Tag Archives: movie

‘Bridge of Spies’ Well-Crafted But Slow Cold War Thriller

Bridge_of_Spies_posterTom Hanks starring in a Steven Spielberg period piece. Yup, Oscar Season is upon us.

Based on a true story, “Bridge of Spies” stars Hanks as a New York lawyer who must organize a swap of a Soviet spy (Mark Rylance) and a captured American pilot (Austin Stowell) during the Cold War. Spielberg directs.

The bar is always going to be set high for Steven Spielberg and Tom Hanks when the two are doing their own thing, so when they team up (this is the fourth time in their careers), expectations are through the roof. So is “Bridge of Spies” the full-blown, hands-down best film of the year? No, unfortunately not, however it is still a very well-crafted espionage thriller that offers solid work from two of the most famous men in Hollywood history.

The best way I can describe “Bridge of Spies” is I admire and appreciate it more than I enjoyed it (much like “Sicario”). That’s not to say the film is not watchable, far from it; you’re more likely to find an honest politician than an unwatchable Tom Hanks film. But the pacing and the dialogue-driven narrative definitely weigh down admirable work from Hanks and Spielberg, as well as Rylance.

The acting in the film is everything you would expect from a Steven Spielberg movie, and saying Tom Hanks gives a great performance would be a waste of time because at this point we expect (and often receive) nothing less. Hanks’ James Donovan is a likable guy who is in way over his head in political maneuverings he doesn’t fully understand.

The real star of the show, however, is Mark Rylance’s captured Soviet spy, Rudolf Abel. Rylance steals every scene he is in, yet somehow does it with a calm, cool demeanor. He is funny without being distracting, earns our sympathy without pandering. It’s one of my favorite performances of the year and if this film gets no other talk in the next few months, I hope Rylance gets recognized for his work here.

“Bridge of Spies” is a Steven Spielberg film is ever there was one. He continues to play by Hollywood’s rules, not trying anything special with the camera or daring with the narrative. There are those trademark Spielberg “one shot” scenes that don’t feel like they’re one single take because of his masterful placement and movement of the camera, which those are always a treat.

The biggest gripe I have is that the film really isn’t paced well, and all too often scenes just drag on. There are select parts here and there that are truly engaging, such as the scene where Francis Gary Powers’ U-2 plane is shot down, as well as the final spy swap, but those masterfully crafted sequences are sandwiched between scenes of two men exchanging law and politic talk and to the average American in 2015 that is hardly what we go to the movies for.

Rating a film like this really gets at me. Do I grade it based off entertainment factor and replay value, or how well it is crafted? Because the film is well directed and expertly acted, and the 1950’s set designs are spot-on. That being said, will I ever watch “Bridge of Spies” again? Probably not, it didn’t stick with me that much (outside Rylance, because once again, wow).

So if you love Hanks and/or Spielberg and want to see them at their Hanks and Spielberg-iest, enjoy period pieces, AND you are able to put up with a lot of talking, then “Bridge of Spies” is for you. I am giving it an overall recommendation, but before I leave you…did I mention Mark Rylance is amazing here?

Critics Rating: 6/10

Variety

Variety

‘Sicario’ Offers Uneasy, Intense Thrills

Leave a reply

Sicario_posterIf this film is good for anything, it’s reaffirming my desire to not visit Mexico anytime soon.

“Sicario” stars Emily Blunt as an ambitious FBI agent who gets involved with a government task force (led by Josh Brolin and Benicio Del Toro) in an effort to bring down a Mexican drug lord. “Prisoners” director Denis Villeneuve helms here.

This was one of my most anticipated films of the fall ever since the first trailer dropped. I adored “Prisoners,” the cast looked great, and cinematographer Roger Deakins is one of the best we’ve ever had. So even though “Sicario” isn’t the masterpiece I hoped it would be it is still an intense, wonderfully-wound thriller about the war on drugs.

The best things about “Sicario” are from the people who stand behind the camera. The film is shot beautifully, which like I said shouldn’t be a surprise since Deakins was the Director of Photography. He and Villeneuve implement aerial shots throughout the film, which shows us the vast scope of how much of a No Man’s Land the southern U.S. border and Mexico really are.

While marketed as an action film, you should know there isn’t much gunplay in here. Instead, Villeneuve makes the entire film have an uneasy, dangerous sense about it; you feel as if any character could pull put a weapon at any moment. The best sequence in the film takes place on the U.S.-Mexico border bridge, and it is as intense as any scene I’ve seen in a while, very possibly since the climax of “Prisoners” (which I’m still shaking from).

The acting in the film is solid across the board, but Del Toro stands out. Throughout most of the film he is a silent observer, you don’t know much about him or his motivations except “he goes where he’s sent”. But in the film’s final act, Del Toro flips a switch and becomes an incredibly different person, and this simple man suddenly becomes a multi-layered character study.

I wasn’t annoyed or off-put by “Sicario’s” slow pace, it adds that uneasy tension to the film, however outside of Del Toro’s character the film never truly builds to anything great. Blunt’s FBI agent is more of a pawn than an actual player in the film, and the plot itself plays out like a more sadistic version of “Breaking Bad” (to say, there aren’t any huge twists; the “twist” is pretty much given away in the trailer).

“Sicario” is one of the movies that you appreciate the more you let it soak in. It is certainly an adult film if there ever was one, and an uncomfortable one at that. There are mutilated bodies galore and the entire experience itself may make you want to take a shower, but I am glad I went on the ride. It is a good, not great film, which is a bit disappointing considering all the talent involved, but I still think “Sicario” is one of the better films of 2015.

Critics Rating: 7/10

Variety

Variety

‘The Martian’ is Overlong, Underwhelming

Leave a reply

The_Martian_film_posterWell, at least this is better than “Exodus: Gods and Kings;” whatever that’s worth.

“The Martian” is based on the bestselling novel and stars Matt Damon as Mark Watney, an astronaut who is left behind on Mars after his team must perform an emergency evacuation. He must then both find a way to grow food and contact Earth before it is too late. Jessica Chastain, Jeff Daniels, and Chiwetel Ejiofor highlight an all-star cast as Ripley Scott directs.

It seems to be a trend in the past few years to release a movie about surviving in space during the autumn season. 2013 gave us “Gravity,” and last year we had “Interstellar,” two very good movies that tinkered on great. Unfortunately “The Martian” does not continue that trend, as it a movie that is just OK, featuring flashes of what it could have been.

Like I said in the opening line, this is better than “Exodus,” and in fact may be Ripley Scott’s best film since 2003’s “Matchstick Men” (quick plug: see that if you haven’t). But the bar isn’t set very high for Scott, and many of the same problems that plagued his recent films like “Exodus” and “Prometheus,” like overstuffed plots and poor pacing, are front stage here.

“Martian” is 2 hours 20 minutes and you feel most every moment of that. I checked my phone one time expecting the film to be approaching the climax, and it was only 90 minutes in. Much of the film plays out in a rinse and repeat pattern: Damon needs to solve a problem, he solves it rather quickly, and a new problem then arises. Meanwhile the suits back at NASA argue on how to go about performing the rescue mission, which normally ends without much conflict.

The most interesting points of the film aren’t even featuring Damon trying to survive on the distant planet, it’s back on Earth where space experts Donald Glover, Ejiofor and Sean Bean all try and figure out problems and debate the best solutions. These moments are the most engaging but often end too quickly, instead sending us back to Damon who is eating potatoes for the 300th straight day.

What the film does do well, however, is establish the characters. We don’t really know about Watney before the accident (he gets left behind in the first 10 minutes of the film), so Damon’s video logs give us a feel for the character. He is a calm, down-to-earth (well, figuratively, not literally) guy who even though he just awoke 140 million miles from home with a needle plunged into his chest, still manages to crack a joke. The film itself is pretty funny, which makes sense when you have career comedians Glover, Daniels and Kristen Wiig as part of your cast.

I really wanted to like “The Martian” more than I did, but for every gorgeous shot of Mars’ desert terrain or each scene of Damon making a breakthrough, there are two or three slow scenes that add nothing but exposition to the already hefty plot. It is far from a bad film, but it is certainly one of the bigger disappointments of 2015, and kicks the Oscar movie season off with a whimper.

Critics Rating: 5/10

Variety

Variety

Flawed ‘Intern’ Gets by on Charm

Leave a reply

The_Intern_PosterAh, September. You wonderful buffer between summer blockbusters and Oscar season…

“The Intern” stars Robert De Niro and Anne Hathaway and is written and directed by Nancy Meyers. When retirement proves to be too boring for 70-year-old Ben Whittaker (De Niro), he enrolls in a senior internship program at an internet fashion company led by Jules Ostin (Hathaway). Rene Russo, Adam DeVine, and Anders Holm co-star.

September usually contains two types of movies: trash that couldn’t fit into January and August (“The Transporter Refueled”) and decent films that still aren’t quite good enough to be worthy of Oscar season (“Black Mass,” even if Depp will get his nod). “The Intern” falls into the latter category, as it is a flawed but charming little film that never tries to be more than it is not.

Anne Hathaway makes everything she’s in better, that’s long established (if you don’t believe me try watching “Brides Wars” or “Les Misérables” and skip over her scenes and tell me with a straight face those movies are enjoyable). Meanwhile it’s been a while since Robert De Niro actually tried to do some serious acting (one could argue he has given two dedicated performances the past 10 years). So they may seem like an odd pairing, but their abstract chemistry is what makes “The Intern” work.

There are a few routes this film could have taken, and had it chosen those paths it would have been a conventional feel-good story, likely featuring a hardened boss who has to continuously teach her technology challenged senior citizen intern about the modern world. But writer/director Meyers instead choses to go an alternative route, still making De Niro’s character a fish-out-of-water, but never panders us or tries to force “ha! He’s old, get it?!” jokes down our throats. And instead of starting out like Sandra Bullock’s unlikable boss in “The Proposal,” Hathaway is just a busybody who we like from the get-go, which makes her easier for the audience to root for and relate to.

The film has its share of chuckle moments, and two laugh-out-loud gags including a fantastic sequence where De Niro and a group of other interns break into a house and steal a computer, but mostly the film skates by on its charm. Like I said, Hathaway is likable no matter what, but De Niro has this sense of optimism about him that is just infectious, and it puts you in a happy mood right out the gate.

Now I have to list the film’s flaws, both because that’s part of the job of movie reviewing and because I am a cynical person by nature. The film tries to force conflict into random segments just for the sake of having conflict, and all it does is add unnecessary time to the film’s length, which brings me to my biggest problem with the film.

Although I was never bored, the film isn’t paced well. After that brilliant robbery scene I figured the film had covered all the bases it needed to and would begin to wrap up; except that was only around the halfway point of the film (the running time is two hours). There are numerous points, in fact, that I thought the film would begin to end, only to have it introduce new plotlines. It isn’t overindulgence for ego sake like a Peter Jackson film, but it does stop the film from being breezy.

“The Intern” is pretty much exactly what you would expect to get based on the trailer, director, cast and/or plot, and that’s ok. It is flawed, sure, but those flaws are for the most part outweighed by dedicated work from Hathaway, De Niro and company. It’s a good date movie for all ages, and a nice buffer film as we enter the Fall Movie Season.

Critics Rating: 6/10

Vaariety

Vaariety

‘Black Mass’ Highlighted by Depp’s Chilling Work

Black_Mass_(film)_posterWelcome back, Johnny Depp. It has been a very, very long time.

“Black Mass” stars Depp as real-life mobster James “Whitey” Bulger, and chronicles his reign as the crime boss of Boston in the 70’s and 80’s, all while an undercover informant for the FBI. Joel Edgerton and Benedict Cumberbatch are just two of the dozen big names that co-star as Scott Cooper directs.

They often say truth is stranger than fiction, and that is true with the Whitey Bulger story. A career criminal who tricked the FBI to arrest his enemies all while having a brother who is a state senator; Hollywood couldn’t come up with that on their own.

Like I said, it has been a while since we have seen Johnny Depp play a character we cared about in a movie that we liked. His last Oscar nomination was in 2008 for “Sweeney Todd,” and this year’s “Mortdecai” may have been the final straw, with many calling it the worst film and performance of his career. However ever since the first image of Depp as Bulger was released many have been hoping that “Black Mass” would be the shot of energy Depp’s career desperately needed, and thankfully (for both us and Depp) he turns in a near-career best performance.

Johnny Depp loves his makeup, that is no secret, and he disappears behind the wrinkles and black eyes of Whitey Bulger. Much like Jack Nicholson in “The Departed” (whose character was based off Bulger), Depp becomes more and more depraved and sadistic as the film goes on, and when the climax comes you are not sure what he is capable or willing to do.

The violence in “Black Mass” is like that of “Goodfellas”: bloody but swift. There are several well-crafted execution scenes however the most intense sequences are ones where Depp is just starring down someone from across a table not saying a word.

Speaking of “Goodfellas,” that leads me into the film’s flaws. It tries very hard to take from other gangster films, which more often than not makes us compare the film we’re watching to classic movies, and obviously it isn’t going to hold a candle to the greats. There is even a scene that tries to embody the same feel as the “funny how?” sequence from “Goodfellas,” and while it works in the moment, once it passes you realize it doesn’t hold the same weight as that Joe Pesci scene.

The payoff of the film also leaves more to be desired. The film goes from a guy getting taken out by Bulger and his crew in one scene to everything starting to get wrapped up in the next. In fact most of the film feels as if the filmmakers assume you know the Whitey Bulger story, and so it takes little time to introduce backstories, which makes us watch characters that feel more expendable than engaging (outside Depp and Joel Edgerton’s FBI agent).

Still, narrative flaws aside, there are several brilliant scenes sprinkled throughout “Black Mass,” and one in particular that may be remembered for a while. It is fantastically refreshing to see Depp return to a serious role, and I’m sure he will get some serious consideration come Oscar season. As a film, “Black Mass” is solid, but you’re going to see for Depp’s chilling performance, and it is what you will walk out remembering most.

Critics Rating: 7/10

Variety

Variety

Horrible Editing, Pretty Scenery Highlight ‘Transporter Refueled’

_The_Transporter_Refueled__posterIf the 85% humidity didn’t have me thinking it’s still August, the release of crap movies sure would have.

“The Transporter Refueled” is a reboot (I think? It has never really been confirmed if this is a reboot or prequel) of the Transporter franchise, but this time Ed Skrein gets behind the wheel to play the titular character instead of Jason Statham. Here the Transporter must help out four call girls who are looking to get revenge on a kingpin (or something along those lines; this film is a mess). Editor-turned-director Carmille Delamarre directs.

The last Transporter film was in 2008 and in the seven years since I haven’t heard a single person clamoring for another sequel. In fact, “Transporter 3” is often referred to as one of the worst edited action films of all-time, alongside “Taken 2.” So naturally it makes sense that they hire the guy who edited those two films to direct this one, right?

Like I said above, this movie is a mess and I have no idea where to start with it. I guess I’ll begin with how lazy and stupid it is. In the film’s opening scene, a bunch of men are shot in front of a group of prostitutes. The pimp then orders the girls to get back to work…with the massacred bodies still lying on the pavement. I’m not an expert in how ladies-of-the-night operate, but I have to imagine corpses are bad for business.

That scene takes place in 1995, and then we are transported (get it?) 15 years later, which after a quick calculation means it’s 2010. That would be fine and dandy, except characters use iPhone 6’s and drive 2015 vehicles. So either the movie was too lazy to add 15 to 1995, or they didn’t care about being accurate to the time period, both of which are sins.

The action in the film is at times fine, there are a few well-choreographed car chases, but those moments are diluted and ruined by constant slow-motion and quick edits. And when I say quick edits, I’m talking five shots in less than four second. The same type of edits you may find in, say, “Taken 2” or “Transporter 3.”

The man behind this film, and other gems such as the Taken trilogy, “The Family” and the worst film of last year, “Lucy,” is Luc Besson and he is the Adam Sandler of the action world. He continuously gives his friends jobs, and his films are usually awful, featuring near no plot, shoddy editing and villains with horrible accents and even worse motivations; and Besson makes no effort to try and change formula this time around.

The best part of “Refueled” was when Skrein is fighting a group of henchmen and he sticks a floatation ring around one of them and the bad guy yells, “you jerk!”. I laughed out loud. Obviously not the film’s intention, but most of the writing is that bad throughout.

I was never bored while watching “The Transporter Refueled” per se, but I was also almost never interested. I checked my phone at least five times and at one point even responded to a text, which I *never* do. The film is set in the incredibly beautiful Monaco, so every establishing shot is gorgeous, but honestly aside from that there isn’t much this movie does right. It’s not frustratingly awful like “Fantastic Four” or annoyingly bad like “Pixels,” but “The Transporter Refueled” fails to accomplish what it set out to do, whatever the heck that aspiration was.

Critics Rating: 4/10

Variety

Variety

Top 5 Worst Films of Summer 2015

With the good, comes that bad. Summer 2015 gave us some solid films, but it also gave us a lot (and I mean, *a lot*) of trash. So I try my best to narrow them down to five films here. Thank God I get to list out 10 films at the end of the year…

Dishonorable Mention: Mad Max: Fury Road

This isn’t a good movie, it’s just a well-made one. People seem unable to separate the two. I don’t get how when Michael Bay throws explosions on the screen in sacrifice of plot or character development he is crucified, but when George Miller does it he is praised as a genius.

FRD-27924.TIF

5.) Entourage

On top of being the biggest disappointment of 2015 so far, this was also just a miss on all cylinders. I love “Entourage” the show, I love Los Angeles and I love to laugh, and this film really doesn’t pay much honor to any of these things. It is an unfunny, skin-deep movie that was only not a total bomb because of the familiar faces in the best city on earth. That’s it.

Variety

Variety

4.) Tomorrowland

Quick: what is this movie about? That’s OK, I’ll wait. Give up? Cool, because I have no idea, either. Something about George Clooney and his love affair with a 10-year-old robot (it is slightly less creepy within the context of the film), and I think there was something else about the end of the world and Dr. House was there. I really hated this movie. I walked out not liking it, but in the three months that have passed, I’ve grown to loathe it. Just not as much as these remaining three films.

TOMORROWLAND

3.) Terminator Genisys

Just like “Tomorrowland,” I didn’t mind this film while watching (I realized it wasn’t good, but in-the-moment I was tricked to thinking it wasn’t awful). But the ending draws on for 15 minutes, and it has some of the worst CGI I have ever seen in a film in the 21st century. It just isn’t good, and hopefully this franchise is…terminated. [clears throat] OK, what’s next?

Variety

Variety

2.) Pixels

Like most people, I was tricked by the trailer for “Pixels” into thinking this wouldn’t be a normal Adam Sandler comedy; but much to my dismay, this is just a normal Adam Sandler comedy, it just happens to have video games in it. It is bottom-of-the-barrell, lowest effort humor, and its best attribute is Josh Gad, which is never a good sign.

Variety

Variety

1.) Fantastic Four

HAHAHAHAHAHA oh my God, this thing is awful. Like I’ve forgetten like 95% of it but holy heck is this bad. Nothing happens until a rushed and horribly standard final fight sequence, and it wastes a fantastic young cast. All the behind the scenes drama is much, MUCH more interesting than the actual film, so go give those stories a read. It’s films like this that make it hard for people like me to trust the month of August…

Variety

Variety

‘We Are Your Friends’ Energetic but Sloppy Affair

We_Are_Your_FriendsWhat’s funny is that despite this film’s specific premise, it’s not even the best movie about aspiring Los Angeles DJs to come out this month (that title goes to “Straight Outta Compton”).

Directed and co-written by “Catfish” photographer Max Joseph (in his directorial debut), “We Are Your Friends” stars Zac Efron as an aspiring DJ in Los Angeles who is struggling to figure out his future. Emily Ratajkowski and Wes Bentley also star.

I guess I can give the movie props; it is better than it could/should have been. A rookie director/screenwriter paired with Zac Efron and a model in the leading roles, in a movie about DJs being released in late August. All signs pointed to this being one of those movies that were doomed from the start. But the film isn’t a disaster; it’s actually kinda mehhhh, ahhhh, fine(?)

I like Zac Efron, I think he is a capable-enough actor, and like Channing Tatum once he finds his niche he will have a nice career. Here he plays Cole, a 23-year-old wannabe DJ who lives in Los Angeles, has a job that pays him a $15,000 bonus, and constantly has attractive girls hitting on him at clubs, but he still manages to find things to complain about in his life. He meets a famous DJ (oxymoron?), played by Wes Bentley, who takes Cole under his wing.

Efron and Bentley have solid chemistry in their Obi-Wan/Luke Skywalker relationship, even if almost every scene plays out the same way: Bentley tells Efron that he needs to find a style, Efron does something different and Bentley likes it, but the film needs to keep going so he tells Efron to change more.

The film has a nice energy about it and the Los Angeles skyline adds some visual candy, but unfortunately the energy is bogged down by incoherent direction and a script that is just all over the place. I don’t think you know how hard it was just for me just to come up with that plot summary in the opening paragraph, because aside from the overarching story of Efron wanting to be a DJ, there are so many other side plots you just don’t care about.

Efron has this group of three friends who are pretty much the Dollar General version of the “Entourage” crew and you just hate all of them. They get into fights and hold Efron back, so when suddenly a life-changing event happens to them simply for the sake of attempting to add dramatic heft to the plot, you don’t care. Then the movie just kind of breezes over the event by the next scene and you didn’t care in the first place so you just shrug it off.

The direction needs to be addressed, too, because it feels like a different person was in charge of the first and second half of the film. The first half has characters break the third wall for reasons never explained, some weird cutaways to stock footage of maps and lions, and then borderline creepy x-rays of dancing people’s beating hearts. It all concludes with a scene where Efron takes drugs and imagining people becoming moving paintings.

The second half has none of this and plays out like a poor man’s coming-of-age story that happens to unfortunately (for him, mostly) involve Jon Bernthal (he deserves so much better).

The bottom line about “We Are Your Friends” is this: as much as I didn’t care about 90% of what was happening, and I hated most every character not played by Efron or Bentley, I still was relatively enjoying myself throughout. The film does tend to take itself too seriously (a satire on the world of DJs may have worked better) and the title is annoying and irrelevant to the plot, but if movies about attractive DJs struggling to get rich is your thing, then it has enough style and energy to be worth a mild recommendation.

Critics Rating: 5/10friends

‘No Escape’ is Uneven but Incredibly Intense

No_Escape_(2015_film)_posterWell that was intense.

“No Escape” stars Owen Wilson and Lake Bell as parents who move their family from America to Asia, just as a bloody revolution gets underway (hate when that happens). With the aid of Pierce Brosnan, they must make their way to the American embassy. John Erick Dowdle directs and co-writes.

When I saw the trailer for “No Escape,” I laughed. Aside from the unintentionally hilarious slow-motion kid tossing (more on that in a second), I couldn’t imagine a world where Owen Wilson could be taken seriously in a gloomy drama like this. But after seeing the film, I owe Owen (lol) an apology: he and the film aren’t that bad.

For what it sets out to do, the film does very well; this is an incredibly intense and at times very uncomfortable viewing experience. So if you thought films like “Ant-Man” or “Mission: Impossible” were too fun or feel-good summer romps, then here’s what will quench your late summer thirst.

There are several seriously intense sequences in this film, and most of it is attributed to director Erick Dowdle. Whether it is Wilson trying to outrun a group of revolutionaries up a ladder, or tossing his kids off a roof to escape said revolutionaries (hold on, I’m almost to that), the film knows where to place the camera and how often to switch angels to create an uneasy, edge-of-your-seat feeling.

OK, so about this slow-motion child chucking. It’s in the trailer, and I hoped it would stay there, because I laughed when seeing it. But nope; it’s in the finished product, and it’s just as funny. The scene is still intense, but it is hard to be taken seriously when an act that in reality should take three seconds lasts 30.

The other thing about the film that bothered me was the cliché idiot actions of the film’s characters, especially the 10-year-old daughter (played by Sterling Jerins). She constantly questions her dad’s instructions and on more than one occasion puts the family in danger with her ignorance. This actually added to the intensity of some scenes, if only because I was frustrated at her character.

Oh, and Pierce Brosnan is in the movie doing his Pierce Brosnan thing. He hams it up, hits on women and shoots some bad guys. You know, a day in the office for him.

Look, if you want a good movie then best try elsewhere than “No Escape” (we are in the dog days of August, after all). But if you just want a talented and surprisingly effective cast giving some B-movie thrills, then this is your ticket to a good time. Well, “good” in the relative sense of the word, at least.

Critics Rating: 6/10

Variety

Variety

‘Pawn Sacrifice’ an Unremarkable Biopic

Pawn_Sacrifice_PosterEventually I will be able to watch Tobey Maguire during a music montage and not instantly think of that horrible dance sequence from “Spider-Man 3.” One day…

“Pawn Sacrifice” stars Maguire as American chess champion Bobby Fischer, who takes on the Soviets, led by Boris Spassky (Liev Schreiber), in order to prove he is the best player in the world. Peter Sarsgaard and Michael Stuhlbarg co-star as Edward Zwick directs.

I know what you’re thinking, “a movie set in the 1960s that is all about chess? How could that possibly be interesting?” And you’re kind of right; while “Pawn Sacrifice” does manage to be more engaging than one would imagine, it is never as interesting as I’m sure the filmmakers intended.

The biggest problem with the film is that the people who made it were clearly more invested into Bobby Fischer’s story than the average person will be. The film spends much of its time on Fischer’s deteriorating psyche, showing a man who at the height of the Cold War constantly was being spied on and targeted (or at least thought he was). However the film beats you over the head with the idea that Fischer is slowly unraveling. While this is partially the point, to make the audience feel the frustration that his colleagues do, it takes away from the actual chess matches.

It’s no secret that most people would not consider chess a sport, and the idea of watching people play may be the only thing more boring than actually playing it yourself. The film’s main setup is the 1972 Chess Championship between Fischer and Spassky, and there are several things working against it. First off, chess championships are whoever gets to 12 points first, wins. That means there are a minimum of 12 games to be played, really diluting the magnitude of a single match. The film treats the viewer as if they are an experienced player and know exactly what is going on, so when Fischer or Spassky makes a move and all the characters react in shock, the uninitiated (my guess, 90% of the audience) are left looking around wondering what just happened.

The climax of the film is Game 6 of the championship, which has no true defining feel or intensity from any other matches we see throughout the film. In the credits, it says that is considered “the greatest game of chess ever played,” and I would have never guessed that just by watching the film.

The film is not without its merits. Peter Sarsgaard is fantastic as William Lombardy, one of Fischer’s longtime coaches. He acts as both the comic relief and the eyes for the audience, groaning when Fischer requests yet another increase in pay, or explaining to others the importance of a move a player just did.

Maguire is more of a mixed bag. There are some scenes he completely dominates, showing the mental strain that being one of the best players in the world at such a young age puts on someone; however there are some scenes he overacts, like one where he yells at Spassky on a beach in a way that I just did not buy as realistic.

To chess fans, I’m sure “Pawn Sacrifice” is what “Miracle” is to hockey fans, but to the average filmgoer, there just isn’t enough here to warrant a viewing. Perhaps Maguire fans will get a kick, and those who enjoy period pieces like I do will be able to ooh and ah at some of the Cold War-era set pieces, but all others need not apply.

Critics Rating: 5/10

Variety

Variety