Review: Money Monster

This is live TV …….

 

Title:                         Money Monster

Certificate:               15

Director:                   Jodie Foster

Major Players:         George Clooney, Julia Roberts, Jack O’Connell

Out Of Five:             3

 

Jodie Foster’s fourth feature as a director received a four minute standing ovation when it was screened at Cannes last week.  They, of course, had a red carpet as well.  At the UK press screening the same evening, we had the red seats of Picturehouse Central.  And there was no standing ovation.

Flamboyant financial commentator Lee Gates (George Clooney) fronts a daily TV show about the markets.  He and his director Patty (Julia Roberts) find themselves plunged into a crisis when a distraught investor, Kyle (Jack O’Connell) bursts into the studio and takes Lee hostage.  He’d followed one of Lee’s tips but the stock has plummeted and Kyle blames him for losing everything.  But why did it crash so spectacularly?  While the crisis is played out on live television, Patty has to work behind the scenes to uncover the real reason why Kyle, and all the other investors, were left high and dry.

We’ve had Margin Call, 99 Homes, its spiritual partner (in crime) piece, The Big Short, and now we have Money Monster, another look at the financial crash, although this time it’s not set during the tumultuous months when it all went south, or in the immediate aftermath.  This is closer to now and some of that aftermath is still around, especially when it comes to hating financial high flyers.

Kyle is something of a descendant of Peter Finch’s Howard in Network: he’s mad as hell and he’s not going to take it any more.  His anger seems to be directed more at Gates and the fact that the company he invested in keeps talking about the loss being due to a computer “glitch”. It’s a word we hear a lot of.  As it all unfolds, it becomes apparent that something fishy has been going on and that the buck stops with company front man, Walt Camby (Dominic West), who was due to be interviewed live that day.  Kyle wanted to get them both, but Camby is away, and, with help from Patty, hostage and gunman go in search of him for a face to face confrontation.

So that’s the thriller side.  It’s all played out in real time, which you would expect to ramp up the tension but, for some unaccountable reason, it doesn’t and your knuckles stay the same colour throughout.  It’s workmanlike and has some good moments, especially when it upturns one of the big conventions of a hostage drama.   The police track down Kyle’s girlfriend, Arlene (Olivia Luccardi) and bring her to the TV station.  She’s heavily pregnant and we’re all set for an emotional plea for him to put down the gun, again going out live on air.  We get something rather different, it works perfectly but then it’s followed by a very cumbersome hint as to how the situation is likely to pan out.

Money Monster isn’t just a would-be thriller, it also aims to be something of a satire, with two distinct targets – the banks and, like Network, the media but here it’s the media’s impact on people.  Kyle, and presumably thousands like him in New York, follow the show and trust Lee’s tips.  But watch their reactions as the scenario is played out on TV.  They’re all glued to their TVs – in the café, at work, anywhere.  It’s compulsive watching, it’s live and it’s real.  When it comes to an end, the camera is on the people in the café.  Count to three, and the two guys who’d been playing table football beforehand re-start their game.  Within minutes, everybody’s forgotten about what actually happened and the internet is flooded with funny film clips based on one memorable moment.   Are we truly that shallow?  It would appear so …..

High finance is the other target and has more potential.  The language of the money markets is so jargon-packed, most people don’t understand it and let the whizz kids get on with it – and get away with everything as well.  But, as Clooney points out, it’s not hard to understand at all, it’s just that the banks prefer it to look that way.  Smoke and mirrors, as it were.  At which point the film cops out, because it’s disappointingly easy to work out what Camby has been up to.

Yet, despite being hit and miss in its aim and having a slightly old fashioned feel, the film holds together better than you might think.  The cast helps.  Clooney isn’t especially stretched as the arrogant showman, but Julia Roberts is surprisingly good as his unflappable producer, exactly the sort of person you want in your corner when the chips are down.  Young British actor Jack O’Connell is keeping illustrious company again (last time it was Angelina Jolie directing him in Unbroken): it’s not one of his more taxing roles, but he brings his familiar energy so that, over the course, of the film, your sympathies grow. And keep your eyes open for Lenny the cameraman (Lenny Venito), the bug-eyed everyman who says little but sees all.

Put alongside its near relations, Money Monster – it’s the name of Gates’ show, as well as having other meanings – is more of a distant cousin.  The sharpness isn’t quite there in the satire and the thriller is short on thrills.  It’s not a bad film, but when you look at the list of talent involved, you do find yourself wondering why it isn’t better.

 

 

Money Monster is released in cinemas on Friday, 27 May and reviewed on Talking Pictures on Thursday, 26 May.

 

Let Battle Commence ……

 

Even the tulips don't escape unscathed in Carnage

Title:                  Carnage

Certificate:          15

Director:              Roman Polanski

Major players:       Jodie Foster, John C Reilly, Christoph Waltz, Kate Winslet

Out of five?           3

Some phrases stay with you for life.  Back in my student days, I was a huge fan of Peanuts, and one of its best lines was Linus’ cry of despair on the football field, “I love mankind.  It’s people I can’t stand!”  Which rather sums up Roman Polanski’s latest offering, Carnage, a four-handed satirical comedy.

Based on The God of Carnage, Yazmina Reza’s stage play from 2006, the film focuses on two sets of parents who are thrown together as a result of an argument between their two 11 year old sons.  One of the boys has been injured and the intention is to reach an agreement on how to resolve the situation.   But an initial veneer of courtesy and formality is soon stripped away to reveal the people underneath, complete with all their failings, prejudices and frustrations.

Seconds in to the film, you just know that the couples are on a collision course: all it takes is for Alan (Christoph Waltz), whose son struck the other boy with a stick, to quibble over one word in a joint statement and prickly Jodie Foster’s hackles start to rise – and they don’t drop for the duration of the film.

After that, it’s downhill all the way, made worse by a combination of Kate Winslet’s very physical reaction to Foster’s cooking, single malt and Waltz’s addiction to his mobile phone.  Cracks that were already evident in both relationships become chasms and, as the situation escalates, the four characters constantly change alliegances.

Set in the apartment of the parents of the injured boy (Jodie Foster and John C Reilly), with occasional forays into the hallway outside, the restricted setting accentuates the intensity of the emotions on show.  It’s a film that benefits from being watched in a small screening room and would probably work well on the small screen.  The downside, however, is that it betrays the film’s origins by giving it a stage bound feel.

As the argument intensified, I began to feel I was watching an articulate, middle class version of The Jeremy Kyle Show, but without the man himself to fuel the fire.  The laughs – and there are plenty of them – are in a similar vein too: ones of disbelief, complete with a shake of the head, interspersed with chuckles of familiarity.

The film’s biggest weakness is its end.  I won’t give it away totally in case you go to see it, but it’s a real anti-climax, creating the impression that co-writers Reza and Polanski simply ran out of ideas.

Its strength, however, is the stellar cast, who all give strong performances, both individually and as an ensemble.  The mis-match that is Penelope and Michael’s marriage is exemplified by their contrasting appearances:  Penelope is precise, obsessively tidy, and simmering below the surface, while Michael is big, bluff and her political and cultural opposite.  Both high powered professionals, Nancy and Alan (Winslet and Waltz) initially appear more in tune with each other but Alan’s legal career takes priority over everything, including his wife, which makes for inevitable resentment.

Would the two boys have made a better job of sorting things out?  Watching their parents’ efforts, it wouldn’t be hard.  And which of them are behaving like children and which like adults is an even bigger question – which has, it must be said, an obvious answer.