Glitzy, but drab

Rating: 6/10 (30 December 2015)

Let's get the good bits out there first. I thought Matt Damon and Michael Douglas were both very good in their roles, Douglas especially going against type. That was impressive. It was well filmed, and the sets were every bit as striking as you'd expect given the subject matter.
But despite all the glitz of what I was looking at, the overall was rather drab and workaday. At first I was thinking that was perhaps a reflection on the fact that the rich and famous also live fundamentally normal lives, the same stories played out in terms of relationships and human weaknesses, so the mundane nature of their experience can't really be hidden by the shiny baubles and jewellery, but in the end I feel that there was something else missing from this.
A bit like Liberace himself perhaps, this is a film that depends more on style than substance. 'It looks fabulous, so maybe no-one will notice how thin and meagre the rest of the work is' appears to be the underlying ethos for the film, and that's disappointing given the personnel involved.
I can't quite get my head round why that is. It could be that the source material is not the full picture given how one sided the account really is (I only found that out after seeing it and that struck me as a possible issue straight away.) Perhaps the fact that it was supported by HBO rather than a more experienced film studio gives it a more televisual, functional feel than might have been achieved elsewhere, but I don't really know why that should be the case, other than the fact that I don't watch any TV any more, partly because it leaves me feeling like what I watch lacks something vital, similar to the way this film makes me feel.
I was looking forward to the film, and am glad I've seen it now, but it didn't live up to my expectations.