Change Your Image
Upload An Image
Crop And Save
ListsAn error has ocurred. Please try again
Blow the Man Down (2019)
It Blew all right.
You shouldn't have to take a nap an hour into an hour and a half movie. Dreaded finishing it, but I'm a committer.
From the words of Mr. Neil O'page: "When you're telling these stories, here's an idea: have a point! It makes it so much more interesting to the listener!"
The score actually wasn't bad. Some decent performances. It tried to have a payoff. It was a puzzle with too many missing pieces for me to see or care what it was supposed to look like.
An extra star for nice usage of a harpoon. Took one star off for the random singing fishermen breaking the fourth wall.
Dawson's Creek on crack.
It's just a perfect show to me.
Had an interest in it because I was in love with Never Goin Back directed by Augustine Frizzell. When I saw she was also doing something for this, I was looking forward to it and wasn't disappointed. Wish I had gotten that HBO subscription earlier.
Each episode is like a movie. It has a direction from beginning to end and knows where it's taking you. There's no guessing here. Absolutely brilliant filmmaking.
The casting was very important here, and it led to awesome performances throughout. The heavies, the protagonists... All worthy of accolades. They really capture the ambivalence and what it means to be "young", especially in this: the digital age that's always evolving. Who is good? Who is evil? All out the window. There is no such thing really at that age. Everyone is struggling with who they are and who they're going to be. And that's a great thing. It's realistic. This is a very real show. Sure the atmosphere around them is heightened for viewing, but the depth of the very real human characteristics are all there.
It's a perfect performance by Zendaya for me. You couldn't ask anything else from her.
Can't imagine Season 2 coming close to the work here. They have their work cut out for them.
Zombieland: Double Tap (2019)
It's dead out there.
I could have sworn this was made with a whole different team than the first movie. Just the same actors. Same director though and relatively the same writers.
This is just such a waste of talent. It's a caricature of itself from beginning to end. There's no story. The newbies, minus Dawson, are unfleshed out. They're 100% stereotypes come to life with none of the qualities that should make them human. Lifeless.
In the end, I really didn't care if any of the original four I grew to love bit it in the end. And after a few, we all knew how this was going to end.
Mildly funny at parts, but more annoying than humorous to me. Of course, humor is subjective. Story though was just not there from the opener.
I don't like rating newer movies so high at first, but the first one was a 9 for me. Really was Damn near perfect. Funny, original, surprising, even touching. This one was amazing. It had none of that.
2 out 10 for me.
It's pretty, but is it art?
Inaccurate, uneven, and a rushed biased ending I'm still trying to get over.
I'm very familiar with old hollywood, in particular with the present time this film is projecting. I appreciated the filmmakers had an affinity for this era as well. I found, personally, where they would introduce a plethora ("do you know what a plethora is?") of the persons of old Hollywood to be overhanded and distracting. Full name to full name to full name at a fast paced editing was dizzying. I could barely keep up and I'm pretty well versed. I can only imagine those unfamiliar trying to keep up.
The story should be simple, but it was hard to find in this bogged down drivel of the first half. It was mostly told in flashbacks during this time instead of centering us with where we're supposed to currently be at and with whom, being Mank, so once we care we can then properly go with him to discover more to the "why" and "how" he came to this point in his life.
Structure aside. The second half is where I woke up. There were some brilliant moments with corrected pacing that allows the scenes and actors of Oldman's caliber to breathe. I really enjoyed his performance. Amanda Seyfried, as Marion Davies, was the breath of fresh air for the film. She had that rare glow where she was truly the living/breathing character she was embodying and not just putting on a performance.
I have a confession: I've been a huge fan of Trent Reznor since 1990. His scores with Atticus for Dragon Tattoo, Social Network, and Gone Girl were some of the best of the 21st, so I was expecting nothing less here. I read where they only used instruments of the era (that might be a grapevine thing). I think that's very commendable but truthfully didn't feel it translated well here. It was largely forgettable, which pains me to say. This is just from the first viewing.
I really enjoyed the cinematogaphy and the choice for the black and white film (I assume it was film). Loved the reel change marks throughout. There was a shot near the opening that did a slow fade to all but a lighted room, which I thought was a nice touch. The film had a lot of promise. The weight of it for me was in the last quarter. The film was a comedy for awhile there, then somehow a touch of a political thriller, before finally getting to where it wanted to be, which was a story about a man's life.
I've read where it was actually Mank's brother that was tied into the political drama about Upton. I understand creative licensing and the need for suspension for disbelief, but it's a hard turn off for me when I begin to think that there's crucial parts of the story here that people will take down as fact. Stripping the writer from the birthplace (if you will) of the "Rosebud" construct seemed completely unnecessary. It's been well documented where that came from and his use of it in Kane is utter brilliance. Don't know what the creative choice was there to ruin it.
What it all came down to for me and my rating of a 3 out of 10 had nothing to do with the technical side or the performances, which were quite captivating (I was amazed at the voice of Orson); it was a disagreement with some of the choices that were made in the script. The very uneven first half that mostly consisted of flashbacks, keeping us from anchoring, and the choices in the last 20 minutes.
The dialogue was sheer brilliance in areas and seemed too overhanded and self aware in others. My problem was that I've seen interviews and read many articles about Orson to know he's the one to make sure Herman got his credit; so much so his name was listed above his own. He also gave Gregg Toland his due in the credits although Orson had his fingers in everything.
Orson Welles didn't even need the film to cement his name. He had the 1938 broadcast of War of the Worlds that stirred the nation, the all-black play if Macbeth he oversaw in Harlem that overhauled Shakespeare's witchcraft with voodoo and had lines around the block. Everything he touched turned to gold, especially when there was source material. Mank provided the story and Orson did what he's always done and rewrote it into oblivion until it was ready. It was a team effort, and they created the draft for the "great American motion picture". If he didn't get the writing credit, it would make more sense to the story and create an empathy that would carry more weight.
"It's pretty, but is it art?"