Let's All Go to the Movies

Popeyes needs to make a movie. Get a couple of the actors that live in NOLA in it: John Goodman and Nic Cage. Guaranteed to be more spicy and dark than this Lifetime crap.
 
LurchingBeast said:
Mank (7/10), despite the many auteur details mainly involving the photography and post-production, is probably Fincher's most approachable movie yet. Much funnier than I expected, though the script is very Sorkin-inspired with it's quippy verbal sparring matches and big grandstanding scenes. The entirety of the drunken dinner scene and the Organ Grinder's Monkey monologue are painfully Sorkin. What is supposed to be the big turning point for Mank's character ended up my least favorite 'episode'. Mank consists of a dozen or so of these 'episodes' or vignettes, jumping around through the moments of washed up Hollywood writer Herman Mankiewicz's life that inspired his seismic screenwriting achievement, Citizen Kane. Deliberately structuring Mank similarly to Citizen Kane is one of the many homages to the Welles' film. The vignette where Mank and Marion Davies (played by a never better Amanda Seyfried) walk and talk (*cough* another Sorkin staple) after a contentious dinner party was easily my favorite as it's the closest we get to understanding the most important people in this telling of the story.

The acting is at a seriously high level throughout. As expected, Gary Oldman commands every scene and will be the front-runner for another Oscar (though I would keep Delroy Lindo at the top of my ballot). Especially impressive because Mankiewicz himself might be the least interesting character in the story. But Amanda Seyfried matches Oldman in all of her scenes in a supporting role. She's goddamn radiant as Marion Davies, though it is helped that she is lit differently than every other actor in the movie.

I thought the story itself lacked some detail in Mank's character motivations and depth in regards to his personal relationships. I was more interested in Marion Davies or even Mank's wife to be honest. I couldn't help but think Fincher's attention to the aesthetics got in the way of telling a great story. The old-timey sound design really works, while some of the minute details like the scratches and cue marks feel like overkill. I can't say if it's how the film was lit but I watched it in UHD and the black and white had a very muddy look that made me consider the limitations of digital filmmaking. Cold War, for example, looks far more impressive in this regard.

Reading this back, it comes off as a negative review. I LIKED IT! Maybe my expectations were too high for what is supposed to be 2020's The Big One from a director I really admire.

Go watch Citizen Kane. Then watch Mank, my favorite Aaron Sorkin movie of 2020.
Click to expand...
Amanda Seyfried was brilliant.
 
Dang Legendary footed 75% of the production bill and Warners is blocking them from shopping the film and didn’t even tell them about he plan?

That’s gonna get messy. I’m gonna guess Warner is going to end up writing Legendary a big check. Legendary isn’t some rinky dink company either... that’s Chinese backed part of Wanda Group (big conglomerate)
 
I get Christopher Nolan complaining. He seems to complain about everything. But why would an actor give a crap whether their movie is in a theater or on a streaming service? They get paid the same amount either way. The only people that should complain are ones whose payments rely on box office revenue or something and even then they will hide behind bullshit instead of just coming out and saying Warner Bros is ripping them off.

edit: Also this quote in the article is asinine.
But industry insiders say the studio is pretending that pirates won’t pounce as soon as these films are streaming on HBO Max.
Click to expand...
The idea that movies aren't instantly pirated when they hit movie theaters is so insanely wrong. The "source" saying this is lying their ass off.

edit2: Ah there it is. Hiding in this innocuous sounding phrase is exactly what I was talking about above. It's all about the money.
At minimum, WarnerMedia has opened the door to arduous negotiations with the major agencies over compensation for multiple profit participants in 17 movies.
Click to expand...
I'm shocked the Hollywood Reporter is hiding behind lots of other bullshit rather than just say people are pissed that profit from streaming a movie messes with contracts.

edit3: I finally finished the article. It reads like a hit piece on Warner Bros and a shield for people who just want their money. They hide behind actors wanting to see their film on the big screen, but it's all about profit sharing. They just know normal people don't give a shit about the profits of some executive.

edit4: Okay I lied apparently as I missed the most hilarious line of the article.
It also leaves out a long-standing Hollywood maxim: Content is king. And content comes from artists who aren’t always motivated purely by money.
Click to expand...
This whole thing is about money and the fact that this article is pretending it isn't is awful.
 
Last edited:
shadowane said:
I get Christopher Nolan complaining. He seems to complain about everything. But why would an actor give a crap whether their movie is in a theater or on a streaming service? They get paid the same amount either way. The only people that should complain are ones whose payments rely on box office revenue or something and even then they will hide behind bullshit instead of just coming out and saying Warner Bros is ripping them off.

edit: Also this quote in the article is asinine.

The idea that movies aren't instantly pirated when they hit movie theaters is so insanely wrong. The "source" saying this is lying their ass off.

edit2: Ah there it is. Hiding in this innocuous sounding phrase is exactly what I was talking about above. It's all about the money.

I'm shocked the Hollywood Reporter is hiding behind lots of other bullshit rather than just say people are pissed that profit from streaming a movie messes with contracts.

edit3: I finally finished the article. It reads like a hit piece on Warner Bros and a shield for people who just want their money. They hide behind actors wanting to see their film on the big screen, but it's all about profit sharing. They just know normal people don't give a shit about the profits of some executive.

edit4: Okay I lied apparently as I missed the most hilarious line of the article.

This whole thing is about money and the fact that this article is pretending it isn't is awful.
Click to expand...
giphy%20(1).gif
 
LurchingBeast said:
Seems to me the guy with free reign to make whatever $250M project he wants at WB going scorched Earth on them is a notable development but what do I know.
Click to expand...
I'm not saying it's not a problem. I'm just saying that article was bullshit and it should have just talked about how it's all about the money.
 
Yeah, I don't believe for a second that they didn't inform most everyone directly involved of this move. They may not have allowed input on it but I would bet money that they knew beforehand. Hell, even I knew this was going to happen weeks before it did. It wasn't some closely guarded secret or anything.

The fact that half of the idiots in this country cant get their shit together enough to even allow basic services much less movie theaters to reopen isn't exactly WBs fault. They were going to hemorrhage money on these releases if they didn't do something to stem the blood flow. I may not like it, but I would probably vote for that model if I were in the decision making room. It's most certainly the best move for the umbrella. WB has already been through multiple rounds of layoffs.
 
15176 More Posts...
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top