Reviews

3 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
4/10
a flat, one note trip to a jailbreak
9 December 2010
The Next Three Days

If you decide to see The Next Three Days, be warned that the title is a gentle hint that three days long is just what this movie feels like. It opens with a bang and then descends into a prolonged lethargy that erupts in a final period of blazing action. I must add that even in the closing chaos, Russell Crowe manages to confine things to a slow crawl. And believe me, the movie is his to make or break since he's on screen for most of the two hour plus running time.

As Crowe moves through a very weak script in one flat note, he never invites us in. He plays John, a husband who adores his wife Lara (Elizabeth Banks) and son Luke. Their perfect life is destroyed in an instant when police roar into their house to arrest Lara for murder. Circumstantial evidence brings her a twenty year prison sentence. She had passed by the murder scene in a parking garage; her coat bore a spot of the victim's blood; her fingerprints were on the weapon. Ninety interminable minutes pass before this bad news is explained.

During the next three years, John dedicates himself to proving his wife's innocence. When the final legal appeal is denied, he knows the only solution is a jail break. It's here that both the script and Mr. Crowe let us down. Though determined, John never develops a plan that is either credible or cohesive. Exploring one idea here, another there, he learns from the internet how to make a "bump key" that will open any lock, but never gives us the feeling that he might succeed in springing poor Lara. This guy doesn't seem up to the job. He is, after all, a school teacher, not a crook.

It's hard to root for a guy who stays stuck in the dead center of his own despair. As much as we try to push it away, a wave of disapproval washes over us: "Aw, come on, Russell; you can do better than that." For most of this long period, he simply broods. This is all preparation for a jailbreak that most probably will fail. The planner is neither precise nor clever. Liam Neeson, a baseball cap hiding his celebrity, is terrific as a break-in mentor to John as he warns him "You want this too much; you'll screw it up." Elizabeth Banks is wonderful as an angry woman in the first strong scene where she inadvertently establishes a motive for the upcoming murder. She manages to convey the only real emotion in the script whenever we see her, but once she's in jail, Crowe turns the picture to dull color. Am I asking for The Gladiator? Not really; I like John, the community college teacher with conscience (a Prius). But given the violence director Paul Haggis pours on his characters, we all could have used just a touch of color from Bonnie and Clyde.
6 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Fair Game (I) (2010)
This is a very lonely secrecy.
3 December 2010
Fair Game is a significant movie that will probably draw small audiences. Why? Like most Washington scandals, the Valerie Plame affair grabbed headlines for a short while and then disappeared. This movie tries to set the record straight on the behavior of the players before, during, and after columnist Robert Novak revealed that Plame was a covert CIA operative. But the public attention span is short, and this story vanished from the headlines to make way for the daily barrage of pre and post-election Washington intrigue.

At the time of the Novak revelation, Valerie Plame was running a high level counter-proliferation operation in the Middle East. An agent in that position operates at an "eyes only" level and reveals nothing about his/her job even to close friends or family. It is a lonely secrecy.

CIA and an incumbent president, while seemingly natural allies, are often at odds, especially when the incumbent decides to manipulate the agency for his/her own ends. (Recall Nixon's pressure on CIA covert operations chief Richard Helms in the 70s.) This time around, it was decided at the vice presidential level and/or above, that the White House would ask CIA to verify that Iraq had obtained "yellowcake" uranium from Niger in order to build weapons of mass destruction. CIA turned to Valerie Plame.

Under cover of working for a venture capital firm in Georgetown, Plame spent much of her time on assignment in Kuala Lumpur, Baghdad, Dubai, and Cairo. Her serial absences damaged her marriage to foreign service officer Joe Wilson. When, in response to President Bush's insistence on the existence of WMD, Joe Wilson wrote a tough op-ed piece in the Times denying Iraq's receipt of 500 tons of yellowcake, the "Office of the vice-president" triggered the destruction of the career of Valerie Plame. She was running nine teams in the field with 15 agents in Baghdad alone. You may recall that the administration that first called Plame important soon switched to labeling her "a secretary" to diminish her credibility.

The revelation of Plame's identity endangered every operative and his/her family who had been connected to her in any way. The "Office of the Vice-President" - call it Libby, Rove, or Cheney - your choice - violated the rules of its own game in order to add credibility to the invasion of Iraq even after their own professionals were convinced that Iraq's WMD program had been destroyed in the early '90s.

Sean Penn is terrific as the smart, irascible Joe Wilson - the husband who finally tires of the secrecy of his wife's life and her betrayal by the administration. Naomi Watts is steady and understated as Valerie Plame, and lest you think she's too young and pretty for an agent at this level, take a look at Plame herself and recognize that her own good looks were a strong part of her cover. Pretty Washington wives like this, after all, are supposed to be dumb blonds.
1 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Inside Job (2010)
9/10
"Inside Job" is a stunning analysis of the greed that caused the Wall Street crash.
7 November 2010
Charles Ferguson's "Inside Job" is strong, fair, and rational. The director tries mightily to untangle the complex architecture of the financial meltdown that has cost millions their jobs, their homes, and their savings. If you consider skipping it because it sounds boring, please think again. My blood is still boiling.

Why does this documentary leave us sunk in despair? Because it confirms the certainty that there is no one left we can trust. The fact that much of what brought the economy to its knees was legal, not criminal, signals a financial sector run by ethical nihilists who will pursue every legal loophole to enrich themselves. Human nature, you say? Then bring back the stringent regulation that gave the industry forty years of reasonable corporate success before Reagan era deregulation. The schoolyard bullies need supervision.

America's bubble of private gain and public loss was pierced by the collapse of Lehman Bros. and AIG. Banks merged into "too big to fail" behemoths; safeguards were overturned; regulation of derivatives was banned; This vacuum quickly filled with money laundering, defrauding of customers, cooking the books, and stuffing of the pockets of top officers with money. Larry Summers took 20 million as adviser to a hedge fund. Lehman's CEO took 485 million, the CEO of the failing AIG 315 million. Fired by Merrill, CEO Stan O'Neal departed with a severance bonus of 161 million.

When Mortgages were bundled and sold to the bloated investment banks, lenders no longer cared if they were repaid. Goldman, Lehman, and Merrill were all players. Summers, Bernanke, and Geithner all stood against corrective measures and would play pivotal roles in the Obama administration.

Absent limits on the impulsive risk takers, Wall Street plunged into personal pleasure. There was never enough: penthouses on Park, private jets (six for Lehman alone), vacation homes, art collections, drivers, private elevators, drugs, alcohol, strip bars, and prostitution - one private supplier within spitting distance of the stock exchange counted 10,000 men among her customers..

Three ratings agencies made fortunes bestowing unwarranted ratings right up to two days before Lehman failed, later testifying before congress that these were merely "opinions", not guides for investors. The crowning disgrace is the corruption of the universities. Business school professors consult with companies. Glenn Hubbard, dean of Columbia Business School, takes $250,000 as a board member of Met Life. Larry Summers, back at Harvard, continues to rake in consulting and lecture fees.

The presidents of Harvard and Columbia refused comment. You will appreciate the honesty of Raghuram Rajan who wrote strong warnings and French Finance Minister Christine Lagarde, who spoke with disgust of the debacle.

It used to be that respected academics could be counted on to be the conscience of democracy. Now they are reduced to being interchangeable components in the conflict of interest chain that links business/government/university. Credit Charles Ferguson with a superb investigation and give thanks that we still have a free investigative press to wake the sleeping citizenry.
234 out of 258 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed