Sam Meltzer’s review published on Letterboxd:
One thing I have to congratulate Fincher on is making great characters. He does this with every movie that I’ve seen of his. Pretty much every character in this felt fairly necessary and not many movies I see do that so hey. Also, the actors do a great job all around, and we’re definitely passionate about their characters. The movie could also be very engaging and I never really found myself bored.
While Mank may have a great set of characters, I’m not sure how good it is at capturing the true feel of old Hollywood. The editing and the look of the film feel way too modern for it to embrace in the setting of 1940. The whole movie looks very smooth and almost glossy. The score doesn't feel classy but rather swift and modern. I understand that Fincher could've been trying a modern look at a classic story but I wasn't into the new feel of the movie about an older story. As a HUGE fan of classic films, this was disappointing to see. Not once did I feel as if I were there with the characters or the setting. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, I prefer connecting to films rather than admiring them. If I can do both, amazing, but this isn’t the case. I can only admire the movie from certain levels while not actually connecting to it.
Overall I’m conflicted with the movie. There were elements I liked a lot and elements I didn’t like at all. I was never really excited for this movie. Like I wanted to see it, but it wasn’t my top priority. Please note that I did not dislike this movie, but I didn't exactly like it either. I’m kinda right down the middle. Comment your thoughts on Mank if you want in the comments.