Overall the movie was good. Ramirez was the real standout. I truly thought he was supporting actor nomination worthy. McConaughey gave it his all but I think he was miscast.
I thought that the film proved mediocre (actually lousy for awhile, before picking up somewhat later on, when Wall Street enters the picture), but McConaughey was very good—comical while still being credible, a rogue who manages to be earnest and authentic. (You may have a point, though; why do you feel that he was miscast?) Ramirez was good, too, but he did not stand out to me.
So at the end when McConaughey gets the letter in the mail from Edgar Ramirez and the 82 million. Clearly he is still alive. My question is did McConaughey know this? Was this the plan all along? Or did Edgar Ramirez send him the money because of the friendship?
One cannot say for sure if Kenny Wells (McConaughey) knew that his erstwhile business partner was alive all along, but I am pretty certain that he did not know. I do feel that Mike Acosta (Ramirez) sent him the money as a gesture of friendship, loyalty, and—ironically enough—honesty, as he honored their napkin-inscribed original deal. In retrospect, that aspect is what makes Acosta an intriguing character: clearly, he is a crook, but he is also loyal and sympathetic towards the man with whom he spent so much time in the trenches. Certainly, he appears far more honorable than the far more prestigious Wall Street characters. Unfortunately, I feel that such intrigue regarding Acosta only comes through in retrospect. If the film had spent more time exploring character and cultivating the various relationships, rather than going through the motions and lapsing from plot point to plot point (especially early on), it could have built greater intrigue throughout and enjoyed genuine emotional payoffs later on.
reply
share
NelsonVanAlden
7 years ago
What I loved about the ending is the movie ended up becoming a movie about friendship. Two guys everyone wrote off proved people wrong. And the ending with the napkin showed that Acosta really did care about the friendship. I just wish the movie had developed that a bit more throughout the movie.
As for McConaughey, he looked the part, he gave it his all, but I didn't feel that he showed the true grit and sweat and stress that person would be in. He played it a little more comical. And when he tried to get serious like the scene in the hotel room with Bryce Dallas Howard, it felt forced. But maybe it was the writing or the script. But I can't help but thinking someone a little more sad looking and someone with a little more sweat to their performance might have been better. Like a Michael Shannon or Sam Rockwell or Ben Mendelsohn.
reply
share
joekiddlouischama
7 years ago
What I loved about the ending is the movie ended up becoming a movie about friendship. Two guys everyone wrote off proved people wrong. And the ending with the napkin showed that Acosta really did care about the friendship. I just wish the movie had developed that a bit more throughout the movie.
... right. The final scene—the coda—is arguably the best in the entire film, and I really did enjoy it. (I also feel that the scene with the tiger is great, but it obviously is not as meaningful.) And you are correct: if
Gold had focused on that relationship more consistently, it could have found its voice. Instead, it blankly moves from one narrative development to the next and fails to build the relationships that end up giving the movie meaning—especially that relationship.
As for McConaughey, he looked the part, he gave it his all, but I didn't feel that he showed the true grit and sweat and stress that person would be in. He played it a little more comical. And when he tried to get serious like the scene in the hotel room with Bryce Dallas Howard, it felt forced. But maybe it was the writing or the script. But I can't help but thinking someone a little more sad looking and someone with a little more sweat to their performance might have been better. Like a Michael Shannon or Sam Rockwell or Ben Mendelsohn.
I can see that. I do feel that the script was aiming for something farcical at times, and that McConaughey—paunchy and balding, playing against movie star sleekness—portrays the character in that vein: folly mixed with poignancy, absurd earnestness. Unfortunately, the film—while not wildly inconsistent—struggles at times to maintain a steady pitch and tone. Thus while I feel that McConaughey knew what he wanted to do and be with this character, the movie is more unsteady and fails to effectively complement him.
Have you read A.O. Scott's review in the
New York Times? I agree with his overall take.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/26/movies/gold-review-matthew-mcconaughey.html?_r=0
reply
share
NelsonVanAlden
7 years ago
Yes I read majority of major critics reviews. Tony being one of them.
I kept thinking of Tom Cruise as Les Grossman in Tropic Thunder when I would look at McConaughey in Gold.
reply
share
release-the-bats
7 years ago
The ending was fun but fanciful. I don't imagine you can just bank a cheque for $82,000,000 at any time but especially not when you've been splashed all over the news and have the FBI keeping a keen eye on your affairs.
reply
share
joekiddlouischama
7 years ago
The ending was fun but fanciful. I don't imagine you can just bank a cheque for $82,000,000 at any time but especially not when you've been splashed all over the news and have the FBI keeping a keen eye on your affairs.
... true. I wonder what happened in real life ...
Perhaps he could have banked the check at a foreign bank?
reply
share
duckofprey (1533)
7 years ago
It wasn't a check. It was a bank statement for an already existing account at a foreign bank (Gibraltar) for his half of the 160 million Acosta made off with.
reply
share