Movies

Review: Uncut Gems and Bombshell

A new kind of Adam Sandler flick and a predictably Hollywoodian Fox News takedown with a major star turn by Charlize Theron.

|

Like The Wrestler, Darren Aronofsky's descent into the grubby world of provincial grappling matches, Uncut Gems takes us into a rarely examined social arena—the Diamond District of Midtown Manhattan, here portrayed as a place of frenzy and menace. The directors, Josh and Benny Safdie, who wrote and edited the film with Ronald Bronstein, have created a vivid simulation of what it might be like to live inside a pinball machine, and they've given Adam Sandler his showiest role, which he embraces with obvious appreciation.

The year is 2012, and Sandler's Howard Ratner is a yappy gem dealer whose wares are especially prized by black athletes and other bling aficionados. Howard is also a far-gone gambling addict (basketball is his jones), whose life is one long desperate hustle conducted in a clamor of shouts and lies and nerve-stripping security buzzers. After much long-distance maneuvering, Howard has taken delivery of a big opal smuggled out of an Ethiopian mine. He is already deep in debt to various bookies and pawnbrokers, and he believes, with the unwarranted optimism of the perpetually deluded, that this chunk of glimmering stone will finally bail him out. Time is tight, though—there's a pair of debt-collecting thugs on his case, and they never had a lot of patience to run out of in the first place. (One of these two bruisers is played by Keith Williams Richards, a non-actor recruited from real life, whose smoldering hostility is very scary).

Howard is short on redeeming qualities. He has a wife (Frozen belter Idina Menzel) and three kids out on Long Island and a girlfriend named Julia (instant star Julia Fox) stowed away in an apartment in the city. The wife is already well over Howard (she says he's the most annoying person she's ever known) and is looking forward to their divorce. Why the girlfriend puts up with him is more complicated: We see her doing blow in a nightclub bathroom with rising singer-songwriter The Weeknd (playing himself –"He's gonna be major," Julia predicts, "even though he's from Canada"); but we also see her treating her much older and schlubbier boyfriend with what could pass for real affection. ("I know you wanna cuddle, Howard," she says, lying amid a tangle of sheets and pillows. "Just come here.")

The movie is an exercise in endless tension. Howard stupidly loans out his opal to basketball star Kevin Garnett (the man himself), who gives him a pricey championship ring as security. Howard promises to hold the ring, but then immediately pawns it and hands over the resulting cash to his bookie (longtime New York sportscaster Mike Francesa) to lay down on an imminent Lakers game. Things continue not going well. There's a violent confrontation at a snooty auction house and a nerve-wracking side trip to the Mohegan Sun casino in faraway Connecticut, with a cute sexting scene thrown in for human interest.

As they demonstrated in their last film, the similarly breathless Good Time, with Robert Pattinson, the Safdie brothers have a rare gift for conveying the raw textures of life-at-the-bottom. Can Sandler's rap-a-holic Howard pull his life together somehow? He would surely bet on it—but then he'd bet on anything. Considering the evidence, we're inclined to be more circumspect.

Bombshell

Bombshell addresses the still-hot topic of sexual harassment in the media business, focusing on the fall of the late Fox News chief Roger Ailes, who was taken down by a group of Fox women who'd grown tired of muffling their fury about his unsavory come-ons and creepy innuendoes. The behavior we see taking place here seems primordial (although women may find it right up-to-date). Discussing a new female employee's desire to become on-air talent, Ailes (John Lithgow in a fat suit) tells her to "stand up and give me a twirl," and then asks her to hike up her skirt a bit. ("It's a visual medium.") But Ailes isn't the only sexual primitive on the network's premises—we watch another woman smiling helplessly through her exasperation as a male colleague, commenting on some random footage, says, "Tell me those lips haven't sucked cock."

At the center of the movie is a splendidly steely performance by Charlize Theron, who completely nails the character of Fox News star Megyn Kelly, a definitive tough cookie. After moderating a 2015 GOP presidential debate in which she gave candidate Donald Trump no quarter, Kelly is only moderately appalled to hear Trump on CNN saying, "You could see there was blood coming out of her eyes, blood coming out of her—wherever." ("Did he just accuse me of anger-menstruating?" Theron's Kelly wonders.)

Bombshell might have been a better movie if it were a full-on Megyn Kelly biopic—with her ambiguous relationship to Ailes, she's a richly complex character. But the real star of this story—if not the movie that's been made from it—is Gretchen Carlson (Nicole Kidman), a onetime Fox star who's now on her way out. Carlson has been talking to other Fox women about their repulsive experiences with Ailes, and now, armed with their stories, she's filing a crafty lawsuit against the celebrated news titan that will eventually drive him out of the business. There isn't a lot more to Kidman's character than this, though, so every time the movie cuts away to her from Theron's Kelly it feels a little like a distraction.

In a similarly awkward position is Margot Robbie, who plays a sweet composite character named Kayla, whose purpose is to help demonstrate how Ailes's sleazy flirtations work. (She's the "give me a twirl" girl.) Possibly just as important to director Jay Roach (Game Change), however, would be her function as a purveyor of the Hollywood view of Fox News. Early on, we see Kayla—a conservative Christian—getting the welcome-aboard lowdown from a staff producer named Jess (Kate McKinnon). In the Fox worldview, Jess tells Kayla, "People are lazy morons, minorities are criminals, sex is sick but interesting."

It's almost as if Matt Lauer never fielded a rape claim.

NEXT: What, Us Worry? California Lawmakers Still Ignoring Dark Pension Clouds.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. SQRLSY One
    December.12.2019 at 6:06 pm
    “Is anyone with knowledge of the operation alleging ICE promised an actuall education…”

    Please get yourself an ACTUAL education on how to use simple spell-check that’s even embedded into the posting software right here! OK, I am a grammar (and spelling) NAZI, so be it… When you are lazy about these things, readers will assume that you are ALSO lazy about BASIC THINKING about what is right and what is wrong! ICE is lying out their ass in order to trap and punish people! Real human beings are the victim here! You want this done to YOU? If not, don’t support it! And ICE is NOT using their LYING to prevent murder or mayhem either!

    Hints about single v/s double v/s triple “L” use:

    The one-L lama, he’s a beast,
    The two-LL llama, he’s a priest,

    The 3-LLL lllama, he’s deceased!

    (“Deceased” roughly = non-existent).

    AHAHAHAHAHAAHHAAHAHAHHAAHHAAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHHAHA

    IDIOT

    AHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

    1. You two truly deserve one another.

      1. mmhmm. Crazy thrives on crazy.

  2. Let’s see…a gritty Adam Sandler movie? An original concept, but no thank you.

    A ripped-from-the-headlines expose of the evil Fox News? Not really.

    No wonder audiences want to watch actors in capes flying through the universe fighting evil…consider the alternatives.

    1. At least with the harassment movie, Hollywood is operating in its area of expertise.

    2. An Adam Sandler movie? I can’t wait to not see this! Adam Sandler is right at the top of my list of actors I will never miss an opportunity to not see.

      1. Right next to Charlize Theron. But she’s so great at at rasslin in those Bud commercials.

      2. I’m usually right there with you – but this movie was actually quite good, and Sandler was shockingly good in it.

      3. I shall waste no time in seeing it.

  3. I have yet to see Kate McKinnon play anything but creepy. And I could have sworn the first few times I saw trailers for Bombshell that that actually was Megyn Kelly.

  4. Until now i didn’t realize this was supposed to be about fox rather than just something “based” on Foxas seen through a Hollywood lens. I assumed it was an attempt to go up against the Morning Show which seems to be tackling a version of the Lauer side of this story.

  5. ooooh Faux News hardest hit lol

    1. You could probably make the same movie about all the studios.
      Not in Hollywood, of course.

  6. “It’s almost as if Matt Lauer never fielded a rape claim.” Exactly. Glad this did not go unnoticed by Mr. Loder.

    1. Or Charlie Rose, or Tom Brokaw, or Harvey Winestain, or Les Moonves, or John Lasseter, or Bill Clinton…

      I guess when prog and liberals rape it isn’t as interesting, because it doesn’t get three different Hollywood pics like Ailes grabby hands does.

  7. When will they start preemptively start starting the movie isn’t doing well because of misogyny?

  8. they never had a lot of patience to run out of in the first place
    So stealing that.

  9. I have ZERO sympathy for the blonde bombshells of Fox News. None. They knew exactly what they were getting into. If they were truly talented journalists, they could have taken their talent elsewhere where they might have been allowed to wear (gasp!) pants or perhaps a dress that came close to their knees.

    The use of stunningly beautiful (usually blonde) news readers was part of Fox’s strategy from the very beginning. Add on the core part of Fox’s strategy–putting a right-wing spin on the news–and you should easily conclude that these women either a) were in on it from the beginning or b) so hopelessly naive, useless, self-centered, selfish, and ignorant that they should never have been in the “news” business to begin with.

    Nope. Not having any of it.

    1. Is that your imitation of a misogynistic, bigoted asshole? If it is, you’re incredibly convincing.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.