An Acceptable Loss

    An Acceptable Loss
    2019

    Synopsis

    Former top U.S. security adviser Elizabeth "Libby" Lamm is threatened by associates from her dark past including Rachel Burke a steely, commanding politician with an unwavering knack for achieving her goals. Colluding with Rachel is Adrian, an unyielding, patriotic chief of staff. Martin harbors another type of obsession with Libby in this story of betrayal and regret.

    Your Movie Library

    Cast

    • Tika SumpterElizabeth "Libby" Lamm
    • Jamie Lee CurtisRachel Burke
    • Ben TavassoliMartin
    • Jeff HephnerAdrian
    • Deanna DunaganDr. Willa Sipes
    • Alex WeismanJordan
    • Ali BurchDee
    • Clarke PetersPhillip Lamm
    • David EigenbergDrunken Professor
    • Alysia ReinerNational Security Advisor

    Recommendations

    • 63

      Slant Magazine

      Writer-director Joe Chappelle’s An Acceptable Loss is a B movie with a morally urgent message.
    • 50

      New York Magazine (Vulture)

      So-so quasi-thriller.
    • 40

      The New York Times

      For a political thriller to come up with a scheme that feels genuinely rousing, An Acceptable Loss would need the two qualities it most severely lacks: style and substance.
    • 40

      The New Yorker

      In short, it’s up to Curtis to rescue the film. She’s meant to be the villain, but her lines, even the motley ones (“The stars aligned, we slayed the dragon, and we won”), are delivered with such a delectable thwack that I kept forgetting to boo.
    • 40

      Los Angeles Times

      There’s the kernel of an intriguing political thriller buried beneath all the strained exposition and pompous speechifying enveloping An Acceptable Loss, but writer-director Joe Chappelle never manages to find it.
    • 38

      Movie Nation

      An Acceptable Risk is “Scandal” with less sex and fewer fireworks. Almost no fireworks, to be honest.
    • 38

      RogerEbert.com

      While Chappelle neatly outlines the tragic events caused by his spiritually bruised protagonist, it’s hard to stay engaged with his philosophical query that divides arguments into distinct rights and wrongs early on, and only asks shallow questions.
    • 30

      The Hollywood Reporter

      This talky, ham-fisted effort proves particularly disappointing because it should have been much better than it is.