I have been reading the audience comments on RT and it goes almost always like complete love or complete hate. Not much else.So far it seems its mostly women doing rhe hating and mostly because of all the swear words in it and the chaos/loudness of it all.
I get the annoyance foe swear words some peole just really dislike that anywhere.
But the second type of complaints is somewhat loss on me. While I get that the chaos and loudness may be spmewhat ubpleasant to experience this was so expertyl done so its intentionally anxiety inducing but thats what the directors wanted the audience to feel so job well done.
I guess if someo people didnt find Howard relatable on any level, or charismatic/likeable in any way then it might have felt uncomfortable for them to just experience anxiety/stress over someone you dont root for.
But how someone could feel that way about Sandler in this particular movie is a mystery on me
.
Would love to hear from someone from here who disliked the movie...
I just viewed
Uncut Gems, and I neither love it nor hate it. I do like it, though—I feel that the film is "good." I went through most of it thinking that it was "pretty good," meaning above-average yet less than a full-fledged good movie, but the ending proved fitting and brought the overall saga to a logical, uncompromising conclusion, hence elevating
Uncut Gems.
Ironically, the film features several aspects that, in the abstract, are not that attractive. There is little subtlety or reflection, the visual coverage is very tight (with an abundance of closeups and few long shots), the dialogue is inelegant, and the primary visual metaphor seems something of a gimmick. But whatever one makes of the movie's various elements, they all complement each other in this context, thus rendering the style effective. Conversely, in
Ford v. Ferrari (which I viewed twice and deem merely "decent" or "mediocre") and for the bulk of
The Irishman ("pretty good/good"), the pacing fails to complement the tone, thus rendering both films problematic. But in
Uncut Gems, the varied aspects—while coarse and veering more toward gimmickry than artistry—nonetheless prove mutually complementary. Thus, while I did not quite find the film riveting, it did maintain my attention throughout.
I often found the material in
Uncut Gems to be thin and the plotting to sometimes be desperate, but it suggested a quixotic
American Hustle vibe that is intriguing and fatalistically potent. And this film is better than
American Hustle because it is more consistent tonally and less overweening in its ambitions, a black comedy that essentially eschews sentimentality. Adam Sandler's performance is not exactly nuanced, but he carries the movie in a way that we rarely see these days. And again to the point about being complementary, his manic style perfectly matches that of the filmmaking.
As someone who has followed NBA basketball for thirty-one years and who grew up in Massachusetts and is thus a Celtics' fan (I closely viewed all those 2012 playoff games that the movie features), I will point out a few flaws that most viewers may not have noticed yet did prove mildly perturbing to me.
First, there is no chance that a modern NBA star with millions in the bank (which was clearly the case with Kevin Garnett, both in real life and with this fictionalized version of himself) would have flippantly used his championship ring as collateral in order to temporarily possess some jewel, no matter how rare and attractive. Obviously, we are talking about a movie and all that, but the suspension of disbelief does not exactly work in this case. (Well, it might have worked if the star had been Dennis Rodman, but even that proposition is debatable.)
Second, when the Sandler character is enthusiastically viewing Game Three of the 2012 Eastern Conference Semifinals between Boston and Philadelphia (the first game shown), the contest is clearly being broadcast on TNT. In fact, we see the TNT logo on the television screen and we hear the musical theme that the network has used for its NBA coverage every season since '02-'03. (For the basketball-informed viewer, one can also hear Dick Stockton and former NBA star Chris Webber on the call, knowing that they worked for TNT, as Webber still does.) Yet later that evening, Sandler's Howard Ratner asks his wife to flip the channel back to ESPN. Clearly, the filmmakers decided to have Sandler say "ESPN" because even non-sports fans understand that it is a sports station, and ESPN indeed aired the other two contests shown in the film (Games Four and Seven). But Game Three, from that night, was on TNT, and the filmmakers have clearly shown that it was on TNT. So why not just have Sandler say "TNT" and trust that audience members will be smart enough to understand that ESPN is not the only television network that airs NBA basketball or sports in general? The issue is not a big deal, but it is annoying and these kinds of details can indeed make a difference. In other words, be true rather than pandering to the lowest common denominator.
Third, based on what the characters are wearing, the weather in New York seems rather cool or at best lukewarm, yet that playoff series took place in May 2012. Sure enough, the filmmakers shot
Uncut Gems in the fall of 2018, and while filmmakers obviously cannot wait around to shoot matters in the actual season of the historical incident, they can compensate by making the characters and extras wear clothing that better reflects the intended time of the year. Again, the matter is not a big deal, but these kinds of details can add up.
Fourth, I do not understand how a couple of individuals off the street (the Sandler character and his black hustler/Garnett liaison) could have even reached some secondary practice courts in the 76ers' arena without credentials. The hustler then clears his name with security in order to reach Garnett (while the Sandler character cannot), but how could they have even arrived at that point, that far inside the stadium?
Fifth, and this point pertains to the thinness of much of the material, the idea that an NBA star would become obsessed with a luxurious foreign rock in the middle of a playoff run is far-fetched and, indeed, utterly ridiculous. This central plot point does not destroy the film, because
Uncut Gems is essentially a delirious black comedy and Kevin Garnett, again, is not actually playing himself (name and role aside), but rather a distortion of himself. So the viewer can roll with it gingerly enough, but that plot point would only make sense if the guy was on drugs.
Hence, for all of these reasons, I do find
Uncut Gems to be flawed, yet in its fatalism and manic energy, its unforced sense of American allegory, and the way that its rough-hewn elements are mutually complementary, it manages to be a worthwhile ride. And while I am not certain that Sandler's performance ranks among the year's very finest, there is a force-of-personality to it that proves reminiscent of previous generations of movie stars. In essence, he is completely credible in the role, and that is what makes the difference.