Search
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated the PlayStation 4 version of Tom Clancy's The Division 2 in Video Games
Jun 19, 2019
Following up a hit game is never an easy task. The delicate balance
between keeping things familiar yet not repeating what has come before is
always tricky.
Such is the case facing Ubisoft with Tom Clancy’s The Division 2. I want to point out at the start that Ubisoft in no way helped
with the review process despite doing extensive pre-release coverage for
the game.
As such; there were elements to the game that I had question and issues with and the company would not respond to questions or even recognize the coverage that had been done prior.
The game follows up the events of the first game in that a virus named the
“Dollar Flu” has laid waste to the country after being passed around on
currency during the busy Christmas shopping season.
This time out the game
is set in Washington D.C. and players once again take on the role of a
member of an elite agency called “The Division”.
With the city in chaos and the survivors being tormented by criminal
factions and extreme militants; players must work solo and in groups to
complete various missions and objectives to reclaim the city.
Like the previous game players can customize their character to have a
look, weapons, and accessories that they want and can swap and update them
as they go along.
Playing from a third person perspective, the highly-detailed city is vast
and many points from the White House to the Lincoln Memorial, and
Smithsonian Institute are available to explore and even undertake missions
in.
The enemies are dangerous as the vicious Hyena gang as well as the
Outcasts roam the city. There is also a Military faction called The True
Sons who bring military tactics into their encounters.
Players will be able to gather loot and armor and weapon upgrades as they
go and can even use special power ups to heal, set mines, and other traps
to help even the odds.
Those abilities can be upgraded, swapped, and assigned, and make the game
very interesting as some players opt to have a Drone while others elect
for Turrets or other options.
Weapons can go from pistols, machine guns, shotguns, and sniper rifles,
and players can also use grenades to dispatch large groups.
While working solo is fine, the key to success is working with others and
players can now call for backup to get help in addition to the general
matchmaking and friend invites. There has also been a Clan system added
which is nice as players can create or join a group and have support
available when needed.
This is a great thing as the missions can be challenging as your level
rank rises and players are always outnumbered and outgunned in missions.
I found the game to be very impressive and lots of fun and the ability to
upgrade bases and take on side missions and patrols beyond the core
missions ensures lots of gameplay as was the case with the first game.
There have also been updates which add new content and based on the prior
game, we expect to see lots of new content released in the months ahead.
There were some annoying issues with the sound as some channels would
drop. One example was how voices became muted and how some sounds such as
radio messages utterly vanished. While it was not a deal-breaker; it was
annoying s the updates pre and post mission help give players a great
understanding of the unfolding story.
I did like the fact that the abundance of side missions was curtailed in
favor of more relevant missions and capturing control points and helping
end threats to the general population.
One time I took control of a mounted machine gun and found the sound
locked during firing and continued for several minutes even after I
respawned. I had to go back to the gun and fire it again to get the sound
glitch to stop.
There were also some annoying graphical glitches like textures and enemies
appearing late while I was walking after the last update. With a 2070 GTX
Graphics Card this should not happen and thankfully it seemed to abate
after a few annoying occurrences.
That being said; the game is very solid and enjoyable and it is a shame
that a company that has such great games is very difficult to work with
from the media and support side of things as The Division 2 is a solid
sequel and one of the more enjoyable games I have played in a while.
http://sknr.net/2019/04/08/tom-clancys-the-division-2/
between keeping things familiar yet not repeating what has come before is
always tricky.
Such is the case facing Ubisoft with Tom Clancy’s The Division 2. I want to point out at the start that Ubisoft in no way helped
with the review process despite doing extensive pre-release coverage for
the game.
As such; there were elements to the game that I had question and issues with and the company would not respond to questions or even recognize the coverage that had been done prior.
The game follows up the events of the first game in that a virus named the
“Dollar Flu” has laid waste to the country after being passed around on
currency during the busy Christmas shopping season.
This time out the game
is set in Washington D.C. and players once again take on the role of a
member of an elite agency called “The Division”.
With the city in chaos and the survivors being tormented by criminal
factions and extreme militants; players must work solo and in groups to
complete various missions and objectives to reclaim the city.
Like the previous game players can customize their character to have a
look, weapons, and accessories that they want and can swap and update them
as they go along.
Playing from a third person perspective, the highly-detailed city is vast
and many points from the White House to the Lincoln Memorial, and
Smithsonian Institute are available to explore and even undertake missions
in.
The enemies are dangerous as the vicious Hyena gang as well as the
Outcasts roam the city. There is also a Military faction called The True
Sons who bring military tactics into their encounters.
Players will be able to gather loot and armor and weapon upgrades as they
go and can even use special power ups to heal, set mines, and other traps
to help even the odds.
Those abilities can be upgraded, swapped, and assigned, and make the game
very interesting as some players opt to have a Drone while others elect
for Turrets or other options.
Weapons can go from pistols, machine guns, shotguns, and sniper rifles,
and players can also use grenades to dispatch large groups.
While working solo is fine, the key to success is working with others and
players can now call for backup to get help in addition to the general
matchmaking and friend invites. There has also been a Clan system added
which is nice as players can create or join a group and have support
available when needed.
This is a great thing as the missions can be challenging as your level
rank rises and players are always outnumbered and outgunned in missions.
I found the game to be very impressive and lots of fun and the ability to
upgrade bases and take on side missions and patrols beyond the core
missions ensures lots of gameplay as was the case with the first game.
There have also been updates which add new content and based on the prior
game, we expect to see lots of new content released in the months ahead.
There were some annoying issues with the sound as some channels would
drop. One example was how voices became muted and how some sounds such as
radio messages utterly vanished. While it was not a deal-breaker; it was
annoying s the updates pre and post mission help give players a great
understanding of the unfolding story.
I did like the fact that the abundance of side missions was curtailed in
favor of more relevant missions and capturing control points and helping
end threats to the general population.
One time I took control of a mounted machine gun and found the sound
locked during firing and continued for several minutes even after I
respawned. I had to go back to the gun and fire it again to get the sound
glitch to stop.
There were also some annoying graphical glitches like textures and enemies
appearing late while I was walking after the last update. With a 2070 GTX
Graphics Card this should not happen and thankfully it seemed to abate
after a few annoying occurrences.
That being said; the game is very solid and enjoyable and it is a shame
that a company that has such great games is very difficult to work with
from the media and support side of things as The Division 2 is a solid
sequel and one of the more enjoyable games I have played in a while.
http://sknr.net/2019/04/08/tom-clancys-the-division-2/
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Toy Story 4 (2019) in Movies
Jun 25, 2019
Another TOY STORY triumph for PIXAR
When I first heard that Pixar was going to make a 4th TOY STORY film, I found myself firmly in the camp of "why are they doing this? The 3rd film tied off the trilogy marvelously well and 4th film was not needed" But...I trust Pixar, and when it was revealed that both Tom Hanks and Tim Allen were back on board after reading the script, my fears were alleviated quite a bit, but I still had some unease in the pit of my stomach.
I shouldn't have worried. For TOY STORY 4 is a wonderful addition to the adventures of Woody, Buzz and gang. It fits in nicely with the other films in the series and brings just the right amount of joy, fun, adventure and emotional heft.
Picking up the adventures of these toys as they now belong to Bonnie (after being gifted to Bonnie when their original owner, Andy, went off to college at the end of Toy Story 3), things have progressed realistically enough. The "order of things" in Bonnie's room is somewhat different than in Andy's. Woody, the old Cowboy doll, is relegated (more often than not) to the closet while Bonnie plays more with Jessie, Buzz and others. Into this group comes "Forky" a plastic spork that is made into a toy by Bonnie at Kindergarten. In a nice reversal of the first Toy Story film, Woody works hard to ensure that Forky is accepted into the group.
Without revealing too much of the plot, the gang (including Woody and Forky) go on a roadtrip with Bonnie in her parents' rented RV and end up in a small-ish town where a carnival is taking place across the street from an Antique store that houses Woody's old flame, Bo Peep. New characters are introduced, old characters are given a moment (or two) to shine and adventures and shenanigans ensue, with an emotionally satisfying climax - you know, a TOY STORY film.
This one continues to progress these toys "lives" and adventures in such a smart, natural and clever way that I did not feel that I was watching the same film again. I was watching characters I love continue to live, learn, grow and progress - a very smart choice by these filmmakers.
As always, the voice cast is superb. Tim Allen (Buzz Lightyear), Joan Cusak (Jessie), Wallace Shawn (Rex), John Ratzenberger (Piggy) and even the late Don Rickles (Mr. PotatoHead) are all back and contribute greatly to the finished result. It is like putting on an old, comfortable sweater on a somewhat chilly day. You get a reassuring shiver of warmth.
But the filmmakers don't stop there - Annie Potts is back as Bo Peep (she - and the Bo Peep character - were in the original Toy Story). Add to these voices, the marvelous work by Christina Hendricks (Gabby Gabby), Key & Peele (Ducky & Bunny), Carl Weathers (all the Combat Carls) and Tony Hale (wonderfully quirky as Forky) and we have quite the ensemble of interesting, quirky characters - growing and enriching the "Universe" they are in (quite like what Marvel has done with their "Universe"). Special notice needs to be made of Keanu Reeves work as Canadian Daredevil toy Duke Kaboom (the Canadian Evil Kneivel), it is the most entertaining - to me - of all the new characters.
But...make no mistake...this film belongs to Tom Hanks as Woody. It has taken me 4 films to realize this, but Hanks good guy "everyman" portrayal of Woody is the heart and soul of these pictures and this 4th film is Woody's film - as his character comes full circle from the paranoid toy who wants to keep living his safe existence to something much, much more in this film. It isn't hyperbole of me to say that I would be just fine for Hanks to receive an Oscar nomination for his voice work in this film - he is that good.
Interestingly enough, Pixar brought in a novice Director, Josh Cooley, to helm this film. It is his first feature film directing experience, but he is a veteran Pixar face - having written INSIDE OUT and was the main Storyboard Artist for UP - his direction looks like someone who was comfortable in this medium - and with the style of film that Pixar (usually) goes for - and he does terrific work here.
I really enjoyed the journey of the characters (especially Woody) in this film. I need not have worried about Pixar making a 4th Toy Story - they nailed the landing again.
Letter Grade: A
9 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank (OfMarquis)
I shouldn't have worried. For TOY STORY 4 is a wonderful addition to the adventures of Woody, Buzz and gang. It fits in nicely with the other films in the series and brings just the right amount of joy, fun, adventure and emotional heft.
Picking up the adventures of these toys as they now belong to Bonnie (after being gifted to Bonnie when their original owner, Andy, went off to college at the end of Toy Story 3), things have progressed realistically enough. The "order of things" in Bonnie's room is somewhat different than in Andy's. Woody, the old Cowboy doll, is relegated (more often than not) to the closet while Bonnie plays more with Jessie, Buzz and others. Into this group comes "Forky" a plastic spork that is made into a toy by Bonnie at Kindergarten. In a nice reversal of the first Toy Story film, Woody works hard to ensure that Forky is accepted into the group.
Without revealing too much of the plot, the gang (including Woody and Forky) go on a roadtrip with Bonnie in her parents' rented RV and end up in a small-ish town where a carnival is taking place across the street from an Antique store that houses Woody's old flame, Bo Peep. New characters are introduced, old characters are given a moment (or two) to shine and adventures and shenanigans ensue, with an emotionally satisfying climax - you know, a TOY STORY film.
This one continues to progress these toys "lives" and adventures in such a smart, natural and clever way that I did not feel that I was watching the same film again. I was watching characters I love continue to live, learn, grow and progress - a very smart choice by these filmmakers.
As always, the voice cast is superb. Tim Allen (Buzz Lightyear), Joan Cusak (Jessie), Wallace Shawn (Rex), John Ratzenberger (Piggy) and even the late Don Rickles (Mr. PotatoHead) are all back and contribute greatly to the finished result. It is like putting on an old, comfortable sweater on a somewhat chilly day. You get a reassuring shiver of warmth.
But the filmmakers don't stop there - Annie Potts is back as Bo Peep (she - and the Bo Peep character - were in the original Toy Story). Add to these voices, the marvelous work by Christina Hendricks (Gabby Gabby), Key & Peele (Ducky & Bunny), Carl Weathers (all the Combat Carls) and Tony Hale (wonderfully quirky as Forky) and we have quite the ensemble of interesting, quirky characters - growing and enriching the "Universe" they are in (quite like what Marvel has done with their "Universe"). Special notice needs to be made of Keanu Reeves work as Canadian Daredevil toy Duke Kaboom (the Canadian Evil Kneivel), it is the most entertaining - to me - of all the new characters.
But...make no mistake...this film belongs to Tom Hanks as Woody. It has taken me 4 films to realize this, but Hanks good guy "everyman" portrayal of Woody is the heart and soul of these pictures and this 4th film is Woody's film - as his character comes full circle from the paranoid toy who wants to keep living his safe existence to something much, much more in this film. It isn't hyperbole of me to say that I would be just fine for Hanks to receive an Oscar nomination for his voice work in this film - he is that good.
Interestingly enough, Pixar brought in a novice Director, Josh Cooley, to helm this film. It is his first feature film directing experience, but he is a veteran Pixar face - having written INSIDE OUT and was the main Storyboard Artist for UP - his direction looks like someone who was comfortable in this medium - and with the style of film that Pixar (usually) goes for - and he does terrific work here.
I really enjoyed the journey of the characters (especially Woody) in this film. I need not have worried about Pixar making a 4th Toy Story - they nailed the landing again.
Letter Grade: A
9 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank (OfMarquis)
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Spielberg (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
On making Drew Barrymore cry.
“Spielberg” is an HBO-produced documentary by documentarian Susan Lacy. You’ll never guess who the subject is?!
Steven Spielberg is a product of one of the most surprising revolutions in Hollywood in the late 70’s: one of a set of wunderkind directors alongside such luminaries as George Lucas, Francis Ford Coppola, John Milius, Brian De Palma and Martin Scorcese. These men (only men, it should be noted!) were ready to cock a snook at Hollywood’s traditional studio system to break rules (case in point, Star Wars’ lack of opening credits) and move cinema into the format that would last to this day.
As this excellent documentary makes clear, Spielberg was one of the least rebellious of the movie-brats. Even though (astoundingly) he blagged himself a production office at Universal (after hiding during the Tram Tour toilet stop!), his path to the top was through hard graft on multiple Universal TV shows, after recognition of his talents by Universal exec Sidney Sheinberg who speaks in the film.
Before we get to that stage of his life, we cover his childhood back-story as a reluctant Jew living in a non-Jewish neighbourhood, driven to fill his time with tormenting his sisters and movie-making with a Super 8 camera. Scenes of home videos, photos and his early attempts at special effects are all fascinating. The impact of his Bohemian mother Leah and workaholic father Arnold, and particularly the very surprising relationship breakdown that happened between them, go a long way to explain the constant return to ‘father issues’ in many of his films such as “E.T.”, “Close Encounters of the Third Kind”, “Hook” and “Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade”.
The majority of the film though settles down into a roughly chronological review of the highlights of his movie career, with particular emphasis justly being placed on some of the key watershed moments in that career. Most of his films get at least a mention, but “Jaws”, “E.T.”, “Schindler’s List”, “The Color Purple”, “Jurassic Park”, “Munich” and “Empire of the Sun” get more focus. It is such a wonderful trip down my cinematic memory lane. I also forget just what cinematic majesty and craftsmanship is present in these films: I just hope that at some point this will get a Blu-Ray or DVD release so it can be properly appreciated (rather than viewing it on a tiny airplane screen which is how I watched this): the combination of film clips in here is breathtaking.
As might be expected for a documentary about the great director, there is plenty of ‘behind the camera’ footage on show, some of which is fascinating. Spielberg could always get the very best performances out of the youngsters on set, from Cary Guffey (“Toys!!”) in “Close Encounters” to a heartbreaking scene where he reduces the young Drew Barrymore to howls of emotion in “E.T.”. A master at work.
All of the movie scenes are accompanied by new interview footage from Spielberg himself, as well as warm platitudes from many of the luminaries he has worked with in the past. Directors involved include many of the the directors referenced above, as well as those modern directors influenced by him such as J.J. Abrams; his go-to cinematographers Vilmos Zsigmond and Janusz Kaminski; his ‘go-to’ composer John Williams; and stars including his go-to ‘everyman’ Richard Dreyfuss, Tom Cruise, Harrison Ford, Bob Balaban, Tom Hanks, Opray Winfrey, Leonardo DiCaprio, Christian Bale, Dustin Hoffman and James Brolin. Some of these comments are useful and insightful; some are just fairly meaningless sound bites that add nothing to the film. What all the comments are though is almost all uniformly positive.
And that’s my only criticism of the film. Like me, Susan Lacy is clearly a big fan. It is probably quite hard to find anyone who isn’t…. but perhaps Ms Lacy should have tried a bit harder! There is only limited focus on his big comedy flop of 1979, “1941”, and no mention at all of his lowest WW grossing film “Always”. And there are only a few contributors – notably film critic Janet Maslin – who are willing to stick their head above the parapet and prod into Spielberg’s weaknesses; ostensibly his tendency to veer to the sentimental and away from harder issues: the omitted “Color Purple” ‘mirror scene’ being a case in point.
This is a recommended watch for Spielberg fans. On the eve of the launch of his latest – “Ready Player One”, a film that I am personally dubious about from the trailer – it’s a great insight into the life and works of the great man. It could though have cut a slightly harder and more critical edge.
Steven Spielberg is a product of one of the most surprising revolutions in Hollywood in the late 70’s: one of a set of wunderkind directors alongside such luminaries as George Lucas, Francis Ford Coppola, John Milius, Brian De Palma and Martin Scorcese. These men (only men, it should be noted!) were ready to cock a snook at Hollywood’s traditional studio system to break rules (case in point, Star Wars’ lack of opening credits) and move cinema into the format that would last to this day.
As this excellent documentary makes clear, Spielberg was one of the least rebellious of the movie-brats. Even though (astoundingly) he blagged himself a production office at Universal (after hiding during the Tram Tour toilet stop!), his path to the top was through hard graft on multiple Universal TV shows, after recognition of his talents by Universal exec Sidney Sheinberg who speaks in the film.
Before we get to that stage of his life, we cover his childhood back-story as a reluctant Jew living in a non-Jewish neighbourhood, driven to fill his time with tormenting his sisters and movie-making with a Super 8 camera. Scenes of home videos, photos and his early attempts at special effects are all fascinating. The impact of his Bohemian mother Leah and workaholic father Arnold, and particularly the very surprising relationship breakdown that happened between them, go a long way to explain the constant return to ‘father issues’ in many of his films such as “E.T.”, “Close Encounters of the Third Kind”, “Hook” and “Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade”.
The majority of the film though settles down into a roughly chronological review of the highlights of his movie career, with particular emphasis justly being placed on some of the key watershed moments in that career. Most of his films get at least a mention, but “Jaws”, “E.T.”, “Schindler’s List”, “The Color Purple”, “Jurassic Park”, “Munich” and “Empire of the Sun” get more focus. It is such a wonderful trip down my cinematic memory lane. I also forget just what cinematic majesty and craftsmanship is present in these films: I just hope that at some point this will get a Blu-Ray or DVD release so it can be properly appreciated (rather than viewing it on a tiny airplane screen which is how I watched this): the combination of film clips in here is breathtaking.
As might be expected for a documentary about the great director, there is plenty of ‘behind the camera’ footage on show, some of which is fascinating. Spielberg could always get the very best performances out of the youngsters on set, from Cary Guffey (“Toys!!”) in “Close Encounters” to a heartbreaking scene where he reduces the young Drew Barrymore to howls of emotion in “E.T.”. A master at work.
All of the movie scenes are accompanied by new interview footage from Spielberg himself, as well as warm platitudes from many of the luminaries he has worked with in the past. Directors involved include many of the the directors referenced above, as well as those modern directors influenced by him such as J.J. Abrams; his go-to cinematographers Vilmos Zsigmond and Janusz Kaminski; his ‘go-to’ composer John Williams; and stars including his go-to ‘everyman’ Richard Dreyfuss, Tom Cruise, Harrison Ford, Bob Balaban, Tom Hanks, Opray Winfrey, Leonardo DiCaprio, Christian Bale, Dustin Hoffman and James Brolin. Some of these comments are useful and insightful; some are just fairly meaningless sound bites that add nothing to the film. What all the comments are though is almost all uniformly positive.
And that’s my only criticism of the film. Like me, Susan Lacy is clearly a big fan. It is probably quite hard to find anyone who isn’t…. but perhaps Ms Lacy should have tried a bit harder! There is only limited focus on his big comedy flop of 1979, “1941”, and no mention at all of his lowest WW grossing film “Always”. And there are only a few contributors – notably film critic Janet Maslin – who are willing to stick their head above the parapet and prod into Spielberg’s weaknesses; ostensibly his tendency to veer to the sentimental and away from harder issues: the omitted “Color Purple” ‘mirror scene’ being a case in point.
This is a recommended watch for Spielberg fans. On the eve of the launch of his latest – “Ready Player One”, a film that I am personally dubious about from the trailer – it’s a great insight into the life and works of the great man. It could though have cut a slightly harder and more critical edge.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Dunkirk (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
A war vehicle running low on fuel.
The words “Christopher Nolan” and “disappointment” are not words I would naturally associate… but for me, they apply where “Dunkirk” is concerned.
It promised so much from the trailer: a historical event of epic proportions; Kenneth Branagh; Tom Hardy; Mark Rylance; Hans Zimmer on the keys; the director of such classics as “The Dark Knight”; “Inception” and “Interstellar” : what could go wrong?
But it just doesn’t work and I’ve spent the last 24 hours trying to unpick why.
A key problem for me was the depiction of the beach itself. The film eschews CGI effects – a move that I would normally approve of – in favour of the use of “practical effects” and the involvement of “thousands of extras” (as the rather glutinously positive Wiki entry declares). Unfortunately for the movie, there were some 400,000 troops marooned in this last patch of civilisation ahead of the Nazi hoard, and all of the shots refuse to acknowledge this scale of potential human tragedy. Yes, there are individual scenes of horror, such as the soldier walking into the sea against the impassive stares of the young heroes. But nothing of scale. At times I thought I’d seen more people on the beach on a winter’s day in Bournemouth! In the absence of a co-production with China, and the provision of the volume of extras as in “The Great Wall“, CGI becomes a necessary evil to make the whole exercise believable.
What it was really like…. one of the famous paintings by Charles Cundall (Crown copyright).
My disquiet at this deepened when we got to the sharp end of the rescue by the “small boats”. In my mind (and I’m NOT quite old enough to remember this!) I imagine a sea full of them. A sight to truly merit Branagh’s awed gaze. But no. They might have been “original” vessels…. but there was only about half a dozen of them. A mental vision dashed.
Did I feel a spot of rain? Looking to unfriendly skies on the River Mole.
The film attempts to tell the story from three perspectives: from the land; from the sea and from the air. The sea though gets the lion’s share of the film, and there is much drowning that occurs that (I am aware) was distressing for some in the audience.
Styles going in One Direction…. down.
Nolan also pushes his quirky “timeline” manipulation too far for an audience that largely expects a linear telling of a classic tale. It’s day; it’s night; the minesweeper’s sailing; then sunk; then sailing again; a Spitfire crashes, then crashes again from a different perspective. I know many in the audience just didn’t ‘get’ that: leaving them presumably very confused!
That being said, the film is not a write off, and has its moments of brilliance. Kenneth Branagh (“Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit“, “Valkyrie”) – although having a range of Nolan’s clipped and cheesy lines to say – is impressive as the commanding officer. Mark Rylance (“Bridge of Spies“, “The BFG“) also shines as the captain of the “Moonstone”: one of the small boats out of Weymouth (although here there is a grievous lack of backstory for the civilian efforts). And Tom Hardy (“The Revenant“, “Legend“), although having limited opportunity to act with anything other than his eyes, is impressive as RAF pilot Farrier. His final scene of stoic heroism is memorable.
Fionn Whitehead is also impressive in his movie debut, and even Harry Styles (“This is Us“) equips himself well.
A surfeit of horror leads to a lack of compassion. Harry Styles, Aneurin Barnard and Fionn Whitehead look on as the death toll mounts.
The cinematography by Hoyte Van Hoytema (“Interstellar“) is stunning with some memorable shots: a burning plane on a beach being a highspot for me.
And Hans Zimmer’s score is Oscar-worthy, generating enormous tension with a reverberating score, albeit sometimes let down by unsuitable cutaways (for example, to scenes of boat loading). Elsewhere in the sound department though I had major issues, with a decent percentage of the dialogue being completely inaudible in the sound mix.
Kenneth Branagh, impressive as Commander Bolton RN.
I really wanted this to be a “Battle of Britain”. Or a “Bridge Too Far”. Or even a “Saving Private Ryan”. Unfortunately, for me it was none of these, and this goes down as one of my movie disappointments of the year so far.
It promised so much from the trailer: a historical event of epic proportions; Kenneth Branagh; Tom Hardy; Mark Rylance; Hans Zimmer on the keys; the director of such classics as “The Dark Knight”; “Inception” and “Interstellar” : what could go wrong?
But it just doesn’t work and I’ve spent the last 24 hours trying to unpick why.
A key problem for me was the depiction of the beach itself. The film eschews CGI effects – a move that I would normally approve of – in favour of the use of “practical effects” and the involvement of “thousands of extras” (as the rather glutinously positive Wiki entry declares). Unfortunately for the movie, there were some 400,000 troops marooned in this last patch of civilisation ahead of the Nazi hoard, and all of the shots refuse to acknowledge this scale of potential human tragedy. Yes, there are individual scenes of horror, such as the soldier walking into the sea against the impassive stares of the young heroes. But nothing of scale. At times I thought I’d seen more people on the beach on a winter’s day in Bournemouth! In the absence of a co-production with China, and the provision of the volume of extras as in “The Great Wall“, CGI becomes a necessary evil to make the whole exercise believable.
What it was really like…. one of the famous paintings by Charles Cundall (Crown copyright).
My disquiet at this deepened when we got to the sharp end of the rescue by the “small boats”. In my mind (and I’m NOT quite old enough to remember this!) I imagine a sea full of them. A sight to truly merit Branagh’s awed gaze. But no. They might have been “original” vessels…. but there was only about half a dozen of them. A mental vision dashed.
Did I feel a spot of rain? Looking to unfriendly skies on the River Mole.
The film attempts to tell the story from three perspectives: from the land; from the sea and from the air. The sea though gets the lion’s share of the film, and there is much drowning that occurs that (I am aware) was distressing for some in the audience.
Styles going in One Direction…. down.
Nolan also pushes his quirky “timeline” manipulation too far for an audience that largely expects a linear telling of a classic tale. It’s day; it’s night; the minesweeper’s sailing; then sunk; then sailing again; a Spitfire crashes, then crashes again from a different perspective. I know many in the audience just didn’t ‘get’ that: leaving them presumably very confused!
That being said, the film is not a write off, and has its moments of brilliance. Kenneth Branagh (“Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit“, “Valkyrie”) – although having a range of Nolan’s clipped and cheesy lines to say – is impressive as the commanding officer. Mark Rylance (“Bridge of Spies“, “The BFG“) also shines as the captain of the “Moonstone”: one of the small boats out of Weymouth (although here there is a grievous lack of backstory for the civilian efforts). And Tom Hardy (“The Revenant“, “Legend“), although having limited opportunity to act with anything other than his eyes, is impressive as RAF pilot Farrier. His final scene of stoic heroism is memorable.
Fionn Whitehead is also impressive in his movie debut, and even Harry Styles (“This is Us“) equips himself well.
A surfeit of horror leads to a lack of compassion. Harry Styles, Aneurin Barnard and Fionn Whitehead look on as the death toll mounts.
The cinematography by Hoyte Van Hoytema (“Interstellar“) is stunning with some memorable shots: a burning plane on a beach being a highspot for me.
And Hans Zimmer’s score is Oscar-worthy, generating enormous tension with a reverberating score, albeit sometimes let down by unsuitable cutaways (for example, to scenes of boat loading). Elsewhere in the sound department though I had major issues, with a decent percentage of the dialogue being completely inaudible in the sound mix.
Kenneth Branagh, impressive as Commander Bolton RN.
I really wanted this to be a “Battle of Britain”. Or a “Bridge Too Far”. Or even a “Saving Private Ryan”. Unfortunately, for me it was none of these, and this goes down as one of my movie disappointments of the year so far.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Whiteout (2009) in Movies
Aug 9, 2019
For US Marshal Carrie Stetko (Kate Beckinsale), a remote posting in Antarctica was exactly what she needed to regroup after a harrowing assignment took an unexpected and devastating turn.
Unfortunately for Kate, she and the assorted scientists and support personal at the remote research base are about to become pawns in a deadly scenario in the new film “Whiteout”.
In the coldest place on earth, Carrie and many of her fellow expatriates look to evacuate the base for warmer climates before a big winter storm arrives which will signal the start of the severe winter and restrict any travel to and from the base.
Having grown tired of two years of little more than dealing with misdemeanors, Carrie has turned in her resignation and looks forward to what the future holds as does her friend Dr. Fury (Tom Skerritt), who has decided to head back home on the last flight out in 72 hours.
As the camp plans the seasonal evacuation, Carrie is dispatched with Dr. Fury and their pilot Delfy (Columbus Short), to investigate what appears to be a body in the middle of a desolate area. Their fears are soon realized when a badly disfigured body is found which is at first classified as an accident, but to many things about the condition and location of the body do not add up.
Although highly skeptical as there has never been a murder in Antarctica, and knowing the reporting it as such would cancel her trip home so the Feds can do an investigation, Carrie sets out to get to the bottom of the mystery.
As she begins to follow the trail of clues, a mysterious figure kills a suspected witness and makes an attempt on Carrie’s life. The arrival shortly thereafter by an ex military specialist working for the U.N. named Robert Pryce (Gabriel Macht), raises suspicions as he was dispatched very quickly to the locale after the murder was reported and with a severe storm hours away, the arrival of Price is seem as a bad omen.
As the film goes on, Carrie realizes that she has become involved in an old mystery where people are only too willing to commit murder to posses the secrets and that there severe weather coming in is the least dangerous thing in her life.
Not knowing where to turn and who she can trust, Carrie must overcome all manner of challenges to solve the mystery and bring those responsible to justice.
At first the film is rife with potential as the great setting and premise for the film is very interesting. My mind wandered to John Carpenter’s classic version of “The Thing”, which also used the remote locale of Antarctica to set its tale. The unique and deadly beauty of the place undermines the isolation of the characters as they are truly alone with danger amongst them.
Sadly the film has several plot holes and surprisingly lacks any real or sustained tension. There were key sequences in the film which were life and death struggles amongst a ranging storm, yet unfolded in a very ho hum manner.
I learned that the film sat for nearly two years waiting to be released which is never a good sign. That being said, despite the issues, “Whiteout” does have some entertainment value which is in large part thanks to the cast who make the best they can with the material and make the film a watchable if flawed effort.
Unfortunately for Kate, she and the assorted scientists and support personal at the remote research base are about to become pawns in a deadly scenario in the new film “Whiteout”.
In the coldest place on earth, Carrie and many of her fellow expatriates look to evacuate the base for warmer climates before a big winter storm arrives which will signal the start of the severe winter and restrict any travel to and from the base.
Having grown tired of two years of little more than dealing with misdemeanors, Carrie has turned in her resignation and looks forward to what the future holds as does her friend Dr. Fury (Tom Skerritt), who has decided to head back home on the last flight out in 72 hours.
As the camp plans the seasonal evacuation, Carrie is dispatched with Dr. Fury and their pilot Delfy (Columbus Short), to investigate what appears to be a body in the middle of a desolate area. Their fears are soon realized when a badly disfigured body is found which is at first classified as an accident, but to many things about the condition and location of the body do not add up.
Although highly skeptical as there has never been a murder in Antarctica, and knowing the reporting it as such would cancel her trip home so the Feds can do an investigation, Carrie sets out to get to the bottom of the mystery.
As she begins to follow the trail of clues, a mysterious figure kills a suspected witness and makes an attempt on Carrie’s life. The arrival shortly thereafter by an ex military specialist working for the U.N. named Robert Pryce (Gabriel Macht), raises suspicions as he was dispatched very quickly to the locale after the murder was reported and with a severe storm hours away, the arrival of Price is seem as a bad omen.
As the film goes on, Carrie realizes that she has become involved in an old mystery where people are only too willing to commit murder to posses the secrets and that there severe weather coming in is the least dangerous thing in her life.
Not knowing where to turn and who she can trust, Carrie must overcome all manner of challenges to solve the mystery and bring those responsible to justice.
At first the film is rife with potential as the great setting and premise for the film is very interesting. My mind wandered to John Carpenter’s classic version of “The Thing”, which also used the remote locale of Antarctica to set its tale. The unique and deadly beauty of the place undermines the isolation of the characters as they are truly alone with danger amongst them.
Sadly the film has several plot holes and surprisingly lacks any real or sustained tension. There were key sequences in the film which were life and death struggles amongst a ranging storm, yet unfolded in a very ho hum manner.
I learned that the film sat for nearly two years waiting to be released which is never a good sign. That being said, despite the issues, “Whiteout” does have some entertainment value which is in large part thanks to the cast who make the best they can with the material and make the film a watchable if flawed effort.
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Toy Story 4 (2019) in Movies
Jul 29, 2019
About Life and Letting Go...
In yet another crazy adventure, Toy Story 4 sees Woody and the gang protecting Forky, Bonnie’s new toy she created from a spork in Kindergarten class.
Acting: 10
I mentioned this in my review of Toy Story 3, but it bears repeating: the ability to bring back the same cast from one movie to the next guarantees stellar voice-acting performances. Tom Hanks and Tim Allen have perfected their roles as Woody and Buzz and their performances take you out of the realm of thinking these are mere toys, but actual sentient beings. Beyond these two and the rest of the traditional gang you have rib-splitting performances from Keegan-Michael Key and Jordan Peele as Bunny and Ducky along with more hilarity from Keanu Reeves playing Duke Caboom, a stunt toy. Their ability to make their characters as endearing as they are funny makes the viewing experience that much more enjoyable.
Beginning: 10
Characters: 10
To expand on the above, it’s not just about the characters but how they develop as the story progresses. These are animated movies meant for kids yet these characters manage to grow as they would in a typical (great) movie. Characters like Woody are faced with difficult choices they have to make and I found myself wondering if they would have made those same choice two or three movies ago.
On another note, I appreciate that the movies have grown since the first in the way of their villains. It’s always refreshing when villains aren’t just innately bad and they have a backstory of some sort. Gabby Gabby, the babydoll with a broken voicebox, is no exception here.
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
Conflict: 10
Like its predecessors, Toy Story 4 is meant to take you on an adventure and it doesn’t disappoint. Continuing from a similar motif of the third movie, the gang is involved in a heist that includes great stakes. From the planning to the execution of it all, it’s nonstop great fun.
Entertainment Value: 10
Some of the most fun I’ve had in the theater in 2019. This movie has everything you want. There’s action, laughter, and yes maybe a tear or two. This movie doesn’t disappoint in the slightest.
Memorability: 8
From the beautiful visuals (seriously, it’s not even fair at this point) to a number of hilarious and touching moments, this one is absolutely one to remember. In a message that spoke to me directly, it’s all about being willing to let go and start new chapters of your life, getting out of your comfort zone and starting fresh. I dig it.
Pace: 10
For the most part, things are smooth sailing here as this film very rarely gets boring. There is a minor blip where I felt like they could have sped things along a little quicker, but big emphasis on “minor”. I was invested the whole way.
Plot: 10
Yet another great story that’s believable and doesn’t harbor any major holes. Seriously, how do they keep doing this? How do they keep creating brand new experiences that are vastly different from the last? Beyond impressed.
Resolution: 10
Overall: 98
This series truly answers the question: How long should a movie series go before you call it quits? The answer: As long as you have a good story, tell it! What was once one of the greatest trilogies of all time is now one of the greatest quadrilogies of all time. Toy Story 4 is a masterpiece.
Acting: 10
I mentioned this in my review of Toy Story 3, but it bears repeating: the ability to bring back the same cast from one movie to the next guarantees stellar voice-acting performances. Tom Hanks and Tim Allen have perfected their roles as Woody and Buzz and their performances take you out of the realm of thinking these are mere toys, but actual sentient beings. Beyond these two and the rest of the traditional gang you have rib-splitting performances from Keegan-Michael Key and Jordan Peele as Bunny and Ducky along with more hilarity from Keanu Reeves playing Duke Caboom, a stunt toy. Their ability to make their characters as endearing as they are funny makes the viewing experience that much more enjoyable.
Beginning: 10
Characters: 10
To expand on the above, it’s not just about the characters but how they develop as the story progresses. These are animated movies meant for kids yet these characters manage to grow as they would in a typical (great) movie. Characters like Woody are faced with difficult choices they have to make and I found myself wondering if they would have made those same choice two or three movies ago.
On another note, I appreciate that the movies have grown since the first in the way of their villains. It’s always refreshing when villains aren’t just innately bad and they have a backstory of some sort. Gabby Gabby, the babydoll with a broken voicebox, is no exception here.
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
Conflict: 10
Like its predecessors, Toy Story 4 is meant to take you on an adventure and it doesn’t disappoint. Continuing from a similar motif of the third movie, the gang is involved in a heist that includes great stakes. From the planning to the execution of it all, it’s nonstop great fun.
Entertainment Value: 10
Some of the most fun I’ve had in the theater in 2019. This movie has everything you want. There’s action, laughter, and yes maybe a tear or two. This movie doesn’t disappoint in the slightest.
Memorability: 8
From the beautiful visuals (seriously, it’s not even fair at this point) to a number of hilarious and touching moments, this one is absolutely one to remember. In a message that spoke to me directly, it’s all about being willing to let go and start new chapters of your life, getting out of your comfort zone and starting fresh. I dig it.
Pace: 10
For the most part, things are smooth sailing here as this film very rarely gets boring. There is a minor blip where I felt like they could have sped things along a little quicker, but big emphasis on “minor”. I was invested the whole way.
Plot: 10
Yet another great story that’s believable and doesn’t harbor any major holes. Seriously, how do they keep doing this? How do they keep creating brand new experiences that are vastly different from the last? Beyond impressed.
Resolution: 10
Overall: 98
This series truly answers the question: How long should a movie series go before you call it quits? The answer: As long as you have a good story, tell it! What was once one of the greatest trilogies of all time is now one of the greatest quadrilogies of all time. Toy Story 4 is a masterpiece.
Vegas Slots - Farm, Fruit, Casino, Pirates, Egypt, etc!
Games and Entertainment
App
The #1 Video Slot Machine available on the App Store. Spin the Reels on your very own set of Vegas...
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Top Gun: Maverick (2022) in Movies
May 19, 2022
Back in 1987, Tom Cruise and Paramount released “Top Gun” and in doing so created a cultural phenomenon that launched Cruise into Superstardom and became an enduring classic.
Now after decades away and delays due to the pandemic, Cruise has returned to the franchise with “Top Gun: Maverick” and has crafted the rare feat, of a sequel that is not only better than the original but also gives audiences an edge of the seat summer event film when it is needed the most.
Cruise stars as Captain Pete Mitchell who after thirty years is not only haunted by his past but unable to shed his insubordinate and impulsive ways which have kept him from reaching the rank of Admiral and have moved him from one assignment to another.
After his latest action confirms his incredible aviation skills but infuriates the upper brass in the process, Mitchell is out of options as he is unwilling to retire, unable to be promoted, and out of posting options. He is tasked by an old friend with enough clout to watch out for him to return to the Top Gun program as an instructor. Mitchell is hesitant as his last attempt as an instructor did not last long and he believes he is better suited to fly versus teaching.
It is learned that an enemy faction is about to open a Uranium enrichment facility in violation of established law that would threaten the region, and Mitchell is tasked with training a team of Top Gun graduates in three weeks who can make what appears to be a near-impossible assault on the facility to destroy it before it becomes a threat.
While the assembled pilots represent a brash and talented group, Mitchell must contend with the ghosts of his past as one of the members Bradley ‘Rooster’ Bradshaw (Miles Teller), is the son of his deceased friend Goose and has a very fractured relationship with Bradshaw over their shared past.
With pressure on him from Admiral Simpson (Jon Hamm), Mitchell must somehow find a way to train the group in a small amount of time for what is considered by many to be an impossible mission due to the terrain, defenses, and location of their target.
The film is an edge-of-the-seat adrenaline rush that grabs ahold of you from the start and never lets up. From the opening music to the intense aerial sequences, the audience was hooked as gasps and cheers erupted frequently as the characters and action clearly connected with the audience.
While the visual sequences are nothing short of spectacular, the film is a character-based story and there is a depth to Mitchell and many of the cast that goes much deeper than one would normally see in a summer action film.
Jennifer Connelly offers a great counter-point to Mitchell as a person from his past that has known him through several key moments of his career and helps him endure the turbulent emotions that he has.
From the solid characters and story to the rousing final segments of the movie, “Top Gun: Maverick” returns the Summer Event film in grand style and exceeded my expectations and the original in every way.
Now after decades away and delays due to the pandemic, Cruise has returned to the franchise with “Top Gun: Maverick” and has crafted the rare feat, of a sequel that is not only better than the original but also gives audiences an edge of the seat summer event film when it is needed the most.
Cruise stars as Captain Pete Mitchell who after thirty years is not only haunted by his past but unable to shed his insubordinate and impulsive ways which have kept him from reaching the rank of Admiral and have moved him from one assignment to another.
After his latest action confirms his incredible aviation skills but infuriates the upper brass in the process, Mitchell is out of options as he is unwilling to retire, unable to be promoted, and out of posting options. He is tasked by an old friend with enough clout to watch out for him to return to the Top Gun program as an instructor. Mitchell is hesitant as his last attempt as an instructor did not last long and he believes he is better suited to fly versus teaching.
It is learned that an enemy faction is about to open a Uranium enrichment facility in violation of established law that would threaten the region, and Mitchell is tasked with training a team of Top Gun graduates in three weeks who can make what appears to be a near-impossible assault on the facility to destroy it before it becomes a threat.
While the assembled pilots represent a brash and talented group, Mitchell must contend with the ghosts of his past as one of the members Bradley ‘Rooster’ Bradshaw (Miles Teller), is the son of his deceased friend Goose and has a very fractured relationship with Bradshaw over their shared past.
With pressure on him from Admiral Simpson (Jon Hamm), Mitchell must somehow find a way to train the group in a small amount of time for what is considered by many to be an impossible mission due to the terrain, defenses, and location of their target.
The film is an edge-of-the-seat adrenaline rush that grabs ahold of you from the start and never lets up. From the opening music to the intense aerial sequences, the audience was hooked as gasps and cheers erupted frequently as the characters and action clearly connected with the audience.
While the visual sequences are nothing short of spectacular, the film is a character-based story and there is a depth to Mitchell and many of the cast that goes much deeper than one would normally see in a summer action film.
Jennifer Connelly offers a great counter-point to Mitchell as a person from his past that has known him through several key moments of his career and helps him endure the turbulent emotions that he has.
From the solid characters and story to the rousing final segments of the movie, “Top Gun: Maverick” returns the Summer Event film in grand style and exceeded my expectations and the original in every way.
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.)
3D Classic Literature Collection
Book and Entertainment
App
• Featured by Apple in "Back to School" in the App Store (US/UK and many others...) • Featured...