User Reviews

The best movie about the Best Movie ever made. Full of everything golden era Hollywood has to offer, Gary Oldman leads a movie that pays homage to Citzen Kane emulating not only the revolutionary screenplay of the latter for that time, but alsoits directing and style. And opens wide the vanity of everyone in this industry, even the good ones.

Behind the scenes at the conception of Citizen Kane, as dictated by a fast-talking screenwriter who drank and gaffed his way out of a lucrative career in big-studio Hollywood. Herman J. Mankiewicz is said writer, a broken lush of the highest degree, who agrees to take the gloves off for a scathing cinematic shellacking of the famous William Randolph Hearst with the understanding that he'll remain anonymous. Wunderkind Orson Welles is happy to take the credit in his stead, then furious when the author has a change of heart and decides to stand behind his work after all. Most of the story occurs during flashbacks, as Mank reflects upon his working life, grows increasingly resentful over the series of slights and missteps that led to his current predicament, and pours that sense of vengeful truth into the script. In his prime, he was a real cad, quick-witted and outspoken, a colorful product of the times even in warm, sepia-hinted black and white. Gary Oldman does characteristically well with the part, fluctuating between loud, biting humor in the heat of the moment and uncertain self-doubt in the softer personal breaks after he's removed foot from mouth, but it often feels like a beefed-up supporting role and not a lead in the traditional sense. All the historical flashbacks are stuffed with references and name drops, an embarrassment of riches for classical cinephiles (or even fans of '20s and '30s cultural notoriety) that assumes an awful lot of existing knowledge from the audience. If you aren't already sure who Hearst, Marion Davies and Louis B. Mayer were, you'll get a few strong hints, but you're going to miss a lot of implied depth. Speaking personally, I'd only just finished a biography of Hearst that pretty well set the stage, and I still felt overwhelmed at times. A lot of work went into getting the sights, sounds and textures of depression-era California right, and in that respect it's a slam dunk for compulsively-obsessed David Fincher. Mank really feels like an immaculately-restored film from the golden age, which serves as beautiful compliment to the towering old backlots, sprawling palatial estates and smoke-filled executive offices which house most of the action. The screen shimmers and shines, even as the plot fails to change gears. It's a series of rich scenes left searching for a spark; the implication of menace without the arrival. As a historical fanboy, I was delighted to devour it, but as a moviegoer, I felt a little under-served.

Watching the trailer reminded me of the movie Sin City. I thought it was a movie like this with parts shown in black and white. It can be seen that the film has a good script, good direction, good acting, and a good production. I thought it would be a funny movie.

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.

The direction and performances here are all incredibly good but the story is lacking a super effective punch.

The most beautiful cinematography of the year. With a great script and directing.

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.

Parece que lo único que he hecho en esta cuenta es hablar de “David Fincher”, prometo que esta es la última vez que hablo de él, por lo menos por un rato, pero es inevitable porque “Mank” es, en mi honesta opinión, la mejor película que salió el año pasado, la cinta que narra cómo se escribió el guion de “El Ciudadano Kane” es una obra magnifica, la misma tiene una de las mejores direcciones de su realizador, una que te transporta a lo que era hacer cine en los años 30 rindiéndole homenaje a la supuesta edad dorada de Hollywood, pero también se anima a explorar el lado negro de las cosas, como los hombres de poder siempre han usado la industria para persuadir y convencer a las personas de pensar de alguna manera, donde ellos siempre serán los ángeles y los que estén en su contra serán marcados como los hijos del mismísimo diablo, y como es el trabajo de los autores combatir esta manía y entregarles al público lo que se merecen, no un mensaje político sino películas de calidad, y aun así lo que vuelve al filme tan magnifico y mi favorita es que también habla sobre lo que es ser un autor y como queremos ser recordados, ¿Qué imagen les dejaremos a nuestros seres queridos cuando nos hallamos ido? o aún peor ¿Qué les vamos a dejar al mundo cuando lo hagamos?, ¿Queremos ser recordados por ser unos bocones borrachos decrépitos o porque peleamos por crear algo de lo que nos sentiremos orgullosos después de la muerte?, todo esto, lo que significa “Mank” es sobre no dejarse callar cuando sentimos que tenemos un discurso que dar al mundo y lo valioso que es tener algo a tu nombre para decir honradamente “Yo lo hice, yo aporte en algo”, definitivamente LA MEJOR DEL 2020

A beautiful movie, with perfect technical aspects and a great direction. Gary Oldman is amazing on the main role, and the screenplay was so we'll written that it managed to make a somewhat simple plot become very compelling, with it's many temporal jumps and the political implications attached to it.

First just want to comment that it's nice to watch a new film in black & white. It captures the time period correctly and makes it feel like an old movie. Citizen Kane had some of the best cinematography and Mank followed. There were some scenes where the visual effects were too obvious, but I think that has something to do with it being in black & white. I thought Gary Oldman and Amanda Seyfried played their roles really well. The beginning of the film didn't do a good job to setup the film, I felt like I was in the middle and I had lost my attention. If you haven't watched Kane recently then you will probably get lost in some dialogue. However, once you start to understand who is who and what is going on it's where Mank starts to shine.

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.

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

A fascinating look about what supposedly went into 'Citizen Kane'. 'Mank', a biopic about screenwriter Herman J. Mankiewicz, is a very good watch. A lot goes on and it's pretty much all interesting to see, admittedly you'd need to have seen the 1941 film. I like that they done this in a non-linear format and in black-and-white, à la in '41. Kudos to the cast. Gary Oldman (Herman) is impressive, I did feel he was overacting - likewise with Amanda Seyfried (Marion) - just a little bit in parts but for the vast, vast majority he (and she) is top notch. Arliss Howard (Mayer), Lily Collins (Rita) and a few others are also pleasing to watch.

Mank is not Fincher's best film, not by any means. But I'm quite surprised to see audiences and some critics very mixed and apprehensive about the film. This is still a superbly crafted and well-acted film. There are many issues with this movie, such as relying on the audience know about the whole timeline of that period, without really giving background information. The story is more interesting than investing, and most of the movie is too complicated to understand and be invested in. The film gets pretty boring for many parts and I can see why many people dislike this movie. However, when it gets to the technical aspects and some of the dialogues, the film is spot-on. It has a shot for many technical oscars like Production Design and Cinematography. I found myself just about interested in the story and enjoyed by the starting and ending, even if I found myself a bit lost in the middle. One thing which I love though, is Seyfried and Oldman's performances, both of them are great. Mank is a good film, but when it comes to Fincher's standards it falls a bit short I must say.

Mank is a film written by Jack Fincher, and directed by the immeasurable and courageous David Fincher (Se7en, Social Network, Gone Girl). A film, taking place at RKO Pictures in the 1940s, that pokes at the essences of the cinematic heroes of years’ past can be viewed as no less than heroic. But the story itself, one of fine pedigree, ends up being nothing more than a well-acted study in monotony. Unforgettable performances by this top notch acting crew include brilliant Oscar Winner Gary Oldman (Dracula, Tinker Tailor, Soldier, Spy, and Darkest Hour), Amanda Seyfried (Mamma Mia, Mean Girls), Sam Troughton as a slightly believable John Houseman, and a perfect performance by Tom Burke as Orson Welles, easily the most impressive acting past Oldman himself. Ferdinand Kingsley as Irving Thalber is a revelation! Trent Reznor of Nine Inch Nails does the score. Mank follows the days and months of hopeless alcoholic Herman Mankiewicz, as he is chosen by wunderkind Orsen Welles to pen his next great masterpiece. Mankiewicz, or, Mank as he is referred to, works within his own constraints having recently experienced an automobile accident that has rendered him lame. Not to be constrained by physical limitations, the perpetually inebriated Mank requires the absolute best from his entourage to assist him in completing his rushed opus, Citizen Kane. At all points along the journey his support team of lovers and professionals endure Mank’s idiosyncrasies to bring out his best and complete the masterpiece that would become Citizen Kane, such as it is. I will say, as a former student of theatre, that the performances throughout this film are miraculous, and almost make this a film worth watching. But, as a critic, and in full honesty, unless you are an extreme fan of the original subject matter, or an actor seeking to find the pure nuances of pure theater, then I would struggle to recommend this movie as enjoyable. For a date night where neither party truly wants to watch fine cinema, yes. For an auteur looking to advance her or his craft, yes. If you are looking to lose yourself in fictional bliss for two hours and solve the mysteries of life however, no. I expect many of the cast and likely the film itself to garner much recognition by the Academy in 2021, and well deserved. The performances are the only thing this incredibly slow and boring story have to offer. Look for Oldman, Seyfried as Marion, an irrelevant love interest, Burke and Kingsley to receive proper attention by the Oscar voters. But while Iexpect the film to garner many award nominations due to the theme of historical drama, I’m not prepared to recommend this film for any reason outside of the masterful performances of its actors in a largely boring tale. I give this film 3/5 stars solely on the strength of its actors.

I love Gary Oldman, love David Fincher, love Citizen Kane, should have loved **** didn't. Dullsville.

It may be simple and slow but the photography and performances are so enjoyable (specially Seyfried).

This film is a masterpiece, it is definitly not a mainstream show. This is a niche film that will bore many people. But if you are a big fan of citizen kane and the old hollywood era, this is a must see. Cinematography is stellar, Charle dance as william hearst is just fantastic. I put this film in the category of movies that take their time. It has nothing to do with Zodiac, but in the way fincher slowly re-create an era , i find it pretty close to Zodiac. So if you find Zodiac Boring , just skip this one. But if you really love movies where nothing is rushed, and all small elements are coming together you must try this one. ( sorry for my very poor english )

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.

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 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.

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-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.

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 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.

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'd watch one. This is like watching a Beatles cover band.

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.

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 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.

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 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.

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

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 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.

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 (as usual). Just go watch Citizen Kane.

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. To highlight the direction of Fincher, and the entrance sequence that pays homage to the classics.

‘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.

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 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."

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

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.

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 very little of anything I could consider drama and moments inviting emotional investment. It just did not move me.

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 and overlapping narratives.

"[...] How wealth and influence can crush a man" can be the exact description not only of the masterpiece that Mank created but also of the writer himself. A great entry from David Fincher: nevertheless, the ending does not quite land, it feels uninspired and hurried, but the performances (Oldman, Seyfried, and Dance in particular) and the splendid cinematography can make it up for it.

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

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 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.

(Mauro Lanari) Philological essay on massmediology between Benjamin and Debord applied to the politics of "House of Cards", Fincher is so busy analyzing the past to judge the present that he obfuscates Welles with his [self-]criticism of Prometheanism. Reznor's soundtrack is pretty awful.

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 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.

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 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.

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 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

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 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!

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

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 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.

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 their characters as they are participating in a pastiche costume party.

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.

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.