Casino Jack and the United Sates of Money

 

Story:

Documentarian Alex Gibney (Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room) turns his acute focus on convicted Washington lobbyist Jack Abramoff, reproaching him and other legislators for their negative impact on U.S. politics. Gibney's film plays less like a dry treatise and more like a high-stakes political thriller, fearlessly examining the ways American policies and political processes are undermined by an endless quest for power.

Review:

If there is one thing Alex Gibney does well as a filmmaker it’s during complicated, dry scandals into fascinating investigations everyone can understand. Despite the Oscar praise showered upon him for his work in Taxi to the Dark Side, I maintain his film about Enron is a better overall work. So it shouldn’t be a surprise when Gibney’s Casino Jack and the United Sates of Money reminds audiences of his talent for turning the tedious into ‘action-packed’.

In many ways, Casino Jack is the sequel to Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room. Beyond the similar sleek feel and use of emails and recorded phone calls, it features a more bizarre, power hungry villain (Jack Abramoff) with a more ludicrous scenario (instead of business controlling people, business controlling politics). As a viewer, you’ll instantly pick up on this simple summary of the two stories and you can almost see Gibney quickly deciding to make his film seem more like a b-movie thriller than a standard documentary. And it pays off.

Ask any regular citizen to sit through an hour and a half summary of why Jack Abramoff corrupted politics and most would look at you in disgust. The very fact that Gibney can keep audiences entertained while sifting through emails is proof of his talent. Now admittedly, Casino Jack suffers a few flaws. For one, there are just too many characters. This is not just about Abramoff, but involves a whole web of players. Admittedly, most the figures are crucial to your understanding of the political corruption that took place, but these side-investigations cause the film to feel less focused. Perhaps a Casino Jack trilogy should have been in order (seriously, you could easily make a trilogy with the corruption here).

Then tangents aside, Gibney maintains pacing by keeping a sleek polished look and mixing in humor with a wealth of investigative information and archival footage. Perhaps these later facts are what make Gibney so successful. While his films present a director dedicated to entertainment, it shouldn’t go unnoticed how determined he is to inform audiences of all the facts. Whether its C-Span’s archival footage or a string of emails sent between Abramoff and his lackeys, its clear there is a dedication to the facts first and foremost.

The entertainment comes from Gibney realizing how totally bizarre his stories and its characters are. You truly can’t make up the fact that Abramoff produced B-movie action films starring Dolph Lundgren, nor can you believe the man developed his schemes while playing racquetball. And if this stuff happened in real life, than it shouldn’t be ignored on film. Gibney realizes this and uses it to his advantage, creating another wonderful piece reminding audiences Hollywood’s fictional scandals have nothing on the stuff happening everyday around us.

Reviewed by Matthew Abshire for Documentary Film Online on April 16, 2010

In Conclusion: