User reviews

I watched this largely because it was pointed out to me by someone who knows I'm a big chess addict.

Clearly there are a lot of liberties taken here, kind of mixing the 1972 Fischer match with the 1962 Cuban situation, but I believe this artistic license was justified. Just do not go into the movie expecting historical accuracy in the chess sense. Reviewers who gave really bad reviews based on that are entirely missing the point.

A decent watch.

7.5

The Coldest Game is a relatively unknown film whose scene is set in the deepest moment of the cold war, i.e. the Cuban missile crisis. It is a well made film, professionally directed and produced, despite a slightly old fashion a d artisanal look-and-feel. The plot, though well conceived, is affected by a few mistakes which to a certain degree put me off; one is a detail of general context: every time the players get of the cars there is a crowd of paparazzi waiting for them....paparazzi in Warsaw in 1962? Excuse me? Then there are a few more substantial mistakes regarding the espionage tradecraft: is it possible that there was no more discreet place for a Russian spy to pass a super secret microfilm to the opposition than a crowded chess world championship at the centre of everybody's attention? Lastly, there are a few too many murders, and it is well known that killing was a means used very very exceptionally by field agents in the course of their operations. Nevertheless the movie is a decent one and quite watchable.

As far as Netflix-produced movies go, this is one of the best I saw. At least, it has a script that actually makes some sense, albeit in a formulaic way. After all, this is the Cold War and we've pretty much seen everything about that period in time and movie rules (and history) dictate that the Russians are the villains and nobody is to be trusted.

In this movie, the story takes place mostly in Warsaw, which makes a nice change of place from the usual Berlin. A chess championship is taking place during the Cuban missiles crises and a drunkard American professor (Bill Pullman) must act as the go-between spy, besides being the chess champion defying Russia.

Pullman looks a lot like Dennis Hopper and does a good job as the brilliant, unstable genius. His handlers are three suspicious characters, one of whom must be a mole.

My favourite scene takes places in the men's lavatory and it is edited in such a way as to make you wonder what is going on. The previous scene established a character who may also not be what he looks like and the whole plot is directly linked to the opening scene.

Quite enjoyable and suitably gritty, even if I usually don't enjoy movies where the main character is an addict.

This is a great and original spy thriller that cleverly knits together real historical events: the Cuba crisis, the Cold War and a politically laden chess match between a Russian and an American. But the film could have been much, much better if the writers had incorporated more realistic elements. As for other movies: fewer special effects, and more consultants (or a bit of Wikipedia), please...

To begin with, the narrative of the Cuba Crisis is outdated. The crisis had in fact been triggered by the earlier American deployment of nuclear SM-78 Jupiter missiles in Turkey, right on the border with the Soviet Union. The Soviets simply responded in kind to the aggression. And Kennedy did not 'stare down' Khruschev, saving the Free World. The crisis was resolved when he negotiated a then-secret treaty that included dismantling his Jupiters. Secrecy was important because Kennedy was very concerned with his re-election, and perhaps less so with annihilating the planet...

The chess match did indeed take place, but it was ten years after the crisis. Sadly, the movie gets few chess details right, even if many elements are indeed taken from the chess world. To begin with, top level players are not old men. These days, as in 1972, it is all healthy guys in their twenties. And you don't just come out of retirement for this; top players must constantly follow and study opening theory, and their opponents' repertoires and styles. Also, during such a match, top players have seconds, to help prepare games. Such a match could never have taken place behind the Iron Curtain; the 1972 Fischer-Spassky match was played in Reykjavík, Iceland. The movie also suggests that players move immediately after one another. This never happens, except in time trouble or during (very) obvious exchanges. When a player offers a draw, he may call an arbiter, not a "judge", and these offers are made after one has moved, not before. Players never, ever discuss the position during a game; you refuse a draw offer simply by making a move. There never are/were '15 minute breaks' in chess- the clocks just keep ticking. Games could be adjourned for the next day, where one player would secretely note down his next move in a sealed envelope that was kept by the arbiter. Finally, the chess talk in the movie is mostly nonsense- knights and bishops are equivalent pieces that are exchanged, is never a "sacrifice". Nonexistent gambits and other openings are cited.

What is true is that a world champ (Max Euwe) was a math teacher (not a professor), another had an alcohol problem (Aljechin) and players (Korchnoi, a dissident, playing Karpov) complained being 'hypnotized' by people in the audience. Also, in the famous 1972 match the paranoid and boorish (but brilliant) Bobby Fischer indeed failed to show up for (and forfeited) a game.

Perhaps more importantly, the movie's epilogue highlights the dangers of the nuclear arms race; the US and Russia have indeed recently torn up their treaty on intermediate missiles, following violations by the latter. Also, nuclear powers are obliged to reduce their nuclear arsenals, says the Nuclear Proloferation Treaty that many countries signed, but that is not quite happening while the SALT agreements are expiring ("do as we say, not as we do") making threats against rogue states that also want nuclear power (Iran, N-Korea) sound hollow.

Right off the bat (or board?), there is the fact that this is or rather was based on true events. You'll either be into that or not. Bill Pullman does everything to keep you engaged though. The movie or rather the story is a bit muddled and there certainly will be confusion for many. And while Bill Pullman is a pole, some might have a problem with engaging with the movie.

Feeling something, being excited and so forth. So there are flaws, there are certain things that could be better. But it also has some fine points and there are some interesting plot points happening and some characters and places (short cuts) that are almost worth watching this alone. Again, massively flawed but also quite entertaining in a weird way

This is a captivating tale of the behind the scenes of a political chess match. Who would have thought there was so much going on behind a seemingly innocent series of chess games! It is a captivating story, with great acting as well. I really enjoyed it.

But give this a chance. I once played chess against an internationally respected player when when we were both under the influence and I played the game of my life - I won at about 2:30 in the morning and he replayed every move of the game to show me where he went wrong.

Freeing up the mind might seem impossible to many people, but for imagination to take flight, don't dismiss the idea of letting a drink take you to realms you haven't thought of.

I'm not advocating alcoholism, but I am saying this film shows that puritanism can be extremely boring and restrict what is good for everyone.

Love chess, love different thinking - take a chance on this movie making you think differently.

Decent enough thriller but as a previous review flagged their was some really irritating flaws in the parts of the film featuring chess. Firstly the idea of a player coming out of a 20 year retirement to challenge a top rated grandmaster is absurd. It is the equivalent of Mike Tyson trying to take on a fully trained Detoney Wilder on a days notice. Also the scene where Bill Pullman tries to remember the first game he mentions sacrificing a knight for a bishop? That is not a sacrifice it is an exchange, both are worth roughly the same although one can be better than the other depending on the position. I know it sounds really pedantic and nerdy but if you are going to make a film featuring a chess player as a main character at least pay for some basic research and make an effort to get it part right. Change sacrifice knight for bishop to rook for bishop and it us correct how hard is that??

This is a spy thriller set during the Cuban missile crisis, and centred around a fictional chess match between the Soviet and US chess champions in Warsaw. The US player is indisposed at the last minute, and the Americans substitute the last US player to beat him in a game, a college maths professor with a drink problem, played by Bill Pullman, who no longer plays chess. It transpires that the CIA have an interest in the match, with a clandestine meeting set up. But who can be trusted?

Bill Pullman is a good actor and does his best with the material, but the plot is pretty thin, the kind of thing you might see in a single episode of a TV series. There are also some irritating errors. One CIA person says that they know Russians have sent ships to Cuba but were "too small" to carry nuclear warheads. This is ludicrous, as. a nuclear warhead measures maybe three feet by one, and weighs about 100 kg. It would fit in a canoe, never mind a cargo ship.

On the chess front, I am probably being picky as I play chess quite a bit, but there are also several annoying aspects. The person who oversees the game is an "arbiter", not a "judge", and players do not pass draw offers via the arbiter, they just ask the other player. I understand that for film reasons the players are playing their moves unnaturally fast, but near the start the Pullman character says that the opening will "come down to the Italian game or the Rousseau defence" after the Russian's first move is revealed. This is absurd, as the Italian game is somewhat rare at grandmaster level, and the Rousseau opening is extremely obscure and would never be played at really top level. As for someone who hasn't played chess for a couple of decades beating the top Soviet player, that SI extremely implausible. Even Garry Kasparov, former world champion and arguably the best player of all time, struggled to perform in a tournament when he made a brief comeback a decade or so after he retired.

I had more of a practical issue with the main information to be passed at the clandestine meeting, which seemed unlikely to really be the key to the Cuban missile crisis to me but I don't want to reveal a spoiler. The bigger issue is that the film rather plods along, with limited tension. It is watchable, but hard to really recommend.

The makers of this movie cares very little about the cold war, cares very little about chess and cares absolutely not at all about storytelling! The storyline is so full of oddities, strange behaviour and plot holes that it is allmost funny.

This is my first user review and I really feel like this movie deserves more than the current 6.3 score. Most of the negative reviews dig into the hows and why's of the Cold War, but has nothing to do with this movie. Okay, it's fictional and probably won't fit how things really went back in those days but there is so much good to say about this movie.

First of all: the acting performances are really great. Every personage fits well and keeps the story alive. Dohn Norwood is once again great. His mimics, gestures,... really blend in.

The atmosphere also gets really good. Dark, cold,.. it really sucks you in and make your experience the tensions of that moment in the Cold War.

This movie really surprised me and is well worth your time.

Honestly, I didn't think the studio credits at the beginning were ever going to end.... 1 minute and 30 seconds! Absolutely bizarre!

Honestly it was good to see bill pullman in a leading role since he is good actor and he deserved this but i wish that he get a better film to be star in,this film was completly boring and lifeless to me,entire plot of this story was told in a very weak way but it could be told in better one if it had better material to work with,entire plot with playing chess was completly out of place for me and it took me out of a film for some minutes,also what was with subtitles when russians were speaking,i know that isnt movies fault more netlix one,but still this film was felt like missed opportunity to make a good cold war drama with a great actor

(Flash Review)

....who will outsmart and out-strategize who? Josh Mansky, an alcoholic drunk yet also a former US chess champion, is positioned at the heart of the Cuban Missile Crisis. Like a pawn, his match vs a Russian chess champion is a flashpoint for espionage, secret moles and spy activity to gain insights into Russian military movements. Will he win the match or lose his life? How will the spies use him in their strategy? There are a couple nice moments in the story yet the film never found its footing as it lacked real suspense, drama and didn't feel truly cohesive between the scenes. Ben Pullman was the highlight with his performance. The main female actress was unconvincing with her Toyota Camry line delivery = bland.

*NOTE: Viewers need to turn ON subtitles to understand the Russian dialog moments.

I'll address one common gripe first. I for one cannot get over movies where they have so-called foreigners of whatever nationality talk in English, either with or without accent. This film has the Russians talk actual Russian and Poles talk Polish, which I appreciate.

They have these scenes drag on though, so if you don't enjoy reading subtitles, this won't be for you but it'll hardly be a reason to dock points; it's a conscious design decision, not a universally bad one.

Now for the plot. I started writing this because of it. There's scenes in this film that make no sense, as in, there's no good reason to have them in this movie. They don't do anything to move the plot forward. It's just padding. They're meant to convey a political message, nothing more. That's just bad movie making. At least attempt to make them fit in narratively.

The decision to incorporate these scenes in this otherwise straightforward plot was so baffling it made me check the director/writer's credentials. Which in turn made me wonder how he got the budget and green light for this movie.

Or, more likely, the nonsensical, politically charged scenes were added by Netflix's moral busybodies. [Note: I'm Dutch. I don't care one bit about the USA or its politics but I like my media propaganda-free.]

It's disheartening to think that this could've been a rather simple, pretenseless niche film about a single interesting event.

Ah, almost forgot. The movie score. It has your standard issue Hollywood "eerie thriller soundscape", though dated, but for some reason it also chooses to incorporate the weirdest choices of upbeat jazz music where it just doesn't belong. It's not incompetent, it's just very jarringly apathetic and uninspired.

As I submit this, I have this at a 6/10. But I might dock a point tomorrow after having slept on it because of the closing text. For some reason, it occured to nobody that having the following preceded by actual fear mongering about nuclear war was the single best demonstration of a complete lack of awareness and self-perception ever to be put on screen (paraphrasing): "We will attempt to accomplish that no child grows up with fear of nuclear war"

When I read the description and saw it was filmed in Poland, I have to say I had my expectations. Soviet villains, brave Americans and of course history out of context, just as in the Cold War. No talk of the pigs bay invasion, missiles in Turkey etc. But what really tipped me off was the lousy treatment of chess. The descriptions of the first match and the entire behavior in the match room made no sense whatsoever. The apparent genius move by Mansky was nonsense. Grandmasters would never make such hasty moves in an important competition. There are not 6800 responses to the first move but exactly 20, 16 pawns and 4 knight moves. And then sorry, genius or not, it takes constant training to muster chess.

Difficult To understand at times all the twists and turns and betrayals , Bill Pullman does a good job.

This cold war / potential end of the world theme is always a favorite of mine, so that's why I gave it the rating I did. Production values are good, Pullman is good and I commend Netflix for doing what Hollywood isn't ... it's partnering with all sorts of alternative production houses, so in the future I expect they will be bringing out material that is fresh and original. The story is confusingly conveyed ... I know what they were trying to convey but they didn't pull it off, so I can imagine viewers will be scratching their heads wondering exactly what happened. With a bit of creative editing you could even be convinced this is a very good movie ... but the story feels slapped together and there are two many pieces missing to make sense of things. This can become annoying. The ending is possibly accurate but a little bit of melodramatic afterthought ... Henny Penny is warning us that the sky is falling ... nothing like a bit of scaremongering to make us sit up and think Wow!! ... there's a message here if only I could decipher it.

It's just Pullman drunk as a skunk staggering and slurring from scene to scene. I had a hangover just watching it. As for the spy part I didn't understand as the film failed to explain this properly. He did meet to get a microfilm but that was it.

Reminded me of a decent Sunday night TV drama. I thought Pullman was excellent and the plot was nicely handled.

It would have helped me with clarification whether this had a basis in real life and having found out it was fiction it made me think some of the plot could have had a bit more suspense.

I did not really buy into the relationship of the US spy team. I got that one of them was a mole but I was neither intrigued nor invested in who it was.

Having said that, its an enjoyable film and worth a watch.

Who either produces or shows a movie where there are many gaps which are a few minutes long and happens throughout the movie where the viewer can see some drama is going on within the discussion but it's in a foreign language? I'm not sure if the movie was produced that way or Netflix was too lazy or just didn't have the capability to offer subtitles during the long dialogs in Russian. It left me angry, frustrated, and bored saying to myself, "finish already so I can get back into this movie". I'm not talking about a few words or even a sentence in Russian. There were dialogs important to the story which I had to sit frustrated because I knew what was being said was important to the story. I would have probably given this move 8 stars but I can give stars for much of a movie I could not understand.

The plot is good. You have to believe the Russian chess player is not so good, which is unthinkable if you have any idea about chess. I took a point off for that, but once you get past it the movie grabs you. It is different, it surprises and it entertains. At a different time I would have been more critical, but nowadays it is this or Marvel.

Before you watch this movie turn the subtitles on! There are entire scenes where the dialogue is in Russian and/or Polish. It was surprisingly entertaining and Bill Pullman made this movie worth watching. The US Flag was displayed in the wrong direction during the entire chess match. Of course there's a message at the end of the movie.........ugh.