I disagree completely. The film is loaded with character development. More so than the average movie. I thoroughly enjoyed it.

i thought the character of Molly had plenty of development if you know what i mean!

@Horus Mazinga said:

I disagree completely. The film is loaded with character development. More so than the average movie. I thoroughly enjoyed it.

I'm talking about character development of the lead which was nearly non-existent. I knew more about her father and the nature of his character than her.

@MongoLloyd said:

@Horus Mazinga said:

I disagree completely. The film is loaded with character development. More so than the average movie. I thoroughly enjoyed it.

I'm talking about character development of the lead which was nearly non-existent. I knew more about her father and the nature of his character than her.

I do not feel the same way at all. The opposite in fact. I thoroughly enjoyed it.

I think the titular character's development was limited due to reality. I like poker but haven't heard of her, but the film appears to portray her as emotionally repressed, work orientated, mildly self destructive and somewhat principled. If these are the core traits of her character as developed in childhood and carried through to the present then there isn't a whole lot of scope for development. I cut it slack for being based on a real person and haven't to operate within that constraint. Make a film of me and you'll see someone whose character hasn't developed much over decades, just someone staying true to core beliefs and attitudes rooted in their mid-teens.

In terms of the film I struggled to get over the intense voiceover narrative, tinged with smartarse / wiseguy. A cocktail that usually has me reaching for the 'stop' button. I think Chastain is an acquired taste but she seems a little one-beat in how she is deployed in some of her most acclaimed films (hardass ice maiden). Elba surprised me with a very good performance, Costner didn't surprise me with a very good performance and O'Dowd surprised me by even appearing!

Stylistically not really my bag despite being a fan of Sorkin and poker; it was a well acted piece that didn't really go anywhere and had an ending that I felt had what is likely to be wholly artificially created tension which I didn't really buy given the appalling job Western judicial systems do of punishing wealthy white people for financial crimes. Still, good acting can take a limited story very far.

7/10

I'm not sure people really understand what "character development" is. If someone were to walk up to you on the street and say "Hey, can you sit with me for 90 minutes and let me tell you a story about someone you don't know," would you do it?

I doubt it. I know I wouldn't. I think modern film audiences have grown more and more accustomed to watching films sans character development because they're wowed by affects and production value.

The Martian stands out to me as a popular, big budget studio film where the audience gets little to no insight into who the protagonist is. And before they can even say "hey, who is this guy," the craziness ensues.

It's lazy writing.

@MongoLloyd said:

I'm not sure people really understand what "character development" is. If someone were to walk up to you on the street and say "Hey, can you sit with me for 90 minutes and let me tell you a story about someone you don't know," would you do it?

I doubt it. I know I wouldn't. I think modern film audiences have grown more and more accustomed to watching films sans character development because they're wowed by affects and production value.

The Martian stands out to me as a popular, big budget studio film where the audience gets little to no insight into who the protagonist is. And before they can even say "hey, who is this guy," the craziness ensues.

It's lazy writing.

I completely agree in the instance of something like Llewyn Davis, but if the real life protagonist here is a bit of a robotic, unchanging person (nothing wrong with that) then I can understand why the director would neglect character development over narrative. I don't think other Sorkin things I've seen are big on character development either though, so perhaps it is just his style to bombard with dialogue above all else.

@Fergoose said:

a robotic, unchanging person (nothing wrong with that)

Yeah, I have no interest in being friends with such a person or wasting 90 minutes watching a story they're featured in. And I can't stand Sorkin's writing. It's all bickering and arguing, yawn.

Cleavage aside, I would agree it is nothing to write home about. I liked the progress with the Father towards the end, and also the lawyer. Idris Elba did a great job.

@MongoLloyd said:

I'm not sure people really understand what "character development" is. If someone were to walk up to you on the street and say "Hey, can you sit with me for 90 minutes and let me tell you a story about someone you don't know," would you do it?

I doubt it. I know I wouldn't. I think modern film audiences have grown more and more accustomed to watching films sans character development because they're wowed by affects and production value.

The Martian stands out to me as a popular, big budget studio film where the audience gets little to no insight into who the protagonist is. And before they can even say "hey, who is this guy," the craziness ensues.

It's lazy writing.

Yeah, but if the movie is based on a true story, and the main character in real life doesn't have much development, well, that's the story to be true to. Embellishing becomes dishonest, no? (although, there was the embellishment that, in real life, she plead to a lesser charge, it wasn't that she staired down the book that was being thrown at her and triumphed over that.)

However, there is the matter of some reconciliation between her and her father - at least, in terms of the two of them engaging somewhat of a clearing house of their family dynamics so she could begin to understand his dimensionality. To whatever degree she had "daddy issues", having that heart-to-heart with her dad was a rather satisfying arc.

Also, the lawyer developed, a bit. He went from "nah, I want nothing to do with this" to believing in her and fighting for her, especially as it was revealed how much she had dealt with, and was willing to deal with, to not be a rat, to not name names.

Did I love this movie? Nope. But, "story" was constrained by reality, it could not be beholden to the devices of pure fiction to wend towards a neat-as-a-pin Hollywood ending.