Mank

Starring: Gary Oldman, Amanda Seyfried, Lily Collins, Tom Pelphrey, Arliss Howard, Tuppence Middleton, Annika Gossman, Joseph Cross, Tom Burke, Charles Dance, Bill Nye
Directed by: David Fincher
Rating: R
Genre: Comedy, Drama
2020

Times Seen:
Tim: 1

Summary: Screenwriter Herman J. Mankiewicz (Gary Oldman) struggles to finish the script for Citizen Kane.

Review:

Tim: I was so looking forward to David Fincher's Mank. It was his first movie in 6 years. I've been a huge fan of Fincher- up to this point, 70% of the movies he's made are great and I thoroughly enjoyed the others. I will say that Mank is a very well made movie and you could certainly chalk it up to another success for Fincher. This is his 11th film and every one of them has been rated 7+. That's unheard of. So yes, Mank is a good movie and it should be celebrated.

And yet, Fincher's raised the bar so significantly that it's hard not to feel some level of disappointment. This is a good movie, but it's clearly, clearly not a great film. For another director, you'd unabashedly applaud their effort. But, Fincher is such a tremendous director that you can't help but wonder what happened. To be honest, this movie is closer to being "good" than it is to being "great". So, I liked the movie and I'll talk about that, but I also need to stress the movie's flaws.

The script is good, written by Fincher's late father. It's stylish and slick and offers some entertaining dialogue and banter. It moves along quickly and offers some truly remarkable moments. It does feel a bit surface-level. One of my complaints with the film is that it's not especially memorable. It goes down just fine, but it's not powerful enough to truly stick with you. I feel like I recalled flashes of scenes, but the story and characters are ultimately too forgettable. That's a big problem. We don't dive deeply enough into the psyches of any of these characters. We get Mank, but it's mostly surface. Despite strong performances, none of the characters really hit home in a memorable way. I do believe that while Fincher should be applauded for making his father's movie, the script both helps and hurts the film.

The cast is good. I really love Gary Oldman. He's a terrific actor and he gives another strong performance here. He's so talented that even strong performances can feel commonplace for him. I liked him in this role and have no big complaints- he's effective and talented. I will say that this is now two movies that garnered a lot of praise for him that I liked, but felt less enthusiastic about in the following days and weeks. The other was his Academy Award win for The Darkest Hour. I remember watching him in that and really enjoying his performance, but the thought of watching it again makes me shudder. I feel kind of similar about Mank. Oldman is good, but it feels like once was enough.

Amanda Seyfried is good as Marion Davies. Her casting did feel odd as she's substantially younger than Davies was, which is another knock on the movie (but not her fault). She shouldn't have been cast, to be honest. But, she was, and she delivers a strong performance. I've heard mention she might be a contender for Best Supporting Actress. I didn't quite see her performance as on that level, but she was enjoyable in the movie. Lily Collins gives a solid performance, too. I like Collins and while she didn't get a lot of time or opportunities, she does make an impact. Tom Burke was excellent in a small role as Orson Welles. It was nice seeing Charles Dance in his role as William Randolph Hurst. I didn't even recognize Bill Nye as Upton Sinclair. I also enjoyed seeing Tom Pelphrey here. He was pretty terrible in the Iron Fist series, but I thought he was effective here. Arliss Howard was effective as well. As a whole, I thought the cast was good, but not outstanding.

While I have some criticisms of the film, it's still an entertaining look at the behind-the-scenes writing process of scripting one of the all-time greatest movies. This was interesting and not something I'd considered before watching this film. I wouldn't say Herman's genius really shows up here. The movie delights in showing his flaws, but his writing process isn't explored, other than his requirement of alcohol to write. I wish the movie dug more into his process. It certainly seems more preoccupied with the stars in Herman's orbit and how they reacted to his screenplay. This isn't bad and it accounts for some of the better moments in the film. It would just have been nice to see more about the writing process.

There's a lot of good moments in Mank, but not nearly enough great ones. This is a bit strange considering Fincher's track record of creating so many iconic, unforgettable moments in his film. It results in a good movie, a well made movie, but one that feels like it's missing something. The movie is a bit uneven and there were a few moments where my attention greatly waned. Again, not something I expected from Fincher. What we're left with is a movie that will certainly be nominated for a number of Academy Awards and could even win a few. However, it's not a movie that would normally make my top 10. 2020 is a weird one and with so many movies moving who knows how the year will end up, but this movie isn't as inspired as it needed to be. It's really good, really effective, but not a great film.

Rating 1-10
Tim's Rating- 7.5



If You Enjoyed This Movie, We Recommend: Citizen Kane, The Artist, The Darkest Hour