Rick Dalton said:

---

If that was your first reaction, I don't think that watching Citizen Kane and then revisiting Mank is going to move the needle that much. I watched both of them in one evening and that was admittedly too much, I was exhausted by the end of the night. I've always appreciated Citizen Kane and can understand why many consider it "the greatest movie of all-time," but I didn't grow up watching it and therefore have more affinity for the films that it influenced, e.g Lawrence of Arabia and There Will Be Blood, among many others. The movie backstory that I really want to see is Francis and The Godfather since that's a film that I've seen dozens of times and the story of how it was made is a Hollywood legend.

This article (spoilers) dives into a lot of the Citizen Kane references, personal backstories and what was real versus embellished, but even it was hard for me to get through. There are some movies where I love diving into that level of detail (OUATIH, Tenet, Blade Runner 2049, etc.), but surprisingly (and sadly) this isn't one of them.

---

If you want a little sneak peak, I posted the script below. It's so damn good. Admittedly, I haven't read the entire thing, as I want to preserve a bit of mystery, but I absolutely loved what I did read...

http://www.mediafire.com/file/3ugnyaw1ldhi0hq/Francis_and_The_Godfather.pdf/file

Rick Dalton said:

---

Just finished watching Citizen Kane and Mank. It was good, there's a lot to appreciate from a technical standpoint as you'd expect from Fincher, but I didn't love it like I was hoping I would. I need to sit with it for a few days and then I'll either give it another shot or never watch it again.

---

I agree with this. Honestly, Fincher is a top 3 director for me. I think he showed he can do something other than dark movies with this and maybe that will bring something else interesting down the line (not that he needed more street cred or anything). The movie was stunningly shot. It felt like Citizen Kane. The actors were phenomenal.

But honestly, I was bored. I'm just not a cinephile at the level to appreciate this enough. I would watch every single movie Fincher has done over this if I was picking a movie to watch this weekend (I can't speak for Aliens 3 (never seen it) or Benjamin Button (saw it when it came out but don't remember it well. I would actually choose to watch BB next over another viewing of Mank to make sure it's ranked properly for me.)

I watched Citizen Kane in preparation and kind of felt the same about it. I completely understand why it's as celebrated as it is, but it's just not a movie I want to put on and watch. Different strokes for different folks. I would have unquestionably preferred Mindhunter Season 3.

Not trying to be a downer. I think the movie is worth watching and some people will enjoy it much more than I did, but trying to set expectations for people who have seen and love Fight Club, Se7en, Gone Girl, Zodiac and The Social Network and are going into this with the excitement that it's a Fincher movie. The technical expertise and skill is absolutely there, but the entertainment just didn't come close for me.

First of all... Gary Oldman was playing a 43-YEAR-OLD Mank? And a MID-30s Mank in the flashbacks? What??? He's 62 in real life! Don't get me wrong, I love Gary Oldman, and he was great in this, but why did that particular role need *him* and not any other popular/capable/age-appropriate actor?

The other big head-scratcher is the movie we got vs. what it had been pitched as for months if not years, which was basically The Social Network except Citizen Kane in the place of Facebook. It was continually billed as the film about the true story of the battle for the writing credit of the greatest movie of all time. Yet, in reality, that's basically just the last ten minutes, if that. Instead, what we got was a film about the motivation *behind* Citizen Kane, along with a shockingly deep dive into the 1934 California gubernatorial race as it related to said motivation.

That said, strangely enough... I think I actually found the political angle to be incredibly relevant and just as intriguing, if not more so, than what I was expecting the movie to be? I'm in complete agreement with every point Tonyperkis makes above. I totally get the less-than-enthusiastic responses, and I'm pretty much in the same camp. But after being thrown for such a loop, once I started to see the movie for what it was, I was kind of in awe at what it was trying to say, how it was trying to say it, and how it gives Citizen Kane such a deeper meaning now. Even if, again, it was one of the most niche movies ever and I still can't believe Netflix actually bankrolled it. It's experimental and obscure and unlike any movie I've ever seen (in both good and bad ways). Yet, I still find myself wanting to watch the entire thing again, if only to run it back knowing what to expect this time, and soak up a bit more of the nuance along with the jaw-dropping cinematography.

So, yeah. I'm definitely in agreement insomuch as I wouldn't pick this over just about anything else in Fincher's catalogue. And it's not necessarily "entertaining" either. But I'm glad it exists, glad he was able to experiment like this, and I think I'm going to grow to appreciate it more and more over time, especially after a rewatch, which I may do sooner rather than later. Even if Gary Oldman playing someone three years older than me makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

I'm torn. That angle definitely felt like Fincher was trying too hard, but then I was surprised by how well I thought it eventually lent itself to the story as a whole, at least in my opinion. I kind of cringed at first, but then I was like, "Wait, this might be actually be genius." In fact, I felt a weird, demented sense of comfort knowing that the same old sh*t has been happening for decades, and is not at all unique to the current era, even if it was fabricated a bit here and there, as the real-life events show. Either way, forced or not, I completely get being worn out by something like that, given the past year (or four).

Finchers daddys script makes for a not very good movie here.

I agree with your comments here as well. I do think a second watch may help me sit back and enjoy it a little more as my expectations won't be The Social Network type story-telling.

Good article share Rick. Definitely useful to understand the facts vs. fiction from the story.

Your paragraph here is spot-on:

"The other big head-scratcher is the movie we got vs. what it had been pitched as for months if not years, which was basically The Social Network except Citizen Kane in the place of Facebook. It was continually billed as the film about the true story of the battle for the writing credit of the greatest movie of all time. Yet, in reality, that's basically just the last ten minutes, if that. Instead, what we got was a film about the motivation *behind* Citizen Kane, along with a shockingly deep dive into the 1934 California gubernatorial race as it related to said motivation"

I think it's always tough to enjoy a film when expectations are so different from reality. It just kind of knocks me out of the brain shutdown/enjoy entertainment mode. I think the hype from critics didn't help either.

I agree with most sentiments on here. I found myself checking my watch every 15 minutes, it just didn't hold my attention like I thought it would.

Overall, I just don't think there was enough story arc to justify an entire movie of this. It's almost like they had the idea of "what if we told the story of a complicated alcoholic writer battling with Orson Welles for a screenwriting credit?", and then realized there was about 30 minutes of material at the most there. And then they thought, "well we can beef it up with some story about his background with WR Hearst, show where he got the inspiration from!" and that got them another 45 minutes. And finally, "How about we throw in the gubernatorial race politics vs. the established Hollywood studio system", and they finally had 2 hours worth of material.

It just felt very disjointed to me, especially that final confrontation between Welles and Mank. That was just stuck on at the end and wasn't even really part of the story arc up until that point, yet that's what was hyped for most of the movie marketing.

Coincidentally, I recently saw the movie Trumbo from a few years ago. It wasn't a perfect movie, but I was much more interested in that version of Golden Age Hollywood and how it addressed politics of the day. I just think Trumbo's life was far more interesting and worthy of a biopic when compared to Mank's life. Also, its always enjoyable to watch a stressed out Bryan Cranston yell at his family and coworkers.

I started Mank hoping against hope that it would succeed as a movie, rather than as an exercise in technique -- which is what made it initially seem so promising. I'm cinephile-ish, love Citizen Kane, and appreciate Fincher. Unfortunately, my response lines up with much stated here. I found it dull and unengaging despite its technical brilliance. Seyfried is particularly good. In the end the movie about the writing of one of Hollywood's greatest scripts is undone by the weakness of its own.

On the other hand, the script for Francis and The Godfather delivers everything Mank lacks. Great characters you want to root for, a tight structure, and laugh out loud funny. I stayed up late to read it straight through. I'd write more but I don't want to derail the thread. But thanks, TCTTS, for making it available. I want to see that movie.

No problem! I'm so glad someone else read the Francis script! I haven't talked to a single other person yet who has, so it's good to hear I'm not alone in thinking how great it is. In agreement with your thoughts on both that and Mank.

I'm gonna do the Citizen Kane/ Mank doubleheader this weekend and I'm like you where I haven't seen CK since college and don't remember much other than the rosebud ***** Should I watch Mank first or CK first? Like will watching Mank first be a little confusing but will then make me enjoy CK much more? I'm leaning toward that - I don't want to watch CK first, get bored and miss a lot then watch Mank and feel I have to go back and rewatch CK again

And for making of The Godfather movie if it happens i will likely rewatch the entire 9 hour trilogy trilogy again leading up and listen to the 9 hour rewatchables podcasts again. That will be awesome if done right

InternetFan02 said:

---

I'm gonna do the Citizen Kane/ Mank doubleheader this weekend and I'm like you where I haven't seen CK since college and don't remember much other than the rosebud ***** Should I watch Mank first or CK first? Like will watching Mank first be a little confusing but will then make me enjoy CK much more? I'm leaning toward that - I don't want to watch CK first, get bored and miss a lot then watch Mank and feel I have to go back and rewatch CK again

---

It's hard to say. Yeah, my worry in watching CK first, as others have said, and you allude to, is getting burnt out on that world and the black-and-white-ness of it all and whatever else before diving into Mank. Honestly, I was surprised by how little I needed to know about CK in order to follow everything in Mank. That said, I *have* heard that watching CK first helps with all the winks and nods here and there in Mank. But it's not at all essential.

InternetFan02 said:

---

And for making of The Godfather movie if it happens i will likely rewatch the entire 9 hour trilogy trilogy again leading up and listen to the 9 hour rewatchables podcasts again. That will be awesome if done right

---

Same. Just reading the script alone really made me want to revisit the original, as I haven't seen it since college either. But yeah, just FYI, as of now, there's not an "if" in its chances of happening. The leads have been cast (Oscar Isaac as Coppola and Jake Gyllenhaal as Robert Evans) and they start filming soon, for what imagine will be a big awards push next fall. Can't wait.

I love Fincher, he might be my favorite director of all time, but this movie just didn't hit the mark for me. I kept waiting for something to grab me, and it just never did. I don't understand all the love for it, there's certain things about the film I can appreciate like the cinematography and the sound, but overall it's just not for me. One of the reasons I love Fincher films is that they are just visceral, they demand your attention, I was just bored during Mank. I think I'd rather watch his previous collaboration with Charles Dance...Alien 3.

If we're ranking movies about the golden age of Hollywood, I'd put Who Framed Roger Rabbit above this one.

When I go back through his films, none of them has fallen truly flat with me. Many of them I revisit all the time Se7en, Fight Club, Zodiac, The Social Network, and The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo I watch often. I even recently watched The Curious Case of Benjamin Button again for the first time in a long time. It wasn't my favorite, but it came out when I was 28, when I wasn't old enough to really grasp a lot of that film as I was too young. At 41, it's a completely different experience. Themes like aging and regret hit a lot harder when you feel your youth is behind you. I would actually recommend anyone that saw it when they were young and didn't care for it watch it now, you might be surprised.

While I totally agree that it's not up there with his best, and it didn't really wow me the first go-around, I've since watched it a second time (and certain parts a third) and absolutely love it now. Still not top-tier Fincher, of course, but once you know what to expect, can fully appreciate the plot, and perhaps catch a bit more of the dialogue via subtitles, it all lands a lot better. Granted, I would have rather it been more accessible on first-viewing, and most people aren't going to want to watch twice, but it's one that definitely gets better with age, so to speak.