Money Monster

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.

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.

This is one of few real time films -meaning the flow of events matches the duration of the film- that is quite successful in keeping the viewer's attention all along, and Jodie Foster is very efficient as a director presenting what seems initially a daunting technical subject (how a computer "glitch" causes an 800 Million Dollar loss to shareholders in a public traded company) as a dramatic thriller that never looses pace.

The cast is excellent, Julia Roberts as the ever conscious producer calculating how each camera angle is best to follow on the unfolding live drama, George Clooney in one of his finest roles as the careless theatrical advice giver of the money program who gradually comes to realize how damaging his show is to the masses (in one particular touching scene he is in the street in NY and sees on-lookers imitating his dance moves on the show, and he becomes aware of what a buffoon he is), and finally Jack O'Connel who is very convincing as the candid investor who really wants to know how "the system" works (casting him was an inspired choice, he is not a well-known actor so he adds more credibility to the character he plays, a simple man from the street who looses all his money in Wall Street). None of the main or even secondary characters in the film are one dimensional, they have their problems (like lonely dinners for some) and concerns and values, whether it is the camera man or the public relations lady officer reporting to the big CEO, or even the main police officers in charge, all are multi-dimensional characters and their human aspects are not ignored.

Even though the film deals with a serious subject, an eye opener leading one to wonder about the real money monsters out there, it remains an excellent thriller with top class actors.

Money Monster (2016)

** 1/2 (out of 4)

Lee Gates (George Clooney) is a hot shot financial TV personality who offers up advice on what stocks to buy and which ones to sell. His director (Julia Roberts) is on her last show when they've scored an interview with a big CEO but when he backs out they don't realize how worst the day is going to get. Soon Kyle Budwell (Jack O'Connell) bursts into their studio and on live television he takes over the show carrying a gun and a bomb.

MONEY MONSTER comes from director Jodie Foster and I must admit that I went into it with incredibly high expectations. Whether people like it or not Clooney had done many great movies and delivered many great performances over the past decade so I thought with him and Foster together we'd get a hard-hitting drama that would take down the ugly side of Wall Street. Well, the movie was entertaining while you watched it but afterwards I couldn't help but feel extremely disappointed because when you get down to it the film was pretty shallow.

There's a great film hidden somewhere in here but it seems that they had to simple everything down so that your average viewer wouldn't get lost. I can only imagine what this could have been if someone like the late Sidney Lumet had been able to make it and the screenplay was allowed to be much more hard hitting and really go after the bad guys. This film starts off on a highly unlikely plot device (getting into the studio so easily) and by the final act it completely falls apart with its rather stupid plot twists.

With that said, the movie is still slightly entertaining to a point. Foster does a good job in her directing duties but there's no question that a new screenplay was needed. Both Clooney and Roberts work extremely well together and both give fine performances. Clooney does a good job at playing the charm but as the drama builds he also manages to sell that. O'Connell is also very good in his role of the man who finds himself in a desperate place so he reaches for a rather dumb idea.

MONEY MONSTER has its heart in the right place but it just seems like one of those movies that doesn't want to be too serious or too finger pointing and instead of any hard hitting drama and questions we're just left with a rather mindless action film with an unlikely plot. It's really too bad because with the talent involved this should have been so much better.

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.