Home Forums Movies MANK from David Fincher

MANK from David Fincher

CREATE A NEW TOPIC
CREATE A NEW POLL
Viewing 15 posts - 61 through 75 (of 158 total)
Created
5 months ago
Last Reply
3 weeks ago
157
replies
14413
views
75
users
fyras19
13
Dan Backslide
9
BetteDavis
8
  • Profile picture
    fyras19
    Joined:
    Nov 25th, 2019
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #1203896834

    Im hurt. I love Fincher and but this was a desperate attempt at Oscar bait.

    How is this Oscar-bait? I mean most people who don’t love it say it’s “boring” and that Seyfried and Dance don’t have big moments. It rarely is on the nose and doesn’t try to manipulate the audience emotionally in any way, if anything it’s sometimes too dense and cerebral. It’s not even a love letter to Hollywood as it’s clearly criticizes it throughout the film. It being a black and white film set in Old Hollywood doesn’t mean it’s Oscar-bait.

    ReplyCopy URL
    Profile picture
    Ivo Stoyanov
    Joined:
    Jun 3rd, 2015
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #1203896866

    The movie is egocentrism at his worst, is impossible for a movie to be more pretentious. It is completely unwatchable for a normal viewer, it is only for cinema critics and cinephiles, it is not like Roma or The Irishman, it is much more inaccessible, it it becomes a hit, I am predicting a IMDB score around 5. I am cinephile and I liked it very much once it finished and I really got its points, but it was quite a struggle. It is a love letter to Mank and all of his ideologies, and also to the fact that he deserved a sole writing credit for the screenplay. It is an unnecessary complicated explanation how he struggled to be a genius, cause he was surrounded of superficial and stupid people and it is quite obvious that Fincher see himself in that role, which makes me like him even less as a person.

    The reviews for Seyfried and Dance were ridiculous, he was very inferior to Tom Pelphrey, Tom Burke and especially Arliss Howard, and she was not better than Tuppence Middleton (what an underrated actress, she is really versatile and good in everything) and Lilly Collins (a huge surprise for me). None of them has a chance for a win.

    This might be controversial, but Gary Oldman lacked charisma and was just good in that role, he could have maid the film more entertaining and watchable, the character more sympathetic, the first choice of Fincher for that role – Kevin Spacey would have killed in that role, it is sad how he killed his own career.

    ReplyCopy URL
    Profile picture
    estrelas
    Joined:
    Jul 25th, 2018
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #1203896879

    This might be controversial, but Gary Oldman lacked charisma and was just good in that role, he could have maid the film more entertaining and watchable, the character more sympathetic, the first choice of Fincher for that role – Kevin Spacey would have killed in that role, it is sad how he killed his own career.

    I wouldn’t say he killed his career. He’s a pure psychopath.

    ReplyCopy URL
    Profile picture
    OccultCherry
    Joined:
    Sep 13th, 2020
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #1203896881

    Embarrassing.

    https://twitter.com/_katiestebbins_/status/1335309317227032578?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1335309317227032578%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fawardsworthy.org%2Fshowthread.php%3F49436-David-Fincher-to-direct-Gary-Oldman-in-B-amp-W-Mank%2Fpage160

    FYC:

    Picture: Nomadland
    Director: Chloe Zhao
    Leading Actress: Frances McDormand
    Leading Actor: Anthony Hopkins
    Supporting Actress: Youn Yuh-jung
    Supporting Actor: Daniel Kaluuya
    Adapted Screenplay: The Father
    Original Screenplay: Promising Young Woman

    ReplyCopy URL
    Profile picture
    JackO
    Joined:
    Jun 2nd, 2011
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #1203896887

    👀👀👀

    these seyfried reactions

    ReplyCopy URL
    Profile picture
    Ivo Stoyanov
    Joined:
    Jun 3rd, 2015
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #1203896930

    Embarrassing.

    https://twitter.com/_katiestebbins_/status/1335309317227032578?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1335309317227032578%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fawardsworthy.org%2Fshowthread.php%3F49436-David-Fincher-to-direct-Gary-Oldman-in-B-amp-W-Mank%2Fpage160

    Waw, so Fincher is obsessed with torturing his actors to repeat takes, but do not care for checking movie dates? Pathetic.

    ivostoyanov wrote:
    This might be controversial, but Gary Oldman lacked charisma and was just good in that role, he could have maid the film more entertaining and watchable, the character more sympathetic, the first choice of Fincher for that role – Kevin Spacey would have killed in that role, it is sad how he killed his own career.

    I wouldn’t say he killed his career. He’s a pure psychopath.

    I meant that he dealt very poorly with the allegations. And would not say that is psychopath, more like a creeper. But this is up for another discussion.

    ReplyCopy URL
    Profile picture
    fyras19
    Joined:
    Nov 25th, 2019
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #1203897106

    Waw, so Fincher is obsessed with torturing his actors to repeat takes, but do not care for checking movie dates? Pathetic.

    Torturing his actors? As if he does it to spite them! They almost unanimously praise his approach and appreciate the time he gives them, even someone like Jake Gyllenhaal who at the time publicly complained about the many takes later said he was wrong and that he got it now.

    And Dance didn’t receive more acclaim than Howard or Pelphrey, almost everyone said he had a small role. I’m also curious how you got the conclusion that Fincher sees himself surrounded by superficial and stupid people, there’s literally no indicator for that. Most writers from the early years of Hollywood didn’t see it as art, not only Mankiewicz but his peers like Ben Hecht too. Fincher said he connected to this when he was directing TV commercials and thought he could do better.

    ReplyCopy URL
    Profile picture
    Cordelia
    Joined:
    Jul 15th, 2018
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #1203897505

    God imagine if this was a film about Marion Davies with Amanda Seyfried in the role still. It would be a film of the year contender. This is an easier pitch to make I’d imagine (The making of Citizen Kane is such a great 5 word pitch), but as a story it isn’t that fascinating. Marion Davies though, wow, that would make an excellent movie.

     

    For Your Consideration:

    Best Picture: Wolfwalkers

    Best Animated Feature: Wolfwalkers

    ReplyCopy URL
    Profile picture
    FairWeatherAffair
    Joined:
    May 11th, 2018
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #1203897565

    God, what a fucking letdown. Tempted to say worst of Fincher’s career, which is so sad after coming after his best effort.

    No sense of humor, but instead settles for the protagonist’s sensibilities. A God-awful screenplay all around, too enamored with Hollywood to say anything of substance; we know these people are assholes, so why not go in on them?

    Cinematography is absolute trash; expect more from both Fincher and Messerschmidt. Netflix and digital just absolutely do not mix; their compression rates are shit-tier and contrast is laughable.

    Best piece is Pelphrey’s performance.

    ReplyCopy URL
    Profile picture
    Elazul
    Joined:
    Sep 2nd, 2017
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #1203897659

    How is this Oscar-bait? I mean most people who don’t love it say it’s “boring” and that Seyfried and Dance don’t have big moments. It rarely is on the nose and doesn’t try to manipulate the audience emotionally in any way, if anything it’s sometimes too dense and cerebral. It’s not even a love letter to Hollywood as it’s clearly criticizes it throughout the film. It being a black and white film set in Old Hollywood doesn’t mean it’s Oscar-bait.

    You must be joking, it’s impossible to think a film could be any more of an Oscar bait than Mank.

    I mean, the script is littered with Hollywood inside-jokes, there are quotes about the great depression that can be linked to the current pandemic, tons of behind the scenes stuff (I mean, the MGM walkthrough alone makes the academy cream their pants).

    The editing and cinematography also begs for awards. Just because it’s set in the 1930s-1940s, it doesn’t mean Mr. Fincher had to make it seem the film itself was shot then. But he actually did just that.

    It’s like he merged the likes of Chaplin, The Artist & Trumbo into one to make sure he gives the impression he loves the industry. The drunkard dinner scene felt out ot place and it’s quite weird to hear reports that it was filmed like a hundred times because it’s still very bad and honestly it brings the film down a lot. Thankfully Charles Dance’s lines afterwards are gold.

    ReplyCopy URL
    Profile picture
    Ivo Stoyanov
    Joined:
    Jun 3rd, 2015
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #1203897738

    Torturing his actors? As if he does it to spite them! They almost unanimously praise his approach and appreciate the time he gives them, even someone like Jake Gyllenhaal who at the time publicly complained about the many takes later said he was wrong and that he got it now.

    That is debatible. Gyllenhaal has not worked again with him and I doubt he will ever do it. His approach is pointless since the most iconic performances from those last 20 years are not from his movies with the only exception of Rosamund Pike. And there are literally 300 TV performances that are better or more memorable than any performance in Mindhunter.

    And Dance didn’t receive more acclaim than Howard or Pelphrey, almost everyone said he had a small role.

    Not true, he is only one predicted for Oscars and that is based on those wrong early reviews.

    I’m also curious how you got the conclusion that Fincher sees himself surrounded by superficial and stupid people, there’s literally no indicator for that.

    It is very obvious, mostly by the type of movie he made. There is one scene in which Houseman says to Mank to make his screenplay less complicated and more suitable for the masses. There is another scene in which Mank says that there is no other person with his talent of writing. It is clearly that Fincher sees himself. We have started to see this egomaniac approach of great directors lately, Nolan and his obsessiveness over time, Tarantino and his mania to change history, Lee and his mania to preach politics with real footage, Cuarón and his childhood traumas… At least Cuarón did not made a movie about himself as a central hero.

    ReplyCopy URL
    Profile picture
    Ivo Stoyanov
    Joined:
    Jun 3rd, 2015
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #1203897741

    The drunkard dinner scene felt out ot place and it’s quite weird to hear reports that it was filmed like a hundred times because it’s still very bad and honestly it brings the film down a lot.

    It is not bad at all, it is the climax and it is very well done, very tense. I do agree with everything else you said. It is not only an Oscar bate, but a Critics bate as well, the thing that people that love to feel intellectually superior will put on their number 1 spot.

    ReplyCopy URL
    Profile picture
    Elazul
    Joined:
    Sep 2nd, 2017
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #1203897747

    It is not bad at all, it is the climax and it is very well done, very tense. I do agree with everything else you said. It is not only an Oscar bate, but a Critics bate as well, the thing that people that love to feel intellectually superior will put on their number 1 spot.

    I think it was too different in tone compared to the rest of it. (BTW I saw there was debate whether drama or comedy but the funeral and related scenes are there to make sure it is drama…) I guess I’m just a bit too critical on Oldman now as at times it was too Trumbo-ish.

    I agree that it’s tailor-made for the preferential ballot, no way voters are going to rank it too low.

    ReplyCopy URL
    Profile picture
    fyras19
    Joined:
    Nov 25th, 2019
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #1203897781

    You must be joking, it’s impossible to think a film could be any more of an Oscar bait than Mank. I mean, the script is littered with Hollywood inside-jokes, there are quotes about the great depression that can be linked to the current pandemic, tons of behind the scenes stuff (I mean, the MGM walkthrough alone makes the academy cream their pants). The editing and cinematography also begs for awards. Just because it’s set in the 1930s-1940s, it doesn’t mean Mr. Fincher had to make it seem the film itself was shot then. But he actually did just that. It’s like he merged the likes of Chaplin, The Artist & Trumbo into one to make sure he gives the impression he loves the industry. The drunkard dinner scene felt out ot place and it’s quite weird to hear reports that it was filmed like a hundred times because it’s still very bad and honestly it brings the film down a lot. Thankfully Charles Dance’s lines afterwards are gold.

    This is all a pre-conceived notion, all you’re talking about is that the film is shot and edited like a 30s/40s film so it has to be Oscar-bait, what about that it’s shot that way to fit the style of the film overall, including the style of the dialogue and the way people from that era talk. It’s an artistic decision and people have to really stop assuming that filmmakers think about Oscars that much before most of them don’t. I’ve already made the case for why it’s not Oscar-bait so I’m not going to repeat myself.

    That is debatible. Gyllenhaal has not worked again with him and I doubt he will ever do it. His approach is pointless since the most iconic performances from those last 20 years are not from his movies with the only exception of Rosamund Pike. And there are literally 300 TV performances that are better or more memorable than any performance in Mindhunter.

    Gyllenhaal himself said that. Brad Pitt, Edward Norton, Morgan Freeman, Robert Downey Jr, Kevin Spacey, Mark Ruffalo, Jesse Eisenberg, Taraji P. Henson, Andrew Garfield, John Carrol Lynch, Rooney Mara and Helena Bonham Carter all gave iconic performances with him. I’m not saying that it’s the only correct approach but it’s clearly working and actors who work with him praise it so why are you complaining. Stanley Kubrick worked that way too (and he famously doesn’t give his actors notes, which Fincher does).

    Not true, he is only one predicted for Oscars and that is based on those wrong early reviews.

    He was only predicted before the film was seen. The moment the first reactions went out more than a month ago everyone said he didn’t have much screentime and wasn’t the standout and you can go back to the supporting actor thread to verify that.

    It is very obvious, mostly by the type of movie he made. There is one scene in which Houseman says to Mank to make his screenplay less complicated and more suitable for the masses. There is another scene in which Mank says that there is no other person with his talent of writing. It is clearly that Fincher sees himself. We have started to see this egomaniac approach of great directors lately, Nolan and his obsessiveness over time, Tarantino and his mania to change history, Lee and his mania to preach politics with real footage, Cuarón and his childhood traumas… At least Cuarón did not made a movie about himself as a central hero.

    You’re forcing that narrative. The only thing you said was it’s very obvious and other directors do it. Mank says to his secretary that he’s writing for movies because he isn’t that good of a writer, how about that? The screenplay of Citizen Kane was revolutionary in that time and its structure was way different than most of the films of that era so that has nothing to do with Fincher. You can see it that way, it’s just not obvious in any way and is probably not true.

    ReplyCopy URL
    Profile picture
    Elazul
    Joined:
    Sep 2nd, 2017
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #1203897810

    This is all a pre-conceived notion, all you’re talking about is that the film is shot and edited like a 30s/40s film so it has to be Oscar-bait, what about that it’s shot that way to fit the style of the film overall, including the style of the dialogue and the way people from that era talk. It’s an artistic decision and people have to really stop assuming that filmmakers think about Oscars that much before most of them don’t. I’ve already made the case for why it’s not Oscar-bait so I’m not going to repeat myself.

    Fincher went from a best seller adaptation (which was a box office success if I recall well) to this. And then recently he was bragging about his Netflix deal and that whether he should do more black and white films to justify the deal, or something along the lines. Netflix is also bending over backwards to make sure they get BP and this is the perfect one for that.

    ReplyCopy URL
Viewing 15 posts - 61 through 75 (of 158 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

Similar Topics
Emil Pe... - Feb 28, 2021
Movies
Chris B... - Feb 27, 2021
Movies