Search
Search results
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.)
Steven Sklansky (231 KP) rated Live By Night (2017) in Movies
Sep 10, 2017
Cast (2 more)
Gun play
Costumes and Sets
Gangsters, Guns and Money. What more is there?
To me Ben Affleck has always been a good actor. It doesn't matter if it is a good movie or a bad one, he seems to make his acting ability known. Live by Night was no different, he played gangster very well. It might be because he was also directing himself. Some movies you can tell that the movie is being directed by the actor in the movie, but in this one you could not see that line. The senses he was in you could tell they were done with the same quality as a director sitting in a chair.
Ben Affleck really does love Boston, because once again that where this whole thing begins. I didn't live in the 20's but the Boston accent must not have been established yet. It was quite refreshing not to hear it in a movie. I really didn't know Boston's backstory but I guess like everywhere on the East Coast there was a mob presence. They did a really good job showing the life of someone in the mob. It wasn't just the killing and booze. It really went deep with the love story of both women and what he had to go though to keep the love and them alive. Even though one of them turned out to be a backstabbing bitch.
When the story progressed to Tampa it was interesting to see something that I don't think has been portrayed in movies. Or I have never seen it. The mob in Florida. The interactions between the Irish and Italian mob in a world of Mexicans and Cubans was done very well. There was a lot going on and it never got boring. The only part of the story that got a little off was rivalry of the mob in Tampa and Miami. You never saw the fights between them until the end. I just thought it was over and done with after the Italians were run out of town. Or maybe I just missed it.
I won't tell you what happened to anyone at the end but the gun fight was amazing. So may parts put in and the chirography was done very well. I think the very end could have been done differently. To me it was very off putting and didn't understand why they choose to go that direction. Granted it was based off a book that I never read and maybe that's the way it had to be. But it could have been written better in the book too. Books seem to get the point across better anyway.
If you like gangster movies, see it. If you like Ben Affleck, see it. If you just want to watch a movie not to be bored, see it.
Ben Affleck really does love Boston, because once again that where this whole thing begins. I didn't live in the 20's but the Boston accent must not have been established yet. It was quite refreshing not to hear it in a movie. I really didn't know Boston's backstory but I guess like everywhere on the East Coast there was a mob presence. They did a really good job showing the life of someone in the mob. It wasn't just the killing and booze. It really went deep with the love story of both women and what he had to go though to keep the love and them alive. Even though one of them turned out to be a backstabbing bitch.
When the story progressed to Tampa it was interesting to see something that I don't think has been portrayed in movies. Or I have never seen it. The mob in Florida. The interactions between the Irish and Italian mob in a world of Mexicans and Cubans was done very well. There was a lot going on and it never got boring. The only part of the story that got a little off was rivalry of the mob in Tampa and Miami. You never saw the fights between them until the end. I just thought it was over and done with after the Italians were run out of town. Or maybe I just missed it.
I won't tell you what happened to anyone at the end but the gun fight was amazing. So may parts put in and the chirography was done very well. I think the very end could have been done differently. To me it was very off putting and didn't understand why they choose to go that direction. Granted it was based off a book that I never read and maybe that's the way it had to be. But it could have been written better in the book too. Books seem to get the point across better anyway.
If you like gangster movies, see it. If you like Ben Affleck, see it. If you just want to watch a movie not to be bored, see it.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Focus (2015) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
Reasonably Accomplished
Will Smith desperately needed a film to catapult him back onto the silver screen A-list after M. Night Shyamalan’s critical and commercial disaster After Earth.
The Hollywood favourite recently spoke about how the movie bruised his ego and made him reassess his position as a serious actor. His latest film Focus, is the first after a brief hiatus, but does it mark a return to form?
Focus follows the story of Nicky Spurgeon (Smith), a seasoned con-man who becomes romantically involved with a young woman, played by Margot Robbie. Naturally, life manages to get in the way and years later Nicky is in Buenos Aires trying to carry out his biggest scam yet – but it doesn’t all run smoothly.
The story is reasonably accomplished but struggles to discern just what genre it is trying to be. There’s a tinge of romantic comedy, a drop of
hard-hitting drama and the occasional slice of Taken-esque thrills which all mix together and leave a rather sour taste in the mouth.
Focusing on one particular theme would have been a better prospect for directors Glenn Ficarra and John Requa, but it wasn’t meant to be and what the audience is left with is a mish-mash of genres which doesn’t quite gel like it was clearly intended.
The film relies heavily on the stunning locations of Buenos Aires and New Orleans, as well as the charisma and chemistry from its two leads rather than delving into character developments and this works well. Smith is a commanding presence and dominates every scene demonstrating just why we fell in love with him all those years ago.
Moreover, Robbie is a force to be reckoned with and comes up against the attitude of Smith’s character very well. Her steely, yet vulnerable persona is one of the main highlights in the film.
Focus starts off slowly with nothing of any real significance happening in the opening hour and this is disappointing given the film’s well-worn genre. Many similar films, Oceans Eleven as a prime example, wear their themes with much more confidence.
Apart from a few cleverly choreographed shots showing the con-artists in action during the first 20 minutes, Focus comes across as rather half-baked, almost dull.
However, fast-forward to the final third and it finally kicks into gear. As we follow Smith try and pull off a hugely risky scam, the audience is thrown numerous red herrings with the story never settling until the end credits roll.
Overall, Focus was a test of Will Smith’s prowess as an actor following on from After Earth’s failings and thankfully he shows how versatile he is. Margot Robbie is also engaging to watch and their on-screen chemistry is positively sizzling, but when a film has such an identity crisis, it’s hard to focus on anything else.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/03/01/reasonably-accomplished-focus-review/
The Hollywood favourite recently spoke about how the movie bruised his ego and made him reassess his position as a serious actor. His latest film Focus, is the first after a brief hiatus, but does it mark a return to form?
Focus follows the story of Nicky Spurgeon (Smith), a seasoned con-man who becomes romantically involved with a young woman, played by Margot Robbie. Naturally, life manages to get in the way and years later Nicky is in Buenos Aires trying to carry out his biggest scam yet – but it doesn’t all run smoothly.
The story is reasonably accomplished but struggles to discern just what genre it is trying to be. There’s a tinge of romantic comedy, a drop of
hard-hitting drama and the occasional slice of Taken-esque thrills which all mix together and leave a rather sour taste in the mouth.
Focusing on one particular theme would have been a better prospect for directors Glenn Ficarra and John Requa, but it wasn’t meant to be and what the audience is left with is a mish-mash of genres which doesn’t quite gel like it was clearly intended.
The film relies heavily on the stunning locations of Buenos Aires and New Orleans, as well as the charisma and chemistry from its two leads rather than delving into character developments and this works well. Smith is a commanding presence and dominates every scene demonstrating just why we fell in love with him all those years ago.
Moreover, Robbie is a force to be reckoned with and comes up against the attitude of Smith’s character very well. Her steely, yet vulnerable persona is one of the main highlights in the film.
Focus starts off slowly with nothing of any real significance happening in the opening hour and this is disappointing given the film’s well-worn genre. Many similar films, Oceans Eleven as a prime example, wear their themes with much more confidence.
Apart from a few cleverly choreographed shots showing the con-artists in action during the first 20 minutes, Focus comes across as rather half-baked, almost dull.
However, fast-forward to the final third and it finally kicks into gear. As we follow Smith try and pull off a hugely risky scam, the audience is thrown numerous red herrings with the story never settling until the end credits roll.
Overall, Focus was a test of Will Smith’s prowess as an actor following on from After Earth’s failings and thankfully he shows how versatile he is. Margot Robbie is also engaging to watch and their on-screen chemistry is positively sizzling, but when a film has such an identity crisis, it’s hard to focus on anything else.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/03/01/reasonably-accomplished-focus-review/
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Memento (2000) in Movies
Feb 9, 2018
Heady Trip
Christopher Nolan first burst onto the scene (for me) with MEMENTO, a 2000 film about a man with a rare condition - he cannot store any short term memories - and is looking for the man that murdered his wife and hit him on the head, thus causing this condition. The twist of the film - and the "trick" that makes this film work -is that it is told backwards (the last scene is first, the 2nd to last scene is 2nd...the first scene is last) so we, the audience, have no memory of what happened just before this scene and, thus, are suffering from the same inability to access what has happened just before as the main character.
This "trick" works very well and holds the film together, we are peeling apart the onion (or, more appropriately, we are putting the peels back on the onion) as the film progresses, gaining greater knowledge as we go along and, with each new piece of "old" information, we gain a new - and in most cases different - view of the scene that we just saw, keeping the audience off-balance for the entire film.
Nolan shows a sure-handedness in his direction of this film. It is clear he had a vision that he wanted to put on the screen and with the screenplay written by Nolan and his long-time collaborator, his brother Jonathan Nolan, Christopher Nolan has a canvas to paint his off-kilter picture and play with the themes of time and memory - themes he would come back to over again.
As the man with the memory loss, Leonard, Guy Pearce solidified himself for me (at the time) as a fine actor that is worth watching (this, afterall, was just a few years after LA CONFIDENTIAL). His Leonard is earnest and straightforward and while he does have a "tick" to show that his memory is erasing (to clue us, the audience in), he marches (backward) through this film strongly.
Aiding Pearce is veteran character actor Joe Pantoliano as Teddy - a cop who is helping Leonard find his wife's killer (or is he?). "Joey Pants" (as he is known) is perfect for this type of ambiguous character, never really trusting him, but trusting him "just enough". Also jumping in is Trinity, herself, Carrie-Ann Moss - an actress that I thought was going to build on this (and the Matrix) and become quite the star. It didn't quite work out.
I enjoyed this mystery and was thinking about how well it works if you ran the scenes in chronological order - upon reflection, I realized that if you did that, holes get punched into things pretty quickly. So, don't do that, but do rent or stream or pull the old DVD of MEMENTO off your bookshelves, it is worth your time.
Letter Grade: A-
8 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
This "trick" works very well and holds the film together, we are peeling apart the onion (or, more appropriately, we are putting the peels back on the onion) as the film progresses, gaining greater knowledge as we go along and, with each new piece of "old" information, we gain a new - and in most cases different - view of the scene that we just saw, keeping the audience off-balance for the entire film.
Nolan shows a sure-handedness in his direction of this film. It is clear he had a vision that he wanted to put on the screen and with the screenplay written by Nolan and his long-time collaborator, his brother Jonathan Nolan, Christopher Nolan has a canvas to paint his off-kilter picture and play with the themes of time and memory - themes he would come back to over again.
As the man with the memory loss, Leonard, Guy Pearce solidified himself for me (at the time) as a fine actor that is worth watching (this, afterall, was just a few years after LA CONFIDENTIAL). His Leonard is earnest and straightforward and while he does have a "tick" to show that his memory is erasing (to clue us, the audience in), he marches (backward) through this film strongly.
Aiding Pearce is veteran character actor Joe Pantoliano as Teddy - a cop who is helping Leonard find his wife's killer (or is he?). "Joey Pants" (as he is known) is perfect for this type of ambiguous character, never really trusting him, but trusting him "just enough". Also jumping in is Trinity, herself, Carrie-Ann Moss - an actress that I thought was going to build on this (and the Matrix) and become quite the star. It didn't quite work out.
I enjoyed this mystery and was thinking about how well it works if you ran the scenes in chronological order - upon reflection, I realized that if you did that, holes get punched into things pretty quickly. So, don't do that, but do rent or stream or pull the old DVD of MEMENTO off your bookshelves, it is worth your time.
Letter Grade: A-
8 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Daniel Radcliffe: The Biography
Book
Daniel Radcliffe went from shy schoolboy to the world's most famous boy wizard overnight. Aged just...
Rob Zombie recommended Dracula (1958) in Movies (curated)
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Fight Club (1999) in Movies
May 7, 2020
Subversively Funny
The first rule of this review is that I cannot talk about this movie.
The second rule of this review is that I CANNOT TALK ABOUT THIS MOVIE!
So...I'm going to talk about this movie.
David Fincher's 1999 mind-tripping epic about 2 friends who join forces to create chaos is not the movie that you think it is. Not even if you've seen it.
Directed by one of the my favorite Directors of all time, FIGHT CLUB tells the story of Edward Norton's character (who's name is never mentioned in the film) who is suffering from insomnia and an all around lack of enthusiasm for life - that is until he runs into 2 people that will profoundly change his life - Marla Singer (Helena Bonham Carter) and, especially, Tyler Durden (Brad Pitt).
This film was poorly marketed by the studio at the time of it's release - focusing on the "FIGHT CLUB" aspect of this film - and if that is turning you away from this film, then you are missing out, for the "Fight Club" aspect is only one sliver of what this film is about. This film is an incredibly funny parody of society and "fitting in" with over-the-top scenarios and characters masquerading as people and events in "the real world".
David Fincher is perfectly suited for this work. He handled the pacing, style and subject matter with aplomb balancing seriousness and absurdity perfectly to create a subtle parody. It is a masterwork in that you don't notice his Direction - always a mark of a good Director.
Edward Norton, of course, is wonderfully cynical as the Narrator. When this film came out, I went to see it because of him - he was (is?) an actor that (more often than not) picks quality material and delivers a quality performance. Brad Pitt, of course, has the "showier" role and he nails it. This film marked the "coming out" of Pitt as an actor for me - and he hasn't stopped (right up until his deserved Oscar this year for ONCE UPON A TIME...IN HOLLYWOOD). But, it is the performance of Helena Bonham Carter that caught my eye on this re-watch. Fight Club is one of those films that becomes a different film upon a 2nd (and 3rd and 4th and 5th...) watch - mostly because of the change in perspective of the Marla character. I've now seen this film multiple times and in this viewing it was Marla's journey that captured my attention. It is a terrific performance that is an optical illusion.
This film is not for everyone - so be warned - but if you give it a shot, I think you'll find a richly rewarding - and subversively funny - movie going experience.
Letter Grade: A
9 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
The second rule of this review is that I CANNOT TALK ABOUT THIS MOVIE!
So...I'm going to talk about this movie.
David Fincher's 1999 mind-tripping epic about 2 friends who join forces to create chaos is not the movie that you think it is. Not even if you've seen it.
Directed by one of the my favorite Directors of all time, FIGHT CLUB tells the story of Edward Norton's character (who's name is never mentioned in the film) who is suffering from insomnia and an all around lack of enthusiasm for life - that is until he runs into 2 people that will profoundly change his life - Marla Singer (Helena Bonham Carter) and, especially, Tyler Durden (Brad Pitt).
This film was poorly marketed by the studio at the time of it's release - focusing on the "FIGHT CLUB" aspect of this film - and if that is turning you away from this film, then you are missing out, for the "Fight Club" aspect is only one sliver of what this film is about. This film is an incredibly funny parody of society and "fitting in" with over-the-top scenarios and characters masquerading as people and events in "the real world".
David Fincher is perfectly suited for this work. He handled the pacing, style and subject matter with aplomb balancing seriousness and absurdity perfectly to create a subtle parody. It is a masterwork in that you don't notice his Direction - always a mark of a good Director.
Edward Norton, of course, is wonderfully cynical as the Narrator. When this film came out, I went to see it because of him - he was (is?) an actor that (more often than not) picks quality material and delivers a quality performance. Brad Pitt, of course, has the "showier" role and he nails it. This film marked the "coming out" of Pitt as an actor for me - and he hasn't stopped (right up until his deserved Oscar this year for ONCE UPON A TIME...IN HOLLYWOOD). But, it is the performance of Helena Bonham Carter that caught my eye on this re-watch. Fight Club is one of those films that becomes a different film upon a 2nd (and 3rd and 4th and 5th...) watch - mostly because of the change in perspective of the Marla character. I've now seen this film multiple times and in this viewing it was Marla's journey that captured my attention. It is a terrific performance that is an optical illusion.
This film is not for everyone - so be warned - but if you give it a shot, I think you'll find a richly rewarding - and subversively funny - movie going experience.
Letter Grade: A
9 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Outfit (2022) in Movies
Jul 1, 2022
Smart, Intelligent and Understated
So much of the success or failure of a film at the Cineplex Box Office depends on the marketing of the film and the timing of it’s release. In the case of the wonderful crime drama THE OUTFIT (who’s release was buried in late January/early February 2022), the marketing did it no favors.
And that’s too bad, for this Mark Rylance film - which could easily be a stage play - is an intriguing SMART cat and mouse drama between some mob types and their tailor.
Yes, their tailor.
Rylance stars as Leonard, a tailor (he prefers to be called a “cutter”), who has a shop in Chicago in the 1950’s, THE OUTFIT tells the tale of said cutter who’s business is booming thanks to patronage of local gangsters (the titular OUTFIT) who not only frequent his shop for suits, but also to use it as a place to make “drops”. The intrigue of this film comes when “things get real” for THE OUTFIT and they use Leonard’s shop as a hideout. Leonard must outsmart the outfit - and their foes - if he hopes to survive the night.
It’s a smart premise made all the more interesting by the understated performance by Rylance who, once again, shows that his genial demeanor is disguising a very intelligent and fast-working brain. It is another in a long string of strong performances by Rylance (who won a Best Supporting Actor Oscar for his work in 2015’s BRIDGE OF SPIES).
Rylance is joined on screen by some very good performances by Zoey Deutch (ZOMBIELAND DOUBLETAP), Johnny Flynn (EMMA), Stage Actor Simon Russell Beale (THE DEATH OF STALIN) and, most surprisingly, Dylan O’Brien (THE MAZE RUNNER). They bring a Broadway stage performance sense of style to this work - and it is absolutely the right approach to this material, for the entire film takes place inside Leonard’s tailor shop.
Credit for this must go to Director Graham Moore (THE IMITATION GAME) who wrote this film with Johnathan McClain. He has a firm grip on what he is attempting to do - and he does it well. He sets up the premise and the players well and then pays off the circumstances - sometimes surprisingly - in satisfying ways. It is a strong showing by Moore and I’ll be looking to see what he does next.
Intelligent, understated, stage-like, smart…no wonder the suits at Universal had no idea how to market it.
So, I’ll market/champion this film that perfectly casts Rylance. He is in almost every scene and it is his intense and interesting performance that will pull you into his shop - and into the world of the OUTFIT.
Check it out - you’ll be glad you did.
THE OUTFIT is streaming for free for those of you subscribed to PEACOCK and can be rented (or bought) on most of the major outlets for those types of things.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
And that’s too bad, for this Mark Rylance film - which could easily be a stage play - is an intriguing SMART cat and mouse drama between some mob types and their tailor.
Yes, their tailor.
Rylance stars as Leonard, a tailor (he prefers to be called a “cutter”), who has a shop in Chicago in the 1950’s, THE OUTFIT tells the tale of said cutter who’s business is booming thanks to patronage of local gangsters (the titular OUTFIT) who not only frequent his shop for suits, but also to use it as a place to make “drops”. The intrigue of this film comes when “things get real” for THE OUTFIT and they use Leonard’s shop as a hideout. Leonard must outsmart the outfit - and their foes - if he hopes to survive the night.
It’s a smart premise made all the more interesting by the understated performance by Rylance who, once again, shows that his genial demeanor is disguising a very intelligent and fast-working brain. It is another in a long string of strong performances by Rylance (who won a Best Supporting Actor Oscar for his work in 2015’s BRIDGE OF SPIES).
Rylance is joined on screen by some very good performances by Zoey Deutch (ZOMBIELAND DOUBLETAP), Johnny Flynn (EMMA), Stage Actor Simon Russell Beale (THE DEATH OF STALIN) and, most surprisingly, Dylan O’Brien (THE MAZE RUNNER). They bring a Broadway stage performance sense of style to this work - and it is absolutely the right approach to this material, for the entire film takes place inside Leonard’s tailor shop.
Credit for this must go to Director Graham Moore (THE IMITATION GAME) who wrote this film with Johnathan McClain. He has a firm grip on what he is attempting to do - and he does it well. He sets up the premise and the players well and then pays off the circumstances - sometimes surprisingly - in satisfying ways. It is a strong showing by Moore and I’ll be looking to see what he does next.
Intelligent, understated, stage-like, smart…no wonder the suits at Universal had no idea how to market it.
So, I’ll market/champion this film that perfectly casts Rylance. He is in almost every scene and it is his intense and interesting performance that will pull you into his shop - and into the world of the OUTFIT.
Check it out - you’ll be glad you did.
THE OUTFIT is streaming for free for those of you subscribed to PEACOCK and can be rented (or bought) on most of the major outlets for those types of things.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
tonidavis (353 KP) rated Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets (2017) in Movies
Aug 9, 2017
The reviews of this film on most critic sites seem to slate it. however I dont think this film deserves the hate it seems to get.
First of all like most Luc Besson Film the actual set designs and visual world is simply stunning.
Dante and Cara Delevainge seem a weird casting choice at first glance for me. I know the comics and of one thing Valerian and Laurline always seemed older. That being said they both did a better job than I thought they would do. Whilst both actors are incredibly beutiful that most people can only wish to be there faces are so angular pulling of a softer look and side is harder to see and connect with than any other actor I've known. However whislt it was hard to get that softer emotional connection there was moments it was there and was nice to see. I wish I had seen some of it more in paper towns from cara but in this film I did see it.
I was slighty disappointed with the great Rihanna part given the amount of press she had I was expecting something more than ten mins (if that) of screen time. in fact there was a very small cast list a majority of film was just Dante and Cara which takes a lot more script writing and acting to keep you involde in story and film
First of all like most Luc Besson Film the actual set designs and visual world is simply stunning.
Dante and Cara Delevainge seem a weird casting choice at first glance for me. I know the comics and of one thing Valerian and Laurline always seemed older. That being said they both did a better job than I thought they would do. Whilst both actors are incredibly beutiful that most people can only wish to be there faces are so angular pulling of a softer look and side is harder to see and connect with than any other actor I've known. However whislt it was hard to get that softer emotional connection there was moments it was there and was nice to see. I wish I had seen some of it more in paper towns from cara but in this film I did see it.
I was slighty disappointed with the great Rihanna part given the amount of press she had I was expecting something more than ten mins (if that) of screen time. in fact there was a very small cast list a majority of film was just Dante and Cara which takes a lot more script writing and acting to keep you involde in story and film
Hazel (2934 KP) rated The Chestnut Man in Books
Mar 24, 2019
A great debut
If that cover doesn't draw you in and make you pick it up, you are a lost soul !!!
And if the cover doesn't do it for you, the story certainly will. It does make for uncomfortable reading at times given the subject matter but it is a story about a serial killer so some gruesome descriptions of the crimes shouldn't come as too much of a surprise.
The plot is gripping, dark and thrilling and the pace of the book is ideal with a seamless mix of murder, politics and police procedure all wrapped up in a perfect psychological thriller package. I actually don't normally like what is called Scandi-noir after having previously tried and failed to read one by a very successful author but this one is excellent.
The characters are fantastic - I know it's a good book when I can see the characters as real people and imagine who would play them if the book were made into a film or TV series - the Danish actor, Kim Bodnia, from The Bridge (Bron/Broen) and Killing Eve would be perfect for the role of Hess.
This is the debut novel by this author, although he has written the highly acclaimed series "The Killing", and a very accomplished debut it is and my thanks must go to the publisher, Penguin UK - Michael Joseph, via NetGalley for my copy in return for an honest review.
And if the cover doesn't do it for you, the story certainly will. It does make for uncomfortable reading at times given the subject matter but it is a story about a serial killer so some gruesome descriptions of the crimes shouldn't come as too much of a surprise.
The plot is gripping, dark and thrilling and the pace of the book is ideal with a seamless mix of murder, politics and police procedure all wrapped up in a perfect psychological thriller package. I actually don't normally like what is called Scandi-noir after having previously tried and failed to read one by a very successful author but this one is excellent.
The characters are fantastic - I know it's a good book when I can see the characters as real people and imagine who would play them if the book were made into a film or TV series - the Danish actor, Kim Bodnia, from The Bridge (Bron/Broen) and Killing Eve would be perfect for the role of Hess.
This is the debut novel by this author, although he has written the highly acclaimed series "The Killing", and a very accomplished debut it is and my thanks must go to the publisher, Penguin UK - Michael Joseph, via NetGalley for my copy in return for an honest review.