor's son Max can see his true identity, something like only one in a million humans might be able to do. The head nurse Asta Twelvetrees make his job easier by assisting him and they bond rather quickly when he takes her up on the offer to go for a drink after work to the local bar. That's where they meet D'arcy the bartender and owner of the bar who is also Asta's best friend and they have fun drinking and dancing and "Harry" drinks heavily to fit in. There's some pretty funny scenes of the alien dancing too. The next day Asta asks "Harry" to help her get somethings from her abusive ex-boyfriend Jimmy's house and "Harry" saves her from him when begins attacking her. He helps her to leave and she confides in him, that she had a child with Jimmy when she was really young but gave it up for adoption as they were too young to take care of it. Like I said in the non-spoiler section this show has a good mix of mystery, comedy and drama and does it in a really good way. Just as it pulls you in one direction like the drama part about Asta's child then it steers you in a completely different direction like comedy again when you find out at the end of the first episode that "Harry's" first patient is Max, the Mayor's son who can see that he's really an alien. I really enjoyed this show and I'm so glad that they decided to renew it for another season and there will be a season 2 coming soon. I liked it so much that I'm actually thinking about checking out the comic books by Dark Horse comics to see how good they are too. Anyways I give this show a 8/10 and can't wait for it to return.
This show is just great and a real treat. I have to admit that I had no idea what I was in store for watching this show and I think that was half the fun of watching it. This show is part mystery and part CSI but also equal parts comedy and drama. It's full of scenes that are laugh out loud funny and some that are quite drama filled and serious in-tone at times. I really like the way it balances them and how each episode gets us a little bit further into the mystery of who killed the town doctor and if anyone is close to finding out the alien's secret identity or his secret mission. The character of the alien; who takes on the name Harry, after the doctor whose identity he steals, Dr. Harry Vanderspiegle, is a pretty funny character. It really shows in how he is trying his best to navigate through everyday situations with no prior knowledge of how or what it is to be human and really understand the subtle nuances of human nature and interaction while having a superiority complex and believing all humans are barely smarter than lizards in his opinion. He is totally oblivious to many things that are second nature to people like sarcasm and sense of humor. There are actually quite a few likeable characters on the show like Asta Twelvetrees played by Sara Tomko who is arguably the heart of the show, a central and integral character and super relatable. She is an important character to "Harry" learning to be more human. Also there's Sheriff Mike who is played by Corey Reynolds and is full of catch-phrases and just ridiculous things he says that are funny as hell. His completely blunt personality and no non-sense approach to crime leaves him to rub people the wrong way but he never apologies for himself or tries to tip-toe around people either. Then there's D'arcy who's played by Alice Wetterlund who is the town's bar owner and ex-Olympic athlete. She's a pretty cool character and quite different from the others and really kind of compliments the other characters by rounding them out. The whole mix of characters in the show are pretty diverse personality wise and how the show revolves around them and it's just a really funny show that's also full of alien sci-fi things going on at the same time but manages to ring through on an emotional level as "Harry" the alien begins to understand more and more about humans. I'll go over more in the spoiler section but I give this show a 8/10 and you should definitely check it out, especially if you are into sci-fi and looking for something that'll make you laugh at the same time too.
-------------------------------------------------------
Spoiler Section Review:
This show is just one of those shows that you don't expect for it to be as good as it is. I was really surprised when I saw the first episode and decided that I had to show my brother the first episode too and we actually got our dad into it too. I really like Alan Tudyk and how he not only plays the alien "Harry" but also the actual Dr. Harry Vanderspeigle in the flashbacks that happen as well. He's pretty talented and extremely funny in playing the alien, especially the parts where he's learning how to walk and talk and watching "Law & Order". So the whole thing with the show is that "Harry" is an alien that has crash-landed on Earth before he could finish his mission and is looking for his ship or parts of it that he needs to recover so he can finish his mission. He wakes up and searches the mountainside where he believes it is and pretty much avoids all human contact. That's when things change and the local authorities seek him out because the person whose identity he has taken is a known doctor and they need him to investigate the death of the town doctor. He now has to not only go into town where there are humans everywhere but also interact with them and hope that no one can tell that he's really an alien in disguise. The storytelling, plot and character development in the show are done in such a great way in how it progresses forward but also shows things that occurred earlier in flashbacks and you get to know or see things that make the characters more 3-dimensional and feel more realistic. Harry is very smart for an alien but has no clue when it comes to a lot of the things we take for granted when it comes to being human, things like sarcasm, humor, and more. So his behavior is off-putting but tolerated and accepted for the most part. He reluctantly takes on the job of the town doctor when asked because he doesn't want for anyone to suspect anything which makes it harder for him especially when he learns the Mayor's son Max can see his true identity, something like only one in a million humans might be able to do. The head nurse Asta Twelvetrees make his job easier by assisting him and they bond rather quickly when he takes her up on the offer to go for a drink after work to the local bar. That's where they meet D'arcy the bartender and owner of the bar who is also Asta's best friend and they have fun drinking and dancing and "Harry" drinks heavily to fit in. There's some pretty funny scenes of the alien dancing too. The next day Asta asks "Harry" to help her get somethings from her abusive ex-boyfriend Jimmy's house and "Harry" saves her from him when begins attacking her. He helps her to leave and she confides in him, that she had a child with Jimmy when she was really young but gave it up for adoption as they were too young to take care of it. Like I said in the non-spoiler section this show has a good mix of mystery, comedy and drama and does it in a really good way. Just as it pulls you in one direction like the drama part about Asta's child then it steers you in a completely different direction like comedy again when you find out at the end of the first episode that "Harry's" first patient is Max, the Mayor's son who can see that he's really an alien. I really enjoyed this show and I'm so glad that they decided to renew it for another season and there will be a season 2 coming soon. I liked it so much that I'm actually thinking about checking out the comic books by Dark Horse comics to see how good they are too. Anyways I give this show a 8/10 and can't wait for it to return.
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.)
Angelicalynnn (21 KP) Jul 6, 2018
iamsara (130 KP) Jul 19, 2018