_Oy vey!_ I really wanted this movie to be good. I had heard only good things about it and I've wanted to see Adam Sandler do serious roles ever since Punch-Drunk Love.

But I don't know, man. This whole _spiel_ of an asshole _schmuck_ who is also unlucky didn't really click with me. For starters, I didn't really buy the "charistmatic" bit that is mentioned in the synopsis, the lead character talks a lot of shit but I'm not sure how does that amount to "charismatic".

Also, none of the characters was likeable, every character had at least one thing that made you hate them or be annoyed at them, least of all the main character who is an asshole and one annoying fuck, it makes it really hard to root for him, and thus uninterested in whatever journey he is undertaking in the movie.

It didn't help matters much that, for the entirety the movie, everybody is talking over each other, which made it difficult to follow dialogues and got gradually more annoying as the movie progressed. By the time the things got interesting in the third act, I was really prepared for this movie to end.

But, man! things really pick up in the third act and the movie manages to make me root for a guy who was impossible to root for just two seconds ago, I was under the thrall of the movie for the last 15 minutes.

So, in a way, the movie had achieved what it set out to do (if I understood it correctly), but then as the credits rolled, I didn't feel like I took away anything of value from the movie. I was annoyed most of the time, there was nothing outstanding about the movie (Sandler was okay), and while the ending was surprising, it didn't provide me any satisfaction.

I'm kind of torn on how to rate it, but a 6 feels appropriate.

If you enjoy reading my Spoiler-Free reviews, please follow my blog @ https://www.msbreviews.com

The Safdie brothers are known for their anxiety-inducing films, and Uncut Gems follows that tradition. It’s definitely a movie meant to be divisive. At several points during the film, all a viewer wants is to yell “shut up” to everyone on screen. The frenetic pacing, the overwhelming dialogue, and the loud score serve as both praise and criticism.

Adam Sandler gives a career-best performance, but the narrative never quite grabbed me, being too repetitive and possessing a predictable yet impactful ending.

Rating: B

Adam Sandler's best performance? No. But it's indeed his best since Punch-Drunk Love, which continues to be the pinnacle of his talent.

While the film isn't the best talking about technique, it seems to me that its style is totally focused on making the experience an exhausting one. And Uncut Gems is an overwhelming journey full of anxiety and stress. It achieved that splendidly.
That's its greatest accomplishment: To immerse you in the entire atmosphere of the environment that Sandler's character inhabits, while we witness the cascade of bad decisions he makes.

Perhaps the biggest mistake is how the directors get to over-lengthen the story, which indirectly gets to a point where Sandler's character becomes obnoxious but I think that's part of the experience, because who ever in their right mind would feel more sympathy for a person like him? I mean more than the allowed sympathy anyways.

Its ending, although predictable is certainly what he built and there's no learning in it and it doesn't need to be.
After all the story was his decline while he believed that he was going to succeed. And yes for a moment he did and for a moment he savored it, but as happens many times in life, good things aren't made to last.

Another triumph for A24.

9 likes

Brothers and co-directors Josh and Benny Safdie are two of the most exciting names working in modern independent cinema, so their film “Uncut Gems” debuted alongside a shadow of grandiose expectations. The bottom line is that the film is good but far from great, and I’m comfortable going out on a limb and guessing those crowing the loudest about how fresh and original this movie is haven’t seen their far superior 2017 film, “Good Time.”

New York City jeweler Howard Ratner (Adam Sandler) is always on the lookout for the next big score. When he makes a series of high stakes bets that could lead to the windfall of a lifetime, Howard finds himself struggling to keep the balance between the growing list of adversaries, his business, his scams, and his home life. There isn’t much to the story other than a lot of cursing and ongoing scams, but there’s a decent sense of suspense that carries through the majority of the film.

The most shocking thing about “Uncut Gems” is that it lacks depth, especially when compared to “Good Time.” It’s not unfair to compare the two films, as each portray a gritty side of the city with antiheros who are close to completely hitting the skids. An effective crime thriller should have a lead character you can at least root for if not relate to, and Howard isn’t it. Sandler’s character is an irritating scumbag and while I guess that’s what he was going for in his performance, it’s shrill and unpleasant to spend time around this loser. I didn’t really care to see the end of Howard’s story because by the time it rolled around, I was completely worn down by his repeated poor decisions.

Here’s what happens in the film: Howard lies, gets cash, gambles it away, extends himself, gets a beating / stern warning / workplace visit from goons, then lies, gets cash, gambles it away, extends himself, and gets another beat down / visit from more goons. It’s an exhausting repetition of watching a sleazy scumbag spiraling out of control by digging himself deeper into a hole. His cycle of poor decisions is coupled with an indestructible optimism of a life-changing big score. Why should I care about somebody like that?

Sandler is good in the lead role, but much of the praise seems to be coming from the fact that, after a career in comedy films, his performance is unexpected. He’s a talented man, but he’s been even better in other, smaller films (like Noah Baumbach’s “The Meyerowitz Stories”). Howard is a loud, crude, unpleasant man to spend time with, but Sandler inhabits the role as a shady jewelry dealer and degenerate gambler in a way that lends the slightest glimmer of humanity to an otherwise detestable character.

The film plays like a hardcore, taxing Scorsese ripoff. It’s not very exciting, and the tension that does exist feels forced. The direction is more conventional than the material suggests, but major applause to the Safdie brothers for conveying their clear vision and having the courage to stick with it. They’ve started to corner the cinematic market on adapting the gritty side of New York for a modern era. I don’t feel the Safdies are as overrated as some other critics do, but I do think this film is bloated in all the wrong ways.

I never seen so much profanity in any movie. Whole movie was like "f*ck, f*ck, F*ck" or "n**ga, n**ga, n**ga"... What makes this movie worst besides profanity is that it's very chaotic. A lot of people talking the same time which creates chaos and you as a watcher get overwhelmed. Story was okay, nothing special. But again very overwhelming, chaotic and full of profanity. If director wanted to impress us with those things, well, I can tell him that he clearly failed. Everyone can curse, it doesn't need talent. Profanity and chaos doesn't make a good movie. Story does and good acting does, which felt lacking in this movie.