Top Reporter Cal (Crowe) sees a linkage between a DC street killing and the death of a Congressman's (Affleck) Research Assistant.
What does it mean STATE OF PLAY? How many balls are in the air? How many incidents are converging at once? How many decisions need to be made and some dependent on another decision? What to do when you think you know what is going on?
The hype over this movie was unbelievable. Some were running to steal the Oscar. Overall, this was okay. I didn't see any great performances from the top stars. They did okay too. Nothing in here was Oscar quality except for one performance. That being from Jason Bateman who was truly a breath of fresh air. The guy is a natural in whatever he is in. Am I the only one to see that? The next really good performance was from Jeff Daniels and we should see more of him in these kind of roles (political or some such). He has that political backroom kind of demeanor. Very good.
In thrillers, which some call this, we should get to experience a good car chase. Did not happen. We also get to see some pretty good CGI. Not this time. I missed them. I would call this a very good Made-For-TV drama, but not a thriller. Kind of bland.
The only real problem I had with this movie was that there was too much detail. You had murders, conspiracy, cover-up, Homeland Security on thin ice, kickbacks, paybacks, mercenary contractors running amuck, a big newspaper in deep trouble and so on. And, each one just mentioned had a myriad of detail. It was just too much. And, get this: there was an underlying plot whereby the mercenary contractors would take over all security for the United States. The movie didn't commit to go there, but hinted at it and got out. So we are left with the murders and who were the culprits.
But, still, it was okay. The title? You figure it out.
Violence: Yes. Sex: No. Nudity: No. Language: No. One S_ _ _ _ word utttered by Mirran
What does it mean STATE OF PLAY? How many balls are in the air? How many incidents are converging at once? How many decisions need to be made and some dependent on another decision? What to do when you think you know what is going on?
The hype over this movie was unbelievable. Some were running to steal the Oscar. Overall, this was okay. I didn't see any great performances from the top stars. They did okay too. Nothing in here was Oscar quality except for one performance. That being from Jason Bateman who was truly a breath of fresh air. The guy is a natural in whatever he is in. Am I the only one to see that? The next really good performance was from Jeff Daniels and we should see more of him in these kind of roles (political or some such). He has that political backroom kind of demeanor. Very good.
In thrillers, which some call this, we should get to experience a good car chase. Did not happen. We also get to see some pretty good CGI. Not this time. I missed them. I would call this a very good Made-For-TV drama, but not a thriller. Kind of bland.
The only real problem I had with this movie was that there was too much detail. You had murders, conspiracy, cover-up, Homeland Security on thin ice, kickbacks, paybacks, mercenary contractors running amuck, a big newspaper in deep trouble and so on. And, each one just mentioned had a myriad of detail. It was just too much. And, get this: there was an underlying plot whereby the mercenary contractors would take over all security for the United States. The movie didn't commit to go there, but hinted at it and got out. So we are left with the murders and who were the culprits.
But, still, it was okay. The title? You figure it out.
Violence: Yes. Sex: No. Nudity: No. Language: No. One S_ _ _ _ word utttered by Mirran