Skip to main content

You know what you did? You finished writing a book before the good part happened.

Molly’s Game
(2017)

(SPOILERS) I spent the first hour of Molly’s Game wondering how it was that Aaron Sorkin’s directorial debut didn’t receive more awards exposure last year. Then it became clear, as he very nearly blows it. Not enough to ruin the picture, but more than sufficient to remind you this was the guy responsible for the saccharine, well-meaning, fantasy-land White House of The West Wing.

As with all his screenplays in the last decade (Charlie Wilson’s War, The Social Network, Moneyball, Steve Jobs, the forthcoming Luci and Desi), Sorkin has adapted an account of actual events and, in that way of his, has brought out all the best juices in the material. I hadn’t heard of Molly Bloom (Jessica Chastain) and her prosecution for running illegal poker games (most particularly of interest to the FBI being their attendance by members of the Russian mob), but Sorkin has typically seized on a rich seam to mine, a hermetic world of addiction and eccentrics, and rules frequently broken, even or especially ones that aren’t even legal.

The first five minutes set the tone splendidly, documenting Molly’s curtailed professional skiing ambitions (“None of this has anything to do with poker”); it’s a powerhouse of introductory exposition, something to stand up there with Goodfellas for reallywell used narration. Chastain, always a singular presence but not that often give really memorable parts, seizes hold of this one and quite understandably doesn’t let go; it can be a luxuriant experience to be immersed in Sorkin’s gift for dialogue and narrative – you know you’re in not just safe but supremely capable hands with a torrent of legalese and gambling code that would have been bewildering from anyone else – and it’s very easy to surrender to Molly as she propels the proceedings along.

Everything prior to the acts for which she is being prosecuted – taking a rake – makes for especially compulsive viewing. She hosts high stakes poker games, first at the behest of real estate developer and all-round louse Dean (Jeremy Strong) and then on her own, with Hollywood actor Player X (Michael Cera) as her star attraction. Sorkin and his editors (while he may not have revealed himself as a hitherto untapped directorial genius, the film is cut for maximum impact) ensure these sections are perfectly judged and delivered: the inner tensions, the personalities and foibles on display.

Player X was reputedly Tobey Maguire, although Sorkin has commented that he’s a composite; whatever the truth of the situation, Cera makes X a complete shit. Indeed, I’m so used to his playing beta-comedy guys, it’s genuinely impressive to see him get into something dripping with malice. Also strong are Bad Brad (Brian d’Arcy James), who plays to lose since the games bring in clients to his hedge fund (later exposed as a Ponzi scheme) and bona fide player Harlan (Bill Camp), who suffers a memorable meltdown one night after misreading Brad’s hand. Less successful is Chris O’Dowd as Douglas Daly, rather falling into schtick as a drunk who brings the Russian mob into the game at Molly’s request and is eventually revealed as an FBI informant.

Strangely, even though the pressures are increased once Molly is cut out by Player X and moves to New York to re-up her game (bringing in the Russians and various other rich oddballs, one of whom shows up with an authentic Monet as collateral) – including a rather brutal attempt by the Italian mob to cut themselves in – the ensuing events aren’t quite as compelling. The momentum of the first hour is somewhat punctured, and the material becomes patchier. Molly’s drug addiction is the first instance of the picture feeling like its falling prey to cliché in presentation, and the dialogue occasionally takes a turn for the over-ripe (“I felt I was in a hole so deep, I could go fracking”).

Not a deal breaker in itself, though, and the impassioned speech to the FBI prosecutors by Idris Elba as Charlie Jaffey, Molly’s initially reluctant lawyer (Elba always seems like a better, more engaged actor when he’s doing an American accent for some reason; maybe it’s just The Wire association) on why Bloom doesn’t deserve to be prosecuted goes down well (“J Edgar Hoover didn’t have this much shit on Bobby!”). Alas, it’s followed by the entrance proper of Kevin Costner as Molly’s hard-driving psychologist father – whom we’ve previously seen in flashbacks, but knew that couldn’t be the sum of it – called upon to deliver a sermon on why Molly’s a good person and why we should respect her (“Your addiction was having power over powerful men”).

It’s just the kind of sentimental, affirmative offal the picture didn’t need at this point, used to underpin the scruples Molly has in refusing to name other players (citing her good name as “it’s all I have left”). Sorkin nearly succeeds in unravelling all his sterling work (and even appears to be suggesting psychology as a panacea for explaining the entire human condition, very twentieth century of him). Perhaps he wasn’t confident that Molly’s Game wouldn’t seem like a fizzle when the judge commuted her sentence to a fine and 200 hours community service, so felt the need to beef things up emotionally, to deliver the triumph of a decent person, when in fact, the confident, can-do, worldly-wise Molly was the one who was most appealing. There’s still everything else in the picture to savour, but it’s a shame Sorkin stumbled in sight of the finishing line.


Agree? Disagree? Mildly or vehemently? Let me know in the comments below.

Popular posts from this blog

Your Mickey Mouse is one big stupid dope!

Enemy Mine (1985) (SPOILERS) The essential dynamic of Enemy Mine – sworn enemies overcome their differences to become firm friends – was a well-ploughed one when it was made, such that it led to TV Tropes assuming, since edited, that it took its title from an existing phrase (Barry Longyear, author of the 1979 novella, made it up, inspired by the 1961 David Niven film The Best of Enemies ). The Film Yearbook Volume 5 opined that that Wolfgang Petersen’s picture “ lacks the gritty sauciness of Hell in the Pacific”; John Boorman’s WWII film stranded Lee Marvin and Toshiro Mifune on a desert island and had them first duking it out before becoming reluctant bedfellows. Perhaps germanely, both movies were box office flops.

If I do nothing else, I will convince them that Herbert Stempel knows what won the goddam Academy Award for Best goddam Picture of 1955. That’s what I’m going to accomplish.

Quiz Show (1994) (SPOILERS) Quiz Show perfectly encapsulates a certain brand of Best Picture nominee: the staid, respectable, diligent historical episode, a morality tale in response to which the Academy can nod their heads approvingly and discerningly, feeding as it does their own vainglorious self-image about how times and attitudes have changed, in part thanks to their own virtuousness. Robert Redford’s film about the 1950s Twenty-One quiz show scandals is immaculately made, boasts a notable cast and is guided by a strong screenplay from Paul Attanasio (who, on television, had just created the seminal Homicide: Life on the Streets ), but it lacks that something extra that pushes it into truly memorable territory.

Other monks will meet their deaths here. And they too will have blackened fingers. And blackened tongues.

The Name of the Rose (1986) (SPOILERS) Umberto Eco wasn’t awfully impressed by Jean Jacques-Annaud’s adaptation of his novel – or “ palimpsest of Umberto Eco’s novel ” as the opening titles announce – to the extent that he nixed further movie versions of his work. Later, he amended that view, calling it “ a nice movie ”. He also, for balance, labelled The Name of the Rose his worst novel – “ I hate this book and I hope you hate it too ”. Essentially, he was begrudging its renown at the expense of his later “ superior ” novels. I didn’t hate the novel, although I do prefer the movie, probably because I saw it first and it was everything I wanted from a medieval Sherlock Holmes movie set in a monastery and devoted to forbidden books, knowledge and opinions.

Say hello to the Scream Extractor.

Monsters, Inc. (2001) (SPOILERS) I was never the greatest fan of Monsters, Inc. , even before charges began to be levelled regarding its “true” subtext. I didn’t much care for the characters, and I particularly didn’t like the way Pixar’s directors injected their own parenting/ childhood nostalgia into their plots. Something that just seems to go on with their fare ad infinitum. Which means the Pixars I preferred tended to be the Brad Bird ones. You know, the alleged objectivist. Now, though, we learn Pixar has always been about the adrenochrome, so there’s no going back…

No one can be told what the Matrix is. You have to see it for yourself.

The Matrix  (1999) (SPOILERS) Twenty years on, and the articles are on the defining nature of The Matrix are piling up, most of them touching on how its world has become a reality, or maybe always was one. At the time, its premise was engaging enough, but it was the sum total of the package that cast a spell – the bullet time, the fashions, the soundtrack, the comic book-as-live-action framing and styling – not to mention it being probably the first movie to embrace and reflect the burgeoning Internet ( Hackers doesn’t really count), and subsequently to really ride the crest of the DVD boom wave. And now? Now it’s still really, really good.

All the world will be your enemy, Prince with a Thousand Enemies.

Watership Down (1978) (SPOILERS) I only read Watership Down recently, despite having loved the film from the first, and I was immediately impressed with how faithful, albeit inevitably compacted, Martin Rosen’s adaptation is. It manages to translate the lyrical, mythic and metaphysical qualities of Richard Adams’ novel without succumbing to dumbing down or the urge to cater for a broader or younger audience. It may be true that parents are the ones who get most concerned over the more disturbing elements of the picture but, given the maturity of the content, it remains a surprise that, as with 2001: A Space Odyssey (which may on the face of it seem like an odd bedfellow), this doesn’t garner a PG certificate. As the makers noted, Watership Down is at least in part an Exodus story, but the biblical implications extend beyond Hazel merely leading his fluffle to the titular promised land. There is a prevalent spiritual dimension to this rabbit universe, one very much

In a few moments, you will have an experience that will seem completely real. It will be the result of your subconscious fears transformed into your conscious awareness.

Brainstorm (1983) (SPOILERS) Might Brainstorm have been the next big thing – a ground-breaking, game-changing cinematic spectacle that had as far reaching consequences as Star Wars (special effects) or Avatar (3D) – if only Douglas Trumbull had been allowed to persevere with his patented “Showscan” process (70mm film photographed and projected at 60 frames per second)? I suspect not; one only has to look at the not-so-far-removed experiment of Ang Lee with Billy Lynn’s Long Halftime Walk , and how that went down like a bag of cold sick, to doubt that any innovation will necessarily catch on (although Trumbull at least had a narrative hinge on which to turn his “more real than real” imagery, whereas Lee’s pretty much boiled down to “because it was there”). Brainstorm ’s story is, though, like its title, possibly too cerebral, too much concerned with the consciousness and touting too little of the cloyingly affirmative that Bruce Rubin inevitably brings to his screenplays. T

Piece by piece, the camel enters the couscous.

The Forgiven (2021) (SPOILERS) By this point, the differences between filmmaker John Michael McDonagh and his younger brother, filmmaker and playwright Martin McDonagh, are fairly clearly established. Both wear badges of irreverence and provocation in their writing, and a willingness to tackle – or take pot-shots – at bigger issues, ones that may find them dangling their toes in hot water. But Martin receives the lion’s share of the critical attention, while John is generally recognised as the slightly lesser light. Sure, some might mistake Seven Psychopaths for a John movie, and Calvary for a Martin one, but there’s a more flagrant sense of attention seeking in John’s work, and concomitantly less substance. The Forgiven is clearly aiming more in the expressly substantial vein of John’s earlier Calvary, but it ultimately bears the same kind of issues in delivery.

Maybe the dingo ate your baby.

Seinfeld 2.9: The Stranded The Premise George and Elaine are stranded at a party in Long Island, with a disgruntled hostess.

He tasks me. He tasks me, and I shall have him.

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (1982) (SPOILERS) I don’t love Star Trek , but I do love Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan . That probably isn’t just me, but a common refrain of many a non-devotee of the series. Although, it used to apply to The Voyage Home (the funny one, with the whales, the Star Trek even the target audience for Three Men and a Baby could enjoy). Unfortunately, its high regard has also become the desperate, self-destructive, song-and-verse, be-all-and-end-all of the overlords of the franchise itself, in whichever iteration, it seems. This is understandable to an extent, as Khan is that rare movie sequel made to transcendent effect on almost every level, and one that stands the test of time every bit as well (better, even) as when it was first unveiled.