MANK Review

I must admit I feel like something of a fraud even attempting a critique of a film so steeped in not only cinematic history, but history in general. Yes, I've seen Citizen Kane more than once and I've listened to season upon season of Karina Longworth's You Must Remember This podcast and specifically the series of MGM stories that centered on Louis B. Mayer’s rise and fall, yet somehow director David Fincher's Mank still feels so drenched in the world it re-creates that it's difficult to imagine being able to gain all the film has to offer after only a single viewing. As it were, Fincher's latest is likely too inside baseball for anyone outside of those that worship at the altar of cinema, but what might prove to be the most fascinating aspect of Mank is whether or not the core struggles of the main character appeal to a viewer who has no idea who someone like Irving Thalberg - or for that matter, Herman J. Mankiewicz - was. Naturally, those who do in fact worship at said altar are largely going to adore Fincher's latest exercise in clinical cinema that this time not only executes itself with profound professionalism and skill a la all of Fincher's work, but does so as it examines the "golden age" of the industry. The difference will be whether the details included and the approach taken will be enough to enthrall those already on board for a "movie about the movies" or if, while appreciating all of those things, the admiration for what Fincher has accomplished outweighs what is genuine love for it. That is to say, those on the outside looking in who come across Mank as they scroll through Netflix will either continue to scroll past it based on the poster alone or become fully engulfed in the confusion of the time and place Fincher drops his audience into should they be brave enough to press play. As an individual who admittedly knows more than the average Netflix subscriber, but a lot less than a lot of other people about the history of Hollywood Mank feels akin to a highly-stylized and extremely well performed re-enactment. Fincher's film clearly gets everything it possibly could right about the history, the costumes, and the character traits yet there is little that resonates emotionally. Never mind the fact Herman Mankiewicz is the only credited co-screenwriter to Orson Welles on what many consider the greatest movie ever made as Fincher's intent wasn't to make a movie about the making of Citizen Kane, but rather to capture the essence of a process and a person and leave the audience with a little more context and insight than they might have had before. As Gary Oldman's "Mank" says early on in the film though, "You can't capture a man's life in two hours, all you can hope is to leave an impression of one," and while Mank may not necessarily provide the catharsis one desires come the time the credits roll it undoubtedly leaves a strong impression.   

JOHN WICK Review

John Wick is extremely straight forward. Both the man and the movie based around him. It could be said that there may not be a whole lot going on in the minds of the makers behind the film or the titular hero as they machine gun their way through a standard tale of revenge, but regardless of how intelligent or not the film comes off it never effects the amount of fun to be had here. It has probably been six years or so since I've seen Keanu Reeves on the big screen and so it is somewhat of a welcome return this film offers him both in the traditional sense of what he's come to be associated with and as a revival of sorts. What makes John Wick so accessible and fun though is that we can all agree it knows what it is. In knowing the kind of film it is and wants to be, it keeps its ambition in check and goes only for what it needs, never trying to over do it or over-complicate things. There is no means to elicit anything more here than what is presented to us and it revels in that. It is a matter-of-fact film more about the action and how it is conveyed than the story which you could catch onto walking in mid-way through the movie. It is a movie not above being surface-deep and it wears this self-awareness on its shoulder as a badge of honor. There is an almost visceral experience to be had with John Wick as it is the visuals and the bombast that connect with us rather than any intellectual property it brings to mind. Honestly, as I sat there watching the film and as it came to its inevitable conclusion the only think that I actually began to think about was if Wick had really thought about what all his trouble actually achieved. would it bring him real peace? Would he feel vindicated not for the initial death that caused him the most pain, but for the peace that was offered him in the wake of his loss that was stolen out from under him? It is likely Wick didn't think any of this through and simply reverted to his natural instincts of shoot first, ask questions later and over the course of the next hour and a half he puts on full display why that isn't necessarily a bad way of approaching things, especially for eager audiences.