“So what’s the verdict?”

State of Play wasn’t something I was extremely excited about; the trailers were well made but made it seem like another run of the mill political thriller. What I got though was an old school political themed murder-mystery that was highly entertaining.

I think what I liked most about State of Play was it’s story; it was tightly written and well executed. Each scene moves the movie from point a to point b but there’s just enough of each character sprinkled into each scene that as the movie moves along, you get a good feeling of their motivations and personalities. The more you get to know each of the characters, the more you question their roll in the stories and it helps makes the movie much more enjoyable as you try to guess what’s going to happen next. The twists the story takes are well thought out and impressively surprisingly. If you watch enough movies you get good at calling out the twists or surprises at the end but in State of Play, the ending comes from left field and after some thought, it makes sense with the given clues.

The only problem I had with the story was that while it was interesting it also lacked a sense of danger. There were a few moments of tension throughout the film and towards the end but there wasn’t a real sense of danger for Russel Crowe or Rachel McAdams. The only thing that seemed to pressure them was their  deadline;  I feel like the movie could have added a little more tension with more on the line for the two reporters.

Crowe and McAdams are great in their roles. Crowe is far from his Gladiator form but his physical transformation is almost a physical manifestation of his character’s grizzled attitude. His character though is fairly simple and throughout the movie you’re guessing his true motivations. He carries the movie well through it’s various twists and turns. McAdams holds herself well against Crowe and is far easier to look at. Her character’s softer generally more personal approach to reporting is a great contrast to Crowe’s hard edged cynical fact based approach.  She provides a great foil and counterpoint.

Ben Affleck, Helen Mirren and Jason Bateman have smaller parts in the movie and are all equally effective. Mirren is given the least amount of screen but she’s also quite fun as a hardnosed editor. Affleck plays it subtle but it works well with his character and his place in the movie. Bateman is fun and humorous as a sleeze ball; thankfully, his screen time is short enough to enjoy without over staying his welcome. Michael Bereresse plays the physical threat in the movie and while imposing, I feel that he isn’t used as much as he could have been.

The movie is put together well enough and the direction and framing are done well enough to get the point across without being distracting. The editting also follows the rule of being good without being distracting. The movie as a whole is good without being anything new.

It’s a solid movie that can entertain you for it’s run.

57