Inside Job

My dear spouse and I finally got out to the movies...did we choose something frothy and entertaining? No, not this time! We chose a flick that taught us an incredible history lesson...and made us wonder about folks in the business world.

The Inside Job is a two hour documentary that covers the financial dealings of AIG, stock brokerages, and other large companies that dealt in derivatives, subprime loans, and other questionable dealings that brought about the disasters of 2008. We learn first-hand about money-driven CEO's who would stop at nothing to earn a buck and whose underhanded business practices led to the housing market crash, unemployment, and global recession.

The most interesting parts of the story are the people involved. We learn about the Harvard professors who earned million dollar consulting fees as they played advisors to The White House and sold their expertise to the highest bidders. We learn about trusted names like Greenspan, Geitner, Paulson, and Bernanke, and see how our trust in power-mongering egomaniacs might have been badly placed.

One of the biggest shockers of the documentary lies in the fact that Obama has employed nearly every participant in the Great Meltdown. We discover that, as we remain shocked by the past exploits of our financial anti-heroes, these personalities are still in control.

Most of all, to this viewer, the documentary unfolds like a morality play, where the amoral MBA's control the pursestrings and the rest of the world looks on in dismay. Did the major players commit illegal acts? Hard to say. Where there was ponzi-scheming, indeed they did. Yet it seems only Madoff took the fall for that one. Was it beyond the law to receive massive corporate compensation from companies that had relied on government bailouts to avoid bankruptcy? Probably not. But it pushed the limits of decency.

This history lesson is worth seeing. Our daughter, whose interests lie not in finance but in philosophy, told us to run out and see this flick. She was right, because indeed the lessons lay more in the world of philosophy than than the world of currency.

The unemployed are suffering, those who lost their houses are suffering, and others who did not get so badly hit have the luxury of seeing this film and asking, "What is our world coming to?"

I remember Val Kilmer as a knockout gangster in Heat. He was great as Simon Templar in The Saint opposite Elizabeth Shue. He played a very believable Doc Holiday in Wyatt. BUT: He was awful in Double Identity.

Maybe we should not fault the actor. The storyline was so poor that it was almost laughable. I will for once be a spoiler, because I would recommend highly against any readers seeing this film.

A doctor is doing goodwill work behind the Iron Curtain, somewhere in Bulgaria. There, he is mistaken for a spy, so the various mafias are after him. He can often escape to freedom but does not. He is of course smitten by a pretty face, so why would he want to get back to the West? Uh, to survive, maybe?

Why are the baddies after him? Who knows? Who cares? Why doesn't he get of there when he can? Who knows? Who cares? Why does the plot go from okay to utterly stupid? Who knows? Who cares?

This reviewer is normally quite positive on films. My esteemed colleague sometimes implies that I tend to overstate the credits and understate the debits. Not true this time.

Stay away from this dog! F for Failure to be intelligent or entertaining.

Vice

This little known police procedural came out in 2008, and it's a keeper! Michael Madsen and Daryl Hannah have perfect chemistry that keeps the dark plot moving along and makes us invest in the characters.

A note on both actors: Madsen has been doing great stuff for years. I recall his incredible dance in Reservoir Dogs, where he holds a pistol, wondering whom to shoot, as he rocks to the song "Stuck in the Middle with You." What a guy! Daryl Hannah, beautiful to this day, made a great splash in the movie by that name, with Tom Hanks, did the original Wall Street with Michael Douglas, and played the ruthless Elle in Kill Bill. What a gal!

Vice offers a solid, believable story. No spoiler, as usual: A bunch of crooked cops make a bust and can't resist stealing 40 million dollars worth of drugs. Problem is, the bad guys not only want it back...but wreak revenge by knocking off the cops one by one.

It's up to our illustrious pair of heroes to solve the mystery. Will they? They have internal demons of their own, so will their hubris bring them down? Oh my, how tense the films gets.

The pace is slow, so for those seeking continuous action, this is not the right flick. For viewers who appreciate a very "noirish" police story, with shady characters who veer to the other side of the law, this film offers a solid night's entertainment.

Hereafter

Clint Eastwood has hit his 80s. Wow. I suppose that's why he has tackled the last great frontier of death to explore in his latest with Matt Damon. I revere Mr. Eastwood. I adore Mr. Damon. I will go see any project they are involved with. I was a little reticent, however, to see this film, worrying that I was still too steeped in mourning my mother's death to handle this subject. Yet, what more timely topic to allow my brain to ponder?

Well...I found this film to be quite forgettable. Weaving three sub-plots that tie up nicely in the end, it had Eastwood's eye for setting and camera work. It was well filmed. It just wasn't well-conceived. The most gripping (terrifying for this viewer who has a fear of catastrophic water events!) scene was the first - a recapturing of the Indonesia tsunami, absolutely BRILLIANTLY filmed. Took my breath away.

From there the film rode a wave of dullsville.

There was nothing original in the exploration of life after death. Not a new idea, image, or tone. I felt much more, emotionally and spiritually, from Sixth Sense. One character's near-death experience was treated as if it was virgin territory, filled with controversy and denial. This is 30-40 years too late. Elizabeth Kubler-Ross's research, as well as Robert Moody's in the field have over-documented people's experiences. It just isn't earth-shattering as it was treated here.

I am mystified by this film and hope Mr. Eastwood hasn't lost his directing edge. I did not cry at any time here. I did not leave the film having my thoughts or emotions stretched. After the film, spouse and I just didn't have anything to talk about. Not a good sign.

By the way, we watched Invictus last night - another Eastwood/Damon collaboration. It was slow at first, but ended up better than I expected, and better than Hereafter.

No Remorse

I have never been a big Tom Selleck fan. But in recent years, with more maturity, the actor seems to be better than ever.

He does a fine job of playing the hard-boiled, ex police chief in a small town. No spoiler here, but the police have some unsolved murders on their hands, and clearly there is only one guy in town with enough savvy to figure them out.

Now for the interesting part: The film is based on a Robert B Parker story. I have long been a fan of Parker's mysteries. Unlike other writers who strive to sound real but rarely succeed, Parker always creates outcast cops and detectives who are quiet loners, often down on their luck, with terse lines, macho layers, superficial friendships, and a bottle of whiskey at hand.

So the fun in this film is in the dialog. With Kathy Baker playing the only real friend Selleck has, the exchanges of words are minimalist at best. An example: When the seductive wife of an old acquaintance offers herself to Selleck, he simply says, "Wow"....and leaves the room! What a guy.

Not a great film, and certainly not worthy of hyperbolic critical note. But if you want to sit back and enjoy a solid mystery with weird, offbeat characters, give this flick a try.

Unthinkable

Can any film with Samuel L Jackson be a loser? Not in this viewer's book! Once again, the skilled actor, the ace of "intensity," delivers top-notch acting that appears worthy of Oscar notice.

The plot is simple, and I can share it without being a spoiler: SLJ is an expert in witness interrogation, and he is called in to help get information from a terrorist who claims he has planted three atomic bombs on U.S. soil. The viewer can only imagine the kind of expertise SLJ brings to his task....and it isn't very pretty!

The brilliance of this film is in its tightness: The plot evolves in a confined space, seeming more like a theatrical setting than a flick. But sometimes a restricted locale can create greater tension--like the prisoner being interrogated, we feel trapped.

My first reaction: Ugh! Who wants to see a suspect questioned...and, uh, more than slightly mistreated? Not so fast, cynics! This is a fantastic morality play. The plotlline tugs at our heartstrings, making us wonder, what really is our position on such creative activities as water-boarding? Do the ends ever justify the means? What would we do if we had to extract information from someone to save millions of lives?

Not for the faint-hearted. For the movie-goer who admires outstanding performances and appreciates a story that make us question our own values.

Watch Carrie Ann Moss shine as well.

Alien - 1979

[This image SO deserves to be larger; couldn't get it to enlarge.]

Well, I just saw Clint Eastwood's newest, The Hereafter, and will post a review, but frankly, it's fast fading in my mind and I want to talk about this old classic I recently revisited.

There I was, minding my own business, when I turned the channel and Alien was just starting. I thereby lost 2 hours of my life sitting, riveted, completely caught up in a film I knew I liked, but had forgotten how AWESOME it was. In fact, I had to stop with 20 mins. to go to fix dinner, so I taped the remainder and couldn't wait to return to it the next day! That's the sign of a good movie.

1979 - ah, yes, I remember it well. I believe Alien was the modern start to a wave of sophisticated sci-fi flicks. While sci-fi is not my favorite genre, if a movie is good, it's good. Here we see early signs of director, Ridley Scott's, genius. Now, I don't need to summarize the movie for you; so I'll just itemize what makes this such a classic.

1. Sigourney Weaver. Remember, this was 1979, and to see a female protagonist who is strong, resourceful, and darned intelligent was an important statement in those times. Weaver has a square set prominent jaw - perfect for her character's steadfast nature. She looks like she's wearing zero make-up and her natural flawless, porcelain complexion is striking. (Naturally, they had to include the obligatory "wearing barely more than bikini panties" shot near the very end. oh well.) Her character is all heroine.

2. The plot satisfied both the themes of "teamwork," and "solo-hero."

3. The alien prototype is downright terrifying (right up there with my second place choice of the one in Terminator (see previous post). From it's "birth" out of John Hurd's chest, rapid molting, and surprise appearances, it truly scares the hell out of me.

4. I am struck by the contrast between the ultra sophisticated, high end technology in science and engineering in machinery and weaponry, pitted against the most primitive of organic substance that was the alien. Every inch of the ship is antiseptically clean and bright and minimal - the monster is dark and wet and slimy and gross. And if you look closely, many of the structural designs and patterns on the alien are actually replicated in the technological interior sets of the spaceship, such as the spine on one and the coiled pipes of the other. Amazing.

5. Put all that in the hands of Scott as he adds elements of darkness, wetness, blinking (almost disco) lights, tinkling chains, and great scoring and you have one mesmerizing monster movie. When Ripley (Weaver's character) finally blasts the alien out of the ship I literally burst into clapping and cheering.

If it's been a long time since you, too, have watched this classic, revisit it. It's a goody!