'Mank' Review

It's been quite a few months since I've written and shared a review. In that time, I started a new job and now have a little less free time on my hands for writing. However, I'd like to get back on track soon and felt reviewing David Fincher's latest film from Netflix would be a fine place to start. In the coming weeks, I'll share Reel Recaps for everything I watched before Mank that I haven't already reviewed this year, as well as standalone reviews for other recent releases. I'd like to be caught up by New Year's Eve, so I can piece together a proper Top 10 list celebrating my favorite films of the year as usual. This year, the number of 2020 movies I've seen is noticeably lacking due to movie theaters' current state. However, there are plenty of films that debuted on streaming platforms I'd like to cram in. 

'Mank' Review

Nominated For: Best Picture, Best Director; David Fincher, Best Actor; Gary Oldman, Best Supporting Actress; Amanda Seyfried, Best Cinematography, Best Costume Design, Best Makeup and Hairstyling, Best Production Design, Best Sound, and Best Original Score.

Won: Best Cinematography and Best Production Design.

Synopsis: A scathing social critique of 1930s Hollywood through the eyes of alcoholic screenwriter Herman J. Mankiewicz as he races to finish the screenplay of Citizen Kane.

Runtime: 131 minutes

MPAA Rating: R (for some language)

Who should see it? Film fans enamored with early Hollywood and the real-life influences on Citizen Kane.

It has been nearly eighty years since the release of Citizen Kane, and the film is still held in high regard as one of the greatest motion pictures ever made for how it revolutionized cinema. With his eleventh feature, acclaimed filmmaker David Fincher realized his late father Jack Fincher's screenplay to shed new light on the mastermind behind said masterpiece. That said, it's important to note that Mank isn't strictly about the making of Citizen Kane, ala The Disaster Artist. Mank revolves around Herman J. Mankiewicz as he reflects on touchstone moments throughout his career, which now pervade his script. Before watching Mank, I suggest doing a little cursory research.

In preparation for Mank, I covered some glaring blindspots by finally watching the coveted Citizen Kane in addition to much of Fincher's filmography. While seeing Citizen Kane beforehand isn't essential to grasp Mank's story, it certainly enhanced my viewing experience. Plus, it never hurts to indulge in experiencing a classic for the first time! But one thing missing from my repertoire was a full understanding of 1930s Hollywood. Again, this isn't required by any means. But you'll get more out of Mank if you're more accustomed to the politics and key players of the period. Individuals worth googling include William Randolph Hearst, Marion Davies, Louis B. Mayer, Irving G. Thalberg, Upton Sinclair, and Orson Welles. Fincher offers enough subtext for viewers to piece things together and get the big picture, but I'm sure I'll takeaway more when I revisit Mank now that I possess more than a passing familiarity with these names.  

On a technical level, Mank is astounding. Considered to be an obsessive perfectionist by many, Fincher transports audiences to yesteryear by replicating the look and sound of early motion pictures, complete with all the era's trademark quirks. Mank is littered with cue marks and slow fades, filmed in black and white, and boasts the soundscape of an old talkie. A few visual effects involving animals don't hold up to the scrutiny of today's standards, but they're brief. Of course, I must give credit where it's due to the crew members who successfully recreated the rough-around-the-edges glamour of early Hollywood pictures. A job well done by Fincher's longtime sound designer and supervisor Ren Klyce, cinematographer Erik Messerschmidt, the costumers, production designers, and set decorators. And I couldn't dare forget the spellbinding score from the Oscar-winning composers Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross. 

While Mank is not solely about the making of Citizen Kane, the two films will forever be intertwined. It's befitting that a movie about the screenwriter of Citizen Kane would employ a similar story structure to examine its protagonist. As reporter Jerry Thompson relentlessly sought to unravel the significance of Kane's final words, Jack Fincher is equally fascinated in determining how a life of alcoholism and rocky Hollywood career lead a washed-up screenwriter to pen his magnum opus. Where Citizen Kane's flashbacks were told from the supporting cast's point-of-view to offer a comprehensive look at Kane's life, flashbacks in Mank do the opposite. Mankiewicz's point-of-view fills in the dimension and context of those same supporting characters' real-life inspiration.  It's worth remembering that Mankiewicz is meant to be an unreliable narrator since he's an alcoholic, so the depictions of these key figures are heavily skewed.

In the titular role, Gary Oldman is incredible as Herman Mankiewicz. Oldman's proven himself time-and-time again to be a chameleon onscreen, and this outing is no exception. Acting intoxicated is a slippery slope, but Oldman managed to do so in a way that didn't come off as cartoonish. Oldman's depiction of a drunk is imbued with enough nuances for viewers to sense the broken soul and crisis of conscience bubbling beneath the surface. Opposite Oldman, Amanda Seyfried and Lily Collins are delightful as the spirited actress Marion Davies and Mank's kind secretary Rita Alexander. The two share an endearing friendship with Mank, which livened the proceedings and lent the film its heart. 

 

Chief among the supporting cast, Charles Dance is as impeccable as ever. Dance portrays William Randolph-Hurst as snide, gaudy, and pretentious. There's no mincing of words, as Game of Thrones fans are well aware of Dance's formidable screen presence. Other noteworthy performances include Tom Burke as Orson Welles and Tom Pelphrey as Herman's brother, Joseph Mankiewicz. The remainder of the cast is uniformly good. But I must say I was taken aback to discover the actor cast as Upton Sinclair as I watched the film (I think it's best left a surprise, so I'll leave it at that).

In the wake of COVID-19, time's are a-changing, and so is film distribution. It's almost ironic that a film so indebted to traditional filmmaking techniques is debuting on a streamer. Nevertheless, Netflix offers a degree of creative freedom almost unheard of nowadays, so it's understandable Fincher would be enticed to partner with the studio (especially after successful collaborations such as Mindhunter and House of Cards). So no, Mank is not jank, rank, and it certainly doesn't stank. Fincher's latest feature harkens back to the culture of Hollywood's Golden Age not with dreamy eyes but disdainful scrutiny. Mank can best be described as an old fashioned motion picture that's actually kind of dank (cool).

Film Assessment: A-

'Godzilla: King of the Monsters' Review

Synopsis: The crypto-zoological agency Monarch faces off against a battery of god-sized monsters, including the mighty Godzilla who collides with Mothra, Rodan, and his ultimate nemesis, the three-headed King Ghidorah. When these ancient super species rise, they all vie for supremacy, leaving humanity's very existence hanging in the balance.

Runtime: 131 minutes

MPAA Rating: PG-13 (for sequences of monster action, violence, and destruction, and for some language)

Who should see it? Godzilla fans.

Serving as the gargantuan sequel to 2014's Godzilla, Godzilla: King of the Monsters is directed by Michael Dougherty and features a screenplay co-written by Dougherty and Zach Shields with an additional story credit for Max Borenstein. Aside from furthering the exploits of our favorite gigantic lizard, King of the Monsters is tasked with setting the stage for next year's epic kaiju showdown between Kong and Godzilla. And the filmmakers sure do want audiences to know that Warner Bros. and Legendary's MonsterVerse is headed in that direction, as there are plenty of references to the fabled Skull Island and its towering primate. Occasionally, the nods happen too frequently, but the cinematic universe craze isn't slowing down anytime soon. On that note, stick through the credits for hints concerning this franchise's future. 

Most audience members flocking to the theater are seeing Godzilla: King of the Monsters due to the promise of grand kaiju action, and they'll be delighted to witness plenty of monstrous mayhem. Unlike the 2014 Godzilla, the titular titan is front-and-center more-often-than-not. The spectacle doesn't always match the grandeur and majesty of the trailer presentation, but Dougherty delivers some satisfying kaiju brawls full of striking imagery. Though these fights aren't without flaws. Sometimes, it's challenging to follow the action due to the weather, fluorescent lighting effects, shaky-cam, and quick cuts. It'd be a stretch to call the action incomprehensible, and these attributes didn't detract from my enjoyment, but I feel they're worth noting nevertheless. One detail which compensated for this was the varied color scheme for each monster and their abilities which assisted in differentiating the creatures from one another.  

As glimpsed in the trailers, there are some magnificent effects-heavy wide shots which I'd gleefully frame and display in my home. King of the Monsters touts impeccable creature design for its wide array of mythic monsters, and these beasts are wonderfully realized through breathtaking visual effects and Lawrence Sher's stunning cinematography. Lending additional gravitas to the grand spectacle, Bear McCreary's score contains many percussive, choral-heavy arrangements, and I'd be remiss to neglect the sound design which enabled the kaiju to roar their way onscreen.

Of course, there's more to this movie than monsters... The human component and narrative are severely lacking in comparison to the kaiju confrontations, but honestly, what else would you expect? I've seen King of the Monsters heavily scrutinized for that whereas I'd consider the characterization in this sequel to be an improvement over Godzilla (2014). The central splintered family dynamic presented here is far more compelling than what unfolded five years ago, largely thanks to the performances which I'll touch on momentarily. I was invested in the fate of the core family as well as Dr. Ishiro Serizawa, which already outweighs merely caring about Bryan Cranston in the first film.

Kyle Chandler's Mark Russell is the most prominent character in this super-sized sequel and Chandler does a fine job with the material given. Amongst the ensemble, O'Shea Jackson Jr., Ziyi Zhang, Aisha Hinds fill the stock scientists and military personnel while Bradley Whitford and Thomas Middleditch provide a decent dose of comedic relief.

Depicting the two carry-over characters from Godzilla (2014), Ken Watanabe and Sally Hawkins are utilized in vastly differing capacities. Watanabe is granted a poignant scene and continues to invoke a sense of gravitas for the franchise while Hawkins is sadly wasted with minimized contributions (she mostly delivers expositional dialogue). 

Separated from the rest of the cast for plot-related reasons, Millie Bobby Brown, Vera Farmiga, and Charles Dance each are sufficient series additions. It was nice to finally see Millie Bobby Brown transition to the big screen after her breakout turn as Eleven in Stranger Things, and her feature acting-debut offered a role befitting of her talent. Despite sharing the screen with so many seasoned actors, Brown holds her ground and manages to be a stand-out when all is said-and-done. Meanwhile, Vera Farmiga leaves a favorable impression in spite of her character's complex motivations, whereas Charles Dance's malevolent presence felt underutilized in the grand scheme of things. 

Godzilla: King of the Monsters is an unabashedly stupid popcorn flick that will surely rule the box office this weekend, but awe-inspiring kaiju confrontations compensate for its narrative shortcomings. Long live the king!

Film Assessment: B B-

Retrospective Review: 'Alien 3'

Today I'm wading the troubled waters of reviewing Alien 3. I will be including some slight spoilers, so you've been forewarned. If you're curious what else I have in store, you can expect a Retrospective Review of Alien: Resurrection, a Throwback Thursday Review of Prometheus, and a review on Alien: Covenant all to be uploaded this week. 

'Alien 3' Review

Nominated For: Best Visual Effects.

Ellen Ripley is once again the sole survivor of this story when a piece of her ship carrying the cryo-sleep chambers mysteriously crash lands on Fiorina 161, a desolate planet housing a maximum security prison. There she encounters pious prisoners and their skeptical sentries, whom she must convince to trust in her regarding the potential alien contagion. It's fairly well known that Alien 3 had an especially troubled production process. The fact it would have to follow up sci-fi classics Alien and Aliens was a daunting task in-of-itself, but somehow good did indeed come from Alien 3.

Thanks to the middling movie, David Fincher was enveloped into the filmmaking community after successfully supervising a series of successful music videos. Fincher has since gone on to craft a number of wellregarded works I hope to review in the near future such as Fight Club, Se7en, and The Social Network. Unfortunately, Alien 3 wasn't the feature film directorial debut Fincher or any person would imagine it to have been considering Fincher had little-to-no control over the project.

While I've reviewed other films where studios intervened on behalf of making a profit like Spider-Man 3, The Amazing Spider-Man 2, or Fantastic Four (2015), Alien 3 is different in the sense that it's difficult to trace what decisions stemmed from where. Normally I'm able to have some reasonable idea where certain ideas originated (typically from either the writer or director), but Alien 3's a different case altogether. Some information has gone public such as Sigourney Weaver bearing her Academy Award nomination for her performance in Aliens as creative leverage and early drafts of alternate versions of the project but no real explanation behind everything that happened. It's probably most simply explained by the fact the studio interfered and that's that. Therefore, I'll be dissecting pieces of the film but won't really be able to properly credit any specific individual(s) so this review may be a little jumbled and hard to follow.

Alien 3's script is credited to David Giler, Walter Hill, and Larry Ferguson in the screenplay division with a story supposedly molded by Vincent Ward. It's impossible to tell how much control these individuals really had over the script though. To briefly take a detour from all the behind the scenes drama, I've got to admit that there are some interesting ideas buried underneath the script. The idea that an alien's chemistry changes based off the organism it's birthed from opens the door to infinitesimal possibilities (ie. when the alien emerges from the dog/ox depending on what version you watch). The sudden and immediate death/deactivation of your favorite surviving Aliens characters may boil your blood and Weaver's anti-arms insistence doesn't really make much sense considering Ripley's in a maximum security prison, but these creative choices raise the stakes and make the situation even more terrifying.

Of course somehow an alien is involved, because otherwise the title couldn't bear the Alien Anthology monicker, but it makes absolutely no sense when you sit back and think about Alien 3 as a successor to Aliens. I find it incredibly impossible to believe that Ripley wouldn't have thoroughly examined the ship for any semblance of alien life after defeating the alien queen and going back into cryo-sleep. Also, the characters in Alien 3 are mainly morose and sink into the solemn setting. I legitimately can't remember or really distinguish any of the characters other than Ripley, Dillon, and Clemens and I watched Alien 3 only last night. Alien 3 is a film devoid of joy or hope, which actually sort of works with the foreboding backdrop but doesn't allow for a particularly enjoyable or even nerve-racking experience. If you're not invested in the hollow personas running about on screen, it's difficult to latch onto the story even with Ripley at its center. Even the cinematography from Alex Thomson is bleak and unforgiving.

Elsewhere, the special effects in Alien 3 are absolutely atrocious. When the Xenomorph is prancing about the prison, the puppet never meshes in with his corresponding background due to poor green-screen work and it actually looks worse than any effect from Alien or Aliens. The practical costumed Xenomorph seems like a better alternative now, when you view how well that iteration help up in the preceding chapters. Alien 3's score composed by Elliot Goldenthal feels far removed from the story being told. The compositions could potentially stand apart from the film, but the end result is a little jarring when the two are pieced together.

The performances on the other hand are unfortunately as jumbled as the film itself. Sigourney Weaver paints Ripley in an unsettled frantic state, pursuing the Xenomorphic paranoia that would logically accompany anyone who had experienced the former film's events. I'm not sure Weaver's capable of a truly bad performance so her portrayal certainly does the film a few favors. I especially like how her arc comes full circle as she's unhinged and distressed that the one thing that's taken everything away from her is inside her. The fact the soon-to-be alien queen is the only thing keeping the Xenomorph from munching her down is one of the fascinating concepts at the surface of the film and I like how that enables a complex characterization for Weaver to work with. Charles Dance and Charles S. Dutton each offer appropriate attributes to the compassionate chief medical officer Jonathan Clemens and devout religious leader Leonard Dillon but the remaining ensemble's littered actors portraying disposable detainees. 

In conclusion, Alien 3 could have turned out far worse but is a disappointing continuation of Ripley's story due to the lack of any distinctive creative voice. Even with titillating ideas buried underneath the surface, Alien 3 found itself befoul of a parasitic relationship more dangerous than the titular beast; money hungry studio heads.

Film Assessment: C-