Skip to main content

I made a crazy risk, a gamble, and it’s about to pay off.

Uncut Gems
(2019)

(SPOILERS) Time for another ADD-addled exercise in nihilism from the Safdie brothers. Only this time, it’s anchored not so much by a head-turning as an in-your-face, yelling, kicking, screaming, fully-committed, fully-caffeinated, dazzling but utterly exhausting performance from Adam Sandler. Uncut Gems has received many plaudits, and those for Sandler are entirely deserved – it’s a highly convincing piece of acting, one that ought to have merited an Oscar nod – but the film as a whole merely reconfirmed my takeaway from the also-acclaimed Good Time; that the Safdies’ sensibility, if you can call it that, since it suggests something with some degree of restraint or sensitivity, is probably not for me.

The desire to put viewers through two-and-a-quarter suffocating hours of Sandler’s inveterate gambler’s successive attempts to undo himself is a fairly twisted, sadistic enterprise on their part, and thus one you’re relieved to be released from, by any narrative means available. If you engage with their mission statement, then Uncut Gems undoubtedly quite an achievement, but I come down on the side of those criticisms, the few and far between ones, that the picture is all surface bluster. It’s all about the freneticism and the breathless chase, without pause for an interior view that isn’t up the lead character’s bottom – unless you call his minute of “I’m so sad. I’m so fucked up” wallowing after being beaten up introspection – or reflection enough to consider what’s under the hood of this character, and what makes him tick, what fuels his addiction. As such, Uncut Gems is rather shallow, inducing a narcotic high but a rather unpleasant one. More akin to a panic attack brought on through sniffing glue.

Sandler’s Howard Ratner is the movie’s engine, all fired up and raring to go, but that’s all the Safdies have got. At times, with Howard’s need to balance his various books as he evades or doesn’t his loan shark brother-in-law Arno (a glassy-eyed Eric Bogosian) and tries to pull himself out of whichever insane new bet or deal he has made while juggling his overloaded personal life, I was put in mind of Carlito’s Way – the ending of that film surely had some influence on this one’s – but that’s an infinitely more elegant, considered work.

The Safdies pride themselves on their grubbiness and no doubt wish they were actually living in the 70s. Even when they pull virtuoso moves – macro shots opening and closing the movie – they’re weighted towards crudity (a colon exam, passing through the bullet hole in Howard’s head) rather than the sublime (the precious uncut opal Howard has purchased, somewhat less precious than he had hoped). This circular motif also brings to mind their structure for Good Time, but the only thematic impulse one could take away from Uncut Gems would be a glib one (the picture opens extravagantly on the mining of the opal, but aside from Kevin Garnett interrogating Howard on his profit margins, the supply chain of precious gems is left unturned). As for the final “shocking” moments, the only surprise would have been if the happy ending Howard suddenly seems to be heading for had happened (particularly since this is the second time the picture has played the card of the unlikely bet paying off, following “the dumbest fucking bet I’ve ever heard”).

There are good performances throughout, from Lakeith Stanfield as an associate of Howard’s (bringing him Garnett), from Fox and Menzel, from Judd Hirsch as Howard’s father-in-law, from Bogosian, and from authentic neighbourhood flavour in the likes of Keith Williams Richard’s vicious enforcer and Wayne Diamond as a rich gambler. And there are some smart conceits; if the run around at Howard’s daughter’s school play doesn’t really distinguish the setting from the threat because everything is at the same pitch, the idea of the family Passover dinner, with Arno glowering at him on neutral ground, is neatly conceived. Daniel Lopatin’s jazz-synth score, meanwhile, manages to work on the nerves as much as the directors’ other choices, heightening rather than diminishing the antic spell, entirely indifferent to the frenzied events it accompanies.

I don’t doubt the Safdies are masters of achieving exactly their desired effect, but whether that effect is a laudable one is open to debate. At one point, during a moment of regret on Howard’s part after he has dispensed with girlfriend Julia (Julia Fox) and suggested he and soon-to-be-ex-wife Dinah (Idina Menzel) should try again, she informs him, “I think you are the most annoying person I’ve ever met. I hate being with you. I hate looking at you. If I had my way, I would never see you again”. It isn’t difficult to apply that to Uncut Gems as a whole.


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

Popular posts from this blog

You were this amazing occidental samurai.

Ricochet (1991) (SPOILERS) You have to wonder at Denzel Washington’s agent at this point in the actor’s career. He’d recently won his first Oscar for Glory , yet followed it with less-than-glorious heart-transplant ghost comedy Heart Condition (Bob Hoskins’ racist cop receives Washington’s dead lawyer’s ticker; a recipe for hijinks!) Not long after, he dipped his tentative toe in the action arena with this Joel Silver production; Denzel has made his share of action fare since, of course, most of it serviceable if unremarkable, but none of it comes near to delivering the schlocky excesses of Ricochet , a movie at once ingenious and risible in its plot permutations, performances and production profligacy.

Well, something’s broke on your daddy’s spaceship.

Apollo 13 (1995) (SPOILERS) The NASA propaganda movie to end all NASA propaganda movies. Their original conception of the perilous Apollo 13 mission deserves due credit in itself; what better way to bolster waning interest in slightly naff perambulations around a TV studio than to manufacture a crisis event, one emphasising the absurd fragility of the alleged non-terrestrial excursions and the indomitable force that is “science” in achieving them? Apollo 13 the lunar mission was tailor made for Apollo 13 the movie version – make believe the make-believe – and who could have been better to lead this fantasy ride than Guantanamo Hanks at his all-American popularity peak?

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.

He’ll regret it to his dying day, if ever he lives that long.

The Quiet Man (1952) (SPOILERS) The John Wayne & John Ford film for those who don’t like John Wayne & John Ford films? The Quiet Man takes its cues from Ford’s earlier How Green Was My Valley in terms of, well less Anglophile and Hibernophile and Cambrophile nostalgia respectively for past times, climes and heritage, as Wayne’s pugilist returns to his family seat and stirs up a hot bed of emotions, not least with Maureen O’Hara’s red-headed hothead. The result is a very likeable movie, for all its inculcated Oirishness and studied eccentricity.

The Krishna died of a broken finger? I mean, is that a homicide?

Miami Blues (1990) (SPOILERS) If the ‘90s crime movie formally set out its stall in 1992 with Quentin Tarantino’s Reservoir Dogs , another movie very quietly got in there first at the beginning of the decade. Miami Blues picked up admiring reviews but went otherwise unnoticed on release, and even now remains under-recognised. The tale of “blithe psychopath” Federick J. Frenger, Jr., the girl whose heart he breaks and the detetive sergeant on his trail, director George Armitage’s adaptation of Charles Willeford’s novel wears a pitch black sense of humour and manages the difficult juggling act of being genuinely touching with it. It’s a little gem of a movie, perfectly formed and concisely told, one that more than deserves to rub shoulders with the better-known entries in its genre. One of the defining characteristics of Willeford’s work, it has been suggested , is that it doesn’t really fit into the crime genre; he comes from an angle of character rather than plot or h

Haven’t you ever heard of the healing power of laughter?

Batman (1989) (SPOILERS) There’s Jaws , there’s Star Wars , and then there’s Batman in terms of defining the modern blockbuster. Jaws ’ success was so profound, it changed the way movies were made and marketed. Batman’s marketing was so profound, it changed the way tentpoles would be perceived: as cash cows. Disney tried to reproduce the effect the following year with Dick Tracy , to markedly less enthusiastic response. None of this places Batman in the company of Jaws as a classic movie sold well, far from it. It just so happened to hit the spot. As Tim Burton put it, it was “ more of a cultural phenomenon than a great movie ”. It’s difficult to disagree with his verdict that the finished product (for that is what it is) is “ mainly boring ”. Now, of course, the Burton bat has been usurped by the Nolan incarnation (and soon the Snyder). They have some things in common. Both take the character seriously and favour a sombre tone, which was much more of shock to the

You think a monkey knows he’s sitting on top of a rocket that might explode?

The Right Stuff (1983) (SPOILERS) While it certainly more than fulfils the function of a NASA-propaganda picture – as in, it affirms the legitimacy of their activities – The Right Stuff escapes the designation of rote testament reserved for Ron Howard’s later Apollo 13 . Partly because it has such a distinctive personality and attitude. Partly too because of the way it has found its through line, which isn’t so much the “wow” of the Space Race and those picked to be a part of it as it is the personification of that titular quality in someone who wasn’t even in the Mercury programme: Chuck Yaeger (Sam Shephard). I was captivated by The Right Stuff when I first saw it, and even now, with the benefit of knowing-NASA-better – not that the movie is exactly extolling its virtues from the rooftops anyway – I consider it something of a masterpiece, an interrogation of legends that both builds them and tears them down. The latter aspect doubtless not NASA approved.

You tampered with the universe, my friend.

The Music of Chance (1993) (SPOILERS) You won’t find many adaptations of Paul Auster’s novels. Original screenplays, yes, a couple of which he has directed himself. Terry Gilliam has occasionally mentioned Mr. Vertigo as in development. It was in development in 1995 too, when Philip Haas and Auster intended to bring it to the screen. Which means Auster presumably approved of Haas’ work on The Music of Chance (he also cameos). That would be understandable, as it makes for a fine, ambiguous movie, pregnant with meaning yet offering no unequivocal answers, and one that makes several key departures from the book yet crucially maintains a mesmerising, slow-burn lure.

Drank the red. Good for you.

Morbius (2022) (SPOILERS) Generic isn’t necessarily a slur. Not if, by implication, it’s suggestive of the kind of movie made twenty years ago, when the alternative is the kind of super-woke content Disney currently prioritises. Unfortunately, after a reasonable first hour, Morbius descends so resignedly into such unmoderated formula that you’re left with a too-clear image of Sony’s Spider-Verse when it lacks a larger-than-life performer (Tom Hardy, for example) at the centre of any given vehicle.

People still talk about Pandapocalypse 2002.

Turning Red (2022) (SPOILERS) Those wags at Pixar, eh? Yes, the most – actually, the only – impressive thing about Turning Red is the four-tiered wordplay of its title. Thirteen-year-old Mei (Rosalie Chiang) finds herself turning into a large red panda at emotive moments. She is also, simultaneously, riding the crimson wave for the first time. Further, as a teenager, she characteristically suffers from acute embarrassment (mostly due to the actions of her domineering mother Ming Lee, voiced by Sandra Oh). And finally, of course, Turning Red can be seen diligently spreading communist doctrine left, right and centre. To any political sensibility tuning in to Disney+, basically (so ones with either considerable or zero resistance to woke). Take a guess which of these isn’t getting press in reference to the movie? And by a process of elimination is probably what it it’s really about (you know in the same way most Pixars, as far back as Toy Story and Monsters, Inc . can be given an insi