RSS

Monthly Archives: March 2011

What’s Next? I’ll tell you (sort of)

I don’t know if you all remember our last tribute; it was to Oliver Platt. We looked at three of his movies: Lake Placid, Liberty Stands Still and Frost/Nixon (tributes are always in three’s). The next three movies are going to be a tribute to Burt Reynolds. That is right–the Big B. Which three is the real question. I have the first one almost ready to go and we should get it out today, but the next two . . . . . . .

 
1 Comment

Posted by on March 15, 2011 in Movie Reviews

 

You asked for it & here it is–The Inside Job.

By JPFMovies in consultation with Dr. H

 

The Inside Job is the Oscar winning 2010 documentary by Charles H. Ferguson about the financial crisis starting around 2007 to the present.  Ferguson describes the film as illustrating “the systemic corruption of the United States by the financial services industry and the consequences of that systemic corruption.” As noted, the film won an Academy Award for Best Documentary Feature this year.

 

One of Ferguson’s major points is the force the financial industry wields on the political process and the ways they use it.  One of many points discussed by the film is the prevalence of “the revolving door,” when financial regulators are hired by the private financial sector after leaving government positions to make millions in the very industries that they regulated.  There is a law in place that is designed to curb this abuse but it is narrowly drawn and enforcement is lax (the law imposes a one year “cooling off” period between leaving the civil service and going into the private sector that you regulated).

 

Much of the film takes a historical look at changes in the financial services industry over the past decade leading up to today’s crisis, the movement toward deregulation (i.e. repealing parts of the Glass-Stegall Act in 1999-2000), and how complex trading schemes permitted massive increases in risk taking while skirting the very regulations designed to curb these risks (remember the 1994 bankruptcy of Orange County, California—caused in part by risky derivative trading).

 

The film points to many undisclosed relationships and conflicts of interest that have a material influence on important institutions like credit rating agencies and universities (as when academics who receive funding as consultants do not disclose this information in their academic writing), and also notes that these conflicts played a role in hiding and ultimately aggravating  the crisis.

 

Another significant issue discussed is the insane pay in the financial industry and its explosion over the past decade incredibly out of proportion to the rest of the economy.  The compensation abuses have grown so bad that even at the banks that failed, banking executives were making hundreds of millions of dollars in bonuses right up to the institutional failures and ultimately the current crisis.

 

I was glad to see that mainstream media outlets had more journalists with guts than I expected.  Especially since Ferguson’s bread and butter comes from the media industry which did not escape culpability.  I don’t know if it was just me but the documentary didn’t tell me anything that I already didn’t know (or at least confirmed what I had suspected) with one exception:  I had no clue that our academics in their lofty ivory towers had their snouts in the trough as much as any seedy executive or other special interest group.  Academia seems to bear as much responsibility for the current crisis as any other major player in this economic catastrophe.  Academics have somehow managed to keep their image as pure and unbiased thinkers when in reality they are as corruptible and greedy as anyone else on “Wall Street.”

 

As I said, the documentary didn’t really tell me anything I didn’t know, but I am grateful that it provided its viewers with a different but well-founded point of view.  As good as the documentary was, it wasn’t so good that it deserved an Oscar (in my “humble” opinion).  That said I’m thankful for what the film provides its viewers—exposing the slimy underbelly of a significant part of the American economy.

 
4 Comments

Posted by on March 15, 2011 in Movie Reviews

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Battle of Los Angeles: Dr. H: I Watched the Movie and Lived to Tell the Tale

Yes I know I said that the Inside Job would be next, but Dr. H saw this movie and insisted I get it up ASAP to save anyone from being subjected to its torture.

My take on this movie is – any man who takes his girlfriend to this movie and then confesses that he liked it, will in all probably receive a curt “Dear John” letter stating to the effect “I am leaving you for…anyone else.”  This movie has some serious intellectual limitations and some major aesthetic challenges to overcome.  It is not only a loud sensory overload, but it is incredibly stupid.

The story goes like this.  Aliens have arrived inside meteors that rain along the coasts of all major cities and contain within, alien troops that of course that look like huge reptiles with automatic weapons coming from their arms.  There are some hints dropped that the aliens are here to claim our water, but this premise is neither fully explored nor explained.  There is a marine platoon that takes on the task of defeating the aliens and the evacuation of Santa Monica, led by staff sergeant Nantz (Aaron Eckhart), who is about to marretire in a month’s time (where have we heard this before?). An otherwise fine actor,  Eckhart is badly let down by the script, the director Johnathan Liebsman, the special effects team, and every other thing that goes into making a movie.

You can almost sense his discomfort and you get the feeling that his prime responsibility perhaps is to somehow protect his supporting cast from this vulgar onslaught rather than actually confronting the aliens and saving the planet. But you can’t do much with a script that relies on grunts and screams like “more!” “look out!” “fine!” and the tedious dialogue. Consider these dialogues and weep. “Now I want you to be my little Marine.” “That’s what Marines do.” The funniest thing is that there is no symmetry in action and everyone is under fire from all possible directions and everyone appears to be everywhere.

It borrows heavily from an artistic and vastly superior film, District Nine. Too bad the irony and the political satire of District Nine was lost on the director. You can almost imagine the producer selling the movie to a studio boss, “Remember District Nine, a movie made for $15 million, grossed $200 million worldwide. Guess what? We’ll do a better job. Uglier aliens. No humanitarian subtext. No depth. And best of all a story line a third grader can relate to. Now that’s a movie to boot.”

I stumbled out of the movie theater dazed, confused, and cursing myself for this mother of all stupidities. I could have better used my $20, crashed at the JPFMovies cave, watched a sensible movie, and feasted on some decent food. But then again, I did save you guys from this movie. I feel redeemed.

 
3 Comments

Posted by on March 14, 2011 in Movie Reviews

 

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Silver get in touch with me to collect your winnings.

Silver get in touch with me to collect your winnings.

 
17 Comments

Posted by on March 5, 2011 in Movie Reviews

 

Next Up the Inside Job!

Dr. H and other are requesting a review of the Inside Job. Well your requests have been heard and we here at jpfmovies will give it a shot.

 
10 Comments

Posted by on March 5, 2011 in Movie Reviews

 

It’s 1992 and it’s also the year of Glengarry Glen Ross.

The 1992 film Glengarry Glen Ross is based on the 1982 play written by David Mamet. The play shows parts of two days of four desperate Chicago real estate agents who will engage in any unscrupulous or illegal acts to sell junk real estate interests to ignorant buyers. Apparently the play is in part built on Mamet’s own experience when he was employed in a Chicago real estate office in the late 1960’s.  The title of both the film and the play comes from the names of two of the real estate ventures being hawked by the salesmen, Glengarry Highlands and Glen Ross Farms.  The film, like the play, is infamous for its use of profanity and, according to actor Ed Harris, led to the cast renaming the movie “Death of a Fuckin’ Salesman.”

 

In the film the salesmen become shell shocked when corporate sends a “motivator” (Alec Baldwin) to announce that, in one week, all except the top two salesmen will be fired.  The top two salesmen will keep their jobs: first place gets a Cadillac and second place gets a set of steak knives.  Though Baldwin would have “fired their asses because a loser is a loser.” Baldwin’s “motivating speech” is, in my opinion, one of the greatest scenes in film history and almost won Baldwin an Oscar.

 

The movie has a star studded cast: Jack Lemmon as Shelley “The Machine” Levene; Al Pacino as Ricky Roma, the most successful salesman in the office; Ed Harris as Dave Moss, a loser loudmouth salesman; Kevin Spacey as John Williamson, a milquetoast insignificant, mealy-mouthed office manager; Alan Arkin as George Aaronow: playing the aging salesman with no self-confidence; and of course Alec Baldwin as Blake the corporate “motivator.”  The film had a thin budget of 12 million dollars but still managed to lose money—grossing only 10 million.

 

Having read several David Mamet plays, I am of the opinion that once you’ve seen/read one of his plays/films you have seen/read them all.  Many of you high falutin’ literati types who drool over every Mamet play will obviously disagree with me but I stand by my statement: once you’ve seen one Mamet play you’ve seen them all. Every Mamet play is based on the same plotline: a greedy average guy (or gal in the case of Oleanna) shows his or her utter lack of ethics. These characters aren’t the larger than life kind of evil that we get from Darth Vader – in fact, they aren’t even truly evil – they are simply selfish jerks who would step over their own mothers to get ahead. How many times do you need to see that? Maybe you literary droolers, who love nothing more than a chance to get depressed while snarfing popcorn, enjoy watching humans crawl through their own filth, but personally I’d rather see something at least different. And for once I think American audiences agreed. A holier-than-thou type will watch a movie like Glengarry Glen Ross and think, “I’m so much better than that – and not only that, but I must be pretty intelligent to appreciate a downer like this!” But a compassionate and caring person will think, “there but for the grace of God go I – and I just hope I don’t end up there someday too.”

 
8 Comments

Posted by on March 4, 2011 in Movie Reviews