David Fincher's "Mank" | Netflix | Starring Gary Oldman, Amanda Seyfried | 12/04
Sane
All Star
New Fincher 
SuburbanPimp
Giving game to lames since the 90s
I love Fincher.... But I really don't like movies or shows about the past especially if it's before the 70s.
Nero Christ
Sniper out now on all digital platforms brev
we need that new Mindhunter man 
NZA
LOL
trailer is not blowing me away but i was a fan of mank's grandson's movie review show on TYT back in the day and of course fincher and oldman are great so i will definitely watch. 
Are you saying he is in the boring point of his career like Spielberg gas been in for 15 years?
Looks great. 30s Hollywood is a fascinating time, and the story of Citizen Kane is real intersting with William Hurst trying to crush the buildings to stop the film being made.
Do ya'll only fukk with Fincher when he's making shyt about serial killers?
His CV is impeccable. Still a top 5 working American director.
Do ya'll only fukk with Fincher when he's making shyt about serial killers?
His CV is impeccable. Still a top 5 working American director.
Haha, I sat through Bridge of Spies in 2015, so I know exactly what you mean.
I don't think Fincher is THERE yet, or ever, but just doing like extremely avant garde stuff, that no one really wants to see, but he has the money and position to get made, so he does. Not a bad thing, and he shouldn't limit himself to whatever his fans wants from him (Like Jay and Reasonable Doubt) but seeing Fincher do essentially film school trivia material is not something I am very interested in.
TheGodling
Los Ingobernables de Sala de Cine
I'd say Fincher is closer to Ridley Scott status. Both men have large namesakes and occasionally deliver tolerable films but they keep trying to show they have some of that early career edge left and every time they do it just reveals they lost it.
Anyway, this feels like a project that should be right up my alley since I'm an Orson Welles stan and love the story behind Citizen Kane but I absolutely despise it when filmmakers completely copy another director's visual style and Fincher going out of his way to imitate Welles bothers the shyt out of me. Imitation is the greatest form of flattery but it's the lowest form of art. Watch Fincher get tons of praise too for being able to replicate shots and scenes from 80 years ago.
Lefty Gunz
Superstar
TheGodling
Los Ingobernables de Sala de Cine
Mank? More like Dank! I have no idea what happened to David Fincher but this is a new addition in his career section of films that aren't worth revisiting ever again. I mean 'Holy fukking shyt!' @ how fukking flat this film is. If it wasn't for Oldman and in particular Seyfried giving career-best performances this would probably be dryer than a piece of drywall in a desert.
Let's just start with how ugly the film looks. Fincher was trying to recreate the feel of an old film and for what it's worth, as far as the sound goes they nailed it (not the music btw, but more on that later). When it comes to the image though, what the fukk did they do? For some idiotic reason Fincher really thought it was a good idea to shoot this on 8K digital and then digitally degrade it. It ends up looking like they put a shytty instagram filter all over the goddamn picture with some digitally added cue marks. I know Fincher has a hard-on for shooting digital but he totally fukked up here. It's not that the cinematography is bad (even with the shameless copying of an 80 year old film by a filmmaker who Fincher pretty much shyts on here), it is just that the picture quality ends up looking even more washed than Fincher himself.
Back to the sound, the voices and sound of the film like I said really hit the mark, it's almost impressive considering how poorly they did the image. But then there's the soundtrack by Reznor and Ross and those two did a whole lot of fukking up on their own. They basically recreated an old 30s Hollywood soundtrack with traditional instruments but most of the time its heavy presence is laid over scenes of fast dialogues and quick wit to induce the sense of the rampant chaos of Hollywood filmmaking. It becomes obnoxiously present to the point the music even becomes distracting in a bunch of scenes.
Oh yeah, you thought this was a film about the writing of Citizen Kane? Yeah, you're sorta correct I guess but it also spends half its running time being a political film commenting on how characters like Hearst and Louis B Mayer basically introduced political attack ads and Fox News levels of voter manipulation through media. At some point it's such a big part of the film that it doesn't even feel like it's about Mankiewicz writing Kane anymore (even though Kane was based on Hearst) but more a story about David Fincher becoming the world's most unsubtle political commentator in film. Does that sound like fun? I can assure you, it sure as hell isn't.
In the midst of the drab there's also a constant insistence to be witty and clever but half the time the dialogues feel entirely too reliant on who's delivering them. That's where Oldman and Seyfried come in because they carry the shyt out of this long ordeal. Seyfried really is the star here, where Oldman has all the material to act as theatrically as he can (and does) Seyfried is forced to perform a lot more emotion with less words and she really pulls off a masterclass. She is the only element in this film that truly wowed me considering that Seyfried's entire career is summed up by the dvd budget section of a Walmart.
But hold on TheGodling, you write all that shyt above but you haven't even touched on Orson Welles yet even though you're his biggest stan on this board. What's up with that? Thanks for asking reader, because Fincher fukked that up too. I already spoiled it a little bit but Fincher really seems to have a strange dislike for Welles (again, ironic since he jacks his entire directing style for the film). For almost the entire duration of the film Welles is barely seen, mostly a voice on a telephone where he is presented in all of the mysterious aura that actually fits his legacy. Then when he actually makes his entrance we're confronted with an incredibly weak acting effort by Tom Burke in a small scene that does zero justice to Welles' character or his influence and part in making Kane (so little justice in fact that Deadline put out an article setting the record straight on Welles' true role in writing the screenplay even before this film came out). So yeah, after the entire grandiose mess of a film that it already was, that was the straw that broke Jigga's back.
Anyone pretending Fincher still got it after dropping yet another dud like this can kick rocks, you don't mean shyt to me.
Let's just start with how ugly the film looks. Fincher was trying to recreate the feel of an old film and for what it's worth, as far as the sound goes they nailed it (not the music btw, but more on that later). When it comes to the image though, what the fukk did they do? For some idiotic reason Fincher really thought it was a good idea to shoot this on 8K digital and then digitally degrade it. It ends up looking like they put a shytty instagram filter all over the goddamn picture with some digitally added cue marks. I know Fincher has a hard-on for shooting digital but he totally fukked up here. It's not that the cinematography is bad (even with the shameless copying of an 80 year old film by a filmmaker who Fincher pretty much shyts on here), it is just that the picture quality ends up looking even more washed than Fincher himself.
Back to the sound, the voices and sound of the film like I said really hit the mark, it's almost impressive considering how poorly they did the image. But then there's the soundtrack by Reznor and Ross and those two did a whole lot of fukking up on their own. They basically recreated an old 30s Hollywood soundtrack with traditional instruments but most of the time its heavy presence is laid over scenes of fast dialogues and quick wit to induce the sense of the rampant chaos of Hollywood filmmaking. It becomes obnoxiously present to the point the music even becomes distracting in a bunch of scenes.
Oh yeah, you thought this was a film about the writing of Citizen Kane? Yeah, you're sorta correct I guess but it also spends half its running time being a political film commenting on how characters like Hearst and Louis B Mayer basically introduced political attack ads and Fox News levels of voter manipulation through media. At some point it's such a big part of the film that it doesn't even feel like it's about Mankiewicz writing Kane anymore (even though Kane was based on Hearst) but more a story about David Fincher becoming the world's most unsubtle political commentator in film. Does that sound like fun? I can assure you, it sure as hell isn't.
In the midst of the drab there's also a constant insistence to be witty and clever but half the time the dialogues feel entirely too reliant on who's delivering them. That's where Oldman and Seyfried come in because they carry the shyt out of this long ordeal. Seyfried really is the star here, where Oldman has all the material to act as theatrically as he can (and does) Seyfried is forced to perform a lot more emotion with less words and she really pulls off a masterclass. She is the only element in this film that truly wowed me considering that Seyfried's entire career is summed up by the dvd budget section of a Walmart.
But hold on TheGodling, you write all that shyt above but you haven't even touched on Orson Welles yet even though you're his biggest stan on this board. What's up with that? Thanks for asking reader, because Fincher fukked that up too. I already spoiled it a little bit but Fincher really seems to have a strange dislike for Welles (again, ironic since he jacks his entire directing style for the film). For almost the entire duration of the film Welles is barely seen, mostly a voice on a telephone where he is presented in all of the mysterious aura that actually fits his legacy. Then when he actually makes his entrance we're confronted with an incredibly weak acting effort by Tom Burke in a small scene that does zero justice to Welles' character or his influence and part in making Kane (so little justice in fact that Deadline put out an article setting the record straight on Welles' true role in writing the screenplay even before this film came out). So yeah, after the entire grandiose mess of a film that it already was, that was the straw that broke Jigga's back.
Anyone pretending Fincher still got it after dropping yet another dud like this can kick rocks, you don't mean shyt to me.