Gold

Good day everyone! ‎📲 You can earn daily 5k income by monetizing using just your smartphone & Whats App no pay ments required and no hidden charges. ‎👉 Go to tele gram and search for @dominusupdates you'll see the link, guide & more free updates! ‎Join now, let your phone and Whats App work for you.

The problem with "Gold" is that it takes you into an esoteric world (in this case, let's call it "large-scale multi-national gold mining?") without making us care about the intricacies of the topic. Instead, it follows the template laid out in Oliver Stone's "Wall Street" (and that Martin Scorsese bludgeoned to death in "Wolf of Wall Street") of showering the viewer in capitalism *: Shots of people getting rowdier as visual cues (i.e. graphs going upwards, the stock exchange ringing) show them getting richer and richer. This is a shame because Stephen Gaghan masterfully wove story threads in an Altmanesque manner to tell the story of the global oil crisis. Perhaps my expectations were high here, but without that effort to make the economics of an economics film engaging ("Big Short" is a better example of this), there's little reason to care about this story. It's just some schlub who looks an awful lot like Christian Bale's character in "American Hustle" (another better film with which this one shares suspicious stylistic similarities) who hits a lucky streak and experiences good things. In the second half, some twists emerge, including one big blind-siding whopper that is very likely what catapulted the real life story out of obscurity and led to the existence of this film, but by then it's too little too late and there's not really any foreshadowing that makes the big reveal interesting. What's even more frustrating is that what could have made the film palatable was right there in the script. The story is framed around a mysterious interview that McConaughey's character has with either his lawyer or the FBI but this narrative device is employed extremely half-heartedly. Despite the film's grandiose ambitions, the film is only memorable in the end for a smattering of striking images that don't lead up to more than the sum of their parts: The "Apocalypse Now" allusion of a man coming to terms with his demons in the Southeast Asian jungle, the contrast between the sweetness of Bryce Dallas Howard and the raw ugliness of McConaughey (I'm presuming he gained weight for this part), and the odd homoerotic gaze with which McConaughey shows to Edgar Ramirez's character.

As a geologist, this film was one gut-busting laugh after another. Hilarious! Interesting to see Hollywood's take on how to conduct gold exploration in Indonesia --NOT!. Where do I start? From the Ring of Fire "Theory" -- ha ha ha: it's geographical description first year geology students would be aware of -- or the decision to place a drill hole by simply getting to the top of a ridge and banging the ground with your walking stick? Finding a mine on "an eighth of a ounce"? Or delineating the field by radial drilling? People, even rogue prospectors put in more groundwork before deciding to drill. Drilling is the last stage of exploration and follows months, if not years of geological mapping and sampling of an area. Once field samples are analysed, the target area is further defined by digging and sampling costeans or trenches on a grid layout. To decide to drill is a monumental decision because of the expense and diamond core drilling (the drilling done in the film) is really expensive--probably around $500 or more per metre. And their "great quality safeguards" as seen in the film -- people tossing core around all over the place were rubbish. Each drill hole is logged by a geologist -- i.e he physically examines every inch of core and I saw no-one doing that in the film. Then we have a mine on an eighth of an ounce. I.e roughly 4 grams per tonne -- not bad for a medium-quality open-cut mine but for the "hard rock" underground mine they were preparing to open, you need at least 2 or 3 times that to make it worthwhile. Some African gold mines have 15-20 grams per tonne. And at 4 grams per tonne, you would not see gold with the naked eye. So if you're a geologist you'll have a real belly hoot laugh from beginning to end. Sadly, this lack of science just spoiled the film for me.

In recent years, Matthew McConaughey has rehabilitated his career and his reputation by appearing in quality motion picture after quality motion picture with interesting characters and characterizations.  This "McConaissance" (as it was called) was capped by his Academy Award winning performance in THE DALLAS BUYERS CLUB. With his latest film, GOLD, the bright lights of the McConnaissance have dimmed. GOLD tells the "inspired by true events" story of Kenny Wells, a prospector, desperately search for the "big score".  When he encounters Geoligist Michael Acosta, he goes "all in" for the big score. Sound like an interesting premise, right?  Unfortunately, under the misguided direction by Stephen Gaghan (writer of Syriana and Traffic) this premise slogs along for it's 2 hour timeframe and barely lifts above a mild eyebrow raise. The movie theater we saw this flick in has recently installed the reclining "comfy" chairs.  My buddy fell asleep for 10 minutes during the dullest part of this dull film.  When he awoke he asked "what did I miss".  I answered "unfortunately, not much". McConaughey must of sensed this dullness for he tries to go over the top to give this film something interesting at the center to watch.  However, it is not NEARLY enough to rescue things.  Either McConaughey needed to go WAY FURTHER over the top to give it a "Leonardo DiCaprio as Jordan Bellfort" gonzo-ness, or he needed to be reigned WAY in.  Where they settled made McConaughey look like he was just over- acting. As an aside - to both performer and director - constantly showing McConaughey in his "tighty whities" does not an interesting character trait make. As for the other performers, Bryce Dallas Howard, as McConaughey's wife, was strong in a role that needed to have more screen time.  Edgar Ramirez, as Geologist Acosta, was bland in a role that needed to be interesting and Corey Stall, Toby Kebbell and Bill Camp all put in "paycheck" performances - professional, but otherwise unremarkable.  Only character actor Adam LeFevre manages to make an impression. If you are looking for a good nap, check out GOLD in a theater with "comfy seats"  otherwise, you can skip this GOLD strike. Letter Grade:  C 4 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank (OfMarquis)

This is a great movie and incredibly entertaining. Given the director's past films (Traffic, Syriana) there is no question why he was brought on to tell this incredibly complex story - and he did an amazing job. if you are not familiar with the real story you are also in for a real treat. And for all of you men that are feeling a little overweight after too much alcohol over the holiday, leave it to McConaughey to make us feel slim and sober again. But, for me Ramirez and Stoll stole the show... wow! They were both great, you couldn't take your eyes off of Ramirez, and every scene Stoll was in he made you feel like you were there with him. Net, net, don't miss this one...

Gold is, by far, the oddest film of the Oscar season. It's not good enough to be featured with some other award-based films yet it is far from being a bad film. It's just a very uninspired piece of filmmaking that had an excellent script and a great cast to it, yet no flavor to the filmmaking here. It is a standardized piece that serves as a lackluster love letter to Martin Scorsese and David O. Russell without ever really admitting it. Majority of this film is spent watching McCounaughey's Kenny Wells as he maneuvers through businessmen that want him to be put down, political groups that want to steal his fortune and friends he can barely trust. It sounds like an amazing film and it could have been had Gaghan not directed this film himself. Every frame that passes, it feels like Gaghan was either worried about feeling too much like Scorsese or worried that it wasn't enough like Scorsese. Either way, we know where his influences lie here. Honestly, you're better off watching The Wolf of Wall Street, if you're hoping for something like that. Stephen Gaghan is a very talented writer, he's given us very layered stories with very interesting characters but this particular topic feels like it went over his head. It is never engaging enough to sustain lasting power. McConaughey and the rest of the cast do a fine job, nothing outstanding but fine nonetheless. This was probably the most disappointing part of this film. Over the past 5 years, Matthew McConaughey has given us more than enough reason to love his performances. They're layered, they're relate-able and, most of all, they're acted to perfection. This performance, in which he trades in his slim physique for a bloated, overweight and balding man. Right off the bat, this may have been a physically demanding role for McConaughey and he does put his all into his performance but it still doesn't match the caliber of his previous performances. His dedication is clear but it still didn't feel like the great performance we thought he could give in this film which comes back to the issue of Gaghan's direction. Overall, Gold is far from a bad movie. There are cool scenes in it that are bound to interest you even if it's for a little bit. But this is a film that comes down to a problem with the director. Gaghan, while being a very talented writer, has a hard time determining his own vision for a film that had many chances to be great but failed to really capitalize on any of its strengths. By the end of the film, you won't feel cheated out of your ticket money but I'm sure you won't feel all that good about it either.

source: Gold

Entertaining, gripping and just all around well done. McConaghey over the years has morphed from RomCom leading man to superb chameleon and is always watchable. Being in Toronto while the Bre-X saga was happening made the story more interesting-at the time a lot of people were talking about it and a lot of people made a lot of money off it.

What's really to say? It's pretty by the numbers for the most part. There were quite a few of the same notes as The Founder from earlier this month, just not as well executed. Matthew Mcconaughey completely committed to this role, but the character isn't very sympathetic. He probably thought the film would be praised far more than it ultimately was. Bryce Dallas Howard was great, but was ultimately wasted in the film. Their performances just weren't enough to elevate the writing and pacing. If you would have asked me how I thought the movie would play out, I would have been 95% correct. The movie is fine, but I could easily forget I saw it come July. 6/10.

Sometimes both sides of the Rotten-Tomatoes review column can mistakenly underrate a quality movie. That's exactly what happened here. Matthew and Edgar both give Oscar-worthy performances, in a riveting story that captures the most soul-warming components of a Western, wrapped into a modern tale of exploration partly based on a true story. Both leading men absolutely sparkle in their particular roles - their characters' separate, sometimes conflicting, but ultimately complementary personalities and styles of work help make this movie an absolute gem. It's a masterpiece by writer-director Steven Gagan.