Dub’s Take: Ferrari

A spoiler-free mini movie review.


Michael Mann films are divisive. They are Tarantino-esque, with sharp, heavily-stylized direction, punctuated by quick bursts of violence. But Mann isn’t a goofball like most of the characters in a Tarantino movie, and Mann’s films are often misrepresented as action movies. No Michael Mann film is wholly an action movie, and almost all take themselves far too seriously. Once again, with “Ferrari”, I was fooled by the advertising, which classifies the picture as a thrilling extravaganza.

What Ferrari the film actually is, is Mann finally embracing his dramatic side. If you go in knowing there’s maybe 15 total minutes of actual racing in its 2-hour+ runtime, you’ll enjoy it. In fact, none of its racing scenes are as exciting, empathy-inducing, or as well-framed as the ones in Neill Blomkamp’s “Gran Turismo”: barring two admittedly-spectacular crashes, I found Erik Messerschmidt’s camera is often too low to the ground in the close-ups with an over-reliance on wide shots – as the Oscar-winning cinematographer of “Mank”, he should have brought us within reach of those fast, pretty cars. There were also some abrupt transitions (the first dramatized race in the movie starts after a crash on the track that the viewer doesn’t see OR learn about until the other drivers are trying to pass it) that suggest the inevitable Director’s Cut is coming soon. While revisionism is part of Mann’s artistic method, I won’t need to see the movie again.

Great work by Adam Driver – I don’t usually seek his films out – and excellent pulsing orchestral soundtrack (in that Michael Mann way, just with actual instruments) by Daniel Pemberton. Mann should direct a straight romantic movie next without any tough fluff: he would probably be really successful at it.

4 out of 5

Poster sourced from imdb.com. Anyone interested in more of my ramblings on Michael Mann may enjoy this dissection of his first major film “Thief”. Don’t agree? Think the racing scenes were awesome? Big Mann fan? Sick of biopics? Comment why don’t ‘cha!

Jay’s Take: House of Gucci

A spoiler-heavy & deeply-subjective movie review.


Ridley Scott, what are we to do with you? Guy’s movies consistently underperform at the box office and yet he still keeps pumping them out, and studios are happy to let him. Why is that? We’ve all heard the story about when Kevin Spacey was edited out of “All the Money in the World” and Scott reshot his scenes with Christopher Plummer in one week (we also heard about how Michelle Williams was paid less than a HUNDREDTH of what Mark Wahlberg was to come back but, forget that, because Ridley Scott doesn’t have time for your bullshit). The only reasonable explanation I can come up with is that his are the ultimate in money-laundering fronts: high-class picture-films with sky-high production values that add legitimacy to the Lizard People’s ever-domineering hold over the global sex-slave market. Or the Big Studios’ hold over the encroaching streaming & independent markets. Plus, he’ll shoot it for 20-bucks on a weekend: fast, AND cheap! Look, any idiot can make an “important” film on his iPhone now, but it takes a serious “auteur” like Scott to make an “important” film with unlimited resources at his disposal and STILL have it turn out to be plodding garbage that no one is interested in paying money to go see.

Continue reading