Casino Jack

Both gobsmakingingly awesome in its (true) take on Washington and just way OTT look at the Beltway, CJ is just so good. Honestly, if this had been made as fiction you'd shoot it down as implausible - the stink goes how high? - but here we see lobbyist and senators in cahoots to get the dollar in their pocket at the expense of just about every body else.

Spacey is in fine form, with a sterling support cast, and the film is best viewed as a buckle up and grin fair ride to the underbelly of politics - it really is so way beyond your standard black comedy or satire that it's just jaw dropping.

We enjoyed CJ - it doesn't aim to be a political thriller or have any great message but it is a lot of black comedy and seriously messed-up situations from beginning to end.....

Have fun now.....

I had a difficult time dealing with this movie, partly because the entire system of lobbying is so despicable in itself, and partly because the writer has done his best to show Jack Abramoff as a fundamentally nice guy who just overreached a little and got caught.

I mean, right at the beginning, after we see Kevin Spacey (superb) talking to himself in a mirror, we hear his explanation of why lobbyists exist. Because they're useful. They give legislators information about subjects the legislators need to know something about in order to do their jobs.

That explanation comes straight out of a now unfashionable school of sociological thought called functionalism. If something exists in a society, it's there for a good reason. Otherwise it wouldn't be there, right? Whores make the streets safe for our wives and children. The Mafia fills in the gaps that the police force can't, and it meets a market demand among consumers of illegal goods. Mass murderers and psychopaths provide us with bad examples that we can point out to our kids so they'll know what not to become.

According to the film, Abramoff just did was everyone else was doing. He only had the misfortune of being caught. Nobody argues that perhaps congressional aides or interns ought to be doing the research instead of paid lobbyists. No explanation is offered for why spending on lobbyists more than doubled between 2000 and 2009.

There are no such reality intrusions. Abramoff is a colorful, funny, very active guy. He works out. He loves his family. He knows everyone. He's religious. He opens a kosher restaurant on K Street and plans to open a Hebrew school.

A second reason I found it hard to assess the movie is that I didn't understand it because I'm too dumb. I couldn't follow all the shenanigans. Okay. In one of his minor deals, towards the beginning, the Chippewa tribe, among whom I once lived as a cultural anthropologist, gave him millions of dollars and the money apparently disappeared. Where? I don't know. I told you I was dumb. I don't know what an expression like "he wants ten percent under the table" means. I don't know why a Greek was killed. I don't know why Jon Lovitz got stabbed with a ball point pen. Tom DeLay has a prominent role and I don't know what he did that was supposed to be bad. Abramoff makes some venomous remark about George W. Bush at the end and I don't know why. And I can hardly credit the notion that Mike Scanlon's (Barry Pepper, with a great twisted face) girl friend dropped the dime on all these enterprises because she found a pair of red alien panties in her boy friend's laundry. It's the kind of movie that someone as stupid as I am needs a little preparation for -- a few hours of studying with a book called "Lobbying for Dummies" or something.

Because except for the murder I couldn't identify a single illegal act in the entire movie. Lobbyists give money to politicians and the politicians do favors in return. It sounds a lot like bribery to me, and I know THAT'S illegal, or at least I think it is, but I don't know why, when it takes one form, it's called "lobbying" and is as kosher as Abramoff's restaurant that serves the best roast beef in the city, and why, when it takes another form, it's called "bribery" and you go to jail.

I do, however, recognize a decent performance when I see one, and three performances are stand outs in this production. Kevin Spacey, a little older and chubbier, gets to do some of his impersonations -- Clinton, Al Pacino, and a few others, and he's good. Barry Pepper as Scanlon is terrific as well, as the emotionally unstable squeal cat. And Jon Lovitz is funny, no matter whether the part calls for a comic presentation or not. He's hilarious in some scenes, which I won't spell out.

Not a masterpiece by any means -- "Barbarians At The Gates" is about leveraged buy outs and it's better -- but worth seeing once. I hope you have better luck in decoding the events than I did.

2010 seems to be the year that Hollywood universally decided to take its look at one of the great government scandals this past decade, producing both the documentary Casino Jack and the United States of Money, and this accompanying (albeit more fictionalized) account of disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff. After seemingly searching for a juicy role since his duel Oscar winning performances in the mid to late '90s with The Usual Suspects and American Beauty, Kevin Spacey is back in fine form and dominates the screen in this frequently enjoyable, though heavily flawed, rise and fall fable.

Oddly, what makes this movie great also represents its largest shortcomings. The acting is as varied as Abramoff's excuses pertaining to the generous "donations" he receives in the film itself. Barry Pepper as Jack's right-hand man Michael steals scenes at a whim when given the chance and could have easily elevated the film further if given more screen time. Spacey is superb bringing a delicious blend of pompous charm and sleazy anger to the role, and even manages to deliver both a credible Sylvester Stallone and Al Pacino impression amidst the political turmoil his character eventually encounters.

On the other hand, there are some disastrously misguided casting choices, beginning with Kelly Preston as Jack's wife and even though she exhibits some swagger towards the beginning to the film, she is unable to keep up with more skilled thespians as situations escalate towards the finale. The most egregious error is most certainly the inclusion of Jon Lovitz as the owner of a cruise line and casino who undertakes business dealings with Abramoff. Lovitz has proved himself a skilled comedian in supporting roles and did consistently great voice work on The Simpsons. Here, he is an unmitigated disaster, single handily sinking the picture on multiple occasions. He seems oblivious as to when to calm down, his camera mugging and inflections are grinding, and he is apparently unable to quit being Jon Lovitz and simply shut up; this is simply a poor choice by late director George Hickenlooper.

The story at play is a fascinating one, and seeing Jack at his manipulative best even as his world comes crashing down is engrossing. The middle portion however does its bookend acts an injustice, sagging down the segments exploring the infamous lobbyist rise and his inevitable fall. Hickenlooper seems unable to decide how to structure the transition; not how Spacey handles the material pertaining to his character's downfall, but rather the jumble of events by which it is precipitated. Though the event itself makes for inspired reading in venues such as the news or a fact-based doc, perhaps there is not enough substantial material (or maybe too much) to make a fully compelling fictionalized account.

Though ultimately less than the sum of its parts, Casino Jack is timely, passionately constructed and true to its source events. Abramoff is successfully made into the three-dimensional character that those close to him likely knew, and that the media was never able to (or more likely never wanted to) capture. Spacey is without a doubt a large part of this indelibly fiery characterization and strangely (obviously for reasons we will never know) seems more invested in this character than he has in any during the last ten years. Casino Jack's follies are all the more disappointingly glaring considering how strong the hard-hitting portions were, and though better than the average fact-based account, good enough is never good enough when greatness seems to be within reach.

How long can you screw someone before you get caught? The true story of super-lobbyist Jack Abramoff (Spacy) and his partner Michael Scanlon (Pepper). After finding a contribution loophole, Abramoff and Scanlon begin to exploit this and become very, very rich. I enjoyed this movie. I like true story movies, and I really enjoy political ones too. There was a lot of stuff in here I didn't know about. The amount he took and the favors he gave out are astounding. This movie really exposes the lengths that he and other senators will go to in order to get what they want. The movie is filled with different movie quotes from the "Godfather", "Rocky" and others, which is fun (Spacy is a pretty good impressionist). Overall I really liked this movie, and found myself liking Abramoff even less then before. The amount of money he through around to get his way is enough to make you sick, especially when you think a lot of our tax money went to helping him by a casino boat. Abramoff gets an F, as for the movie, I give it a B+.

Would I watch again? - Yes I would, this is the kind of movie I like

The most awful thing about Casino Jack is knowing it is true, knowing all the good people being fleeced, taken for a ride, are real, knowing that the central theme of this story is alive, kicking and fuelled for take-off even now.

As a dramatisation it works because we do not have to dwell on the complexity of the deals being set up, who is ripping off who, who is the biggest liar. The film's smart pace allows us to soak up the facts like ink on blotting paper and at our own pace.

Thankfully we can lose ourselves in the characters, all of whom are played to perfection by a very strong cast, and all of whom resonate to the people we see and hear about on TV, in the media, even in show business. These are the folk who have more money than sense, or, more accurately, more credit and no shame if they can get away with making huge profits immorally. Less appealing are the players in real life who really are being torn apart through their desperation for attention, for expressions of interest, where any interest may be better than nothing. In this area we are left to feel morally lacking for not doing more to stop this kind of stuff. But the story simply keeps rolling along and we witness the demise of the main characters Abramoff (Spacey) and Scanlon (Pepper) just as it happened in real life.

The opening of the movie sets the scene well into the plot where much of the twisting and double crossing has already begun to unravel. Then we are witness to the events as they unfold through the deals, the double crosses, and the nasty side of greed (is there a nice side?). As the credits roll we also see a couple of the real life events depicted in the movie played back to us, to allow us to judge authenticity. I wonder if this was the only mistake the film makes. I felt the film spoke for itself.

As distressing and disturbing as the film's subject should be it is played out in such a way as we are information and knowledge gathering much like a media warning about "this is what lobbying really is". It is also a shrewd warning as to how shameless and immoral some people are when they are saying nice things to you, as if we needed a warning! I found it worthwhile to research the subject of lobbying a little more after I had seen this film and found myself disbelieving some of the things I have found out. This alone convinced me the film does not pull any punches.

Watch it just to wise up. Fortunately it is acted so powerfully and so sharply you will not want to look away.