Read User Reviews and Submit your own for Mank

9

Sierra-117Dec 6, 2020

David Fincher’s genius new drama about the context behind the 1941 classic Citizen Kane, is a testament to how much can be accomplished by taking a 6 year break between films. I personally found Fincher’s last entry, Gone Girl, to be moreDavid Fincher’s genius new drama about the context behind the 1941 classic Citizen Kane, is a testament to how much can be accomplished by taking a 6 year break between films. I personally found Fincher’s last entry, Gone Girl, to be more than a tad underwhelming, so to see him come back in such a glorious fashion was a pleasant surprise indeed. Mank follows washed up but genius screenwriter Herman Mankiewicz (or "Mank") as he races to finish the script of Orson Welles’s Citizen Kane. The plot is divided into two sections which play along side each other; the first of which being the period of time in which Mankiewicz attempts to write the script, with the other being flashbacks telling the events leading up to this. It is in the flashbacks (which are hilariously indicated by the word "flashback" appearing on screen in typewriter font) where Mank really shines. Fincher absolutely nails the aesthetic of 1930s Hollywood, with magnificent sets, fantastic costume design, a specially made RED Monochrome camera (which even features old white scratches, black spots and other things you’d see in old B&W film), and the accompaniment of Trent Reznor & Atticus Ross’s brilliant score (as always), all of which gives the film a sort of nostalgic authenticity. The music in general is extremely varied. In some sections you might have a backwards tracking shot, with the extremely snappy dialogue (no exaggeration, the dialogue is the best Fincher has ever written) going back and fourth, and over the top you can hear jazzy drum beats with the occasional use of bass to quicken the pace (a little like Birdman). In other parts the score might be more subtle, always replicating the style of music heard in 1930-40s cinema whilst still sounding distinctly like Reznor and Ross. However, regardless of how incredible the atmosphere and/or aesthetic is, the film wouldn’t be worth watching if not from the characters. Fortunately the characters are exceptional. I didn’t think anyone could even come close to Delroy Lindo’s performance in Da 5 Bloods, but Gary Oldman might give him a run for his money. Anyone who’s anyone knows that Oldman is a phenomenal actor, but I can confidently say that this is as of right now my favourite of his roles. Mank is witty, charismatic, arrogant, and even sometimes straight up unlikable, but under his pretence of callousness, he is a truly good person. Despite being heavily involved in the film industry, Mankiewicz is also a scathing social critic. Similar to in Citizen Kane, there is a sociopolitical subtext in Mank, which illustrates how the media can influence politics and the apparent ignorance of society. It was especially interesting to see Fincher’s depiction of William Randolph Hearst, who is the main subject of Citizen Kane’s criticism. To those who don’t know, Hearst was a newspaper tycoon who greatly influenced American politics during his lifetime, more often than not for the worse. In Mank he is played by Charles Dance (so you know he’s going to be a villain), and as per usual Dance is both cold and intimidating. There is a fantastic display of both Dance and Oldman’s acting in a Macbeth style banquet sequence, which as I understand it, took over 100 takes to perfect. Gary Oldman does steal the show as both the best performance and the main focus, but the supporting cast is hardly forgettable. The highlights for me were Lily Collins, Amanda Seyfried, and Tom Burke - who does a frighteningly accurate impression of Orson Welles. I do have some minor nitpicks about the film however. The pacing was at one or two points a tad too slow, and the flashback near the start which establishes how Mank broke his leg feels out of place and slightly forced. Otherwise I have very few complaints. Mank is an absolutely outstanding effort by David Fincher to replicate the magic of 1930s Hollywood. As well as the extremely well done Mise-en-scène which gives the film a sense of authenticity, Mank’s absolutely phenomenal acting, dialogue, music and sociopolitical themes help it blow almost every movie of 2020 out of the water. It performs the difficult task of somehow making Citizen Kane even better, whilst also being fantastic on its own, and for that it is now my favourite film by David Fincher… Expand

4 of 5 users found this helpful41

All this user's reviews

10

JDX_AwesomeDec 7, 2020

This film is a masterpiece, love Fincher’s films. Everything about it is fantastic.

3 of 4 users found this helpful31

All this user's reviews

8

TVJerryNov 20, 2020

The title is the nickname for famed 30s writer Herman J. Mankiewicz (played with grand style by Gary Oldman). Although the through line revolves around his efforts to write the screenplay for Citizen Kane, there are plenty of side trips intoThe title is the nickname for famed 30s writer Herman J. Mankiewicz (played with grand style by Gary Oldman). Although the through line revolves around his efforts to write the screenplay for Citizen Kane, there are plenty of side trips into his other Hollywood dealings. Director David Fincher has chosen to frame this paean to the glory days of Tinseltown in rich black and white with some obvious nods to Orson Welles’ cinematic style. As for the story, the narrative by Fincher’s father Jack is scattered without ever getting deep into the circumstances or character, although he does manage to insert some snappy quips. The performers do a good job, the period art direction is sufficiently attractive and the pacing never lags. Still, it seems more like a tribute to the cinematic art form than a fulfilling biographic insight.… Expand

4 of 6 users found this helpful42

All this user's reviews

3

kirkenderDec 14, 2020

Mank is unwatchable pretentious drivel. The fast talking script is full of deep cuts for the oldest film buffs but it's horribly boring to the rest of us. The acting is serviceable but Oldman chews the scenery with his overblown portrayal (asMank is unwatchable pretentious drivel. The fast talking script is full of deep cuts for the oldest film buffs but it's horribly boring to the rest of us. The acting is serviceable but Oldman chews the scenery with his overblown portrayal (as usual). Just go watch Citizen Kane.… Expand

2 of 3 users found this helpful21

All this user's reviews

10

tarqsNov 19, 2020

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Amazing film! Fincher delivers another masterpiece. Definitely in Oscar conversation.… Expand

5 of 9 users found this helpful54

All this user's reviews

0

NShep53Nov 17, 2020

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Revisionist history by Fincher here and not worth watching based on that fact alone.… Expand

5 of 10 users found this helpful55

All this user's reviews

5

FadeBlackDec 10, 2020

I did not find it enjoyable. I can appreciate that they recreated a very detailed and believable time period, and although as a writer myself I can appreciate the importance of telling this story about the battle of credits...there was veryI did not find it enjoyable. I can appreciate that they recreated a very detailed and believable time period, and although as a writer myself I can appreciate the importance of telling this story about the battle of credits...there was very little of anything I could consider drama and moments inviting emotional investment. It just did not move me.… Expand

2 of 4 users found this helpful22

All this user's reviews

1

AnaLauraLunaDec 5, 2020

Es una película Aburrida, mucho diálogo, no entendí nada, muy plana sin emoción

2 of 4 users found this helpful22

All this user's reviews

7

LatinCritic13Dec 4, 2020

David Fincher’s Mank can be classified as a work of art, somehow, it feels very familiar to what Quentin Tarantino has done with Once Upon a Time In Hollywood in terms of historical significance by retelling cinema history and Mank says it all.

1 of 2 users found this helpful11

All this user's reviews

7

HerickDienerDec 4, 2020

"Mank" é carregado pela ótima intepretação do Gary Oldman e sua parte técnica impecável. Mas, no final do dia, talvez ele seja apenas um filme extremamente nichado, feito para os cinéfilos que exaltam, com razão, "Citizen Kane".

1 of 2 users found this helpful11

All this user's reviews

5

eldepicDec 9, 2020

Mank was crafted with excellent filmmaking that paid a great homage with its perfect atmosphere. However, snappy dialogues, good scoring, and Amanda Seyfried was unable to counter the bleary & weak direction it took from the uncentered andMank was crafted with excellent filmmaking that paid a great homage with its perfect atmosphere. However, snappy dialogues, good scoring, and Amanda Seyfried was unable to counter the bleary & weak direction it took from the uncentered and overlapping narratives.… Expand

1 of 2 users found this helpful11

All this user's reviews

10

PatientkillerDec 20, 2020

The film does not taste good in typical movie watchers, this is just for cinephiles; so if you’re not in the second group just don’t bother yourself by watching it, simply it’s not made for you.
Apart from it’s specific audience it’s just theThe film does not taste good in typical movie watchers, this is just for cinephiles; so if you’re not in the second group just don’t bother yourself by watching it, simply it’s not made for you.
Apart from it’s specific audience it’s just the perfect kind of movie I’ve been waiting for...
In technical department I dare to say that Fincher is the best in that field.
For those who say Oldman is second best in performance to Seyfried I have to say without any doubt Oldman gives the best performance of the movie, in my opinion his performance if not better is equal in craft & execution in comparison to Anthony Hopkins’ and Chadwick Boseman’s
In the end I’d like to say that Fincher was the only one to have the b***s to critique the industry & politics like this.… Expand

1 of 2 users found this helpful11

All this user's reviews

10

DrBlahBlahNov 15, 2020

Another masterpiece from Fincher, the most talented non-auteur director working today.

3 of 7 users found this helpful34

All this user's reviews

0

Paul_91Nov 18, 2020

It was really bad. I really don't understand why many people like this movie. For me, this is the real bait for the Oscar.

6 of 15 users found this helpful69

All this user's reviews

7

adamranDec 4, 2020

Despite its production’s visual technical prowess and beautiful orchestral score, the narrative often feels too remote and emotionally distant. It is as if the actors - to no fault of their own- are not so much inhabiting the roles of theirDespite its production’s visual technical prowess and beautiful orchestral score, the narrative often feels too remote and emotionally distant. It is as if the actors - to no fault of their own- are not so much inhabiting the roles of their characters as they are participating in a pastiche costume party.… Expand

2 of 5 users found this helpful23

All this user's reviews

3

seymoursgalDec 11, 2020

For me, Fincher missed the mark here. I'm shocked to see how high the score is, with the user score right up there, too. Didn't anyone else get bored of the drunken pretentiousness displayed? To think of Oldman scoring another Oscar nom forFor me, Fincher missed the mark here. I'm shocked to see how high the score is, with the user score right up there, too. Didn't anyone else get bored of the drunken pretentiousness displayed? To think of Oldman scoring another Oscar nom for this is almost too much to handle (Fincher to Oldman: "Keep doing exactly the same thing over and over. That is my only note."). It's sloppy. And I know it's supposed to be mimicking "Kane," but sloppy is sloppy. Seyfried was very good. Charles Dance was very good. That is why my score is as high as it is. Oh, the guy who plays Louis B Mayer is very good, too. And now my sloppiness has mimicked "Mank."… Expand

1 of 3 users found this helpful12

All this user's reviews

4

mohammadhoseinjDec 4, 2020

MANK (2020) is not an awful film. It has a lot of great shots and technical achievements. But Damn. This film is overrated. Really, Really, Overrated. and that script? Yikes.

1 of 3 users found this helpful12

All this user's reviews

7

Brent_MarchantDec 7, 2020

Actor-director Orson Welles's epic "Citizen Kane" is considered by many to be one of the greatest (if not the greatest) film ever made, but it may never have achieved that distinction without the superb script penned by screenwriter HermanActor-director Orson Welles's epic "Citizen Kane" is considered by many to be one of the greatest (if not the greatest) film ever made, but it may never have achieved that distinction without the superb script penned by screenwriter Herman "Mank" Mankiewicz. In director David Fincher's latest, the filmmaker tells the colorful back story examining how the Oscar-winning screenplay came together, a lavish old Hollywood-style production with all the trimmings, gorgeous black-and-white cinematography, and a slate of stellar performances, including those of Gary Oldman, Amanda Seyfriend, Arliss Howard and Charles Dance. Nevertheless, one can't help but wonder why anybody should care about a picture like this; unless one is a diehard classic movie buff, a Welles oficianado or a student of 1930s left-wing politics, "Mank" may not have much to offer the average moviegoer, especially with the film's many inside (and unexplained) references to these subjects, its ample "Kane" trivia and the details of the lives of those who inspired its storyline. This is by no means a bad picture (though it is a little slow to get started), but it may prompt many to wonder about its reason for being -- and leave them pining for Mankiewicz's handiwork instead.… Expand

1 of 3 users found this helpful12

All this user's reviews

9

MattBrady99Dec 11, 2020

‘Mank’ is absolutely mankificent! A movie centered around the golden age of Hollywood that felt so classy, and yet very timely. Timely in terms of communism and how film studios were struggling to find new ways to attract audiences back to‘Mank’ is absolutely mankificent! A movie centered around the golden age of Hollywood that felt so classy, and yet very timely. Timely in terms of communism and how film studios were struggling to find new ways to attract audiences back to the cinema’s. I found the political and economic undertone of the story were the best part about the movie. It shows why Mank and Wells were so passionate about making "Citizen Kane", and it allows us to appreciate the film not only from a technical stand point, but for themes the creators were exploring in it. It makes you look at ‘Citizen Kane’ more differently and hopefully helps us recognize the power of political narrative in popular media.

It’s less about the making of ‘Citizen Kane’ and more about the screen writer himself, Herman J. Mankiewicz and the ever-changing hardships that Hollywood faced in the 1930’s, way before “the great depression”. This is not 100% a true story nor do I believe Fincher was aiming for that, as he instead chooses to focus more on Mankiewicz perspective, an unreliable alcoholic that blurs the line between what is true and isn't. David Fincher is somebody that I admire both as a filmmaker and as a human being. With ‘Mank’, it’s a complete departure from Fincher's other work in terms of tone and everything else. However, it’s not to say his visual style, extreme attention to detail, and humour isn’t present. This is not just a love letter to Hollywood, but a critical one as well. Still, it’s a bittersweet to see his late father, Jack Fincher, who wrote the screenplay for this movie, get screen credit at the beginning, all these years after his death.

I was completely blown away on my first watch when there is a screen transition; all the lights, natural or from lamps, will slowly dim out first, while the actors are the last ones. Erik Messerschmidt's cinematography is absolutely stunning in black and white. The clean cuts really made the dialogue scenes have a certain flow to it. Not forgetting the top-notch audio work in the movie, which sounds very echoey. Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross' score is terrific and effectively uses every authentic period instruments of that era, delivering a sharp and old-fashion score that evokes ‘Citizen Kane’. Gary Oldman is phenomenal as the title lead. A comical yet grounded portrayal to the uncredited alcoholic, as he looks so bloated and mentally absorbed that it’s a miracle he is always on schedule with work. Gary Oldman is so slick and charming in the role that I can understand why people put up with Mank’s unprofessional behaviour. People seem to be bothered with Oldman’s casting, as apparently he is “too old to play the role”, since in the movie Mank himself states he is 43 years old, while Oldman is 62. Well, if you look at any photos of Mankiewicz, he looked so much older than his actual age. There was one photo of him when he was 44 but looked mid-60. All thanks to alcohol and smoking that aged him like sour milk, because back then nobody took care of themselves, as health and mental wellbeing was the last thing to think about, and Mank did no favours for himself. So yeah, this whole age thing is completely pointless and can be easily justified. And besides, Oldman is brilliant in the role. Amanda Seyfried also delivers an excellent performance as Marion Davies, Aka “Dulcinea”, nick named after the fictional character in the two-part novel ‘Don Quixote’. Her golden hair, rosy cheeks, coral lips, her neck alabaster, her bosom marble. Ivory her hands and whiteness her snow. ‘Dulcinea’ means sweetness in translation. Seyfried is the type of actor that has been around for quite a while now, and yet hasn’t had a breakout role. In ‘Mank’, Seyfried finally gets her time to shine and it is glorious to watch. The other cast members all did a fantastic job in the supporting roles. Arliss Howard is great as the tactful and emotional movie producer Louis B. Mayer. Charles Dance, man what a presence and he left such an impression on me despite the small screen time as William Randolph Hearst. Lily Collins, Tom Pelphrey, and Tuppence Middleton all did a great job and stood on their own next to Gary Oldman. While there are loads of characters, but I still found them all quite interesting and equally had compelling arcs.

Tom Burke’s portrayal as Orson Welles is nothing short than amazing. His voice and mannerism are so on point its kind of terrifying. While it’s a shame his screen time is tiny, even so, I can see why that decision was made. We all know about Orson Welles, but little on Herman Mankiewicz. In this movie, we see a lot of Hermie, and see little of Welles. The movie is not for everyone. I can totally understand why somebody may find the movie boring. However, I am the complete opposite. So if you are going to check it out, then I recommend going in and form your own opinion rather on what other people have said.… Expand

1 of 3 users found this helpful12

All this user's reviews

2

OlivierPielDec 6, 2020

This film summarizes the demise of Hollywood and why its vision of cinema as "telling a story in pictures" was wrong all along. And why Fincher is the most overrated filmmaker of his generation. The greatness of Citizen Kane has far less toThis film summarizes the demise of Hollywood and why its vision of cinema as "telling a story in pictures" was wrong all along. And why Fincher is the most overrated filmmaker of his generation. The greatness of Citizen Kane has far less to do with Mank's script than Orson Welles'ingenuous use of the camera. As such, Welles was the only American who was European in its artistry whereas all the Europeans used by MGM and Co had sold their soul for that Faustian bargain. We just don't need to put it on a negative. We know this already! Cinema is "sculpting time", not telling a story. For that you have books, but you don't read, you dumb Yankees! Watch L'année dernière à Marienbad or Tarkovsky's Zerkalo!… Expand

3 of 10 users found this helpful37

All this user's reviews

8

moviemitch96Nov 23, 2020

In this film from director David Fincher ('Fight Club', 'The Social Network', and 'Gone Girl' to name a few), and from a screenplay written by his late father Jack Fincher, Gary Oldman portrays Herman J. Mankiewicz, and outcast alcoholicIn this film from director David Fincher ('Fight Club', 'The Social Network', and 'Gone Girl' to name a few), and from a screenplay written by his late father Jack Fincher, Gary Oldman portrays Herman J. Mankiewicz, and outcast alcoholic screenwriter who finds himself clashing with filmmaker Orson Welles while attempting to write the screenplay for 'Citizen Kane' (which today is known as one of the greatest films of all-time). Mank seemingly puts his whole career and even his sanity on the line as he tries to exercise as much credit and control of the story as he can alongside Welles. First off, this film is straight up brilliant! Everything about it is just so well-done and impressive! The entire film felt, looked, and sounded like an old film from the 40s to the point where I mostly forgot I was watching a modern-day film, what with the grainy black-and-white picture, the scratchy sound, and even the reel change dots (or cigarette burns) in the corner during many of the scene changes. It was entirely filmed on an old-fashioned Panavision camera as well. And when it comes to Fincher films, the man has a pretty respectable track record, as you can always count on excellent storytelling and performances, with a screenplay full of quick-witted and razor-sharp dialogue, and a stellar cast to compliment it. Gary Oldman once again knocks it out of the park in the titular role, giving an abrasive yet sometimes oddly charming performance, and Amanda Seyfried is a dream to watch as classic film actress Marion Davies. As solid as the film's story is, the narrative seemed to stray for me a little bit in the second half, what with a decent number of flashbacks, but the film never lost its footing or sense of direction too much. Overall, I'd certainly consider it one of Fincher's best films in recent memory, with a solid ensemble and top-notch performances from all involved, particularly Oldman and Seyfried, an excellent vintage feeling and style, and a pretty smart and nifty screenplay, making this one a must-see for fans of Fincher, but also classic cinema-lovers and simply film-lovers in general as well!… Expand

1 of 4 users found this helpful13

All this user's reviews

0

EscapologyNov 15, 2020

The worst film of the year! Definitely, this film is the main attraction for the Oscars!

3 of 23 users found this helpful320

All this user's reviews

8

bertobellamyDec 6, 2020

A return to form for David Fincher. 'Mank' is a slap to the face to all the greediness and corruption that has characterized Hollywood. Gary Oldman shines as a troubled screenwriter, whose transformation into a caring person gives, as aA return to form for David Fincher. 'Mank' is a slap to the face to all the greediness and corruption that has characterized Hollywood. Gary Oldman shines as a troubled screenwriter, whose transformation into a caring person gives, as a result, one of the greatest films of all time. This movie deserves at least nominations in acting, directing, writing, photography, music, editing, sound, and production design in the next Oscars.… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

7

alizodiacJan 5, 2021

Beautifully shot film with great performances from Gard Oldman, Amanda Seyfried and of course Charels Dance. Add to that a fantastic score as well. The story is slow and at times feels like dragging, but this is not a fast-paced, plot-drivenBeautifully shot film with great performances from Gard Oldman, Amanda Seyfried and of course Charels Dance. Add to that a fantastic score as well. The story is slow and at times feels like dragging, but this is not a fast-paced, plot-driven flick. I enjoyed the world and found the story fascinating enough to keep me intrigued. More than anything, it's a marvelous achivement in film.… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

2

katezoeJan 6, 2021

How can you make a boring movie about Hollywood? Fincher who has directed some of favorite films bombed with this. I was expecting so much more. Terrible waste of time.

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

8

tropicAcesDec 1, 2020

It’s closer to ZODIAC than THE SOCIAL NETWORK, but the film’s attention to detail and witty script are great. Maybe not what we expected, but well worth the two-hour Netflix investment.

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

5

everettDec 6, 2020

I was touched that Fincher paid tribute to his father by making this movie from his script. I even did the homework beforehand, having been warned that the film wouldn't make much sense if I didn't; but, having been an industry writerI was touched that Fincher paid tribute to his father by making this movie from his script. I even did the homework beforehand, having been warned that the film wouldn't make much sense if I didn't; but, having been an industry writer myself, I did wonder: It should be there in the film, whether it's a period piece or not. That's the writer's job. Great films find a way to work it all in. Nonetheless, I looked forward to it. But I have to say that, despite some fine performances, this film is very overrated. Besides being esoteric, it's so repetitive (e.g., we know immediately that Mank's an alcoholic yet it's hammered home time and time again); it's overly long; at least half of the characters are redundantly stereotypical; and worst of all, at least for me, the characters fail to engage. I just didn't care about them. Oh, maybe Mank near the end (a few good lines that I could certainly identify with), but his clever flippant dialogue throughout the movie was tiresome and, again, repetitive. What a shame, to have so much talent given over to material that very few can understand or justify giving 2 hrs. 11 min. to. I wish I didn't feel this way. But I also wish the reviewers who fall all over themselves to praise this film, anxious to appear "in the know," would keep in mind that non-industry viewers are hungry for meaningful, compelling stories with relatable, well-drawn characters. Fine material with high production values so rarely gets made these days. Even original material that's simply entertaining has a place in these dark times. Me? I kept checking to see how soon it would be over.… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

6

PanchogulApr 27, 2021

Una decepción viniendo del gran David Fincher, primero destacando lo bueno, a nivel técnico es una odisea, tanto el sonido como la imagen dan la sensación de ver una película de la época en la que está ambientada, a nivel actoral está bienUna decepción viniendo del gran David Fincher, primero destacando lo bueno, a nivel técnico es una odisea, tanto el sonido como la imagen dan la sensación de ver una película de la época en la que está ambientada, a nivel actoral está bien pero no excelente, ahora lo malo, es aburrida, fastidiosa, vacía y monótona.… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

9

alejandro970Dec 13, 2020

The story of the man behind the mask, the man behind Citizen Kane, and the series of events that allowed him to bring one of the most important films ever to life. True to form, Gary Oldman plays a role that fits him like a glove. ToThe story of the man behind the mask, the man behind Citizen Kane, and the series of events that allowed him to bring one of the most important films ever to life. True to form, Gary Oldman plays a role that fits him like a glove. To highlight the direction of Fincher, and the entrance sequence that pays homage to the classics.… Expand

0 of 2 users found this helpful02

All this user's reviews

0

corinthiansDec 18, 2020

Just a boring oscar bait...................................................

0 of 2 users found this helpful02

All this user's reviews

8

JLuis_001Dec 5, 2020

There had been a lot of talk about Mank not being to the liking of many, and frankly I didn't understand why.
After seeing it, I keep wondering why, because to my knowledge, any serious movie fan will watch it easily.
Mank is Fincher at theThere had been a lot of talk about Mank not being to the liking of many, and frankly I didn't understand why.
After seeing it, I keep wondering why, because to my knowledge, any serious movie fan will watch it easily.

Mank is Fincher at the top of his game. It's not his best film by any means, but it's a film that shows a director in total control of his film, and who risked leaving a comfort zone.

I must admit that it's not the masterpiece I was waiting for and it's not as incisive as I thought it would be, but still, I judge the results and not my expectations, and Mank is a film that obsesses and fascinates, although it also makes the mistake of overreaching.

I blamed this on the fact that the script was a personal project and that's why Fincher, despite his ambition, doesn't deliver a film that lives up to its premise.

In the acting field, once again Gary Oldman proves to be one of the best actors of his generation and perhaps in history.
If I was told that he deserved to win the Oscr for this movie instead of Darkest Hour, I would easily confirm it.

The surprise here is Amanda Seyfried, who while she doesn't deliver that impressive performance I've read about, she definitely delivers the best she has done in many years, if not in her entire career.
I augur her a nomination for best supporting actress in the awards season.

Ultimately Mank is a story about Hollywood for Hollywood. A dream come true for Fincher.
A fascinating but unspectacular film.

* I was going to give it a 7 stars, but I decided 8 because of the huge production work and the elegance of its cinematography.
And the magnificent music of course. Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross finally tried something very different, and got out from the ambient and electronic sound that has characterized them throughout their career as film composers.… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

8

theredskyDec 20, 2020

An excellent return from Director David Fincher. With everything getting postponed till next year, this easily shot up to the top of my most anticipated for winter. It’s a little confusing for the first 25 minutes of the film but you soonAn excellent return from Director David Fincher. With everything getting postponed till next year, this easily shot up to the top of my most anticipated for winter. It’s a little confusing for the first 25 minutes of the film but you soon start to get the grasp of it once the film starts moving along at a quicker pace. Gary Oldman’s performance is easily one of my favorite performances of the year although it’s not my personal favorite. His portrayal of screenwriter of Herman Mankiewicz is incredibly accurate and mesmerizing. He absolutely steals every scene he is in and he is incredible at showing this drunken genius. In fact, there isn’t a single bad performance. Everyone does a great job although they aren’t as fantastic as Gary Oldman. Speaking of screenwriting, the writing is great. Fincher has always done a good job at subtlety showing his characters and their changes and there isn’t any difference here. The film looks great too. Fincher made the smart decision to make the film look like it came out of the 1940s meaning that audio and quality looks like the 40s which works very well for the tone the film is going for. I thought the story of Mankiewicz life mixed in with his inspiration and writing of the critically acclaimed Citizen Kane. Citizen Kane is obviously the better movie but it was great to see the inspiration Mankiewicz had for the film. There is a lot of political talk in the film relating to socialism vs capitalism which could turn some off but I enjoyed how the incorporated it by showing how different Mankiewicz was from his rich friends. I would definitely recommend it to fans of Fincher or want a film with good performances and potential Oscar talk.… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

9

MasadaDec 10, 2020

As I'm reading J. Hoberman's "An Army of Phantoms", it's quite fascinating to see persons that are subject in the book be beatured on the big screen. Albeit a bit fictionalized, it takes place before the events in the book. Back in the day,As I'm reading J. Hoberman's "An Army of Phantoms", it's quite fascinating to see persons that are subject in the book be beatured on the big screen. Albeit a bit fictionalized, it takes place before the events in the book. Back in the day, politics shaped movies way more than they do now. (Although there are examples of this happening to appease certain nations in the world.) Propaganda in movies to shape the public's mind is something only Herman J. Mankiewicz frowns upon in Mank.

It took me longer to watch because I had to keep consulting Google and IMDB for the period correct mentions of events and persons. I left the movie not only better informed about how Citizen Kane came to be written, the impression I now have of the people involved helps me to humanize them. They're no longer just names on a page for me. The magic of the movies.

One has to mention the thorough effort to establish the particular sense of nostalgia for the 80-year old setting. They way it is filmed brings forth the unmitigated sense that this is a passion project. David Fincher did not hold back turning this era-defining story into this skillful product, although I do feel sorry for the actors having to go through multiple takes to reach his defenition of perfection. (Stanley Kubrick-flashbacks anyone?).

However, that leaves us with a picture that has accomplished acting, remeniscant of old Hollywood that is neither glamorous nor dismissive. If you love movies, this is a perfect addition to your "Must Watch"-list.… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

10

Mark3pmDec 11, 2020

If you love movies and movies about loving movies, then this is the absolute tops. Perfection!

0 of 2 users found this helpful02

All this user's reviews

8

Stream2BigScreeJan 5, 2021

David Fincher's highly-anticipated film, Mank, premiered on Netflix at the beginning of December 2020. Full disclosure: David Fincher is probably my favorite contemporary director. His filmography is great: Gone Girl, The Girl with the DragonDavid Fincher's highly-anticipated film, Mank, premiered on Netflix at the beginning of December 2020. Full disclosure: David Fincher is probably my favorite contemporary director. His filmography is great: Gone Girl, The Girl with the Dragon Tatoo, The Social Network, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, Fight Club, Zodiac and Se7en. I also like Citizen Kane and the history of Hollywood, so Mank should be squarely in my wheelhouse. At this point, I've seen Mank four times, and I have struggled since my initial viewing with reviewing it. I'm really not in any better position now to opine about the film. Here's goes anyway.

On the most basic level, Mank is about how screenwriter, Herman J. "Mank" Mankiewicz, wrote Citizen Kane in 1941 and his experiences in 1930's Hollywood that influenced that film. Fincher transports us back to old Hollywood starting with "Mank" scrawled across the screen in the title cards to invoke the films from the 1930's and 40's like Citizen Kane. The action of the film switches between the writing of Citizen Kane in 1941 and flashbacks to Mank's burgeoning acquaintance with William Randolph Hearst in the 1930's. Flashbacks is a major component of the structure of Citizen Kane as well. Mank is shot in luscious black and white, the sound of the film and the cadence of the speech of the actors all hearken back to that time. If you want to settle in for a film about the bygone era shot like it's from that era, then Mank answers that call. There are iconic names that populate the movie: Hearst, Louis B. Mayer, Marion Davies, Irving G. Thalberg, and Mank's brother, Joseph Mankiewicz, who directed All About Eve. It is all impeccably crafted including the costumes and the production design - everything that takes place in San Simeon, Hearst's Shangri-La-like compound, is meticulous.

Gary Oldman plays Mank, who is a drunk, quick-witted and self-serving. One of my main sticking points for Mank is that Oldman is 20 years older than Mank. I understand that he was mired in alcoholism, which probably took a toll on his youth, but really - Oldman is 62, Mank is 43 in 1941 and in his thirties in the flashbacks. I can't get over that. Oldman otherwise plays the lush and washed up screenwriter well. Amanda Seyfried is the other actor who gets a showcase. She's delightful as Marion Davies. Seyfried exudes charm and wit that makes her endearing and does a lot to explain why Mank and Hearst want to be around her. There are also good performances by Tuppence Middelton, Arliss Howard, Lily Collins, and Charles Dance, among others, who fill out the capable and engaging ensemble. One of the best scenes in Mank takes place at 41 minutes in and is the first party scene at Hearst's San Simeon mansion in 1933 - it is Louis B. Mayer's birthday and all the major players are present. The cast really shines. The scene snaps with dialogue and humor and it is where the audience learns that Mank isn't just about the writing of Citizen Kane; unfortunately, some may not make it that far.

It took seeing Mank four times for me to get some nuances that become important later in the film. I probably could have gotten it on the second viewing, but there is a lot going on that isn't necessarily distracting but it may be difficult to determine what's important to what the film is trying to say. For someone who is a bit of a film nerd, I appreciated watching this 2-plus hour movie about old Hollywood and the writing of what is considered the "Greatest Film Ever Made" - I was happy to watch it multiple times. I find it difficult to believe that general audiences will feel the same.

Ultimately, Mank is meticulously put together by a masterful filmmaker about an interesting piece of film history that plays best for those truly interested in that history. For others, it may be a difficult or tedious viewing experience. I think it's worthwhile, but if you're not a "film nerd" - just get a handful of popcorn and if you make it 41 minutes in, then fill a bowl and stay for the rest.… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

7

JamesDefoeDec 22, 2020

The ultimate "how to make the most of a movie with a weak story" guide. Well built characters, clever and good looking photography, nice dialogues, but a well told weak story is still weak.

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

10

JSOOe12Nov 16, 2020

Before you say I did Not watch this Movie I watched it On of My friends is A critic and he showed me the movie

0 of 9 users found this helpful09

All this user's reviews

4

lipinoDec 29, 2020

A chore to get through. I was hoping for a realistic depiction of events, but it's just a bad impression of old movies. The dialogue is ridiculous witty drivel, devoid of the charm of the golden era. If I wanted to see a classic movie, I'dA chore to get through. I was hoping for a realistic depiction of events, but it's just a bad impression of old movies. The dialogue is ridiculous witty drivel, devoid of the charm of the golden era. If I wanted to see a classic movie, I'd watch one. This is like watching a Beatles cover band.… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

8

KlimKlamZipZorpJan 2, 2021

The movie is good. The story is good too. There are some technical issues with green screening and focus of the camera that i was surprised to see in a David Fincher movie, but considering this was filmed at a time while Covid rules theThe movie is good. The story is good too. There are some technical issues with green screening and focus of the camera that i was surprised to see in a David Fincher movie, but considering this was filmed at a time while Covid rules the world... gotta cut him some slack. The dialogue is good. The acting is fantastic. Gary Oldman is amazing as always. Lily Colins also is very impressive. Maybe one blip where Monika Grossman momentarily loses her German accent. Not a big deal. Charles Dance is his usual stoic self. It was nice to see Bill Nye. All messaging and pretensions aside, if you take the movie for what it is; a bunch of good, veteran actors getting together with a good, veteran director and his good, veteran production crew and having fun... it's not a bad experience.… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

5

Camwhit0196Feb 27, 2021

This movie looks great, is acted well, directed masterfully, and yet i found myself not caring about anybody or anything that happened

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

3

imthenoobDec 14, 2020

The movie is the definition of Oscar bait and tries a bit too hard at times to be one. Oldman gives a solid performance but it's mostly an ensemble piece where the cast as a whole performs well (especially Burke as Welles) but no one reallyThe movie is the definition of Oscar bait and tries a bit too hard at times to be one. Oldman gives a solid performance but it's mostly an ensemble piece where the cast as a whole performs well (especially Burke as Welles) but no one really truly shines. Honestly, It's a very overrated movie that is sure to get some nominations come awards time but I doubt it'll win much of anything.… Expand