criterionforum.org

My fiancee liked it more than Uncut Gems for it being easier to just laugh at Marty's misfortune and mistakes, while Howard Ratner can't help but be a tragic figure despite being every bit as pathetic and malevolent as Marty (and less charismatic). Maybe the difference between a middle-aged dead-ender and an annoying kid who'll (hopefully) get this out of his system eventually, though she specifically said it's because it hurts to see Sandler destroying himself while it's only funny to see Timmy fucking up over and over.

therewillbeblus wrote: Wed Dec 31, 2025 3:02 pmThis is partially why Chalamet's campaign has been so puzzling to me, like he doesn't 'get' his character - unless he really is doing a bit, which I'm becoming more and more convinced of

I think he's in on the joke (his performance certainly suggests that), but the joke is on him in general as much as Marty so it's all mixed up until he's operating on some inscrutable wavelength of self-aware and totally brain-poisoned. Or, much more simply, he just has a humiliation fetish that he's finally found a reason to flex publicly.

You can also color me unimpressed and frankly exhausted by this smug Safdie/Bronstein schtick. My taste must have shifted dramatically since the release of Uncut Gems, because whatever virtues I found in that earlier work here felt flattened into a myopic worldview that grinds everything, from human complexity to post-war historical currents, into a sludge of unchecked narcissism and anxiety.

There are gestures in the film designed to cast doubt and detachment over Marty's vile self-centredness, yes, but their sincerity is always suspect, with the most egregious example being the ending, which to me is as shallow and fraudulent as they come.

Spoiler

I have no doubt that Safdie is far more invested in orchestrating tidal waves of manipulation and hysteria than articulating a single genuine moment of redemption or growth. And that's maybe why Uncut Gems works much better for me: Howard's obsession with capital, treated almost as a form of mysticism, can only honestly end the way it does.

I found nothing here of a youthful and relatable self-absorption perched on the cusp of adulthood, but rather the narrow narcissism of a guy who views — and revels in — the world merely as a vehicle for sensationalizing pain and exploitation. Much like Marty, Safdie needs to grow up.

It's been interesting to me to get wildly different reactions from people based on specific triggers related to the last three Safdie films, which is (perhaps shallowly) where I place most of the consequence of these varied opinions. I have a friend who thought Good Times was outright antisemitic and hated it, but had zero problems with Uncut Gems and lauded the film. I still don't understand, but I guess I don't have to. I suppose it doesn't surprise me that people are warmed to Ratner's character vs Mauser's, but I think it often stems more from something personal rather than Safdie doing anything differently

Why did they think Good Time antisemitic? Weren’t the two brothers Greek?

Mr Sausage wrote: Wed Dec 31, 2025 6:02 pm Why did they think Good Time antisemitic? Weren’t the two brothers Greek?

I think issues with the jeweler business, which doesn't seem very distinguishable from Ratner's, but honestly the whole criticism felt like a reach for me

I don’t even remember any jewelry store in the movie.

The Narrator Returns wrote: Wed Dec 31, 2025 4:21 pm My fiancee liked it more than Uncut Gems for it being easier to just laugh at Marty's misfortune and mistakes, while Howard Ratner can't help but be a tragic figure despite being every bit as pathetic and malevolent as Marty (and less charismatic). Maybe the difference between a middle-aged dead-ender and an annoying kid who'll (hopefully) get this out of his system eventually, though she specifically said it's because it hurts to see Sandler destroying himself while it's only funny to see Timmy fucking up over and over.

It’s ironic that she liked this more, because this is pretty much a sum-up of the reasons why I liked this a lot less. Marty could’ve been literally squashed like a bug at any point in the last hour of this (interminably long) film and I would’ve been okay with it. Have seen countless (lead!) characters do terrible things in movies, no doubt about it - but never with this particular tone and degree of pointlessness. Nothing he is doing is getting him anywhere, and even *he* doesn’t seem to think it’s getting him anywhere. He doesn’t even take the stupid orange balls with him. He’s just a prick and a moron and I’m not even entirely sure if Chalamet was interested in exploring that in his matinee idol, streetwear kid performance. We don’t see the ugliness and cruelty in Marty anywhere but between the lines, otherwise the film’s tone and texture just kind of intends for us to see him as a cool dude. It’s not offensive, it’s not upsetting, it’s just fuckin’ dull, man. Like if De Niro were grinning and cheesing throughout the entire runtime of Taxi Driver. Not to my taste on any level.

Howard, on the other hand, has a problem. He’s addicted to gambling, with the wealth and resources to wallow in this addiction for far longer than most end up being able to. He’s not going to sell out his children in the service of that addiction, or at least hasn’t yet. He mistreats and misleads employees, wealthy relatives, a lot of these same beats - but below his serious problem he is a decent man. Perhaps that’s Sandler being a much better actor than Chalamet, I’m not sure. Maybe it’s Benny being a better director than Josh. Haven’t seen The Smashing Machine yet, but I wouldn’t be shocked to find this out once I do. Also wouldn’t be shocked if Josh getting his brother involved in his filmmaking ambitions was one of his Marty-esque grifts to get more attention paid to his own career. It worked!

mfunk9786 wrote: Wed Dec 31, 2025 7:51 pmWe don’t see the ugliness and cruelty in Marty anywhere but between the lines, otherwise the film’s tone and texture just kind of intends for us to see him as a cool dude.

The ramifications of his problematic behavior is hammered into every interaction he has with each supporting character - the nasty digs at Paltrow, Tyler Okonma's cab, A'zion across the board. He thinks he's cool but the film undercuts it at every opportunity to reveal his impotence and narcissism (New Order's "The Perfect Kiss" plays over a juxtaposition of Marty selfishly training while A'zion faces heat for something he's partially responsible for - it's an uncomfortably ironic moment, not in support of Mauser's awesomeness), until he gradually begins to understand that himself. We obviously saw two different movies.

The film’s marketing and merchandise and $300 designer jackets that you can buy with the logo on it also seem to think he’s cool. And I don’t see the on-screen evidence that he ever understands any of it. Give him one or two weeks in a tenement building with a crying baby and he’ll be getting arrested for pickpocketing old ladies on the subway for something to do. Hey… sequel?

I think it's obvious through the performance -small changes in his demeanor as he's beaten down by activity in the last act- and actions of how he transforms his behavior

Spoiler

in the final game and hospital. But I also said the ending is the "beginning" of potential maturation. You seem frustrated that we didn't get catharsis for what is hopeful rather than shown. You're right to think he might fail, but all adults have the potential to fall back into blending with their narcissistic parts, even after maturing a little bit.

This is a story of someone completely blended with narcissism reach a point of sobriety to the crossroads. That's inherently frustrating for viewers but it also feels more honest than what would've been the alternative: a doubly long movie demonstrating for you how he changed, and it would've frankly sucked

His behavior

Spoiler

in the hospital is that he doesn’t greet any of his family or ask any questions about the condition of his partner, and instead just kind of burns off whatever weird energy he had from his ping pong triumph in the form of crying in front of a kid he didn’t care about last time he was stateside. Unless I’m remembering one of those details wrong. The ending isn’t the only reason I dislike the film, but it’s certainly the most loathsome beat in it. I don’t need to see Marty turn his personality around, I need to see what this character would’ve actually done in the situation. Which is probably not showing up for his son at all.

The film’s too in love with its lead to ever truly get honest about what a shithead he is.

It's the subtle differences -

Spoiler

He does take a moment of pause to nonverbally connect with his family and his disposition is that of someone who has humbled himself to the situation at hand. He doesn't stop to talk to them because he needs to attend to his partner. We aren't witness to him asking questions or whatever he does, but he pulls up a chair to sit with her. We then cut to him at the baby's room, so you don't really see him spend that time with his partner, but his actions indicate that he does. Safdie could've spent more time meditating on that, but I think he does enough, and again, Chalamet's disposition is what sells it.

I saw the film again yesterday and felt the change in personality a lot more during that finale, through tenuous movements. We just fundamentally disagree on how the film and filmmaker are viewing its lead. I think it's more complex than being 'in love with him'. Curious, sure

I still cannot bring myself to supporting anything that O'Leary is a part of. But I have to say this thread of the movie is great!

Maybe he’ll cast Dave Ramsey in the sequel

It's too bad Stanley Kramer is dead, since he was the ultimate no talent "celebrity" jackass. He would have made wonderful shitcasting!

I've seen some reviews on Letterboxd accepting the

Spoiler

supposed character reversal at the end as some kind of unearned "happily ever after" repudiation of Marty's behavior in the rest of the film. For me, the ending of the film is just where the film ends. Anyone who's met a character like Marty—someone always chasing the next short-term win and disbelieving he will suffer any consequences—knows that he's going to leave that hospital already forgetting his baby and any responsibility he has toward it, and he's either going to ruin that kid's life or be completely absent from it as he continues doing what he does. The Safdies' work seems rife with bad or absent dads, and I don't see this film breaking that streak. I think you're correct to be suspicious of the ending as it is, mfunk, but of course this is not where the story actually ends. There's a whole lifetime of woe ahead for that kid, and its mother is just as much of a self-serving hustler as its father.

Word has it that there are deleted scenes that would have shown Marty and child in the future, and I'm so glad they were cut. It would have removed any ambiguity of the ending and would probably prove my POV entirely incorrect!

And I can't blame the film for its marketing strategy. A24 is basically the Marty Mauser of film distributors: always on the take. Did you not get the Pearl Christmas tree topper or The Smashing Machine gym shorts?

The Gwyneth Paltrow character/subplot really felt superfluous in the end. You could have cut her (and the Abel Ferrara subplot, really) out of the film entirely and we would've been none the wiser. Kind of a shame since she's doing good work.

This never reached the heights of Uncut Gems to me but it was entertaining enough, which in this weak year (IMO), that's not nothing.

Matt wrote: Thu Jan 01, 2026 2:19 am I've seen some reviews on Letterboxd accepting the

Spoiler

supposed character reversal at the end as some kind of unearned "happily ever after" repudiation of Marty's behavior in the rest of the film. For me, the ending of the film is just where the film ends. Anyone who's met a character like Marty—someone always chasing the next short-term win and disbelieving he will suffer any consequences—knows that he's going to leave that hospital already forgetting his baby and any responsibility he has toward it, and he's either going to ruin that kid's life or be completely absent from it as he continues doing what he does. The Safdies' work seems rife with bad or absent dads, and I don't see this film breaking that streak. I think you're correct to be suspicious of the ending as it is, mfunk, but of course this is not where the story actually ends. There's a whole lifetime of woe ahead for that kid, and its mother is just as much of a self-serving hustler as its father.

I read this much closer to the way Matt and Mfunk did. Even noting the nuances TWBB cites in the last 30 minutes, the ending still seems unearned and sat poorly enough with me that I had a hard time not turning it over in my head again and again to try to find what I must be missing.

Spoiler

The only thing I can come up with is this: is it way off base to read Marty's tears as an indication that he is so deeply who and how he is that he believes he can manipulate the nurse holding the baby (or even crazier, the baby itself) with his tears? Maybe it is even too strong to say he "believes" he can manipulate them. Maybe the better way to say it is that manipulation is so much a part of who he is that he reflexively deploys it even in a moment in which it would have no future benefit (with the nurse) or utterly useless (with the baby).

I think my issue with that reading is that

Spoiler

it doesn’t really answer why he’s there in the first place. Up until getting back from Japan, he hadn’t even acknowledged the baby was his and he had blown off Rachel almost completely.

So you’d have to say that he decided to go back to Rachel, face his family, and claim the child, all for the sake of putting on some fake show for the nurse.

That’s why I’d have to take the ending as more or less at face value. I didn’t really believe it either, I think his “victory” in Japan would have only validated his narcissism instead of satiating it. I think he’d have gone straight to the gym when he got back to train, fueled by the knowledge that he was best in the world again and his breakthrough was truly now imminent and he’d be able to rub it all in Rockwell’s face … all while having freed himself, from his perspective, of the people holding him back.

So in that sense, I’m sympathetic to wanting to have a cynical take on the ending. But I just don’t think it’s written that way.

I've already mentioned that I've interpreted some of the backlash as being rooted in personal triggers to Marty's behavior, with some viewers not wanting him, or feeling he doesn't deserve to get that opportunity in the end, frustrated after sitting with a character they despise for two-plus hours

Well … I guess I think that that feels like bad faith to me. It’s no different than what TheTreeSong was doing in the other thread - mind reading those who had different reactions to the film than he did in order to project shady motives onto them.

Spoiler

I mean, this is a fictional character. The audience is under no obligation to root for a happy ending for him. And there had just been no indication prior to him showing up at the hospital that he saw the world as something larger than himself. As portrayed in the film, he’s a malignant narcissist and he doesn’t “deserve” any kind of benefit of the doubt from us.

It's been pretty clear to me that some people are reacting to the narcissism of Marty differently than other Safdie creations, with some outright saying the reason they couldn't engage with the film being the character - so it's not "mind reading," it's "reading" people's reasons for disliking the film. And I'm speaking to all humans deserving a 'white light' moment, not absolute forgiveness or likeability. I'm also not suggesting that people aren't entitled to their views, and I don't want to be compared to that user, so seeya