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.

Many predicted "Mank" would clean-up at the Oscars

But it only won two awards, basically for looks (Cinematography and Production Design). More proof that Fincher is just style-over-substance?

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 41October 13, 2021 12:34 AM

Lucky bastards

by Anonymousreply 1April 28, 2021 2:42 PM

I’ve only watched about 1/2 of it. It’s good, in a Citizen Kane kind of way.

by Anonymousreply 2April 28, 2021 2:56 PM

It's forgettable.

by Anonymousreply 3April 28, 2021 2:58 PM

someone said it's all about how movies back then were so great but we can't make movies like that anymore, so what is the audience supposed to think?

by Anonymousreply 4April 28, 2021 3:02 PM

Mank or manky in the UK means disgusting, smelly etc. Does it have the same meaning in the US? Regardless, it's just not a phonetically pleasing title, surely they could have come up with something better.

by Anonymousreply 5April 28, 2021 5:00 PM

never even heard of Mank

by Anonymousreply 6April 28, 2021 5:02 PM

A little too blabby

by Anonymousreply 7April 28, 2021 5:04 PM

Only Hollywood loves movies about Hollywood. And only a subset of old people in Hollywood like movies about old Hollywood. Mank was a yawn for everyone else.

by Anonymousreply 8April 28, 2021 5:06 PM

I never heard of it either, R6.

by Anonymousreply 9April 28, 2021 5:33 PM

No one predicted MANK would clean up at the Oscars. No one. At best it was expected to win one or two from its many technical nominations, and that's exactly what happened.

by Anonymousreply 10April 28, 2021 6:40 PM

I read it was a front runner for a sweep too. I have it on my list for that reason.

by Anonymousreply 11April 28, 2021 6:55 PM

It looks like a chore to get through.

by Anonymousreply 12April 28, 2021 6:58 PM

I generally like Fincher's films, but Mank was kind of boring.

by Anonymousreply 13April 28, 2021 7:03 PM

I feel like I was the prime audience (TCM-worshiper who loves Orson Welles and Gary Oldman) for "Mank," but even I felt that it was boring and lacked narrative drive. Really disappointing.

by Anonymousreply 14April 28, 2021 7:09 PM

A movie that was brilliant in every respect and yet was still close to impossible to get through.

by Anonymousreply 15April 28, 2021 7:10 PM

P.S. Citizen Kane was a grandiose movie. Orson Welles entire life was bigger than life as well. If it's a fight between who (mostly) wrote Citizen Kane I'd have to vote for Welles.

by Anonymousreply 16April 28, 2021 7:13 PM

No one sane literally predicted Mank, OP. Nomadland swept everything pre-Oscar. And even without Nomadland, Promising Young Woman and Chicago 7 still have better precursor pre-Oscar compare to Mank. On another note, I love Mank so much more on 2nd viewing.

by Anonymousreply 17April 28, 2021 7:37 PM

R5 The title is short for Mankiewicz, the name of the screenwriter played by Oldman.

by Anonymousreply 18April 28, 2021 7:46 PM

I only lasted about twenty minutes. Just couldn't get into it, and he's my favorite director.

by Anonymousreply 19April 28, 2021 7:51 PM

I know, r18 - "Mank" is still an awful title.

by Anonymousreply 20April 28, 2021 7:52 PM

Agree, r20. It gives me a low-rent, dirty prostitution vibe.

by Anonymousreply 21April 29, 2021 7:48 AM

Mank stank.

by Anonymousreply 22April 29, 2021 7:55 AM

Count me as yet another who had never heard of this movie.

by Anonymousreply 23April 29, 2021 7:58 AM

Blistering reviews on IMDB...

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 24April 29, 2021 8:07 AM

He should have done a third season of Mindhunter instead. I loved that show!

by Anonymousreply 25April 29, 2021 9:43 AM

[quote]never even heard of Mank

Neither have I.

But then I hadn't heard of most of the other nominees either - but that's because I haven't seen a single coming attraction since March of last year.

by Anonymousreply 26April 29, 2021 9:55 AM

The Oscars nominate this shit and are shocked when their ratings tank. Explains why most of them were seemingly too dumb to realize Weinstein was a rapist.

by Anonymousreply 27April 29, 2021 10:00 AM

I was very much looking forward to this movie, but its a stink bomb from beginning to end.

by Anonymousreply 28April 29, 2021 1:12 PM

No, OP, in fact no one did.

by Anonymousreply 29April 29, 2021 1:27 PM

Barton Fink is 10 times better than Mank.

by Anonymousreply 30May 3, 2021 9:25 PM

Amanda Seyfried was hot for the Best Supporting Actress for a while but then she lost steam. Well she still got a nomination.

by Anonymousreply 31May 3, 2021 9:59 PM

Hollywood loves movies about Hollywood, especially old Hollywood. So it made sense that most expected a clean sweep.

by Anonymousreply 32May 3, 2021 10:06 PM

"Only Hollywood loves movies about Hollywood. And only a subset of old people in Hollywood like movies about old Hollywood. Mank was a yawn for everyone else."

Every artist makes art about his art once he matures. It's a confident Fincher at work here. I just saw it and I loved it. You'd have to know and love cinema to appreciate this film. Its not for everybody. So yeah in DL terms, old people sounds about right.

by Anonymousreply 33October 12, 2021 9:57 AM

"Mank" was a stupid title.

Nobody cared or cares about the movie's plot, characters, or themes. The great Gary Oldman was wasted.

R33, "It's not for everybody" is about as damning as it gets for a movie designed to garner a multitude of both viewers and honors. "Mank" was supposed to be for the masses, not merely students of film.

by Anonymousreply 34October 12, 2021 10:33 AM

The fake films, used as propaganda against Sinclair, is a grim warning for our times. It's Goebbels tactics followed bzarebmy for 2024

by Anonymousreply 35October 12, 2021 11:06 AM

I love old films, Citizen Kane, etc. and switched off Mank after 25 minutes or so.

by Anonymousreply 36October 12, 2021 1:12 PM

MANK had some of the sharpest dialogue in film I've heard in years. Which goes to prove that it takes more than sharp dialogue to make a good movie.

by Anonymousreply 37October 12, 2021 3:58 PM

It was a gawd awful bore.

by Anonymousreply 38October 12, 2021 4:05 PM

It was like a B/W film of a play.

by Anonymousreply 39October 12, 2021 6:11 PM

[quote] He should have done a third season of Mindhunter instead. I loved that show

So did i! I actually binged it, something i never do. The show was all talk, but the talk was compelling. So much concentrated evil, and that’s BEFORE they got to Manson.

[quote] The Oscars nominate this shit and are shocked when their ratings tank. Explains why most of them were seemingly too dumb to realize Weinstein was a rapist.

They knew. I heard rumors about him twenty-five years ago, living in NYC, and nowhere near the movie business. They ALL knew.

by Anonymousreply 40October 12, 2021 7:37 PM

R40 Oh yes I heard rumors about Weinstein around 1994 too.

by Anonymousreply 41October 13, 2021 12:34 AM
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!