Money Monster

Money Monster is financial crime thriller directed by Jodie Foster. It centers around Lee Gates (George Clooney) a financial reporter and Patty Fenn (Julia Roberts), his executive producer as they are in the midst of a hostage situation being run by Kyle Budwell (Jack O'Connell) as he attempts to get answers as to why 800 million dollars was lost by a financial company that Gates recommended everyone buy stock in.

Being that the majority of the film takes place in a secluded area with our three main characters, Jodie Foster does a great job making sure that the film never feels claustrophobic. Part of this is due to the performances of George Clooney and Jack O'Connell. The two of them spend the majority of the screen time together and they have great chemistry. It almost reminded me of the strange yet surprisingly believable chemistry between Bryan Cranston and Aaron Paul in Breaking Bad. Throughout the hour and forty minute run length, the two of these characters have extremely development that is represented extremely well by the two of their performances. They each portray a believable character as we see under each of their fake personalities and truly digest the fact that they are just regular people.

Throughout the entire film, my heart was pounding. The tension was extremely well written and directed as we are constantly worried that Budwell's thumb could slip at the slightest of moments. The movie doesn't just use one type of tension--it moves some scenes slow and other scenes are much more fast paced. But I can tell you this; throughout the whole film, I was on the edge of my seat, constantly waiting to see what would happen next. A lot of this is due to the well done pacing. The mix between humor, drama and tension made the film feel more realistic. When the movie went from drama to action based, it felt natural as opposed to being forced onto the audience for the sake of just having an action scene.

Now let's get into why this film isn't phenomenal. First of all, the sheer predictability of the film. From about 10 minutes in, I knew exactly how the movie was going to end. This did take away from the film for me, as there were times that I almost wasn't nervous for the characters as the big "twist" at the end could be seen coming from a mile away.

Julia Roberts was just okay in this movie. She didn't necessarily take away from the film, but she certainly didn't add to the quality of it with her performance. She felt somewhat bland at points and only had a couple of moments where she really came out to shine

The beginning 10 minutes was extremely rushed. An extra few minutes onto the film wouldn't have killed them. Instead, it probably would have helped them. Kyle is on the set within at least 5 minutes of the film and it would have been nice to have a little more introduction to Gates and to see a little more about the crash that happened with the market.

Overall, I really enjoyed the film. It held my attention and had believable pacing, but the predictability did take away a far bit for me.

7/10

Despite a failure to realize its full potential and become something like this decade's "Inside Man", which ironically Jodie Foster stars in and from which the film clearly takes a page or two, "Money Monster"is a fine thriller that doesn't run too low on adrenaline or surprise and even manages to squeeze in some genuine commentary and emotion.

What the film has to be commended for is for not presenting an easy way out of things. It presents an enormous amount of ideas and moralities and doesn't cheapen things to black and white. The fact is that this variety and complexity of points of views isn't brought to the screen in the most organic way. If you compare every story beat to a brick in a wall I'd say the wall stands up overall because of a major presence of strong bricks in it, but it is repeatedly undermined by the lesser, but notable percentage of weaker beats.

Many times when you think the film has finally won you over, in comes something, an out of place action or a character, that really takes you out of the groove. Yet, also the exact opposite is true: for every time I thought the movie just did something that it wouldn't be able to recover from, in came a new twist that sparked my interest again. What it ultimately comes down to is the fact that the screenplay always keeps giving some new challenge to the characters or the audience, it is relentlessly paced and so despite the fact that some don't work, the majority do and it is always fresh enough for the viewer to put aside what is not working and focus on the interesting parts.

Talking about the parts that don't work, I noticed the film does a little too much spoon feeding to the audience. Sometimes situations aren't given a chance to breathe and make the editing do the storytelling and we are fed exposition by characters or the characters themselves overcome an obstacle or further the story by coincidence and you aren't really sold on why some of the stuff that's happening is happening. That's the inherent problem of the film, which it never overcomes, you are never 100% free of doubt or hesitation on character motivation or plot developments and that deeply undermines the overall structure of the thriller. All the problematic parts arise because of a lack of subtlety in them.

That is frustrating when you consider the fact that there is a lot subtlety in the film which works and which ultimately makes this a good ride. When it is not preaching to you the film really has it, characters, performances, Jack O'Connel is really great in this, cinematography, script, these elements are all in good place. As I said before, the majority of the moral issues that are presented to you work because they are all in the subtext of what is going on, those parts make for a thrilling watch, it's when it got too on the nose that it really bothered me.

I loved the setup, the cast, the conversation it brought up, the tight pace, I just wish it could have trusted the audience a little more and focused on less fancy material at times to bring a more complete film together.

Money Monster features George Clooney as one those loud obnoxious Finance TV hosts. It also features Julia Roberts as the shows director. However, when an angry investor played by Jack O'Connell, breaks into the studio and holds George Clooney hostage till he gets some answers, George Clooney has to do anything he can to stay alive.

I originally went into this movie with relatively low expectations. I thought the plot was going to be predictable and boring, but overall, I found it to be very entertaining.

The Good:

The performances. You can always expect a good performance from George Clooney And you can honestly say the same thing about Julia Roberts. That being said this is the 3rd movie that features Jack O'Connell in a leading role and let me just say that he is quickly becoming one of my favorite actors. At this point, I think he can do no wrong.

The next thing I liked were the clichés in the movie. This movie reminded me a lot of John Q in that it is a normal person standing up for something he knows is right, even though the means might not have been the best. That being said, even though many of the hostage clichés that you get in movies like John Q, the Negotiator, and The Inside Man, are still here… the result of the clichés took a completely different turn. So although I thought they were going to be cliché, they actually turned out to be completely unique.

Money Monster was also surprisingly funny. Now don't get me wrong, I wouldn't call it a comedy by any stretch of the imagination because there were moments that were roll-you-eyes obnoxious, most of which came from the TV shows production, but there were definitely moments where I found myself laughing out loud.

The Ehh:

As I said already I liked how the movie would start a plot point with a cliché and then completely turn it on it's head. I only wish the same thing could be said about the ending. I figured out roughly how the movie was going to end by about 5 minutes into the movie. It was pretty obvious where they were going, but it was still refreshing how they ended up getting there.

The Bad:

The dang TV show that George Clooney's character hosted. I can't stand shows like Mad Money, and Money Monster is an extreme version of that. Luckily the main story line started pretty quickly so I didn't have to see too much of it.

Recommendation:

Even though Money Monster is your typical hostage thriller with a predictable ending, the great acting and surprising twists keep you guessing and at the edge of your seat. For those reasons I recommend that this movie should be seen in theaters. Visit Unpopped Review for more movie review from a movie lover, not a movie critic.

In Money Monster, George Clooney plays a TV presenter who is taken hostage live on camera by a desperate young man played by the brilliant Jack O'Connell. I really enjoyed this film; finding it thrilling and well paced throughout. However, it falls short of being completely satisfying.

Six months ago, The Big Short - a far superior film - attempted to tackle the full complexity of the 2008 financial crisis and its causes and did so in a way that was both enlightening and entertaining. Money Monster is more like Phone Booth. In this movie the credit crunch is merely the setting for a tense thrill ride; which is OK except it feels like it's aiming to be more substantial.

I've heard Jodie Foster, the director, say that the seventies will always be her favourite era because movies took such risks back then. Her key influences here are clearly Network and Dog Day Afternoon. Perhaps this is the problem. It feels like a 1970s style take on a 21st Century issue. Thanks in part to other recent movies we already have a more sophisticated appreciation of the reality of the financial sector.

But I still really enjoyed Money Monster. George Clooney strikes the right balance as the likable scoundrel who just needs a gun to the head in order to realise how far down the wrong path he has travelled. And Jack O'Connell is probably my favourite actor of this decade. Just as he did in Starred Up or Eden Lake, this young man threatens to break though the screen and grab hold of you. Electrifying.

In the end I see this film as a fable and a romp. It is lots of fun. The ending just seemed a bit Hollywood. If you want to see a film that explores the impact that the financial crisis had on regular people I highly recommend the underrated 99 Homes.

Considering this is a pretty intense movie about a desperate guy threatening to shoot and blow up people, this movie had moments of unexpected humour. The whole cinema was laughing at various points. Which was very cleverly done by director, Jodie Foster. The movie is well scripted and well acted. Clooney and Roberts clearly enjoy working together (just don't remind me of Ocean's 12). I agree with the other reviewer who said the movie should have just stopped with the return to the foosball table, and not gone for the schmaltzy hospital scene. Not the greatest movie of the year and not Oscar-worthy, but well worth the price of the movie ticket. Can't understand why it's only got a rating of 6.8 on IMDb.