Watched this film because my wife reads Texas Monthly and they did a write-up comparing it to other movies filmed in Houston.
Obviously the plot is very contrived and suspension of disbelief will be required beyond what I'd call normal for this genre, if it really falls into any one genre that is. It's clearly a Grifters type film shooting for a Wes Anderson vibe, which is on one level somewhat annoying given that Anderson is from and has shot several of his films in Texas, including Houston. I would have liked to see a more original vision from this first time director, but in terms of production value, cinematography (sigh, has there been a movie in the past 5 years without *extensive* drone footage?), soundtrack and acting it was well done.
Always appreciate seeing Chuck ("Better Call Saul") and he doesn't disappoint despite the limitations imposed on him by the script. The two leads are fine enough in their roles, and Alan Tudyk (also a Texas product, hmm), an entertaining and charismatic screen presence in pretty much any TV/film, doesn't really bring much dimension to his character here - again, not really his fault as the script didn't allow for a very deep character study to unfurl despite its pretentions in that regard. But the brother sister dynamic didn't quite gel for me or seem realistic enough for the plot.
The writer/director attempts to portray the city of Houston as a character and in some ways, re-envision it as a viable, flexible canvas for future projects much like NYC, Chicago, LA, San Francisco, etc. Have been employed in too many other films to count. But that also rings a little hollow once you see the basically empty light rail cars and platforms both at night and during the day. That's because Houston's light rail system is nothing at all like the subway in NYC which is a real-life nerve center and backbone that links every major neighborhood/borough and cuts across virtually all demographics and lifestyles.
The (mostly drone) shots of the skyline from various angles were too many in number at the expense of any busy city street scenes and the presence of extras like you see in films based in NYC or LA was lacking by comparison. Of course, it was filmed during a pandemic, so that aspect of the production was probably quite a challenge and I didn't dwell to much on it but that was one of the major aspects of Texas Monthly's article plugging "Playing God" so I can't exactly ignore it. Good thing they didn't film in February of this past year when the whole state was crippled and definitely not "Open for Business" due to regulatory failure and incompetent government, but I digress...
"Playing God" didn't seem to know what it wanted to be, but I suppose that isn't a fatal flaw. It was a little too non-committal, trying to hit too many different buttons throughout and not really nailing any one attempt, despite being tightly filmed for the most part and possessing a largely seamless (but still limiting and contrived) script. The overall package just came off a little too 'lightweight' to merit serious awards consideration (not that I usually agree with Academy decisions) but on a positive note, it was entertaining enough to keep me in my seat, at home.
It's certainly worth a watch, and it's not like any other movies I've seen recently, so I give it 5-Stars with an added Star for Michael McKean and some very obscure Texas-themed references (look at the phone number on the card the duo hands to Ben for example) that struck a note with me personally. 6-Stars.
