CheckEmoji Community · the emoji forum
🏠 Home 🆕 What's new ❓ Unanswered 🔥 Popular 📡 RSS Members 👥 0 online log in · register
Home › Culture & Entertainment › Movies › What did you guys think of Mank?

What did you guys think of Mank?

Started by Noah Roberts46 · · 👁 9 views · 54 replies

📡 Subscribe to replies

Participants Noah Roberts46Edward Price6Susan Hernandezgoldenhound32Nancy Williams58Rachel Turner2Amanda Kim2mistyotter35vivideagle7Christian MyersAmy Jones2Henry Martinez2wiredskipperJoshua Smith5Mark Gray3frozengull94Mark Nelson44Jacob Alvarezsilvercobra4Jack Murphy5Mark White11Amanda Robinson4ruggedjackal46Douglas Clark2 …
vivideagle7 vivideagle7 Active Member
135 messages
joined Oct 2014
#21 ·
mistyotter35 said:Alright, what’s actually a logical reason to shoot a movie using this kind of technique?

Well, I can think of a few reasons—including one that seems pretty obvious to me—but I know for sure they aren't the two you just mentioned.
Susan Hernandez Susan Hernandez Active Member
58 messages
joined Dec 2011
#22 ·
mistyotter35 said:Alright, what's actually a logical reason to shoot a movie using this technique?

Art for art's sake
Amy Jones2 Amy Jones2 Newcomer
7 messages
joined Nov 2019
#23 ·
Edward Price6 said:Yeah, the movie is great.

Finally, a period piece that actually nails the retro aesthetic.

Do you mind sharing when and where you watched this?

I don't get why people find it weird that a movie about making "Citizen Kane" was shot in black and white. If any movie in 2020 needed to be black and white, it’s this one.
mistyotter35 mistyotter35 Active Member
113 messages
joined Mar 2013
#24 ·
??? I suppose I’ve seen it at least ten times now. The movie was filmed back in 1941, so it makes sense that black-and-white cinematography was just the standard at the time.
Edward Price6 Edward Price6 Active Member
97 messages
joined Feb 2017
#25 ·
I’m not usually one for black and white films, but this one is technically flawless. The script is great too, packed with
clever wordplay. Just really smart writing.
mistyotter35 mistyotter35 Active Member
113 messages
joined Mar 2013
#26 ·
I wasn't even suggesting that the movie was bad, and I certainly still plan on watching it. It’s just that, I guess, the decision to go with black-and-white cinematography felt like a rather peculiar choice to me.
Henry Martinez2 Henry Martinez2 Newcomer
7 messages
joined Mar 2023
#27 ·
mistyotter35 said:??? I’ve seen it at least ten times. It was filmed in 1941; black and white was just the standard back then.

So, by that logic, you should probably understand why he didn't just stick to black and white, but opted for that specific stylistic expression—the framing and everything else—that mirrors the vibe of "Citizen Kane."
Noah Roberts46 Noah Roberts46 RegularOP
407 messages
joined Jun 2021
#28 ·
The reviews are looking solid. It hits theaters this Friday. 🙂
wiredskipper wiredskipper Member
18 messages
joined Jan 2021
#29 ·
I guess it’s just too early
goldenhound32 goldenhound32 Regular
335 messages
joined Mar 2024
#30 ·
So many people love to talk about it, yet absolutely nobody actually wants to sit down and watch the movie.🤣
Joshua Smith5 Joshua Smith5 Active Member
68 messages
joined Jul 2010
#31 ·
A few decent moments. That’s about it. Mank, or rather Herman Mankiewicz, is basically a stand-in for Jep Gambardell from Sorrentino's The Great Beauty. He watches the world around him with this sense of disgust, acting like he's above it all while still being stuck in the middle of the circus. Oldman does what he always does—he's good. The movie itself pushes the narrative that Mank was practically the sole architect behind Kane, which isn't even true. Fincher also made a habit of dropping some pretty mindless, inaccurate comments about Welles during the film's press tour.
Mark Gray3 Mark Gray3 Newcomer
8 messages
joined Aug 2014
#32 ·
The movie feels a little too self-indulgent for its own good. It’s solid enough by the end, but I got the vibe it was mostly made just to see if they could pull off that old-school cinematic feel. And yeah, they totally nailed it—technically, it’s spot on. It isn't just the lighting or the direction; even the script and the dialogue have that period-accurate flavor. Everything hits the mark there. It’s a smooth ride, too; the pacing stays tight without much filler, which keeps things interesting. But honestly? It feels a bit hollow. Plus, the fact that it plays fast and loose with actual history—giving it a biased spin that isn't exactly accurate—doesn't really help the overall experience.
frozengull94 frozengull94 Member
37 messages
joined Aug 2021
#33 ·
Honestly, I think the film is just brilliant. It’s one of those pieces that really sticks with you, even if it isn't immediately obvious why. I found myself sitting there, just absorbing it, thinking about how much work went into the pacing. Sometimes you just get a movie right, you know? It's rare, but this was one of them.
Finally... something I’ve actually been itching to revisit.
Look, let’s be honest—this movie isn't exactly built for the masses. I mean, really, how many people actually know who Thalberg was? Or Norma Talmadge? Or even Mank's brother? Most folks just want to see explosions or some mindless blockbuster, but this requires a level of historical literacy that most audiences simply don't possess anymore. It's a niche thing, a deep dive into the old studio system, and if you don't know the players, you're essentially watching a story about strangers.
And you really need to have some context if you want to follow what's actually going on here... honestly. Without knowing the background, you're just spinning your wheels.

And besides, they really ought to put together a movie that’s actually worth watching. Citizen KaneWell, it’s practically right there... just a hair's breadth away, among other things.
They even lifted a few scenes—I assume they’re calling it an "homage" these days—but honestly, they pulled it off pretty well.

I have to admit, I can spend hours just getting lost on IMDb. There’s something about scrolling through those old classic film pages, digging into the deep dives of actor biographies... just reading about how these once-massive stars lived their lives, rose to fame, and eventually faded away. It's a rabbit hole you can fall down for an entire afternoon.
If they hadn't already pulled the plug on them... I'm looking at this message board and honestly, I can't help but feel like we're just spinning our wheels here. It’s like that one time I was stuck in a massive traffic jam on the I-95 outside of Philly—just sitting there, staring at the brake lights, wondering if anyone actually knew where they were going. That seems to be the vibe here. We jump from topic to topic, barely scratching the surface, and then someone starts shouting about something completely irrelevant. It’s exhausting. I try to stay composed, really I do, but some of these threads are just... well, they're a mess. We need more substance and less noise. Just my two cents.Where could you even find that massive trove of info anymore? I'm talking about the stuff that’s just gone—those deep-cut anecdotes, the old rumors... the actual history of the era. It feels like they scrubbed it all away just to make room for the latest blockbusters. And don't even get me started on the trolls. Nowadays, you try to look up anything meaningful, and you just get hit with people spamming modern political nonsense under the comment sections of new releases. It's impossible to dig through the noise to find what actually matters. I can't do that. I need some actual content to work with! Send over the text you want me to overhaul, and I'll get to work turning it into something fresh, Americanized, and properly styled. Generations... it’s funny how we talk about them like they're distinct species, isn't it? I was sitting in a coffee shop in Seattle the other day, just watching the crowd, and you could see it—that invisible line drawn between people. It makes me think about how much we obsess over these labels. We group everyone together, assuming one set of values defines an entire age bracket, as if life experience is some kind of mass-produced commodity. It’s all very reductive. I remember my father used to lecture me about "how things were" back in his day, always comparing my choices to some idealized version of the past, as if there was only one right way to exist. It’s exhausting, really. We spend so much time dissecting these cohorts that we forget we're all just individuals trying to make sense of a chaotic world. It's just... it's a lot.
Who’s gay, who isn't... honestly, I don't even know where to start with people's obsession with labeling everyone these days. It feels like we're constantly trying to sort the world into neat little boxes just to have something to gossip about over coffee. It’s exhausting, really. I remember back in college, sitting in a crowded diner in Chicago, watching people try to psychoanalyze every single person walking through the door based on nothing but a haircut or the way they held a napkin. It was all just noise. Just endless, pointless noise. Everyone wants to play judge and jury, deciding who fits which category, but frankly, it's all just speculation. Most people spend more time worrying about someone else's business than actually tending to their own. It's a distraction. A massive, sweeping distraction from anything that actually matters.

Look, I’ll say it: this film doesn't pull any punches when it comes to authenticity. It’s raw. You see a Black man working as a porter at a train station, and you see women being treated as nothing more than objects. It’s uncomfortable, sure, but that’s just how it was. It doesn't sugarcoat the reality of the era. Diversity. It’s become this massive, heavy word lately, hasn't it? You can't turn on the news or scroll through a feed without seeing it thrown around like a blunt instrument. And look, I get the core concept—representation matters, obviously. We live in a melting pot here in the States, and our stories should reflect that beautiful, messy reality. But somewhere along the line, the conversation shifted from "let's include everyone" to this performative, checklist-driven madness that feels more like corporate damage control than actual human connection. I was sitting in a coffee shop in Seattle the other day—just trying to enjoy a quiet latte and read—and I overheard two people debating some new casting decision for a big studio blockbuster. They weren't even talking about the acting or the script; they were just shouting about quotas. It felt hollow. It reminded me of those old debates back in the era of talkies, where everything was changing so fast people didn't know what to grab onto. Only now, instead of technical shifts, we're fighting over identity politics in every single frame of film. It’s frustrating because when you force it, you can smell the desperation. You can see the moment a writer stops trying to build a character and starts trying to satisfy an algorithm or a HR department's sensitivity training manual. It kills the soul of the work. I remember watching an old noir classic—something gritty, something real—where the characters just *were*. They weren't there to represent a demographic; they were there because they had lives, flaws, and secrets. That's what makes a story stick to your ribs. Now? Everything feels curated by a committee designed to ensure nobody gets offended. If you aim for perfection in representation by checking every single box simultaneously, you usually end up with something bland, sanitized, and ultimately, forgettable. We should be striving for authenticity, not just compliance. But I suppose that's asking too much from a system that values optics over substance. Just my two cents. Probably nobody asked, but it's been rattling around my head all morning. Absolute garbage designed to cover every single market... just total junk.
It wouldn’t surprise me one bit if the industry decided to collectively freeze this film out of the awards circuit, assuming they haven't already started tearing it apart in the press. You know how it goes. One minute you're the darling of the season, and the next, everyone suddenly finds a reason to look the other way. It's all about optics, isn't it? I remember seeing something similar happen back in the day with certain prestige projects that just didn't fit the current mood of the Academy. They can be incredibly fickle when they want to be. Just waiting for the inevitable snub.

Look, if you actually want to wrap your head around Tenet, you’re basically going to have to go down a rabbit hole of explanations on YouTube. It's not exactly intuitive.
You really need to have a deep understanding of the film industry here—especially when you're diving into the era of talkies. This isn't some surface-level stuff; we're talking about a very modern piece of filmmaking.
Mark Nelson44 Mark Nelson44 Newcomer
2 messages
joined Dec 2020
#34 ·
mistyotter35 said:Fine, what's actually a logical reason to shoot a movie using this technique?

Whatever it is, it's a welcome break from modern Hollywood.
Jacob Alvarez Jacob Alvarez Active Member
58 messages
joined Apr 2021
#35 ·
It’s not boring, per se, but it definitely didn't hit the hype levels I was expecting.
I honestly don't know much about the actual plot. My reasons for checking it out? Pretty simple:
The nod to Citizen Kane—yeah, not really feeling it.
A Fincher film—look, he's got better stuff out there.
silvercobra4 silvercobra4 Newcomer
9 messages
joined Mar 2021
#36 ·
Nothing to write home about. Honestly, standards have hit an all-time low if critics are actually calling this some kind of masterpiece. It’s a 7/10 at best.
Jack Murphy5 Jack Murphy5 Active Member
59 messages
joined Feb 2014
#37 ·
What kind of criticism are we talking about? It’s sitting at a 79 on Metacritic.
wiredskipper wiredskipper Member
18 messages
joined Jan 2021
#38 ·
I ended up turning it off after about 25 minutes. It was just too boring, I guess.
Mark White11 Mark White11 Active Member
92 messages
joined Jan 2018
#39 ·
It’s not bad, but honestly? It’s nowhere near the best stuff Fincher has ever done. It feels like they found the "interesting" parts only after the script was already locked in—which, by then, you're basically at the finish line. That whole conflict with Welles felt way too rushed to me, too—like it was squeezed into just one scene when there was clearly enough meat there for much more.
I get the vibe that Fincher basically made this for himself and his late father, and if anyone else happens to enjoy it along the way, cool. Technically, it’s impressive—as expected—but the pacing is all over the place. It’s just one moment where it grabs you and then loses you, over and over again, for two plus hours.
Still, I thought it was alright. No regrets watching it.
silvercobra4 silvercobra4 Newcomer
9 messages
joined Mar 2021
#40 ·
Jack Murphy5 said:What kind of criticism? It’s sitting at a 79 on Metacritic.

Please. I saw the cover of Empire magazine where they slapped "Fincher's greatest masterpiece" across the front in giant letters. It's nothing but pure hype and smoke and mirrors.

You must log in or register to reply here.

Log in Register

🔗 Similar threads