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

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.

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.

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.

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…

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

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.

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.

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.

You ever heard the saying, “Don’t rob the bank across from the diner that has the best donuts in three counties”?

2 Guns (2013) (SPOILERS) Denzel Washington is such a reliable performer, that it can get a bit boring. You end up knowing every gesture or inflection in advance, whether he’s playing a good guy or a bad guy. And his films are generally at least half decent, so you end up seeing them. Even in Flight (or perhaps especially in Flight ; just watch him chugging down that vodka) where he’s giving it his Oscar-nominatable best, he seems too familiar. I think it may be because he’s an actor who is more effective the less he does. In 2 Guns he’s not doing less, but sometimes it seems like it. That’s because the last person I’d ever expect blows him off the screen; Mark Wahlberg.

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.