Hunt2546

Yes, it's a great performance by Gary Oldman. But not as Herman J. Mankiewicz. I''m thinking drunk Oxford don from any of a dozen films. I see Peter O'Toole, possibly Alec Guiness pre-David Lean. What's he doing in Hollywood in 1934 (where much of the film is set, if in flashback.) Mank arrives on stage in Pauline Kael's account and in all contemporary reminiscences in three tones: American, New York and Jewish. Oldman is none of these and apparentlly doesn't even try in a film which otherwise goes to great lengths to recreate '30s Hollywood when the New York wisenheimers took it over and changed it forever. We are given pitch perfect visions of Kaufman, Perlman, Joe Mankiewicz and even (Oscar for Arlis Howard?) LB Mayer himself. Way too old, not bald, too veddy veddy Brit, Oldman just destroys the illusion so much money and talent has been spent to create! And not really about CIT K even though Burke is great as Welles, but about the ordeal of ideology (disappointment at Upton Sinclair's failure in 1934) that enabled Mank to write the script, which the movie pretends was the fundamental creative act, not Welles's magic acting, filming and editing. Sad: it makes Mank boring

A few blemishes: Anderson's aristocratic hauteur grows thin at times as does her moody posing and dramatic speechifying. Yeah, but: it's still terrific, brilliantly acted (even by Anderson, despite the cited annoyances), believable, terrifying and human. Seems like a brilliant fusion of story, evocation of place (Belfast), documentary accuracy, workplace reality, and the demonology of the truly evil. Even as you love Paul (Jamie Dorman) and yield to his charisma, you're thinking,, "Get this ------------ off Planet Earth please."