State of Play

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. (06/07/2009)

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%. (02/26/2013)

Journalism with not a drop, but rather a hefty bucket of everything I dislike about current Hollywood production. Reporters who get in everywhere, incompetent cops, a stupid shootout during which a complete amateur escapes a professional, a soulless script culminating in a very expected ending, pervasive naivety... There’s nothing enthralling or at least entertaining and truth be told, an hour and a quarter into the film I was ready to turn it off. Misery, misery, misery. (06/01/2013)

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. (11/14/2009)

Take out Affleck's dull, inarticulate expression and Helen Mirren's superfluous character of a principled journalist, and you are left with the best you could wish for in a conspiracy political thriller: a great plot, a dense atmosphere sculpted by tons of political dirt and forbidden machinations, a terrific score, and four or five excellent actors who we trust to live and breathe their characters. But be warned, it's still nothing but highly stylized and cleverly twisted Hollywood entertainment with an intrepid Crowe and an attractive McAdams, where the spectacular pursuit of justice far outweighs the honest themes of classic conspiracy films. But you have to get used to it, because you can't do better than this in the genre today – and personally I’m not complaining. 80% (05/10/2014)