A money analyst and his television show becomes the central motivation for a strange man to hold him at gunpoint. In the real-time, high stakes thriller Money Monster, George Clooney and Julia Roberts star as charismatic financial TV host Lee Gates and his producer Patty. The two are longtime associates who are put in an extreme situation when an irate investor who has lost everything (Jack O’Connell) forcefully takes over their studio with a gun, as well as forcefully making Lee strap a bomb to his chest. During a tense standoff broadcast to millions on live TV, Lee and Patty must work furiously against the clock to unravel the mystery behind a conspiracy at the heart of today’s fast-paced, high-tech global markets that has left this mysterious gunman bankrupt, as well as left many investors with a great lack of understanding for a game that seems to be rigged for the upper 1%. “Money Monster” is directed by famed actress Jodie Foster, and is rated R for adult language, some sexuality and brief violence.

“Money Monster” is Jodie Foster’s third directoral effort behind the camera, and while the film suffers from some clumsy storytelling issues, its plain script is elevated by two top-notch veteran actors who make the most of the material. Over the last few months, I have been subjected to the trailer for this film on about a hundred different occasions. My final analyzations before seeing the film, had me thinking that this film could go one of two ways. It could either offer itself as a socioeconomic period piece that provokes some thoughts within the classification of two social classes that are quickly seperating themselves from each other as the day goes on. Option two was to play things out as JUST a movie, and while it’s unfortunate that Foster chooses the latter, her presence behind the camera offers some unique touches to pop culture satire.

With the film’s premise being set at a TV station being taken over by a madman, Foster has to get several key details correct in the overall design from her movie, and this one is a pleasure for a news channel junkie like me. The lighting pallate offers a soft tint to really make the colorful visuals on the monitors around Clooney pop in 21st century illumination. The camera angles of the dual focus on movie versus on-screen television show are also very appropriate. Because of the movie always sticking to this theme of the audience revolving around the many different on-screen angles of its program, I found myself easily lost within this world of stock analysis. It was really cool to kind of see the chaos of a cable television station behind the scenes, and it’s in that aspect where “Money Monster” presents an educational aspect to the story that is constantly going on around it. The presentation is jarring in comedic overtones, and this is an important move because it sets the precedent for the way the rich treat the day-to-day stocks. When they lose, it’s a minor speedbump in the freeway to financial immortality, but when the poor class lose, it’s everything to their very survival.

The script to me was never bad, really just plain. With Foster choosing to remind the audience in the third act of this film that it is just a movie, we never get to touch on some of the grander scales that this film could’ve taken with reflective commentary. As such, the movie gets a villain to blame all of its scandals on, and it just didn’t feel satisfying enough to me considering the big questions that the film teases its audience with. Here is one guy in a bigger picture of con-artists and theives, but with this being the answer the screenplay gives us, it never feels like anything special. What Foster is wise enough in presenting is 93 minutes of solid tension that for the most part holds its audience firmly. There is some nice sprouts of comic relief to cool us down in between the shouting, but “Money Monster” prides itself with the building of two different worlds (Inside and outside of the studio) to crack its mystery. I’ve read along the way that some critics had a problem with the juggling of these two approaches to the script, but I thought they were appropriate. Julia Roberts character obviously isn’t going to have the time or resources to figure out the identity of this shadowy figure, so that is where a nice procedural outside really served as that proverbial fourth person in the studio with our main triad. This aspect is kind of a nod to the dramatic capture films of the 80’s, with much communication being pushed back and forth from the ground to the scene going on inside.

I want to talk about the performances for just a second. George Clooney loses himself effortlessly as Lee Gates, a character who I couldn’t stand for his neurotic arrogance at the start of the film, but his transformation is one that really takes its time to accomplish how the threat of life can really play to a man. Lee is very wealthy, but for the first time he is viewing life through someone else’s eyes, and Clooney commands the attention of audience members alike with the fading grip on an evolving situation. Julia Roberts, while small in doses, was very much my favorite part of the movie. Roberts tiptoes a tantilizing game of consequential chess behind the scenes, and really serves as the voice of reason for what’s going on in the room, despite actually being behind a control panel. The chemistry between Clooney and Roberts is easily articulated in this film, as this is the third movie that they have co-starred, pushing the film’s script a lot further than it should rightfully go. The film really passes or fails on the performance of Jack O’Connell, who as the central focus of the film’s conflict triumphs on a human and terrifying level equally. In Jack’s Kyle, we really grasp the increasing stresses of a man with a pregnant wife and a low paying job after losing everything. O’Connell is a firecracker with a slow-burning fuse, and even as a conflict, I found myself rooting him on to find the answers that he deserved.

Overall, “Money Monster” isn’t quite the clarity punch that the world needs during election season, but Jodie Foster does succeed as a lean thriller that offers a human side to numbers and figures. Seeing it might not pay off in expanding dividends, but this one is a sound investment for a timely paced hour-and-a-half.

7/10