What did you guys think of Mank?

silvercobra4 said:I just stumbled upon an issue of Empire magazine where they had it plastered across the cover in massive font: "Fincher's greatest masterpiece." Total bait. Pure deception.

That's what happens when the legal system hasn't figured out how to hand down prison sentences for clickbait headlines yet.☕

I am absolutely loving this! Beyond just having an incredibly convincing cast that really breathes life into every scene—not to mention those sharp, snappy dialogues—the movie feels like a genuine love letter to a specific era, both cinematically and historically. And that retro vibe? It’s spot on. It doesn't feel like some cheap aesthetic choice; it actually feels real. I had such a blast... 👍

Honestly, Fincher has completely lost his touch. If we’re being real here, he hasn't made a decent movie since
Zodiac.

I have to disagree there. This is a total old-school cinematic gem where the plot actually relies on solid acting and sharp dialogue... You know, just when you think Hollywood won't take a risk without checking if it's "commercially viable" or playing it safe, they drop something like this on you! Plus, the cinematography is absolutely stunning. You can tell they obsessed over every single tiny detail. Definitely the most pleasant surprise I've had all year...

Technically speaking, everything works fine, but that doesn't mean much when you've poured so much misplaced passion into the project. It feels like Fincher let his ego get the better of him, a streak of megalomania that’s been bubbling under the surface since Fight Club. Except, honestly? This is a total dud compared to Fight Club. Even Zodiac doesn't hold a candle to it. And don't even get me started on Seven. Like someone else already pointed out, the movie has a few decent moments, but that's really where it ends. For the most part, it’s just tedious and completely lacks cohesion. Oldman is fantastic, as always, though.

A massive disappointment.

silvercobra4 said:Look, Fincher’s totally lost his touch. If we’re being honest here—he hasn't made a legit, top-tier movie since Zodiac.

I don't know, man... The Social Network is easily one of the best movies from the last decade.

Since we’re talking about Zodiac, they just finished decoding his messages after fifty years. It was mostly nonsense that changed absolutely nothing.
https://www.sfchronicle.com/crime/ar...s-15794943.php

The movie isn't half bad. Mankiewicz is an entertaining character, and Oldman does a pretty solid job. The black-and-white cinematography actually makes sense, given that the whole thing is anchored in that mythical era of old-school Hollywood. But am I going to be thinking about this film a week from now? Probably not. I suppose Mankiewicz was trying to paint a picture of how the studio system drifted away from those free-spirited creatives toward big business and high-stakes politics—showing how art eventually became a tool for political campaigns and how a legendary screenwriter could end up as a social outcast. But elevating the story to that level felt thin and, frankly, unsuccessful. On one hand, you have these Hollywood moguls who feel underdeveloped and caricatured, and on the other, Mankiewicz himself lacks any real tragic depth. The guy was just a sarcastic smoker before Kane, during the writing of Kane, and after Kane; nothing really changed. In the end, the movie just boils down to two hours of Gary Oldman tossing out cynical quips, drinking, and successfully writing. Sure, it’s an entertaining two hours, but there was so much more potential here.

The dynamic with Welles could have been much more interesting and fleshed out, but I suspect they cut that part short because they couldn't find a decent actor to play Welles. Tom Burke looks the part, but he doesn't have an ounce of that charisma.

ruggedjackal46 said:I feel like they could have really leaned into the relationship with Welles to make it more interesting... but honestly? I think they just cut it short because they couldn't find anyone who actually fit the part. Tom Burke looks a bit like Orson, sure, but he’s got zero charisma... nothing at all.

Yeah, that was a massive mountain to climb, and they definitely should have played their cards differently there... but man, that opening phone call? Totally hooked me!

I actually enjoyed the movie, mostly as this deep dive into a self-destructive writer who’s actually got a heart... you know, the guy saving some small town back in the States, watching people and leftist politics crumble during a crisis, and he's just totally disgusted by it all—literally gagging at the sight of it! But he lacks the actual muscle to change anything, other than using his muse to get a little payback against Hearst for crushing the hopes of Upton Sinclair's socialist policies. It feels like Fincher is clearly trying to comment on the role of the artist, acting as the court jester sitting right there at the table where power, money, media, and politics all collide. He can be kicked out or fired a hundred times over, but the story... that's what sticks.

As for the visual perfection and that razor-sharp dialogue, plus the endless stream of literary and cinematic nods, I don't even need to go into it. They really captured that Golden Age of Hollywood vibe, specifically those screenwriters in the room at the start who could just rattle off brilliant bons mots left and right. It’s such a tight blend of form, substance, and meta-commentary.

And honestly, I wouldn't disagree with anyone saying it doesn't touch on modern times; if anything, Fincher is trying to stay incredibly relevant—I mean, the lead character is basically an Antifa sympathizer and a socialist, so they aren't just bringing up Hitler for the sake of period decoration. It shows how voters get hypnotized by raw emotion and film propaganda, voting for whoever promises to protect their way of life... you know, the GOP, MAGA, oops, we even had that little drama with the vote counts, lol...
It's not like artists are going to go out and fix the world, that's a pretty pessimistic take, but still...

I recently found myself revisiting that Chaplin biography, mostly because this movie got me thinking about it again...
It actually strikes me as a pretty solid film, even if I wasn't exactly a fan when it first hit theaters.

The reason I’m bringing this up here is that there's a genuine Chaplin-esque moment tucked away in Mank—that classic slapstick beat where Mank pulls up to the station and ends up stumbling right out of the car.
It also feels like homage, at least in my eyes, to that specific era.

ruggedjackal46 said:The movie isn't total garbage. Mankiewicz is an entertaining character, Oldman delivers a solid performance, and the black-and-white cinematography actually works since the whole story is anchored in that mythic era of old Hollywood. But will I still be thinking about this film in a week? No. Mankiewicz's story should have been a deep dive into how Hollywood pivoted from free-spirited creatives to a corporate machine driven by big business and high-stakes politics—showing how art became a tool for political campaigns and how a legendary screenwriter ended up a marginalized outcast. But trying to elevate the narrative like that felt thin and ultimately failed. On one hand, the Hollywood elites are underdeveloped caricatures, and on the other, Mankiewicz himself lacks any real tragic depth. The guy was just a sarcastic smoker before Kane, during Kane, and after Kane; nothing really changed. By the end, the movie just boils down to two hours of Gary Oldman throwing out cynical lines, drinking, and writing effectively. Sure, it makes for fun viewing, but there was so much more potential here.

The dynamic with Welles could have been much more interesting and fleshed out, but I suspect they cut that part because they couldn't find a decent actor to play Welles. Tom Burke looks the part, but he doesn't have an ounce of that charisma.

Agreed. That’s basically my take as well. It could have been better, but regardless, it’s an engaging film. I enjoyed the dialogue, the acting, and the visuals. 👍

The lead character is actually pretty engaging and funny, but honestly, the movie feels all fractured—like it’s trying to grab onto way too many different ideas at once without really landing any of them... It just doesn't quite stick. The only thing that truly holds everything together is Mank's relationship with Kane's girl.

I just finished watching the film. It feels quite similar to the story told by another screenwriter, Trumbo (2015), though I suppose one could argue that "Trumbo" is actually a much better film. This particular one feels more like those black-and-white dramas you might find playing on PBS at odd hours.