Partida Fria

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.

This is a spy thriller set during the Cuban missile crisis, and centred around a fictional chess match between the Soviet and US chess champions in Warsaw. The US player is indisposed at the last minute, and the Americans substitute the last US player to beat him in a game, a college maths professor with a drink problem, played by Bill Pullman, who no longer plays chess. It transpires that the CIA have an interest in the match, with a clandestine meeting set up. But who can be trusted?

Bill Pullman is a good actor and does his best with the material, but the plot is pretty thin, the kind of thing you might see in a single episode of a TV series. There are also some irritating errors. One CIA person says that they know Russians have sent ships to Cuba but were "too small" to carry nuclear warheads. This is ludicrous, as. a nuclear warhead measures maybe three feet by one, and weighs about 100 kg. It would fit in a canoe, never mind a cargo ship.

On the chess front, I am probably being picky as I play chess quite a bit, but there are also several annoying aspects. The person who oversees the game is an "arbiter", not a "judge", and players do not pass draw offers via the arbiter, they just ask the other player. I understand that for film reasons the players are playing their moves unnaturally fast, but near the start the Pullman character says that the opening will "come down to the Italian game or the Rousseau defence" after the Russian's first move is revealed. This is absurd, as the Italian game is somewhat rare at grandmaster level, and the Rousseau opening is extremely obscure and would never be played at really top level. As for someone who hasn't played chess for a couple of decades beating the top Soviet player, that SI extremely implausible. Even Garry Kasparov, former world champion and arguably the best player of all time, struggled to perform in a tournament when he made a brief comeback a decade or so after he retired.

I had more of a practical issue with the main information to be passed at the clandestine meeting, which seemed unlikely to really be the key to the Cuban missile crisis to me but I don't want to reveal a spoiler. The bigger issue is that the film rather plods along, with limited tension. It is watchable, but hard to really recommend.

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

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??

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.