Wonder Woman 1984 (2020) review

2017’s Wonder Woman doesn’t always get the credit that it deserves from the DC Extended Universe fandom for everything that it did for the franchise. At a time where most DCEU films were utterly savaged by critics, Wonder Woman was the franchise’s first genuinely well-received outing. In fact, it still stands as the best-reviewed DCEU film to date with a 93% rating on Rotten Tomatoes, and while certain parts of the DCEU fandom will feverishly try to deny it, the reason why it succeeded where films like Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice didn’t was because it was very much the antithesis of the early DCEU films. Instead of being an overly dour and overstuffed superhero epic, Wonder Woman was a predominately lighthearted but still emotionally powerful superhero adventure that was fully bolstered by Gal Gadot’s fantastic performance in the title role. Sure, she had already made a great impression when she made her franchise debut in Batman v Superman but it wasn’t until her solo film when she was truly given the chance to shine in a film that fully understood the importance of character and story. Ultimately, though, much of what made the film work was thanks to its director, Patty Jenkins, who made history as the first female director of a superhero feature from a major studio. Thus, Jenkins was wisely brought back to helm a sequel, which takes Princess Diana of Themyscira from the trenches of World War I to the more high-tech landscape of the 80’s, hence the title Wonder Woman 1984. And while it ended up facing the same unfortunate struggles that other blockbusters have faced thanks to COVID (i.e. getting delayed multiple times), WW84 has finally managed to see the light of day via a simultaneous theatrical and streaming release that allows those who are unable to see it in theaters to watch it at home via Warner Bros.’ streaming service, HBO Max. But no matter where it’s seen, Wonder Woman 1984 is another top-notch outing from Patty Jenkins that, just like its predecessor, is a prime example of the DC Extended Universe at its best which, given all the franchise’s early struggles, is very much a good thing.

It is 1984, and in the bustling metropolis of Washington D.C., Amazonian demigoddess Diana Prince (Gal Gadot) continues to operate as Wonder Woman, albeit in a relatively secretive manner that doesn’t conflict with her public persona as an anthropologist working at the Smithsonian. One day, Diana and her coworker Barbara Minerva (Kristen Wiig) come across a mysterious artifact known as the ‘Dreamstone’ that can grant those who find it the one wish that they desire the most. And sure enough, Diana and Barbara both end up inadvertently utilizing the Dreamstone’s abilities. Whereas the introverted Barbara wishes to become as strong and confident as Diana, Diana’s greatest desire results in the return of the love of her life, pilot Steve Trevor (Chris Pine), who had heroically sacrificed himself during the events of the first film. Unfortunately, these life changing developments are soon upended by the arrival of a new threat in businessman Maxwell Lord (Pedro Pascal), who seeks out the Dreamstone so that he can become the powerful figure that he’s always dreamt of being. In doing so, Lord ends up becoming the physical embodiment of the Dreamstone, thus allowing him to grant anyone’s wish and take whatever he wants from them in return. Naturally, this results in an endless array of conflicts that span the entire world, resulting in Diana and Steve embarking on a quest to stop Lord from going overboard with power and destroying the world in the process. And as Diana, Barbara, and Max all soon discover, their greatest desires come with even greater consequences.

 

If there’s one thing that can be said about this film, it’s that the 1984 part of its title is a 100% accurate indicator of what it truly is. Wonder Woman 1984 may be a modern blockbuster, but in execution, it is the spitting image of an 80’s film from the intentionally gaudy but still incredibly vibrant color palette that it sports to the overly extravagant outfits that the characters wear (e.g. Chris Pine in parachute pants… need I say more?). This is also reflected by the film’s primarily lighthearted tone which is then matched by its unabashedly old-school superhero plot with clear-cut heroes and villains. And while those two aspects of the film have admittedly been a major source of contention amongst critics and audiences, I’d say that they’re the key reason why it works as well as it does. In other words, while some may find this film to be overly goofy and cliché, it could very well be argued that it perfectly encapsulates what most of the films and TV shows from the 80’s were like from a tonal perspective. It should also go without saying that Patty Jenkins excellently maintains the same strong atmosphere that made the first Wonder Woman film such a hit, resulting in a highly entertaining homage to classic 80’s adventure flicks that’s full of great bits of humor that never overshadow the story’s powerful emotional beats. And just like the first film, Wonder Woman 1984 also boasts a lot of great action sequences and a suitably epic score. Whereas the first film’s score was done by Hans Zimmer protégé Rupert Gregson-Williams, this film’s score was done by Zimmer himself who, of course, was largely responsible for bringing the title character’s iconic theme to life in Batman v Superman.

 

It’s been well-documented at this point that Gal Gadot has basically been the DC Extended Universe’s MVP as far as its ensemble cast is concerned. As Wonder Woman, she has consistently established herself as a wholly charismatic leading lady and an indisputably badass action heroine, and sure enough, all this is once again reinforced by this film. Here, she trades in the innocent fish out of water character arc that she went through in the first film for one where, despite being emotionally hardened by everything that’s happened to her since she left Themiscyra, she’s still very much the kind-hearted heroine that we know and love. As for the heavily talked-about return of her long lost love Steve Trevor, the film’s handling of this plot-line feels like a natural way of doing the ‘resurrection’ concept that has always been common in the world of comics. And just like the first film, Chris Pine does a great job of being just as charismatic as Gadot without ever overshadowing Diana’s status as the main protagonist. This then brings us to the film’s main antagonists, and if there’s one advantage that Wonder Woman 1984 has over its predecessor, it’s that it has much stronger villains. It all starts with Pedro Pascal, who is delightfully over-the-top as the charismatic con-man Maxwell Lord while still managing to make him a surprisingly sympathetic tragic figure. This also applies to the other antagonist of the feature, Kristen Wiig’s Barbara, who gradually evolves from a meek introvert into the “apex predator” that is Wonder Woman’s classic foe from the comics, Cheetah. And while her final transformation may be a bit lacking visually, Wiig does an outstanding job at being Diana’s foil since her wish to become just like her comes at the cost of the good-natured and all-around sociable personality that she had before she used the Dreamstone..

 

I won’t be going over what I’m about to mention too much as I finish up this review, but I will say that I find it fascinating that a film that was shaping up to be one of the best-reviewed films of 2020 about a week ago… has suddenly become one of the year’s most polarizing releases. Yes, Wonder Woman 1984 has attracted some, to put it as nicely as I can, intense reactions from both critics and audiences. Basically, from what I can gather, it’s gotten a lot of flak for its light-hearted tone to the point where it’s been accused of being way too goofy instead of being a more serious and darker sequel. And yet, as I noted earlier, I’d say that this makes it a perfect representation of the era in history in which it’s set; plus, as I’m sure that I’ve made it clear at this point, I tend to prefer the superhero films that aren’t trying to distance themselves from the medium’s typically lighthearted proceedings. Case in point, Wonder Woman 1984 is a highly entertaining addition to the genre that, just like its predecessor, is fully bolstered by its terrific ensemble cast and Patty Jenkins’ excellent direction. In short, it’s another example as to why the DC Extended Universe has been a lot better than how it was when it was first starting out when it remembers that, when it comes to this genre, strong characters and a good story are always more important than whatever ‘cool’ action sequences those characters partake in. Simply put, no one does DCEU films quite like Patty Jenkins, and if you ask me, it’s about damn time that the DCEU fandom gives her the credit that she deserves for all that she’s done for the franchise.

 

Rating: 5/5!

The Prom (2020) review (Netflix)

 

On November 15^th, 2018, a new musical titled The Prom officially opened on Broadway at the Longacre Theatre. With music by Matthew Sklar, lyrics by Chad Beguelin, and a script by Beguelin and Bob Martin based off an original concept by Jack Viertel, The Prom tells the story of a young lesbian student who is banned from attending her high-school prom but is helped in her efforts to fight back against this ruling by a group of Broadway stars. The musical was largely inspired by a similar incident that happened to Constance McMillen in 2010 when she was a senior at Itawamba Agricultural High School in Fulton, Mississippi, which attracted a bunch of supportive responses from celebrities. And upon its debut, the show proved to be a solid hit with critics. It was the first musical of that Broadway season to earn a Critics Pick honor from the New York Times, and while it didn’t win any Tony Awards, it earned 7 nominations including one for Best Musical. It also attracted plenty of attention at the 2018 Macy’s Thanksgiving Day Parade when stars Caitlin Kinnunen and Isabelle McCalla partook in the first LGBTQ kiss in the parade’s history. And now, in 2020, it’s been brought to life on film in a star-studded adaptation directed by Ryan Murphy. While it’s only his fourth feature-length directorial effort, Murphy has been touted as one of the most prominent creative forces in television having created hit shows like Glee and American Horror Story while also being a champion for the cause of greater inclusion within the film and television industry. The Prom serves as one of the first major projects that Murphy has developed for Netflix via the lucrative $300 million deal that they signed him to in 2018, and with a delightful cast and a great execution of its source material’s timely themes, we have ourselves a truly heartwarming musical extravaganza.  

In the conservative-minded town of Edgewater, Indiana, high-school student Emma Nolan (Jo Ellen Pellman) finds herself in an utterly devastating situation when her desire to attend her high-school prom with her girlfriend Alyssa Greene (Ariana DeBose) results in the local Parent-Teacher Association canceling it entirely, thus turning her into a full-blown social pariah. And if that wasn’t enough, the head of the PTA happens to be Alyssa’s mother (Kerry Washington), who is completely unaware of her daughter’s relationship with Emma. However, when all seems lost, Emma finds herself blessed with the most unexpected showing of support in the form of a quartet of actors from Broadway; specifically, self-centered stars Dee Dee Allen (Meryl Streep) and Barry Glickman (James Corden), long-time chorus girl Angie Dickinson (Nicole Kidman), and Julliard alum Trent Oliver (Andrew Rannells). In the immediate wake of a disastrous opening night for their latest Broadway production that results in them being labeled as a pair of narcissists by various critics, Dee Dee and Barry learn of Emma’s predicament and, along with Angie and Trent, decide to head to Edgewater on her behalf. But while they’re initially in it solely for the intent of salvaging their reputations by partaking in ‘a cause’, the group genuinely begins to bond with Emma and, with the help of her highly supportive principal Mr. Hawkins (Keegan-Michael Key), begin working tirelessly to make her prom dreams come true.  

Right off the bat, the best thing that I can say about this film is that it truly delivers on its strong themes that couldn’t be any more relevant given everything that’s been happening in the world recently. Obviously, one’s thoughts on how effective content like this is in highlighting the LGBTQ community may vary, but in this instance, I do believe that The Prom (which I would personally describe as a ‘modern-day version of Footloose’) is very much genuine in its themes of love and acceptance. And when paired with a filmmaker like Ryan Murphy who, as noted earlier, is big on inclusion, you get an adaptation that hits all the right emotional beats from the cathartically heartwarming to the utterly devastating. Admittedly, I can’t say much about how effective the film is as an adaptation of the musical since I haven’t seen the latter, but aside from expanding upon some plotlines such as Barry Glickman’s own struggles as a gay man and how it impacted his relationship with his parents, it seems like the film is as faithful to its source material as it could possibly be. Sure, it probably could’ve benefitted from some tighter editing here and there to make up for any parts of the film that start to drag a bit, but as a musical, it goes without saying that this is where The Prom shines the most. Matthew Sklar and Chad Beguelin’s songs are undeniable earworms and are a great mix of grand showstoppers and emotionally powerful melodies. And under Ryan Murphy’s solid direction, we get a film that, simply put, is just a highly entertaining musical comedy anchored by its lovable bunch of main protagonists.

That said, though, while the film does sport a star-studded ensemble cast, said cast has admittedly garnered some controversy from fans of the musical over the decision to have A-listers play the lead roles rather than Broadway stars. There are some Broadway alumni in this, to be fair, such as Andrew Rannells and Ariana DeBose, but it’s primarily headlined by those who have more experience in film than they do in theater. Still, for what it’s worth, practically everyone involved is clearly having a lot of fun in their respective roles. Whether it’s Meryl Streep being her usual scene-stealing self or Keegan-Michael Key serving as the straight man to all the shenanigans that the Broadway stars get into, you can’t fault this film for having an incredibly fun ensemble. However, when it comes to the film’s biggest standout, that honor goes to its biggest newcomer, Jo Ellen Pellman. It is almost entirely because of her that we care about Emma and her endeavors because she makes her a wholly sympathetic heroine right off the bat. In other words, she’s very much the heart of the film. But now we must address the elephant in the room that is the biggest source of controversy that this film has been attracting in the wake of its release; the casting of James Corden as the gay leading man of Broadway, Barry Glickman. Simply put, unlike Barry, Corden is not a gay man whereas the other LGBTQ characters in this story are more accurately cast (ironically, one of Corden’s main co-stars is Andrew Rannells and he’s playing a character whose sexuality is never made explicit). Now I’m not going to get into this whole situation that much since, as I’ve noted in the past, I usually don’t like to talk about sociopolitical matters such as this in these reviews. So instead, I’ll just say that while I’m not defending Corden’s performance in this, I’d argue that the rest of the cast makes up for any shortcomings that directly stem from him. Was he the ideal pick for the part? No, not at all, but at the same time, I also wouldn’t call this a case where his performance derails the film entirely even though Barry is arguably the most prominently featured member of the Broadway quartet.

I’ll admit that I don’t have a lot of experience with the world of Broadway, which could largely be attributed to the fact that I don’t live in New York where, at least before COVID became a thing, I would have a lot more opportunities to see Broadway shows regularly rather than just occasionally seeing a touring production of a popular show at my local theatres. And yet, as some of the past reviews that I’ve done for this site have arguably proven, I’m a big fan of the musical genre and have liked a fair share of adaptations of Broadway musicals such as the ever-enduring classic Grease and Tim Burton’s delightfully twisted take on Sweeney Todd. As such, it should probably go without saying that I thoroughly enjoyed the film adaptation of The Prom. While I admittedly haven’t seen the original show at the time of this review’s publication, the fact that all three of the key figures behind it (Matthew Sklar, Chad Beguelin, and Bob Martin) were involved in the film’s production makes it clear that this adaptation was in the right hands, and because of this, The Prom is the very definition of a feel-good film. With powerful themes, undeniably catchy tunes, and a great cast, The Prom is a film that very much wears its heart on its sleeve. I mean, there’s really nothing more that I can say about this film other than the fact that it’s a highly entertaining musical that excellently represents the wonderfully diverse nature of our ever-expanding pop cultural landscape. And to be perfectly blunt, folks, in the utterly terrible year that has been 2020, I’d argue that this is one of the best examples of a film that I can easily recommend to anyone out there who’s in desperate need of a pick-me-up.  

Rating: 5/5!

Freaky (2020) review

Much has been said about how the horror genre has been experiencing a major resurgence over the past few years, especially when it comes to those who have helped make it happen. Filmmakers like Jordan Peele, Mike Flanagan and Ari Aster have been responsible for some of the most critically acclaimed horror projects in recent memory, from Peele’s Get Out (which won the Oscar for Best Original Screenplay) to Flanagan’s TV series adaptation of Shirley Jackson’s The Haunting of Hill House. However, if there’s one filmmaker who has largely flown under the radar when it comes to their noteworthy contributions to the genre, that would be Christopher Landon. While Landon has been involved in the film industry since the mid-’90s, he truly got his big break in the 2010s when he started working for what has arguably been the horror genre’s most prominent studio of the past decade, Blumhouse Productions. There, he penned the screenplays for the second, third, and fourth installments of the studio’s massively successful Paranormal Activity franchise, which then led to him directing the fifth film in the series, 2014’s Paranormal Activity: The Marked Ones. However, his biggest hit with Blumhouse would come in 2017 when he directed Happy Death Day, a horror-themed spin on ‘time loop’ stories such as Groundhog Day and Edge of Tomorrow in which a college student is killed on her birthday and finds herself reliving the same day until she finds out who her killer is. Bolstered by its status as an online viral sensation, the film was a major commercial hit and was also generally well-received by critics. It was then followed by an equally successful sequel in 2019, Happy Death Day 2U, and a third film is currently in the works. But until then, Landon has crafted another horror film based around a non-horror concept (in this case, a body-swap comedy inspired by Mary Rogers’ 1972 novel Freaky Friday) with Freaky, in which a teenaged girl finds herself switching bodies with a notorious serial killer. And with a pair of great performances from its two leads, Freaky proves to be another smash hit from both its director and its studio.

In the town of Blissfield, Millie Kessler (Kathryn Newton) is your average teenager who’s just trying to deal with the daily struggles of high school. It’s also been a year since the death of her father, which has led to her having strained relationships with both her mother Paula (Katie Finneran), who’s resorted to daily bouts of drinking ever since, and her older sister Charlene (Dana Drori), a local police officer. And if that wasn’t enough, Blissfield is soon threatened by the return of a notorious serial killer known as the Blissfield Butcher (Vince Vaughn), who was long considered to be nothing more than an urban legend. Millie ends up running into the Butcher one night after her high school’s homecoming football game, and while she does manage to survive this ordeal, she quickly learns that this will not be the end of her troubles. Since the Butcher used an ancient Aztec dagger known as La Dola when he tried to kill her, it causes the two of them to switch places, with Millie ending up in the Butcher’s body and the Butcher in hers. And despite the initial struggles that he faces in adapting to his new body, the Butcher immediately sets off on a new killing spree, with Millie’s classmates at the top of his list. Thus, with only 24 hours to switch her and the Butcher back to their original bodies, Millie and her best friends Nyla (Celeste O’Connor) and Josh (Misha Osherovich) find themselves in a race against time to retrieve La Dola and use it on the Butcher before Millie’s stuck in the Butcher’s body forever, especially since his identity has now been made public.

Just like the Happy Death Day films, Freaky fully relishes in being a horror-themed spin on its traditionally non-horror premise. Despite a bit of a slow start, the film then proceeds to produce a lot of great humor which, naturally, stems from all the hi-jinx that ensues from the main protagonist trying to adjust to her new body. With that said, this film very much belongs to Vince Vaughn, who’s utterly fantastic in the role of a teenaged girl trapped in a middle-aged man’s body. But while she doesn’t get to work with the film’s comedy as much as Vaughn does since she’s primarily playing the killer in the main protagonist’s body, Kathryn Newton is just as excellent whether she’s playing the sinister antagonist or the sympathetic protagonist. On that note, another thing that director Christopher Landon has been incredibly successful at when it comes to his recent films is his ability to craft some highly effective moments of emotional poignancy. In the case of Happy Death Day, it was by way of the arc that main protagonist Tree Gelbman went through after initially starting out as an utterly shallow ‘mean girl’. Freaky takes this in a slightly different direction by having Millie be a wholly endearing heroine from the start though, like Tree, her character arc also revolves around a strained relationship with her family members. Plus, whereas the Happy Death Day films were under the limits of the wider-appealing PG-13 rating (to be clear, though, that’s not a bad thing in their case…), Freaky is very much an R-rated affair and fans of the genre will be pleased to know that it features some delightfully crazy kills. And so, because of all this, Freaky is a solidly entertaining horror flick that’s fully bolstered by Vince Vaughn and Kathryn Newton’s phenomenal performances in the lead roles, and while he may not necessarily be a household name yet as far as the horror genre is concerned, it’s nice to see that Christopher Landon has arguably found his niche within it.

Rating: 4/5

Mank (2020) review

 

While it has admittedly been more than half a decade since his last film, Gone Girl, came out in 2014, the arrival of a new David Fincher feature is always guaranteed to be a big deal for the film fan community. After all, that’s simply what’s to be expected when you’re talking about a filmmaker who’s been responsible for some of the most critically acclaimed films of the past few decades such as Fight Club, Se7en, and The Social Network. But as for his newest feature, Mank, Fincher has a considerably personal connection to this screenplay since it was written by none other than his father, Jack Fincher. A biopic that explores screenwriter Herman J. Mankiewicz’s experiences while developing the screenplay for Orson Welles’ 1941 feature Citizen Kane (AKA the film that is widely regarded as the ‘greatest film ever made’), David Fincher had originally planned on making it after finishing his work on 1997’s The Game. Unfortunately, those initial plans (which would’ve starred Kevin Spacey (pre-scandal, of course…) as Mankiewicz and Jodie Foster as Hollywood starlet Marion Davies) weren’t able to come to fruition due to Polygram, the studio that Fincher worked with on The Game, being uneasy about his intent to shoot the film in black-and-white. And if that weren’t enough, Jack Fincher sadly wouldn’t live to see his script get made as he died on April 10^th, 2003 after a yearlong bout with cancer. But now, fresh off his work on the second season of the crime thriller series Mindhunter, David Fincher has finally brought his father’s magnum opus to life as the latest Netflix original release. Simply put, it’s a film that will certainly attract some major attention during awards season; granted, I don’t think that it’s Fincher’s ‘best’ film, but at the same time, it gives you everything that you’ve come to expect from one of the industry’s most revered filmmakers.

The year is 1940 and prestigious screenwriter Herman J. Mankiewicz (Gary Oldman) has just begun working on his next project. Despite recently suffering a leg injury in a car crash that leaves him almost entirely bedridden, he is approached by Orson Welles (Tom Burke) to write the screenplay for his first feature film with RKO Pictures, who have given him full creative control over the project. Due to his injury, Mankiewicz is brought to a secluded ranch in Victorville, California where he can both rest up and write the screenplay at a location that thoroughly bans alcohol, which is an important thing for Mankiewicz since he regularly suffers from an addiction to it. Despite this, however, Mankiewicz soon finds himself slipping back into his old habits, which is a problem that both Welles’ producer John Houseman (Sam Troughton) and Mankiewicz’s secretary Rita Alexander (Lily Collins) must deal with. And to make matters worse, Mankiewicz then becomes embroiled in some major scandals over the content in the screenplay (namely, the potentially hostile reactions from those who the characters are ostensibly modeled after), which gets to the point where he and Welles get into some heated arguments over who should receive the screenwriting credit. While all this is going on, the film also delves into some key moments from Mankiewicz’s past such as the conflict of integrity that emerged between him and his superiors at MGM, founder Louis B. Mayer (Arliss Howard) and executive Irving Thalberg (Ferdinand Kingsley) over their substantial involvement in the 1934 election for the Governor of California. And then, of course, there’s also the matter of his tense relationship with the country’s most prominent media tycoon, William Randolph Hearst (Charles Dance), for whom the main character of Citizen Kane, Charles Foster Kane, is clearly based on.

As I noted back in the intro, Fincher’s insistence on shooting this film in black-and-white to honor Citizen Kane’s cinematography was the main reason why he was never able to get it made when he originally wanted to. Now that the film has finally come out, it’s safe to say that this goal of his was completely worth it in the end because this film’s cinematography (done by Erik Messerschmidt, who worked with Fincher on Mindhunter) is fantastic. The film’s amazing technical merits don’t stop there, however, as Fincher and his team go above and beyond to make it look and feel like a classic 40’s picture. Whether it’s the frequent appearances of film projection cue marks (or, as another Fincher film called them, ‘cigarette burns’) or Fincher’s go-to composers, Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross, creating a more classical score rather than their usual electronic pieces, Mank is a figurative and literal ‘period piece’. And overall, a lot of this does make up for some of the film’s narrative shortcomings; namely, the fact that its proceedings can often feel a bit dry. It is worth noting that the film’s plot is largely inspired by one of the most controversial pieces in the history of film criticism, Raising Kane, a 1971 essay written by Pauline Kael that argued that Herman J. Mankiewicz was solely responsible for Citizen Kane’s script. However, Kael’s arguments have since been discredited by several sources, and to this film’s credit, Fincher and producer Eric Roth did make some changes to his dad’s script so that it doesn’t completely vilify Orson Welles. Still, because the film focuses so much on Mankiewicz’s efforts to write the script, it feels like we’re not getting the whole story behind everything that went into the film’s inception, like how the lives of folks like William Randolph Hearst and Marion Davies were impacted by them being the inspiration for the film’s characters.

Granted, it goes without saying that this is not a film about the making of Citizen Kane. Instead, it’s about the man who went through hell and high water to bring Orson Welles’ masterpiece to life, and with that in mind, the film does get its points across on everything that ultimately made Herman J. Mankiewicz a tragic figure. But because of the lack of some key bits of context regarding Citizen Kane’s impact, some of the film’s messages end up feeling rather muddled since they aren’t quite fully articulated. That said, though, I will give the film credit in that one of its key subplots in which Mankiewicz uncovers a conspiracy where his superiors are filming bits of propaganda to hinder their political opponent… is scarily relevant. And, of course, Mank’s biggest selling point is that it’s very much an ‘actor’s showcase’ feature headlined by Gary Oldman who, as to be expected, is outstanding in the title role as he brilliantly encapsulates Mankiewicz’s persona as someone who can be both the smartest person in the room and one whose life and reputation ends up being tragically undone by his raging alcoholism. He’s then backed by a pair of excellent performances from Amanda Seyfried and Lily Collins as the film’s female leads, Marion Davies and Rita Alexander. While the film largely focuses on Mankiewicz, both Seyfried and Collins manage to hold their own against Oldman, namely by being some of the only people who can reasonably put up with Mankiewicz’s drunken antics. After that, there are plenty of strong performances from the rest of the film’s supporting cast, including Arliss Howard as the conniving Louis B. Mayer and Tom Pelphrey as Mankiewicz’s more level-headed brother Joseph. Finally, while he’s not in the film that much (which ties into the issue of the film not properly elaborating on Hearst’s influence on Citizen Kane), Charles Dance makes the most of his limited screen-time as the emotionally composed but utterly imposing media tycoon.

Now despite some of the things that I’ve said in this review, I want to make it clear that I don’t ‘dislike’ this film. David Fincher’s Mank is a well-directed and terrifically acted biopic that thoroughly succeeds in being an earnest but not overly sentimental tribute to classic Hollywood. On the surface, it’s easy to see what this film is primarily trying to do; namely, honoring the legacy of Herman J. Mankiewicz, a man who, despite his many flaws, was clearly ahead of his time as a writer. However, as noble as its intentions are, the film doesn’t exactly do the story behind the conception of the ‘greatest film of all-time’ justice. Overall, it feels like an incomplete retelling of this important moment in cinematic history since it’s almost entirely focused on Mankiewicz’s side of the story. And while it does boast some good messages such as the importance of integrity and giving credit where credit’s due, the lack of proper subtext results in the impact of these themes not being as effective as the film wants them to be to the point where the whole film ends up being emotionally empty. It’s not a dull watch, by any means, but despite how fully admirable it is that David Fincher wanted to stay as true to his dad’s original script as he possibly could, it really could’ve benefitted from some additional rewrites (and not just the edits made by Fincher and Eric Roth that I mentioned earlier). Still, while its dry proceedings may prove to be a bit much for casual viewers, Mank is a wholly impressive technical achievement that feels like it was lifted directly from the cinematic era in which it takes place. For fans of David Fincher, this is obviously an absolute must-watch as it dutifully upholds his distinguished track record as a director despite its flaws. At the same time, though, those flaws are the main reason why I wouldn’t necessarily call this one of the best films of the year.

Rating: 4/5