State of Play

Very nice directing and good actors, but the script hardly traverses the three levels of the story: thriller, political-journalistic moralizing and personal drama. The introduction is excellent, full of the unique and very rhythmic direction by Macdonald, but then everything somehow shatters, shreds, evaporates... the legible transnational conspiracy tries to compare with the more serious mental matrix, but it is tedious and quite protracted. The final twists may come as a surprise, but they do not fix the shoddy impression from the previous storytelling. In the end, State of Play is neither an original thriller nor a film that would appeal to us with any message. It has a little bit of both and not enough of either. Nevertheless, mainly thanks to the directing and the actors, it holds up more than honorably. [70%] (18/05/2009)

Too bad that the screenwriters focused so much on the journalist plot, which is not that important for the audience. The editor-in-chief character, played by Helen Mirren, and her effort to publish the best article just slows the film down. The viewer is not interested in newspapers, but in revealing secrets, developing relationships between superbly played characters and the threats to their lives in a dangerous high-stakes political game. Wouldn’t Russell Crowe be enough for the journalism plot? Otherwise, however, State of Play is a very decent film, Ben Affleck is fine and the emotions between Crowe and Robin Wright Penn are completely believable. (07/06/2009)

Who was the good guy and who was the bad guy? Who made a mistake and who didn’t? Politics is a dirty game and journalism is too, mostly, and when good people get involved with either of them, it changes them, usually in the worst possible way. That’s more or less what this outstandingly acted detective drama is all about. Crowe gives a standard performance and Ben Affleck is getting better and better. The only thing I don’t understand is the Czech title of the movie. This movie certainly isn’t destined for slaughter. (23/08/2009)

It is important not to expect a gripping espionage ride, but rather a lightly sarcastic thriller with a sharply eloquent Russell Crowe and an unremarkable Ben Affleck, again. While watching, I had a feeling that I’d already seen hundreds of films like this, and it is quite possibly true. I recommend it more to fans of the investigative subgenre, the uninitiated will not enjoy it, they will be bored. (14/11/2009)

A professionally shot thriller, in which Russell Crowe stands out as usual in the role of a journalist, who is passionate about the truth and a good story and is willing to risk even his life for it. Unfortunately, words of praise cannot be said about his partner Ben Affleck. His average acting might have been hidden in a different film and under different circumstances, perhaps behind the production, special effects, or pace, but compared to Crowe, the difference in quality is painfully evident in some places. The fourth star has escaped the film for other reasons - mainly due to shortcomings in the script. The producer wanted to follow the usual formula and attract viewers with a dramatic twist, after which the perspective on the characters of the story changes, but the screenwriter did not avoid logical errors and inconsistencies - see the final encounter between Crowe and the assassin. The expected victory of good and a free press over human filth and intrigue somehow fits into the idea of American studio production, but my sympathies usually go to films that attempt to break or at least avoid established clichés. Overall impression: 65%. (26/02/2013)