This Is a Movie Review: ’12 Strong’ Declassifies Post-9/11 Afghanistan But Doesn’t Have the Wherewithal to Ask the Tough Questions

January 17, 2018

jmunney Cinema, Movie Reviews , , , , , , , , , , Leave a comment

CREDIT: David James/HS Film, LLC/Warner Bros.

This post was originally published on News Cult in January 2018.

Starring: Chris Hemsworth, Michael Shannon, Navid Negahban, Michael Peña, Trevante Rhodes, Geoff Stults, William Fichtner, Rob Riggle, Elsa Pataky

Director: Nicolai Fuglsig

Running Time: 129 Minutes

Rating: R for Typical War Violence and Expletives, Though Far From the Genre’s Most Explicit

Release Date: January 19, 2018

12 Strong dramatizes a U.S. military operation immediately following the September 11 attacks, in which Task Force Dagger struck back against the Taliban in the mountains of Afghanistan. A mission that could have lasted years is instead completed in a matter of weeks. Thus, the film ends on a moment of triumph. But that is a note that rings hollow, as nearly two decades in, the war on terror is still going on, with no clear end in sight.

To be fair, the dispersed, insidious, leaderless nature of terrorism makes it profoundly difficult to stamp out entirely, and it is accordingly just as difficult to convey the entire meaning of this conflict in a single work of art. 12 Strong does not purport to capture that entirety, nor should we fault it for failing to do so. But it does deserve to be taken to task for bringing up some existential conundrums and declining to thoroughly investigate them. An Afghani ally tells the men of Task Force Dagger, “You will be cowards if you leave, and you will be our enemies if you stay.” And that is really the crux of this issue. But instead of grabbling with that dilemma, 12 Strong leaves it hanging.

At its heart, though, 12 Strong just wants to be a celebration of heroism. And on that score, it is more committed, but not especially capable. It was filmed in New Mexico, and you can feel just how much it is not actually on a real Afghani battlefield. A cheap, careless aesthetic is not exactly the best way to honor these guys. I am sure budgetary constraints made things difficult, but that could have been counteracted with the same ingenuity that Task Force Dagger displayed, but alas, the final product is a bunch of grey dullness with occasional flashes of personality (that personality coming from the fact that these soldiers were forced to ride horses, which most of them are not trained to do, thus resulting in a few solid laughs).

12 Strong is Recommended If You Like: Saving Private Ryan but with straight-to-video production values

Grade: 2 out of 5 Horse Soldiers

 

This Is a Movie Review: ‘The Final Year’ Looks Back at the Now-Under Threat Dignity and Idealism of the Obama Administration

January 17, 2018

jmunney Cinema, Movie Reviews , , , , , Leave a comment

CREDIT: Magnolia Pictures

This post was originally published on News Cult in January 2018.

Starring: John Kerry, Ben Rhodes, Samantha Power, Barack Obama

Director: Greg Barker

Running Time: 89 Minutes

Rating: Unrated – Any Objectionable Material is Typical (Pre-2017) Politics

Release Date: January 19, 2017 (Limited)

It is difficult for documentaries about recent political history to make a truly salient argument about what is going on in society, as that requires the wisdom of hindsight. So traditionally the best they can offer is a more intimate look at the inner machinations of government, or peeks into the stories that do not get much traction in the daily news cycle. Greg Barker’s The Final Year successfully meets those criteria. The title refers to the last 12 months of the Barack Obama administration, with a particular focus on the foreign policy team. The main figures are Secretary of State John Kerry, Deputy National Security Advisor for Strategic Communications Ben Rhodes, and Ambassador to the United Nations Samantha Power. Obama is a supporting player in this presentation, but he is also the center of orbit. Barker’s approach pulls you into this group’s engagement with the rest of the globe, briskly carrying us along as they strive to make the world a genuinely better place.

Any good character-based film, whether fictional or nonfictional, no matter what its thesis, simply must do an adequate job at explicating its characters, and Barker pulls off this task with quiet aplomb. For Kerry, so much of his decades-long political career has been driven by the fight to set the national foreign policy aright following the lies that he and his fellow Vietnam veterans were sold. Though his outer disposition may appear stolid, his inner fire clearly burns within. Rhodes, the youngest of the group, naturally fills the slot of the one who eagerly jumped in when he sensed that a new politics was finally happening. He is the most prone to gaffes, but he still holds onto his idealism. Power, who emigrated from Ireland at the age of 8, is the strongest listener, naturally drawing in every perspective in the room. With a truly worldly brain, she is a natural ambassador. Like many others, they were eager to work for Obama because of his magnetic personality and hopeful rhetoric. He remains an eternally compelling figure on camera. The film avoids hagiography, but it is clear what side it’s on.

As conflicts around the world – Korea, Iran, Syria, etc. – continue to rise to a boil in 2016, this team grapples with the right way to approach each problem. There are differing levels of tendencies towards pacifism or willingness to use force, but a constant theme is an unerring emphasis on diplomatic engagement. If anything, The Final Year glorifies that ideal much more than it celebrates any one individual. As the final act comes to where the political tide is turning, it necessarily becomes a memorial on what is (at least for now) the old way of doing things. I like to hope the American Democrat/Republican divide is not simply one of harmony versus division. I think there are conservatives out there who value getting along with their countrymen and fellow world citizens, and I hope that they and everyone else can find sentiments worth appreciating in The Final Year.

The Final Year is Recommended If You Like: The War Room, Idealism, A Dignified Politics

Grade: 3.75 out of 5 Inspirational Speeches

 

This Is a Movie Review: The Fundamentally Implausible ‘The Commuter’ Speeds Towards the Upper Tier of Entertainingly Ridiculous Action Thrillers

January 11, 2018

jmunney Cinema, Movie Reviews , , , , , , , , , , , , , , Leave a comment

CREDIT: Jay Maidment/Lionsgate

This post was originally published on News Cult in January 2018.

Starring: Liam Neeson, Vera Farmiga, Patrick Wilson, Jonathan Banks, Elizabeth McGovern, Sam Neill, Florence Pugh, Clara Lago, Ella-Rae Smith, Andy Nyman, Rolland Møller, Colin McFarlane, Adam Nagaitis

Director: Jaume Collet-Serra

Running Time: 105 Minutes

Rating: PG-13 for All the Ways That Liam Neeson Can Improvise on a Train to Dispatch His Opponents

Release Date: January 12, 2018

Much of Liam Neeson’s post-Taken filmography has been readily reduced to “Taken on a [blank]” or “Taken, but this time they steal his [blank].” This is especially true in his collaborations with director Jaume Collet-Serra. 2011’s Unknown checked in as “Taken, but this time they steal his identity,” while 2014’s Non-Stop was essentially “Taken on a plane.” Their latest teamup, The Commuter, may at first glance be their “Taken on a train,” but a more accurate pitch would be: “take the government and law enforcement corruption elements of something like Chinatown, compress them into the hijacked train scene of The French Connection, and stretch out to feature length.”

Insurance salesman and former cop Michael McCauley (Neeson) has just been laid off, only a few years before retirement, when a mysterious woman (Vera Farmiga) offers him a proposition during his ride home along the Hudson on the Metro-North train: would he be willing to do one little thing that would affect someone he doesn’t know and receive a significant reward in return? This is presented as a hypothetical, but it soon becomes very real when he discovers a hidden bag filled with tens of thousands of dollars in cash. This is an effectively simple premise insofar as it immediately kicks the narrative into high gear, but it is simultaneously confounding with how many details it leaves under wraps.

Ultimately, that is to the audience’s benefit, as we are strung along with just enough info to want to sniff out what is going on. All Michael has to go on is the stop that this person is getting off and the fact that he or she does not normally ride this train. Collet-Serra specializes in populating his cast with a full crew of conceivably suspicious characters. Could it be that this mystery person is the tattooed girl with a bag full of fake IDs? That certainly raises alarms. But for all we and Michael know, the nurse stuck in an emotional texting session is just as much of a suspect.

The Commuter sort of fits in the vein of the “decent man fights back against a rigged system” genre, but really, that is only the narrative that has been forced upon Michael. Yes, he has been unfairly fired. True, he did lose all his savings thanks to the recent market crash (and he makes sure to flip off the vain Goldman Sachs broker on the train). But the reward dangled in front of him appeals to his selfish motives and does not actually give him an opportunity to stick up for the little guy. Besides, he is driven more by the threats against his wife and son and his own law enforcement instincts for uncovering the truth. It is implied that this criminal enterprise is so insidious and far-reaching that they could set up any patsies they want and frame them for any motivation

As the vast conspiracy begins to be revealed, we are left to confront the question of plausibility. But in a thriller like this, verisimilitude matters less than following the own theoretical rules of this extreme situation. That is to say, The Commuter needs to be at least as relentlessly entertaining as it is ridiculous. And on that score, given the director, star, and location, it is unsurprisingly adroit. The film’s logical internal consistency, though, may be worth investigating a little more deeply, as the passengers at the mercy of Michael’s mission may come to trust him –  a man who has been getting into fights and throwing people out windows – more quickly than is conceivable. A late-stage Spartacus homage is quite amusing, though indicative of that questionable trust. But in a profoundly puzzling situation with life-or-death stakes like this one, it only makes sense to go along for the ride.

The Commuter is Recommended If You Like: Non-Stop, Face/Off, The French Connection

Grade: 4 out of 5 Train Defenestrations

 

This Is a Movie Review: ‘Paddington 2’ Sends Our Very Special Bear to Prison, But Truth, Common Decency, and Marmalade Prevail

January 10, 2018

jmunney Cinema, Movie Reviews , , , , , , , , , , , 2 Comments

CREDIT: Warner Bros.

This review was originally published on News Cult in January 2018.

Starring: Ben Whishaw, Sally Hawkins, Hugh Bonneville, Hugh Grant, Brendan Gleeson, Jim Broadbent, Julie Walters, Peter Capaldi

Director: Paul King

Running Time: 103 Minutes

Rating: PG for Cheeky Humor and Threats of Violence Appeased by Marmalade

Release Date: January 12, 2018

The first Paddington film was a clear refugee allegory, with the titular “very special bear” (voiced then and now by Ben Whishaw) looking for a new home in England after his home in Peru is destroyed. The coded language about what happens to neighborhoods when bears move in was an obvious stand-in for how some actual Londoners (and other native residents around the globe) feel about the arrival of immigrants. Paddington 2 – in which the raincoat-sporting, marmalade-loving bear is imprisoned for grand theft despite his innocence – is not quite so stark in its messaging. It may have something to say about profiling, though Paddington’s wrongful arrest has more to do with misleading circumstantial evidence moreso than ungenerous assumptions about bearfolk. Still, for a family-friendly flick that distinguishes itself with a gentle touch, it is notable how much it does not hold back from some genuinely unsettling moments.

It all starts out pleasantly enough. Paddington, now living with the Brown family in London, wants to get his Aunt Lucy, the bear who raised him, a truly special present for her 100th birthday. He comes across a rare pop-up book in an antique shop, but it is a bit out of his price range, which is to say, he has no money (unless the Browns have been giving him an allowance). So he sets out to join the workforce, which begins with an abortive stint as a barbershop assistant (make sure to keep what appear to be narrative detours in mind, as these adventures are all intricately and carefully plotted) but then ultimately leads to an entrepreneurial effort as a window-washer. This segment is most memorable for Paddington’s improvising by rubbing the soap against the glass with his bum, which explains why this is rated PG and not G.

It gets a little scary from here on out, though. Considering the genre, there’s no need to worry that it will all descend into a bloodbath, but in the course of the narrative playing out, the danger does feel real, and fitfully intense. The main baddie is Phoenix Buchanan (Hugh Grant), a washed-up actor who is now best known for appearing in hacky dog food commercials. He’s the real thief behind the crime Paddington has been charged with, a villain in the Scooby-Doo mold, though a tad more competent: awfully silly but a master of disguise and escape. Grant has a blast with all the dress-up and smoke-and-mirrors.

But the most worrisome threats come during Paddington’s prison stint. He runs afoul of Nuckles (Brendan Gleeson), the inmate assigned to cooking duties, who is legendary for dispensing with those who question his culinary decisions. It really does feel like Paddington is just one false move away from Nuckles beating him to a pulp. This is the neat trick that P2 pulls off. We really do believe that Paddington’s fellow inmates are capable of the crimes they are guilty of (though we would surely never see them happen in a film this), while simultaneously we believe that they would indeed befriend a fundamentally decent, very special bear.

Aesthetically, attention must also be paid to Paddington 2’s artful compositions. Director Paul King was no slouch in the first Paddington, with a whimsical architectural style indebted to Wes Anderson. This time around, he grows even more confident, assembling artfully arranged close-ups: single characters take up the ideal frame space and there is still an impressive amount of background information. London can be harsh, but the care apparent in Paddington 2 makes it much easier to bear.

Paddington 2 is Recommended If You Like: The first Paddington, The Grand Budapest Hotel, Family films that don’t hold back

Grade: 3.5 out of 5 Marmalade Sandwiches

 

This Is a Movie Review: Insidious: The Last Key

January 4, 2018

jmunney Cinema, Movie Reviews , , , , , , , , , , , , , Leave a comment

CREDIT: Justin Lubin/Universal Pictures

This post was originally published on News Cult in January 2018.

Starring: Lin Shaye, Leigh Whannell, Angus Sampson, Josh Stewart, Caitlin Gerard, Spencer Locke, Kirk Acevedo, Bruce Davison, Javier Botet

Director: Adam Robitel

Running Time: 103 Minutes

Rating: PG-13 for Physical and Supernatural Abuse

Release Date: January 5, 2018

It’s taken four tries, but the Insidious franchise has finally figured out to focus an entire film on its best character. Before 2011, Lin Shaye was perhaps best known for her appearances in Farrelly brothers comedies (especially There’s Something About Mary), though she did have significant horror experience, with small but memorable roles in the likes of A Nightmare on Elm Street and Wes Craven’s New Nightmare. But then at the age of 67, she sauntered in as demonologist Elise Rainier, so sweet and loving but also so tapped into the darkness of the world – simply put, the role of a lifetime.

Alas, the first Insidious film ends with Elise’s death. Thankfully, however, this is the rare horror franchise resurrects its hero instead of its villain for the sequels. The series’ supernatural time-bending elements allowed her for her appearance in part 2, while the third and fourth entries have gone the prequel route. Chapter 3 introduced a new family into the series and allowed Shaye to take over as the lead about halfway through, while The Last Key wisely opts to put her front and center right from the start. I went into this film expecting to once again be in awe of Shaye, and that is exactly what happened.

The Last Key does in fact once again introduce a new family, but this time it is Elise’s own. She is called to investigate disturbances occurring in the house she grew up in Five Keys, New Mexico. The town name matches up with the m.o. of the film’s main demon in a manner that is a bit on-the-nose, but weird enough to be forgivable. Elise has been trying to forget this place ever since the horrible abuse her father laid upon her for violently disapproving of her supernatural skill set. It turns out that this house has been the locus of a cycle of abuse at the nexus of evil spirits and evil men. Could it be that the worst of humanity are just minions of the most insidious demons? Or is that already terrible people are the most susceptible to devilish manipulation? Or somewhere in between?

The Last Key employs several clever feints about what is ghostly and what is corporeal, playing around with our perceptions and those of Elise. At one point, our favorite demonologist explicitly states, “There are plenty of demons in this world who are very much alive.” Elise in many ways is psychologically equipped to deal with the most banal as well as the most fantastical forms of evil. I imagine there is a theoretical version of an Insidious film devoid of any ghosts or demons. It is perfectly fine that The Last Key is not that, but it is disappointing that it is ultimately about a rescue mission in The Further (the series’ supernatural realm), just like any other Insidious film.

The Last Key does not come anywhere close to establishing a new horror paradigm the way the first one did, but there are several small pleasures spread throughout in addition to Shaye’s expected excellence. The character design continues to be strikingly unique, with the main baddie having keys for fingers that he uses to bodily penetrate his human marks. He is played by Javier Botet, who has Marfan syndrome, giving him long and fine fingers that he has utilized for a fruitful career as supernatural creatures. The audio mix is just as memorable, though more discomforting. A whistle is frequently employed to indicate impending doom, which is a fun trick, but it is frequently so high-pitched that those with sensitive ears would be wise to wear muffs.

And of course I cannot conclude without mentioning Elise’s wacky assistants, who also get their most screen time yet in the series and successfully avoid being too much of a good thing: the nerdy, adorably awkward Specs (Leigh Whannell, who has written all four films and directed the third) and the deep-voiced, intense but harmless tinkerer Tucker (Angus Sampson). Ultimately, each Insidious film is about the power of family, and sometimes that family takes the form of the business partnership/close friendship between a seventysomething psychic and her two young male associates.

Insidious: The Last Key is Recommended If You Like: Septuagenarian Scream Queens, Horror Movies That Are More Heartwarming Than Scary

Grade: 2.75 out of 5 Psychics and Sidekicks

 

This Is a Movie Review: Coco

December 29, 2017

jmunney Cinema, Movie Reviews , , , , , Leave a comment

CREDIT: Disney/Pixar

Pixar managed to represent a pinnacle of cinematic creativity for so long because the majority of its films offered some form of storytelling that had never been told before, at least as much as that can be the case in a world where every possible story has already been told. At this point, it doesn’t look like Pixar is really trying to do that anymore (although Inside Out DID come out just two years ago). To be fair, it’s hard to keep that pace up indefinitely, so I don’t begrudge Coco for not being much more than an enjoyable story well-told. It has successfully wound its way into my heart, as I tend to react quite strongly to tales about our deceased loved ones remaining with us and looking over us from beyond. So when Miguel sings “Remember Me” to Coco, it’s striking and powerful. In general, I admire the attitude towards death embodied by the Day of the Dead. I don’t know how popular the traditions (like putting up photos of the deceased on the ofrenda) we see onscreen actually are in the real Mexico, but regardless of whether they are based on reality or made up for the film, they are appreciably sweet.

I give Coco 70 Blessings out of 100 Skeletons with No Conditions.

This Is a Movie Review: Old Hollywood and Working-Class England Come Into Each Other’s Orbit When ‘Film Stars Don’t Die in Liverpool’

December 27, 2017

jmunney Cinema, Movie Reviews , , , , , , , , , 1 Comment

CREDIT: Sony Pictures Classics

This post was originally published on News Cult in December 2017.

Starring: Annette Bening, Jamie Bell, Julie Walters, Kenneth Cranham, Stephen Graham, Vanessa Redgrave

Director: Paul McGuigan

Running Time: 106 Minutes

Rating: R for Tenderly Shot Brief Nudity

Release Date: December 29, 2017 (Limited)

There’s something a little strange about that title, and it’s so small that you might not even notice it. It took a few weeks for it to even cross my mind. People frequently say “movie stars,” but who regularly says “film stars”? The title is the same as the memoir it’s based on, so I guess we have to pin this one on Peter Turner. Maybe it’s a British thing. But there is something appropriately spellbinding about this particular phrasing. “Film” is a traditionally more respectable term than the common and vulgar “movie,” so “film stars” has a way of lending gravitas to frivolousness. Such is the fate of big names whose times have passed them by like Gloria Grahame.

Grahame was, as one character put its, “a proper film star,” and as another clarifies, she “always played the tart.” She achieved fame in the late ’40s and early ’50s, primarily in noirs like The Big Heat and The Bad and the Beautiful (for which she won an Oscar). But as Film Stars Don’t Die in Liverpool opens, she is seeking stage work in London and looking for someone to take her disco dancing. Annette Bening acts the role with one layer upon another, wherein Grahame is always playing the part of the star in her day-to-day life. Or maybe a select few people really are just always that naturally alluring, i.e., they’re not really acting. Although, in a sense, everyone is always acting to some way, but perhaps with Grahame, her more outsize performances were much less of a put-on than the average person’s. Either way, into her orbit is drawn Peter Turner (Jamie Bell), and while their multiple decades age difference is a concern, it is no roadblock to genuine passion and affection.

Film Stars fundamentally tracks the importance of interpersonal acceptance. Gloria’s mother and sister are scandalized by her shacking up with a much younger man, while Peter’s family is there to take care of her when her cancer diagnosis becomes debilitating. But the greater struggle for acceptance is internal. Not only is it impossible for film stars to pass away in working-class English port towns, they cannot have diseases whose treatments are so aesthetically stripping. As Gloria comes to terms with her illness, the film takes on a woozy, dreamy quality. A humbling reality surrounds her, but a spectacular, star-making gaze is what she filters it through. It’s a little bit intoxicating.

Film Stars Don’t Die in Liverpool is Recommended If You Like: Billy Elliot (for the sake of the Jame Bell/Julie Walters reunion), Being Julia, Sunset Blvd.

Grade: 3.5 out of 5 Magical Cancer Recoveries

This Is a Movie Review: In ‘Phantom Thread,’ Daniel Day-Lewis is a Master Dressmaker in Love with Routine

December 22, 2017

jmunney Cinema, Movie Reviews , , , , , 2 Comments

CREDIT: Laurie Sparham/Focus Features

This review was originally posted on News Cult in December 2017.

Starring: Daniel Day-Lewis, Vicky Krieps, Lesley Manville

Director: Paul Thomas Anderson

Running Time: 130 Minutes

Rating: R for More F Bombs Than Expected

Release Date: December 25, 2017 (Limited)

In the beginning of Phantom Thread, Reynolds Woodcock’s muse and lover Alma (Vicky Krieps) describes him as “the most difficult man.” Such a definitive claim could potentially set us up for disappointment, but if anything, it turns out to be a bit of an understatement. So then the issue could bethat the dialogue is too on-the-nose, but that is not a problem with a lead actor and a director as precise as Daniel Day-Lewis and Paul Thomas Anderson are. And that precision is really what this film is about. The story of a dressmaker, no matter how legendary, strikes me as a rather niche attraction, but it should be known that Phantom Thread is primarily the (love?) story of two stubborn people butting up against each other.

If you are a fan of P.T. Anderson, or cinema in general, but do not have strong feelings towards fashion, you might be comforted to know that the focus is on the relationships. But you may soon find yourself discomforted by how discordant those relationships are. Or you might find all that hilarious. This is definitely an example of the rarely seen prestige cringe comedy, and I cringed more than I guffawed, though I appreciated the craft and the crack comic timing.

The setting is 1950s London, but due to the lack of electric devices in Reynolds Woodcock’s house, it feels like it could be decades earlier. Reynolds and the waitress Alma are quite smitten with each other, so he takes her into his home as his muse, in-house model, and soon enough, lover. Cyril (Lesley Manville), his sister and assistant, is on hand to make sure everything remains in tip-top shape in the wake of this new arrival. While at first there appears to be a genuine spark between Reynolds and Alma, it does not take long for there to be troubling signs. He casually drops some remarks about her imperfections, while she surprisingly enough has the gumption to give as good as she gets. But instead of maintaining her dignity, this results in the two of them butting up against each other with their shared obstinacy. Yet she manipulates him towards marriage, while I quietly scream that they need to cut their losses and run away from each other.

This definitely falls into the category of films I admire but do not particularly enjoy. The characters are marvelously realized, but too bullheaded to be pleasant for any extended period. I think that intimate exposure of imperfections is the point, and there is certainly a lot of room to appreciate that, but preferably from a safe distance.

Phantom Thread is Recommended If You Like: The Devil Wears Prada, Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf?, Witnessing the painstaking creative process

Grade: 3.75 out of 5 Measurements

This Is a Movie Review: ‘All the Money in the World’ Brings the Life-or-Death Thrills, But Could Go Deeper in the Psychology of Vast Wealth

December 22, 2017

jmunney Cinema, Movie Reviews , , , , , , Leave a comment

CREDIT: Sony/Columbia TriStar

This review was originally posted on News Cult in December 2017.

Starring: Michelle Williams, Mark Wahlberg, Christopher Plummer, Charlie Plummer, Romain Duris

Director: Ridley Scott

Running Time: 133 Minutes

Rating: R for Kidnapping-Related Dismemberment and the Vices of the Rich and Organized Criminals

Release Date: December 25, 2017

First off, for those of you wondering: yes, director Ridley Scott has seamlessly replaced Kevin Spacey with Christopher Plummer in the role of J. Paul Getty. No distracting editing or effects tricks appear to have been necessary, and anyone unfamiliar with the backstory should not have any reason to suspect an unusual production.

As All the Money in the World states explicitly, the Getty family’s massive fortune makes them practically an alien species living among human beings. Is it J. Paul Getty’s billions that make him see the world differently, or has he always been that way? Certainly his instinct for negotiating every possible deal is unprecedented, but his particularly uncompromising worldview goes beyond that. How else to explain a man who takes extreme measures not to ensure that his grandson is freed from kidnappers, but rather to ensure that he gets the best possible deal out of the exchange?

Ridley Scott’s knack for ruthless efficiency makes it difficult to really plumb those psychological depths. (It also means that there are moments when characters are staged partially in shadow and I am not sure if it is an artistic decision or just poor lighting.) It is impossible to avoid them entirely, because of Getty’s singularity and Plummer’s inherent understanding of the role. The audience is left to draw its own conclusions, but we are nudged towards just accepting that this man is totally inscrutable.

While this efficiency may skimp on the thematic depth, it at least ensures the satisfaction of a nail-biting thrill ride. The kidnapping victim, John Paul Petty III, who goes by Paul, (Charlie Plummer, unrelated to Christopher) is adrift by his familial station, but he has still enough of a survival instinct to give his scenes plenty of verve. Paul’s mother Gail (Michelle Williams, with a distractingly self-aware but perhaps historically accurate Mid-Atlantic accent) is understandably constantly on the verge of an emotional breakdown, but she remains steely, surprising herself perhaps most of all. And Mark Wahlberg is unusually upright and decent as the former CIA operative assisting J. Paul and Gail. In the moment of watching, the rescue mission grips you, but in the long run, the mark of J. Paul Getty leaves you existentially disoriented.

All the Money in the World is Recommended If You Like: Films About Real Life Rescue Missions and the Most Notorious Criminal Enterprises, Attempting to Understand the Wealthiest People on the Planet

Grade: 3.5 out of 5 Negotiations

This Is a Movie Review: ‘Molly’s Game’ Has Jessica Chastain Deliver What Must Be a Record-Setting Amount of Dialogue in Aaron Sorkin’s Directorial Debut

December 21, 2017

jmunney Cinema, Movie Reviews , , , , , , , , , , , , Leave a comment

CREDIT: STX Films

This review was originally posted on News Cult in December 2017.

Starring: Jessica Chastain, Idris Elba, Kevin Costner, Michael Cera, Jeremy Strong, Brian d’Arcy James, Chris O’Dowd, Bill Camp, Graham Greene, J.C. MacKenzie

Director: Aaron Sorkin

Running Time: 140 Minutes

Rating: R for the Vices That Surround Poker and a Brutal Assault Scene

Release Date: December 25, 2017 (Limited)

Effective poker strategy usually involves plenty of silence, so a poker film would seem to be an odd fit for the directorial debut of Aaron Sorkin, one of the most verbose screenwriters of all time. But don’t fold on him just yet, because Molly’s Game isn’t about the poker but rather the woman running the game. And a lot of talking has to be done behind the scenes to get to the point where you can stay silent behind the cards. And let’s just say Molly Bloom (Jessica Chastain) talks (and does) a lot to get to be the big kahuna running a high-stakes underground poker ring. From near-Olympic skier to lowly assistant to self-made millionaire, she lives quite the whirlwind. The tabloids call her the “poker princess,” but give a queenpin the respect she deserves and don’t saddle her with a patronizing nickname.

The players at Molly’s games consist of Hollywood hotshots and Wall Street bigwigs, and that high-profile money moving has the FBI thinking she might be involved with drug running and tax fudging. So she turns to smooth-talking but upright lawyer Charlie Jaffey (Idris Elba) to represent her. He’s a bit pricey, though, and her assets are not exactly currently liquid, so she appeals to him on the basis of personal credit. Much of the film is a frame story of Molly filling Charlie in on the details of her life. Because they are reading dialogue written by Sorkin, Chastain and Elba have to deliver about four times as many words as they would in an average movie. Both are more than up to the task, Chastain especially, as she also has to deliver a ton of voiceover narration on top of her on-screen dialogue. It’s an electrifying story, but with nary a second of silence, plus frenetic editing on top of that, it is a bit exhausting, or at least it was for this viewer.

While Molly’s story will take you through the gauntlet, you can also vicariously thrill to the stories that her players bring to the table. Several of them basically have their own mini-movies going on (that Molly narrates, natch). You end up feeling that you know enough about their tells and pressure points that you could come in and win a few hundred grand against them even if you’re a complete novice. Especially memorable is Michael Cera with an effortlessly cool vibe unlike anything he’s ever given off before. He fully inhabits “Player X,” an anonymized version of an actual famous actor. (Some quick googling reveals he is essentially playing Tobey Maguire, or some amalgam of Maguire, Matt Damon, and maybe a few others.) It’s a career highlight for him and representative of the film’s emphasis on affirmatively filling out the clothes you wear in poker and in life.

Molly’s Game is Recommended If You Like: Poker movies, Poker competitions, Women Taking Control of Their Own Narrative

Grade: 3 out of 5 Spreadsheets

Older Entries Newer Entries