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

I just hope my death makes more cents than my life.

Joker (2019)
(SPOILERS) So the murder sprees didn’t happen, and a thousand puff pieces desperate to fan the flames of such events and then told-ya-so have fallen flat on their faces. The biggest takeaway from Joker is not that the movie is an event, when once that seemed plausible but not a given, but that any mainstream press perspective on the picture appears unable to divorce its quality from its alleged or actual politics. Joker may be zeitgeisty, but isn’t another Taxi Driver in terms of cultural import, in the sense that Taxi Driver didn’t have a Taxi Driver in mind when Paul Schrader wrote it. It is, if you like, faux-incendiary, and can only ever play out on that level. It might be more accurately described as a grubbier, grimier (but still polished and glossy) The Talented Ripley, the tale of developing psychopathy, only tailored for a cinemagoing audience with few options left outside of comic book fare.

Dude. You’re my hero and shit.

El Camino: A Breaking Bad Movie (2019)
(SPOILERS) I was going to say I’d really like to see what Vince Gilligan has up his sleeve besidesBreaking Bad spinoffs. But then I saw that he had a short-lived series on CBS a few years back (Battle Creek). I guess things Breaking Bad-related ensure an easy greenlight, particularly from Netflix, for whom the original show was bread and butter in its take up as a streaming platform. There’s something slightly dispiriting about El Camino: A Breaking Bad Movie, though. Not that Gilligan felt the need to return to Jesse Pinkman – although the legitimacy of that motive is debatable – but the desire to re-enter and re-inhabit the period of the show itself, as if he’s unable to move on from a near-universally feted achievement and has to continually exhume it and pick it apart.

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…

It’s amazing what you can do when you don’t have to look yourself in the mirror any more.

Hollow Man (2000)
(SPOILERS) Paul Verhoeven very acutely critiqued his own choices when he observed of Hollow Manit really is not me anymore. I think many other people could have done that… there might have been twenty directors in Hollywood who could have done that”. It isn’t such a wonder he returned to Europe, and to quality, for his subsequent films. If Memoirs of an Invisible Man failed to follow up on the mental side effects of being seen right through found in HG Wells’ novel and (especially) in James Whale’s film, all Hollow Man does is take that tack, with the consequence that the proceedings degenerate into a banal action slasher, but with a naked Bacon instead of a guy in a hockey mask.

It’s not every day you see a guy get his ass kicked on two continents – by himself.

Gemini Man (2019)
(SPOILERS) Ang Lee seems hellbent on sloughing down a technological cul-de-sac to the point of creative obscurity, in much the same way Robert Zemeckis enmired himself in the mirage of motion capture for a decade. Lee previously experimented with higher frame rates on Billy Lynn's Long Halftime Walk, to the general aversion of those who saw it in its intended form – 48, 60 or 120 fps have generally gone down like a bag of cold sick, just ask Peter Jackson – and the complete indifference of most of the remaining audience, for whom the material held little lustre. Now he pretty much repeats that trick with Gemini Man. At best, it’s merely an “okay” film – not quite the bomb its Rotten Tomatoes score suggests – which, (as I saw it) stripped of its distracting frame rate and 3D, reveals itself as just about serviceable but afflicted by several insurmountable drawbacks.

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.

I have a cow, but I hate bananas.

The Laundromat (2019)
(SPOILERS) Steven Soderbergh’s flair for cinematic mediocrity continues with this attempt at The Big Short-style topicality, taking aim at the Panama Papers but ending up with a mostly blunt satire, one eager to show how the offshore system negatively impacts the average – and also the not-so-average – person but at the expense of really digging in to how it facilitates the turning of the broader capitalist world (it is, after all based on Jake Bernstein’s Secrecy World: Inside the Panama Papers Investigation of Illicit Money Networks and the Global Elite).

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.

What you do is very baller. You're very anarchist.

Lady Bird (2017)
(SPOILERS) You can see the Noah Baumbach influence on Lady Bird, Greta Gerwig’s directorial debut, with whom she collaborated on Frances Ha; an intimate, lo-fi, post-Woody Allen (as in, post-feted, respected Woody Allen) dramedy canvas that has traditionally been the New Yorker’s milieu. But as an adopted, spiritual New Yorker, I suspect Gerwig honourably qualifies, even as Lady Bird is a love letter/ nostalgia trip to her home city of Sacramento.

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.