I watched Mank and I didn’t like it. 2/5
–
Mank, directed by David Fincher, is a film that strives to explore the life of Herman J. Mankiewicz, the screenwriter responsible for the iconic film Citizen Kane. With a strong cast and Fincher’s signature visual style, Mank has the potential to be a compelling and insightful piece of cinema. However, despite its technical merits, the film falls short in terms of engaging storytelling and fails to leave a lasting impact.
One of the film’s undeniable strengths is its technical execution. Fincher’s meticulous attention to detail is evident in every frame, with stunning black-and-white cinematography that beautifully captures the era in which the story is set. The period-appropriate production design and costumes further enhance the authenticity of the film’s 1930s Hollywood setting. The score by Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross is also noteworthy, adding depth and atmosphere to the film.
The performances in Mank are solid, with Gary Oldman taking on the titular role of Herman J. Mankiewicz. Oldman delivers a committed performance, capturing the wit and intelligence of the character. The supporting cast, including Amanda Seyfried and Lily Collins, also give noteworthy performances that add some much-needed depth to the story. The performances are one of the film’s few saving graces, offering glimpses of the potential that could have been fully realized with a stronger script.
However, where Mank falters is in its storytelling. The film’s non-linear narrative, while a staple of Fincher’s filmography, feels disjointed and lacks a clear sense of direction. The frequent jumps in time and narrative threads make it difficult to fully engage with the story and connect with the characters on a deeper level. The film assumes a level of familiarity with the making of Citizen Kane, which may alienate audiences less familiar with the subject matter.
Another issue with Mank is its lack of emotional resonance. While it delves into the politics and power dynamics of Hollywood, as well as Mankiewicz’s personal struggles, the film fails to evoke any real emotional response. The characters remain at a distance, preventing the audience from truly investing in their journeys. Despite the film’s attempts to explore themes of ambition, integrity, and the creative process, it never fully delves into these subjects in a way that feels satisfying or impactful.
Furthermore, Mank’s pacing is a significant drawback. The film is slow-paced, and at times, it becomes tedious to follow. Lengthy dialogue exchanges and repetitive scenes weigh down the narrative, making it feel much longer than its runtime. The film’s lack of a strong central narrative or clear character arcs further contributes to the sense of stagnation and slows down the overall pacing.
In conclusion, Mank, while technically well-crafted, falls short in terms of engaging storytelling and emotional impact. Its visual style, performances, and attention to detail are commendable, but these elements cannot compensate for the disjointed narrative, lack of emotional resonance, and slow pacing. With its shortcomings outweighing its strengths, Mank earns a 2 out of 5 rating. While it may appeal to fans of David Fincher’s work or those with a keen interest in the making of Citizen Kane, it is unlikely to leave a lasting impression on a wider audience.