The Coldest Game

I watched this largely because it was pointed out to me by someone who knows I'm a big chess addict.

Clearly there are a lot of liberties taken here, kind of mixing the 1972 Fischer match with the 1962 Cuban situation, but I believe this artistic license was justified. Just do not go into the movie expecting historical accuracy in the chess sense. Reviewers who gave really bad reviews based on that are entirely missing the point.

A decent watch.

7.5

This is my first user review and I really feel like this movie deserves more than the current 6.3 score. Most of the negative reviews dig into the hows and why's of the Cold War, but has nothing to do with this movie. Okay, it's fictional and probably won't fit how things really went back in those days but there is so much good to say about this movie.

First of all: the acting performances are really great. Every personage fits well and keeps the story alive. Dohn Norwood is once again great. His mimics, gestures,... really blend in.

The atmosphere also gets really good. Dark, cold,.. it really sucks you in and make your experience the tensions of that moment in the Cold War.

This movie really surprised me and is well worth your time.

As far as Netflix-produced movies go, this is one of the best I saw. At least, it has a script that actually makes some sense, albeit in a formulaic way. After all, this is the Cold War and we've pretty much seen everything about that period in time and movie rules (and history) dictate that the Russians are the villains and nobody is to be trusted.

In this movie, the story takes place mostly in Warsaw, which makes a nice change of place from the usual Berlin. A chess championship is taking place during the Cuban missiles crises and a drunkard American professor (Bill Pullman) must act as the go-between spy, besides being the chess champion defying Russia.

Pullman looks a lot like Dennis Hopper and does a good job as the brilliant, unstable genius. His handlers are three suspicious characters, one of whom must be a mole.

My favourite scene takes places in the men's lavatory and it is edited in such a way as to make you wonder what is going on. The previous scene established a character who may also not be what he looks like and the whole plot is directly linked to the opening scene.

Quite enjoyable and suitably gritty, even if I usually don't enjoy movies where the main character is an addict.

Decent enough thriller but as a previous review flagged their was some really irritating flaws in the parts of the film featuring chess. Firstly the idea of a player coming out of a 20 year retirement to challenge a top rated grandmaster is absurd. It is the equivalent of Mike Tyson trying to take on a fully trained Detoney Wilder on a days notice. Also the scene where Bill Pullman tries to remember the first game he mentions sacrificing a knight for a bishop? That is not a sacrifice it is an exchange, both are worth roughly the same although one can be better than the other depending on the position. I know it sounds really pedantic and nerdy but if you are going to make a film featuring a chess player as a main character at least pay for some basic research and make an effort to get it part right. Change sacrifice knight for bishop to rook for bishop and it us correct how hard is that??

Right off the bat (or board?), there is the fact that this is or rather was based on true events. You'll either be into that or not. Bill Pullman does everything to keep you engaged though. The movie or rather the story is a bit muddled and there certainly will be confusion for many. And while Bill Pullman is a pole, some might have a problem with engaging with the movie.

Feeling something, being excited and so forth. So there are flaws, there are certain things that could be better. But it also has some fine points and there are some interesting plot points happening and some characters and places (short cuts) that are almost worth watching this alone. Again, massively flawed but also quite entertaining in a weird way