Figure most people aren't stumbling across this film for a Saturday night date movie, and that most people know what they're getting here. So, I made it a point to watch this within a couple weeks of seeing Margin Call, and thought Too Big To Fail was much better in comparison for a number of reasons.
The acting here is top notch. A paid cable movie that was able to snag a feature film cast. Specifically, Paul Giamatti and William Hurt are worth watching in and of themselves. Any actor who can make you feel bad for Hank Paulson for even five minutes deserves a golf clap in your living room.
I also appreciate the depth in this movie. A lot of that credit likely goes to the author whose book it was based on. Please don't misunderstand my praise for the movie. I certainly have complaints with certain portrayals, but there are plenty of documentaries on the topic, so if you're going to bang on the film for the reality it creates, I think you misunderstand the general concept of film. With that caveat, this movie is far more detailed and complete in its depiction than Margin Call, for example.
It reminds me, not surprisingly, quite a bit of Recount in its storytelling structure. It's a delicate challenge to dramatize a non fiction work with material this dense. There aren't exactly a lot of guns and explosions, and extra weight falls on the actors, editing, production and so forth. Merely holding your interest with a movie like this is a challenge and they pull it off rather effortlessly.
Finally, this movie makes the prudent decision to play the characters fairly straight in my mind. This telling of the story rings more true because the filmmakers largely eschew transparent attempts to force empathy for the protagonists. It doesn't matter if you like these people because you're fascinated by them and their moment in history. Not a perfect movie, but it's a quality addition to an important conversation.
The biggest complaint I've heard about both films is the notion that the criminals, swindlers, and greedy bastards who populate them are far too often protrayed sympathetically or even heroically. In theory, I don't even disagree. The problem is you are far less likely to watch a film about folks you have a burning hatred for. This wasn't filmed by a documentary crew, but it is a movie with a message. In the end, it's a not a question of whether this film storms the right castle with enough pitchforks. It's way more simple than that. All that matters in this context is whether it tells a good story, and I think it absolutely does.
4/5
Watch or Skip
P.S. These reviews are a snapshot of how I feel about a movie immediately after watching it. I have a feeling that had I seen this one first, I would have downgraded Margin Call a little more. I'd still give it a mild "Watch", but if you've only got time for one, go with Too Big To Fail, hands down.
Wednesday, September 19, 2012
Beginners
Expected to like this much more than I did, and in large part maybe that's why it gets two stars instead of three: expectations.
I'll also take a large chunk of the blame for going in with misconceptions about how the film was structured. I'm aware that he won for SUPPORTING actor, but I still wanted more Christopher Plummer. To me, that was basically the redeemable part of the film. I had little to no interest in the cliched indie movie romance between the son and girlfriend, which was essentially depicted in a series of movie shorts that result in no personal growth, numerous sad faces, and occasional bright moments brought to you by the scene stealing dog. Just for fun, toss in a dying father as the undercurrent for the whole movie. I was ready for that part, but it turned out the movie wasn't good enough for me to want to deal with the general black cloud that comes with it.
It's a unique film, and I'm more than happy it got the recognition it did. No complaints about the Plummer Oscar. Again, maybe it's on me that I expected a different film, and it's possible that someone who knows exactly what they are getting can appreciate it more as a simple autobiographical adaptation. In the end, I just found the experiences of a newly out old man far more interesting than the generic angst of his kid, and sadly the balance of those two storylines was entirely backwards.
2/5
Watch or Skip
I'll also take a large chunk of the blame for going in with misconceptions about how the film was structured. I'm aware that he won for SUPPORTING actor, but I still wanted more Christopher Plummer. To me, that was basically the redeemable part of the film. I had little to no interest in the cliched indie movie romance between the son and girlfriend, which was essentially depicted in a series of movie shorts that result in no personal growth, numerous sad faces, and occasional bright moments brought to you by the scene stealing dog. Just for fun, toss in a dying father as the undercurrent for the whole movie. I was ready for that part, but it turned out the movie wasn't good enough for me to want to deal with the general black cloud that comes with it.
It's a unique film, and I'm more than happy it got the recognition it did. No complaints about the Plummer Oscar. Again, maybe it's on me that I expected a different film, and it's possible that someone who knows exactly what they are getting can appreciate it more as a simple autobiographical adaptation. In the end, I just found the experiences of a newly out old man far more interesting than the generic angst of his kid, and sadly the balance of those two storylines was entirely backwards.
2/5
Watch or Skip
Tuesday, September 4, 2012
Margin Call
Being honest with myself, I think I like this movie better in theory than in practice. Along those same lines, I also like it more in the context of a social commentary, than as a stand alone film in a vaccumn.
It's well acted and any dialouge junkie will find numerous poignant speeches and quips that cut to the heart of the matter and nudge it off the fence into quite watchable territory. That said, there's a nagging feeling of empty calories here, which is odd given the weighty subject matter. It sometimes feels like the indie equivalent of great novel rushed into blockbuster production to capitalize on a hot topic. It also will be mildly distracting/problematic for some that essentially the whole movie takes place at the office. Of course, that's no biggie, since action verbs don't really exist in this film. It's like Phone Booth, only with numbers and fancy suits.
Perhaps, this works better as a companion piece with Too Big to Fail than either movie does on it's own. That's on my list as well, and I'll try to watch it soon to have some comparison. Maybe, I'm just pissed that the bankers come across as a little too sympathetic. It was a little too convienent for me, that nearly EVERY character shifts seamlessly from blissfully selfish to profoundly conflicted on a dime.
In the end, this review is a bit of a contradiction. It's largely negative in it's detail, but in totality, I think it's worth a watch. The issue is too important to ignore, and there are several moments of five star dialouge. It's just that this particular telling of the story is a bit disappointing and most of the best stuff would have worked equally well as an audiobook.
3/5 stars
Watch or Skip
It's well acted and any dialouge junkie will find numerous poignant speeches and quips that cut to the heart of the matter and nudge it off the fence into quite watchable territory. That said, there's a nagging feeling of empty calories here, which is odd given the weighty subject matter. It sometimes feels like the indie equivalent of great novel rushed into blockbuster production to capitalize on a hot topic. It also will be mildly distracting/problematic for some that essentially the whole movie takes place at the office. Of course, that's no biggie, since action verbs don't really exist in this film. It's like Phone Booth, only with numbers and fancy suits.
Perhaps, this works better as a companion piece with Too Big to Fail than either movie does on it's own. That's on my list as well, and I'll try to watch it soon to have some comparison. Maybe, I'm just pissed that the bankers come across as a little too sympathetic. It was a little too convienent for me, that nearly EVERY character shifts seamlessly from blissfully selfish to profoundly conflicted on a dime.
In the end, this review is a bit of a contradiction. It's largely negative in it's detail, but in totality, I think it's worth a watch. The issue is too important to ignore, and there are several moments of five star dialouge. It's just that this particular telling of the story is a bit disappointing and most of the best stuff would have worked equally well as an audiobook.
3/5 stars
Watch or Skip
The American
I actually considered giving this movie a third star, but I realized that was
just the power of Clooney. I found this film visually striking but otherwise
lacking. It makes for a wonderful Italian postcard.
Mildly shameful admission: I fast fowarded through many of the silent portions, making the movie far more watchable. I would have been much more bored and downgraded it further as a more static theater experience.
That says it all I think. Clooney is never bad, and I actually enjoyed him in a more understated performance. The problem was the whole movie was just a notch TOO mellow given the subject matter. Kudos for not going with a more traditional shoot 'em up script. The problem is the decision to couple that with such an old fashioned and predictable character arc and ending. This combination lends an overall flatness to the whole thing. Absolutely pleasant, but utterly forgettable.
2/5 stars
Watch or Skip
Mildly shameful admission: I fast fowarded through many of the silent portions, making the movie far more watchable. I would have been much more bored and downgraded it further as a more static theater experience.
That says it all I think. Clooney is never bad, and I actually enjoyed him in a more understated performance. The problem was the whole movie was just a notch TOO mellow given the subject matter. Kudos for not going with a more traditional shoot 'em up script. The problem is the decision to couple that with such an old fashioned and predictable character arc and ending. This combination lends an overall flatness to the whole thing. Absolutely pleasant, but utterly forgettable.
2/5 stars
Watch or Skip
Friday, August 31, 2012
Everything Must Go
Mildly surprised by how much I liked this movie. It's a perfect venue for serious Will Ferrell and the whole supporting cast is pitch perfect. An understated performance like this one means I should probably watch Stranger than Fiction to see what I've been missing.
There are a couple of elements in particular that make this film particularly worthwhile for me. It's quirkiness remains firmly grounded in reality, and moments of apparent mundanity are suffused with subtle depth. I greatly appreciate the ambiguous ending. A neat bow on this movie would have ruined the whole damn thing. By the same token, I like the fact that the main character doesn't just make a drive thru visit to rock bottom. Instead, he chills out there for quite some time in his recliner. The dude doesn't have a Tony Robbins epiphany. There is no ride off into the sunset. Instead, there's just a confused guy trying to make better decisions. I love the guts that takes from everyone involved with the project.
My only minor annoyance with the film was the fact that two of the characters (more actually) have drinking problems. More specifically, the convienent character connections made with it in the context of the movie was the only time I was taken out of the viewing experience. Very specific and very small complaint, but because it's such a central part of the plot it bugged me enough to be worth a mention. Don't misunderstand, I don't mind it as a character flaw, but I thought it was a bit of a crutch for plot and character development. After saying all that, this movie is based on a short story, so that may all come from the source material.
In the end, this movie pulls back the curtain to remind us that we're all screwed up. It's just that some people are better at faking it than others.
4/5 stars: Watch or Skip
There are a couple of elements in particular that make this film particularly worthwhile for me. It's quirkiness remains firmly grounded in reality, and moments of apparent mundanity are suffused with subtle depth. I greatly appreciate the ambiguous ending. A neat bow on this movie would have ruined the whole damn thing. By the same token, I like the fact that the main character doesn't just make a drive thru visit to rock bottom. Instead, he chills out there for quite some time in his recliner. The dude doesn't have a Tony Robbins epiphany. There is no ride off into the sunset. Instead, there's just a confused guy trying to make better decisions. I love the guts that takes from everyone involved with the project.
My only minor annoyance with the film was the fact that two of the characters (more actually) have drinking problems. More specifically, the convienent character connections made with it in the context of the movie was the only time I was taken out of the viewing experience. Very specific and very small complaint, but because it's such a central part of the plot it bugged me enough to be worth a mention. Don't misunderstand, I don't mind it as a character flaw, but I thought it was a bit of a crutch for plot and character development. After saying all that, this movie is based on a short story, so that may all come from the source material.
In the end, this movie pulls back the curtain to remind us that we're all screwed up. It's just that some people are better at faking it than others.
4/5 stars: Watch or Skip
Wednesday, August 29, 2012
The Lincoln Lawyer
A good movie that could have been great. Let's not pretend that McConaughey is a great actor...ever. Having said that, defense attorney is oddly in his uber narrow wheelhouse. Marisa Tomei has gone from overrated to underrated in recent years, and I would watch William H. Macy cross the street. So, the cast gets a check mark from me.
However, the plot only gets half credit. It works well as a fun crime thriller with a twist that isn't a tired cliche, which is hard to find these days. The major flaw in this film stems from character development, a writing issue more than acting. On occasion, bad things happen in this movie, and characters are in danger. The problem is that you don't REALLY care what happens to them.
A good cast and cool premise are more than enough to hold your interest, and it's definitley worth a watch. It's just that the characters are undercooked and one dimensional, only scratching the surface of what could have been some complex and intriguing relationships that would have added an extra level of enjoyment to the viewing experience.
3/5 stars Watch or Skip
*Editors Note*
I have a vast number of random movies on my DVR from various free weekends. I have no intention of this being a movie review blog long term. That said, I never write any more and I think some mini reviews could be a good way to force myself to start using these muscles again. Round about thanks to Jeff and Lauren's dormant movie blog for planting the seed that got me to shake off the cobwebs.
However, the plot only gets half credit. It works well as a fun crime thriller with a twist that isn't a tired cliche, which is hard to find these days. The major flaw in this film stems from character development, a writing issue more than acting. On occasion, bad things happen in this movie, and characters are in danger. The problem is that you don't REALLY care what happens to them.
A good cast and cool premise are more than enough to hold your interest, and it's definitley worth a watch. It's just that the characters are undercooked and one dimensional, only scratching the surface of what could have been some complex and intriguing relationships that would have added an extra level of enjoyment to the viewing experience.
3/5 stars Watch or Skip
*Editors Note*
I have a vast number of random movies on my DVR from various free weekends. I have no intention of this being a movie review blog long term. That said, I never write any more and I think some mini reviews could be a good way to force myself to start using these muscles again. Round about thanks to Jeff and Lauren's dormant movie blog for planting the seed that got me to shake off the cobwebs.
Tuesday, February 28, 2012
Olympia Snowe Job
A brief but necessary blurb on Olympia Snowe too long for quippy status updates.
Olympia Snowe (and Susan Collins) are thoughtful moderates by media narrative only. It's an assumption and political necessity baked into the cake of any remaining Northeastern Republican. It's a shame that reality hasn't actually existed for years. I don't exactly shed a tear at her resignation. It does not break my heart that her seat may be filled by someone who might toe the party line 94% of the time instead of 89% (I believe that's the actual number, by the way.)
It's not all their fault. Some of it is just unfortunate political timing. The current equivalent of a moderate Republican is embodied in folks like Bloomberg, Crist, Eliot Cutler, hell even Joe Lieberman. Of course, none of them are allowed to be called Republicans anymore.
I know I'm in the minority, but I take no pride in claiming either Senator for two major reasons. First, I find them to be largely political pawns with very little real backbone. I resent them trafficking off this moderate myth while marching in lockstep with the party on almost every important issue. I don't exactly find it groundbreaking every time I see them filibustering on cable news. How rebellious is that? They seem utterly and completely calculated to me, good enough politicians to sprinkle in a few "bipartisan" votes to churn out a few campaign ads. They almost always vote together like some sort of double headed lab experiment, while Scott Brown or now even Lisa Murkowski are far more likely to walk out on any important limb alone. They are, at best, the cream of an incredibly weak crop. Any pedastal you place them on is largely built on the incredible flaws of their brethren and a widely accepted public image where perception is not always reality.
My second complaint is with Mainers themselves. Part of the reason I always voted against them was out of frustrated impotent protest. I knew my vote was wasted anyway, so why not vote against the incumbent perched upon their their throne of complacency. In my formative years, the Maine Senate seats have produced some of the most depressingly stagnant campaigns you'll find anywhere in the country. Part of it I think goes back to the media narrative. People here are intrinsicly proud that Maine is relevant on a national level every time there's a hot button press conference. I blame the Democrats for horrible candidates and the avearge voter for apathy, but a little fresh blood can be a good thing, especially when the person vacating that seat has basically been a mythical slight of hand trick or a mirage for quite some time. Of course, if she gets replaced by a gentleman in a tri-corner hat waving a "Don't Tread on Me" flag, I take it all back
Olympia Snowe (and Susan Collins) are thoughtful moderates by media narrative only. It's an assumption and political necessity baked into the cake of any remaining Northeastern Republican. It's a shame that reality hasn't actually existed for years. I don't exactly shed a tear at her resignation. It does not break my heart that her seat may be filled by someone who might toe the party line 94% of the time instead of 89% (I believe that's the actual number, by the way.)
It's not all their fault. Some of it is just unfortunate political timing. The current equivalent of a moderate Republican is embodied in folks like Bloomberg, Crist, Eliot Cutler, hell even Joe Lieberman. Of course, none of them are allowed to be called Republicans anymore.
I know I'm in the minority, but I take no pride in claiming either Senator for two major reasons. First, I find them to be largely political pawns with very little real backbone. I resent them trafficking off this moderate myth while marching in lockstep with the party on almost every important issue. I don't exactly find it groundbreaking every time I see them filibustering on cable news. How rebellious is that? They seem utterly and completely calculated to me, good enough politicians to sprinkle in a few "bipartisan" votes to churn out a few campaign ads. They almost always vote together like some sort of double headed lab experiment, while Scott Brown or now even Lisa Murkowski are far more likely to walk out on any important limb alone. They are, at best, the cream of an incredibly weak crop. Any pedastal you place them on is largely built on the incredible flaws of their brethren and a widely accepted public image where perception is not always reality.
My second complaint is with Mainers themselves. Part of the reason I always voted against them was out of frustrated impotent protest. I knew my vote was wasted anyway, so why not vote against the incumbent perched upon their their throne of complacency. In my formative years, the Maine Senate seats have produced some of the most depressingly stagnant campaigns you'll find anywhere in the country. Part of it I think goes back to the media narrative. People here are intrinsicly proud that Maine is relevant on a national level every time there's a hot button press conference. I blame the Democrats for horrible candidates and the avearge voter for apathy, but a little fresh blood can be a good thing, especially when the person vacating that seat has basically been a mythical slight of hand trick or a mirage for quite some time. Of course, if she gets replaced by a gentleman in a tri-corner hat waving a "Don't Tread on Me" flag, I take it all back
Friday, January 20, 2012
Mission Objective (tivity)?: Colbert
No worries, this blog has not been foreclosed. It's just the current situation doesn't lend itself to a ton of material. If I was a stand up comedian (or insert sexual innuendo here) I'd be getting the hook after about two minutes. I'm still happy I started this though, because I like knowing it's here waiting if the mood strikes me, like any number of various cozy beverages.
I've returned tonight, like Andy Dick to celebrity rehab, to vent quickly and pledge my support for Stephen Colbert as President of the United States of South Carolina. More specifically, I'd like to scream at the mainstream media for not being able to keep up. Over the past couple of days, I've heard several reporters weigh in on themselves essentially. NBC's Chuck Todd & others have recently begun to chastize their collegues for their handling of the story. The argument that Todd and others make is that some media members are making a mockery of the system by not pinning Colbert down on his intentions. I've even heard him compared to Donald Trump. In short, the argument is that the journalists should either treat him as a legitimate candidate or not invite him on serious news programs because they risk becoming water carriers for him, and feeding it rather than reporting on it.
The saddest part is, these folks are so atrophied in their way of thinking they actually think they're taking the journalistic high road. In truth, they are just so completely enveloped in the cement of the system, they are no longer agile enough to deviate from the expected narrative to discover the real story.
Of course, Colbert is not a truly serious candidate, but that doesn't make you a "respected" journalist for ignoring his all too serious mesage. Calling it a publicity stunt or joke is far too dismissive. It's a poltical experiment. It's a public service. He's pulling the curtain back and revealing the rot and corruption that already exists. Truth is always stranger than fiction. How about if the system is SO fucking (profanity used for affect) broken thanks to Citizens United & candidates only running to sell books and TV shows (you know like Palin, Huckabee, and Cain...you totally thought I was gonna say Colbert there) you report on that. The dude didn't invent his poll numbers or Super Pac from thin air. Why was he able to fill the vaccumn so quickly and easily? There are layers upon layers to be reported on here if you'll just peel away from the corporate picnic for a moment. Instead of sandwiching the Colbert story in before keyboard cat, scratch a mere inch beneath the surface and discover the crucial issues so vast and obvious that a funny theater kid built a whole damn career from it.
Keeping it short. No random junk tonight. I'm about to turn back into a pumpkin, and keeping a few bullets in the chamber might get me to visit more often anyway. That's what she said.
I've returned tonight, like Andy Dick to celebrity rehab, to vent quickly and pledge my support for Stephen Colbert as President of the United States of South Carolina. More specifically, I'd like to scream at the mainstream media for not being able to keep up. Over the past couple of days, I've heard several reporters weigh in on themselves essentially. NBC's Chuck Todd & others have recently begun to chastize their collegues for their handling of the story. The argument that Todd and others make is that some media members are making a mockery of the system by not pinning Colbert down on his intentions. I've even heard him compared to Donald Trump. In short, the argument is that the journalists should either treat him as a legitimate candidate or not invite him on serious news programs because they risk becoming water carriers for him, and feeding it rather than reporting on it.
The saddest part is, these folks are so atrophied in their way of thinking they actually think they're taking the journalistic high road. In truth, they are just so completely enveloped in the cement of the system, they are no longer agile enough to deviate from the expected narrative to discover the real story.
Of course, Colbert is not a truly serious candidate, but that doesn't make you a "respected" journalist for ignoring his all too serious mesage. Calling it a publicity stunt or joke is far too dismissive. It's a poltical experiment. It's a public service. He's pulling the curtain back and revealing the rot and corruption that already exists. Truth is always stranger than fiction. How about if the system is SO fucking (profanity used for affect) broken thanks to Citizens United & candidates only running to sell books and TV shows (you know like Palin, Huckabee, and Cain...you totally thought I was gonna say Colbert there) you report on that. The dude didn't invent his poll numbers or Super Pac from thin air. Why was he able to fill the vaccumn so quickly and easily? There are layers upon layers to be reported on here if you'll just peel away from the corporate picnic for a moment. Instead of sandwiching the Colbert story in before keyboard cat, scratch a mere inch beneath the surface and discover the crucial issues so vast and obvious that a funny theater kid built a whole damn career from it.
Keeping it short. No random junk tonight. I'm about to turn back into a pumpkin, and keeping a few bullets in the chamber might get me to visit more often anyway. That's what she said.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)