स्क्रीनराइटर हरमन जे मैनकेविच्ज़ के ऑरसन वेल्स के प्रतिष्ठित कृति सिटिज़न केन के गांठदार विकास को दर्शाया गया है.स्क्रीनराइटर हरमन जे मैनकेविच्ज़ के ऑरसन वेल्स के प्रतिष्ठित कृति सिटिज़न केन के गांठदार विकास को दर्शाया गया है.स्क्रीनराइटर हरमन जे मैनकेविच्ज़ के ऑरसन वेल्स के प्रतिष्ठित कृति सिटिज़न केन के गांठदार विकास को दर्शाया गया है.
- 2 ऑस्कर जीते
- 65 जीत और कुल 270 नामांकन
फ़ीचर्ड समीक्षाएं
The story of how writer Herman Mankiewicz penned Citizen Kane.
I had huge hopes for this film, and as it began, my heart sank with excitement, those black and white, soft visual sequences looked sublime, and the opening moments had me captivated, sadly it never really gets going, and ultimately disappoints.
Visually, it is rather breathtaking, 1930's Hollywood is reinvented, the soft lighting, camera work, costumes, cars, even the language are all on paint, pain staking efforts were clearly put into making this film a visual marvel.
Sadly the visuals alone weren't enough to save it, the story itself is interesting, but it's delivered in a way that'll have you yawning and fidgeting, it's too slow, too self indulgent.
The flashback sequences are distracting, and fail to enhance the film, just slowing down any momentum, if used sparingly, they can work, just too many here.
I must give huge credit to Gary Oldman, as always his performance is heart felt, sincere and terrific, and along with the visuals, simply not enough to save the film.
I can appreciate the production and visuals, I can certainly admire the acting, not just Oldman, the whole cast are excellent, but what I cannot forgive is the agonising pacing, and ultimately the boredom I experienced throughout most of it.
It is watchable, but I was glad to see the credits roll, 6/10.
I had huge hopes for this film, and as it began, my heart sank with excitement, those black and white, soft visual sequences looked sublime, and the opening moments had me captivated, sadly it never really gets going, and ultimately disappoints.
Visually, it is rather breathtaking, 1930's Hollywood is reinvented, the soft lighting, camera work, costumes, cars, even the language are all on paint, pain staking efforts were clearly put into making this film a visual marvel.
Sadly the visuals alone weren't enough to save it, the story itself is interesting, but it's delivered in a way that'll have you yawning and fidgeting, it's too slow, too self indulgent.
The flashback sequences are distracting, and fail to enhance the film, just slowing down any momentum, if used sparingly, they can work, just too many here.
I must give huge credit to Gary Oldman, as always his performance is heart felt, sincere and terrific, and along with the visuals, simply not enough to save the film.
I can appreciate the production and visuals, I can certainly admire the acting, not just Oldman, the whole cast are excellent, but what I cannot forgive is the agonising pacing, and ultimately the boredom I experienced throughout most of it.
It is watchable, but I was glad to see the credits roll, 6/10.
I'm a huge fan of both "Citizen Kane" as well as David Fincher's films, so I was extremely excited to see this. Because of how much I enjoy Fincher's films as well as how good the trailers looked, I wanted to (safely) see it on a big screen rather than wait until Netflix. Needless to say, this is a good movie, but not a great one--and it does not quite live up to the quality one would expect from a Fincher film.
The story focuses on Herman Mankiewicz (Gary Oldman,) the screenwriter who worked--often tempestuously--with Orson Welles to write "Citizen Kane." However, the amount of time the film spends on material related to "Citizen Kane" is relatively little. Instead, the film tends to focus more on Mank's political activity, personal life, ascent into the movie business, and alcoholism throughout the 1930s. Oldman does a good job playing Mank, and is completely believable in the role. As one can expect from a Fincher film, the editing and cinematography are top-notch. The stylish, black-and-white aesthetic that feels both slightly understated (in the best way possible) and posh is beautifully complemented by a relatively steady camera and editing techniques common to films of the 1930s and 40s. The screenplay is generally well-written as well, although it doesn't feel as taut as you would expect in a Fincher picture, and the leisurely pacing is very well done.
Despite these strong qualities, "Mank" unfortunately is not quite great. The film develops Mank as a character, but he is portrayed in too static of a manner to really make for an engaging protagonist, or even one that can simply have clear ripple effects on the rest of the film's narrative and the characters around him. His characterization is not especially interesting. Fincher probably uses flashbacks a bit too much in the story, as many of the flashbacks to the early 1930s don't do too much to provide additional context to Mank as a character or the time period as a whole. Also, the supporting characters (such as the roles played by Amanda Seyfried and Lilly Collins) are not especially well-developed. As a result, the film doesn't completely work as a character study. However, it is still a generally well-acted and well-shot depiction of early film history that is worth seeing for viewers interested in the subject matter. 7/10
The story focuses on Herman Mankiewicz (Gary Oldman,) the screenwriter who worked--often tempestuously--with Orson Welles to write "Citizen Kane." However, the amount of time the film spends on material related to "Citizen Kane" is relatively little. Instead, the film tends to focus more on Mank's political activity, personal life, ascent into the movie business, and alcoholism throughout the 1930s. Oldman does a good job playing Mank, and is completely believable in the role. As one can expect from a Fincher film, the editing and cinematography are top-notch. The stylish, black-and-white aesthetic that feels both slightly understated (in the best way possible) and posh is beautifully complemented by a relatively steady camera and editing techniques common to films of the 1930s and 40s. The screenplay is generally well-written as well, although it doesn't feel as taut as you would expect in a Fincher picture, and the leisurely pacing is very well done.
Despite these strong qualities, "Mank" unfortunately is not quite great. The film develops Mank as a character, but he is portrayed in too static of a manner to really make for an engaging protagonist, or even one that can simply have clear ripple effects on the rest of the film's narrative and the characters around him. His characterization is not especially interesting. Fincher probably uses flashbacks a bit too much in the story, as many of the flashbacks to the early 1930s don't do too much to provide additional context to Mank as a character or the time period as a whole. Also, the supporting characters (such as the roles played by Amanda Seyfried and Lilly Collins) are not especially well-developed. As a result, the film doesn't completely work as a character study. However, it is still a generally well-acted and well-shot depiction of early film history that is worth seeing for viewers interested in the subject matter. 7/10
1940. Film studio RKO hires 24-year-old wunderkind Orson Welles under a contract that gives him full creative control of his movies. For his first film he calls in washed up alcoholic Herman J Mankiewicz to write the screenplay. That film is Citizen Kane and this is the story of how it was written.
I was quite excited at the release of this movie. Citizen Kane is one of the greatest films of all time and the making of it deserves a movie. And here we have it, directed by the great David Fincher (Se7en, Fight Club, Zodiac, The Social Network, Gone Girl, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button) no less and with a good cast - Gary Oldman, Amanda Seyfried, Charles Dance, Lily Collins. Surely a recipe for a masterpiece?
Unfortunately, no. On the plus side, the story is reasonably interesting and the cast put in solid performances. Fincher's direction is spot-on, with the black-and-white cinematography an homage to Citizen Kane.
However, the plot is never very engaging. The story never really finds a centre and pretty much drifts along. It's not dull but has a listlessness to it nonetheless. The flashbacks, while adding information, don't help the momentum either, resulting in a start-stop feel to the main plot and a bit of confusion at times.
The conclusion is also a damp squib and is disparaging to one of the greatest creative forces in the history of cinema. It smacks of trying to make a controversy out of nothing.
Overall it's okay, but nothing more.
I was quite excited at the release of this movie. Citizen Kane is one of the greatest films of all time and the making of it deserves a movie. And here we have it, directed by the great David Fincher (Se7en, Fight Club, Zodiac, The Social Network, Gone Girl, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button) no less and with a good cast - Gary Oldman, Amanda Seyfried, Charles Dance, Lily Collins. Surely a recipe for a masterpiece?
Unfortunately, no. On the plus side, the story is reasonably interesting and the cast put in solid performances. Fincher's direction is spot-on, with the black-and-white cinematography an homage to Citizen Kane.
However, the plot is never very engaging. The story never really finds a centre and pretty much drifts along. It's not dull but has a listlessness to it nonetheless. The flashbacks, while adding information, don't help the momentum either, resulting in a start-stop feel to the main plot and a bit of confusion at times.
The conclusion is also a damp squib and is disparaging to one of the greatest creative forces in the history of cinema. It smacks of trying to make a controversy out of nothing.
Overall it's okay, but nothing more.
After Roma and Irishman, I couldn't help it: I found Mank absolutely boring. Formally brilliant but awfully boring. Am I the only one on this planet to think this way? If it's the case, I won't write any review again, promised!
... just as CK wasn't, so if you enjoy expending time and energy reviewing and commenting on a work of fiction as if it were moulded and forged from the past verbatim, you really need to reconsider how you approach and view the world of cinema and film - perhaps life in general! Perspective, interpretation and imagination are the keywords and, on this occasion, it helps if you have an interest or familiarity with some, not all, of the characters portrayed and the products of their toil and travails - as this will definitely impact your view on the rendering which, in my opinion, was enhanced by a spectacular performance from Gary Oldman, further elevated and reinforced by three stunning constructions from the supporting ladies and embellished with my ability to acknowledge fact from fiction in the name of entertainment. Watch a documentary or read a biography if you want to be educated!
क्या आपको पता है
- ट्रिवियाGary Oldman wanted to wear elaborate prosthetic makeup to closely resemble the historical Herman J. Mankiewicz but was persuaded otherwise by David Fincher, who wanted minimal makeup for capturing a more intimate performance.
- गूफ़In the first flashback scene featuring the meeting between the writers, Josef Von Sternberg, and David O. Selznick in 1930, the characters mention Universal Studios as the "horror studio" and mention titles such as Frankenstein and The Wolf Man. Frankenstein would not be filmed and released until the following year while The Wolf Man would not be made until 1941; 11 years after the scene takes place.
- भाव
Herman Mankiewicz: You cannot capture a man's entire life in two hours. All you can hope is to leave the impression of one.
- क्रेज़ी क्रेडिटThe Netflix logos at the beginning and end are in full color, despite the film being in black and white.
- साउंडट्रैक(If Only You Could) Save Me
Music & Lyrics by Trent Reznor & Atticus Ross
Produced by Trent Reznor & Atticus Ross
Vocals by Adryon de León
टॉप पसंद
रेटिंग देने के लिए साइन-इन करें और वैयक्तिकृत सुझावों के लिए वॉचलिस्ट करें
विवरण
बॉक्स ऑफ़िस
- बजट
- $2,50,00,000(अनुमानित)
- चलने की अवधि
- 2 घं 11 मि(131 min)
- रंग
- ध्वनि मिश्रण
- पक्ष अनुपात
- 2.20 : 1
इस पेज में योगदान दें
किसी बदलाव का सुझाव दें या अनुपलब्ध कॉन्टेंट जोड़ें