State of Play

I would label this a "decent-but-unmemorable political thriller," something you'd probably enjoy viewing but a few weeks later had forgotten much of it. Usually, movies which star Russell Crowe are more dynamic, although Crowe still mesmerizes as usual.

I liked the twists and turns at the end, but one has to wait about two hours for those and that's a little too long a wait. As slick a production as it was, and with acceptable acting from actor, it was many of the characters here that seemed more like Hollywood stereotypes than real-life people.

There was Crowe with the hippie looks from 30-40 years ago and who has the daring of James Bond; the Washington newspaper editor being a foul-mouthed Brit (crusty Helen Mirren) who uses profane expresses the Americans wouldn't know; the neophyte blogster (Rachel McAdams) being drop-dead gorgeous and getting her way despite tough bosses; the bad guys being anyone connected with the military (man, is that getting old, from Dr. Strangelove to today's films - it never changes), the professional sniper/assassin conveniently missing the good guy (Crowe) although he could kill anyone else......you get the picture - a few too many liberal film clichés. The most realistic character was probably "Rep. Stephen Collins (D-Pa)," played by the least of the actors, Ben Affleck.

As for minor characters, I thought "Dominic Foy," played by Jason Bateman, was fascinating, as was Robin Wright.

Overall, for entertainment purposes it was okay; not something you'd yawn and fall asleep watching, although you might be confused here and there. Through the gimmicks of hyped-up music and sound effects here and there, the suspense was evident throughout the two-plus hours. It's also an interesting look at today's battle between old and new "media," meaning newspapers and the Internet, respectively.

Overall, it's enough to warrant as a purchase at the rental store but not as a blind buy despite the "name" cast.

I liked STATE OF PLAY. It ticked all of the right boxes: solid direction, good, playing-against-type performances from most of the cast, unforeseen twists and some great set-pieces, including a ferocious encounter in an underground car park.

Do I think it's a truly great film? No, not by a long shot. It's inventive, and well-paced, and one of those films that stimulates the brain as well as the senses, but...I didn't find much emotion at the heart. A similar thriller like David Fincher's ZODIAC really grabbed me with its depiction of Jake Gyllenhaal's dedicated journalist, but there's little emotion at the core of STATE OF PLAY. It's too busy with the mystery stuff and the ending just left me cold.

Russell Crowe gives one of his most interesting performances to date as the long-haired, tubby journalist and the aforementioned scene in the underground car park sees him play isolated and frightened, a real counterpoint to his usual tough 'n' taciturn type performances. The rest of his obsessive-y type stuff has been previously done in American GANGSTER.

Ben Affleck is surprisingly good as the shady politician, and it's refreshing to see him playing a character with a bit more depth for a change. Speaking of depth, Rachel McAdams is the one weak link in the chain, completely out of hers, while Helen Mirren seems to be trying too hard to emulate Meryl Streep in THE DEVIL WEARS PRADA for the majority of her scenes.

Good thriller with some excellent performances. Russell Crowe is suitably grizzled as the been around reporter and Helen Mirren is wonderfully tough as his editor, the problem is the casting of Ben Affleck. He gives a good enough performance but is far too young to be believable as Crowe's college roommate or Robin Wright Penn's husband, not his fault but a major casting error nonetheless. Originally Crowe and Affleck's parts were to be filled by Brad Pitt and Edward Norton a far more simpatico pairing the obvious disparity in the leads ages distracts throughout the film. Jason Bateman shows up late in the movie to offer up a fun, out there performance as a sleaze. The story itself does move along and offers some nice tension and twists.

I cannot describe how much I enjoy a good investigative reporting story, and State of Play really scratched that itch. It also combines that kind of story-telling with the idea of a few people trying to blow the lid on a massive conspiracy that may put their lives in danger, which is another style of film that I love. I was thrilled through most of State of Play, and didn't even care that there were some predictable aspects to the story, because it's not always about finding out whodunnit but seeing how they will be caught. Russell Crowe delivered his same performance he always gives, but it didn't bother me too much here since I was deeply invested in the plot (although I did find myself wondering how much more I'd enjoy it with a better actor.) The rest of the cast did marvelous work, and helped make the entire film more impactful. I even found Ben Affleck to be a good casting choice (for once) because he has the right kind of smarminess that I'd expect from that kind of politician.

For a long time I was convinced that State of Play was going to be one of those legendary films that ticks all the boxes for me, and would become a favorite I'd watch again and again. However, there were a couple of things that held it back from greatness for me, and left me just a little disappointed at the end. First of all, there was a slight interpersonal relationship dynamic between some of the characters that felt unnecessary and detracted from the story for me in a small way. It wasn't terrible, but it came across as pointless baggage they were adding to the characters that didn't enhance the plot in any way. Finally, there's the ending. While I can't dig into any details without touching on spoilers, I'll just say that it did too much to reframe the entire plot of the film, and created more questions than answers. It genuinely took me to a place where I no longer knew how to feel about the resolution of State of Play. I didn't need that twist, and it left me conflicted about a movie I was loving up to that point.

In 'State of Play' the surprises keep coming. A politician's staff-member has been murdered and two journalists set out to discover the 'Who' (who killed her) and the 'Why'. We go down one alley, then another, all our beliefs challenged, then changed, but throughout it all our interest remains pretty high.

But then ... then something happens. One of the characters says something that she could not possibly know about, and this re-arranges all the assumptions we have made about guilty parties. Which is fine. But for one thing. The character who made the telling statement all but disappears from the film. She is not guilty. And the someone who is guilty is not the person who made the statement. And so the question is, what really happened here? I don't know. And I should know, because that's what the film was leading up to. Who Done It? Easy. Yes?

Russel Crowe is fine as one journalist, Rachel McAdam is superb as his younger associate. Ben Affleck is his usual stoic self, though it works in this role. Helen Mirren is shrill - too shrill - in her role as the newspaper's managing editor. For fans of Robin Wright - and there are many - she's fine as the wife of the Affleck character; thrown over for someone younger.

Finally, the film is - how to say? - flabby. It's not as tight as it should be. It goes off on tangents that lead nowhere at times when we should be tightening up the script and the tension. Also, it's kind of 'old fashioned'; the sort of plucky-young-journalist film they don't make anymore.

Anyway, it made for an entertaining evening. And that's more than merely O.k.