Uncut Gems (2019) (1 Viewer)

[Winston T. Boogie]

Thanks for posting the article. It would be amazing if Sandler gets an Oscar nomination- who’d have thunk that?

The right actor in the right role at the right time and it can happen. Obviously nobody expects Sandler to get an Oscar nomination for one of the comedies he usually makes but given a role created for him, to play a more serious part that allows him to do something against expectations that is going to impress people. Plus it is in a film by a couple of young writer directors that are considered very talented. Hilariously, I heard one young woman refer to them as two of our "greatest living filmmakers" which, not to take anything away from the Safdie brothers, seems a bit of a stretch considering they mainly came to most people's (the ones that pay attention to such things) attention with Good Time. They had made two other features before that but I have not seen them and never heard anything about them.

I think the tough thing for Sandler may be he will be facing some solid competition in the best actor category this year but he still could pull it off.

I have never seen most of Sandler's work as his comedies just have not really been things I had an interest in seeing but I find it interesting that people like the Safdies and Paul Thomas Anderson find him to be an outstanding actor. I mean this is the same Paul Thomas Anderson known for working with Daniel Day Lewis and he loves Adam Sandler as an actor and says he thinks he just keeps getting better and better.

Anderson always cites Big Daddy as the role where he saw that Sandler was a great actor. I've never seen it but I honestly considered watching it because he recommends it so highly. To me Sandler seems known for playing this goofy man-child over and over but I certainly question my own judgement when a guy like P.T. sings his praises.

 

[JoeStemme]

First things first. This is not an "Adam Sandler movie". Yes, he is the star and the focus of the advertising, but, this is very much a "Safdie Brothers film". Emphasis on "film". Benny and Josh Safdie are very much in love with the look and feel of the films of the 70s and 80s, in particular. But, as with GOOD TIME, they are not interested in doing a cutesy wink-wink homage. It's in their bones.

Sandler plays Howard, New York city jeweler who's also a full-time hustler. His marriage to Dinah (Idina Menzel) is falling apart, his gambling debts are piling up and he is facing health issues. He banks his future on an Ethiopian rock which houses the title valuables. Also involved are a two-bit floozy he's carrying on with (Julia Fox) and Boston Celtics legend Kevin Garnett - playing himself. From the get-go, the Safdie Brothers (who also co-wrote with Ronald Bonstein) bring enormous energy and drive to the proceedings. Sandler starts at 11 and goes from there. Similarly, Daniel Lopatin's score is often mixed so high it becomes intrusive at times (the synth music itself isn't bad, sort of a retro blend of Vangelis and Jean-Michel Jarre). Darius Khondij's 35mm photography is both slick and gritty.

Director Yorgos Lanthimos (THE FAVOURITE) has remarked that UNCUT GEMS is like "a Robert Altman film that was dipped in acid." Altman's 1974 CALIFORNIA SPLIT certainly fits the time period and some of the themes. Of course, Altman was an original and as many of his admirers have found out over the years, overlapping dialogue and naturalistic atmosphere do not alone make an "Altman film" (Altman himself often enough failed to create the unique mood). UNCUT GEMS works because of the filmmaking brio and Sandler's driven performance. Still, at times, it seems to be trying too hard. It works best in the last act when the Safdies let the drama play out more. It's a good film, even if not quite up to GOOD TIME. But, hey, Celtics fans now know how Boston beat Philadelphia in that 2012 Playoff series!

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

Thanks for the link. I haven't seen the movie yet and am not on the same enthusiasm level as the author for an "upper and downer at the same time," but I do agree about sympathy and likability in characters (though my angle is different). Sure, from the sound of it Sandler isn't likable, and Phoenix's Joker certainly wasn't, but just how likable are the Marvel superheros aside from Chris Pratt or Robert Downey Jr? Is Chris Evans or Jeremy Renner likable? For that matter are most modern A-list actors likable? They're celebrities and personalities, but is their screen presence terribly likable?

Christopher Reeve. He's likable. Parsing differences among today's actors though is a little silly. They're all just sorta... there. The likable ones are the exception, not the rule. No need for audiences to be so rejective IMHO.

Yes, I don't think "likable" is a consideration at all but in the much more simplistic world of big budget pictures it is highly important and part of the formula. That's sort of understandable in that those pictures are trying to please as many people as possible and the truth is if you don't make it really simple...well...then people walk out of the theater confused or with greatly different opinions on things. I think that's why he talks about that infecting smaller indie pictures because the way to get somebody interested in distributing your film is making things "likable."

That's why a Cinemascore of C+ really is not a big deal because what it means is this is likely a really good picture. Good pictures divide people. That's not to say that every picture that gets a grade like that is good, it does not work that way, but when critics are saying they love it and an audience comes out confused and/or divided...well...that means you have a high probability of having a good film on your hands. Not necessarily a film that will make loads of money but one that will probably become a film that people will find over and over again through the years and end up impressed with.

I would say that the key factor with characters is are they interesting, that was Stanley Kubrick's feeling. Is what they are doing up there keeping you hooked? Not is it real, or is it likable...is it interesting? Sandler in this role is interesting. I was hooked by his performance in the trailer. Something seems to be clicking there and the thing you do with a guy like Sandler is surround him with other actors that really help bring out the nature of the character he is playing. The Safdie brothers appear to do this in spades.

They do not appear to be trying to make him "likable" in the trailer. He's on edge, he seems sort of sleazy, and he is obviously hustling. He oozes that this is a guy you can't trust and probably rarely tells the truth. Not likable character traits in any way. So, not sure why someone would walk into this picture looking for likable characters.

I do understand that a "Sandler" fan could walk into it looking for a much more typical "Sandler" performance...and end up very unhappy with what he/she gets. Hey, pretty much every actor has their fans that love whatever they do but once you do a similar thing over and over they expect that thing when they go to see you. He's not trying to leave them laughing with this one.

I agree with you on today's actors for the most part. I don't really think it is all their fault though that they often seem so interchangeable. I actually think that there are actors that can do really good work IF you give them good writing and good people to work with. However, on the bigger budget films they literally are not looking for good acting. They want bland and interchangeable and so actors in those roles come across as just that...a replaceable cog. The writing seems to grow worse and worse as the budget grows larger.

I don't really know who people think are likable actors today and who is A-list but to me that kind of thing reflects the idea of are there "movie stars" and the answer to that is there is now just one "movie star" left. The last one standing. And that is Leo DiCaprio. He is the last guy that can open a film big that is not a super hero, Star Wars, or animated picture. The last guy that can get a larger budget to tell a unique story. He is the last guy that when he agrees to be in a picture everybody's agent calls to try to get them into that picture. Every other actor wants to work with DiCaprio.

This can now be said of not a single other actor right now. The last period of time where there was a group of actors like this was the actors that came up through the 1970s basically. You had Newman, Nicholson, Redford, Dunaway, Pacino, Hackman, Hoffman, De Niro, Streep...I mean actors that all the other actors wanted to work with and were not just movie stars but they could act and could all open a picture or get one made. That's all gone.

I don't think it is because we have worse or less likable actors, I think it is because there is now a lot of bad writing, films that do not require great acting, and films where the parts are not parts that call for great acting or performances.

So, to some extent I think Sandler will stand out in this film because it is a well written picture with a really good part for him to play. He's not going to get that in one of his goofy comedies.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

First things first. This is not an "Adam Sandler movie". Yes, he is the star and the focus of the advertising, but, this is very much a "Safdie Brothers film". Emphasis on "film". Benny and Josh Safdie are very much in love with the look and feel of the films of the 70s and 80s, in particular. But, as with GOOD TIME, they are not interested in doing a cutesy wink-wink homage. It's in their bones.

Sandler plays Howard, New York city jeweler who's also a full-time hustler. His marriage to Dinah (Idina Menzel) is falling apart, his gambling debts are piling up and he is facing health issues. He banks his future on an Ethiopian rock which houses the title valuables. Also involved are a two-bit floozy he's carrying on with (Julia Fox) and Boston Celtics legend Kevin Garnett - playing himself. From the get-go, the Safdie Brothers (who also co-wrote with Ronald Bonstein) bring enormous energy and drive to the proceedings. Sandler starts at 11 and goes from there. Similarly, Daniel Lopatin's score is often mixed so high it becomes intrusive at times (the synth music itself isn't bad, sort of a retro blend of Vangelis and Jean-Michel Jarre). Darius Khondij's 35mm photography is both slick and gritty.

Director Yorgos Lanthimos (THE FAVOURITE) has remarked that UNCUT GEMS is like "a Robert Altman film that was dipped in acid." Altman's 1974 CALIFORNIA SPLIT certainly fits the time period and some of the themes. Of course, Altman was an original and as many of his admirers have found out over the years, overlapping dialogue and naturalistic atmosphere do not alone make an "Altman film" (Altman himself often enough failed to create the unique mood). UNCUT GEMS works because of the filmmaking brio and Sandler's driven performance. Still, at times, it seems to be trying too hard. It works best in the last act when the Safdies let the drama play out more. It's a good film, even if not quite up to GOOD TIME. But, hey, Celtics fans now know how Boston beat Philadelphia in that 2012 Playoff series!

Is that a cut and paste from the article?

 

[JoeStemme]

It's all original writing by myself.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

It's all original writing by myself.

Did you write that as a review for another website as I feel like I read it all word for word somewhere else?

 

[JoeStemme]

It's on Imdb.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

That would be it then.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

Why?

I'd answer but you'll just make another "Colin hates everything" comment, so why bother?

 

[Tino]

I'd answer but you'll just make another "Colin hates everything" comment, so why bother?

Actually I wouldn't. But OK then. Nevermind.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

I'd answer but you'll just make another "Colin hates everything" comment, so why bother?

Do you really hate everything, Colin? I mean what about stuff like puppies, cookies or ice cream? Nobody hates those things do they?

 

[Colin Jacobson]

Do you really hate everything, Colin? I mean what about stuff like puppies, cookies or ice cream? Nobody hates those things do they?

I'm often accused of hating all movies.

No one has accused me of hating puppies, cookies or ice cream.

Yet.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

Actually I wouldn't. But OK then. Nevermind.

Fine - here goes.

It's 2:15 of unpleasant people yelling at each other, with occasional stabs at social commentary ala "Blood Diamond" as well as weird attempts to provide cosmological pretensions that make the movie look like it borrowed outtakes from the end of "2001".

The characters are unilaterally unpleasant and the film reveals nothing about them. They're just awful people who scream at each other a lot.

I really wanted to like the film and I'm not averse to "ugly" movies, but this one just had no redeeming factors.

Toss in

Spoiler

the idiotic "shock" ending

and that's 2:15 I want back!

 

[Malcolm R]

Something to be proud of:

Adam Sandler‘s character Howie in the new A24 flick Uncut Gems gives too many “f—s,” literally. In a recent update on the list of movies with the most F-bombs, the acclaimed film now stands at seventh all-time with 408, or three a minute

https://ew.com/movies/2020/01/02/uncut-gems-has-the-7th-most-f-bombs-in-movie-history/

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

Something to be proud of:

https://ew.com/movies/2020/01/02/uncut-gems-has-the-7th-most-f-bombs-in-movie-history/

And the cool part is, or sad part if you take issue with how people talk these days, is all that language is true to life. It's a New York street film. You will hear a lot of F-bombs on those city streets.

 

[Tino]

And the cool part is, or sad part if you take issue with how people talk these days, is all that language is true to life. It's a New York street film. You will hear a lot of F-bombs on those city streets.

I hear it every day. Even from my Ultra Orthodox Hasidic customers!

 

[TravisR]

I curse all the time and I have to say that I'm pretty impressed by them working it in once every 20 seconds. I can maybe do it once a minute but those guys are masters of the dirty word.

 

[bujaki]

I curse all the time and I have to say that I'm pretty impressed by them working it in once every 20 seconds. I can maybe do it once a minute but those guys are masters of the dirty word.

People curse in the basement of the FBI building?

 

[TravisR]

People curse in the basement of the FBI building?

Just me and Fox Mulder.

Every now and then, I remember how out of date an X-Files reference is (it was out of date when I joined and put it in there as my locale) but I'm not messing with a classic.

 

[Traveling Matt]

Yes, I don't think "likable" is a consideration at all but in the much more simplistic world of big budget pictures it is highly important and part of the formula. That's sort of understandable in that those pictures are trying to please as many people as possible and the truth is if you don't make it really simple...well...then people walk out of the theater confused or with greatly different opinions on things. I think that's why he talks about that infecting smaller indie pictures because the way to get somebody interested in distributing your film is making things "likable."

That's why a Cinemascore of C+ really is not a big deal because what it means is this is likely a really good picture. Good pictures divide people. That's not to say that every picture that gets a grade like that is good, it does not work that way, but when critics are saying they love it and an audience comes out confused and/or divided...well...that means you have a high probability of having a good film on your hands. Not necessarily a film that will make loads of money but one that will probably become a film that people will find over and over again through the years and end up impressed with.

I would say that the key factor with characters is are they interesting, that was Stanley Kubrick's feeling. Is what they are doing up there keeping you hooked? Not is it real, or is it likable...is it interesting? Sandler in this role is interesting. I was hooked by his performance in the trailer. Something seems to be clicking there and the thing you do with a guy like Sandler is surround him with other actors that really help bring out the nature of the character he is playing. The Safdie brothers appear to do this in spades.

They do not appear to be trying to make him "likable" in the trailer. He's on edge, he seems sort of sleazy, and he is obviously hustling. He oozes that this is a guy you can't trust and probably rarely tells the truth. Not likable character traits in any way. So, not sure why someone would walk into this picture looking for likable characters.

I do understand that a "Sandler" fan could walk into it looking for a much more typical "Sandler" performance...and end up very unhappy with what he/she gets. Hey, pretty much every actor has their fans that love whatever they do but once you do a similar thing over and over they expect that thing when they go to see you. He's not trying to leave them laughing with this one.

I agree with you on today's actors for the most part. I don't really think it is all their fault though that they often seem so interchangeable. I actually think that there are actors that can do really good work IF you give them good writing and good people to work with. However, on the bigger budget films they literally are not looking for good acting. They want bland and interchangeable and so actors in those roles come across as just that...a replaceable cog. The writing seems to grow worse and worse as the budget grows larger.

I don't really know who people think are likable actors today and who is A-list but to me that kind of thing reflects the idea of are there "movie stars" and the answer to that is there is now just one "movie star" left. The last one standing. And that is Leo DiCaprio. He is the last guy that can open a film big that is not a super hero, Star Wars, or animated picture. The last guy that can get a larger budget to tell a unique story. He is the last guy that when he agrees to be in a picture everybody's agent calls to try to get them into that picture. Every other actor wants to work with DiCaprio.

This can now be said of not a single other actor right now. The last period of time where there was a group of actors like this was the actors that came up through the 1970s basically. You had Newman, Nicholson, Redford, Dunaway, Pacino, Hackman, Hoffman, De Niro, Streep...I mean actors that all the other actors wanted to work with and were not just movie stars but they could act and could all open a picture or get one made. That's all gone.

I don't think it is because we have worse or less likable actors, I think it is because there is now a lot of bad writing, films that do not require great acting, and films where the parts are not parts that call for great acting or performances.

So, to some extent I think Sandler will stand out in this film because it is a well written picture with a really good part for him to play. He's not going to get that in one of his goofy comedies.

Reggie, in all the years I've been posting here I don't think anyone else has come close to so accurately describing my exact thoughts and feelings in a reply. I agree with it all, and have felt the same way for years.

I've heard about Dicaprio being the last real movie star by way of his generation, but you seem to be saying he's the last one period, regardless of age. Correct? The Irishman could have been a draw thanks to De Niro or Pacino, or Scorsese for that matter, if not for the bloated budget. I suppose Hoffman has been permanently cancelled. Streep? Will Smith? After Gemini Man I dunno. Maybe Dicaprio is the last.

I also think the internet/social media era has changed our perceptions by quite a bit. Say a metric ton. It seems half the population are "influencers," so how can popular actors be movie stars with mystique?