Search
Search results
Darren (1599 KP) rated The Front Runner (2018) in Movies
Jul 25, 2019
Story: The Front Runner starts after Gary Hart (Jackman) has missed out on the Vice-President position, four-years later in 1987, Gary is running for the Presidency, he is the clear favourite too, his team which includes Bill Dixon (Simmons) knows it is only a matter of time before he wins, while the opposition team is looking for weakness in his reputation.
Gary’s lead starts taking a hit when an early report of a potential affair emerges and before long every single newspaper in the country is trying to cover the story on different levels, some using it as a gossip column while others just want to question his own integrity. This will see Gary’s hope of becoming President come crashing down around him.
Thoughts on The Front Runner
Characters – These characters are based on real people, which will show certain ones in good and bad lights. Senator Gary Hart is running for Presidency, is has the whole campaign under complete control, which has all but guaranteed he would become the next President of the United States. Gary has the ability to spin any story that is placed on front of him, to show that he could bring America a brighter future. Gary however does have a secret with an affair which the press turn into a big story which sees him needing to try and recover from the spiralling situation he has created with his own wrong doing. Lee Hart is the wife of Gary, she has been part of a previous separation which made her suffer enough, she has however always stood by her man with strict rules for the future. Bill Dixon is the campaign manager for Gary, that wants to keep everything simple only this becomes difficult when the truth starts to come out. The Front Runner struggles with one big problem, we have such a large cast of characters it does make it hard to keep up with the almost nameless characters, we have three or four papers and their staff, the campaign team, the people involved in the potential affair, it just becomes completely keeping up with who is who.
Performances – Hugh Jackman is great to watch in the leading role, if he was given that one scene to try and make his character truly memorable it would have put him into a stronger respected performance for the year. Vera Farmiga does everything asked of her character which she doesn’t do anything wrong with. J.K. Simmons almost feels wasted in his role which should have been larger for what is going on. Most of the performances do seem to struggle for this reason.
Story – The story here follows a presidential candidate whose life becomes filed with speculation after an alleged affair that both sides denied saw him going from a guarantee winner to needing to withdraw, changing the way politics are portrayed in the papers forever. This story does put the spotlight on the moment that saw a change in how politics and journalist operated, the film even points out in the fact that previous Presidents asked for heads to be turned about affairs, but this alleged one saw the country turn on any person that was willing to cheat. The story does show how the three weeks changed the whole race, only it does try to put way too many characters into the film which does make it hard to keep up with who each person is and what side of the story they really are on.
Biopic/History – We follow a 3 week period in Gary Hart’s life, the three weeks that took him from being the next President to the moment he withdrew wanting to keep the false accusations about him out of the papers, this shows how quickly the public can turn on people and the media can make it happen, this plays into the history side of electing a President because we see how minds suddenly changed after how previous ones had acted.
Settings – The film does use the authentic settings, show how the press would hide for a story, while Gary would use the public to put an end to the stories being made up.
Scene of the Movie – Twisting the medias words.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – Too many characters.
Final Thoughts – This is a story which does feel like it should be told to more people, only this version of the story is completely over-saturated be characters making it hard to keep up with.
Overall: Political Thriller that just doesn’t pack the punch.
Gary’s lead starts taking a hit when an early report of a potential affair emerges and before long every single newspaper in the country is trying to cover the story on different levels, some using it as a gossip column while others just want to question his own integrity. This will see Gary’s hope of becoming President come crashing down around him.
Thoughts on The Front Runner
Characters – These characters are based on real people, which will show certain ones in good and bad lights. Senator Gary Hart is running for Presidency, is has the whole campaign under complete control, which has all but guaranteed he would become the next President of the United States. Gary has the ability to spin any story that is placed on front of him, to show that he could bring America a brighter future. Gary however does have a secret with an affair which the press turn into a big story which sees him needing to try and recover from the spiralling situation he has created with his own wrong doing. Lee Hart is the wife of Gary, she has been part of a previous separation which made her suffer enough, she has however always stood by her man with strict rules for the future. Bill Dixon is the campaign manager for Gary, that wants to keep everything simple only this becomes difficult when the truth starts to come out. The Front Runner struggles with one big problem, we have such a large cast of characters it does make it hard to keep up with the almost nameless characters, we have three or four papers and their staff, the campaign team, the people involved in the potential affair, it just becomes completely keeping up with who is who.
Performances – Hugh Jackman is great to watch in the leading role, if he was given that one scene to try and make his character truly memorable it would have put him into a stronger respected performance for the year. Vera Farmiga does everything asked of her character which she doesn’t do anything wrong with. J.K. Simmons almost feels wasted in his role which should have been larger for what is going on. Most of the performances do seem to struggle for this reason.
Story – The story here follows a presidential candidate whose life becomes filed with speculation after an alleged affair that both sides denied saw him going from a guarantee winner to needing to withdraw, changing the way politics are portrayed in the papers forever. This story does put the spotlight on the moment that saw a change in how politics and journalist operated, the film even points out in the fact that previous Presidents asked for heads to be turned about affairs, but this alleged one saw the country turn on any person that was willing to cheat. The story does show how the three weeks changed the whole race, only it does try to put way too many characters into the film which does make it hard to keep up with who each person is and what side of the story they really are on.
Biopic/History – We follow a 3 week period in Gary Hart’s life, the three weeks that took him from being the next President to the moment he withdrew wanting to keep the false accusations about him out of the papers, this shows how quickly the public can turn on people and the media can make it happen, this plays into the history side of electing a President because we see how minds suddenly changed after how previous ones had acted.
Settings – The film does use the authentic settings, show how the press would hide for a story, while Gary would use the public to put an end to the stories being made up.
Scene of the Movie – Twisting the medias words.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – Too many characters.
Final Thoughts – This is a story which does feel like it should be told to more people, only this version of the story is completely over-saturated be characters making it hard to keep up with.
Overall: Political Thriller that just doesn’t pack the punch.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Finding Steve McQueen (2019) in Movies
Nov 9, 2020
This heist comedy (we'll come to that later) sounds pretty good from the synopsis, I can't really elaborate much on it like I normally would because, for once, it's spot on!
I had a big issue almost straight off the bat... "In 1972"... that's how the synopsis starts. I had reread it just before starting the film and as it begins it actually flashes up "1980", very quickly it's explained (and it makes sense) but I didn't enjoy starting the film with that confusion. Now, if I was seeing this in the cinema it wouldn't have been an issue because you don't tend to sit there in the trailers reading the synopsis before it starts, but with it hitting digital you will be instantly seeing it before you press play... I know it's a really minor thing to be bugged by... but it did bug me.
The reason for the jump in years is that we're seeing Harry Barber telling his girlfriend, Molly, the story of his past and the heist. Flashbacks are a time-honoured tradition in films, but they're difficult to get right. The story jumps several times, but there's very little differentiation between time unless the diner is involved on one side of the jump. At one point it jumps because he talks at the camera and we hop back to Molly talking, it stuck out... it either never happened again or it blended in so well that I didn't notice it. It wouldn't be the first film to add something random like that and abandon the style choice. Some else will have to let me know if it happened more than I think it did.
These two things, combined with some free moving camerawork (that you know I hate) meant that I found the beginning of Finding Steve McQueen, especially when the heist that is pushed in the marketing doesn't appear for quite a while.
IMDb lists crime thriller as a guide... thriller is definitely the wrong word. Heist comedy (as per the PR I saw) is definitely more accurate, though I didn't find it particularly funny. It did bring a mild laugh out of me, but not enough to stamp it with the comedy tag. Even "heist" feels like it doesn't fit well, it may be about one but what's presented is much heavier on other parts of the story. It's more like a biopic with romance than crime. In the end that's a little bit disappointing when you're looking forward to crime.
William Fichtner was an instant standout for me, I thought he handled the role of Enzo Rotella particularly well, and there was a great dynamic with Louis Lombardi as Pauly. Rachael Taylor as Molly Murphy was great too, when she wasn't freaking me out with how much she looked like Nicole Kidman. Somehow I've never noticed that before so I'll have to put it down to a cunning makeup artist.
From there though I was underwhelmed. I'm not familiar with Travis Fimmel, and sadly, from this performance I've not been convinced to check out anything in his back catalogue. Apart from two well-played emotional scenes I didn't enjoy the character of Harry Barber at all.
Had this been advertised as a biography instead of a crime/heist then I probably would have had a more favourable opinion, but we're presented with a slow and light film. I'm not expecting all crime films to be gritty and dark, but I do expect them to focus more on the actual crime and investigation. That's also where I found the flashback idea falling apart because we're shown things for context that Harry wouldn't have known and been able to tell Molly.
What I did love about this film was the setting and the look of everything. It had a wonderful freshness about it and that coupled with the costumes felt natural and like it captured the era perfectly.
I by no means hated this film, but I was extremely disappointed. The way the story was balanced means that the heist gets lost in everything else that's happening and although it's hailed as an amazing feat in American history it doesn't feel all that impressive in this portrayal. The only real criminal thing about this film was the underuse of Forest Whitaker.
As a biography I could have seen clear to give this a 3, maybe a 3.5, but as a crime I can't give it more than a 2. It feels entirely misrepresented, had it not been for the few excellent performances, and the hope of exciting crime drama, I think I would have turned it off.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/11/finding-steve-mcqueen-movie-review.html
I had a big issue almost straight off the bat... "In 1972"... that's how the synopsis starts. I had reread it just before starting the film and as it begins it actually flashes up "1980", very quickly it's explained (and it makes sense) but I didn't enjoy starting the film with that confusion. Now, if I was seeing this in the cinema it wouldn't have been an issue because you don't tend to sit there in the trailers reading the synopsis before it starts, but with it hitting digital you will be instantly seeing it before you press play... I know it's a really minor thing to be bugged by... but it did bug me.
The reason for the jump in years is that we're seeing Harry Barber telling his girlfriend, Molly, the story of his past and the heist. Flashbacks are a time-honoured tradition in films, but they're difficult to get right. The story jumps several times, but there's very little differentiation between time unless the diner is involved on one side of the jump. At one point it jumps because he talks at the camera and we hop back to Molly talking, it stuck out... it either never happened again or it blended in so well that I didn't notice it. It wouldn't be the first film to add something random like that and abandon the style choice. Some else will have to let me know if it happened more than I think it did.
These two things, combined with some free moving camerawork (that you know I hate) meant that I found the beginning of Finding Steve McQueen, especially when the heist that is pushed in the marketing doesn't appear for quite a while.
IMDb lists crime thriller as a guide... thriller is definitely the wrong word. Heist comedy (as per the PR I saw) is definitely more accurate, though I didn't find it particularly funny. It did bring a mild laugh out of me, but not enough to stamp it with the comedy tag. Even "heist" feels like it doesn't fit well, it may be about one but what's presented is much heavier on other parts of the story. It's more like a biopic with romance than crime. In the end that's a little bit disappointing when you're looking forward to crime.
William Fichtner was an instant standout for me, I thought he handled the role of Enzo Rotella particularly well, and there was a great dynamic with Louis Lombardi as Pauly. Rachael Taylor as Molly Murphy was great too, when she wasn't freaking me out with how much she looked like Nicole Kidman. Somehow I've never noticed that before so I'll have to put it down to a cunning makeup artist.
From there though I was underwhelmed. I'm not familiar with Travis Fimmel, and sadly, from this performance I've not been convinced to check out anything in his back catalogue. Apart from two well-played emotional scenes I didn't enjoy the character of Harry Barber at all.
Had this been advertised as a biography instead of a crime/heist then I probably would have had a more favourable opinion, but we're presented with a slow and light film. I'm not expecting all crime films to be gritty and dark, but I do expect them to focus more on the actual crime and investigation. That's also where I found the flashback idea falling apart because we're shown things for context that Harry wouldn't have known and been able to tell Molly.
What I did love about this film was the setting and the look of everything. It had a wonderful freshness about it and that coupled with the costumes felt natural and like it captured the era perfectly.
I by no means hated this film, but I was extremely disappointed. The way the story was balanced means that the heist gets lost in everything else that's happening and although it's hailed as an amazing feat in American history it doesn't feel all that impressive in this portrayal. The only real criminal thing about this film was the underuse of Forest Whitaker.
As a biography I could have seen clear to give this a 3, maybe a 3.5, but as a crime I can't give it more than a 2. It feels entirely misrepresented, had it not been for the few excellent performances, and the hope of exciting crime drama, I think I would have turned it off.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/11/finding-steve-mcqueen-movie-review.html
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated First Man (2018) in Movies
Sep 25, 2019
I have put off writing this review because I honestly didn't know what, or more precisely how to sum up my feelings about this movie. That's not a typo at the top. I'm giving this one star, and honestly I nearly didn't even give it that.
Previously I've mentioned that I will happily sit through a movie bawling my eyes out. I hadn't quite realised how important it was to have good characters behind the emotional pieces. Twice this movie brought a tear to my eye, and neither were when I particularly expected. I'll circle back round to one of those in a moment.
It is entirely possible that how these people were portrayed is accurate to real life, I honestly don't know much about the people apart from what most around the world know. I could make no emotional connection with them. So much so that at the beginning of the film when we have our first opportunity to sympathise with them I was left frowning at the screen wondering how this devastating story line left me not caring.
The redeeming feature in this film was the Armstrong's oldest son. For the most part they're just around in the periphery of the story, after all most people are there for the space film not the biopic, but he earned this star. Janet makes Neil talk to their sons about the mission he's about to leave for, the boy is just old enough to know what it might mean, how dangerous it is, and in that moment he gave a brilliant performance and I could feel his sadness and anger.
Until I saw Blade Runner 2049 I had not seen Ryan Gosling in a film in 15 years. (I have seen Murder By Numbers but didn't realise he was in it until about five minutes ago.) From that one film I was sold on him as an actor, he played that part really well and I could almost forgive him for doing La La Land. (I have not seen La La Land. However, thanks to the film's sponsorship of drama on ITV2 at a peak moment in time for series I was watching, I have seen the trailer hundreds of times and vowed never to watch it.) Gosling's role in this pained me. As I said, I don't know the people this film is based on, his portrayal of Armstrong could be entirely accurate but I didn't find anything about it believable. His devastation at the beginning of the movie appeared like it should have been a genuine heartbreak for him, and yet his performance didn't reflect that at all apart from some unconvincing wailing.
Claire Foy's Janet Armstrong, again, could be accurate I honestly don't know. Listening to her spend a lot of her time getting angry left me frustrated. Anger is a strong emotion, yet it was another performance that didn't leave me identifying with her pain. I knew where it should have been, but I couldn't find it in any of the scenes.
I feel like I could go on about this for ages. Originally I was going to give First Man two stars, which on my score card is for films that I didn't like but I can see that they're well done and could appeal to other people. Usually that would mean the subject matter isn't too my liking but the performances were good... well. Yeah.
While I can understand the chaotic nature of shuttle's in flight, starting a film with camera shots that are so violently shaky that you can't tell what's going on didn't sit well with me. From the very start you're left confused and not knowing exactly who or what you're watching. Unfortunately that was not the only time that shot was used. The film didn't seem glossy, if that makes sense. It's a film in 2018, we want to see the past in glorious high definition, but everything felt a little retro in an old kind of way. Shaky camera was a constant feature and when we see the exterior shots of the module in space I honestly though I was watching a less technicolour version of Red Dwarf. With one main difference, I like Red Dwarf.
Lots of production choices make sense to some degree. When we go from the landing to getting down on to the moon there is silence. I can see that silence would be a good tool in what is essentially nothingness. But would it have been silent? Wouldn't they have heard console beeping, com channels, and the sound of their own breathing? The silence was deafening, and dull.
When I came out of the film I really couldn't reconcile what I'd seen with what people had been raving about. There was no redeeming feature for me. So much potential telling a story that everyone knows, but doesn't really, and I was left with a bad taste in my mouth and the desire to watch Apollo 13 to reassure myself that there were better films out there.
What you should do
You're going to go and see it because everyone thinks it's amazing. You shouldn't bother. Don't watch it on DVD, don't watch it streaming... buy yourself a copy of Apollo 13 instead.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
I want nothing from this film. Anything I could have would be a horrible reminder of me wasting my time at the cinema.
Previously I've mentioned that I will happily sit through a movie bawling my eyes out. I hadn't quite realised how important it was to have good characters behind the emotional pieces. Twice this movie brought a tear to my eye, and neither were when I particularly expected. I'll circle back round to one of those in a moment.
It is entirely possible that how these people were portrayed is accurate to real life, I honestly don't know much about the people apart from what most around the world know. I could make no emotional connection with them. So much so that at the beginning of the film when we have our first opportunity to sympathise with them I was left frowning at the screen wondering how this devastating story line left me not caring.
The redeeming feature in this film was the Armstrong's oldest son. For the most part they're just around in the periphery of the story, after all most people are there for the space film not the biopic, but he earned this star. Janet makes Neil talk to their sons about the mission he's about to leave for, the boy is just old enough to know what it might mean, how dangerous it is, and in that moment he gave a brilliant performance and I could feel his sadness and anger.
Until I saw Blade Runner 2049 I had not seen Ryan Gosling in a film in 15 years. (I have seen Murder By Numbers but didn't realise he was in it until about five minutes ago.) From that one film I was sold on him as an actor, he played that part really well and I could almost forgive him for doing La La Land. (I have not seen La La Land. However, thanks to the film's sponsorship of drama on ITV2 at a peak moment in time for series I was watching, I have seen the trailer hundreds of times and vowed never to watch it.) Gosling's role in this pained me. As I said, I don't know the people this film is based on, his portrayal of Armstrong could be entirely accurate but I didn't find anything about it believable. His devastation at the beginning of the movie appeared like it should have been a genuine heartbreak for him, and yet his performance didn't reflect that at all apart from some unconvincing wailing.
Claire Foy's Janet Armstrong, again, could be accurate I honestly don't know. Listening to her spend a lot of her time getting angry left me frustrated. Anger is a strong emotion, yet it was another performance that didn't leave me identifying with her pain. I knew where it should have been, but I couldn't find it in any of the scenes.
I feel like I could go on about this for ages. Originally I was going to give First Man two stars, which on my score card is for films that I didn't like but I can see that they're well done and could appeal to other people. Usually that would mean the subject matter isn't too my liking but the performances were good... well. Yeah.
While I can understand the chaotic nature of shuttle's in flight, starting a film with camera shots that are so violently shaky that you can't tell what's going on didn't sit well with me. From the very start you're left confused and not knowing exactly who or what you're watching. Unfortunately that was not the only time that shot was used. The film didn't seem glossy, if that makes sense. It's a film in 2018, we want to see the past in glorious high definition, but everything felt a little retro in an old kind of way. Shaky camera was a constant feature and when we see the exterior shots of the module in space I honestly though I was watching a less technicolour version of Red Dwarf. With one main difference, I like Red Dwarf.
Lots of production choices make sense to some degree. When we go from the landing to getting down on to the moon there is silence. I can see that silence would be a good tool in what is essentially nothingness. But would it have been silent? Wouldn't they have heard console beeping, com channels, and the sound of their own breathing? The silence was deafening, and dull.
When I came out of the film I really couldn't reconcile what I'd seen with what people had been raving about. There was no redeeming feature for me. So much potential telling a story that everyone knows, but doesn't really, and I was left with a bad taste in my mouth and the desire to watch Apollo 13 to reassure myself that there were better films out there.
What you should do
You're going to go and see it because everyone thinks it's amazing. You shouldn't bother. Don't watch it on DVD, don't watch it streaming... buy yourself a copy of Apollo 13 instead.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
I want nothing from this film. Anything I could have would be a horrible reminder of me wasting my time at the cinema.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Bohemian Rhapsody (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
“Fame and fortune and everything that goes with it”.
Sometimes a trailer generates a bit of a buzz of excitement with a cinema audience and the first showings of the trailer for “Bohemian Rhapsody” was a case in point. But would the film live up to the potential?
The Plot
Farrokh Bulsara (Rami Malek), born in Zanzibar to Indian parents, is a shy boy with a dramatic singing voice. At a concert he meets Mary (Lucy Boynton) who becomes the “love of his life”. When a space for a lead singer becomes available in a college band, Farrokh leaps at the chance and onstage becomes an exuberant extrovert. The band, of course, changes its name to Queen and with Farrokh assuming the name of Freddie Mercury they are set for global success. But Freddie is a complex character, and the demands and temptations of global super-stardom take a terrible toll.
The Review
Wow! What a great film on so many different levels. As a biopic of Mercury and a history of one of the greatest ever rock bands, the film is highly entertaining. But I wasn’t prepared for how emotional I would find it. Mercury’s life is befitting of a Shakespearian tragedy: an estrangement from his ‘conservative’ father (Ace Bhatti); a public extravert, but privately an insecure and needy bi-sexual, constantly searching for his perch in life; a meteoric rise and an equally spectacular and historic fall.
Do you remember where you were (if anywhere!) during the historic Live Aid concert at Wembley in July 1985? My eagle-minded wife had to remind me that we were travelling to Hampshire to house hunt because of my graduate job offer from IBM Hursley Park. My 3 month old daughter was rolling around, unstrapped, in a carry cot on the back seat: different times; different rules! Why this is relevant is that the film culminates in a recreation of the band’s spectacular 20 minute set for 1985’s Live Aid concert at Wembley. It’s a spectacular piece of cinema and one that – for me – puts the much hyped concert scenes from “A Star is Born” back in its box. Aside from a few niggles (the sound engineers in the booth were, if I’m not mistaken, all the size of Hagrid!) it’s a spectacular piece of CGI work.
It’s also worth remembering that whilst today’s massive stadium concerts from the likes of Adele and Coldplay are commonplace, back in the UK of 1985 most of the bands played in more traditional theatre venues: this really was an historic event on so many levels.
If I’m being critical, there are a few bits of the movie that are a tad tacky and twee. A whizz around the world of tour locations is composed of some pretty ropy animations that didn’t work for me. And a few of the ‘creations’ of classic songs – particularly “Another One Bites the Dust” – are a bit forced. Countering that though, the “Bohemian Rhapsody” is mesmerising.
The Turns
I’ll just put it right out there, Rami Malek is just sensational as Mercury! I first called out Malek as someone to watch in “Need For Speed“, but since then he’s gone on to major fame in the TV series “Mr Robot”. Here he is a force of nature on the screen and you literally can’t take your eyes off him. Every nuance of Mercury’s tortured soul is up there. I would love to see the performance recognized in the Awards season, with the showreel clip being a brilliant standoff in the rain with Paul Prenter (“Downton’s” Allen Leech).
The rest of the band – Ben Hardy as drummer Roger Taylor; Gwilym Lee as lead guitar Brian May; and Joseph Mazzello (yes, young Tim from “Jurassic Park”!) as bass guitarist John Deacon – all work well together, with Lee looking more like Brian May than Brian May!
Lucy Boynton, so great in “Sing Street“, gets a meaty dramatic role to sink her teeth into, and the ever-reliable Tom Hollander is great as the band’s legal rep/manager Jim “Miami” Beech: his ‘knowing looks’ near the end of the film are brilliantly done.
The surprise piece of casting though was the very welcome return of Mike Myers as the exec Ray Foster: only seen spasmodically on screen since 2009’s “Inglorious Basterds”. It’s a role that reminded me of Tom Cruise‘s turn in “Tropic Thunder”! But it’s well done. After making “Bohemian Rhapsody” famous again in “Wayne’s World”, how could he have refused? I say “Welcome back Mr Myers”: you’ve been missed.
And a final shout out to Paul Jones, my son-in-law’s brother, who gets a full screen appearance in the crowd, arms outstretched, during the “Fat Bottomed Girls” set! (I must admit, I missed it, so will have to go and see it again!)
Final Thoughts
This is a film that grabs you and propels you through the story at a fast lick. It’s a surprisingly moving story, with a well-known and tragic finale. It’s not a perfect film, but it is up there wih the year’s best as a high-energy cinema experience.
The Plot
Farrokh Bulsara (Rami Malek), born in Zanzibar to Indian parents, is a shy boy with a dramatic singing voice. At a concert he meets Mary (Lucy Boynton) who becomes the “love of his life”. When a space for a lead singer becomes available in a college band, Farrokh leaps at the chance and onstage becomes an exuberant extrovert. The band, of course, changes its name to Queen and with Farrokh assuming the name of Freddie Mercury they are set for global success. But Freddie is a complex character, and the demands and temptations of global super-stardom take a terrible toll.
The Review
Wow! What a great film on so many different levels. As a biopic of Mercury and a history of one of the greatest ever rock bands, the film is highly entertaining. But I wasn’t prepared for how emotional I would find it. Mercury’s life is befitting of a Shakespearian tragedy: an estrangement from his ‘conservative’ father (Ace Bhatti); a public extravert, but privately an insecure and needy bi-sexual, constantly searching for his perch in life; a meteoric rise and an equally spectacular and historic fall.
Do you remember where you were (if anywhere!) during the historic Live Aid concert at Wembley in July 1985? My eagle-minded wife had to remind me that we were travelling to Hampshire to house hunt because of my graduate job offer from IBM Hursley Park. My 3 month old daughter was rolling around, unstrapped, in a carry cot on the back seat: different times; different rules! Why this is relevant is that the film culminates in a recreation of the band’s spectacular 20 minute set for 1985’s Live Aid concert at Wembley. It’s a spectacular piece of cinema and one that – for me – puts the much hyped concert scenes from “A Star is Born” back in its box. Aside from a few niggles (the sound engineers in the booth were, if I’m not mistaken, all the size of Hagrid!) it’s a spectacular piece of CGI work.
It’s also worth remembering that whilst today’s massive stadium concerts from the likes of Adele and Coldplay are commonplace, back in the UK of 1985 most of the bands played in more traditional theatre venues: this really was an historic event on so many levels.
If I’m being critical, there are a few bits of the movie that are a tad tacky and twee. A whizz around the world of tour locations is composed of some pretty ropy animations that didn’t work for me. And a few of the ‘creations’ of classic songs – particularly “Another One Bites the Dust” – are a bit forced. Countering that though, the “Bohemian Rhapsody” is mesmerising.
The Turns
I’ll just put it right out there, Rami Malek is just sensational as Mercury! I first called out Malek as someone to watch in “Need For Speed“, but since then he’s gone on to major fame in the TV series “Mr Robot”. Here he is a force of nature on the screen and you literally can’t take your eyes off him. Every nuance of Mercury’s tortured soul is up there. I would love to see the performance recognized in the Awards season, with the showreel clip being a brilliant standoff in the rain with Paul Prenter (“Downton’s” Allen Leech).
The rest of the band – Ben Hardy as drummer Roger Taylor; Gwilym Lee as lead guitar Brian May; and Joseph Mazzello (yes, young Tim from “Jurassic Park”!) as bass guitarist John Deacon – all work well together, with Lee looking more like Brian May than Brian May!
Lucy Boynton, so great in “Sing Street“, gets a meaty dramatic role to sink her teeth into, and the ever-reliable Tom Hollander is great as the band’s legal rep/manager Jim “Miami” Beech: his ‘knowing looks’ near the end of the film are brilliantly done.
The surprise piece of casting though was the very welcome return of Mike Myers as the exec Ray Foster: only seen spasmodically on screen since 2009’s “Inglorious Basterds”. It’s a role that reminded me of Tom Cruise‘s turn in “Tropic Thunder”! But it’s well done. After making “Bohemian Rhapsody” famous again in “Wayne’s World”, how could he have refused? I say “Welcome back Mr Myers”: you’ve been missed.
And a final shout out to Paul Jones, my son-in-law’s brother, who gets a full screen appearance in the crowd, arms outstretched, during the “Fat Bottomed Girls” set! (I must admit, I missed it, so will have to go and see it again!)
Final Thoughts
This is a film that grabs you and propels you through the story at a fast lick. It’s a surprisingly moving story, with a well-known and tragic finale. It’s not a perfect film, but it is up there wih the year’s best as a high-energy cinema experience.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Spencer (2021) in Movies
Nov 11, 2021
Diana hits rock bottom… as does the script.
Discordant strings sound as the royal party arrives at Sandringham for Christmas. “Is she here yet” intones the Queen. “No ma’am” her major domo replies. “Then she’s late”. Cut to a soulful choral version of “Perfect Day” as Diana Princess of Wales (née Spencer) arrives via a dramatic aerial shot. Hugs go to her sons William and Harry before she unhappily stalks through the corridors like a hunted animal.
This is the second movie in a row that I’ve intro’d via a positive emotional response to a great trailer. In the last case – for “Last Night in Soho” – the movie more than lived up to my high expectations from the trailer. But here – oh dear! It comes to something where the very best thing about the film is the trailer.
For, unfortunately for me, this came across as pretentious, vaguely insulting and with a dreadful script.
Plot Summary:
It’s Christmas 1991 at the Sandringham estate. Diana (Kristen Stewart) is the black sheep of the royal family, flouting tradition and always late for every formal event. She sees conspiracies at every turn, suspecting the household coordinator Major Gregory (Timothy Spall) of plotting against her. Her only allies that she can talk to are head chef Darren (Sean Harris) and her dresser Maggie (Sally Hawkins).
Mentally unstable, bulimic and self-harming, Diana must survive a tumultuous three days without destroying the Christmas spirit for her two sons and irreparably damaging her relationship with the wider royal family.
Certification:
US: R. UK: 12A.
Talent:
Starring: Kristen Stewart, Timothy Spall, Sally Hawkins, Jack Farthing, Sean Harris.
Directed by: Pablo Larraín.
Written by: Steven Knight.
“Spencer” Review: Positives:
Kristen Stewart does a simply fabulous job of impersonating Diana. She’s clearly studied a lot of video of the lady in getting to mimic the way she looks, walks and dances. Although I didn’t rate the film, the performance is a cut-above.
It’s an ironic touch that in all of her driving scenes, Diana never wears a seat-belt.
Negatives:
Oh man, Steven Knight’s dialogue here I found to be simply atrocious. Head-in-the-hands bad. I decided about half way through this monstrosity that “The Room” had had its day as a cult student classic, and that “Spencer” should take over in that role.
These things evolve organically over time, but I came up with the following basic rules for a student showing:
Every time Kristen Stewart does a ‘simp’ look to camera, down a shot;
When Darren utters the line “What are you going to do with wirecutters?” the audience yells as one “CUT WIRE!” **;
When Diana intones “Beauty is useless. Beauty is clothing”** the audience should strip to their underwear;
Every time a member of the hunt shouts “PULL!” you throw a stuffed pheasant in the air. Otherwise you keep the stuffed pheasant next to you, and engage in studious conversation with it as the film progresses;
Whenever Anne Boleyn appears, shout “OFF WITH HER HEAD”;
When a character says to Diana “I love you. And yes, in that way”**, the audience must shout “Aye aye” and every female audience member needs to passionately kiss another female audience member; and finally…
When Diana says “Leave Me. I want to masturbate”**, the audience throws dildos at the screen.
** I’d really like to pretend that I made these lines up. They might be paraphrased a bit, but honestly, that’s the gist!
Oh yes. It’s a sure-fire student classic of the future. You read it here first folks! I can see the filmmakers lauding me with praise for turning their movie into a post-release sleeper hit. “WHAT A CULT” they shout at me. “WHAT A CULT”!
The rest of the cast do a good enough job with what they have, but have the general vibe of being embarrassed to deliver the dialogue they’ve been given. Sean Harris – a fine actor – inexplicably spouts Shakespeare like Christopher Plummer in “Star Trek VI”! And one can only assume that Timothy Spall was given direction to act as if he had a whole lemon stuck inside his mouth for the whole movie.
I’ve been a fan of Jonny Greenwood’s music in other movies like “Phantom Thread“. I’ve seen Mark Kermode describe this soundtrack as “fantastic”. But, for me, the intrusive atonal strings and laid-back jazz vibe just didn’t work for me at all.
Summary Thoughts on “Spencer”
As you can probably tell, I hated this one. And the illustrious Mrs Movie Man 100% agrees with me in this assessment. The trailer promised a lot, but the movie delivered very little for me. It just all felt to me like an affront to the memory of Diana. Making a highly fictitious “fable based on a real life tragedy” just feels wrong. This seems particularly the case when the Queen, Prince Charles and (particularly) William and Harry are alive to watch it. What must they think if and when they get to view this?
I was a big fan of Larrain’s 2017 biopic on Jackie Kennedy – “Jackie” – which really covered the very similar ground, of a lady in the focus of publicity struggling with mental illness. But at least that had the benefit of historical distance.
I seem to be swimming against the critical tide here, since the movie currently has an IMDB rating of 7.4/10. But frankly, for me, I thought the recent series of “The Crown” did this so much better.
This is the second movie in a row that I’ve intro’d via a positive emotional response to a great trailer. In the last case – for “Last Night in Soho” – the movie more than lived up to my high expectations from the trailer. But here – oh dear! It comes to something where the very best thing about the film is the trailer.
For, unfortunately for me, this came across as pretentious, vaguely insulting and with a dreadful script.
Plot Summary:
It’s Christmas 1991 at the Sandringham estate. Diana (Kristen Stewart) is the black sheep of the royal family, flouting tradition and always late for every formal event. She sees conspiracies at every turn, suspecting the household coordinator Major Gregory (Timothy Spall) of plotting against her. Her only allies that she can talk to are head chef Darren (Sean Harris) and her dresser Maggie (Sally Hawkins).
Mentally unstable, bulimic and self-harming, Diana must survive a tumultuous three days without destroying the Christmas spirit for her two sons and irreparably damaging her relationship with the wider royal family.
Certification:
US: R. UK: 12A.
Talent:
Starring: Kristen Stewart, Timothy Spall, Sally Hawkins, Jack Farthing, Sean Harris.
Directed by: Pablo Larraín.
Written by: Steven Knight.
“Spencer” Review: Positives:
Kristen Stewart does a simply fabulous job of impersonating Diana. She’s clearly studied a lot of video of the lady in getting to mimic the way she looks, walks and dances. Although I didn’t rate the film, the performance is a cut-above.
It’s an ironic touch that in all of her driving scenes, Diana never wears a seat-belt.
Negatives:
Oh man, Steven Knight’s dialogue here I found to be simply atrocious. Head-in-the-hands bad. I decided about half way through this monstrosity that “The Room” had had its day as a cult student classic, and that “Spencer” should take over in that role.
These things evolve organically over time, but I came up with the following basic rules for a student showing:
Every time Kristen Stewart does a ‘simp’ look to camera, down a shot;
When Darren utters the line “What are you going to do with wirecutters?” the audience yells as one “CUT WIRE!” **;
When Diana intones “Beauty is useless. Beauty is clothing”** the audience should strip to their underwear;
Every time a member of the hunt shouts “PULL!” you throw a stuffed pheasant in the air. Otherwise you keep the stuffed pheasant next to you, and engage in studious conversation with it as the film progresses;
Whenever Anne Boleyn appears, shout “OFF WITH HER HEAD”;
When a character says to Diana “I love you. And yes, in that way”**, the audience must shout “Aye aye” and every female audience member needs to passionately kiss another female audience member; and finally…
When Diana says “Leave Me. I want to masturbate”**, the audience throws dildos at the screen.
** I’d really like to pretend that I made these lines up. They might be paraphrased a bit, but honestly, that’s the gist!
Oh yes. It’s a sure-fire student classic of the future. You read it here first folks! I can see the filmmakers lauding me with praise for turning their movie into a post-release sleeper hit. “WHAT A CULT” they shout at me. “WHAT A CULT”!
The rest of the cast do a good enough job with what they have, but have the general vibe of being embarrassed to deliver the dialogue they’ve been given. Sean Harris – a fine actor – inexplicably spouts Shakespeare like Christopher Plummer in “Star Trek VI”! And one can only assume that Timothy Spall was given direction to act as if he had a whole lemon stuck inside his mouth for the whole movie.
I’ve been a fan of Jonny Greenwood’s music in other movies like “Phantom Thread“. I’ve seen Mark Kermode describe this soundtrack as “fantastic”. But, for me, the intrusive atonal strings and laid-back jazz vibe just didn’t work for me at all.
Summary Thoughts on “Spencer”
As you can probably tell, I hated this one. And the illustrious Mrs Movie Man 100% agrees with me in this assessment. The trailer promised a lot, but the movie delivered very little for me. It just all felt to me like an affront to the memory of Diana. Making a highly fictitious “fable based on a real life tragedy” just feels wrong. This seems particularly the case when the Queen, Prince Charles and (particularly) William and Harry are alive to watch it. What must they think if and when they get to view this?
I was a big fan of Larrain’s 2017 biopic on Jackie Kennedy – “Jackie” – which really covered the very similar ground, of a lady in the focus of publicity struggling with mental illness. But at least that had the benefit of historical distance.
I seem to be swimming against the critical tide here, since the movie currently has an IMDB rating of 7.4/10. But frankly, for me, I thought the recent series of “The Crown” did this so much better.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Instant Family (2019) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Enjoyable and harmless comedy laced with a degree of sentimentality.
The Plot
Pete (Mark Wahlberg) and Ellie (Rose Byrne) are focused and business-oriented home designers. They’ve talked about having kids “sometime in the future” but the years – as years are want to do – are motoring away from them. Pete is concerned that if they have their own kids now then he will end up being an “old dad” (cue very funny, black-comedy, flashback). This leads them into contact with the State’s fostering service – led by Karen (Octavia Spencer) and Sharon (Tig Notaro) – and they progress into foster training. This introduces into their ‘perfect adult lives’ 15-year old Lizzy (Isabela Moner) and her younger siblings Juan (Gustavo Quiroz) and Lita (Julianna Gamiz). As these guys come from a troubled background Pete and Ellie find they have their work cut out. Who will crack first?
The turns
You’ve got to admire Mark Wahlberg as an actor. In the same vein as Steve Carell, he seems to be able to flex from dramatic (in his case, tough-guy action roles) to comedy without a blink. He’s nowhere near the calibre of actor as Carell, but he brings to all his roles a sense of menace – derived no doubt from his torrid criminal background in younger days. (His wiki page makes your eyes water: there’s a great biopic screenplay waiting to be written there! ) It must have made the kid actor who plays Charlie (Carson Holmes) actually soil himself at a key point in the film!
Wahlberg and the excellent Rose Byrne make a believable driven-couple, and Byrne has such a range of expressive faces that she can’t help but make you laugh.
Of the child actors, Nickelodeon star Isabella Moner shines with genuine brilliance, both in terms of her acting as the fiercely loyal Lizzy but also in terms of her musical ability (she sings the impressive end-title song). With Hollywood in ‘post-La-La-Showman: Here we go again’ mode, this is a talented young lady I predict might be in big demand over the next few years.
Top of my list of the most stupid “where the hell have I seen her before bang-my-head-against-the-cinema-wall” moments is the actress playing Ellie’s mother Jan. She is OF COURSE Julie Hagerty, air-hostess supreme from “Airplane!”.
Also good value, and topping my list of “I know her from lots of films but don’t know her name” is Margo Martindale* as Pete’s exuberant and easily bought mother Sandy. (*Must write this out 100 times before her picture appears in the Picturehouse Harbour Lights film quiz!).
A well-crafty script with some wayward characters
The script by director Sean (“Daddy’s Home”) Anders and John Morris zips along at a fine pace, albeit in a wholly predictable direction. It helps that I struggle the think of many films about the adoption process itself. Sure there have been lots of movies about children that have been adopted – Manchester By The Sea and Lion being two recent examples – but the only film I can immediately think of (and not in a good way) with foster care at its heart was the Katherine Heigl comedy from a few years ago “Life as we know it”. So this is good movie territory to mine.
There are some fine running jokes, notably young Juan’s penchant for constantly getting injured. However, the script also lapses as did Anders’ “Daddy’s Home 2” from last year – into moments of slushy sentimentality. (My dear departed Dad always used to affect an exaggerated snore at such points, and I could hear him in my head at regular intervals during the film!). I would have preferred a harder and blacker edge to the comedy: something that last year’s excellent “Game Night” pulled off so well.
There are also a couple of characters in the film that were poorly scripted and which just didn’t work. While Octavia Spencer was fine (channelling an almost identical version of her wisecracking and sardonic character from “The Shape of Water“), I just had no idea what her colleague Sharon (Tig Notaro) was supposed to be. The tone was all over the place. Similarly, who should pop up on a balcony in an unexpected cameo but the great Joan Cusack. And very funny she is too for the 10 second interruption. But the writers having got her there just couldn’t leave alone and we get a plain embarrassing extended interruption that strikes a duff note in the flow of the film.
Summary
The film is amusing and harmless without taxing many brain cells. Most notably unlike many so-called American ‘comedies’ it did actually make me laugh at multiple points. I should also point out that my wife absolutely loved it, rating it a strong 4* going on 5*.
But the really cute thing is that…
…the film is “inspired by a true family”: namely Anders’ own. He and his wife fostered three kids out of the US foster service, so the script is undoubtedly loosely based on their own experiences, which give it an extra impact for some of Peter and Ellie’s lines. In an essay for TIME (source: bustle.com) Anders wrote:
My wife Beth and I had been talking for years about whether we should have kids,” he wrote. “For the longest time we just felt like we couldn’t afford it. Then I sold a couple of scripts and was feeling like I might have a career, but we were in our 40s and worried we had left it too long. We knew kids would make our life bigger, so one day I joked, ‘Why don’t we just adopt a five-year-old and it will be like we got started five years ago?'”
It gives you a completely different perspective on the film knowing this. My wife after the film was saying “I’m not sure how accurately it portrays the fostering process”. But it clearly does.
Pete (Mark Wahlberg) and Ellie (Rose Byrne) are focused and business-oriented home designers. They’ve talked about having kids “sometime in the future” but the years – as years are want to do – are motoring away from them. Pete is concerned that if they have their own kids now then he will end up being an “old dad” (cue very funny, black-comedy, flashback). This leads them into contact with the State’s fostering service – led by Karen (Octavia Spencer) and Sharon (Tig Notaro) – and they progress into foster training. This introduces into their ‘perfect adult lives’ 15-year old Lizzy (Isabela Moner) and her younger siblings Juan (Gustavo Quiroz) and Lita (Julianna Gamiz). As these guys come from a troubled background Pete and Ellie find they have their work cut out. Who will crack first?
The turns
You’ve got to admire Mark Wahlberg as an actor. In the same vein as Steve Carell, he seems to be able to flex from dramatic (in his case, tough-guy action roles) to comedy without a blink. He’s nowhere near the calibre of actor as Carell, but he brings to all his roles a sense of menace – derived no doubt from his torrid criminal background in younger days. (His wiki page makes your eyes water: there’s a great biopic screenplay waiting to be written there! ) It must have made the kid actor who plays Charlie (Carson Holmes) actually soil himself at a key point in the film!
Wahlberg and the excellent Rose Byrne make a believable driven-couple, and Byrne has such a range of expressive faces that she can’t help but make you laugh.
Of the child actors, Nickelodeon star Isabella Moner shines with genuine brilliance, both in terms of her acting as the fiercely loyal Lizzy but also in terms of her musical ability (she sings the impressive end-title song). With Hollywood in ‘post-La-La-Showman: Here we go again’ mode, this is a talented young lady I predict might be in big demand over the next few years.
Top of my list of the most stupid “where the hell have I seen her before bang-my-head-against-the-cinema-wall” moments is the actress playing Ellie’s mother Jan. She is OF COURSE Julie Hagerty, air-hostess supreme from “Airplane!”.
Also good value, and topping my list of “I know her from lots of films but don’t know her name” is Margo Martindale* as Pete’s exuberant and easily bought mother Sandy. (*Must write this out 100 times before her picture appears in the Picturehouse Harbour Lights film quiz!).
A well-crafty script with some wayward characters
The script by director Sean (“Daddy’s Home”) Anders and John Morris zips along at a fine pace, albeit in a wholly predictable direction. It helps that I struggle the think of many films about the adoption process itself. Sure there have been lots of movies about children that have been adopted – Manchester By The Sea and Lion being two recent examples – but the only film I can immediately think of (and not in a good way) with foster care at its heart was the Katherine Heigl comedy from a few years ago “Life as we know it”. So this is good movie territory to mine.
There are some fine running jokes, notably young Juan’s penchant for constantly getting injured. However, the script also lapses as did Anders’ “Daddy’s Home 2” from last year – into moments of slushy sentimentality. (My dear departed Dad always used to affect an exaggerated snore at such points, and I could hear him in my head at regular intervals during the film!). I would have preferred a harder and blacker edge to the comedy: something that last year’s excellent “Game Night” pulled off so well.
There are also a couple of characters in the film that were poorly scripted and which just didn’t work. While Octavia Spencer was fine (channelling an almost identical version of her wisecracking and sardonic character from “The Shape of Water“), I just had no idea what her colleague Sharon (Tig Notaro) was supposed to be. The tone was all over the place. Similarly, who should pop up on a balcony in an unexpected cameo but the great Joan Cusack. And very funny she is too for the 10 second interruption. But the writers having got her there just couldn’t leave alone and we get a plain embarrassing extended interruption that strikes a duff note in the flow of the film.
Summary
The film is amusing and harmless without taxing many brain cells. Most notably unlike many so-called American ‘comedies’ it did actually make me laugh at multiple points. I should also point out that my wife absolutely loved it, rating it a strong 4* going on 5*.
But the really cute thing is that…
…the film is “inspired by a true family”: namely Anders’ own. He and his wife fostered three kids out of the US foster service, so the script is undoubtedly loosely based on their own experiences, which give it an extra impact for some of Peter and Ellie’s lines. In an essay for TIME (source: bustle.com) Anders wrote:
My wife Beth and I had been talking for years about whether we should have kids,” he wrote. “For the longest time we just felt like we couldn’t afford it. Then I sold a couple of scripts and was feeling like I might have a career, but we were in our 40s and worried we had left it too long. We knew kids would make our life bigger, so one day I joked, ‘Why don’t we just adopt a five-year-old and it will be like we got started five years ago?'”
It gives you a completely different perspective on the film knowing this. My wife after the film was saying “I’m not sure how accurately it portrays the fostering process”. But it clearly does.
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.)
