Search
Search results
Widdershins (Widdershins #1)
Helen Steadman and Christine Mackie
Book
The new audio book of Widdershins is narrated brilliantly by talented actor, Christine Mackie, from...
Historical Fiction Witches
Bayou Book Thief
8.0
Rate It
Book
A fantastic new cozy mystery series with a vintage flair from USA Today bestselling and Agatha...
Merissa (12882 KP) rated The Goldilocks Principle in Books
Jul 29, 2023
Goldilocks retelling, MM style
THE GOLDILOCKS PRINCIPLE is a standalone story about Elijah Goldwyn (who has blond curly hair) and Tristan (a French soap actor) who both meet in Provincetown and sparks fly.
The story itself was good and I enjoyed it. It is smoothly paced with a stack of supporting characters that help move it along. The town itself is a charming setting and, in my opinion, Iris, Frank, and Isy were the best characters!
I found it to have quite a bit of 'tell' instead of 'show' though - the whole thing with Quentin, Clara, and the parents, which led to a bit of a disconnect with the main characters. I was unable to immerse myself in the story even though I wanted to. There were also a few parts where I disliked how one of the main characters was acting or behaving.
I think a lot of people will thoroughly enjoy this story, and loved how Goldilocks is brought into this MM Romance. It just wasn't the book for me in the ways I'd hoped.
** same worded review will appear elsewhere **
* A copy of this book was provided to me with no requirements for a review. I voluntarily read this book; the comments here are my honest opinion. *
Merissa
Archaeolibrarian - I Dig Good Books!
Jul 29, 2023
The story itself was good and I enjoyed it. It is smoothly paced with a stack of supporting characters that help move it along. The town itself is a charming setting and, in my opinion, Iris, Frank, and Isy were the best characters!
I found it to have quite a bit of 'tell' instead of 'show' though - the whole thing with Quentin, Clara, and the parents, which led to a bit of a disconnect with the main characters. I was unable to immerse myself in the story even though I wanted to. There were also a few parts where I disliked how one of the main characters was acting or behaving.
I think a lot of people will thoroughly enjoy this story, and loved how Goldilocks is brought into this MM Romance. It just wasn't the book for me in the ways I'd hoped.
** same worded review will appear elsewhere **
* A copy of this book was provided to me with no requirements for a review. I voluntarily read this book; the comments here are my honest opinion. *
Merissa
Archaeolibrarian - I Dig Good Books!
Jul 29, 2023
David McK (3557 KP) rated The Mummy Returns (2001) in Movies
Sep 6, 2021 (Updated Sep 3, 2023)
Brendan Fraser as Rick O'Connoll (1 more)
Rachel Weisz as Evie
There was a time in the mid to late 90s/early 00s where Brendan Fraser was a Bona Fide movie star, back before he took a break from acting.
A large part of that appeal was due to his (very) Indiana Jones-alike Rick O'Connell, a role he first portrayed in 1999s The Mummy and reprised in this (which is the middle of the Mummy films).
Unlike the sequel to this, this one also sees the return of Rachel Weisz as his now-wife Evie O'Connell (a role recast in the third film) alongside returning players from the first movie: Arnold Vosloo's Imhotep himself, John Hannah as Evie's no-good brother, Oded Fehr as the Medjai Ardeth Bay - here on the O'Connell's side throughout - and Patricia Velasquez as the reincarnated Anck Su Namun.
As such, there are strong links to the original move here, with this particular entry also seeing Dwayne 'The Rock' Johnson's breakthrough to acting, as the titular Scorpion King (although some of the later effects haven't aged all that well).
Mostly enjoyable, although (and, IMO, unfortunately), they went down the 'annoying child actor' route, with the whole plot about their child getting kidnapped that kicks the journey into motion ...
A large part of that appeal was due to his (very) Indiana Jones-alike Rick O'Connell, a role he first portrayed in 1999s The Mummy and reprised in this (which is the middle of the Mummy films).
Unlike the sequel to this, this one also sees the return of Rachel Weisz as his now-wife Evie O'Connell (a role recast in the third film) alongside returning players from the first movie: Arnold Vosloo's Imhotep himself, John Hannah as Evie's no-good brother, Oded Fehr as the Medjai Ardeth Bay - here on the O'Connell's side throughout - and Patricia Velasquez as the reincarnated Anck Su Namun.
As such, there are strong links to the original move here, with this particular entry also seeing Dwayne 'The Rock' Johnson's breakthrough to acting, as the titular Scorpion King (although some of the later effects haven't aged all that well).
Mostly enjoyable, although (and, IMO, unfortunately), they went down the 'annoying child actor' route, with the whole plot about their child getting kidnapped that kicks the journey into motion ...
You Feta Watch Out
9.0
Rate It
Book
Humbug! leads to Homicide! in the new Grilled Cheese Mystery by Linda Reilly . . . Christmas in...
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Ready Player One (2018) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Virtually brilliant with Easter Eggs a plenty.
Of all the Spielberg films of recent years – and possibly with the exception of “The BFG” – this was the film whose trailer disconcerted me the most. It really looked dire: CGI over heart; gimmicks over substance. I was right about ‘The BFG”, one of my least favourite Spielberg flicks. I was definitely wrong about “Ready Player One”: it’s a blast.
The film is fun in continually throwing surprises at you, including those actors not included in the trailer and only on small print on the poster. So I won’t spoil that here for you (you can of course look them up on imdb if you want to: but I suggest you try to see this one ‘cold’).
It’s 2044, and the majority of the population have taken the next logical step of video gaming and virtual reality and retreated into their own headsets, living out their lives primarily as avatars within the fanciful landscapes of “The Oasis”. You can “be” anyone and (subject to gaining the necessary credits) “do” anything there.
When the housing market is stacked against you. Columbus Ohio circa 2044.
The Oasis was the brainchild of a (Steve Wozniak-like) genius called James Halliday (played in enormous style by “Actor R”) and supported by his (Steve Jobs-like) business partner Ogden Morrow (“Actor P”). The two had a big falling out leaving Halliday in total control of the Oasis. But he died, and his dying “game” was to devise a devious competition that left a trail of three virtual keys in the Oasis leading to an ‘easter egg’: which if found would provide the finder with total ownership of the Oasis and the trillions of dollars that it is worth.
But the game is not only played by amateur “gunters” (egg-hunters) like our hero Wade Watts (Tye Sheridan, “X-Men: Apocalypse“) and his in-Oasis flirting partner Samantha (Olivia Cooke, “Me and Earl and the Dying Girl”); there are big corporate game-hunters involved like IoI (that’s eye-oh-eye, not one-oh-one as I assumed from the trailer) who fill warehouses with combinations of nerd-consultants and professional game players to try to find the keys before anyone else. Which hardly seems fair does it? Ruthless boss Sorrento (Ben Mendelsohn, “Rogue One“) and his tough-as-nails hench-woman F’Nale Zandor (Hannah John-Kamen, “Tomb Raider“) really couldn’t give a toss!
In the future, everyone is reaching out for something.
What follows is two-hours of high-octane game-play and eye-popping 3D (it is good in 3D by the way) that melds a baseline of “Avatar” with soupçons of “Tron”, “Minority Report” and Dan Brown novels. But its a blend that works.
I was afraid as I said that CGI would squash flat any hope of character development and story, and – yes – to be sure this is ‘suppressed’ a bit. You never get to really know many of the ‘pack’ members to any great level other than Wade and Samantha. And exactly what drives the corporate protagonists, other than “corporate greed”, is not particularly clear. What gives the film heart though are the performances of “Actor P” and (particularly) “Actor R”, who again steals every scene he is in. For their limited screen time together, the pair bounce off each other in a delightful way.
I have to make a confession at this point that I spent the whole film thinking “Miles Teller is way too old for the part of Wade”! Tye Sheridan (who I think *does* bear a likeness!) is actually much more age appropriate, and is fine in the role. But the star performance for me, out of the youngsters at least, was Oldham’s-own Olivia Cooke, who has a genuinely magnetic screen presence. She is most definitely a name to watch for the future.
Ready Player One
Young star of the show for me – Olivia Cooke as Samantha.
Lena Waithe (“Master of None”) plays Wade’s inventor friend Helen.
The story, although simple and quite one-dimensional, in the main intrigues: there is nothing like a Mario-style chase for keys to entertain when it is done well (I am so old and crusty that in my day it was “Manic Miner” on a ZX-Spectrum!).
He’s iron and he’s just gigantic! Reb’s creation becomes a force to be reckoned with when needed.
And there’s not just one “Easter Egg” in this film: the film is rammed to the rafters with throwbacks to classic pop-culture icons of past decades, and particularly the 80’s…. the film could have been subtitled “I ❤ 80’s”. Some of these are subliminal (Mayor Goldie Wilson anyone?), and others are more prominent but very clever: “The Zemekis cube” and “The Holy Hand Grenade” being prime examples. This is a film that deserves buying on Blu-ray and then slo-mo-ing through! The nostalgia extends to the music by Alan Silvestri, with occasional motifs from his most famous soundtrack!
For me though, the highspot of the film is a journey into a recreation of a classic ’80’s film which – while a scary sequence, earning for sure its 12A UK rating – is done with verve and chutzpah.
Wade’s avatar, Parzival.
Although a little overlong (2 hours 20 mins) and getting rather over-blown and LOTR-esque in the finale, the ending is very satisfying – roll on Tuesdays and Thursdays!
Spielberg’s recent films have been largely solid and well-constructed watches (“The Post” and “Bridge of Spies” for example) but they have been more niche than mainstream box office draws. I firmly predict that “Ready Player One” will change that: here Spielberg has a sure-fire hit on his hands and word of mouth (rather than the ho-hum trailer) should assure that.
The film is fun in continually throwing surprises at you, including those actors not included in the trailer and only on small print on the poster. So I won’t spoil that here for you (you can of course look them up on imdb if you want to: but I suggest you try to see this one ‘cold’).
It’s 2044, and the majority of the population have taken the next logical step of video gaming and virtual reality and retreated into their own headsets, living out their lives primarily as avatars within the fanciful landscapes of “The Oasis”. You can “be” anyone and (subject to gaining the necessary credits) “do” anything there.
When the housing market is stacked against you. Columbus Ohio circa 2044.
The Oasis was the brainchild of a (Steve Wozniak-like) genius called James Halliday (played in enormous style by “Actor R”) and supported by his (Steve Jobs-like) business partner Ogden Morrow (“Actor P”). The two had a big falling out leaving Halliday in total control of the Oasis. But he died, and his dying “game” was to devise a devious competition that left a trail of three virtual keys in the Oasis leading to an ‘easter egg’: which if found would provide the finder with total ownership of the Oasis and the trillions of dollars that it is worth.
But the game is not only played by amateur “gunters” (egg-hunters) like our hero Wade Watts (Tye Sheridan, “X-Men: Apocalypse“) and his in-Oasis flirting partner Samantha (Olivia Cooke, “Me and Earl and the Dying Girl”); there are big corporate game-hunters involved like IoI (that’s eye-oh-eye, not one-oh-one as I assumed from the trailer) who fill warehouses with combinations of nerd-consultants and professional game players to try to find the keys before anyone else. Which hardly seems fair does it? Ruthless boss Sorrento (Ben Mendelsohn, “Rogue One“) and his tough-as-nails hench-woman F’Nale Zandor (Hannah John-Kamen, “Tomb Raider“) really couldn’t give a toss!
In the future, everyone is reaching out for something.
What follows is two-hours of high-octane game-play and eye-popping 3D (it is good in 3D by the way) that melds a baseline of “Avatar” with soupçons of “Tron”, “Minority Report” and Dan Brown novels. But its a blend that works.
I was afraid as I said that CGI would squash flat any hope of character development and story, and – yes – to be sure this is ‘suppressed’ a bit. You never get to really know many of the ‘pack’ members to any great level other than Wade and Samantha. And exactly what drives the corporate protagonists, other than “corporate greed”, is not particularly clear. What gives the film heart though are the performances of “Actor P” and (particularly) “Actor R”, who again steals every scene he is in. For their limited screen time together, the pair bounce off each other in a delightful way.
I have to make a confession at this point that I spent the whole film thinking “Miles Teller is way too old for the part of Wade”! Tye Sheridan (who I think *does* bear a likeness!) is actually much more age appropriate, and is fine in the role. But the star performance for me, out of the youngsters at least, was Oldham’s-own Olivia Cooke, who has a genuinely magnetic screen presence. She is most definitely a name to watch for the future.
Ready Player One
Young star of the show for me – Olivia Cooke as Samantha.
Lena Waithe (“Master of None”) plays Wade’s inventor friend Helen.
The story, although simple and quite one-dimensional, in the main intrigues: there is nothing like a Mario-style chase for keys to entertain when it is done well (I am so old and crusty that in my day it was “Manic Miner” on a ZX-Spectrum!).
He’s iron and he’s just gigantic! Reb’s creation becomes a force to be reckoned with when needed.
And there’s not just one “Easter Egg” in this film: the film is rammed to the rafters with throwbacks to classic pop-culture icons of past decades, and particularly the 80’s…. the film could have been subtitled “I ❤ 80’s”. Some of these are subliminal (Mayor Goldie Wilson anyone?), and others are more prominent but very clever: “The Zemekis cube” and “The Holy Hand Grenade” being prime examples. This is a film that deserves buying on Blu-ray and then slo-mo-ing through! The nostalgia extends to the music by Alan Silvestri, with occasional motifs from his most famous soundtrack!
For me though, the highspot of the film is a journey into a recreation of a classic ’80’s film which – while a scary sequence, earning for sure its 12A UK rating – is done with verve and chutzpah.
Wade’s avatar, Parzival.
Although a little overlong (2 hours 20 mins) and getting rather over-blown and LOTR-esque in the finale, the ending is very satisfying – roll on Tuesdays and Thursdays!
Spielberg’s recent films have been largely solid and well-constructed watches (“The Post” and “Bridge of Spies” for example) but they have been more niche than mainstream box office draws. I firmly predict that “Ready Player One” will change that: here Spielberg has a sure-fire hit on his hands and word of mouth (rather than the ho-hum trailer) should assure that.
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)