totally-bogus Reviews

Margin Call (2011)

Tremendous ensemble cast

[10/10 · 28 February 2021]

I spent nearly four decades in the Investments field. That was what brought me to this film, but what makes me rave about it is the acting. I love films where there is a strong ensemble cast working together, where every character, no matter the size of their role, is well acted. Jeremy Irons, Kevin Spacey, Paul Bettany, Zachary Quinto, Demi Moore, Stanley Tucci, Simon Baker, Penn Badgley, Susan Blackwell and Ashley Williams all give excellent performances.

I also love the realism and the balance in the script. Far too many films about the great financial crisis of that time approach it in a very cartoonish manner, with cardboard cutout characters and a poor understanding of what the world of finance is all about. In fact, this film goes as far as to have one character engage in the kind of cartoonish rant we've all become used to, followed by another character saying, "You do know it's a little more complicated than that, right?". It also includes a superb short speech by another character about "normal people" who "really want what we have to give to them, but they also want to play innocent and pretend they have no idea where it came from", and "I take my hand off (the scales) and the whole world gets really ____ing fair, really ____ing quickly and nobody actually wants that."

On the opposite side of the ledger, multiple characters home in on the cold reality that rule number one is, don't lose money. If it's necessary for someone else to lose in order for you to win, that's just the way this particular world works. It becomes more evident when you watch the film a second or third time, as it becomes apparent that several key players have known the risks and known the inevitable outcome of the house of cards they have built for some time, but continued to ride the wave of mega profits for as long as they could before cashing out. The characters are presented so well that I recognized them and felt like I could attach names to them, of people I have known in my career.

All in all, this is an excellent inside look at the people at the heart of the great financial crisis.

Lucky You (2007)

Very Bad Poker, Forgettable Drama

[4/10 · 21 April 2018]

As an avid poker player who has spent a lot of time in Las Vegas, I really looked forward to this film. In addition to the large number of top poker pros who appeared in the film, they also used real hands from tournament play, with the guidance of pros like Doyle Brunson.

Therefore, it was a huge disappointment to see just how bad the poker presentation was. The lead character's longtime nemesis is shown on several occasions supposedly outplaying him. In reality, the lead character is clearly the superior player, and the nemesis simply wins by blind luck, or as poker players say, "sucking out".

The poker sins are compounded by a key plot twist when the lead character commits a very serious offense called "soft play." I can imagine how the pros who were part of the film must have cringed when they saw this scene. In real life, this offense would lead to the two parties involved being severely punished. The chips won in the poker hand would have been taken out of play, and both players likely would have been kicked out of the tournament. Not exactly a wise choice by the filmmakers.

Man on Wire (2008)

How can they make such a boring film about such an amazing feat?

[2/10 · 16 April 2018]

The filmmakers have done the near-impossible. They made a boring movie about an astounding feat. The entire film is a paint-by-numbers attempt to contrive conflict from barely perceptible interpersonal differences on a humdrum team, and to contrive tension from a cut and dried procedure. In the end, with all the life drained out of this antiseptic mishmash, the feat itself becomes anti climactic. Or perhaps non-climactic.

Wild Wild Country (2018)

It's all about where you put the emphasis

[4/10 · 28 March 2018]

I can see this story from multiple angles. I grew up 30 miles from the site of the main story, and I know the people well. I was also a classic 60s hippie who lived in comunes which were despised by the locals. One thing I saw first hand which was given remarkably little attention was the was the way that some "spiritual" personality centered communes/cults were essentially ponzi schemes that bled money from rich and powerful yet disaffected members of the privileged class. The cult in this documentary fits that model perfectly. It's remarkable how the filmmakers ignored the core nature of the cult in order to fit a clichéd story arc of the supposed rise of a pure and innocent spiritual movement and ultimate downfall due to supposedly closed minded and hypocritical townsfolk and a few ruthless individuals driven by devotion to the cult. Sorry, but that's not the reality. The Rajneeshees were essentially a criminal enterprise from the beginning in India, accruing wealth through a web of financial crimes. That's the entire reason they fled to America. Yet there is barely a mention, because that would destroy the "pure beginning" the filmmakers wanted to build a tragedy from. Also going with zero notice was the fact that this was a classic case of class conflict. The locals were presented as some kind of entrenched power structure oppressing the poor cultists. That stands truth on its head. The locals were the modern rural poor, at the bottom of the economic ladder. The cultists were wealthy beyond the dreams of any locals, having gotten rich in the world of high finance, corporate law, etc. They thought they could move in and crush the local population through a combination economic power and crude bullying and intimidation. Imagine for a second that instead of moving into a poor white town, they had moved into a town of equally poor black or Hispanic residents. Sympathies are a little different, yes? There is at least one, still-underplayed, element of the story that shows the true colors of the cultists. That element is the cynical manipulation and ultimate betrayal of the homeless people brought in as cheap manual labor for the privileged elite of the cult, and as ballot box stuffers. Once that plan failed, the street people were heartlessly abandoned. All in all, the filmmakers failed by ignoring cold reality to fit a fairy tale narrative.

Ricky Gervais: Humanity (2018 TV Special)

Running out of ideas

[1/10 · 24 March 2018]

One thing that was widely noted after Ricky's last gig hosting the Golden Globes was his lack of originality. Almost every joke he made was recycled from his previous time hosting. Maybe use a few synonyms to replace words without changing the basic joke, but otherwise nothing new. His new Netflix special continues the steep d i wnslope. Just some long, overblown cheap shots at soft targets like trans people (a bit that would go over big with the Trump crowd. My, how courageous), or extended whines about people on social media who had the audacity to disagree with the megamillionaire. Ricky needs to take a few years off and recharge his batteries. He used to have a sense of humor. Perhaps he can rediscover it.

Into the Wild (2007)

Portrayal Does Not Equal Endorsement

[7/10 · 3 February 2018]

*Spoilers*

It's interesting to see how many reviews, both positive and negative, are basing their rating on what the author thought of the lead character. To me, that is a measure of how powerful the film and the subject matter are. No matter what you think of the protagonist, the film draws you in and provokes a strong emotional response. The film does a good, but not great, job of showing the events and the emotional impact of the events which drove McCandless away from home. The series of relationships he develops are well done, with well developed characters and real emotional attachments. In the end, as McCandless dies alone, we are reminded of all the times he pushed away those who tried bond with him. There are some elements which distract from the film. All of Emile Hirsch's little improv bits should have hit the cutting room floor with a heavy thud. He's just not very good at improv. The "apple of my eye" bit was embarrassingly cringe-worthy. In addition, Eddie Vedder's sophomoric lyrics make the soundtrack a disaster. I can understand why so many people are upset about the possibility of other people being led to follow in McCandless' footsteps by glorifying his quest. He was extremely irresponsible and lacking in resourcefulness. Seriously, it never occurred to him that the stream he crossed in the beginning would be impassable in the spring snowmelt? He didn't even bring a map? He could have easily hiked out if he had a map. And in the end, when he couldn't cross the stream, he didn't even try the most obvious next step, simply following the river downstream. If he had, he'd have found a cable crossing less than a mile away. Despite the flaws, this is a powerful story well told, with many fascinating characters. Hal Holbrook, Christine Keeler, and Vince Vaughn all give outstanding performances. It's well worth watching no matter what your views on the main character.

White Rabbit Project (2016)

History plus Science Equals Well Rounded and Informative

[10/10 · 16 December 2017]

It's hard to believe that people are trashing this show for adding real history to the science. To one reviewer especially, I say that those who think history is just fluff are doomed to repeat it, badly. This show isn't just Mythbusters reheated. It was never intended to be. It builds on the Mythbusters' pragmatic analytical approach and adds a fascinating context of real history. The information is presented in a lighthearted, but still articulate way, with a good dose of actual science. If you're a well rounded person who loves Science AND loves history, you'll love this show.

Mad Money (2008)

Enjoyable comedy caper film

[7/10 · 7 August 2016]

This film is an enjoyable little treat that will keep you entertained and involved. It's not intended to be emotionally riveting or a socioeconomic milestone. It's intended to be fun and uplifting, and it succeeds in that. The characters are human and sympathetic, warts and all, even as they display their very human faults and weaknesses. The leads all do a fine job of bringing them to life. Katie Holmes is just far enough over the top in her portrayal without veering into clownishness (if that's a word). The script is witty and clever, and the film moves along at a comfortable pace. There are touching moments of humanity that add to your sympathy for the characters. All in all I found this to be well worth the time, and even a film that will be re-watchable.

Pawn Sacrifice (2014)

Imaginary Characters Grafted onto Real Names

[1/10 · 4 October 2015]

The first thing you need to know about this film is that is not a "true story". It is not the story of Bobby Fischer, nor of other major characters. It states in the beginning that it is "Based on a true story". What that means is that they have taken skeletal details about Bobby Fischer's life and about his increasing paranoia and mental instability, and about his historic world championship match with Boris Spassky, and crafted imaginary but plausible characters and plot points which might have fit the known narrative. While the film is serviceable B movie fare, I have to give it my lowest rating because of the fundamental lack of honesty. If you want to make a film about an imaginary chess player and set it within a context of 20th century Realpolitik, fine, have at it. But let your film stand or fall on its own merits. Don't claim it to be the story of a real person, a historic person of immense importance, to give your invented story a gravitas it does not otherwise deserve. Start with the casting itself. As many have pointed out, Tobey Maguire is vastly different from Bobby Fischer. But so is Liev "Ray Donovan" Schreiber vastly different from Spassky. Everyone in the performing arts thinks about the difference between "indicating" and "expressing". The casting of this film is a blatant case of indicating the "underdog vs the world" cliché by casting frail little narrow shouldered Tobey as the underdog, and casting 21st century anachronism cut-and-ripped, 6-pack gym bunny Liev Schreiber as overdog Spassky. They even throw in a shirtless, fresh-from-the shower, rippling muscled Spassky to beat the point to death. The reality is that Fischer was 6'2 or 6'3, and that he himself was the first top grandmaster to devote himself to physical fitness and strength conditioning. He was in fact the physically intimidating one, as opposed to the sedentary schlump, Spassky. And Fischer knew it. He was also a bit of a bully. Hardly the false narrative being presented in this film, and one with much more subtlety and ambiguity. The film gives Fischer a highly altered childhood to fit its concocted narrative. It introduces young Fischer's chess wizardry with a scene where Fischer's mother, Regina, takes him to one of the top players in New York City. Regina states that she wants Bobby to lose, to discourage him to the point that he will give up the game. The reality is that Regina was worried that Bobby spent too much time alone studying chess, but she supported his passion to the point that she attempted to run want ads to find other children as playing partners, and she took him to talented adults to coach and develop his game. A film mother who wanted him to quit, vs the real mother who wanted him to excel? As I said, this is not a true story. The film does show us a "seminal" scene where young Bobby, studying chess in his room, is haunted by sounds of Regina and some anonymous lover in her room. He confronts her, demands to know where his unknown father is, drops an F bomb on her, and tells her he needs her to leave because he needs silence. Later scenes report that she has in fact departed, going to California and leaving him alone in the apartment as he demanded. There is no evidence that this confrontation happened. None. She did in fact leave him, but in cold-hearted self-interest, to pursue her medical studies. The later wave of scenes where she watches from afar are pure Hollywood clichéd fiction. The film shows no strong male presence in young Bobby's life. There was in reality one important man. Paul Nemenyi, a Hungarian born physicist, was as close to a father figure as Bobby ever had. Nemenyi came to visit young Bobby, took him on outings, and even paid for his schooling. He was an important figure in Bobby's life until he died when Bobby was 9. One can only imagine what this loss meant to Bobby. There's one other reason why Nemenyi belongs in the real story. He was Bobby Fischer's father. Regina never told Bobby, because of the stigma of a child born to a father who was not her husband. Bobby wanted to know where his father was, and Paul was right there, unknown. You want a gripping, emotional film about the real life of Bobby? That film is still waiting to be made. You want to see a passable, fictional account of an imaginary chess legend with lots of scenery chewing? See Pawn Sacrifice.

The Monuments Men (2014)

Respectful and well told tale

[9/10 · 5 April 2015]

George Clooney the director displays one of the finest traits of George Clooney the actor: generosity of spirit. Just as he works well in an ensemble setting, not needing to dominate the screen, he also doesn't need to dominate the screen with look-at-me directing. No clichéd shaky cam, no clichéd fast cuts ad nauseum, no clichéd telling the audience where to look (how many thousands of times has a director zoomed in on someone's hands as they spoke? 20 thousand? 50 thousand? More?)

Instead Clooney trusts the story, the characters and the emotions to be the focus. He makes sure that each of the fine actors/characters in the ensemble has their own moments. He doesn't feel the need to fill up the screen with explosions and chaotic action. This ultimately makes the few scenes of warfare much more compelling. Rather than one more firefight we get two characters in a pastoral setting suddenly caught in the instant before a battle erupts. This makes the tragic death of one of them more humanly compelling. It also gives a stark human face to the bonds between comrades in wartime. (Bravo, John Goodman for a beautifully understated but gut wrenching display of grief.

This is ultimately an uplifting film that shows us the best of humanity in the worst of times. It rewards patience and deeper thought.