Molly's Game (Aaron Sorkin, 2017)

Discussions of specific films and franchises.
Post Reply
Message
Author

User avatar
domino harvey
Dot Com Dom
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm

Re: Molly's Game (Aaron Sorkin, 2017)

#2 Post by domino harvey » Sun Sep 11, 2016 2:15 am


User avatar
domino harvey
Dot Com Dom
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm

Re: Molly's Game (Aaron Sorkin, 2017)

#3 Post by domino harvey » Mon Mar 13, 2017 5:01 pm

A copy of the script has leaked and it's 200 pages long, with at least one fifteen page voiceover... I'm going to assume some of this was finessed before cameras started rolling

User avatar
hearthesilence
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2005 4:22 am
Location: NYC

Re: Molly's Game (Aaron Sorkin, 2017)

#4 Post by hearthesilence » Mon Mar 13, 2017 10:33 pm

They should put the camera on a dolly and shoot the entire film with the actors pacing around a race track - it'll still feel like an Aaron Sorkin movie.

User avatar
domino harvey
Dot Com Dom
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm

Re: Molly's Game (Aaron Sorkin, 2017)

#5 Post by domino harvey » Tue Apr 11, 2017 3:12 am



User avatar
The Narrator Returns
Joined: Tue Nov 15, 2011 6:35 pm

Re: Molly's Game (Aaron Sorkin, 2017)

#7 Post by The Narrator Returns » Tue Aug 15, 2017 11:32 am

I'm not surprised by the alleged density of the script, because man, it's clear how badly the natural rhythms of this are fucked up when put into the generic "fast-cut trailer" template.

User avatar
mfunk9786
Under Chris' Protection
Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 4:43 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA

Re: Molly's Game (Aaron Sorkin, 2017)

#8 Post by mfunk9786 » Tue Aug 15, 2017 11:33 am

It's got a bit too much of that Justin Timberlake/Ben Affleck late summer cut-to-piles-of-money thriller sheen on it, but that certainly looks like it could be an incredibly compelling film if more of Sorkin's better writing angels come out in the full product - there are a few flashes of them in the trailer, but it's not entirely convincing me for whatever reason.

User avatar
domino harvey
Dot Com Dom
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm

Re: Molly's Game (Aaron Sorkin, 2017)

#9 Post by domino harvey » Tue Aug 15, 2017 12:30 pm

Kevin Costner is seemingly reprising his role as "Guy who meets the protagonist on park benches" from Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit

User avatar
Ribs
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2014 1:14 pm

Re: Festival Circuit 2017

#10 Post by Ribs » Fri Sep 08, 2017 9:11 pm

Aaron Sorkin's debut Molly's Game is unexpectedly getting huge raves.

User avatar
domino harvey
Dot Com Dom
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm

Re: Molly's Game (Aaron Sorkin, 2017)

#11 Post by domino harvey » Fri Sep 08, 2017 9:15 pm

That is pleasantly unexpected indeed. The buzz on this has been toxic-- even the crew was allegedly badmouthing it. Maybe someone has a vendetta against Sorkin and went out of their way to start bad word of mouth?

User avatar
hearthesilence
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2005 4:22 am
Location: NYC

Re: Molly's Game (Aaron Sorkin, 2017)

#12 Post by hearthesilence » Sat Sep 09, 2017 1:35 pm

The trade papers (Variety, THR, etc.) are generally giving it good reviews, but there are naysayers in the mainstream press (a critic at The Guardian was pretty dismissive) and even IndieWire's A- review wrote that "Molly’s Game is less cringe-inducing than you might fear," which would imply that, what, it's only mildly "cringe-inducing"?

User avatar
The Narrator Returns
Joined: Tue Nov 15, 2011 6:35 pm

Re: Molly's Game (Aaron Sorkin, 2017)

#13 Post by The Narrator Returns » Thu Oct 05, 2017 9:54 pm

Its release date has been moved to Christmas Day.

User avatar
All the Best People
Joined: Sun Mar 19, 2017 7:08 pm
Contact:

Re: Molly's Game (Aaron Sorkin, 2017)

#14 Post by All the Best People » Sat Dec 30, 2017 4:35 am

This film is a blast. Dame Jessica and Sir Idris totally rule, as expected. What may be less expected is just how spirited Sorkin's direction is. A lot of montage, a number of inserts, the sorts of things you wouldn't necessarily see coming from the mind of such a verbal talent. There's one scene that feels particularly outside of his comfort zone, directorially*, but for the most part he acquits himself well.

*The scene I'm referring to:
SpoilerShow
The mobster assaults on Molly in her apartment, the long lenses and slow motion and even sound design felt like affectations to add tension to the scene. Not the sort of scene you usually see from his pen, so I'm not surprised it didn't play as well as the rest of the film.
Interestingly, the dialogue felt less mannered with Sorkin behind the camera than it sometimes does with other directors. Rather the opposite of, say, Mamet, who directs his actors to a more stylistic and less naturalistic mode than other directors do when directing his scripts.

User avatar
FrauBlucher
Joined: Mon Jul 15, 2013 8:28 pm
Location: Greenwich Village

Re: Molly's Game (Aaron Sorkin, 2017)

#15 Post by FrauBlucher » Tue Jan 02, 2018 11:08 am

This is an entertaining couple of hours. Sorkins style not really my thing, which seems to be the thing in Hollywood; montage, inserts, voiceover and other little gimmicks. Chastain and Idris are terrific and are the reason this holds up for two+ hours IMHO. What this did do was make me interested in the real story.

User avatar
DarkImbecile
Ask me about my visible cat breasts
Joined: Mon Dec 09, 2013 6:24 pm
Location: Albuquerque, NM

Re: Molly's Game (Aaron Sorkin, 2017)

#16 Post by DarkImbecile » Wed Jan 03, 2018 12:04 pm

domino harvey wrote:Sorkin has fired his editor
This was surprising to see here after catching this yesterday; I had been aware of post-production issues generally, such that while I was watching it I thought, "Wow, the editor must have been key in saving this movie from whatever problems it had." Now it seems at least possible that Sorkin saved his own movie from becoming something more basic and conventional and/or more muddled and tonally inconsistent like Roman J. Israel, another screenwriter-turned-director's dense legal drama. Where that film has several interesting plot and character elements that never totally cohere, Molly's Game manages to be tightly constructed and largely successful in characterizing its key players, with only one scene that fell truly flat, feeling both poorly written and directed:
SpoilerShow
the climactic conversation between Costner and Chastain.

User avatar
All the Best People
Joined: Sun Mar 19, 2017 7:08 pm
Contact:

Re: Molly's Game (Aaron Sorkin, 2017)

#17 Post by All the Best People » Wed Jan 03, 2018 11:59 pm

I was fine with that scene. The only scene that didn't work for me directorially was when
SpoilerShow
she was assaulted in her apartment
.

User avatar
Brian C
I hate to be That Pedantic Guy but...
Joined: Wed Sep 16, 2009 11:58 am
Location: Chicago, IL

Re: Molly's Game (Aaron Sorkin, 2017)

#18 Post by Brian C » Wed Jan 17, 2018 12:42 am

I thought this was just OK. At root, it never recovers from the ultimate act of directorial hubris, which is thinking that poker is an interesting cinematic topic. Again and again filmmakers have tried to make poker work on screen, and I guess I can sort of see why the appeal would be there - all the jargon, big money at stake, climactic scenes of one player bluffing another, etc. But it never works, because it is not entertaining to watch people play poker.

But, whatever. Sorkin goes all-in on the poker lingo, as one would expect from a writer, but ultimately the poker is sort of a MacGuffin, with the real story being about Bloom's legal woes. And somewhere underneath all Sorkin's endless voiceovers and countless digressions is a fairly compelling movie about the way that the US legal system is rigged against those who are unwise/unlucky enough to get caught in its web. It's interesting that DarkImbecile mentioned Roman J Israel, Esq, because I was reminded of that movie, as well; they have a lot of thematic overlap. I prefer the Gilroy film, though, because at least Gilroy realized what his movie was about, but I'm not so sure that Sorkin does - I think he arrives at having an actual point more or less incidentally. For example, it's not clear that he realizes that Elba's character is a cog in the machine, given the heroic way he's portrayed. But that's long been what I've come to expect from Sorkin - certainly a detectable conscience, but a really slick and superficial way of going about expressing it.

But still, as slick Hollywood product goes, it passes the time.

User avatar
liam fennell
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2010 2:54 pm

Re: Molly's Game (Aaron Sorkin, 2017)

#19 Post by liam fennell » Wed Jan 17, 2018 9:54 am

I saw this recently and have basically forgotten most of it, but I was disappointed in script and frustrated by the cliched direction. Aside from Molly's breathless and almost feature-length monologue, this is a movie with few aesthetic pleasures. The real story which the movie is stapled to is insufficiently dramatic I think. My really problem though is Molly's is a shell game! Such a rich title, full of possibilities, all wasted. Molly plays no game, she just hosts a game. The games she hosts are not interesting, and she's not actually interested in them. The audience doesn't get to play, we just get to watch and be talked at. The twist ending is there is no twist ending, Molly really isn't playing a game, and neither is the author. From what I can remember the legal stuff involved no game playing. The father-daughter story also featured no games, just a sport which isn't really a game-type sport. The seriousness with which they approach this sport also indicates it is no game. This game-less sentimental familial thread is also apparently the real story, given its prominence, and is far less interesting than the boring games and rote lawyer consultations and legal obstacles the movie is ostensibly about.

I'm possibly missing the point, or expecting far to much of Mr. Sorkin? Or of titles in general?

User avatar
Roger Ryan
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 12:04 pm
Location: A Midland town spread and darkened into a city

Re: Molly's Game (Aaron Sorkin, 2017)

#20 Post by Roger Ryan » Wed Jan 17, 2018 12:44 pm

liam fennell wrote:...I'm possibly missing the point, or expecting far to much of Mr. Sorkin? Or of titles in general?
Not saying that this would improve your perception of the film or it's name, but have you considered the title could also be read as "Molly is game", as in willing to do whatever it takes?

User avatar
willoneill
Joined: Wed Mar 18, 2009 10:10 am
Location: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

Re: Molly's Game (Aaron Sorkin, 2017)

#21 Post by willoneill » Wed Jan 17, 2018 4:25 pm

Re. the title - it's just called Molly's Game because that how the poker games are refered in that culture; whoever is hosting it, it's considered "their game".

User avatar
liam fennell
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2010 2:54 pm

Re: Molly's Game (Aaron Sorkin, 2017)

#22 Post by liam fennell » Thu Jan 18, 2018 8:52 am

Yeah, you know I'm expecting way too much, ha. All the other Sorkin's are like this, and none of them depart from the facts at all so I don't know why I'd even think of that. Possibly I just wish movies would depart from the facts sometimes, though I guess in this case that'd be libelous? I think my entire post can above can and should be disregarded.

nitin
Joined: Sat Nov 08, 2014 6:49 am

Re: Molly's Game (Aaron Sorkin, 2017)

#23 Post by nitin » Thu Jan 18, 2018 8:56 am

He did depart from the facts, in the movie
SpoilerShow
she is arrested after she has published the book.

User avatar
movielocke
Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2008 12:44 am

Re: Molly's Game (Aaron Sorkin, 2017)

#24 Post by movielocke » Wed Jan 31, 2018 4:25 am

this is somewhere between okay and mediocre. It's almost entirely narrated, which works sometimes, but not all the time.
SpoilerShow
Ultimately, it's just not a very compelling story as presented, and it seems like Sorkin doesn't get how thoroughly Molly is grooming the audience, and that her story never adds up. I was anticipating the film would, while not have her break bad, would pay off the "ruthless" home video "I don't trust people," and "weak" kid. reveal her to be a colossal asshole out to make as much money as she could by exploiting players as much as she dared. instead these are revealed to be daddy issues relating to a freudian primal scene.

Instead, Sorkin let's Molly groom the audience to be on her side about how she's actually the GOOD criminal: oh, you see she doesn't enable and encourage addicts, no no, actually she COUNSELS gambling addicts, she's so kind! (while she sort of gleefully announces "his wife filed for divorce two days later"). Oh and she "protects" her clients... right, maybe she's afraid of her clients, or maybe she's projecting a fictitious image that can't be sustained by counter testimony. Oh and the piece de resistance, she was really _FORCED_ into taking a rake, (and it was only six months of rakes, and it was two years ago, so it's hardly really like, wrong, right, so silly). Sorkin never seems to get that Molly relentlessly built up two games to the point where she could take rakes. oh, and she totally got a light sentence because of her white girl noble stand and a sympathetic judge and because she's devoted to some sort of 1950s high minded cause of "my good name", not because she took a deal, right?

Even the first detail we see, celebrities arriving with $10,000 in cash in envelopes isn't supported, because the second detail we get is they are buying in again. Not in cash they're not, because everyone carried only one envelope. this first detail, then, is an exaggeration. rather, as in later in the film, they're writing checks. Because cash is stupid, especially cash withdrawn in amounts above the federal reporting level ($9,000), because that's how, you know, the feds actually find out about a lot of criminal activity, cash withdrawals and a highstakes cash game would be a great way to alert the authorities.

Molly says she lost control of Tobey's game because she discovered he was cheating (also, it was never her game, the way the new york game was), so he sucker punched her and took away what was hers. right.... but more likely is that she felt like it reached a level where she could take a rake, and she did. and snap. he took the game away from her. She allegedly had a big pool of players for the LA game, they don't all collude and quit overnight unless they're all equally furious at her, or have good reason to no longer trust her, and raking the game would be an excellent reason for the game to dissolve overnight. (and note, suspiciously, that she offers the same deal to the FBI informant, that Tobey was offering to his plant, which suggests another alternate hypotheseis, that the plant (which we see her finding in a casino while she narrates that Tobey found him) may have been her player all along, and that Tobey found out about it, and very likely had to cover the losses the plant incurred that Molly couldn't cover (since Molly in this scenario, was staking the plant)).

Which then makes me wonder, the words Molly and Sorkin put in the mouth of their mysterious, toothless "antagonist" "I don't like poker, I just like destroying lives", are those his words, or are those Molly's words, her intent, displaced and projected safely onto him, (like a true sociopath, she wants you to know why, even if she can't tell you why).

Unfortunately, this is a straightforward poor little rich girl story, not remotely interested in diving into the psychological complexities and blatant inconsistencies on display, and that straightforwardness is made all the worse by the bizarre kevin costner crap at the end of the film. I honestly thought she was talking to a ghost for at least 3/4 of the scene, it is that bizarre and poorly handled. My actual thought was, "and the final line will be, "that's great dad, but you've been dead for five years, and this is all in my head.""

I mean, sure, it's nice to see her be given a light sentence in such egregious display of white privilege that would make Manchester by the Sea blush, it's just this whole story is just so faithfully portrayed and it so stupendously smells fishy in virtually every inconsistent detail.

User avatar
domino harvey
Dot Com Dom
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm

Re: Molly's Game (Aaron Sorkin, 2017)

#25 Post by domino harvey » Tue Apr 10, 2018 11:25 pm

This was a huge disappointment. Lots of theories here and elsewhere why this doesn’t work, but fundamentally it’s hard to care about almost anything that happens. Molly Bloom is not an interesting character, her motivations are dull, and the way the film tiptoes through the details to elide seemingly everything that would make this material interesting in favor of Taking a Moral Stand is remarkable. Even key moments in a film like this, such as when Bloom explains how she set up the games and so on, aren’t that interesting (and reminded me of Liam Neeson in Schindler’s List, which did this part better and quicker). But I don’t even really mind all of the above, because the biggest problem here is Where is the voice of Aaron Sorkin? I just finished it and don’t remember a single line from this movie. The only time there any sparkle of the ol’ Sorkin back and forth comes with Elba and Chastain’s meetings, but these too never seem to coalesce into something that any given episode of the West Wing didn’t do better a million times over, and with more credible moral superiority. Ultimately Sorkin is a competent director working with a weak script, which is not the order I’d have ever expected that sentence to go in.

Post Reply