User Comments for Mank

MrSettler says...

3 years ago

Watch "Citizen Kane", then read Wikipedia, then watch Mank. You're going to love it.

Like - Dislike - 602

Reply to MrSettler

Please use spoiler tags: [spoiler] text [/spoiler]

Reply by VeganAF

3 years ago

@mrsettler Thanks for the advice but what exactly should people read on Wiki?

Reply - Like - Deslike - 00

Reply by LNero

2 years ago

@mrsettler I felt that doing just that would enrich a subsequent viewing, but I was delighted on my first watch barely knowing what was going on. I'm eager for some history now, though.

Reply - Like - Deslike - 00

The_Argentinian says...

3 years ago

Porn for film historians and cinephiles but not much else for the average Netflix subscriber and even Fincher fans. It will frustrate and bore a lot (would love to see Netflix’s statistics on how many made it to the end).

Like - Dislike - 401

Reply to The_Argentinian

Please use spoiler tags: [spoiler] text [/spoiler]

Reply by LNero

2 years ago

@the_argentinian I wouldn't sell Fincher fans as short as the average Netflixer. The dialog was hard to follow even for a native speaker, but I was enjoyed it thoroughly even when I felt a few steps behind trying to follow it. I think they didn't even bother promoting it. Their algorithms are garbage, and I didn't even know that they had this film until today.

Reply - Like - Deslike - 00

faithful soul says...

3 years ago

Not only does Fincher tell a story set in the golden age of Hollywood, but he evokes the style of filmmaking too. It's cleverly made, and Oldman is great as Mank. However, it didn't quite grip me the way I thought it would, perhaps due to the movie's talky nature. Still, that doesn't detract from what Fincher has tried to do here.

Like - Dislike - 400

Reply to faithful soul

Please use spoiler tags: [spoiler] text [/spoiler]

Valefox says...

3 years ago

I have a lot of respect for this movie, but it just wasn't my thing. It didn't capture much of my attention. And that's OK.

One would enjoy this movie if they like movie history, moviemaking history, or "Citizen Kane."

I'm a big David Fincher fan, and this felt like a Fincher movie in many ways (cinematography & lighting, characters, dialogue), but not one that I much enjoyed.

Like - Dislike - 100

Reply to Valefox

Please use spoiler tags: [spoiler] text [/spoiler]

TKPNPodcast says...

3 years ago

A slog even for me, a film nut. I'm sorry but he wrote one great film and was a prick in the process. Not someone I want to spend 2 hours with.

Like - Dislike - 100

Reply to TKPNPodcast

Please use spoiler tags: [spoiler] text [/spoiler]

grosdawson says...

3 years ago

I can't say i liked the movie but my eyes did.
I know who is Orson Welles and watched Citizen Kane a long time ago, I understood the story but a lot of names and references have past over my head.

Like - Dislike - 000

Reply to grosdawson

Please use spoiler tags: [spoiler] text [/spoiler]

2016moonlight says...

3 years ago

A little dull and long if you're looking to be entertained, but highly interesting if you're looking to learn something. I still consider myself a green film fan, but I watched Citizen Kane in preparation for this, and Mank right after, and because of them I now feel a little bit more of an insider in the history of cinema, and that's very valuable. Movies about movies are always a web of meta layers, and this one goes further by adapting the style and structure of the film it is talking about. Definitely worth the watch.

Like - Dislike - 000

Reply to 2016moonlight

Please use spoiler tags: [spoiler] text [/spoiler]

Saint Pauly says...

3 years ago

"Citizen Mank" because, from the convoluted time line and the black & white images all the way down to the dubbed dialog track, this is basically a remake of Citizen Kane with its screenwriter as the central character.

And like Citizen Kane, the sublime filmmaking overshadows a story that (in Mank) drags its feet all the way to the end. For while Herman J. Mankiewicz co-won the screen writing Oscar for Citizen Kane, Jack Fincher won't win one for this (and not because he was the director's father and wrote this screenplay before passing in 2003).

Like - Dislike - 000

Reply to Saint Pauly

Please use spoiler tags: [spoiler] text [/spoiler]

miguelreina says...

3 years ago

[Netflix] A film about the Hollywood of the past through the eyes of David Fincher. A political vision of cinema from the gaze of a great alcoholic, although based on a lie spread by Pauline Kael. But the essence of this story is the representation of an era and a way of making cinema that has disappeared. Magnificent work by Gary Oldman, creator of one of the best drunks that have been seen in a long time.

Like - Dislike - 000

Reply to miguelreina

Please use spoiler tags: [spoiler] text [/spoiler]

2111anixt says...

3 years ago

"Words spoken by people in a 1930s & 40s American accent which no one gives a shit about : The most boring movie of 2020" (2020) was the original title of this movie, i don't know why they changed it to Mank (2020)

Like - Dislike - 000

Reply to 2111anixt

Please use spoiler tags: [spoiler] text [/spoiler]

smallclone says...

3 years ago

Looks pretty awesome on the big screen. Some brilliant photography, set design and costume design. Pretty good cast and that era of Hollywood is captured perfectly. I'm not sure it's the 5 star masterpiece some critics are making it out to be but it's entertaining. The story of Herman J. Mankiewicz is told well for the most part with his struggles to write the screenplay of Citizen Kane the main theme. I did feel there were some historical inaccuracies towards the end, which don't really paint Welles in the best light - which is a great shame - although it all just adds to the mystery of Kane.

Like - Dislike - 000

Reply to smallclone

Please use spoiler tags: [spoiler] text [/spoiler]

Raix says...

3 years ago

It's likely a movie to watch more than once. You could quote many lines (to be fair the movie also likes to quotes), the dialogue is intelligent, the editing is fast and Fincher directs so.
My only issue would be with the actor playing Orson. But you would need the actual Orson to make it work.

Like - Dislike - 000

Reply to Raix

Please use spoiler tags: [spoiler] text [/spoiler]

boolalanga says...

3 years ago

Decent movie.

Don’t know much about the history behind it.

The more things change, the more they remain the same. The politics..

Like - Dislike - 000

Reply to boolalanga

Please use spoiler tags: [spoiler] text [/spoiler]

r96sk says...

3 years ago

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.

Like - Dislike - 000

Reply to r96sk

Please use spoiler tags: [spoiler] text [/spoiler]

psonnosp says...

3 years ago

Should've read up a bit on this so I could've prepared for watching it. Because with little knowledge of the persons that it's about you wont get much out of this exceptc some pretty faces, good acting and a visual feast.
But I rather would've spent the two hours doing something else because this got boring really fast.
Maybe I'll rewatch it when I get the time to rewatch Citizen Kane.

Like - Dislike - 000

Reply to psonnosp

Please use spoiler tags: [spoiler] text [/spoiler]

Type in any movie or show to find where you can watch it, or type a person's name.

User Comments for: Mank

Watchmode

Some stuff

Follow Watchmode