Serving up this steaming pile of
Celebrity Gossip
Gay Politics
Gay News
and Pointless Bitchery
Since 1995

Hello and thank you for being a DL contributor. We are changing the login scheme for contributors for simpler login and to better support using multiple devices. Please click here to update your account with a username and password.

Hello. Some features on this site require registration. Please click here to register for free.

Hello and thank you for registering. Please complete the process by verifying your email address. If you can't find the email you can resend it here.

Hello. Some features on this site require a subscription. Please click here to get full access and no ads for $1.99 or less per month.

Mank, I don’t get the hype

Is this really one of the best films this year!? I found it dreadfully dull and so did most people I spoke to about it. As for the performances, I didn’t think Amanda Seyfried was all that. I mean the role is somewhat forgettable and it did not make me wish to see or delve into the character more.

Kirsten Dunst made a more memorable Marion Davies in The Cat’s Meow - which in my opinion was a much better film than Mank. Her Marion would have made an interesting stand alone film even.

Mank overall just seemed like a big disappointment to me, even from a technical stand point, it did not bring to mind Citizen Kane or any of the classic b&w movies I love.

In all, the film was almost completely lost on me and would have switched off before the halfway point if I’d had anything even a little more important to do.

by Anonymousreply 36Last Wednesday at 4:48 PM

I found it boring and pretentious. That seems to be the winning formula for critical acclaim these days.

by Anonymousreply 102/03/2021

I turned it off after 15-20 minutes.

by Anonymousreply 202/03/2021

If you just want a straight forward telling of this story RKO281 is a better film. No frills, no fuss. Liev Schreiber is outstanding as Orson Welles.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 302/03/2021

I saw a brief interview with Amanda Seyfried where she admitted to have never heard of Marion Davies prior to getting this part. When she was asked about her, she still seemed utterly clueless as to what made her a special, interesting talent and star in the 1930's. I haven't seen the movie but it seemed obvious that she couldn't live up to the role. Its very difficult for a marginal talent to properly portray someone remarkable.

by Anonymousreply 402/03/2021

Thank you OP, I thought it quite pretentious and underwhelming, just as I do most Fincher films. So lame that even Gary Oldman couldn’t save it. In fact I thought his performance was pretty disappointing - a first for me. Amanda Seyfried was ok.

by Anonymousreply 502/03/2021

None of the films this year are that great.

I checked all the Golden Globe best picture drama nominees and not one of them made it out of the 7's on IMDB.

by Anonymousreply 602/03/2021

R6 I agree it seems to be a rather weak year.

by Anonymousreply 702/03/2021

[quote] Kirsten Dunst made a more memorable Marion Davies in The Cat’s Meow.

Love that movie. I initially watched it for Joanna Lumley as uptight gossip columnist.

by Anonymousreply 802/03/2021

R8 it was good. Much bette than I thought it would be as I didn’t expect much from the director who was well past his peak.

by Anonymousreply 902/04/2021

Thanks r3 I intend to watch it.

by Anonymousreply 1002/04/2021

Marion Davies. She has that 1930s movies mid-Atlantic accent- not the Brooklyn twang Seyfried uses.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 1102/04/2021

The movie looks like style-over-substance, with the actors playing their characters in a mannered way.

Fincher is an odd man. Reportedly obsesses about the tiniest details, and requires dozens of takes. Maybe that's why the actors are so wooden: they're exhausted and pissed.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 1202/04/2021

Perhaps Netflix provided funds or pussy in sufficient quantity to generate some "hype".

by Anonymousreply 1302/04/2021

Seyfried was the only good thing in it.

by Anonymousreply 1402/04/2021

R14 even so it wasn’t enough to save the film from being a compete bore.

by Anonymousreply 1502/04/2021

I have tried numerous times now to finish this movie and I just can’t. God it’s so boring.

by Anonymousreply 1602/11/2021

I wished I'd seen it in a theater. The look of the film was great. Otherwise nothing special.

by Anonymousreply 1702/11/2021

It had all the charm and drama of a college lecture, the kind that has you dozing off about halfway through. I found it hugely disappointing and a waste of talents like Gary Oldman (Mank) and Charles Dance (William Randolph Hearst). I wanted more of a story about the period, rather than endless monologues from Oldman's character.

by Anonymousreply 1802/11/2021

[quote]If you just want a straight forward telling of this story

My, that is what I woke up craving.

by Anonymousreply 1902/13/2021

Mank Stank

by Anonymousreply 2002/13/2021

I wanted to love it. But as the minutes wore on. And on. And on. I was like... this film can eat my pussy.

Overrated. And shocked that its in Oscar contention in ANY category.

by Anonymousreply 2102/13/2021

I liked it a lot and thought that Gary Oldman, Amanda Seyfried, and the guy who played Orson Welles were all very good. To each their own.

by Anonymousreply 2202/13/2021

Shit R22. I really wanted to like it!!!

I have even started to truly respect Roma from a few years ago.

Another film I didn't GET at the time, but liked far more than Mank.

by Anonymousreply 2302/13/2021

That's just nuts, R23. I was understanding of you not necessarily liking Mank, but to give Roma any credit at all is a bridge too far. God, that movie was HORRENDOUS. I hated it with every fiber of my being and wanted every single character in it to die a horrible death.

by Anonymousreply 2402/13/2021

Holy shit R24- NO. I truly like that film now. I especially liked the woman who played the wealthy lady who the chick worked for. I thought that her Oscar nomination was the most deserved (and unexpected) that year.

I really grew from hatewatching it to liking it...

Now Mank? No. I don't see this happening.

by Anonymousreply 2502/13/2021

Every Time I see the title it reminds me that I intend to watch it, but then I can't clear that hurdle to actually watch it. Sort of like the trailer for Nomadland. I can't believe that's getting so much hype, just based on the trailer it looks unwatchable.

by Anonymousreply 2602/13/2021

I could not finish watching Roma.

by Anonymousreply 2702/13/2021

I wish I hadn't finished Roma.

by Anonymousreply 2802/13/2021

It took me three tries to finish Mank and I was thoroughly underwhelmed each time. I could see what it wanted to be but it never got close. It started reminding me of a more serious expensive version of that stupid Ryan Murphy Hollywood mess he puked out earlier this year.

by Anonymousreply 2902/13/2021

I'm the biggest classic movie fan I know, and I was familiar with the history already, and I still quit midway through. It was so dull and never really engaged me.

by Anonymousreply 3002/13/2021

I thought parts of the Trent Reznor/Atticus Ross score were very intrusive and, whether deliberately so or not, didn't jibe with the 30s/40s period setting. Also, you know something is wrong when a flashback has to be labeled "Flashback"; Welles would probably have a good laugh at that.

by Anonymousreply 3102/14/2021

I also watched it three times. I fell asleep the first two times and fast forwarded through what I remembered and watch what I didn’t the third. What I enjoyed most about Mank was my sense of accomplishment in finally getting through it.

by Anonymousreply 3204/18/2021

It might be interesting to industry people. Otherwise, I can’t imagine it being appealing to anyone else.

It reminded me of “Glengarry Glen Ross”. But without the fun.

by Anonymousreply 3304/18/2021

Even the cinematography was awful. You'd think a movie that is primarily based on the viewer's interest in Citizen Kane would paid a llittle more attention to that aspect.

by Anonymousreply 3404/18/2021

The problem was the screenplay: it just wasn't a good one, but Fincher did it as a labor of love for his father, who wrote it. It was pretty much a waste of everyone's money, but Hollywood allowed him to do it. they won't allow him to do another one like this, though. He'd better go back to serial killers and thrillers if he wants to be marketable again.

The only real good that came out of it was for Amanda Seyfried. She didn't get the Oscar, ultimately, but she will at least now get better parts instead of having to play the dewy-eyed ingenue.

by Anonymousreply 35Last Wednesday at 9:24 AM

Not impressed with Amanda. She looked as though she were waiting for her cue before delivering what she have been very witty lines. Gary Oldman was incredible but like other posters the story took me more than one attempt to finish.

by Anonymousreply 36Last Wednesday at 4:48 PM
Need more help? Click Here.

Yes indeed, we too use "cookies." Take a look at our privacy/terms or if you just want to see the damn site without all this bureaucratic nonsense, click ACCEPT. Otherwise, you'll just have to find some other site for your pointless bitchery needs.


Become a contributor - post when you want with no ads!