Search
Search results
Charades!™
Games and Education
App
Charades! is the outrageously fun and exciting multi-activity game for you and your friends! And...
David McK (3562 KP) rated Johnny and the Dead (Johnny Maxwell #2) in Books
May 27, 2023
The late, great, Sir Terry Pratchett is probably better known for his Discworld novels.
Which, primarily albeit not exclusively, are aimed towards a more adult audience.
However, during the 1990's, he also wrote a trilogy of novels that were aimed at the younger audience, starting with Only You Can Save Mankind and ending with Johnny and the Bomb, with this one tucked away nicely in the middle. These novels have become known as the Johnny Maxwell trilogy, following the same core characters as Johnny Maxwell (obviously) and his friends Yo-less, Wobbler and Big Mac.
In this one, Johnny learns that the local cemetery is about to be demolished, which comes as news to the residents of said cemetery (who only Johnny is able to see - I kept waiting for the 'I see dead people' gag, before realising this was released before the movie 'The Sixth Sense'), and leading to a local outcry over the same.
It hits different now, 30 years on from when I first read it (due to life events).
Which, primarily albeit not exclusively, are aimed towards a more adult audience.
However, during the 1990's, he also wrote a trilogy of novels that were aimed at the younger audience, starting with Only You Can Save Mankind and ending with Johnny and the Bomb, with this one tucked away nicely in the middle. These novels have become known as the Johnny Maxwell trilogy, following the same core characters as Johnny Maxwell (obviously) and his friends Yo-less, Wobbler and Big Mac.
In this one, Johnny learns that the local cemetery is about to be demolished, which comes as news to the residents of said cemetery (who only Johnny is able to see - I kept waiting for the 'I see dead people' gag, before realising this was released before the movie 'The Sixth Sense'), and leading to a local outcry over the same.
It hits different now, 30 years on from when I first read it (due to life events).
David McK (3562 KP) rated Captain America: Brave New World (2025) in Movies
Feb 22, 2025
Previously subtitled New World Order until it was renamed as Brave New World, this is - in many ways - more of a sequel to the oft-forgotten Edward Norton starring "The Incredible Hulk" than it is to any of the previous Captain America films.
It may help to have seen Disney Plus's "The Falcon and the Winter Soldier" beforehand, or even have a quick recap of the same - whilst I had watched that series when it was released, I had forgotten some (but not all) of what proved to be salient plot points for this.
Anyway, here Anthony Mackie is now the new Captain America whereas Harrison Ford is now-president Thaddeus Ross, consumed with guilt over his estrangement from his daughter Betty after the events of The Incredible Hulk, and still convinced he did the right thing in creating the Sokovia Accords that tore the Avengers apart (see: Captain America: Civil War).
This movie also - finally! - acknowledges the events of The Eternals, in particular with the body of a half-born Celestial in the ocean providing the impetus for the plot.
It may help to have seen Disney Plus's "The Falcon and the Winter Soldier" beforehand, or even have a quick recap of the same - whilst I had watched that series when it was released, I had forgotten some (but not all) of what proved to be salient plot points for this.
Anyway, here Anthony Mackie is now the new Captain America whereas Harrison Ford is now-president Thaddeus Ross, consumed with guilt over his estrangement from his daughter Betty after the events of The Incredible Hulk, and still convinced he did the right thing in creating the Sokovia Accords that tore the Avengers apart (see: Captain America: Civil War).
This movie also - finally! - acknowledges the events of The Eternals, in particular with the body of a half-born Celestial in the ocean providing the impetus for the plot.
Andy K (10823 KP) rated Oblivion (2013) in Movies
May 12, 2019
Why didn't more people see this?
Tron Legacy director Joseph Kosinski brings his unique, stunning visual splendor to this unusual sci fi tale where everything is not quite what it seems.
Tom Cruise and Andrea Riseborough are in change of keeping robotic drones which protect large machines in a future where Earth is derelict and most of humanity has relocated to a moon of Saturn or a giant orbiting space station en route to the same destination.
A mysterious spacecraft crashes to Earth and one of the occupants is saved. They also have to deal with the unruly "scavs" out to kill them. Events take an interesting turn when the real villains and heroes are revealed and I doubt you can predict the outcome.
I am usually one to say movies that are just "eye candy" don't hold my interest; however, this film has a soul which goes deeper and kept my attention and riveted throughout.
Th engaging story and interesting characters mixed well even though I may have felt I had seen some of this before. Some trappings of films like The Matrix, 2001, Solaris or Arrival are present, but the director puts his own spin and the story kept pace entirely.
Also a standout was the score by musical group M83 who had never done a soundtrack before according to Tom Cruise during the audio commentary.
Not sure why this film was lost at the box office. Could've been the anti Tom Cruise factor, crowded summer movie season or even the highbrow concept plot which meant mediocre word of mouth kept people away.
I had recalled very mixed reviews myself which is why I hadn't watched until now which was a good thing I suppose which meant I was pleasantly surprised.
Appetites for much better-than-average science fiction should give this a try.
Tom Cruise and Andrea Riseborough are in change of keeping robotic drones which protect large machines in a future where Earth is derelict and most of humanity has relocated to a moon of Saturn or a giant orbiting space station en route to the same destination.
A mysterious spacecraft crashes to Earth and one of the occupants is saved. They also have to deal with the unruly "scavs" out to kill them. Events take an interesting turn when the real villains and heroes are revealed and I doubt you can predict the outcome.
I am usually one to say movies that are just "eye candy" don't hold my interest; however, this film has a soul which goes deeper and kept my attention and riveted throughout.
Th engaging story and interesting characters mixed well even though I may have felt I had seen some of this before. Some trappings of films like The Matrix, 2001, Solaris or Arrival are present, but the director puts his own spin and the story kept pace entirely.
Also a standout was the score by musical group M83 who had never done a soundtrack before according to Tom Cruise during the audio commentary.
Not sure why this film was lost at the box office. Could've been the anti Tom Cruise factor, crowded summer movie season or even the highbrow concept plot which meant mediocre word of mouth kept people away.
I had recalled very mixed reviews myself which is why I hadn't watched until now which was a good thing I suppose which meant I was pleasantly surprised.
Appetites for much better-than-average science fiction should give this a try.
Neon's Nerd Nexus (360 KP) rated Mandy (2018) in Movies
May 13, 2019
Oh Mandy
#Mandymovie is an intoxicating & nauseating experience that left my head spinning & my body warm/tingly sunk into my seat. From the second #mandy starts i was simply hooked, #nostalgia running through my body & its #perfect visuals glistening off my eye balls. I felt almost in a #trance with its soothing/#hypnotic #soundtrack & its cinematography bathed in colour Mandy is simply #gorgeous right to its core. Atmosphere begins #beautifully creating so much intrigue, a sence of wonder/#mystery & a massive sense of love/commitment however its not long until this flips to deeply #unerving, #unsettling & down right skin crawling fast. So many scenes are Dialog sparce but with so much depth in the visuals & sound its really not missed or needed at all. An example of this is Cages love for mandy is shown as complete devotion, #passion/commitment like he sees her almost as a godess/his reason to live (shown using glowing light and warm fire acompanied by soft slow dialog) yet other peoples love for her is the complete oposite more as an #obsession, an object or a #desire (shown using pulsing red light, slow zooms and freeze frames and frantic pitch changing broken dialog). Its a masterful way of telling us about the characters & story making us feel/experiance there #emotions rather than wait for dialog to develop them for us. Acting is also stellar with this being #nicolascage best role in a very long time. His character is a #haunted & troubled man & his #pain can be felt deeply whenever he is on screen. Infunces/homages are everywhere here from #darioargento to #fridaythe13th & other #80s #horror movies. Infact mandy could easily be mistaken for a film released decades ago its that well made & its also destined to become a #cultclassic its self. Mandy is an absolute rare gem, every scene its drenched in such style, care & mesmerising #beauty youll be pushed to find another film like it now days. Im being vauge here on purpouse because to watching this film in the dark, on a big screen, turned up loud trully is one of the best experiences ive had watching a film this year. Insanely good & the perfect #arthouse #horror movie. #odeon #odeonlimitless #filmbuff #filmcritic
LeftSideCut (3776 KP) rated Aquaman (2018) in Movies
Jul 16, 2019 (Updated Sep 1, 2019)
An average DC entry saved by its own absurdity
I found that Aquaman is a movie of three distinct parts.
It actually starts off pretty strongly, as we're introduced to all the players involved, and all of the important locations.
Jason Mamoa is a very likeable guy, but it takes a while to warm to his gym bro approach Arthur Curry, but he managed to win me over eventually, the charming hairy bastard.
Patrick Wilson is pretty good as Ocean Master, and it's nice to see veterans like Willem Defoe and Nicole Kidman (who gets an early and very brief action scene which I reckon trumps anything in Batman vs Superman).
The story set up is all fine and straightforward, and some of the visuals are pretty impressive, especially sweeping shots of Atlantis.
When the story heads back to land at the mid point is where the films takes a bit of a nosedive.
It all just becomes a bit...boring.
It also falls into the weird "play-a-cool-song-at-random-intervals" trap that Suicide Squad enjoyed flogging to death. (Whoever decided to put that God awful hip hop cover of Africa in the mix deserves a slap)
I also feel that Black Manta was sort of wasted here. He's sidelined to make room for other story lines, which I guess is fine if he's being set up for a bigger role in future installments, but here he just feels kind of tacked on.
The last act of the film is a CGI orgy, but it stands apart from a lot of films in the genre, as it's actually colourful! The sheer scope of the last battle is absolutely absurd, so absurd that it kind of works.
The CGI in question is pretty hit and miss throughout the film - sometimes it looks horrific (young Willem Defoe is haunting) and other times, it's pretty flawless, making for some pretty good action shots.
Overall, for me, the DCEU is still struggling to leave it's mark, but Aquaman and this years Shazam seem like a small step in the right direction.
It actually starts off pretty strongly, as we're introduced to all the players involved, and all of the important locations.
Jason Mamoa is a very likeable guy, but it takes a while to warm to his gym bro approach Arthur Curry, but he managed to win me over eventually, the charming hairy bastard.
Patrick Wilson is pretty good as Ocean Master, and it's nice to see veterans like Willem Defoe and Nicole Kidman (who gets an early and very brief action scene which I reckon trumps anything in Batman vs Superman).
The story set up is all fine and straightforward, and some of the visuals are pretty impressive, especially sweeping shots of Atlantis.
When the story heads back to land at the mid point is where the films takes a bit of a nosedive.
It all just becomes a bit...boring.
It also falls into the weird "play-a-cool-song-at-random-intervals" trap that Suicide Squad enjoyed flogging to death. (Whoever decided to put that God awful hip hop cover of Africa in the mix deserves a slap)
I also feel that Black Manta was sort of wasted here. He's sidelined to make room for other story lines, which I guess is fine if he's being set up for a bigger role in future installments, but here he just feels kind of tacked on.
The last act of the film is a CGI orgy, but it stands apart from a lot of films in the genre, as it's actually colourful! The sheer scope of the last battle is absolutely absurd, so absurd that it kind of works.
The CGI in question is pretty hit and miss throughout the film - sometimes it looks horrific (young Willem Defoe is haunting) and other times, it's pretty flawless, making for some pretty good action shots.
Overall, for me, the DCEU is still struggling to leave it's mark, but Aquaman and this years Shazam seem like a small step in the right direction.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated 30 Minutes or Less (2011) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
You don’t have to be imaginative to envision the plot behind “30 Minutes or Less”, because this is a story that is wildly over told. Just listing the components make it clear that no inventive or unexpected plot devices were considered in the creation of this summer comedy. There is the pizza boy who finds himself in the wrong place at the wrong time, a set of bumbling idiots who are planning a bank heist and even a girl who is oblivious to the longstanding affection of her brother’s best friend. But somehow even with this wildly over told plot the movie manages to be sporadically very funny.
“ 30 Minutes or Less” is, like so many of the big comedy hits of the last few years, a film that centers around well crafted honest yet crass dialogue between experienced comedic actors. Timing is critical to the success of the film and thankfully the actors in “30 Minutes or Less” are funny people who repeatedly manage to execute good lines.
The cast is the shining aspect of the film; a hodgepodge crew of comedians you likely already know. The best friend Chet is portrayed by the ever funny Aziz Ansari of Televisions’ “Parks and Recreation”. The bomb clad pizza boy Nick is played by Jesse Einsenberg who also starred in “The Social Network” and “Zombieland”. And this role is not a far cry from Einsenberg’s role in “Zombieland” aside from the lack of character development and on screen chemistry leading lady Kate, played by former TV “Greek” bad girl Dilshad Vadsaria.
The film is backed by a fun soundtrack of grooves that significantly assist in maintaining a quickened pace, even when the story is less than laughably slow. There are also a number of diverse yet comedic fight scenes that spot the film, from a juvenile slap fight to the use of a blow torch.
But the smattering of creative lines, sure to be repeated in excess by the post-emo generation, did not manage to hold up this film that unfortunately ran out of steam within “30 Minutes or Less”.
“ 30 Minutes or Less” is, like so many of the big comedy hits of the last few years, a film that centers around well crafted honest yet crass dialogue between experienced comedic actors. Timing is critical to the success of the film and thankfully the actors in “30 Minutes or Less” are funny people who repeatedly manage to execute good lines.
The cast is the shining aspect of the film; a hodgepodge crew of comedians you likely already know. The best friend Chet is portrayed by the ever funny Aziz Ansari of Televisions’ “Parks and Recreation”. The bomb clad pizza boy Nick is played by Jesse Einsenberg who also starred in “The Social Network” and “Zombieland”. And this role is not a far cry from Einsenberg’s role in “Zombieland” aside from the lack of character development and on screen chemistry leading lady Kate, played by former TV “Greek” bad girl Dilshad Vadsaria.
The film is backed by a fun soundtrack of grooves that significantly assist in maintaining a quickened pace, even when the story is less than laughably slow. There are also a number of diverse yet comedic fight scenes that spot the film, from a juvenile slap fight to the use of a blow torch.
But the smattering of creative lines, sure to be repeated in excess by the post-emo generation, did not manage to hold up this film that unfortunately ran out of steam within “30 Minutes or Less”.
MP
Making Patton: A Classic War Film's Epic Journey to the Silver Screen
8.0
Rate It
Book
Forever known for its blazing cinematic image of General George S. Patton (portrayed by George C....
DaveySmithy (107 KP) rated Twisters (2024) in Movies
Dec 4, 2024
A Solid Sequel That Doesn’t Fully Capture the Storm
As a long-time fan of the original Twister (1996), I went into Twisters (2024) with a mix of excitement and trepidation. How could this sequel live up to the raw, chaotic energy of its predecessor, a film that turned storm chasing into an adrenaline-fueled spectacle? The answer, for better or worse, is that it doesn’t quite match it, but it does enough to stand on its own.
Let’s start with what works. The visual effects are undeniably stunning. The tornadoes in this film are some of the most terrifyingly realistic I’ve ever seen on screen. They’re bigger, meaner, and more chaotic than ever, and the sequences where characters are caught in their destructive path are genuinely breathtaking. If you go into Twisters just wanting jaw-dropping destruction, you won’t be disappointed.
The cast also delivers solid performances. Daisy Edgar-Jones brings a grounded vulnerability to her role as a young meteorologist trying to prove herself, while Glen Powell’s charismatic storm chaser injects some much-needed levity into the film. Their chemistry isn’t groundbreaking, but it’s believable enough to keep the human drama engaging.
However, where Twisters falters is in its attempt to replicate the heart of the original. The 1996 film had a quirky charm and a ragtag group of storm chasers you couldn’t help but root for. In contrast, the characters here feel a bit more polished and conventional, and the film takes itself too seriously at times. It’s missing some of the playful chaos and oddball humor that made the original so endearing.
The plot, while serviceable, is also a bit formulaic. The stakes are high, but the story doesn’t take many risks, and it occasionally leans too heavily on nostalgia. I couldn’t help but feel that some moments—especially the callbacks to the original—were more about fan service than moving the story forward.
That said, Twisters does succeed as a modern disaster movie. It’s thrilling, visually spectacular, and worth seeing on a big screen. While it doesn’t quite recapture the magic of its predecessor, it’s an enjoyable
Let’s start with what works. The visual effects are undeniably stunning. The tornadoes in this film are some of the most terrifyingly realistic I’ve ever seen on screen. They’re bigger, meaner, and more chaotic than ever, and the sequences where characters are caught in their destructive path are genuinely breathtaking. If you go into Twisters just wanting jaw-dropping destruction, you won’t be disappointed.
The cast also delivers solid performances. Daisy Edgar-Jones brings a grounded vulnerability to her role as a young meteorologist trying to prove herself, while Glen Powell’s charismatic storm chaser injects some much-needed levity into the film. Their chemistry isn’t groundbreaking, but it’s believable enough to keep the human drama engaging.
However, where Twisters falters is in its attempt to replicate the heart of the original. The 1996 film had a quirky charm and a ragtag group of storm chasers you couldn’t help but root for. In contrast, the characters here feel a bit more polished and conventional, and the film takes itself too seriously at times. It’s missing some of the playful chaos and oddball humor that made the original so endearing.
The plot, while serviceable, is also a bit formulaic. The stakes are high, but the story doesn’t take many risks, and it occasionally leans too heavily on nostalgia. I couldn’t help but feel that some moments—especially the callbacks to the original—were more about fan service than moving the story forward.
That said, Twisters does succeed as a modern disaster movie. It’s thrilling, visually spectacular, and worth seeing on a big screen. While it doesn’t quite recapture the magic of its predecessor, it’s an enjoyable
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.)
