Mank (2020) User Reviews

A film which seems to have been for a select few....but not the hoi polloi..

[planktonrules · 7/10 · 24 July 2021]

"Mank" is a film that seems as if it was never intended to be seen by most of the public. And, while most film critics and the Oscars loved the movie, the average person would have doubtless left the theater (or Netflix) completely confused. After all, to really appreciate the film and follow it, you need to know who folks like Irving Thalberg, William Randolph Hearts and many of Herman Mankiewiecz's contemporaries. I do, mostly because I am a retired history teacher and old film nut...but I am also not the average person. For them, I really feel sorry, as the film bounces back and forth in time and involves all sorts of people long dead....and soon to be forgotten.*

The story is a semi-fictionalized biography of Herman Mankiewiecz and it centers on how he wrote "Citizen Kane". The problem is that the movie goes on the assumption that he pretty much completely wrote the script and based it upon his contact with Hearst and his mistress, Marion Davies. While this is true...it's partially true according to most sources. The contributions of John Houseman and, especially, Orson Welles, are almost completely ignored by the film. So, my advice is don't take the film as the gospel truth...though I do appreciate how the film also manages, at least a bit, to show that Marion Davies was NOT the talentless idiot she was shown to be in "Citizen Kane"...something that just seemed cruel from that screenplay.

Overall, I found the film fascinating and with some excellent performances. But it's also not a film that I loved...mostly because it seemed to have an agenda...one that was more important that giving the entire truth.

*This film is full of inside jokes and cleverness that completely passes over the heads of most viewers and that annoyed me a bit. For example, when talking about the author Upton Sinclair, one comment made was that someone was so dumb that they thought he wrote "Elmer Gantry"...a book, incidentally, that was written by Sinclair Lewis (though they never explained this confusion nor why it is easy to make for most people). This just seemed awfully elitist.

Okay but disappointing

[grantss · 6/10 · 5 December 2020]

1940. Film studio RKO hires 24-year-old wunderkind Orson Welles under a contract that gives him full creative control of his movies. For his first film he calls in washed up alcoholic Herman J Mankiewicz to write the screenplay. That film is Citizen Kane and this is the story of how it was written.

I was quite excited at the release of this movie. Citizen Kane is one of the greatest films of all time and the making of it deserves a movie. And here we have it, directed by the great David Fincher (Se7en, Fight Club, Zodiac, The Social Network, Gone Girl, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button) no less and with a good cast - Gary Oldman, Amanda Seyfried, Charles Dance, Lily Collins. Surely a recipe for a masterpiece?

Unfortunately, no. On the plus side, the story is reasonably interesting and the cast put in solid performances. Fincher's direction is spot-on, with the black-and-white cinematography an homage to Citizen Kane.

However, the plot is never very engaging. The story never really finds a centre and pretty much drifts along. It's not dull but has a listlessness to it nonetheless. The flashbacks, while adding information, don't help the momentum either, resulting in a start-stop feel to the main plot and a bit of confusion at times.

The conclusion is also a damp squib and is disparaging to one of the greatest creative forces in the history of cinema. It smacks of trying to make a controversy out of nothing.

Overall it's okay, but nothing more.

Sadly overwrought and underwhelmed

[secondtake · 6/10 · 16 December 2020]

Mank (2020)

The movie that everyone wants to like. But why?

Oh, Gary Oldman as Mankewitz is rather terrific. And the subject matter should hold water, concerning William Randolf Hearst and that 1930s world of excess, not to mention Orson Welles and that obvious Citizen Kane connection.

But there are so many scenes where the writer is straining to make sure the audience is keeping up with things, for example giving us first names (and variations on first names) to clue us in on who is who. The strain of having to inform the audience chokes the intended authenticity. The scene early on where some screenwriters (including Ben Hecht) are chatting about screenplays and ideas is so forced it's embarrassing-especially since it's about screenwriting.

The movie has its beauty, for sure, filmed in greyish black and white that is a softened, more detailed version of classic Hollywood. Films from the time it is set, mid-1930s to 1940, are noticably "harder" in tonality, meaning deeper blacks and more overall contrast. Citizen Kane is a prime example. It's worth noting that the photography for "Mank" is generally very poised and luminous, lots of backlighting and delineated grey scales, not much like the photography in Kane.

Now you might expect the film to grow into its own vocabulary, to have a style of its own whatever the borrowings of its substance. But no, the script is stubbornly derivative and simplistic (almost as if the writers were in their 20s and just discovering Hollywood, and literature). And the reason for this is as old as the hills-the son David Fincher is adapting the screenplay of his beloved departed father, Jack Fincher. A natural mistake, but not one to put $50,000,000 on.

The plot, what little there actually is, blunders along, dull as pancakes in July. The cliches abound, the supporting cast spouts obvious quips, and the name-dropping is endless and revealing. I do love Citizen Kane, and admire Welles, and I also greatly admire many of Fincher's films on another level, so it all is a disappointment.

The saving grace is certainly Oldman, who acts his heart out, and sustains many scenes, even ones that don't offer much worth saving. True, he's a 62 year old playing the part of a man between 37 and 42, roughly, and that doesn't help. But he's committed and complex. A good job.

And the movie isn't a total wreck...but with all the hype, it really deflates and confounds. How and why, with all this talent, did it end up so underachieving? Or then again, who really cares?

An historically innaccurate tour de force,

[ahicks-2 · 7/10 · 3 December 2020]

Like Oliver Stone's "JFK a masterfully executed distortion of history Fine acting and cinematography, but no comparison to those of "Citizen Kane."

Fincher's villainization in MANK of Welles as a plagiarist runs contrary to the facts. To quote Robert Carringer, the expert on the matter: "A virtually complete set of script records for Citizen Kane has been pre- served in the archives of RKO General Pictures in Hollywood, and these provide almost a day-to-day record of the history of the scripting. Once this record is reconstructed and all the available pieces of evidence are matched to it, a reasonably clear picture emerges of who was responsible for what in the final script. The full evidence reveals that Welles' contribution to the Citizen Kane script was not only substantial but definitive (370)... "Herman Mankiewicz's principal contribution to the Citizen Kane script was made in the early stages at Victorville. The Victorville scripts elaborated the plot logic and laid down the overall story contours (398).... The Mankiewicz partisans would have us believe that this is the heart of the matter and that by the end of Victorville the essential part of the scripting was complete. Quite the contrary... Major revisions begin as soon as the script passes into Welles' hands, and several important lines of development can be discerned in sub- sequent phases of the scripting. One of these is the elimination of dramatically questionable material, especially of a large amount of material drawn from Hearst. Another is a fundamental alteration of the nature of many of the scenes; this may be described generally as a shift from scenes played continuously to scenes fragmented according to montage conceptions" (399). (Here, the evolution of Mankiewicz's rather humdrum scenes involving Kane and Emily into the film's concise, witty, montage is a perfect example.), Yet another is the evolution of Charles Foster Kane as a character. The principal strategy is the replaying of certain key situa tions and moments in his life over and over again as a means of testing and discovering the character (399)....":Not even the staunchest defenders of Mankiewicz would deny that Welles was principally responsible for the realization of the film. But in light of the evidence, it may be they will also have to grant him principal responsibility for the realization of the script" (400)." (See Robert L. Carringer. "The Scripts of 'Citizen Kane.'" Critical Inquiry, Vol. 5, No. 2, 1978pp. 369-400; Also cf. The Making of Citizen Kane, 985). More interpretively. Welles was preponderantly an adapter of others work, whether from Shakespeare, lesser classics or thrillers, whether for radio theater, stage theater or film. "Citizen Kane" can be viewed as Welles' adaptation of Mankiewicz's ungainly, 250-page "American," his first "script" for "Kane."

Visually stunning, but a frustrating watch.

[Sleepin_Dragon · 6/10 · 17 December 2022]

The story of how writer Herman Mankiewicz penned Citizen Kane.

I had huge hopes for this film, and as it began, my heart sank with excitement, those black and white, soft visual sequences looked sublime, and the opening moments had me captivated, sadly it never really gets going, and ultimately disappoints.

Visually, it is rather breathtaking, 1930's Hollywood is reinvented, the soft lighting, camera work, costumes, cars, even the language are all on paint, pain staking efforts were clearly put into making this film a visual marvel.

Sadly the visuals alone weren't enough to save it, the story itself is interesting, but it's delivered in a way that'll have you yawning and fidgeting, it's too slow, too self indulgent.

The flashback sequences are distracting, and fail to enhance the film, just slowing down any momentum, if used sparingly, they can work, just too many here.

I must give huge credit to Gary Oldman, as always his performance is heart felt, sincere and terrific, and along with the visuals, simply not enough to save the film.

I can appreciate the production and visuals, I can certainly admire the acting, not just Oldman, the whole cast are excellent, but what I cannot forgive is the agonising pacing, and ultimately the boredom I experienced throughout most of it.

It is watchable, but I was glad to see the credits roll, 6/10.

It's not a Documentary...

[Xstal · 8/10 · 10 December 2020]

... just as CK wasn't, so if you enjoy expending time and energy reviewing and commenting on a work of fiction as if it were moulded and forged from the past verbatim, you really need to reconsider how you approach and view the world of cinema and film - perhaps life in general! Perspective, interpretation and imagination are the keywords and, on this occasion, it helps if you have an interest or familiarity with some, not all, of the characters portrayed and the products of their toil and travails - as this will definitely impact your view on the rendering which, in my opinion, was enhanced by a spectacular performance from Gary Oldman, further elevated and reinforced by three stunning constructions from the supporting ladies and embellished with my ability to acknowledge fact from fiction in the name of entertainment. Watch a documentary or read a biography if you want to be educated!

Solid slice of early film history

[bastille-852-731547 · 7/10 · 21 November 2020]

I'm a huge fan of both "Citizen Kane" as well as David Fincher's films, so I was extremely excited to see this. Because of how much I enjoy Fincher's films as well as how good the trailers looked, I wanted to (safely) see it on a big screen rather than wait until Netflix. Needless to say, this is a good movie, but not a great one--and it does not quite live up to the quality one would expect from a Fincher film.

The story focuses on Herman Mankiewicz (Gary Oldman,) the screenwriter who worked--often tempestuously--with Orson Welles to write "Citizen Kane." However, the amount of time the film spends on material related to "Citizen Kane" is relatively little. Instead, the film tends to focus more on Mank's political activity, personal life, ascent into the movie business, and alcoholism throughout the 1930s. Oldman does a good job playing Mank, and is completely believable in the role. As one can expect from a Fincher film, the editing and cinematography are top-notch. The stylish, black-and-white aesthetic that feels both slightly understated (in the best way possible) and posh is beautifully complemented by a relatively steady camera and editing techniques common to films of the 1930s and 40s. The screenplay is generally well-written as well, although it doesn't feel as taut as you would expect in a Fincher picture, and the leisurely pacing is very well done.

Despite these strong qualities, "Mank" unfortunately is not quite great. The film develops Mank as a character, but he is portrayed in too static of a manner to really make for an engaging protagonist, or even one that can simply have clear ripple effects on the rest of the film's narrative and the characters around him. His characterization is not especially interesting. Fincher probably uses flashbacks a bit too much in the story, as many of the flashbacks to the early 1930s don't do too much to provide additional context to Mank as a character or the time period as a whole. Also, the supporting characters (such as the roles played by Amanda Seyfried and Lilly Collins) are not especially well-developed. As a result, the film doesn't completely work as a character study. However, it is still a generally well-acted and well-shot depiction of early film history that is worth seeing for viewers interested in the subject matter. 7/10

Probably best appreciated by a specialized audience...

[AlsExGal · 9/10 · 11 December 2020]

... that being people who are really into film history, and quite a bit of obscure film history at that.

The film tells the tale of screenwriter Herman Mankiewicz (Gary Oldman) as he labors over the screenplay for Citizen Kane in a remote desert bungalow, attended to by more people than he would like. The structure of the film is much like Kane itself - you have a story set in the present explained by a series of flashbacks. And those flashbacks explain who Mankiewicz is now and why he is writing such a hit piece on William Randolph Hearst in the first place.

This is something I would probably want to watch a second time because there are quite a few things coming at you fast and furious. In particular, there is a scene at Hearst' San Simeon where, besides the well identified Irving Thalberg and L. B. Mayer, according to the cast list there is Norma Shearer and Charlie Chaplin in the crowd - I think he is at the piano but I'd have to watch again.

Why do I think so many people think this is just an average film? A lot of the flashbacks have to do with the 1934 California governor's race in which the Democratic candidate is socialist author Upton Sinclair and the Republican candidate seems to be Brand X. In a year when I think most Americans have had it with listening to politics, political ads, and political bickering of all stripes, this might not be something that very many people want to watch. I wasn't familiar with this episode in political history and thus I found it interesting.

A couple of questions the film raised - Was John Houseman of "Paper Chase" fame really such a complete nuisance that Welles and Mank just wanted to smack him with a fly swatter? Also, I'm pretty familiar with Marion Davies' filmography. There was a scene where she was about to be burned to the stake in what appeared to be a western. I have no idea what film that was supposed to be.

I highly recommend this film, but your mileage will probably vary.

A different kind of Fincher

[masonsaul · 7/10 · 12 November 2023]

Mank shows that David Fincher can make something that's nothing like the rest of his filmography, not bound to his own rules and conventions. It may not be entirely accurate in its depiction of how Citizen Kane was written but it's fascinating to see Fincher of all people go against auteur theory.

Gary Oldman is amazing. He's witty, self obsessed and unable to back down regardless of the consequences. His relationship with Amanda Seyfried is great, especially a walk around the gardens in which she shows she's so much more insightful than her peers give her credit for.

David Fincher's direction is a lot stronger in its visual and audio composition than its narrative construction. Going back to old Hollywood he crafts a film that truly belongs there, the black and white cinematography and the overall audio really feel of the time. However, the flashback heavy structure of the film robs it of what little momentum it has.

Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross also change things up from their usual output, displaying a completely new set of skills. Their score is fantastic, feeling era appropriate in the same way everything else does and it's definitely some of their least subtle work.

Mank is the movie Orson Welles would have made if he had absolutely nothing to say

[cherold · 4/10 · 17 December 2020]

Mank is a movie aimed squarely at film buffs that tells the story of the writing of Citizen Kane. I am a film buff. I love Citizen Kane. I am this movie's target audience. It is bad as a movie, and worse as a movie eager to be compared with the works of Orson Welles.

In the film, Gary Oldman plays alcoholic scriptwriter Herman Mankiewicz, who holes up in the middle of nowhere with a broken leg and the assignment to write a full script in a month. He bases the script on the life of powerful millionaire William Randolph Hearst. In flashbacks, we see Mank's dissolute life as a screenwriter, drunk, and witticism machine, as well as his friendship with Hearst's mistress, Marion Davies.

1. Mank as a movie

I want to take about Mank's failures as a film for film buffs and it's failures as Welles-lite, but I don't want that to get in the way of the most important point, which is that this movie is simply dull. Oldham is persuasive as Mank, but the character is like one played by Thomas Mitchell in old 40s movie; a side character whose witticisms are fun but never make you want to find out what makes him tick.

The alcoholic writer isn't an inherently uninteresting subject, but it's also not an inherently interesting one, and the movie doesn't give us any particular reason to care about Mank. The flashbacks are sometimes interesting and sometimes not, but in neither case do they change the movie from basically being a guy in a house typing and getting blackout drunk. There is nothing within the movie that makes you curious about the characters or the situation - the only thing that kept me watching was curiosity about Citizen Kane, and if I'd never seen that movie I wouldn't have finished this one. The acting is good, and Amanda Seyfried is actually exceptionally good as Davies, but there's really not much to this at all. It doesn't pull you in at the start, and the end feels as meh as the rest of it.

2. Mank as a film buff movie

The best thing about Mank is the gorgeous black-and-white cinematography, which does a dead-on impression of Greg Toland's work in Citizen Kane, down to emulating specific scenes. Set and costume design are also first-rate.

But as behind-the-scenes look into Citizen Kane the movie is a failure. One thing I wanted to know was why, if Mank was friends with Hearst and with Davies, he turned on them so savagely.

Some say that the treatment of Davies was the thing that most harmed Kane most of all. True, Not only was it reportedly the main reason Hearst wanted to destroy the movie, but Davies, a talented light comedian pushed into inappropriate roles by her sugar daddy, was charming and well-liked (which Seyfried captures wonderfully) and threw big Hollywood parties and because of that, Hollywood would not rally around Kane as Hearst attacked it. Even Welles admitted, years later, that he had been unfair to Davies.

So why did Mank trash her? The movie offers a simplistic answer involving Upton Sinclair that doesn't make much sense and, when I researched it, isn't remotely what happened. There is no thoughtful attempt to consider why a writer would use his friends as grist for the mill, even though other writers have successfully looked at the very subject without reducing it all to petty, self-righteous vengeance.

The movie also falls onto the long-exploded Pauline Kael side of the who-wrote-Kane debate, suggesting Welles did pretty much nothing on the script. A little research shows scholars have conclusively refuted this (one of the top of the "most helpful" IMDB user reviews gives a good overview of this).

The only reason I kept with this movie was for the real-life story that it couldn't bother to tell.

3. Mank vs. Orson Welles

By making a movie about Citizen Kane, and making it look just like Citizen Kane, director David Fincher would seem to be *daring* people to compare his work with Welles. But it falls short of Welles work in every non-superficial way.

Welles was certainly a big fan of flashy cinematography. He could be gimmicky. But there was always intent to it. Gimmicks were always both "oh, cool!" and "look how that emphasizes the point he's making in a fresh way."

Beyond the flash, Welles was a filmmaker who never gave you all the answers. He gave you clues. Citizen Kane is about the search for Rosebud, but once you know what it is, you still don't know Kane. It's another clue, but it's up to the viewer to decide how to sort these clues. Welles gave you jigsaw puzzles with some pieces missing and some extra pieces. It was true of Kane and pretty much everything he did through his final film, The Other Side of the Wind. Welles did not consider people explicable. They lie about their motives to others and themselves, they change from moment to moment and year to year. It is the complexity, not the cinematographic tricks, that make Welles one of history's greatest filmmakers.

But Fincher's Mank isn't complex at all. His story arc is straightforward. He's a brilliant drunk. His motives are simplistic. He's self-destructive in a predictable fashion. Like all of us he has his good points and his bad points, moments of spite and moments of grace, but then, so does every character in a Hallmark movie.

And the gimmicks in Mank are just gimmicks. If you know Kane's opening scene you'll recognize the falling whisky glass as a callback, but what does it say? Not a thing. Not. One. Single. Thing.

Mank is a dull, unimaginative film that is infuriating because it has so many of the hallmarks of a good one. That makes it feel like a cheat. I regret watching it, and recommend everyone skip it.

Playful and atmospheric - Mank fires on all cylinders

[Noel_dasilva · 9/10 · 22 November 2020]

Let me start off by saying that this movie is not going to be for everyone, and I fully understand if anyone ends up feeling bored or dislikes the movie. It's wordy, complicated and doesn't try to push the audience in any particular direction. I however loved it.

There are very few things Mank doesn't achieve in an almost perfect fashion, this is a passion project and a love letter of the highest caliber. The acting is superb all around, Gary Oldman delivers one of his absolute best roles ever perfectly embodying the tormented but talented Mank, Seyfried shines as a cleverer than you think movie star and everyone else helps you forget you're not watching the real persons themselves.

The biggest highlight of this movie however is the incredible visuals, the best cinematography Oscar is practically in the bag already. Very seldom do you watch something that so perfectly captures a different era, this one being of the old Hollywoodland, with great compositions, lighting and mood this is truly a feast for the eyes in every possible way! I truly felt transported to another world and what i wouldn't do to experience that old Hollywood glamour just for one night, corruption and backstabbing aside!

There are many more things to discuss but I'll leave it to you to experience this firsthand, overall this is an excellent return to the big screen for David Fincher and Im beyond excited to see what he can cook up next. Highly recommend!

Score: 9/10

The Pauline Keal theory about "Citizen Kane" revisited

[frankde-jong · 7/10 · 27 November 2020]

"Mank" from David Fincher is a Netflix production. This provider of streaming services has produced a couple of good films the last few years, such as "Roma" (2018, Alfonso Cuaron) and "The Irishman" (2019, Martin Scorsese). For Fincher it was his first feature film since "Gone girl" (2014), and a very different film then the ones I have seen from him thusfar. Apart from "Gone girl" I have seen "Seven" (1995), The game " (1997) and "Zodiac" , all films with touches of crime in it. The script of "Mank" is based on work of the father of David Fincher, Jack Fincher.

For me "Mank" is above all an ode to the Hollywood studio system at its peak in the late '30s and early 40's, just like "Blancanieves" (2012, Pablo Berger) is an ode to the silent movies and "The artist" (2011, Michel Hazanavicius) to the early talkies. Not that Hollywood is depicted as a sort of heaven on earth, see the malicious manipulations with respect to the election of the governor of California in 1934, but in the other mentioned films the sun does not always shine either.

The main character of the film is Herman Mankiewicz. A perfect role of the versatile Gary Oldman. Herman is the older brother of director Joseph Mankiewicz (1950, "All about Eve") and has been somewhat forgotten. He has (co)written the scenario for films such as "Dinner at eight" (1933, George Cukor), "The Wizard of Oz" (1939, Victor Fleming) and above all "Citizen Kane" (1941, Orson Welles).

In the 70's film critic Pauline Keal wrote an article in which she claims that the scenario for "Citizen Kane" was not a co production between Welles and Mankiewicz but actually written solely by Mankiewicz. This theory has since become obsolete. As a matter of fact I think that the article of Keal has to be interpreted in the context of a discussion she was involved in with the directors of the "Nouvelle vague". These directors saw the director of a movie as the author of the movie. Keal saw a movie as team performance. I think the truth is somewhere in the middle. The relation of a director to his movie is different from the relation of the writer to his book or the painter to his painting. Nevertheless the director still is the central point where all the creative decisions converge.

Does "Mank" try to revive a theory which has already been found incorrect? I don't think so. The films ends with the first draft of the script, which is the point in time where the role of Mankiewicz ends and the role of Welles begins.

The subject of the film is the making of "Citizen Kane" (1941, Orson Welles). "Mank" tries to do that in the style of this film. Therefore "Mank" is (of course) in black and white. The film uses also many flashbacks. The present is Mankiewics working on his script in a remote country house, the numerous flashbacks tell the story of his Hollywood past. In one respect "Mank" falls short of his subject film. In "Citizen Kane" we get numerous opinions (and thus a multi facetted image) of Charles Foster Kane. In "Mank" we see all the action through the eyes of Herman Mankiewicz himself.

Disappointment of the year

[melnar1 · 1/10 · 16 December 2020]

Being over 80, I am conversant with such personalities as Irving Thalberg, Louis B. Mayer, Mankiewicz himself, David O. Selznick, William Randolph Hearst, Orson Welles etc., and I thought I would be watching a wonderful film about all these personalities. The film, however, was extremely badly planned and assembled, resulting in an almost unwatchable, and totally boring movie. In my book, a good movie is one that I'd be able to watch and enjoy repeatedly. This is not one of them.

Emphatically not recommended.

Sorry, once again, I found the last movie of a great director boring!

[jpt-22556 · 7/10 · 4 December 2020]

After Roma and Irishman, I couldn't help it: I found Mank absolutely boring. Formally brilliant but awfully boring. Am I the only one on this planet to think this way? If it's the case, I won't write any review again, promised!

Underwhelming...

[cameronthorne · 6/10 · 14 December 2020]

2020 has been a dull year in cinema with very few anticipated films to release this year. However, the movies that are anticipated have been... well... disappointing such as Tenet and unfortunately -- Mank.

David Fincher is one of the best working directors with fantastic films such as Se7en, Fight Club, The Social Network, Zodiac, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera and luckily enough, he once again went above and beyond and made this movie all the more watchable. When it was announced that David Fincher would be directing another biopic (after the hugely successful Social Network) I -- like many others -- was ecstatic. In preparation for the "New David Fincher Film" I went back and watched his entire catalog of films. Each of his films (with the exception of Alien 3) is HIS film -- it belongs to him. With the notable yellow/blues, wide shots, static camera and the especially intriguing material, his movies are masterpieces. Then I grew worried. Mank was sounding less and less like David Fincher's other movies. It is okay to make something new and different but I wanted more dark and suspense-filled cinema. Mank was not that -- which was not a bad thing and in fact, he pulled it off! Stylistically the movie is a masterpiece but the material felt empty and that became Mank's downfall.

With a David Fincher movie it is unlikely to be disengaged yet during Mank I found myself getting distracted, antsy, and even checking the time! I was confused and disappointed. The acting was great, the directing was once again great, I did not know what it was that was causing me to be so bored, then it hit me: nothing happened. "You cannot capture a man's life in two hours. All you can hope is to leave the impression of one." The movie was called "Mank," I was expecting a thorough analysis on Mank -- but I was not even left "the impression" of Mank. He was an alcoholic and wrote Citizen Kane... that was really it.

The directing and acting make this movie worth a 7/10. The story had potential but did not fulfill expectations. It is stylish, playful, well edited and an homage (not love letter) to 30s Hollywood making it worth a watch -- I continue to look forward to future work from David Fincher and his upcoming remake "Strangers".

7/10

Mank

[Eric1485 · 8/10 · 21 November 2020]

"This is a business where the buyer gets nothing for his money but a memory. What he bought still belongs to the man he who sold it. That's the real magic of the movies."

David Fincher puts it all on the line in his latest film, Mank. The result is a gorgeous and heartfelt film that takes the viewer back to 1930's-40's Hollywood.

Gary Oldman is great as the cynical, alcoholic writer who has no filter and rarely has anything nice to say. He is surrounded by a terrific supporting cast that makes each scene and interaction truly enjoyable. It is obvious that everyone involved in this project, took thier roles seriously.

This is a much different film than the gritty, violent, and dark pictures Fincher has become known for. However, the attention to detail, editing, gorgeous cinematography, and use of lighting and sound is still as effective as ever.

I expect Mank to be popular when the Academy Award nominations are announced, as it deserves.

very hard to get through

[blanche-2 · 6/10 · 7 December 2020]

Though beautifully photographed and evocative of the 1930s and 1940s, I had a tough time making it through "Mank," the story of Herman J. Mankiewicz during his time writing the screenplay for Citizen Kane. That is a whole other movie and a huge controversy, so I won't go into it.

Boring, self-conscious, inaccurate, there are a few acting kudos - Gary Oldman as Mankiewicz is remarkable. I love Lily Collins, and she doesn't disappoint here as Mank's secretary. Tom Burke makes a marvelous Welles.

There is other good acting to be had in Mank, but there is also very self-conscious, let's pretend we're in the 1930s and '40s dialogue and acting. It all seemed very put on. That was mostly from minor characters.

I loved the character of Marion Davies - her character is sympathetic - but I could have done without Amanda Seyfried's bad acting. Charles Dance was a fabulous Hearst.

All in all, a big bore. However, if it inspires you to read more about Mankiewicz, the fight over the Citizen Kane screenplay, and old Hollywood, I recommend it. The governor's race between Merriman and Upton Sinclair is interesting, too - though it was just thrown into this story, possibly becaused the political discussions seemed timely.

I want to watch a Marion Davies film now

[1930s_Time_Machine · 8/10 · 4 December 2022]

As someone who knows quite a bit about Mankiewicz, Thalberg and Marion Davies et al, I really enjoyed this however most people don't have the same peculiar obsession with 1930s Hollywood as I do. For the vast majority of the population I can't see this film having mass appeal. Even if you don't know the background however you can still appreciate the absolutely gorgeous cinematography, exceptional acting and fascinating story although some might find it a little slow.

Probably only people interested in Citizen Kane or in the early history of Hollywood will actually watch this so will they like this? Yes, definitely! Not only does it perfectly evoke the feel of the era but it expounds the overwhelming cynicism of the movie industry. Mankiewicz is ostensibly the most cynical of everyone around but as this film unfolds we start to wonder whether in reality he is the most genuine and honest of them all.

Gary Oldman's world-weary, self-destructive characterisation of 'Hollywood's funniest man' captures his spirit brilliantly although because of the theme of this film, doesn't really evoke much of his humour. You'd never guess he was behind most the the Marx Brothers' films from watching this. It's not The Mankiewicz Story, it's about why he chose to write the potentially career-destroying script for (or with?) Orson Wells. It's not his rags to riches story, it's about his personality, his character, his essence and how he fits in, or rather doesn't fit in with the Hollywood establishment.

Apart from Amanda Seyfried's brilliant portrayal of Marion Davies, none of the other characters are particularly warm and cuddly but this is understandable when you remember that most of these people have dragged themselves out of poverty so their hunger and desperation for success and money might not be as easy for us now to appreciate. Tywin Lannister is excellent as W R Hearst making him both malevolent and endearing. You can sort of understand why 22 year old Marion Davies actually fell in love with the 56 year old millionaire.

The Man Behind the Words

[Screen_O_Genic · 7/10 · 9 December 2020]

A fun and engaging depiction of screenwriter Herman J. Mankiewicz's role as writer of "Citizen Kane", "Mank" appeals with the sophistication and verbal play of golden age Hollywood. Shot in attractive black and white the film shows the inner workings of the movie business and the characters involved that make it tick. Gary Oldman is a natural as the alcoholic and endearingly clever Mankiewicz as he wrestles with a deadline and his principles to get his point across. The rest of the cast deliver in seamless support. But the real star of the show is the smart and witty script that keeps the viewer on board with its scintillating back and forths and endless repartee. While no classic this is one of the more entertaining and watchable flicks of recent times. Who said writers are boring?

Extremely boring

[lbowdls · 3/10 · 12 February 2021]

Full disclosure I haven't finished watching this yet, because I started about a month ago and have gone back a few times. But I'm still only about 30 minutes in because it seems like 3 hours I'm so board. It is so draggy, I usually love Hollywood stories especially set in this period, I was excited. But it's so slow moving that I don't quite understand 1.How so many people think it's great and how it earned so many award nominations and 2. Why did they bother? I'm not sure I want to bother finishing it.

Gary Oldman

[akunwafor13 · 9/10 · 15 March 2021]

The best part of this film in my opinion is the dialog, i have seen this film countess times and i cant get over the intriguing dialog. The black and white took some time for me to adjust, but after i got the hang of it, it actually enhanced my experience. Gary Oldman is brilliant, he continues to blow my mind..

Boring

[WomenWatch2 · 4 December 2020]

This movie is so boring, it will cure anyone's insomnia. Even the few examples of decent acting won't keep you awake. Sorry.

Beautifully Structured.

[thedonblanca · 7/10 · 20 November 2020]

This film is beautiful. It stands high from absolutely every stand-point. It's a masterpiece of cinematography, score and acting. Thank You Mr. Fincher and get that Oscar.

Boring And Incoherent

[atractiveeyes · 5/10 · 5 December 2020]

I was so looking forward for this film but it turns out to be really disappointing. Well, it's so beautifully artsy with amazing cinematography, many stunning shots, beautiful locations and costumes, awesome Hollywood vibes, and brilliant performances by everyone. But unfortunately all of that didn't save the movie because of its bad script. The plot is incoherent, messy, and disturbing. I really felt so confused at certain points. Mank is obviously a very well made movie but I hated it, it's just boring and uninteresting to me. What a missed opportunity!

A Rare Misfire From David Fincher

[CinemaClown · 5 December 2020]

Shot in swooning monochrome, bringing Old Hollywood to life in splendid detail and powered by yet another smashing showcase from the always reliable Gary Oldman, Mank chronicles the life of screenwriter Herman J. Mankiewicz as he races to finish the script for Citizen Kane and also offers an interesting glimpse into the influence & inner workings of 1930s Hollywood industry through his shrewd eyes & scathing wit.

Directed by David Fincher, the film marks his return to the cinematic medium after a gap of 6 years and is adapted from a screenplay written by his late father. While it is a departure from his forte, Fincher's direction does retain the sublime craftsmanship & technical perfection that goes into his works and effortlessly transports the viewers to its period setting. The script sculpts the characters with deft care but the narrative still lacks the fluidity necessary for a story like this.

The crisp black-n-white photography, methodical camerawork, ideal lighting, clever humour, smart editing & fitting score certainly enrich the experience but the relaxed pace & unduly focus on flashbacks also makes the ride a bit tedious. Performances are top-notch. Oldman plays the eponymous role from inside out, Amanda Seyfried is captivating in her role, and Tom Burke embodies Orson Welles to near-perfection, nailing the physicality & mannerism of the wunderkind to a tee.

Overall, Mank is an ambitious & audacious venture that presents David Fincher in complete control of his craft but it also isn't a tale that's going to satisfy everyone's palate. More a withering study of power, corruption & politics within the filmmaking industry than a love letter to cinema, Fincher's latest is gripping when covering the writing process of Orson Welles' debut feature but loses steam whenever it reverts to an earlier timeline. All in all, Mank has its merits but unlike Fincher's best-known efforts, it fails to leave behind an indelible imprint.