Mank

The arguments over whether Citizen Kane is the greatest film ever made will rage on forever. But the greatest film about Citizen Kane – and just about any other movie – has definitely arrived. David Fincher’s eleventh film is a lavish love letter to old Hollywood in all its glory, cynicism and wild extravagance.

Fincher didn’t set out to make a movie about today’s politics; he’s telling a universal story about trying to change an industry (and a world) in which every system seems freighted with inertia. Mankiewicz isn’t quite a radical, nor is he especially principled. Still, in trying to make sense of his experiences with Hearst through a Hollywood narrative, he transforms a familiar tale about shattered idealism into a revolutionary work of art.

Mank is not, ultimately, a movie to embrace or believe but to study with a certain uneasy fascination.

David Fincher’s Mank is a worthy, eminently watchable entry in the annals of Hollywood self-obsession. That it is unreliable as history should go without saying.

Mank is, overwhelmingly, so very interesting. But it is also something of a half-masterpiece mess: thematically scattered, awkwardly paced, overlong and curiously uninterested in the inner life of its title character.

As a character study, Mankiewicz registers as something of a boozy cliche. As a political project, the film is erratic.

The exposition-mountain screenplay leaves little to feel just as a devotion to the written word leaves scant room for anything to look at. I’m slightly unsure what anybody involved was hoping to get from the experience, much less what’s the takeaway sans basic admiration for baseline craft.

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

The film that traces the birth of "Citizen Kane" and the events that his famous screenwriter had to face is a show of directorial strength by Fincher who shoots this film so that it looks like it was shot in the 1940s. It turns out to be as technical as it is cold.

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 bien pero no excelente, ahora lo malo, es aburrida, fastidiosa, vacía y monótona.

If you watch any movie that modern Hollywood makes about itself in its golden days, you'd be lucky to get the typical talkies revolution and the fall of once big movie stars, otherwise what you'll get is another socialist propaganda that is pushed by Jews who finance these movies. Mank has no entertaining or cinematic value and it isn't about anyone or anything that anybody cares about. In a time where Hollywood doesn't like taking risks on movies such as this, why did anyone with power and money finance this thing? For the political message that they want to push. Mank tries to honor one of a dime a dozen Hollywood screenwriters with communist agendas. The only good thing about it is how boring and uninteresting it is that it effectively gatekeeps the casuals. You need to watch it with information prior about the individuals portrayed to be able to follow and enjoy most of it. Surely Netflix wanted everyone to know about the time MGM used to support the Republican party and made "propaganda" (which actually ended up proving true how California is like currently), but this movie is effectively Hollywood tooting it's own horn and making a movie for themselves. What's sad is that I'll get reminded of this garbage every time watch Citizen Kane from now on.

This movie was boring. I imagine this will be one of the worst Oscar-winning films of all time, maybe the worst. The two people I watched with fell asleep during the film. Do anything else with your time.