State of Play (2009) User Reviews

A tense thriller with top-notch acting and writing

[Reel_starz · 8/10 · 26 April 2009]

About a month before State of Play came into theaters, I read an article in The Washington Post (I live in the D.C. area) about the realism of the news industry as portrayed in the movie. One of the Post reporters served as a consultant on the set and I must say that he seems to have done his job. Almost every aspect, from the constantly chaotic state of the newsroom to the reporter-lingo, feels authentic and true to reality. While there are occasional times when the movie's main character, the reporter Cal McCaffrey, strays from the usual ethical and professional guidelines, there are logical explanations for such instances that are given in the movie. At one point, Russell Crowe even ad-libs a line about the outdated technology he has compared to the state-of-the-art computers given to Della Fry, Rachel McAdams's gossipy blogger: "I've been here fifteen years, I've got a sixteen year old computer. She's been here fifteen minutes and she's got enough gear to launch a f***ing satellite." This line was inspired by the feud between print journalists and their online counterparts that, according to the Post reporter, exists in real-life. Because journalism is so crucial to the story of State of Play, every minute detail contributes greatly to the believability of the film as a whole and it is this attention to detail that really elevates State of Play above the average political thriller.

The cast, which includes three Oscar winners, though Ben Affleck won for screen writing, could not be more perfect. With his long, shaggy hair, bulging belly and old, trash-littered car, Russell Crowe looks appropriately scruffy and he disappears into his role, becoming one of the most convincing journalists on screen in recent years. It is impossible to imagine anyone else in the role, especially Brad Pitt, who was originally signed on for the part. As his partner on the story, Rachel McAdams delivers, giving her character a very energetic yet idealistic flavor. Della Fry is, at least in the beginning, a rather obnoxious woman but, in large part due to McAdams, she gradually becomes more likable and we learn to accept her for who she is. Helen Mirren is splendid as Cameron, McCaffery and Fry's insistent boss, and every time she appears, the screen comes alive (not that it's dead when she isn't there). Ben Affleck once again proves that he can act when given the right material. He gives his character, a promising congressman, an air of detached arrogance mixed with frustrated vulnerability. Representative Stephen Collins certainly has his principles but throughout the film, that sense of morality is largely shrouded in secrets and mystery and the audience is forced to constantly guess and re-guess his true intentions. Aside from the main actors, the supporting cast does a terrific job with a slightly comedic, almost delightfully over-the-top performance by Jason Bateman as a pretentious PR agent. Also worth noting is Viola Davis, who plays a contact of McCaffrey's in the morgue, and even though she only appears in one scene, she makes the most of that short screen-time that, in turn, makes us remember her well.

Other than the superb cast, one of the most impressive things about State of Play is the script, which was written by Tony Gilroy, Billy Ray and Matthew Michael Carnahan and based on the 2003 BBC mini-series of the same name. However, it bears Tony Gilroy's distinctive mark not only because it involves corporate conspiracies and unending twists, but the witty dialogue could have been written by almost no one else. Occasional instances of humor help lighten the otherwise rather dark mood. Also, the writing is highly intelligent and makes the audience actually think rather than simply go along with the complicated plot. This can also be contributed to the direction of Kevin MacDonald who, after winning an Oscar for his documentary One Day in September in 1999 and directing the Oscar-winning feature film The Last King of Scotland, proves that he has loads of talent and hopefully, will remain prominent in the film-making industry.

Other noteworthy aspects of the movie are the cinematography and the score, both of which help carry the tension throughout the entire two-and-a-half hour film, even during quieter scenes. However, State of Play is not quite perfect. The main, and perhaps only, flaw is the minor plot holes that, while virtually unnoticeable during the actual viewing of the movie, become more obvious upon dissecting the movie afterwards. It is impossible to discuss these errors in detail without giving anything away, but they do make the conclusion a little less satisfying.

Nonetheless, the movie is so good in all other areas that it is still easy to overlook the implausibility of the ending. From the virtually flawless cast and writing to the authenticity of its portrayal of journalists and the thought-provoking political themes, State of Play stands out among all the conventional political thrillers churned out by Hollywood in recent years. Go see it!

A solid and interesting old-fashioned political thriller

[DonFishies · 8/10 · 15 April 2009]

Congressman Stephen Collins (Ben Affleck) is helping with the government investigation of a shady military-based company when he receives word that his mistress has committed suicide. Visually distraught, he leaves a hearing in tears and sets off a media circus. Seasoned reporter Cal McAffrey (Russell Crowe) was his roommate in college, and the two have remained friends. In a bid to quash the political blogging of junior reporter Della Frye (Rachel McAdams), McAffrey sets out to find the truth about the story.

State of Play sets itself up early on to be a cookie-cutter, predictable thriller. But as the film progresses, it rather quickly becomes the twisty and conniving thriller it needs to be. Despite being heavily dialogue driven, the film is an intense ride that will keep people on edge throughout. Some scenes are downright terrifying in their amped up suspense and political intrigue. This film really set out to be tense, and succeeds wonderfully. It knows just what punches to pull, and when to pull them.

The script, written by political scribes Matthew Michael Carnahan, Tony Gilory and Billy Ray, is insight and intriguing. It could have easily been made boring and inundated with rehashed politicalisms (like all of their last films), but this film revels in how interesting it becomes. It has laughs strung throughout (a genuine surprise), and lacks the nerve to become loaded to the brim with facts and innuendos. Instead, it expertly weaves between scenes, amping up the intensity of some scenes, and downplaying others.

But this is mainly due to the incredible performances by the cast. Crowe (who I usually loathe) and Affleck are simply outstanding in their roles. Age issues aside, both play their character with finesse and charisma. Affleck looks and acts like a confused wet-behind-the-ears, gunning-for-higher-office political pawn from beginning to end. Some of the reactions on his face are downright devastating in how excellently they are conveyed. And this is a guy critics once said could not act. Coupled with one-two shot of acting in Hollywoodland and directing Gone Baby Gone, we may be seeing a renewed resonance and importance for the Oscar-winner. Crowe on the other hand, delivers his strongest performance in years. While he has been downplayed and underused in his last few films, he carries this film. He is stubborn and vaguely likable, but he makes his character work for all of his idiosyncrasies and ethically-questionable tactics. He makes a seasoned journalist look like an amateur.

McAdams, all but a ghost recently, holds her own against the two heavy-hitters and delivers a performance that is both inspired and emotional. It gives her a lot of room to act, and she delivers in every instance. The rest of the cast is a bit mixed however, as so little of them is given that much to do. Harry Lennix, Robin Wright Penn, Jeff Daniels, the horrifying Michael Berresse and especially Jason Bateman, all deliver noteworthy performances, but never get to really shine in them. They all have their traits and motivations, but get little screen time to truly express them. They each are developed quite strongly, but they lack the movement afforded to Crowe, Affleck and McAdams. I simply loved Helen Mirren's scenery-gauging editor and all of her subtleties. But she too, is downplayed to the point of almost barely being in the film.

Despite its intensity, the film is bogged down by its dialogue-heavy scenes and consistent character additions. It is easy to keep track of everyone, but so many people are introduced that the film loses its focus on more than one occasion. It makes for a few scenes that are merely filler between the scenes of useful heavy acting. It just feels so tiring. I understand now how daunting a task it must have been to convert six hours of British television into a 127-minute film, but there are scenes that are just too easy to not have been cut out (some entire mildly useful subplots may have helped). Adding characters in makes sense for a story about two journalists frantically searching to lift the lid on a story, but there needs to be more emphasis on what was needed and not needed. A brilliant montage in the middle of the film goes almost entirely to waste because the filmmakers lack the knowledge of what should be cut. Limiting the preposterous and silly climax could have also done wonders. The scenes that are left in the film (including the finale) are great, but they could have been stronger if they were as tightly wound as the film wants itself to be. A little less shaky hand camera movement could have also significantly benefited the film.

Even with its problems, it is clear from the on-set of the first shot in the bullpen at the Washington Globe that the filmmakers are going for a very keen sense of homage to All the President's Men. While the on-going and very professional relationship between McAffrey and Frye is very similar to Woodward and Bernstein, the fabric of journalistic integrity and researching are the core of State of Play. The film is loaded with allusions to the Oscar-winning film, and even mimics shots right out of the film. While it is obvious for anyone who has seen Men, this film's nods are done in such a delicate and unique way that they never become distracting or blatant. The film is its own, and does not ever feel like it is living in its big-brother's shadow. It is a fresh take on old-fashioned reporting in a very digital age, and frequently walks the tight line of old versus new.

State of Play looked interesting, and surprisingly delivers on almost every count. It is not a perfect film, but it is a solid example of great film-making. It wants to be more, but seems content at being a twisty and suspenseful modern thriller.

8/10.

Solid thriller with a bit of a strange ending

[blott2319-1 · 8/10 · 30 October 2021]

I cannot describe how much I enjoy a good investigative reporting story, and State of Play really scratched that itch. It also combines that kind of story-telling with the idea of a few people trying to blow the lid on a massive conspiracy that may put their lives in danger, which is another style of film that I love. I was thrilled through most of State of Play, and didn't even care that there were some predictable aspects to the story, because it's not always about finding out whodunnit but seeing how they will be caught. Russell Crowe delivered his same performance he always gives, but it didn't bother me too much here since I was deeply invested in the plot (although I did find myself wondering how much more I'd enjoy it with a better actor.) The rest of the cast did marvelous work, and helped make the entire film more impactful. I even found Ben Affleck to be a good casting choice (for once) because he has the right kind of smarminess that I'd expect from that kind of politician.

For a long time I was convinced that State of Play was going to be one of those legendary films that ticks all the boxes for me, and would become a favorite I'd watch again and again. However, there were a couple of things that held it back from greatness for me, and left me just a little disappointed at the end. First of all, there was a slight interpersonal relationship dynamic between some of the characters that felt unnecessary and detracted from the story for me in a small way. It wasn't terrible, but it came across as pointless baggage they were adding to the characters that didn't enhance the plot in any way. Finally, there's the ending. While I can't dig into any details without touching on spoilers, I'll just say that it did too much to reframe the entire plot of the film, and created more questions than answers. It genuinely took me to a place where I no longer knew how to feel about the resolution of State of Play. I didn't need that twist, and it left me conflicted about a movie I was loving up to that point.

Yesterday's News Still Blog-Worthy

[WriterDave · 7/10 · 20 April 2009]

A gruff old-school reporter (Russell Crowe playing his A-game) becomes personally entangled in a breaking news story surrounding his old college buddy turned congressman (Ben Affleck, not as bad as you would think) and a young female aid who died under mysterious circumstances in the surprisingly plausible political thriller "State of Play" from director Kevin MacDonald who was previously responsible for "The Last King of Scotland". Though designed as a throw-back to paranoid investigative thrillers from the 1970's, relevance is gained when the massive cover-up revealed becomes a vehicle for the filmmakers to explore the death of print news at the hand of digital mediums.

The twisty and engaging screenplay is credited to three scribes: Matthew Michael Carnahan, Tony Gilroy and Billy Ray. But it's Gilroy's fingerprints that shape the story with all the overlapping dialogue and conspiracy talk that will remind many of his "Michael Clayton". Adapted from a sprawling BBC miniseries created by Paul Abbott, the trio is especially deft in their condensing of the story into a fully digestible two hours. Even as new characters and twists keep coming, the audience is never left out in the cold. They also give the cast plenty to chew on with some great throw-away lines amidst all the posturing between the cops, reporters, politicians and sleaze-bags.

Though it's Crowe and Helen Mirren as his sparring and quick-witted boss who shine the most, this is essentially an ensemble piece, and it's especially clever when Jason Bateman arrives on screen for a few pivotal scenes as a smug public relations guru who's too dumb to realize he knows too much. The cast also includes Robin Wright Penn as Affleck's wife, Jeff Daniels as the arrogant majority whip and Harry Lennix, who as a D.C. detective makes a compelling case here for the lead role in the Barack Obama Story. The only miscalculation in the casting is poor Rachel McAdams, lovely but annoying in her high-pitch as Crowe's blogging tag-along looking to kick it old-school and get something in print.

By the third act "State of Play" overplays its hand in its attempts to be timely with too much talk of the privatization of the military, Capitol Hill sex scandals and traditional newspapers losing out in the digital age to bloggers more concerned with gossip than real journalism. It could've also been more subtle in its preaching about the importance of serious investigative reporting. It should be commended, however, for an otherwise smart screenplay that doesn't spell out all its twists and turns too early and the well polished cast who give the film a slick sheen. Even though it might be reporting on yesterday's news, "State of Play" still makes for solid rainy day entertainment and is worthy of blogging about.

Enjoyable thriller with a glaring miscasting

[jjnxn-1 · 7/10 · 12 October 2013]

Good thriller with some excellent performances. Russell Crowe is suitably grizzled as the been around reporter and Helen Mirren is wonderfully tough as his editor, the problem is the casting of Ben Affleck. He gives a good enough performance but is far too young to be believable as Crowe's college roommate or Robin Wright Penn's husband, not his fault but a major casting error nonetheless. Originally Crowe and Affleck's parts were to be filled by Brad Pitt and Edward Norton a far more simpatico pairing the obvious disparity in the leads ages distracts throughout the film. Jason Bateman shows up late in the movie to offer up a fun, out there performance as a sleaze. The story itself does move along and offers some nice tension and twists.

State of Play, see the feature film, but be sure to see the BBC miniseries, too

[videobrooklyn · 7/10 · 13 April 2009]

I attended a pre-release screening of the new film, State of Play, with anticipation of seeing both quality work from actor Russell Crowe and screenwriter Tony Gilroy. I also entered the theater with a degree of apprehension about how well this feature length film would measure up to the brilliantly acted and crafted six-part BBC series that was the basis for the film. Crowe well-embodied the tenacious old-school investigative journalist that we've come to know from classics, such as "All the President's Men." However, the multifaceted ensemble of journalists, portrayed by a rich range of actors from the BBC series (John Simm, Kelly MacDonald, James McAvoy), is missing from this feature film where Russell Crowe does all the work. The complexity of the plot, which includes the competing professional interests and emotional needs of the characters in the British miniseries, is largely eliminated in this big screen version. Ben Affleck and Robin Wright Penn do not seem to appreciate and respond to the high stakes events that could turn their lives inside out and upside down. What this film shares with the miniseries is the glimpse into the mechanics of running a journalistic investigation under the pressure of time and editorial interference, but the personal stories suffer from not being fleshed out and made to feel real and compelling to watch. It is not fair to compare one piece of art to another, but when two productions are related, and you've seen the original, it is difficult to view the second production without prejudice. It is like trying to unring a bell.

The new film, State of Play, is a convincing thriller, but it fails to also deliver as a richly defined character drama.

Curiosity will drive those who saw the BBC series to see this film, and the rich pedigree of the film production will draw in those who know nothing about the original miniseries. Everyone will ultimately be satisfied by seeing both productions (miniseries is on DVD) so that they can make the comparisons and connections that any thinking film-goer will want to do.

I Gotta Admit, I did not entirely get the ending

[levybob · 7/10 · 30 September 2022]

In 'State of Play' the surprises keep coming. A politician's staff-member has been murdered and two journalists set out to discover the 'Who' (who killed her) and the 'Why'. We go down one alley, then another, all our beliefs challenged, then changed, but throughout it all our interest remains pretty high.

But then ... then something happens. One of the characters says something that she could not possibly know about, and this re-arranges all the assumptions we have made about guilty parties. Which is fine. But for one thing. The character who made the telling statement all but disappears from the film. She is not guilty. And the someone who is guilty is not the person who made the statement. And so the question is, what really happened here? I don't know. And I should know, because that's what the film was leading up to. Who Done It? Easy. Yes?

Russel Crowe is fine as one journalist, Rachel McAdam is superb as his younger associate. Ben Affleck is his usual stoic self, though it works in this role. Helen Mirren is shrill - too shrill - in her role as the newspaper's managing editor. For fans of Robin Wright - and there are many - she's fine as the wife of the Affleck character; thrown over for someone younger.

Finally, the film is - how to say? - flabby. It's not as tight as it should be. It goes off on tangents that lead nowhere at times when we should be tightening up the script and the tension. Also, it's kind of 'old fashioned'; the sort of plucky-young-journalist film they don't make anymore.

Anyway, it made for an entertaining evening. And that's more than merely O.k.

If you like thrillers...

[jlddvm · 9/10 · 20 April 2009]

Crowe brings his A game (despite an occasional accent slip) to his role as a world-weary reporter with the newly purchased Washington Globe, helmed by Helen Mirren's very engaging take on Perry White/Katharine Graham. If you like thrillers you won't be disappointed in this pic that runs 2 hours and feels less than half of that. "State of Play" isn't perfect and the number of plot points that need to come together veritably dictate some implausibility at the end but if you compare this film to any five suspense-thrillers (at least Hollywood-made) that have come out in the past five years, you have to appreciate the whole package: Acting (and I disagree with the Ben Affleck naysayers here, he acquitted himself very well), character acting (Viola Thomas, Jason Batemen and Harry Lennix compete equally with a fraction of the time of the major players), interesting and gripping plot and story development, and overall believability all make this a first-rate film and one all involved should be proud of. The subtext of love and loss surrounding the non- entertainment print media also lends more than a little credibility and sympathy to the effort. I hope this film succeeds on a financial level and inspires at least one or two ambitious filmmakers to make movies in the same vein. Without doubt, there are too few genre pics of this caliber and State of Play shows it can be done well, even into the 21st century.

Decent thriller, but missing something special

[Leofwine_draca · 6/10 · 10 December 2012]

I liked STATE OF PLAY. It ticked all of the right boxes: solid direction, good, playing-against-type performances from most of the cast, unforeseen twists and some great set-pieces, including a ferocious encounter in an underground car park.

Do I think it's a truly great film? No, not by a long shot. It's inventive, and well-paced, and one of those films that stimulates the brain as well as the senses, but...I didn't find much emotion at the heart. A similar thriller like David Fincher's ZODIAC really grabbed me with its depiction of Jake Gyllenhaal's dedicated journalist, but there's little emotion at the core of STATE OF PLAY. It's too busy with the mystery stuff and the ending just left me cold.

Russell Crowe gives one of his most interesting performances to date as the long-haired, tubby journalist and the aforementioned scene in the underground car park sees him play isolated and frightened, a real counterpoint to his usual tough 'n' taciturn type performances. The rest of his obsessive-y type stuff has been previously done in American GANGSTER.

Ben Affleck is surprisingly good as the shady politician, and it's refreshing to see him playing a character with a bit more depth for a change. Speaking of depth, Rachel McAdams is the one weak link in the chain, completely out of hers, while Helen Mirren seems to be trying too hard to emulate Meryl Streep in THE DEVIL WEARS PRADA for the majority of her scenes.

A Pleasant Throw Back to Early Pressburger/Powell Espionage and a Pakula Classic

[amarcordforever · 8/10 · 16 April 2009]

Whether you loved em' or hated em', espionage thrillers made up a generous portion of cinema from the 1940-50's. With fast paced, edge of your seat story lines, plot twists, political undertones and dramatic personal struggles with morality, nobody did it better than Emeric Pressburger and Michael Powell. Their attention to character detail and it's purpose in conjunction with the narrative gave heart and humanity to this new string of movies which could have fallen into similar (yet shallower) alpha male characters such as James Bond. Never the less, we cannot forget that ultimately if it weren't for their vision and invention of the genre, Hollywood may have never capitalized on the staggeringly profitable Bond franchise that's still going strong today.

In the mid 70's, due to the heat of the political environment at that time, the genre decided to go in the same direction. All The Presidents Men, brought to light the investigative strategies of Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein and tackled the Watergate scandal from the perspective of the Washington Post. As audiences, we shared in the thrill of being able to follow the case as it unfolded, interviewing witnesses and piecing together clues in order to make a 10 O'clock print deadline. We were part of the chase, the scandal and always privy to the evidence necessary to solve the mystery at hand...that is until a new piece of evidence arose and bashed in all of our original assumptions.

State of Play may be the first film to pay homage to this Pakula classic while dually creating more poignant themes for today's political atmosphere. Crowe plays a reporter for the Washington Post and McAdams, an internet blogger, serving as our Woodward and Bernstein clones on the case of a Senator, Affleck, whose mistress succumbs to a rather untimely death VIA train tracks. To add insult to injury, it turns out that our reporter and senator are practically best friends. The plot unfolds, relationships falter and the real truth, to our pleasant surprise, blindsides us like a drunk driver on a narrow road.

Director Kevin Macdonald clearly knows what he's doing here and along with a well written screenplay by Tony Gilroy, carefully crafts a neat, sharp and extremely entertaining thrill ride of a movie whose run time is 2 hours and 15 minutes, but feels like 30. State of Play never fails at keeping you guessing, does a fine job of throwing in a few curve balls, and leaves you with a clean taste in your mouth come end credits. What more do you want? Sure. It isn't the next Best Picture and Crowe won't take home an Oscar, but you'll enjoy some nail biting action scenes and there are much worse things to look at than Rachel McAdams on the big screen for a few hours.

Helen Mirren is delightful in what little screen time she is given. Affleck is "good", although decided to play it completely safe in a role that even he really can't screw up. Lets face it, he needed to gain even a small amount of points since Hollywoodland and the flops that followed in his footsteps.

Overall, you'll be as pleased and refreshed as I was to see a picture that has the finesse of an espionage thriller, the entertainment value of an All The Presidents Men political drama and the edginess that we should expect from a modern day piece of cinema that doesn't star Miley Cyrus.

long as I can see the light...

[Quinoa1984 · 7/10 · 25 April 2009]

I had heard State of Play, from a number of critics, would be one of those movies that started out good, had a strong first half, and then started turning predictable and whatnot in the 2nd. Turns out it's not quite like that. State of Play is consistently good, has gripping parts and some very good performances, until it suddenly undoes its own highly cooked conspiracy-thriller intentions for one of those twist-endings that takes things back a notch. And it's not a good twist- not so much because of how the scene is written, the final confrontation between the characters, but because it deflates the rest of the paranoid drama and suspense that's been building up to it.

State of Play is not without some other curious things to it, such as Russell Crowe playing the grizzled old veteran reporter who may also have the kind of skills that should make him Sherlock Holmes's understudy - or competition. In the film his character practically makes the police obsolete as he takes it upon himself to investigate what is behind the suicide(?) of an assistant to the congressman played by Ben Affleck who is also an old college roommate of his. Rachel McAdams' character has to keep up at times, breathlessly and sometimes with protest, with Cal's methods of inquiry and extracting info.

And yet, I could buy into a lot of it, partly because of Crowe's performance, as usual with some good gravitas and weight and with the measure of experience he's had as an actor. and partly because it keeps the suspense and the will-he-or-won't-he aspect of the deadline for the paper. Up until those final ten minutes when that twist (not to spoil too much but it is a Keyser Soze bit as other critics have inferred), the filmmakers keep us interested in the events because of us being so invested with Crowe and McAdams tracking down a case that balloons to include defense contractors, the media, and lord knows what else.

Again, performances make the difference, and at the least State of Play's director (of Last Kind of Scotland fame) knows how to corral right actors for just the right parts. He gets Crowe and McAdams well paired, and Helen Mirren as the headstrong but lenient editor in chief, and especially from Affleck who can bring on a sense of truth even when he's lying to our faces- perfect for a politician. Jason Bateman, by the way, steals his scenes as a PR guy who talks and talks big and flamboyantly until he has to crack under pressure. Even the guy who played the undercover black-op style killer was perfectly cast.

The big problem then, aside from the twist ending, is that everything in the film, for all of its fine moments of storytelling, does feel the crunch of being adapted from a 5 hour mini-series. While not seen by me, I can tell that there is likely more room for subject matter to breathe, for the audience to digest a lot of this information. As with Watchmen, what they cut out probably worked for the feature film, but only up to a point. As in any story, in journalism or film, the details do stack up. All of the (very) impressive tricks with having cameras in the scenes shooting from far away and at different and opposing angles meant to create tension can't quite surmount this crunch. It's a good film that at times tries a little too much to be more important that it is.

Pale, Pale Imitation

[kevingoodwin · 5/10 · 28 May 2009]

For those who saw the original BBC UK TV " State of Play " you will wonder how they could have made such a listless 2d version of a great plot line. Afleck is very good the best I've seen him act for years. Crowe is well, ordinary, his character, a grumpy, scruffy, almost unhygienic journalist is very one pace. The newspapers editor played by Helen Mirren is likewise played on one note , that of your tough mainly shouting Brit . The female sidekick of Crowes' is a token role inserted to try to involve the female viewer I guess , which is a shame as she wastes screen time which didn't allow what should have been the main female lead i.e. the wronged politicians wife to shine thru' as it did in the BBC version. In this adaptation her part was by passed with hints to an affair with Crowe, an unhappy marriage etc but absolutely nothing was fleshed out , so you cared little for her situation in all of this murder and intrigue. The at times slack pace of the movie was proved to me as the director constantly intercut scenes with those of a mysterious helicopter scanning the skies of Washington , a very amateur attempt at trying to create tension which isn't necessary in a truly thrilling movie and wasn't needed in the original The two glaring no-nos though were in plot lines which to me showed either lazy scriptwriting or masses of footage on the cutting room floor . In the hospital scene , where the female reporter bumps into the killer on the third floor as she emerges from the elevator. She proceeds to walk a few paces into the treatment room , within seconds a snipers rifle kills the would be witness. Now hang on , the same guy she has just passed has within ten paces of her walking, he has descended three floors, left the hospital , crossed the street , gone into another building, ascended at least four floors into a convenient room and fired his weapon to kill the guy , mmmmm OK suspend disbelief ( and time)

But then towards the climax of the whole two hours plus, Crowe suddenly realises the true nature of events and without speaking , crosses Washington to confront Afleck . As he leaves him amazingly this same killer is waiting for Crowe outside Afleck's office !!. So now the killer is a clairvoyant as well as moves at super speed . This makes no sense and unfortunately my suspension was now too tired to shift my disbelief . Sloppy , sloppy plot .

After transatlantic copies like this you can understand why film fans groan when they hear Hollywood is to make their version of a loved play/film. My advice , either get the original and enjoy the real thing or don't get the original , see this copy and miss a great tale, well told, your choice .

Decent, If Unmemorable, Political Thriller

[ccthemovieman-1 · 7/10 · 21 September 2009]

I would label this a "decent-but-unmemorable political thriller," something you'd probably enjoy viewing but a few weeks later had forgotten much of it. Usually, movies which star Russell Crowe are more dynamic, although Crowe still mesmerizes as usual.

I liked the twists and turns at the end, but one has to wait about two hours for those and that's a little too long a wait. As slick a production as it was, and with acceptable acting from actor, it was many of the characters here that seemed more like Hollywood stereotypes than real-life people.

There was Crowe with the hippie looks from 30-40 years ago and who has the daring of James Bond; the Washington newspaper editor being a foul-mouthed Brit (crusty Helen Mirren) who uses profane expresses the Americans wouldn't know; the neophyte blogster (Rachel McAdams) being drop-dead gorgeous and getting her way despite tough bosses; the bad guys being anyone connected with the military (man, is that getting old, from Dr. Strangelove to today's films - it never changes), the professional sniper/assassin conveniently missing the good guy (Crowe) although he could kill anyone else......you get the picture - a few too many liberal film clichés. The most realistic character was probably "Rep. Stephen Collins (D-Pa)," played by the least of the actors, Ben Affleck.

As for minor characters, I thought "Dominic Foy," played by Jason Bateman, was fascinating, as was Robin Wright.

Overall, for entertainment purposes it was okay; not something you'd yawn and fall asleep watching, although you might be confused here and there. Through the gimmicks of hyped-up music and sound effects here and there, the suspense was evident throughout the two-plus hours. It's also an interesting look at today's battle between old and new "media," meaning newspapers and the Internet, respectively.

Overall, it's enough to warrant as a purchase at the rental store but not as a blind buy despite the "name" cast.

Moved along nicely although a bit predictable.

[sharonsmart · 6/10 · 15 June 2009]

This doesn't contain any spoiler - I just didn't want to be blacklisted for any reason on my very first review on IMDb! Went and saw the movie today. I like Russell Crowe but thought his character was a bit flat and unemotional, I guess that's him being a journalist. Funny he loathes them in real life, but there is a line in the movie where he tries to explain they are respectable.

Although there are several high profile actors/actresses in this movie I thought the acting was a bit flat (except Jason Bateman, he is a standout providing the only laughs) and stereotypical of the roles they were assigned, which lead to my predictions about the plot early on that turned out somewhat correct.

It does leave you guessing a bit until near the end, not very suspenseful though. I would not consider this a full on political thriller compared to Russell's Body of Lies and Proof of Life. None of the roles in this are Oscar worthy either.

It irks me when I see a movie that at the final critical moment a character that has been shown with a steady resolve in the movie - becomes unbelievable/cheesy and I find myself saying, "That would have NOT happened in real life, come on already". Obviously that happens in this movie, you'll know when you see it. Of course they save it until the end, they have your money now, don't they?

The movie is pretty easy to follow, not really a thinking person's movie but a bit messy in set design for a purpose. I like neat and tidy! All the offices are messy with paper everywhere, bit of a distraction through out. Trying to tell you - in this movie paper is required and virtuous! Stick around for the credits, the process is interesting though.

I have not seen the BBC series which I heard was in 6 parts, but thought this movie was okay. Sorry guys, no sex, not much swearing, I think Mrs Crowe (Danielle Spencer) and Mrs Affleck (Jen Garner) put their foot down, haha. But then again, the two guys aren't the sexiest, so no bother.

Concluding, I think it is for a DVD rental only. How much money have I saved you but, cost the film co.? Thank me when you are pressing pause to have a bathroom break. Cheers

Passable Political Thriller

[JoeytheBrit · 6/10 · 21 February 2010]

Russell Crowe is starting to look so crumpled and weatherbeaten that you can't help thinking it won't be long before the leading man roles start passing him by. His face almost seems to be folding in on itself, and he therefore makes a rather unlikely hero. He plays Cal McAffrey, a reporter for the Washington Post, whose friend, senator Ben Affleck (no, really!) finds himself in the middle of a media frenzy when a pretty young aide he's been having an affair with falls in front of a train.

The girl's death is the start of an involved plot that serves up a fresh twist every fifteen minutes or so. Although the film was involving enough and never became boring it seemed to me to be much longer than it actually was and, as I'm quite patient when it comes to slow films, I imagine many people would find it a bit of a plod. The cast is fairly good, though. The irascible editor isn't played by a cigar-chewing middle-aged curmudgeon but comes in the slinky form of Helen Mirren, who continues to withstand the rigours of time with admirable fortitude.

For all it's twists and turns the plot is mostly formulaic, but it's professionally put together so that you forget at times you're watching the kind of political thriller you've seen many times before. There's no romance in the film – apart form the illicit one between the girl and the Senator (which is over soon after the film begins), and repeated references to another affair that would probably count as a spoiler if I related it here – and the reason is probably because the idea of shaggy old Crowe and lithe young Rachel McAdams going at it is a little too far-fetched to be believable.

State Of Play scores high points

[MovieZoo · 9/10 · 17 April 2009]

You have to see this movie. I am not playing any games here. If you want to see a classic style movie that is cunning, interesting and lets you have fun with your imagination, you have to see this movie.

In the waning years of the newspaper industry, we see a very classy Helen Mirren play a "Devil wears Prada"-ish editor who runs The Washington Globe. Overpowering his boss(with charm and experience, of course), Russell Crowe is the very type of gutsy(almost brave) newspaper reporter that anyone who wanted to be in his shoes can admire. And yet he teams up with a Globe blogger(Rachel McAdams) who dares to see herself as his equal(and she really is). Crowe's and McAdams' characters brilliantly investigate a deadly situation tainted with national intrigue that includes the young yet powerfully influential Stephen Collins played by Ben Affleck.

I was on the edge of my seat most of the time, thrilled with this actual adventure in the city without any fear of cartoons or ray guns spoiling the appearance of authenticity. Movies like this are made so rarely, it was almost sad to leave the theater. I will see it again this weekend for sure.

I give it a high 9 and now I will try to get the BBC Miniseries version of State Of Play for comparison's sake which stars my favorite BBC TV star who I enjoyed as Sam Tyler on the BBC's Life On Mars (which had a better appeal than the US version).

It was okay

[bob-rutzel-1 · 6/10 · 8 September 2009]

Top Reporter Cal (Crowe) sees a linkage between a DC street killing and the death of a Congressman's (Affleck) Research Assistant.

What does it mean STATE OF PLAY? How many balls are in the air? How many incidents are converging at once? How many decisions need to be made and some dependent on another decision? What to do when you think you know what is going on?

The hype over this movie was unbelievable. Some were running to steal the Oscar. Overall, this was okay. I didn't see any great performances from the top stars. They did okay too. Nothing in here was Oscar quality except for one performance. That being from Jason Bateman who was truly a breath of fresh air. The guy is a natural in whatever he is in. Am I the only one to see that? The next really good performance was from Jeff Daniels and we should see more of him in these kind of roles (political or some such). He has that political backroom kind of demeanor. Very good.

In thrillers, which some call this, we should get to experience a good car chase. Did not happen. We also get to see some pretty good CGI. Not this time. I missed them. I would call this a very good Made-For-TV drama, but not a thriller. Kind of bland.

The only real problem I had with this movie was that there was too much detail. You had murders, conspiracy, cover-up, Homeland Security on thin ice, kickbacks, paybacks, mercenary contractors running amuck, a big newspaper in deep trouble and so on. And, each one just mentioned had a myriad of detail. It was just too much. And, get this: there was an underlying plot whereby the mercenary contractors would take over all security for the United States. The movie didn't commit to go there, but hinted at it and got out. So we are left with the murders and who were the culprits.

But, still, it was okay. The title? You figure it out.

Violence: Yes. Sex: No. Nudity: No. Language: No. One S_ _ _ _ word utttered by Mirran

A must-see for the American public

[ArthurDental · 9/10 · 26 April 2009]

Character-wise, this movie doesn't have the complex figures of the best political thrillers. Dialogs are the brightest. Editing is great and the music's appropriate without being too prominent. But those are small quibbles when it comes to one of the most honest major features to come out in a long time. You'll hardly know where the facts end and where the fiction begins, because so much of it, barely obscured by a change of name, is real. As much a fiction this movie is, it may as well be a documentary.

I watched this in a mostly empty theater on a Sunday night. Americans, they told you so.

Interesting Political Thriller

[aleksanderk-95350 · 6/10 · 12 August 2021]

I enjoyed the first half of this movie immensely. Thought it did a great job at its pacing and it felt suspenseful. You wanted to find out more and felt concerned for Crowe's character. The twist ending felt like it cheapened the film. Felt like the films set up was a waste. Just to find out Affleck's character is the true villain. I'd say give it a watch, if you're looking for a mediocre thriller.

The Ideal Thriller

[blahblahblah12345 · 10/10 · 18 April 2009]

So I gave this movie a 10, but that's coming from a thriller fan. With most thrillers, this movie has it's faults. Some exaggeration, implausibilities, annoying twists, but the film transcends other thrillers on all other levels. Even with the overly dramatic plot and scenarios, I felt this film was a very realistic portrayal of journalism and posed an interesting argument between old fashioned print journalism and the new age of the internet. Of course, for the "thrills" they'll have to make some cliché twists, but it goes beyond the generic nonsense thriller to making a mild statement about the media today. In addition, the cast was fantastic. I couldn't be more relieved that Russell Crowe took over Brad Pitt's role, Pitt would have been a terrible choice. Russell was a much better fit for Cal. However, I kind of wish Edward Norton remained with the role of Senator Collins... Affleck and Crowe didn't have the greatest chemistry. However the many supporting players were fantastic. Rachel McAdams did a fine job. Not exactly the meatiest role but she played the revised role of Della as a young popular blogger greatly. Rachel brought that playful naivety but at the same time made Della intelligent and respectable. Helen Mirren was perfect, and perhaps a little underused. There is also a plethora of strong performances from the minor supporting players. Jason Bateman gave my favorite performance out of all of them, Harry Lennix was another who was underutilized, and Robin Wright Penn continues her reputation as one of the most consistent supporting actresses.

But as a thriller, it really was a fantastic and entertaining movie. I've never seen the BBC series and could only imagine how much better it could be with more time to develop characters and stories, but the film does the best it could and that's enough. It isn't your typical mindless thriller though, which is what I respect about it most. It is paced well but if you don't pay attention you may get lost, but seeing as the film really does keep you on your toes, it shouldn't be that hard. What makes this thriller so much better though is that it makes you think, even after leaving the theater. It isn't just some formulaic story with mindless twists and turns, it's actually saying something about the world today that is very relevant, which not only makes a great thriller, but a great film as well.

I've read some complaints about the ending, but I don't understand what the big deal was. I don't want to give anything away, but I think it's an ending that could be taken in different ways depending on the viewer.

Not bad but someone cliched

[CincySaint · 7/10 · 9 April 2022]

Too bad real life isn't like this movie where dedicated journalists dig deep to uncover corruption at the highest level. Well-acted by an excellent cast but a lot of cliches - older fading writer, young spunky cute blogger, tough but compromised boss.

I did like the.nuances of Cal and Michael's relationship. I thought that part was well-written and not typical Hollywood fodder. And it does a good job of hiding the eventual outcome.

A confusing and muddled mess

[caidencleveland · 5/10 · 14 May 2021]

The movie was off to a great start but as the story progressed the less it all made sense. The confusing web of connections and motives makes this story all the more complicated while leaving little to follow with. Even after reading other reviews and reviewing the plot, I'm still confused on the congressman's motives and why the army guy had her killed, it all just makes no sense and is pretty random.

Bland

[imdbbl · 8 November 2009]

When an aide to prominent US Congressman Stephen Collins dies in what initially appears to be an accident, two journalists from the Washington Globe newspaper investigate and they obtain information that it may not have been an accident. The dead woman was the Congressman's chief researcher in hearings concerning a private sector security firm supplementing the use of US Armed Forces around the world. She was also Collins' lover. The two journalists have contrasting styles: Cal McCaffrey is a traditional print journalist who uses his contacts in the police department to get his information while Della Frye uses new media such as blogging to get her information out to the public quickly. As they delve into the role the private company might play in domestic security, McCaffrey also realizes they have all been duped into making one serious, but false, assumption... This thriller felt short of my expectations.The plot was somewhat interesting but felt contrived at times and although the film manages to create a tense and mysterious atmosphere, it doesn't fully engage the viewer,I never felt drawn into the story nor did I care for the any characters. Russel Crowe's Cal McAffrey is two dimensional and lacks character and personality. Ben Affleck was not very believable as the congressman Stephen Collins and Rachel McAdams who I admire as an actress did the best she could with what I think is a very mediocre script. As the story moves forward it becomes a bit muddled and disconnected and the ending was flat and unsatisfactory. All in all, a very bland, boring, forgettable and poorly executed thriller.

6/10

Engaging in places but not enough to strongly recommend

[lekgolah · 6/10 · 30 November 2010]

Having previously enjoyed the director's last film The Last King of Scotland, I was interested in seeing State of Play. While it was good in places, the overall film does not live the director's last film due to several reasons.

State of Play has a strong cast that includes Russell Crowe and Ben Affleck, both of whom are really good but the script doesn't always allow for them to really shine. Even though Russell Crowe is good, there is sense of connection to his character and that is the same for Rachel McAdams' character. Helen Mirren gives a solid performance, as does Ben Affleck while Jason Bateman nearly steels the entire film as a sleazy PR man.

The story does progress at a steady pace but without any connection for the characters it is difficult to care. There is a sub-plot with Russell Crowes character who had an affair with his best friends wife but it never becomes interesting and feels like a poor effort to add character depth.

There were a couple of scenes that were interesting and the underlying theme of how the internet will eventually kill off the newspaper adds some weight to the story. One scene sees Russell Crowe hiding in an underground car park and it is very tense but once the film has ended, you will soon forget about it.

The film does have an audience in-mind but for everyone else there is no real reason to see this unless you are a fan of the director's previous films. A solid effort as a political thriller but not a must see.

If this is really journalism, that's really sad

[Red-125 · 7/10 · 22 April 2009]

State of Play (2009) directed by Kevin Macdonald, is a great showcase film for Russell Crowe. Crowe plays Cal McAffrey, a Washington, DC reporter, who's seen everything and knows everyone. He lives a solitary existence, subsisting on canned food and whiskey. (Naturally, he drives a battered Saab.)

Ben Affleck plays Rep. Stephen Collins, a rising, dynamic politician who is investigating a Blackwater-type corporation. Collins and McAffrey were college friends. Both of them loved a woman named Anne, who married Collins.

As the movie opens, three people meet violent deaths. One of them is a young woman who was an aide to Collins.

McAffrey goes after the story, and eventually starts to see links between the killings and the work Collins is doing. Loyalty, friendship, and trust all begin to unravel. No one's hands are clean. The question is, Whose hands are dirtiest?

Crowe is excellent as McAffrey--cynical, embittered, but still trying to learn the truth. Rachel McAdams plays Della Frye--a young reporter whose part obviously was written into the screenplay to provide a foil for Crowe. (The standard veteran cop/rookie cop pairing.)

The great British actress Helen Mirren is wasted in the role of the hard-bitten editor who has to say lines like, "Well, believe it or not, our corporate owners think that this newspaper should make a profit." (Not an exact quote, but you get the idea.)

Robin Wright Penn portrays Anne Collins. Apparently, some people have thought she was too old to be believable as Collins' wife. I think she was perfect in this small, but demanding, role.

The plot of the film was convoluted and confusing. If you look at the message board, you'll see that many viewers had questions along the lines of, "How did he know what she knew about what they said?" I started one of the threads. Several people wrote back with cogent answers, some of which were 180 degrees opposite to others. I think a thriller plot can be complex, but it shouldn't be muddled, so I consider this a weakness in the film.

Finally, although plot twists are appropriate in a movie like this, I think that the particular final plot twist in State of Play was a cop-out. It was as if the producers got to the edge of the pool, dipped their feet in, and decided that they'd rather not plunge in. Some people have suggested that the producers' decision reflects the reality of journalism today. Maybe so, but it it's true, it's really sad.