Search
Search results
Portuguese Pretati - Speak with Audio Translation
Travel and Reference
App
The Portuguese Pretati app is great for foreign travelers and those wanting to learn how to speak...
Cambodian Pretati - Khmer with Audio Translation
Travel and Reference
App
The Cambodian Pretati app is great for foreign travelers and those wanting to learn how to speak the...
Thai Pretati - Speak Thai Audio Translation
Travel and Education
App
The Thai Pretati app is great for foreign travelers and those wanting to learn how to speak the Thai...
German Pretati - Speak with Audio Translation
Travel and Reference
App
The German Pretati app is great for foreign travelers and those wanting to learn how to speak the...
Hebrew Pretati - Speak with Audio Translation
Travel and Reference
App
The Hebrew Pretati app is great for foreign travelers and those wanting to learn how to speak the...
Chinese Pretati - Speak with Audio Translation
Travel and Reference
App
The Chinese Pretati app is great for foreign travelers and those wanting to learn how to speak the...
A Very Woodsy Murder
10.0
Rate It
Book
From Agatha Award-winning author Ellen Byron, a hilarious new series featuring a sitcom writer who...
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.)
TheDefunctDiva (304 KP) rated The Cooler (2003) in Movies
Sep 26, 2017
C is for Cash Money
Contains spoilers, click to show
As a tribute to Sue Grafton, I shall use the alphabet to inspire catchy titles. Because I am a nerd like that. Caution, ye land lubbers: ahead be spoilers. Proceed at your own risk.
The Cooler is a tale of contrast: good luck is pitted against bad luck, and old is seen in stark contrast to new. We are immediately introduced to Bernie Lootz, an individual with such phenomenally bad luck that it is actually contagious. Bound by obligation and a misguided sense of loyalty to his boss, Shelly Kaplow, Bernie works at the Golden Shangri-La Casino as a “cooler.” His presence at a table can cause a winning streak to instantaneously turn sour. The unfortunate Bernie is no stranger to pain: his boss and supposed friend, Shelly, once shattered his kneecap with a baseball bat. Bernie also has great difficulty with his other personal relationships. His estranged son, with whom Bernie hopes for reconciliation, immediately swindles the hapless fellow.
To make matters worse for Bernie, who wants nothing more than to be done with Vegas, Shelly is battling his own brand of misfortune. New management is suggesting a re-haul of the establishment he helmed for 16 years. Shelly argues for the casino to limp along as it is, and maintain the traditions originated by the mafia. He desperately and unfairly clings to Bernie, who remains an unwilling symbol of these old practices.
William H. Macy breaks my heart in every movie that I've seen him in. This film, where Macy expertly depicts the "unluckiest man in Vegas," offers no exception to that rule. There is a familiar vulnerability he lends to each facial expression that simultaneously earns my respect and pity. Bernie Lootz is a human being with a seemingly supernatural ability to receive, harness, and project bad luck. This requires some suspension of disbelief on the part of the viewer, and Macy is one of the few actors capable of making such a concept convincing.
Maria Bello is cast alongside Macy as a waitress and Bernie's love interest, Natalie. As often mentioned in the script, she seems entirely out of Bernie's league. And yet, the skilled actors created a romance which seemed entirely natural after the first evening's awkwardness. And as the two progress to love, Lootz's luck begins to change, as it does for the Casino patrons he comes into contact with. His presence becomes a blessing instead of a curse, putting his unwanted career path and his lady love in danger.
The man pulling the strings (or breaking the kneecaps, as it were) at the Golden Shangri-La is no other than Jack Donaghy...er, Alec Baldwin. Baldwin's performance rightfully garnered several awards and nominations, including an Oscar nod. Shelly is handsome, old school, and at times, utterly terrifying. He is resistant to change, often violently so. He cannot reconcile his ideals with the Vegas brand of commercialized progress, and he takes out his frustrations on friend and foe alike.
This film also featured a small but powerful role played by Paul Sorvino. Buddy Stafford has the voice of an angel, but a demon of a drug habit, and he provided an excellent foil for Shelly's beliefs in maintaining tradition.
The Cooler is too gritty a film to call "cute," but that's currently the only word coming to mind. It has something for the mob-lover and the romantic in everyone. And you should watch this little love story lest I should make things uncomfortable for you in the future, you know what I'm sayin'???
The Cooler is a tale of contrast: good luck is pitted against bad luck, and old is seen in stark contrast to new. We are immediately introduced to Bernie Lootz, an individual with such phenomenally bad luck that it is actually contagious. Bound by obligation and a misguided sense of loyalty to his boss, Shelly Kaplow, Bernie works at the Golden Shangri-La Casino as a “cooler.” His presence at a table can cause a winning streak to instantaneously turn sour. The unfortunate Bernie is no stranger to pain: his boss and supposed friend, Shelly, once shattered his kneecap with a baseball bat. Bernie also has great difficulty with his other personal relationships. His estranged son, with whom Bernie hopes for reconciliation, immediately swindles the hapless fellow.
To make matters worse for Bernie, who wants nothing more than to be done with Vegas, Shelly is battling his own brand of misfortune. New management is suggesting a re-haul of the establishment he helmed for 16 years. Shelly argues for the casino to limp along as it is, and maintain the traditions originated by the mafia. He desperately and unfairly clings to Bernie, who remains an unwilling symbol of these old practices.
William H. Macy breaks my heart in every movie that I've seen him in. This film, where Macy expertly depicts the "unluckiest man in Vegas," offers no exception to that rule. There is a familiar vulnerability he lends to each facial expression that simultaneously earns my respect and pity. Bernie Lootz is a human being with a seemingly supernatural ability to receive, harness, and project bad luck. This requires some suspension of disbelief on the part of the viewer, and Macy is one of the few actors capable of making such a concept convincing.
Maria Bello is cast alongside Macy as a waitress and Bernie's love interest, Natalie. As often mentioned in the script, she seems entirely out of Bernie's league. And yet, the skilled actors created a romance which seemed entirely natural after the first evening's awkwardness. And as the two progress to love, Lootz's luck begins to change, as it does for the Casino patrons he comes into contact with. His presence becomes a blessing instead of a curse, putting his unwanted career path and his lady love in danger.
The man pulling the strings (or breaking the kneecaps, as it were) at the Golden Shangri-La is no other than Jack Donaghy...er, Alec Baldwin. Baldwin's performance rightfully garnered several awards and nominations, including an Oscar nod. Shelly is handsome, old school, and at times, utterly terrifying. He is resistant to change, often violently so. He cannot reconcile his ideals with the Vegas brand of commercialized progress, and he takes out his frustrations on friend and foe alike.
This film also featured a small but powerful role played by Paul Sorvino. Buddy Stafford has the voice of an angel, but a demon of a drug habit, and he provided an excellent foil for Shelly's beliefs in maintaining tradition.
The Cooler is too gritty a film to call "cute," but that's currently the only word coming to mind. It has something for the mob-lover and the romantic in everyone. And you should watch this little love story lest I should make things uncomfortable for you in the future, you know what I'm sayin'???
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Jurassic World (2015) in Movies
Jun 19, 2019
After several years of starts and stops as Universal attempted to find the right script to relaunch their Dinosaur franchise, “Jurassic World” has arrived.
The film picks up years after the events of the first film and does not reference the events of the 2nd or third film in the series as the focus is on the fact that the park has now become a fully functioning and popular resort destination.
Monorails, rides, petting zoos, hotels, restaurants, and of course, gift shops now dominate the island and keep the revenue going. The resort is under the watchful eye of Claire (Bruce Dallas Howard), who is an ultra-organized workaholic who reportedly brought an itinerary on a first date.
Claire is always finding a way to keep the cash flowing as the park has a very high overhead and as such, is always looking at new ways to attract fans as new attractions bring in more money.
Claire is in the midst of pitching their latest idea to investors, a genetically modified and created Dinosaur dubbed the “Indominous Rex” when her two nephews arrive.
The boys are taking a break from the cold climate of home as well as the fact that their parents are splitting up and see the trip as a way for their parents to get them out of the way by dumping them on their indifferent Aunt who assigns an assistant to watch them.
Naturally things do not go as planned as the new Dinosaur decides to bust up the fun and escapes from its enclosure and wreaks havoc on the humans and dinosaurs in the park.
Ex-Navy Raptor wrangler Owen (Chris Pratt) is requested to evaluate the situation and he sees the Indominous as a creature that kills for fun and is more intelligent than her creators thought, and with thousands of guests lining the park, this could be a disaster in the making. Not wanting to hurt their corporate image and investment, Claire and a scheming company exec named Hoskins (Vincent D’Onfrio); devise a series of plans to stop their new creation which only tend to exacerbate the situation.
With few options left, Owen and his pack muster their resources to locate and stop the most dangerous creature ever created before it can do even more damage to the guests and park.
The film is a spectacle of 3D CGI and there are plenty of great visuals and action sequences that underscore just how fat CGI technology has come since the first film. The creatures are simply amazing to see and the action is more intense and violent then some people may be expecting.
Director Colin Trevorrow directing only his second film and his first with any real budget has made sure the film never stops trying to wow the audience with plenty of sharp visuals and action and aside from a few pacing issues now and then, the film moves along well. The film does suffer at times from a fairly linear story and actors who at times are pretty much along for the ride and to be props for their CGI co-stars but Pratt and Howard do solid work as does Irrfan Khan and D’Onfrio.
The film uses elements of a script that was discarded when Universal was planning a new film, but it has been woven into the story in an intriguing way that does setup the next film in the series well and does offer up some very intriguing possibilities for future chapters.
For now, “Jurassic World” is a welcome return to the franchise, one that for me is the first true sequel to the original as I enjoyed it more than the two films that followed.
http://sknr.net/2015/06/12/jurassic-world/
The film picks up years after the events of the first film and does not reference the events of the 2nd or third film in the series as the focus is on the fact that the park has now become a fully functioning and popular resort destination.
Monorails, rides, petting zoos, hotels, restaurants, and of course, gift shops now dominate the island and keep the revenue going. The resort is under the watchful eye of Claire (Bruce Dallas Howard), who is an ultra-organized workaholic who reportedly brought an itinerary on a first date.
Claire is always finding a way to keep the cash flowing as the park has a very high overhead and as such, is always looking at new ways to attract fans as new attractions bring in more money.
Claire is in the midst of pitching their latest idea to investors, a genetically modified and created Dinosaur dubbed the “Indominous Rex” when her two nephews arrive.
The boys are taking a break from the cold climate of home as well as the fact that their parents are splitting up and see the trip as a way for their parents to get them out of the way by dumping them on their indifferent Aunt who assigns an assistant to watch them.
Naturally things do not go as planned as the new Dinosaur decides to bust up the fun and escapes from its enclosure and wreaks havoc on the humans and dinosaurs in the park.
Ex-Navy Raptor wrangler Owen (Chris Pratt) is requested to evaluate the situation and he sees the Indominous as a creature that kills for fun and is more intelligent than her creators thought, and with thousands of guests lining the park, this could be a disaster in the making. Not wanting to hurt their corporate image and investment, Claire and a scheming company exec named Hoskins (Vincent D’Onfrio); devise a series of plans to stop their new creation which only tend to exacerbate the situation.
With few options left, Owen and his pack muster their resources to locate and stop the most dangerous creature ever created before it can do even more damage to the guests and park.
The film is a spectacle of 3D CGI and there are plenty of great visuals and action sequences that underscore just how fat CGI technology has come since the first film. The creatures are simply amazing to see and the action is more intense and violent then some people may be expecting.
Director Colin Trevorrow directing only his second film and his first with any real budget has made sure the film never stops trying to wow the audience with plenty of sharp visuals and action and aside from a few pacing issues now and then, the film moves along well. The film does suffer at times from a fairly linear story and actors who at times are pretty much along for the ride and to be props for their CGI co-stars but Pratt and Howard do solid work as does Irrfan Khan and D’Onfrio.
The film uses elements of a script that was discarded when Universal was planning a new film, but it has been woven into the story in an intriguing way that does setup the next film in the series well and does offer up some very intriguing possibilities for future chapters.
For now, “Jurassic World” is a welcome return to the franchise, one that for me is the first true sequel to the original as I enjoyed it more than the two films that followed.
http://sknr.net/2015/06/12/jurassic-world/