Just like the superhero movie and the reboot, video game movies are undoubtedly one of the biggest blockbuster seat-fillers of newer cinema. But video game movies aren’t yet as highly recognized as superhero films or remakes because, the video game adaptation sub-genre has a horrible track record with critical and audiences reviews. The vast majority of these movies rarely reach a 50% score on Rotten Tomatoes, with anything at around a 70%, or a C grade, being seen as a better adaptation. Last month we saw Uncharted, another video game adaptation, and it proved to us yet again that studios sure love throwing money in places and hoping to have it returned to them. The outliers of this genre usually don’t disappoint though, whether it is the animated Angry Birds 2, which weirdly surprised audiences, or Detective Pikachu, a live action adaptation that reminds us why those games should never go hyper-realistic.
Going into watching Hobbs and Shaw, a Fast and Furious spin-off, I didn’t expect much. I was hoping I could be pleasantly surprised and say that despite being a bad movie, at least it’s got dumb, fun action. Sadly, however, when I say that this movie isn’t very good, it’s because it didn’t even succeed at that.
This summer’s newest action flick stars Dwayne Johnson, Jason Statham, Vanessa Kirby and Idris Elba. Dame Helen Mirren also makes in an appearance in what is perhaps the saddest underutilization of an actress in recent memory. Johnson and Statham, as our bickering leads, have a painful lack of chemistry. Most of the movie’s dialogue is their banter, which is clearly intended to be clever and humorous. Unfortunately, almost every joke and quip in the runtime just falls flat on its face.
Idris Elba, another unfortunate misuse, was clearly not given enough to work with. He gives it his all to and tries to deliver his lines with as much potency as he can, but there’s just not much he can do with the material. In fact, I’d say most of the actors here are trying their best to make something out of nothing. Statham and Kirby really seemed to try and sell their characters (Johnson’s effort was there too, but really only as a conciliation prize), but the end of the day, a movie like this can only be held up by its action sequences. Unfortunately, Hobbs and Shaw doesn’t really deliver on this front either.
In a far cry from the street racing roots of Fast and Furious, the action here is all completely outlandish and ridiculous. Now, this isn’t bad in and of itself; when disbelief can be suspended, such scenes can work really well. In fact, one set piece towards the end, which was perhaps the most insane, I found oddly compelling. Perhaps that’s because it was paired with a touchstone to Dwayne Johnson’s Samoan culture, a plot point which was heartwarming, exhilarating, and the highlight of the movie for me. Regrettably, nothing else is as good. Set pieces with drones and jumping off of buildings and a cybernetically-enhanced Idris Elba are just sloppily put together, not very well shot, and come across as nothing more than adequate. To sell this movie for me, the action had to have been heart-pumping back to front; sadly, it wasn’t.
Other aspects of Hobbs and Shaw are exactly what you’ve come to expect from the franchise. The plot, which delivers a weird anti-technology message, is contrived and unfulfilling. The musical choices all sound like mid-2000’s club rap (although some of them were, admittedly, fire). There’s an uncomfortable sexist aura about everything they painfully try to lampshade with lines referencing male chauvinism. It just feels like every aspect of this movie trips over itself. I can see what they were going for here; I can see where they tried to make unique stylistic choices. I wanted to enjoy Hobbs and Shaw, I really did. Unfortunately, it is a better movie to laugh at, than to laugh with.
Oscar winning pen Aaron Sorkin steps out of writing room and into the director’s chair with his debut: Molly’s Game — a true to life story based on Molly Bloom and the underground poker games that made her famous. Like his screenplays before it, Molly’s Game has the same snap that all Sorkin scripts have, but this time without the direction that takes the film to the next level.
The story follows Molly Bloom (Jessica Chastain), a self-determine, former olympic ski hopeful who moves to Los Angeles after an injury puts her on the sideline. While working as a secretary, she is introduced to the world of underground poker and the famous Hollywood celebrities*, CEOs, and mobsters that inhabit it. Soon there after, she becomes proficient enough to start her own weekly games, and from then on, Molly enters an upward power trip and subsequent downward spiral that leads to an FBI arrest. It is then up to attorney Charlie Jaffey (Idris Elba) to defend Molly in court after learning there is more to her character than the greedy pit manager she was made out to be.
*The film never says the names of the Hollywood celebrities that cross paths with Molly (only using Michael Cera’s “Player X” as a stand in), but a quick Google search will reveal the likes of Ben Affleck, Tobey Maguire, Macaulay Culkin, and Leonardo DiCaprio.
Left, Michael Cera playing Player X. Right, Ben Affleck playing poker. Coincidence?
One of the film’s faults is how it cuts between sequences of young Molly navigating her way up the illegal gambling ladder and current-day Molly presenting her legal case with Jaffey. The former sequences are far more interesting not only because they are kinetic and stylized, but also because Molly’s rise to power is so much more fascinating than the end result. When ever the film took a break from these sequences to talk about her legal case, the film’s pacing and ability to command attention takes a considerable hit. These current day moments are in the film to give Molly sympathetic character traits and answer why she did the things she did, but when they are placed in between more momentous sequences, it’s hard to see them as anything but a roadblock to the narrative that is selling the movie.
This is of course still an Aaron Sorkin script at heart. The dialog reaches ungodly words per minute, there are quick jokes that fly by, and there are still quotable lines of dialog you find in every Sorkin script. It’s a beautiful thing to hear when in motion, and the opening scene perfectly encapsulates Sorkin’s writing style. At the heart of the script there is a message about Molly being her own hero in a world of powerful men; influenced by her father (played by Kevin Costner) and reenforced by the wealthy men that occupy her poker games, Molly rigorously declares that she has no heroes and once she achieves her goals she will be her own, but like all character archetypes, she has vulnerabilities and flaws that prevent herself from getting there. It’s a good script, but I couldn’t help but wonder how the film would of differed (or in this case benefited) from a different director taking hold of the project.
In the past, you have auteurs like Bennett Miller (Moneyball), Danny Boyle (Steve Jobs), and David Fincher (The Social Network) helm a Sorkin script. They take his tact sharp screenplay, add in their directing styles, and create a great film that combines the best of both worlds. It is this pairing of Sorkin script with auteur director that makes a “Sorkin movie” so great. But this time, Sorkin is in the director’s chair, and there is a notable change in how the film feels. It sounds like a Sorkin script, but it doesn’t look like a “Sorkin movie” we’ve come to expect, and because of it, Molly’s Game lives in the shadow of his other writer-only works.
Molly’s Game is a sharply written drama that lacks the directorial pizazz to go the extra mile. It’s a good start to Aaron Sorkin’s director career, but it could use a little more refinement and style to reach the level of his other contributions. Molly’s rise to power is worth the watch especially because it is underpinned with Sorkin dialog, but the film is fine as whole. You won’t be disappointed with Molly’s Game, but you won’t really be blown away either.
