MovieChat Forums > Mank (2020) Discussion > Saw it yesterday. It's Horrible! Fincher...

Saw it yesterday. It's Horrible! Finchers worst movie!

posted 3 years ago by GingerbreadPimp (1767)
24 replies | jump to latest

I expected to love this because Fincher is one of my favorite directors, but holy shit was this bad! Great performances and production, but the story is a mess and painfully boring! It's all over the place and spends only a little bit of time actually focusing on him writing Citizen Kane. Also if you aren't familar with Hollywood or California politics during this time period prepare to be really confused by the story here. Really wish I would've just waited for this to be on Netflix then waste my afternoon and $13 to see this in a theater.

3/10

[–] [deleted] 3 years ago

that bad?

[–] MonStar (11568) 3 years ago

I agree with the OP, it was boring. I saw it in a theater for US$5. It's about a chain smoking alcoholic screenwriter and his relation with William Randolph Hearst, the subject of Citizen Kane. The film did little to make me care about Mank. I learned almost nothing about the making of Citizen Kane.

I also agree with the subsequent poster. This went to Netflix because it would have bombed in theaters. Critics like anything that's not a superhero movie, or filled with car chases and explosions. The actor playing Orson Welles sounded just like him.

Me and Orson Welles (2008) was Stonekeeper game #127 in General Discussion. It bombed in theaters, but gave a much better sense about Orson Welles' Mercury Theater.

[–] enriquesingh (1769) 3 years ago

I have the impression that some filmmakers that work with Netflix bring to them projects that studios don't want to make... also even though there's a lot of criticism about studio interference maybe there is *some* good to it?

I have no idea how this project was developed, but it's been receiving criticism as good but not great... reminds me a bit of The Irishman... and on his own spectrum Adam Sandler.

Let's see how is Midnight Sky received next month.

[–] prayformojo (101) 3 years ago

In a 2009 interview, Fincher said the budget is what derailed the project back in the ’90s:

“It was too expensive. Because if you’re going to make a Hollywood insider movie—it’s nothing to do with Hollywood really, it’s Hollywood in the late thirties, early forties—you’ve got to make it really cheaply. We had a chance to make the movie for, like, $13 million, back in 1998 and, um, [guiltily] I wanted to make it in black and white. [Laughs] And that fucked up all those home video and video sellthrough and cable deals"

He's been sitting on this script for ages. Nobody would make it because nobody thought they could make money on it (and they were right - a traditional theatrical release and this thing would have the worst bomb since "Heaven's Gate").

It's interesting how this will all play out, because Netflix will get a LOT more eyes on this than it otherwise would have, but in my mind that just means that many more disappointed people.

[–] GingerbreadPimp (1767) 3 years ago

His claim about it being too expensive is a load of shit. I can see why nobody wante to touch this script and critics are only fawing over it because it's black & white and a film about classic Hollywood. Everyone else is going to hate this.

[–] Esterhowse (468) 3 years ago

"In a 2009 interview, Fincher said the budget is what derailed the project back in the ’90s"

I have been hearing Fincher bitch and moan about Budgets for years it is getting tiring. It is at the point where I list Fincher whining about budget in the same column as Ridley Scott whining about studio interference.

[–] Poozer91 (569) 3 years ago

Yes, it is true he has been sitting on this script for a while, but I think a major reason why is because it was written by his late father, so it probably has some personal value to him. However, I rather enjoyed the movie, but it definitely is not Fincher's best or worst.

As for being a bomb, I would say in a normal year even with positive reviews and word or mouth, the general public just would not care to see it. I mean the movie had a budget between 20-30 million (which is very small considering it being a Fincher film) and even during its brief theatrical run with lackluster new releases and scant other choices, the movie did not even crack 100k.

Hopefully, more people will see it on Netflix. But I am guessing it will get several award nominations which will add to its popularity.

[–] Crocodile (2948) 3 years ago

[deleted]

[–] [deleted] 3 years ago

For me, it is Fincher's 9th best film. I would rate it an 8/10. It definitely is not horrible.

[–] Jones70 (6195) 3 years ago

Which 2 do you think are worse? Alien 3 and Benjamin Button?

[–] [deleted] 3 years ago

Alien 3 is his weakest film and then Zodiac would be the other one.

[–] TheArgentinian (6424) 3 years ago

Zodiac at the bottom ? Lol.

[–] filmgeek99 (591) 3 years ago

Not everyone's gonna agree with me on this, but I personally found The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo a complete bore. For me, it's tied with Benjamin Button as Fincher's worst. If Mank is anything remotely close to those quality-wise, then you can count me out.

[–] actionkamen (23176) 3 years ago

I agree. Benjamin Button and The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo are the worst.

[–] GingerbreadPimp (1767) 3 years ago

I haven't seen Benjamin Button since it came out, but as a fan of the book Dragon Tattoo was great. Shame he ever got to adapt the rest of the series and instead we got that awful reboot.

[–] actionkamen (23176) 3 years ago

The 2009 Swedish version was decent. I think Fincher's version was weaker because of the cast too. Daniel Craig was too fresh of James Bond while the girl (the titular character) was basically overshadowed.

[–] GingerbreadPimp (1767) 3 years ago

I think both are great, Fincher's version I think is better directed though.

[–] filmgeek99 (591) 3 years ago

Yeah, Fincher's a bit hit-and-miss with me personally. The guy's got a great technical eye and a knack for getting great performances out of his actors, but his storytelling sensibilities always strike me as a bit bland and workmanlike. As a storyteller, he seems far too obsessed with finding ways to deliver information, rather than emotion. His strength as a filmmaker is in setting up clues and hints for the audience to follow, only to later turn them completely upside down (Fight Club is probably the best example of this). Intimate, personal character studies are not his thing.

Nearly all of David's films deal with mystery and suspense on some level, and the one he made that didn't just so happened to be his very worst (The Curious Case of Benjamin Button). From the way you described, this seems to be another flop for Finch as a character-driven storyteller. This seems like a project Spielberg could've knocked out in his sleep.

[–] sonans (1209) 3 years ago

Liar, no way it can be worse than The Curious Case of Benjamin Button.

That movie is a stain on his resume, like The Dark Knight Rises to Nolan.

[–] actionkamen (23176) 3 years ago

And Tenet.

[–] Poozer91 (569) 3 years ago

Clearly you have not seen Panic Room.

[–] GingerbreadPimp (1767) 3 years ago

Panic Room was not his best by far, but it was a decent thriller. Much better than this boring mess of a film.

[–] TheArgentinian (6424) 3 years ago

Netflix counts the first 2 minutes watched as one view. I would love to see their statistics on this movie. There's no way most people watched the whole 135 minutes.

Only film historians would get all the references.