❝You cannot capture a man's entire life in two hours. All you can hope is to leave the impression of one.❞
𐄁──── ｡ﾟ☆: .☽ .* :☆ﾟ.────𐄁

Mank is very different to the psychological thrillers I typically associate with David Fincher, and though I appreciate the finesse behind this film, it's just not my cup of tea. For one, the first act was very jumbled and rushed, while the rest of the film took a much more meandering pace which didn't pair well with the relatively long run-time. I also haven't watched Citizen Kane, I'm not very aware of past American politics and don't know much about what happened behind-the-scenes in real life, so the non-linear storytelling and multitudes of characters were a bit difficult to keep up with. However, Gary Oldman was pretty brilliant, and I also liked Charles Dance and Amanda Seyfried's performances. The black-and-white grading, fade transitions and other old Hollywood aesthetics were done really well, and from a technical aspect this was great. With that being said, I think this is a film I need to rewatch to understand and appreciate properly after doing some research.

❝You cannot capture a man's entire life in two hours. All you can hope is to leave the impression of one.❞
𐄁──── ｡ﾟ☆: .☽ .* :☆ﾟ.────𐄁

Mank is very different to the psychological thrillers I typically associate with David Fincher, and though I appreciate the finesse behind this film, it's just not my cup of tea. For one, the first act was very jumbled and rushed, while the rest of the film took a much more meandering pace which didn't pair well with the relatively long run-time. I also haven't watched Citizen Kane, I'm not very aware of past American politics and don't know much about what happened behind-the-scenes in real life, so the non-linear storytelling and multitudes of characters were a bit difficult to keep up with. However, Gary Oldman was pretty brilliant, and I also liked Charles Dance and Amanda Seyfried's performances. The black-and-white grading, fade transitions and other old Hollywood aesthetics were done really well, and from a technical aspect this was great. With that being said, I think this is a film I need to rewatch to understand and appreciate properly after doing some research.

It did take me a little while to really get into the film, but when i did oh boy did David Fincher inject C i n é m a straight into my veins.
I appreciate how the film really feels like a product of the 30s and 40s, like it realistically could have been made in either era and fit right in. I think for that reason it's possibly Fincher's most ambitious work to date and let him really go all out on something completely different. Stylistic choices like when a scene changes to a flashback using the same structure a script would were really nice details.
There's some brilliant performances, most notably from Gary Oldman and Amanda Seyfriend and the story is an interesting one that is probably up for interpretation even though the film makes it very clear that it's in favour of Mank and not Orson Welles. Weirdly though it doesn't really make me want to go back and revisit Citizen Kane, but it does make me want to look into the behind the scenes of it more because I personally find that a lot more interesting. Makes a strong case to be a contender for one of the films of the year.

It did take me a little while to really get into the film, but when i did oh boy did David Fincher inject C i n é m a straight into my veins.
I appreciate how the film really feels like a product of the 30s and 40s, like it realistically could have been made in either era and fit right in. I think for that reason it's possibly Fincher's most ambitious work to date and let him really go all out on something completely different. Stylistic choices like when a scene changes to a flashback using the same structure a script would were really nice details.
There's some brilliant performances, most notably from Gary Oldman and Amanda Seyfriend and the story is an interesting one that is probably up for interpretation even though the film makes it very clear that it's in favour of Mank and not Orson Welles. Weirdly though it doesn't really make me want to go back and revisit Citizen Kane, but it does make me want to look into the behind the scenes of it more because I personally find that a lot more interesting. Makes a strong case to be a contender for one of the films of the year.

Have you ever heard the story of the organ-grinder’s monkey?

As a Fincher-head and a massive old Hollywood fan, it actually pains me to give it a rating this low, but I have to be honest with y’all, it just didn’t completely live up to my expectations.

My main issue with the film was ironically its screenplay. While I wouldn’t normally think it fair to compare this film to Citizen Kane, the movie references it so often that practically begs the audience to. While Kane is laser focused on the rise to power, and understanding the psyche of its protagonist, Mank seems to meander often, resulting in a disjointed storyline.

In a movie about a man who takes credit over a screenplay, David Fincher might have been hesitant to make cuts on his late father’s draft but a more focused storyline would have benefited the film immensely. I didn’t understand why we were so focused on a political campaign from 1934, except as a thinly-veiled fake-news allegory for all the young’uns watching. Despite spending so much time with Herman Mankiewicz himself, I felt like we just scratched the surface on who he was as a man, leaving me wanting more.

As for what I loved about the movie, pretty much everything else. As usual, Fincher’s attention to detail is incredible. Not only did he shoot this movie in black and white, but he also took the bass out of the audio and added cue marks to make you feel like you were watching an actual film reel. Trent Reznor does a Max Steiner-esque classic score, something I was unsure he’d be able to pull off. Just being able to recreate the grandiose Hearst Castle parties was a spectacular achievement, I hope this movie wins every Oscar for the below the line categories. Also, as a massive Hollywood fan it was fun to recognize celebrities and their various storylines from the time.

I don’t think I would be as upset if Fincher hadn’t already given us such an illustrious career. Had Damien Chazelle released a film like this, I would have erred more on the side of “he’s showing real promise” but this is the guy who made The Social Network. He knows how to navigate parallel timelines and make you sympathize with difficult characters. My heart wasn’t in this one.

I look forward to giving it a rewatch when it comes out on Netflix given the layered and detailed nature of the film, but this was my first impression.

Have you ever heard the story of the organ-grinder’s monkey?

As a Fincher-head and a massive old Hollywood fan, it actually pains me to give it a rating this low, but I have to be honest with y’all, it just didn’t completely live up to my expectations.

My main issue with the film was ironically its screenplay. While I wouldn’t normally think it fair to compare this film to Citizen Kane, the movie references it so often that practically begs the audience to. While Kane is laser focused on the rise to power, and understanding the psyche of its protagonist, Mank seems to meander often, resulting in a disjointed storyline.

In a movie about a man who takes credit over a screenplay, David Fincher might have been hesitant to make cuts on his late father’s draft but a more focused storyline would have benefited the film immensely. I didn’t understand why we were so focused on a political campaign from 1934, except as a thinly-veiled fake-news allegory for all the young’uns watching. Despite spending so much time with Herman Mankiewicz himself, I felt like we just scratched the surface on who he was as a man, leaving me wanting more.

As for what I loved about the movie, pretty much everything else. As usual, Fincher’s attention to detail is incredible. Not only did he shoot this movie in black and white, but he also took the bass out of the audio and added cue marks to make you feel like you were watching an actual film reel. Trent Reznor does a Max Steiner-esque classic score, something I was unsure he’d be able to pull off. Just being able to recreate the grandiose Hearst Castle parties was a spectacular achievement, I hope this movie wins every Oscar for the below the line categories. Also, as a massive Hollywood fan it was fun to recognize celebrities and their various storylines from the time.

I don’t think I would be as upset if Fincher hadn’t already given us such an illustrious career. Had Damien Chazelle released a film like this, I would have erred more on the side of “he’s showing real promise” but this is the guy who made The Social Network. He knows how to navigate parallel timelines and make you sympathize with difficult characters. My heart wasn’t in this one.

I look forward to giving it a rewatch when it comes out on Netflix given the layered and detailed nature of the film, but this was my first impression.

July 6, 2026

July 6, 2026