I went into this film with not a lot of expectations. I know you should not judge a book by its cover but when you see the plot summary regarding a hostage situation starring Julia Roberts and George Clooney you wonder if this film is just a money spinner. The first thing I thought is ‘why did they decide to both star in this film?’

The story starts with Lee Gates (George Clooney) who is an over confident arrogant host of a show called Money Monster to which he, in his own clown-like way, discusses forecasts and tips in the stock market. The show is directed by Patty Fenn (Julia Roberts) who appears to have a love-hate relationship with Lee. The story starts with the studio putting in the preparations for a new live show. A lot of jokes are being thrown and then the show goes live. Then, all of a sudden an apparent courier delivery man (Jack O’Connell) who did not get flagged by security enters the studio and pulls a gun out on Lee. He then forces Lee to put on a suicide bomb vest and demands that the studio keeps the show live on air. The reasoning behind this is unknown and that is the premise of the story.

the storyline is absolutely bonkers – the reasoning behind the hostage situation is completely weak and the script is flimsy.

The film portrays the sad reality of the world that we live in today. Throughout the film, it shows the public watching the hostage situation on the news like it is a form of entertainment when in all seriousness it is a horrendous situation. You do not see moments of much panic from the public and they seem more entertained by what’s happening in front of them. In a nutshell, with the growing presence of social media and influential news channels, this film shows the problems with the relationship between society and the media in the world today.

df-09428_r-h_2016

Here is the problem with the film. Firstly the story is going at an extremely fast pace. You feel that the film is trying to get to the hostage scenario as quickly as possible. Secondly, from the moment the characters are introduced to the point of the hostage situation (which is not long by the way) you learn absolutely nothing about the characters to make you care. As an audience member, you do not care how this scenario will pan out and you are just hoping that the hostage situation is tense and keeps you hanging on until the end of the film. Finally, the storyline is absolutely bonkers – the reasoning behind the hostage situation is completely weak and the script is flimsy. If you put it into perspective earlier in the week I watched a thriller called Eye In the Sky which has a slow moving storyline and tentatively builds up the tension to the climax. Two different films, two different approaches and I felt that only one worked.

The film wants to only portray a hostage situation live on air about money, throw a couple of well-known stars in there and see how it plays out. Most of the story is shot in a studio with some of it seen from the perspective of the news channel, which is the most impressive thing about the film. You do not really care about the relationship between Lee and Patty and the start is a little shouty with different people shouting here, there and everywhere. The person you are most interested in is the character putting the studio under hostage because you are wondering what his actual objective is throughout the entire film and if he has a plan. Director Jodie Foster had a wonderful opportunity to provide depth in the film surrounding the problems with the media industry and the potential collateral damage it could cause. This opportunity is sorely missed. The film is fun but it misses key ingredients.

The film provides very unconvincing moments at times which is why you fail to take it seriously.

The first half of the film is quite poor however it does get stronger as it reaches its climax. You are wondering right to the end what is going to happen, how is it going to happen and what will be the result of this hostage scenario. The film provides very unconvincing moments at times which is why you fail to take it seriously. There are no real moments of anguish or pain that you expect to feel from a hostage situation. In fact in one of the serious moments I could hear a couple of people in the audience laugh and I am pretty sure it was not meant to be a funny moment.

Is it worth watching in the cinemas? No, but if you do happen to find it eventually on DVD, Netflix or whatever then it is worth the watch.

As for the stars in the film, there is nothing in here that is worthy of an applause. You could argue that Jack O’Connell’s performance gets stronger as the film progresses. Unfortunately with Clooney, I was not convinced by the essence of his character because I was not sure what his personality was meant to be. As much as his persona is meant to be classy and sophisticated I do not feel that the script allowed him to become that person. Julia Roberts puts in the most warranted performance as you are most convinced by her acting throughout.

george-clooney-money-monster

There are small moments in the film where you do take it more seriously but by the end, you just end up going with the story and allowing it to guide you until the finale because the film is just fun and the storyline is bonkers.

Is it worth watching in the cinemas? No, but if you do happen to find it eventually on DVD, Netflix or whatever then it is worth the watch. If you are looking for a mindless thriller with a bonkers storyline and an excuse to go to the cinema then go watch Money Monster.

3 stars out of 5.

By Dan Hart

Please follow FilmInk on twitter @FilmInkOfficial where film opinions and topics are frequently shared

Advertisements

2 thoughts on “My thoughts on Money Monster

  1. I enjoyed reading your review Monte even though I dont agree with your findings. My review concludes “Money Monster is a tautly directed hostage thriller with an outstanding cast, a gripping real-time storyline, and enough probing insight into the greed industry to have some social value.” Boring if we all agreed.

    Like

    1. I have had a few more thoughts since watching the film and I have to say I still do agree to my review to a certain extent. My issue with the film is not what the film is trying to portray but that it lacks depth. At the same time you have to admire Jodie Foster’s willingness to give the film a 90 minute length, which may have contributed to the lack of depth but a lot of films nowadays are way too long. In a recent interview Foster actually says she had to add things in to add film time which is surprising. Thank you for your comment!

      Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s