This week has been exceptionally demanding, especially considering the number of David Fincher films—including *Se7en*, *Fight Club*, *Zodiac*, *The Social Network*, and *Gone Girl*—that I (re)watched to prepare for *Mank*, along with *Citizen Kane*. It’s not typical fare for quick reviews. The process felt surprisingly swift with *Zodiac*, allowing me to complete each article daily, as planned. Finally, the moment arrived to assess Netflix's significant contender for the upcoming awards season: Fincher's latest film. I watched it last night. I am a fan of Fincher’s style, and my reviews reflect that, so I generally anticipate his work will be among the best films of the year. However, given the biographical subject matter, I knew this type of movie would heavily depend on its storytelling ability. For me, if a film like this fails to offer fresh insights into a topic I already know something about, I'll likely feel disappointed. Even with new details, the presentation needs to be engaging; many films in this genre fall short by relying too much on exposition. Therefore, I tried to maintain realistic yet hopeful expectations. I want to issue a warning upfront. *Mank* is destined to provoke strong reactions from audiences. This stems from simple factors like its black-and-white cinematography and the fact that many viewers are unfamiliar with *Citizen Kane*, even never having seen it, but still choosing to watch *Mank*. There will be numerous instances of people describing the film as "boring," "uneventful,” claiming they “fell asleep five minutes in,” or dismissing it as “another artsy black-and-white film for critics to blindly embrace.” Some of these comments will inevitably come from viewers who randomly selected a movie on Netflix. The marketing campaign couldn't require audiences to watch *Mank*, but I feel compelled to do so: if you’ve never seen *Citizen Kane*, either watch it beforehand or skip *Mank* because you probably won’t enjoy it. I strongly believe that only one in a thousand viewers will appreciate the latter without any prior knowledge of Orson Welles' iconic film. Ideally, (re)watch it and research its background: what led to its creation, who was involved, what controversies surrounded it… I anticipate some thinking: isn't that what *Mank* is supposed to tell me? This brings me to one of my concerns about the film. There are essentially two approaches in this genre: either the director and/or screenwriter guides the audience through the story by introducing them to what they will witness, or they dive directly into the narrative itself. Fincher doesn't waste any time helping viewers understand what’s happening or, at times, even who the characters are. Viewers must either be familiar with the subject matter (as I suggest) or prepare for a complex story filled with flashbacks, side plots, and numerous characters. This will likely frustrate some viewers. Despite my extensive research on *Citizen Kane*, I occasionally felt lost due to the sheer volume of subplots and characters. While this relates to one aspect I appreciate about *Mank*, I also wish I could have learned more about certain characters, particularly Marion Davies (Amanda Seyfried) and Joseph L. Mankiewicz (Tom Pelphrey), the protagonist’s brother. On the other hand, it also means that most of the characters are quite interesting, each with compelling emotional arcs. I realized I began my review by outlining my issues with the film, but don't misunderstand: I genuinely like it a lot. However, since I've already started, I might as well share my remaining concern. This feels unlike anything Fincher has done before; it’s a remarkably personal project he surely would have loved to share with his late father, Mank's screenwriter, Jack Fincher (I’ll refer to him as Jack from now on). One thing I expected was

Source on TMDB