Search
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.)
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Hellboy II: The Golden Army (Hellboy 2) (2008) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
Hollywood is often littered with decisions that in hindsight seem to be utterly insane. For all of the big budgeted films that go on to do huge business, there are films such as “Waterworld”, “Howard The Duck”, “Hudson Hawk”, and countless others that make you scratch your head and wonder who thought they were worth the investment of millions of dollars that were needed to bring them to the big screen.
One such decision that will undoubtedly look bad with the passage of time, was the decision for Columbia not to continue the “Hellboy” film series and allow it to walk away to find a home elsewhere.
Thankfully due to the strength of “Pan’s Labyrinth”, creator Guillmo del Toro who is riding a wave of critical success, “Hellboy II: The Golden Army”, is a step up from the previous film and sets the stage for a potential series of sequels for Universal.
The film once again stars Ron Perlman as the title character, a demon of supernatural origin who was raised by humans and leads a team of gifted individuals in the ultra-secret Bureau for Paranormal Research and Defense (BPRD).
The story begins shortly after the events of the last film, and finds BPRD Director Tom Manning (Jeffrey Tambor), frustrated with Hellboy’s continued flaunting of the rules by posing for pictures and autographs while on missions, despite being sworn to keep himself and the agency a closely guarded secret.
As if this was not enough trouble, Hellboy is having issues with the love of his life Liz (Selma Blair), who is starting to have issues with his gruff mannerisms and slovenly ways.
Unknown to the BRPD a new threat is brewing in the form of Prince Nauada (Luke Goss), who plans to retrieve three pieces of a golden crown so that he may control a fabled army of golden soldiers, and wage war on humanity.
Nauada is part of the mythical world of beings that long ago formed a truce with humanity and have lived in peace. Nauada, who has lived under the rule of his father for centuries, strikes out and sets events into motion which require the BPRD to respond to a threat greater than any they have previously faced,.
With the able help of Abe Sapien (Doug Jones), and new member Johann Krauss (Seth MacFarlane), the BPRD clash with themselves and the forces of Nauada with the fate of the world in the balance.
The new film is significantly better than the previous one, and del Toro has masterfully blended the characters and many interesting sub-stories with solid action, FX, and surprising humor. There is a scene in the film where Hellboy and Abe bond over music and beer to discuss women that is truly classic as is the confrontation between Hellboy and Krauss over leadership.
del Toro is a master at creating world of fantasy and splendor and when he allows the film to venture into this area, the film truly shines. It is during the transition between fantasy and alleged reality where the film has a few rough edges. While it was great to see the characters have a more defined relationship and interaction with one another, it seemed at times that areas for potential gold were glossed over or rushed to get back to the action and FX. There are some great storylines about Hellboy’s relationship with humanity, Liz being caught between two worlds, and many more that I hope get developed more in any future films.
There were times in the film where the nearly two hour run time seemed excessive and dragged, especially leading up to a finale, that did not deliver as big an impact as the setup had hinted at.
That being said, thanks to great characters and visuals “Hellboy II: The Golden Army”, is the rare sequel that is better than the original.
One such decision that will undoubtedly look bad with the passage of time, was the decision for Columbia not to continue the “Hellboy” film series and allow it to walk away to find a home elsewhere.
Thankfully due to the strength of “Pan’s Labyrinth”, creator Guillmo del Toro who is riding a wave of critical success, “Hellboy II: The Golden Army”, is a step up from the previous film and sets the stage for a potential series of sequels for Universal.
The film once again stars Ron Perlman as the title character, a demon of supernatural origin who was raised by humans and leads a team of gifted individuals in the ultra-secret Bureau for Paranormal Research and Defense (BPRD).
The story begins shortly after the events of the last film, and finds BPRD Director Tom Manning (Jeffrey Tambor), frustrated with Hellboy’s continued flaunting of the rules by posing for pictures and autographs while on missions, despite being sworn to keep himself and the agency a closely guarded secret.
As if this was not enough trouble, Hellboy is having issues with the love of his life Liz (Selma Blair), who is starting to have issues with his gruff mannerisms and slovenly ways.
Unknown to the BRPD a new threat is brewing in the form of Prince Nauada (Luke Goss), who plans to retrieve three pieces of a golden crown so that he may control a fabled army of golden soldiers, and wage war on humanity.
Nauada is part of the mythical world of beings that long ago formed a truce with humanity and have lived in peace. Nauada, who has lived under the rule of his father for centuries, strikes out and sets events into motion which require the BPRD to respond to a threat greater than any they have previously faced,.
With the able help of Abe Sapien (Doug Jones), and new member Johann Krauss (Seth MacFarlane), the BPRD clash with themselves and the forces of Nauada with the fate of the world in the balance.
The new film is significantly better than the previous one, and del Toro has masterfully blended the characters and many interesting sub-stories with solid action, FX, and surprising humor. There is a scene in the film where Hellboy and Abe bond over music and beer to discuss women that is truly classic as is the confrontation between Hellboy and Krauss over leadership.
del Toro is a master at creating world of fantasy and splendor and when he allows the film to venture into this area, the film truly shines. It is during the transition between fantasy and alleged reality where the film has a few rough edges. While it was great to see the characters have a more defined relationship and interaction with one another, it seemed at times that areas for potential gold were glossed over or rushed to get back to the action and FX. There are some great storylines about Hellboy’s relationship with humanity, Liz being caught between two worlds, and many more that I hope get developed more in any future films.
There were times in the film where the nearly two hour run time seemed excessive and dragged, especially leading up to a finale, that did not deliver as big an impact as the setup had hinted at.
That being said, thanks to great characters and visuals “Hellboy II: The Golden Army”, is the rare sequel that is better than the original.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Chief Zabu (2016) in Movies
Oct 8, 2020
“Chief Zabu” Captures 80s America With A Comedic Twist
Greetings & Salutations Everyone!
It’s perplexing how so very few people seem to comprehend the grand efforts that go into the production of a movie. The numerous individuals involved, the various disciplines and skill sets, the length of production time, etc. The film I have the good fortune to share with you today has essentially been on one of the longest journeys I’ve ever heard of. A journey so lengthy in scope, it was the subject of a recurring gag during the tenure of ‘Mystery Science Theater 3000’. 30 years. That’s right. It actually didn’t take 30 years to literally make/film the movie. Production for the film began in 1986. But due to an unforeseen series of circumstances, production was unable to be completed until 2016. Now if you’re a ‘die hard disciple’ of MST3K, obligations don’t matter. The fact that they thought enough of it to make it the subject of a running joke is advertisement enough to make you want to see the film. So … without further adieu I present for your consideration, “Chief Zabu”
“Chief Zabu” is a socio-political comedy that takes place primarily in New York during the mid-1980s and follows a determined New York businessman who believes his dreams of wealth and political power can be secured by cornering the economic future of a newly independent Polynesian country. The film was directed, produced, and written by Zack Norman (credited as Howard Zuker) and Neil Cohen. The film stars Allen Garfield, Zack Norman, Manu Tupou, Ed Lauter, Marianna Hill, Allan Arbus, Harsh Nayyar, Joseph Warren, Betty Karlen, Tom Nardini, Charles Siegal, Shirley Stoler, Lucianne Buchanan, and Ferdinand Mayne.
Chief Henri Zabu (Tupou) is the leader of a Polynesian country who has been thrust into the world of politics and has journeyed to New York City to secure recognition for his country from the United Nations. Secretly, he has come to hopefully secure investors and the finical backing to kickstart his country’s economy and infrastructure. Ben Sydney (Garfield) and his longtime friend and partner Sammy Brooks (Norman), are a pair of devious and crafty New York realtors going from one mediocre deal to the next while fantasizing about that ‘deal of a lifetime’ that will one day hopefully ‘find them’. It does. Sort of. Through a series of almost unreal interactions with a series of characters ranging from con artists to wealthy individuals who would likely push a family member into a pool if properly motivated, Ben and Sammy believe they’ve got the political and finance connections to make their ambitions a reality. And then, just when things are going so well … the proverbial rug looks as though it’s going to get pulled out from under them. So it would seem. New York realtors with political aspirations and possibly questionable morals. Does this ring any bells anyone?
Setting aside the comedic aspects of the film, it’s a fictional yet not unrealistic representation some of the political and economic influences that surrounded the arena of the United Nations in the mid to late 80’s. An interesting side story that depicts how first world nations would seize the opportunity to try and capitalize on newly independent or weaker nations by securing footholds in their economic and political power bases. Thereby funneling a nation’s resources and wealth away from those nations.
In the end, the film captures the 80’s in America much for what it was with a comedic twist. Celebrity worship, political backstabbing, and materialism. The only other film I can think of off the top of my head that did better would be ‘American Psycho’. Thankfully and perhaps gratefully, ‘Chief Zabu’ accomplished this WITHOUT the excessive and unprecedented depictions of violence. I’d give this film 4 out of 5 stars. The only way to one-up the movie is if we could take it back in time and give it the ‘MST3K’ treatment.
It’s perplexing how so very few people seem to comprehend the grand efforts that go into the production of a movie. The numerous individuals involved, the various disciplines and skill sets, the length of production time, etc. The film I have the good fortune to share with you today has essentially been on one of the longest journeys I’ve ever heard of. A journey so lengthy in scope, it was the subject of a recurring gag during the tenure of ‘Mystery Science Theater 3000’. 30 years. That’s right. It actually didn’t take 30 years to literally make/film the movie. Production for the film began in 1986. But due to an unforeseen series of circumstances, production was unable to be completed until 2016. Now if you’re a ‘die hard disciple’ of MST3K, obligations don’t matter. The fact that they thought enough of it to make it the subject of a running joke is advertisement enough to make you want to see the film. So … without further adieu I present for your consideration, “Chief Zabu”
“Chief Zabu” is a socio-political comedy that takes place primarily in New York during the mid-1980s and follows a determined New York businessman who believes his dreams of wealth and political power can be secured by cornering the economic future of a newly independent Polynesian country. The film was directed, produced, and written by Zack Norman (credited as Howard Zuker) and Neil Cohen. The film stars Allen Garfield, Zack Norman, Manu Tupou, Ed Lauter, Marianna Hill, Allan Arbus, Harsh Nayyar, Joseph Warren, Betty Karlen, Tom Nardini, Charles Siegal, Shirley Stoler, Lucianne Buchanan, and Ferdinand Mayne.
Chief Henri Zabu (Tupou) is the leader of a Polynesian country who has been thrust into the world of politics and has journeyed to New York City to secure recognition for his country from the United Nations. Secretly, he has come to hopefully secure investors and the finical backing to kickstart his country’s economy and infrastructure. Ben Sydney (Garfield) and his longtime friend and partner Sammy Brooks (Norman), are a pair of devious and crafty New York realtors going from one mediocre deal to the next while fantasizing about that ‘deal of a lifetime’ that will one day hopefully ‘find them’. It does. Sort of. Through a series of almost unreal interactions with a series of characters ranging from con artists to wealthy individuals who would likely push a family member into a pool if properly motivated, Ben and Sammy believe they’ve got the political and finance connections to make their ambitions a reality. And then, just when things are going so well … the proverbial rug looks as though it’s going to get pulled out from under them. So it would seem. New York realtors with political aspirations and possibly questionable morals. Does this ring any bells anyone?
Setting aside the comedic aspects of the film, it’s a fictional yet not unrealistic representation some of the political and economic influences that surrounded the arena of the United Nations in the mid to late 80’s. An interesting side story that depicts how first world nations would seize the opportunity to try and capitalize on newly independent or weaker nations by securing footholds in their economic and political power bases. Thereby funneling a nation’s resources and wealth away from those nations.
In the end, the film captures the 80’s in America much for what it was with a comedic twist. Celebrity worship, political backstabbing, and materialism. The only other film I can think of off the top of my head that did better would be ‘American Psycho’. Thankfully and perhaps gratefully, ‘Chief Zabu’ accomplished this WITHOUT the excessive and unprecedented depictions of violence. I’d give this film 4 out of 5 stars. The only way to one-up the movie is if we could take it back in time and give it the ‘MST3K’ treatment.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated News of the World (2020) in Movies
Jan 17, 2021
Strongly Acted and Directed
Pound for pound, Tom Hanks is the best actor of this generation. From his big screen debut in SPLASH to his Oscar Nominated turn in BIG to his back-to-back Oscar wins for PHILADELPHIA and FORREST GUMP to more recent works like SULLY and THE POST, Hanks’ “everyman goodness” quality shines through the screen and makes him a screen presence that cannot be ignored.
And in his latest effort, the Paul Greengrass Directed NEWS OF THE WORLD, Hanks uses every molecule of his screen presence to keep the audience’s attention in a slow-paced, moody character study.
Based on the novel by Paulette Jiles, NEWS OF THE WORLD takes place in a post-Civil War Texas where a former Confederate Captain makes a living by going from town to town and reading the news to them. A chance encounter with a twice orphaned young girl alters the lives of both of them.
Writer/Director Paul Greengrass is most known for quick-cut action films like the BOURNE series or the criminally underrated GREEN ROOM, so he would seem - at first glance - as an unusual choice to adapt and direct this character study, but look further at Greengrass’ resume and you will find - in films such as UNITED 93 and CAPTAIN PHILLIPS - an ability to tell a story that is driven more by character than by action.
And this combination of Director and Actor works well for NEWS OF THE WORLD is a languidly paced piece that has a somber mood and look but Greengrass avoids the temptation of lingering on scenes or pictures too long (and there are some wonderful images captured by Greengrass and Cinemotgrapher Darius Wolski) to tell a story of a man who needs to rediscover and remake himself.
And Hanks is more than equal to the task of bringing the pragmatic, introspective Captain Jefferson Kyle Kidd character to life in a way that makes him intriguing and not boring. Hanks ability to show inherent decency in a look or a gesture is the stuff of legends and when he speaks, you listen. Which is good for Hanks is in every scene in this film and his performance needs to strongly capture the audience for this film to work - and he is more than equal to this task - so strong is Hanks in this role that I would not be surprised if there is another Oscar nomination in Tom’s near future.
Newcomer Helena Zegal is “just fine” in the other main role in this film - the young girl that Captain Kidd encounters, Johnna. This young girl is silent and shut down for most of the film and Zegal performs “shut down and silent” well. Also along for brief cameo roles of characters that Captain Kidd encounters on his journey is a bevy of wonderfully cast character actors that include Mare Winnigham, Ray McKinnon, Bill Camp and the always interesting to watch Elizabeth Marvel.
As is often the case in these sorts of films, the music/soundtrack becomes a vital part of the story that unfolds and 8 time Oscar nominated composer James Newton Howard (THE PRINCE OF TIDES) is more than up to the task. The music is another character in this film and helps set the mood along the journey.
But make no mistake, this is Hanks’ film - and he is VERY good in this. Like MIDNIGHT SKY (reviewed last month), this movie will not be for everyone - and many, many folks are going to tell me that they checked this movie out on my recommendation and were bored by it. But…if you click into the mood, motion and energy of what Greengrass is showing, you will be rewarded with an emotionally rich and complex character study.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) - and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
And in his latest effort, the Paul Greengrass Directed NEWS OF THE WORLD, Hanks uses every molecule of his screen presence to keep the audience’s attention in a slow-paced, moody character study.
Based on the novel by Paulette Jiles, NEWS OF THE WORLD takes place in a post-Civil War Texas where a former Confederate Captain makes a living by going from town to town and reading the news to them. A chance encounter with a twice orphaned young girl alters the lives of both of them.
Writer/Director Paul Greengrass is most known for quick-cut action films like the BOURNE series or the criminally underrated GREEN ROOM, so he would seem - at first glance - as an unusual choice to adapt and direct this character study, but look further at Greengrass’ resume and you will find - in films such as UNITED 93 and CAPTAIN PHILLIPS - an ability to tell a story that is driven more by character than by action.
And this combination of Director and Actor works well for NEWS OF THE WORLD is a languidly paced piece that has a somber mood and look but Greengrass avoids the temptation of lingering on scenes or pictures too long (and there are some wonderful images captured by Greengrass and Cinemotgrapher Darius Wolski) to tell a story of a man who needs to rediscover and remake himself.
And Hanks is more than equal to the task of bringing the pragmatic, introspective Captain Jefferson Kyle Kidd character to life in a way that makes him intriguing and not boring. Hanks ability to show inherent decency in a look or a gesture is the stuff of legends and when he speaks, you listen. Which is good for Hanks is in every scene in this film and his performance needs to strongly capture the audience for this film to work - and he is more than equal to this task - so strong is Hanks in this role that I would not be surprised if there is another Oscar nomination in Tom’s near future.
Newcomer Helena Zegal is “just fine” in the other main role in this film - the young girl that Captain Kidd encounters, Johnna. This young girl is silent and shut down for most of the film and Zegal performs “shut down and silent” well. Also along for brief cameo roles of characters that Captain Kidd encounters on his journey is a bevy of wonderfully cast character actors that include Mare Winnigham, Ray McKinnon, Bill Camp and the always interesting to watch Elizabeth Marvel.
As is often the case in these sorts of films, the music/soundtrack becomes a vital part of the story that unfolds and 8 time Oscar nominated composer James Newton Howard (THE PRINCE OF TIDES) is more than up to the task. The music is another character in this film and helps set the mood along the journey.
But make no mistake, this is Hanks’ film - and he is VERY good in this. Like MIDNIGHT SKY (reviewed last month), this movie will not be for everyone - and many, many folks are going to tell me that they checked this movie out on my recommendation and were bored by it. But…if you click into the mood, motion and energy of what Greengrass is showing, you will be rewarded with an emotionally rich and complex character study.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) - and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Mank (2020) in Movies
Jan 7, 2021
Good companion piece to CITIZEN KANE
Orson Welles’ 1941 masterpiece CITIZEN KANE is truly a remarkable work of art (especially for the time it was created) and it regularly lands in either the #1 or #2 spot on my list of all-time favorite films (battling back and forth with THE GODFATHER - the one that ends up at #1 is usually the one I have watched most recently), so I am a sucker for films that are about (or around) the making of this classic.
And…the Netflix film MANK does not disappoint in this regard.
Starring Oscar winning actor Gary Oldman (he won the Oscar for portraying Sir Winston Churchill in DARKEST HOUR), Mank tells the tale of the writing of the screenplay of CITIZEN KANE by screenwriter Herman Mankiewicz. It is an intriguing story of a self-destructive, alcoholic artist (is there any other kind in this kind of film) that (ultimately) produces one of the best scripts in Hollywood history, despite (or maybe because of) his condition and the people he interacts with along the way.
Directed by David Fincher (FIGHT CLUB) - who is one of my favorite Directors working today - MANK starts slow but brews to a satisfying conclusion as Fincher focuses on the man and the relationships he has with the people around him, rather than the circumstances, which then draws to a forceful conclusion.
Gary Oldman is, of course, stellar as Herman “Mank” Mankiewicz, the writer at the center of the story. This film hinges on this performance as the titular Mank is in almost every scene of this film - and at the beginning I was worried that Fincher was going to let Oldman revert to his “hammy” ways (a very real possibility with Oldman if he is left unchecked by a Director), but Fincher reels Oldman in just enough for him to bring a portrait of a troubled man, who has sold his soul to work and alcohol. This character needs to find that soul if he is to succeed. Since Mank won the Oscar for his screenplay - and I’ve already stated that I think the CITIZEN KANE screenplay is one of the best written of all time - you know how it will turn out, but it is fascinating (and satisfying) to watch Oldman on this journey.
Fincher, of course, is smart enough to surround Oldman with some very good Supporting Actors, most notably the always evil Charles Dance (Tywin Lannister on GAME OF THRONES) as William Randolph Hearst (the inspiration for Charles Foster Kane). Dance spends most of the film observing Mank but in the final “confrontation” scene between the two, the screen sparkles as two wonderful thespians throw down.
Others in the Supporting cast - like Lilly Collins, Tom Burke (as Orson Welles), Jamie McShane and, especially Arliss Howard (as Louis B. Mayer) bring heft and the ability to go “toe to toe” with Oldman, not a small task.
Special notice has to be made of the work of Amanda Seyfried as Marion Davies - Hearst’s mistress and a character that is used as a “throw away toy” in Citizen Kane. Davis and Mank form an interesting bond and the platonic chemistry between Seyfried and Oldman is strong. I gotta admit that when Seyfried first burst on the scene in such films as MAMA MIA and MEAN GIRLS, I figured she was just the “pretty young Rom-Com girl of the time” and would come and go quickly, but she has rounded into a very impressive actress and I can unequivocally state that I was wrong about her. She can act with the best of them.
The Cinematography by Erik Messerschmidt is also a very important part of this film - as he (and Fincher) attempt to recreate in this film the look/feel of CITIZEN KANE and they pull this off very, very well.
If you can get through the slow start of the film - and if you can stomach a protagonist that is not a very nice person in most of this film, than you’ll be rewarded by a rich film experience.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
And…the Netflix film MANK does not disappoint in this regard.
Starring Oscar winning actor Gary Oldman (he won the Oscar for portraying Sir Winston Churchill in DARKEST HOUR), Mank tells the tale of the writing of the screenplay of CITIZEN KANE by screenwriter Herman Mankiewicz. It is an intriguing story of a self-destructive, alcoholic artist (is there any other kind in this kind of film) that (ultimately) produces one of the best scripts in Hollywood history, despite (or maybe because of) his condition and the people he interacts with along the way.
Directed by David Fincher (FIGHT CLUB) - who is one of my favorite Directors working today - MANK starts slow but brews to a satisfying conclusion as Fincher focuses on the man and the relationships he has with the people around him, rather than the circumstances, which then draws to a forceful conclusion.
Gary Oldman is, of course, stellar as Herman “Mank” Mankiewicz, the writer at the center of the story. This film hinges on this performance as the titular Mank is in almost every scene of this film - and at the beginning I was worried that Fincher was going to let Oldman revert to his “hammy” ways (a very real possibility with Oldman if he is left unchecked by a Director), but Fincher reels Oldman in just enough for him to bring a portrait of a troubled man, who has sold his soul to work and alcohol. This character needs to find that soul if he is to succeed. Since Mank won the Oscar for his screenplay - and I’ve already stated that I think the CITIZEN KANE screenplay is one of the best written of all time - you know how it will turn out, but it is fascinating (and satisfying) to watch Oldman on this journey.
Fincher, of course, is smart enough to surround Oldman with some very good Supporting Actors, most notably the always evil Charles Dance (Tywin Lannister on GAME OF THRONES) as William Randolph Hearst (the inspiration for Charles Foster Kane). Dance spends most of the film observing Mank but in the final “confrontation” scene between the two, the screen sparkles as two wonderful thespians throw down.
Others in the Supporting cast - like Lilly Collins, Tom Burke (as Orson Welles), Jamie McShane and, especially Arliss Howard (as Louis B. Mayer) bring heft and the ability to go “toe to toe” with Oldman, not a small task.
Special notice has to be made of the work of Amanda Seyfried as Marion Davies - Hearst’s mistress and a character that is used as a “throw away toy” in Citizen Kane. Davis and Mank form an interesting bond and the platonic chemistry between Seyfried and Oldman is strong. I gotta admit that when Seyfried first burst on the scene in such films as MAMA MIA and MEAN GIRLS, I figured she was just the “pretty young Rom-Com girl of the time” and would come and go quickly, but she has rounded into a very impressive actress and I can unequivocally state that I was wrong about her. She can act with the best of them.
The Cinematography by Erik Messerschmidt is also a very important part of this film - as he (and Fincher) attempt to recreate in this film the look/feel of CITIZEN KANE and they pull this off very, very well.
If you can get through the slow start of the film - and if you can stomach a protagonist that is not a very nice person in most of this film, than you’ll be rewarded by a rich film experience.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
