The Big Short.

Review #1574: The Big Short.

Cast: 

Christian Bale (Michael Burry), Steve Carell (Mark Baum), Ryan Gosling (Jared Vennett), Brad Pitt (Ben Rickert), John Magaro (Charlie Geller), Finn Wittrock (Jamie Shipley), Hamish Linklater (Porter Collins), Rafe Spall (Danny Moses), Jeremy Strong (Vinny Daniel), Marisa Tomei (Cynthia Baum), and Tracy Letts (Lawrence Fields) Directed by Adam McKay (#526 - Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy and #693 - Anchorman 2: The Legend Continues)

Review: 

"I think it’s no accident that most people get bored when they hear about it. I think it’s, like, designed to be boring. I think they don’t want anyone participating in the conversation, they want you to use this jargon, they want you to basically go away, they want you to feel stupid, and the second you crack it, it’s just endlessly fascinating.”

Going from a reputation of comedy to verge into comedy can be a tough task, particularly if you have done so well with the former. And yet, if one has enough conviction in what they want to tell in their story (no matter how complicated), anything can happen. Adam McKay has proven a worthy example of achieving notice within both comedy and drama. The Pennsylvania native majored in English with studies at Pennsylvania State University and Temple University, but his real interest was in standup comedy. He did various work in improv comedy (most notably in Chicago with The Second City), which included being one of the founders of the group the Upright Citizens Brigade. He moved on to Saturday Night Live as a writer for six years (including two as head writer) before moving into directing. His first four films were each written by him and Will Ferrell (who starred on the show), which resulted in movies such as Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy (2004) and The Other Guys (2010). Undeniably, it was not an easy task to adapt real-life events involving bankers and an economical collapse to film. Naturally, this is adapted from the novel of the same name, written by Michael Lewis that talked about the housing bubble of the 2000s and the people that bet against the bubble (the film kept Dr. Burry while basing the others on real-life money managers and traders such as Steve Eisman and Greg Lippmann). McKay expressed an interest in doing a film based on the book because of his interest (and outrage) in the crisis with people depicted in the book that did not fit what a studio might desire for leads to follow - explaining financial terms to go alongside all of this is another story entirely. McKay and Charles Randolph would adapt the book to film as screenwriters - Randolph wrote his screenplay over a period of six months while McKay made his contributions two years after that, most notably with the moments involving breaking the fourth wall and celebrities brought in to explain certain terms.

What we have here is a film that can equally be viewed as both a bio-drama and a comedy on the nature of unchecked greed versus incompetence within finance, a film that will have one buzzing with information to digest that will leave them rippling with curiosity over just how one could get away with so much with a system that really didn't know what it was doing. We are talking about people who bet against the odds for a market that looked like it would never stop based on what had happened before with the foundation when it comes to mortgages, subprime mortgages and collateralized debt obligations. In other words, it's the story of people who found themselves with a system that was not in fact too big to fail, and one can either look upon them however they like, whether that means with anger or another way. Sometimes one needs a bit of informative depression when it comes to films wanting to tell a film about finance. In that sense, it is inevitable to look upon another film related to greed with finance in The Wolf of Wall Street (2013), or maybe even something like Margin Call (2011). The more complicated it gets with its foundation and tension, the better the film goes, and that proves to be the case with an excellent and complicated film like this, a useful one fresh for some interesting acting alongside its movement around economics that make a worthwhile film that appeals to biting satire rather than condescending biopic. The film is told through three separate but parallel stories that are linked through the eventual crisis, in which two of the main four actors doesn't ever interact with the others. Bale is our first focus, one who certainly molds right in with an eccentric role filled with concentration and awkward charm that never seems like a bit played out to impatience, whether that means listening to loud music in his office or fiddling with his clients about being right. Carell (no stranger to dramatic turns after being known for comedy) is just as well-done, capturing a certain cynicism-filled edge that reaches with useful honesty for what one can feel about others around them in terms of temper (although if you hear it from Eisman, the man that Carell is loosely playing, he captured the anger without his sense of humor - but biopics can only be so fleeting). Gosling does well here with a role that practically seems made out of snakeskin, one filled with transparency for what he does, which works out pretty well for a performance that we follow along at times for certain moments of explanation. Pitt is fairly reserved here for a role that fits that requirement, independent without becoming entrenched in the background for too long. Magaro and Wittrock both do well with contributing idealism within wanting to make a bunch of money within a withering system that lend a few wry moments while closing the film out with a poignant moment inside a collapsed building of finance. Linklater, Spall, and Strong also do fine with contributing their end in support to follow along Carell without being lost in all the financial hullaballoo. As a whole, its moments in trying to balance drama with details about finance with a variation on the usual exposition that keeps the film on its heels for 130 minutes with farce and furor that makes a provocative film on history that still lingers in its consequences years later that is useful to keep alive in our mind to understand the rights and wrongs of what might seem mundane but are in fact much more than that.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Life of Pi.

Review #1564: Life of Pi.

Cast:
Suraj Sharma, Irrfan Khan, Ayush Tandon & Gautam Belur (Piscine "Pi" Patel - age 16-17, adult, age 11-12, age 5), Rafe Spall (The Writer), Tabu (Gita Patel), Adil Hussain (Santosh Patel), Ayaan Khan, Mohamed Abbas Khaleeli & Vibish Sivakumar (Ravi Patel - age 7, 13-14, and 18-19), Gérard Depardieu (The Cook), Wang Po-chieh (Sailor), Jag Huang (Sailor), Andrea Di Stefano (The Priest), Shravanthi Sainath & Mythili Prakash (Anandi - age 17 and adult), and Raj Patel (Ravi) Directed by Ang Lee (#1525 - Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon)

Review:
"I thought this was a pretty impossible movie to make technically. It's so expensive for what it is. You sort of have to disguise a philosophical book as an adventure story. I thought of 3-D half a year before 'Avatar' was on the screen. I thought water, with its transparency and reflection, the way it comes out to you in 3-D, would create a new theatrical experience and maybe the audience or the studio would open up their minds a little bit to accept something different."

This is the 12th feature film of Ang Lee, who certainly could be found doing distinct experiences that captivate an audience with distinct layers, whether that involved his Taiwanese "Father Knows Best" trilogy or the wuxia classic Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon (2000) or varying levels of Hollywood filmmaking in dramas like Brokeback Mountain (2005) or Lust, Caution (2007), with this also happening to serve as an adaptation of a previous work. This is based on the 2001 novel of the same name by Yann Martel (a Canadian author of French Canadian descent), one that he stated was important in finding direction in his life (which he once described as equally being not finite like pi) that dealt with faith within a tale involving man and tiger together on a lifeboat for several months together; David Magee served as the writer to bring the novel onto the screen. There had been plans to develop the novel into a feature for nearly a decade, with directors such as M. Night Shyamalan and Jean-Pierre Jeunet thought at separate times to direct the film before Lee was brought in to do the film, and he found it suitable to direct the film in 3-D with the fact that most of it would take place in water that could help in reaching audiences by disguising philosophy into an adventure story. The effects sure help in that regard, in the sense that one could probably believe there really was a tiger on a boat with someone in the ocean (imagine the film in any different time and there might be a big pane of glass between them), complete with a big water tank on a soundstage. Rhythm & Hues Studios (R&H) surely did a well-done achievement for themselves and certain members of their crew, although an Academy Award for Best Visual Effects did not help the crew from being let go when the company filed for bankruptcy after the release of the film (as is the case with such competition around the world for generating visual effects for films that desire it).

At any rate, I was fine with the film. It isn't too much of a shaggy tiger story, mostly because it does try to make a case for itself in inspiration with the human spirit in devotion beyond oneself, storytelling, and beyond. Whether the film achieves that is up to the viewer in how much ultimately resonates with them in the end, particularly with its last little turn of the screw after the climax involving the story as a whole (ambiguity can only go so far when we are talking man vs. nature). There are three distinct parts of the film that work differently in effectiveness in building itself to usefulness within something wrangled in spectacle and thoughts about what makes a person who they are in nature with belief and survival. To some it could provide a building block towards understanding said beliefs and the will of higher power, while others might just see it as Cast Away (2000) on the sea. At least there isn't a sense of preening on the pulpit to the choir because one could wonder themselves about how they would be when faced with immeasurable tests of oneself or when faced with the company of the wilderness - this is likely the most strange time in life to think about a film that makes you face the facts of life with only yourself to reflect upon for 127 minutes, really. One starts with the initial set-up duo between distinguished Hindi/British/American cinema presence in Khan, who is useful for what is needed in careful story settling to go with a useful bounce-off man in curiosity - in other words, good folks to follow with storytelling. Sharma proves dutiful as the man for oneself, generating interest in self-growth and curiosity in solitude with a tank of water and surrounding effects that runs the gamut in fear and search for enrichment that is worthwhile for those who follow into it. Others do fine in small presence, such as with Tabu and Hussain in useful parental influences. In any case, the star of the show is what the effects can provide with intrigue to go with a mostly effective story in finding one's persistence in spirit for life that works for those who enjoy said goals without finding it overextended or vague in its lasting words about deciding between reality and what is not in terms of truth, perception and belief that Martel found suitable that makes this a fair achievement in Lee's career.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Shaun of the Dead.

Review #1537: Shaun of the Dead.

Cast: 
Simon Pegg (Shaun), Nick Frost (Ed), Kate Ashfield (Liz), Lucy Davis (Dianne), Dylan Moran (David), Penelope Wilton (Barbara), Bill Nighy (Philip), Jessica Hynes (Yvonne), Peter Serafinowicz (Pete), Rafe Spall (Noel), and Martin Freeman (Declan) Directed by Edgar Wright (#971 - Baby Driver)

Review: 
"Maybe directors who are more interested in realism and naturalism come from cities, where they see things on their doorstep every day. But growing up as a kid in a very pretty but ever-so-slightly boring town, where not a great deal happened, encouraged me to be more escapist, more imaginative, and more of a daydreamer."

One needs new directors in every century, or at the very least ones that can be bold in what they want to do about the traditions of the past and be fun about it. Edgar Wright grew up with interest in comics like 2000 AD alongside interest in films that helped influence him such as An American Werewolf in London (1981), Raising Arizona (1987), and several others. He started his venture into film with shorts that began at the age of 14 with Super-8 and S-VHS cameras (Dead Right, for example, was done on his own money as an attempted pastiche of British and American cop films). He graduated with a diploma in Audio-Visual Design from Arts University Bournemouth in 1994 and thereafter got to work behind the camera, with his first feature being the low-budget A Fistful of Fingers (1995) and his first television projects being Mash and Peas and Asylum (both premiering in 1996), with the latter being his first collaboration with Simon Pegg and Jessica Hynes as Wright co-wrote and directed all six episodes further comedic work that eventually led to his most notable television production with Spaced (1999-2001), which he directed all 14 episodes starring Pegg, Hynes, and Nick Frost. It was during the process of the show that Wright and Pegg came up with the idea to do a zombie film (since they both shared an obsession of Dawn of the Dead) that didn't so much want to parody zombie films as much as they did romcom films, with Wright and Pegg serving as co-writers.

What better way to try and do a zombie comedy but to basically do one that seems like a sitcom/satire that just happens to have zombies interrupting from time to time that make a romcomzombie movie where one doesn't notice the apocalypse starting until it's right in front of your face, where lumbering lazy living and zombie could almost be confused. One could brush aside a sudden change of living if they simply are too drunk to notice (which seems awfully familiar then and now, somehow). It takes inspiration from Night of the Living Dead (1968) and Dawn of the Dead (1978) and rolls with being basically near that same amount of quality when it comes to a well-constructed pace for its chase of zombie without being lost in lame gags or excess gore for 99 minutes. There have been quite a few British low-budget horror classics, and this one definitely deserves its own place in that discussion. It all starts with Pegg, our deadpan man for the day who does a pretty good job in terms of timing that rises from sofa-life to direction in zombie-life that we care about fairly well for what needs to be done to draw a chuckle or some zombie dealing. Frost (in his film debut) is capable in complimenting Pegg with entertaining coarseness that gamely helps the first half do quite well in their exchanges with themselves that can be as simple as record-throwing or a scene at the pub about speculation (which I can definitely find pretty relevant when lost enough somewhere to do so). Ashfield does fairly well in carrying along the film with smooth chemistry with the others while Moran does stuffiness just fine along with counterpart Davis, although it is Wilton and Nighy who contribute the most warmth at carefully planned times with Pegg. It is the control from Wright and Pegg to make a film about regular joes and zombies and not have them turn into caricatures that make it a welcome surprise, complete with in-camera transitions and other little distinct things (such as a beating timed to the beat on a particular song of prime favorite band in Queen) well-enough to let us absorb things without being relentless. Honestly, my one little gripe is just the way it ends the proceedings. Maybe it just seems a little too convenient to really seal things up when it comes to its whole siege second half, particularly since it also has to seal up its romantic comedic trappings, which prove a bit better (its last exchange is fairly poignant). On the whole, it is easy to see why this has been regarded a cult classic in some circles, doing quite well for itself in marks of laughter and blood to work on the strength of Wright, Pegg, and Frost in doing something worth enjoyment on any given day.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.