Currently focusing on directing, Jodie Foster has directed two episodes of Netflix series Orange is the New Black and one of House of Cards. Now comes Money Monster starring George Clooney, Jack O’Connell, and Julia Roberts. With a lot of talent in front of and behind and camera, and some interesting, timely themes, it’s a shame this thriller fails to realise its potential.

Money Monster follows a stock market TV show hosted by Wall Street guru Lee Gates (Clooney). During a live broadcast, Gates is taken hostage by Kyle (O’Connell), who is infuriated by the ultra-wealthy. While the police try to form a rescue plan, Gates must engage with Kyle at gunpoint, and try to understand why Kyle was tipped over the edge.

Far and away the best aspect of Money Monster is the performances. I think George Clooney is a great actor and he sinks seamlessly into this role of this confident yet slightly damaged man. Though elements to his character arc are totally unbelievable at times, he does the best with what the script gives him. It’s easy to picture Clooney in the role of a rich douchebag who thinks he has all the money-making answers. But there are also plenty of subtle moments, especially when Kyle challenges Gates’s position as “just a TV guy,” and Gates is made to realise his words carry weight simply because the public trust his advice.

The real star, however, is Jack O’Connell. Who’s he, you ask? He’s one of the dick heads from the second phase of Skins, hardly a noteworthy role. However, I encourage all of you to check out 2013 British prison drama Starred Up, where O’Connell gives one of my favourite performances of the decade. Since then I’ve had my eye on him, and he doesn’t disappoint here, playing an everyman who’s just about had enough with the rich and the media lording over him.

Unfortunately, Money Monster is one of those films with a decent premise that doesn’t make the most of it. I like the idea: a poor guy losing his patience with the wealthy and challenging them in the most direct way he knows how. But the film quickly devolves into a typical hostage drama and loses all of its thematic depth, one dumb plot point after another.

Seriously, some moments of this film are dumb. To my surprise I didn’t actually mind too much because I do feel that the writers establish a tone fairly early, so you know you’re not meant to take much of the story seriously. Much of the dialogue is cartoony and certain supporting characters are walking clichés, for example. However, this doesn’t excuse the more idiotic moments and goofy character development.

It’s sad because with a name like Money Monster you’d think there’d be a fascinating commentary on how wealth corrupts or the obscene wealth gap in the States. But there isn’t really, it all just boils down to something a little ordinary. What I do find interesting is that this film has a budget of $27 million, and I think it could have been a better film had the budget been smaller.

Recently I talked about the impact that 10 Cloverfield Lane will hopefully have on Hollywood. One of my points was that the film was bettered by spending less money, forcing the writers to be more creative in how they built tension.

This applies to Money Monster, because all the scenes inside the TV studio with O’Connell and Clooney are tense and well-acted. The story falls apart when it fannies around with some hackers in Iceland, a computer scientist in Korea (because of course he’s Asian), and the routine police operation. Had they spent less money, they’d have been forced to keep the action inside the studio, where the tension is at its highest and the plot developments most sound.

All in all, Money Monster just about fails, but thanks to some well-directed tense scenes and some excellent performances, the result is a frustratingly average film. When I was weighing up whether to give it a 4 or a 5, I was swayed by the fact that they completely squandered the superb acting talent of none other than Giancarlo Esposito (that’s Gus Fring from Breaking Bad) on a worthless, stereotypical police role. That’s a crime in my book, so it’s a 4.

For me though, despite its flaws, somehow I was always engaged in the action and could roll with some of the absurd moments. While I wish they’d done much more with their ideas, I never found myself bored or irritated during the modest 98-minute runtime. Don’t bother going to the cinema for this one, save it for a lazy Sunday afternoon. Or better yet, use your Sunday afternoons on something like Death Note, for all the reasons explained here.

4-5

(GRADES: Both are from 0 to 10. The left is an objective score based on artistic merit, the right is my personal enjoyment.)

THERE’S MORE! Follow me @MagoosReviews for updates.

Love Star Wars but hate the prequels? That’s how I feel about The Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit. And these trilogies are much more similar than you ever realised!

I hope you’re enjoying this current season of Game of Thrones! I am, especially after the weak fifth season. Read my breakdown of what went right and wrong with season 5.

Film lover? Want some recommendations? Read my picks for the best films of 2015. Or maybe you’d rather share in my hatred of the worst of 2015.

Check out my weekly film reviews, including Civil War and Apocalypse, and find out more about me as a reviewer.