Casino Jack may have not been the most talked about movie of the year, but it is certainly one of the most bizarre. While Hollywood and the box office were more consumed with other movies based on real life events such as The Kings Speech, 127 Hours, and The Social Network, Casino Jack was quietly making its presence known amongst critics and cinematic circles. The film is the real life story of "super-lobbyist" Jack Abramoff, head of possibly the biggest Washington corruption scandal since Watergate. Abramoff, along with 2 other White House officials, a congressman, and 9 lobbyists, was convicted on an array of charges including fraud, bribery, conspiracy, and tax evasion, among others. The film stars Kevin Spacey as Abramoff, and was directed by George Hickenlooper, a well known documentary filmmaker that has since passed away (early 2010 as a result of accidental painkiller overdose).
Essentially, the movie took you through how Abramoff got involved with lobbying for several different Native Indian tribes and their casino/gambling rights. From what I could gather, he grossly overcharged tribal leaders for retainer fees, split the earnings with his business partner under the table, and didn't report the income to the IRS. In order to effectively secure their rights, he bribed politicians and made a smorgasbord of illegal campaign contributions, most notably to congressman Bob Ney. Thrown into the mix was the SunCruz casino cruise line, which was purchased through shady business dealings by mob-connected Adam Kidan and facilitated by Abramoff. This aspect of the scandal was not very well explained, nor were connections drawn to how it related to the Native American dealings.
The best description I can think to make of Casino Jack is something along the lines of "a satirical political documentary with a five o'clock shadow after taking an adrenaline shot and cracking a Jew joke." If that doesn't do it for you, I'm out of ideas. From my point of view, the movie is most comparable to Charlie Wilson's War, about Texas Politician Charlie Wilson's involvement in ending the Soviet War in Afghanistan, a film very similar in tone and presentation to that of Casino Jack. While Casino Jack succeeded in painting a picture of how corrupt, crooked, and engrossed in cocaine/strippers some politicians and lobbyists are, it was hard to sift out key plot points through the sea of incomprehensible political jargon. This, combined with the pace of the film made it nearly impossible to piece together, unless you're armed with a familiarity of political science, law, and the workings of Washington. What I did like about the film, however, was the comedic aspect, especially from supporting actor Jon Lovitz, who portrayed Adam Kidan, key player in the SunCruz aspect of the scandal. If you have a tough time keeping up with the fast paced unfolding of characters and events and how the whole scandal came together (as I did), you can at least enjoy the never ending buffet of one-liners and humorous anecdotes provided by the script.
I can't say that this was one of my favorite movies of the year, but it certainly wasn't the worst; check out the theatrical trailer below and decide for yourself if it tickles your fancy.
What's the point of a movie that drowns you in a sea of corruption, without any virtues, heroes, or silver linings (at least there was some good in Charlie Wilson's War)? Does a mocking satirical tone suffice for an ethical dimension, by somehow making the viewer feel morally superior to the depraved characters? Why doesn't Kevin Spacey do a "good guy" role for a change (I thought he did that well in The Negotiator)? Why don't we see Jon Lovitz in more/better roles?--he certainly can be a scream. Why am I asking all these questions, and providing no answers?
ReplyDelete