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.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Poor Easy Breezy.

Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood (2019)
(SPOILERS) My initial reaction to Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood was mild disbelief that Tarantino managed to hoodwink studios into coming begging to make it, so wilfully perverse is it in disregarding any standard expectations of narrative or plotting. Then I remembered that studios, or studios that aren’t Disney, are desperate for product, and more especially, product that might guarantee them a hit. Quentin’s latest appears to be that, but whether it’s a sufficient one to justify the expense of his absurd vanity project remains to be seen.

My name is Dr. King Schultz, this is my valet, Django, and these are our horses, Fritz, and Tony.

Django Unchained (2012)
(MINOR SPOILERS) Since the painful misstep of Grindhouse/Death Proof, Quentin Tarantino has regained the higher ground like never before. Pulp Fiction, his previous commercial and critical peak, has been at very least equalled by the back-to-back hits of Inglourious Basterds and Django Unchained. Having been underwhelmed by his post Pulp Fiction efforts (albeit, I admired his technical advances as a director in Kill Bill), I was pleasantly surprised by Inglourious Basterds. It was no work of genius (so not Pulp Fiction) by any means, but there was a gleeful irreverence in its treatment of history and even to the nominal heroic status of its titular protagonists. Tonally, it was a good fit for the director’s “cool” aesthetic. As a purveyor of postmodern pastiche, where the surface level is the subtext, in some ways he was operating at his zenith. Django Unchained is a retreat from that position, the director caught in the tug between his all-important aesthetic pr…

She writes Twilight fan fiction.

Vampire Academy (2014)
My willingness to give writer Daniel Waters some slack on the grounds of early glories sometimes pays off (Sex and Death 101) and sometimes, as with this messy and indistinct Young Adult adaptation, it doesn’t. If Vampire Academy plods along as a less than innovative smart-mouthed Buffy rip-off that might be because, if you added vampires to Heathers, you would probably get something not so far from the world of Joss Whedon. Unfortunately inspiration is a low ebb throughout, not helped any by tepid direction from Daniel’s sometimes-reliable brother Mark and a couple of hopelessly plankish leads who do their best to dampen down any wit that occasionally attempts to surface.

I can only presume there’s a never-ending pile of Young Adult fiction poised for big screen failure, all of it comprising multi-novel storylines just begging for a moment in the Sun. Every time an adaptation crashes and burns (and the odds are that they will) another one rises, hydra-like, hoping…

You're waterboarding me.

The Upside (2017)
(SPOILERS) The list of US remakes of foreign-language films really ought to be considered a hiding to nothing, given the ratio of flops to unqualified successes. There’s always that chance, though, of a proven property (elsewhere) hitting the jackpot, and every exec hopes, in the case of French originals, for another The Birdcage, Three Men and a Baby, True Lies or Down and Out in Beverly Hills. Even a Nine Months, Sommersby or Unfaithful will do. Rather than EdTV. Or Sorcerer. Or Eye of the Beholder. Or Brick Mansions. Or Chloe. Or Intersection (Richard Gere is clearly a Francophile). Or Just Visiting. Or The Man with One Red Shoe. Or Mixed Nuts. Or Original Sin. Or Oscar. Or Point of No Return. Or Quick Change. Or Return to Paradise. Or Under Suspicion. Or Wicker Park. Or Father’s Day.

What about the meaningless line of indifference?

The Lion King (2019)
(SPOILERS) And so the Disney “live-action” remake train thunders on regardless (I wonder how long the live-action claim would last if there was a slim hope of a Best Animated Feature Oscar nod?) I know I keep repeating myself, but the early ‘90s Disney animation renaissance didn’t mean very much to me; I found their pictures during that period fine, but none of them blew me away as they did critics and audiences generally. As such, I have scant nostalgia to bring to bear on the prospect of a remake, which I’m sure can work both ways. Aladdin proved to be a lot of fun. Beauty and the Beast entirely tepid. The Lion King, well, it isn’t a badfilm, but it’s wearying its slavish respectfulness towards the original and so diligent in doing it justice, you’d think it was some kind of religious artefact. As a result, it is, ironically, for the most part, dramatically dead in the water.

Would you like Smiley Sauce with that?

American Beauty (1999)
(SPOILERS) As is often the case with the Best Picture Oscar, a backlash against a deemed undeserved reward has grown steadily in the years since American Beauty’s win. The film is now often identified as symptomatic of a strain of cinematic indulgence focussing on the affluent middle classes’ first world problems. Worse, it showcases a problematic protagonist with a Lolita-fixation towards his daughter’s best friend (imagine its chances of getting made, let alone getting near the podium in the #MeToo era). Some have even suggested it “mercifully” represents a world that no longer exists (as a pre-9/11 movie), as if such hyperbole has any bearing other than as gormless clickbait; you’d have to believe its world of carefully manicured caricatures existed in the first place to swallow such a notion. American Beauty must own up to some of these charges, but they don’t prevent it from retaining a flawed allure. It’s a satirical take on Americana that, if it pulls its p…

You know what I think? I think he just wants to see one cook up close.

The Green Mile (1999)
(SPOILERS) There’s something very satisfying about the unhurried confidence of the storytelling in Frank Darabont’s two prison-set Stephen King adaptations (I’m less beholden to supermarket sweep The Mist); it’s sure, measured and precise, certain that the journey you’re being take on justifies the (indulgent) time spent, without the need for flashy visuals or ornate twists (the twists there are feel entirely germane – with a notable exception – as if they could only be that way). But. The Green Mile has rightly come under scrutiny for its reliance on – or to be more precise, building its foundation on – the “Magical Negro” trope, served with a mild sprinkling of idiot savant (so in respect of the latter, a Best Supporting Actor nomination was virtually guaranteed). One might argue that Stephen King’s magical realist narrative flourishes well-worn narrative ploys and characterisations at every stage – such that John Coffey’s initials are announcement enough of his …

Kindly behove me no ill behoves!

The Bonfire of the Vanities (1990)
(SPOILERS) It’s often the case that industry-shaking flops aren’t nearly the travesties they appeared to be before the dust had settled, and so it is with The Bonfire of the Vanities. The adaptation of Tom Wolfe’s ultra-cynical bestseller is still the largely toothless, apologetically broad-brush comedy – I’d hesitate to call it a satire in its reconfigured form – it was when first savaged by critics nearly thirty years ago, but taken for what it is, that is, removed from the long shadow of Wolfe’s novel, it’s actually fairly serviceable star-stuffed affair that doesn’t seem so woefully different to any number of rather blunt-edged comedies of the era.

I don’t think you will see President Pierce again.

The Ballad of Buster Scruggs (2018)
(SPOILERS) The Ballad of Buster Scruggs and other tall tales of the American frontier is the title of "the book" from which the Coen brothers' latest derives, and so announces itself as fiction up front as heavily as Fargo purported to be based on a true story. In the world of the portmanteau western – has there even been one before? – theme and content aren't really all that distinct from the more familiar horror collection, and as such, these six tales rely on sudden twists or reveals, most of them revolving around death. And inevitably with the anthology, some tall tales are stronger than other tall tales, the former dutifully taking up the slack.

Is CBS Corporate telling CBS News "Do not air this story"?

The Insider (1999)
(SPOILERS) The Insider was the 1999 Best Picture Oscar nominee that didn’t. Do any business, that is. Which is, more often than not, a major mark against it getting the big prize. It can happen (2009, and there was a string of them from 2014-2016), but aside from brief, self-congratulatory “we care about art first” vibes, it generally does nothing for the ceremony’s profile, or the confidence of the industry that is its bread and butter. The Insider lacked the easy accessibility of the other nominees – supernatural affairs, wafer-thin melodramas or middle-class suburbanite satires. It didn’t even brandish a truly headlines-shattering nail-biter in its conspiracy-related true story, as earlier contenders All the President’s Men and JFK could boast. But none of those black marks prevented The Insider from being the cream of the year’s crop.