” MONEY MONSTER ” : or the wasted potential

The introduction sets the tone : MONEY MONSTER will be not this great film that we hoped very distantly. Or whistle-blower, or a picture of America post-2008, nor a media critic, nor a film of desperate characters – for that one would rather the unjustly poorly distributed 99 Homes. No. MONEY MONSTER tends from the outset to the entertainment, with a plot not too badly conceived and the actors came to do the show. Then, little by little, we get distracted, we get bored. All of that is to retain only the feeling of being followed, not without difficulty, a movie missed, and without ambition.

We know all of this because as soon as the presentation of the protagonists, from the very first minute, the lack of personality and direction in the realization of a whole, we broke out to the mouth. Jodie Foster does not control anything, neither the actors, nor his camera, nor his subject, nor (surprise) the political content of his subject. Then there is a hierarchy of our disappointments.

Become film since Katrina and the 2008 financial crisis, the topic of disillusionment with economic of the average american has already been treated from several angles. MONEY MONSTER, by observing the case of a speculator facing a left behind become aggressive out of desperation, would have been a mixture of recent The Big Short , and 99 Homes. The immersion in the world of stock-market speculation, featuring the phlegm Clooney-ien, would have been a reflection of the acid of reality. The look on the average american, his dreams and disappointments, could have been related through the character of Jack O’connell. And then Julia Roberts would have, by default, represented the excesses of the television showing of the common fantasy – the rapid wealth. Jodie Foster, thought to be more committed, do not develop any of these tracks. In fact, Jodie Foster is not to develop anything at all, leaving the whole place to a script that thinks he is smart because fast-paced, delivering its revelations pullout. The case of Kyle reveals the case of Gates, which shows the case of IBIS, which reveals a SPOIL fraud scale extremely well calculated. The film is gaining in intensity as the characters discover that they are being manipulated by the one to whom they placed their trust.

EXCEPT THAT in this case, it would have had to build characters strong and create empathy toward them, give them motivations, it would be then put into perspective through their actions. This is exactly what was expected of MONEY MONSTER, which would have helped to link all of the aspects raised. Unfortunately, the character is, in general,is purely functional, to be defined by the will of the one who interprets it. Already got rid of one of Julia Roberts which is not used for nothing if not to highlight what others say, pouting and with this trend “softimagetm camera that to me is the strongest” completely off-topic. Diane Lester/Caitriona Balfe, is it the archetype of what we feared, a character decidedly functional, which is conducting the investigation. Its lack of thickness and therefore of motivations, put the film on auto-pilot to each of its interventions. And then there is Dominic West, far away in terms of charisma and ambiguity, McNulty (The Wire) or Noah (The Affair). George Clooney about him… Well, it’s George Clooney what. The fiftieth anniversary BG and braggart, more or less undermined by the situation in which it is set (the same character that, in 95% of his films). It is all ways the same for everyone : characters in the satellites or the main, are characterized in the extreme by the script, as vectors, of humour, of humanity, of pragmatism, of information, of “bonhomie”, greed… It seems to evolve into a version of “Wall Street” of Vice-Versa. In the end, this categorization removes any feeling of unpredictability on the part of the characters, any nuance, any psychology, any empathy. The suspense of the script itself, not smart enough, subtle or bouncing to keep our attention.

“MONEY MONSTER or the disappointment of seeing so much potential so utterly wasted”

And yes, as you may have noticed, we did not mention Jack O’connell. The JACK O’CONNELL. We found in Eden Lake in ado psychopath, but mostly it’s the unknown film prison his Fists against the Walls, which allowed us to assess his talent. Like a De Niro directed by Scorsese, the actor embodies the psychology of film. By this we mean that his charisma and acting manage to give a direction psychological (and even more) to all of the characters with which he interacts, including. For instance, in the film of David Mackenzie, his character of the young inmate violent was the marker of social, psychological, physical, and moral of all the others. A certain degree of stimulation was reached, as Jack O’connell, in addition, was a part of shade phenomenal on his character. Here it is : this film had become thanks to the actor, unpredictable, difficult but challenging to decipher. And yet, it relied on clichés of the prison world, on passages of the expected (in the group meetings, the hierarchy between prisoners, the showers, the notion of guilt, etc)

We knew, therefore, what he is capable of, and we imagined Jodie Foster, great actress also capable of this kind of complex interpretation, take advantage of its features…. Bah non. Jack O’connell is not so, unfortunately, used only functionally. It does not impose any force whatsoever, apart from the one dictated by the script (his role : that of a left behind with a gun). Worse, having nothing more to say than “it is because I am desperate“, quickly became his posturing and his “fucks” are becoming ridiculous, especially as the script, him, advance, and develops a theme of “globalization and corruption of the world”, leaving quickly in the second plan. This is perhaps the heart of the disappointment caused by MONEY MONSTER, to see such potential utterly wasted.