Search
Talking Metal
10.0
Rate It
Podcast
Hosts Mark Strigl and John Ostronomy, talk and play METAL with special guests, headbangers, and...
My Spending - Expense Tracker
Finance and Business
App
Do you know how much you spend monthly? are you still using papers to calculate how much you spend? ...
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Transformers: The Last Knight (2017) in Movies
Jun 19, 2019
Director Michael Bay is back with “Transformers” The Last Knight”, and even before the Paramount logo could fade; Bay’s trademark fire and explosions light up the screen. This is a big indication of what is to come as from the start we are bombarded with fire, explosions, and lots of slow motion shots of people being thrown about.
The film stars Mark Wahlberg as Cade Yeager who continues to try to help the Autobots despite being declared illegal for their destructive war with the Decepticons which has left a path of human death and destruction in its wake.
While Cade runs afoul of the government, he reluctantly helps those in need including a young girl named Izabella (Isabela Moner), who also has a soft spot for the kind Autobots.
The two warring factions are in a race to find a mythical object that they believe will restore they damaged home world but of course, will lay waste to the Earth in the process. One would say ok with this storyline we have enough to work with. Unfortunately the film keeps cramming in plot points and subplots that do not really go anywhere. We are introduced to characters that appear important and then vanish for most of the film without contributing much of any significance. The audience is also bombarded with a barrage of chases, action sequences and of course; fiery explosions after another but without anything in the form of suspense or excitement.
Sir Anthony Hopkins appears and for a few moments I had hopes that the film would start to be more coherent and gain some focus, but thanks to his erratic and annoying character and even more annoying robotic butler, the film almost becomes unwatchable. It was like watching a two-plus hour FX reel for people with short attention spans. The dialogue is groan inducing even for an action film and it seems as if every character can only say Sh*t when they are frustrated or stressed.
I do not expect a great plot, acting, or writing for a film based on a popular toy series but we have seen much better examples in the prior films.
It seems that Bay is so content to simply let the very impressive visuals of the film carry the day and things such as a plot, character development, and a brisker run time simply got in the way of his desire to blow more things up and fill each shot with as many FX sequences as possible regardless of how annoying they were and if they were needed at all.
I am not a Michael Bay basher as has a solid track record of success and you know what you are getting with him. But if the franchise is to move forward, it will need an infusion of fresh ideas and creativity as this was borderline unwatchable at points. The fans and the franchise deserve much better than this effort.
http://sknr.net/2017/06/20/transformers-last-knight/
The film stars Mark Wahlberg as Cade Yeager who continues to try to help the Autobots despite being declared illegal for their destructive war with the Decepticons which has left a path of human death and destruction in its wake.
While Cade runs afoul of the government, he reluctantly helps those in need including a young girl named Izabella (Isabela Moner), who also has a soft spot for the kind Autobots.
The two warring factions are in a race to find a mythical object that they believe will restore they damaged home world but of course, will lay waste to the Earth in the process. One would say ok with this storyline we have enough to work with. Unfortunately the film keeps cramming in plot points and subplots that do not really go anywhere. We are introduced to characters that appear important and then vanish for most of the film without contributing much of any significance. The audience is also bombarded with a barrage of chases, action sequences and of course; fiery explosions after another but without anything in the form of suspense or excitement.
Sir Anthony Hopkins appears and for a few moments I had hopes that the film would start to be more coherent and gain some focus, but thanks to his erratic and annoying character and even more annoying robotic butler, the film almost becomes unwatchable. It was like watching a two-plus hour FX reel for people with short attention spans. The dialogue is groan inducing even for an action film and it seems as if every character can only say Sh*t when they are frustrated or stressed.
I do not expect a great plot, acting, or writing for a film based on a popular toy series but we have seen much better examples in the prior films.
It seems that Bay is so content to simply let the very impressive visuals of the film carry the day and things such as a plot, character development, and a brisker run time simply got in the way of his desire to blow more things up and fill each shot with as many FX sequences as possible regardless of how annoying they were and if they were needed at all.
I am not a Michael Bay basher as has a solid track record of success and you know what you are getting with him. But if the franchise is to move forward, it will need an infusion of fresh ideas and creativity as this was borderline unwatchable at points. The fans and the franchise deserve much better than this effort.
http://sknr.net/2017/06/20/transformers-last-knight/
Wintres Woma by James Elkington
Album
RIYL Steve Gunn, Michael Chapman, Kevin Ayers, Bert Jansch, Ryley Walker, Jim O'Rourke, Scott...
Darren (1599 KP) rated 13 Sins (2014) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Story: 13 Sins starts as Elliot Brindle (Webber) about to get married to Shelby (Wesley) and start his own family but because he isn’t as ruthless in his salesman job he loses his job making it difficult to supporting his mentally disabled brother Michael (Graye) and his bitter father (Bower).
Running out of options a chance phone call promises him money for doing something as simple as killing a fly once complete Elliot gets a second phone call with the promise of more money for a task. With two challenges down Elliot get offered a chance to enter into a game to complete in 11 more challenges to get more money that could change his life forever.
When the challenge starts to become very twisted it grabs the attention of Detective Chilcoat (Perlman) but just how far will Elliot will go for the money.
REPORT THIS AD
13 Sins gives us a horror thriller that pushes our character to the limit which is why I do think this is a very enjoyable. I will say it starts out slow and puts the character in a position that you would expect them to take the challenge by not knowing how far they would be pushed. This helps us think this would be hard to say no to. I will say this really pulls you in but I do think the certain moments at the end feel forced.
Actor Review
Mark Webber: Elliot Brindle is a down on his luck salesman who is about to get married, have his own child all while supporting his mentally disabled brother and alcoholic father. When he gets phone call he gets a chance to end all of his money troubles by completing a set of challenges, this will test Elliot to the very limits leaving us to wonder how far he will do. Mark is great in this role making us feel like he really is an average man struggling.
Devon Graye: Michael Brindle is the mentally disabled brother of Elliot who is about to find himself back in a home if his brother doesn’t find money to support him. Devon seems like an important character that just seems to get forgotten through the final outcome of the film.
Rutina Wesley: Shelby is the fiancée of Elliot who is getting ever so upset with Elliot on the day of the challenges because he is coming off distant but her relationship is important to everything that is happening. Rutina is basic in this supporting role because we don’t get the screen time.
Ron Perlman: Detective Chilcoat takes the case that Elliot finds himself causing him to discover what has been happening for years. Ron is solid in this supporting role that has a moment that is worth the wait nearer the end.
Support Cast: 13 Sins has a supporting cast that is included in the game in ways you have to figure out how they are involved.
Director Review: Daniel Stamm – Daniel gives us a thriller that is shocking in places as we just have to see how far we see our character go.
Horror: 13 Sins has gore moments that shock but filled with suspense around the gore.
Thriller: 13 Sins keeps us on edge as we wonder what will happen next in the game.
Settings: 13 Sins doesn’t have the most iconic locations which helps make us think it is in a small city but with the bigger picture of the game doesn’t work.
Special Effects: 13 Sins has great special effects used throughout with the gore factors.
Suggestion: 13 Sins is one for the horror fans to watch. (Horror Fans Watch)
Best Part: Final twist.
Worst Part: Slow starting.
Believability: No
Chances of Tears: No
Chances of Sequel: No
Post Credits Scene: No
Similar Too: Would You Rather, Cheap Thrills
Oscar Chances: No
Budget: $4 Million
Runtime: 1 Hour 33 Minutes
Tagline: You don’t play the game. It plays you.
Overall: Surprisingly entertaining horror thriller keeping us guessing throughout.
https://moviesreview101.com/2016/10/03/movie-reviews-101-midnight-halloween-horror-13-sins-2014/
Running out of options a chance phone call promises him money for doing something as simple as killing a fly once complete Elliot gets a second phone call with the promise of more money for a task. With two challenges down Elliot get offered a chance to enter into a game to complete in 11 more challenges to get more money that could change his life forever.
When the challenge starts to become very twisted it grabs the attention of Detective Chilcoat (Perlman) but just how far will Elliot will go for the money.
REPORT THIS AD
13 Sins gives us a horror thriller that pushes our character to the limit which is why I do think this is a very enjoyable. I will say it starts out slow and puts the character in a position that you would expect them to take the challenge by not knowing how far they would be pushed. This helps us think this would be hard to say no to. I will say this really pulls you in but I do think the certain moments at the end feel forced.
Actor Review
Mark Webber: Elliot Brindle is a down on his luck salesman who is about to get married, have his own child all while supporting his mentally disabled brother and alcoholic father. When he gets phone call he gets a chance to end all of his money troubles by completing a set of challenges, this will test Elliot to the very limits leaving us to wonder how far he will do. Mark is great in this role making us feel like he really is an average man struggling.
Devon Graye: Michael Brindle is the mentally disabled brother of Elliot who is about to find himself back in a home if his brother doesn’t find money to support him. Devon seems like an important character that just seems to get forgotten through the final outcome of the film.
Rutina Wesley: Shelby is the fiancée of Elliot who is getting ever so upset with Elliot on the day of the challenges because he is coming off distant but her relationship is important to everything that is happening. Rutina is basic in this supporting role because we don’t get the screen time.
Ron Perlman: Detective Chilcoat takes the case that Elliot finds himself causing him to discover what has been happening for years. Ron is solid in this supporting role that has a moment that is worth the wait nearer the end.
Support Cast: 13 Sins has a supporting cast that is included in the game in ways you have to figure out how they are involved.
Director Review: Daniel Stamm – Daniel gives us a thriller that is shocking in places as we just have to see how far we see our character go.
Horror: 13 Sins has gore moments that shock but filled with suspense around the gore.
Thriller: 13 Sins keeps us on edge as we wonder what will happen next in the game.
Settings: 13 Sins doesn’t have the most iconic locations which helps make us think it is in a small city but with the bigger picture of the game doesn’t work.
Special Effects: 13 Sins has great special effects used throughout with the gore factors.
Suggestion: 13 Sins is one for the horror fans to watch. (Horror Fans Watch)
Best Part: Final twist.
Worst Part: Slow starting.
Believability: No
Chances of Tears: No
Chances of Sequel: No
Post Credits Scene: No
Similar Too: Would You Rather, Cheap Thrills
Oscar Chances: No
Budget: $4 Million
Runtime: 1 Hour 33 Minutes
Tagline: You don’t play the game. It plays you.
Overall: Surprisingly entertaining horror thriller keeping us guessing throughout.
https://moviesreview101.com/2016/10/03/movie-reviews-101-midnight-halloween-horror-13-sins-2014/
Lots of twists and turns (1 more)
Red herrings to keep us guessing
And so the plot thickens...
The story centres around the main character Tom, who is trying to keep his family together after the death of his wife, whilst starting a new relationship with Sophie. Tom is desperately trying to find his daughter, who has gone missing from the same party where her boyfriend turns up dead.
This is a who did it series, where we are left till the very last episode to find out where Jenny (the missing daughter) is (and with whom), and also who murdered her boyfriend, as well as the reasons behind this. As much as the plot unravels in the first part of the series, we are delighted to watch as lose ends are tied up in a complex thread towards the end. As viewers we are left with the bigger picture during the last episode, where we can see just how clever the writing of this series have been at masking such a huge chain of events.
The plot is quite complex, and certainly not one that you can leave to make a cup of tea without pausing. The clues come thick and fast throughout the whole series, some have cleverly been placed as red herrings, to stop us realising the answers too soon. I am usually know for picking murderers from stories very early on in the plot, however if I were to bet on this one, I would be totally missing the mark- I was genuinely shock when the murder was revealed.
There are a lot of characters in the series, although they are subtly introduced, so they were not too overwhelming. The characters were superbly cast, being both well acted and believable. Michael C. Hall, who played Tom was exceptional in his acting, showing a complete range of emotions throughout. There were also a few smaller sub-stories within the main plot, which helped enrich the series further.
Overall, I thoroughly enjoyed the series, it was one I binged on over two days and kept me guessing throughout.
This is a who did it series, where we are left till the very last episode to find out where Jenny (the missing daughter) is (and with whom), and also who murdered her boyfriend, as well as the reasons behind this. As much as the plot unravels in the first part of the series, we are delighted to watch as lose ends are tied up in a complex thread towards the end. As viewers we are left with the bigger picture during the last episode, where we can see just how clever the writing of this series have been at masking such a huge chain of events.
The plot is quite complex, and certainly not one that you can leave to make a cup of tea without pausing. The clues come thick and fast throughout the whole series, some have cleverly been placed as red herrings, to stop us realising the answers too soon. I am usually know for picking murderers from stories very early on in the plot, however if I were to bet on this one, I would be totally missing the mark- I was genuinely shock when the murder was revealed.
There are a lot of characters in the series, although they are subtly introduced, so they were not too overwhelming. The characters were superbly cast, being both well acted and believable. Michael C. Hall, who played Tom was exceptional in his acting, showing a complete range of emotions throughout. There were also a few smaller sub-stories within the main plot, which helped enrich the series further.
Overall, I thoroughly enjoyed the series, it was one I binged on over two days and kept me guessing throughout.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Dunkirk (2017) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
A Triumph
Brutal. Spectacular. Emotional. These are just some of the adjectives you could use to describe Christopher Nolan’s latest film, Dunkirk. The director of Inception, The Dark Knight, Memento and Interstellar is one of the greatest film-makers working today and he raises the bar once again with this bleak tale from World War II.
With war, you have to respect the past whilst allowing modern-day film-goers to truly understand the brutality that ordinary people like you and I went through on a daily basis.
In May 1940, Germany had advanced into France, trapping Allied troops on the beaches of Dunkirk. Under air and ground cover from British and French forces, troops were slowly and methodically evacuated from the beach using not only military ships but civilian boats too. At the end of this incredible story of courage, 330,000 French, British, Belgian and Dutch soldiers were safely evacuated.
I found a quote the other day that said “Christopher Nolan is like Michael Bay for people who have ever read a book” and in Dunkirk that seems more apt than ever. Of course there are explosions, many of them, but they are interweaved with some incredible storytelling.
Split into three separate timelines, Dunkirk follows fisherman Mark Rylance as he sails to the beaches as part of the civilian rescue effort. On land we shadow a group of young soldiers desperately trying to get back home. Finally, the film flies alongside Tom Hardy’s brave Spitfire pilot as he tries his best to keep the beaches safe.
Each of the stories has something to offer but Mark Rylance’s performance is definitely the best, making his timeline the most interesting and often the most emotional. Addressing the elephant in the room, Harry Styles, is probably best at this part of the review – he’s excellent and in a much larger part than I had imagined.
In fact, all the performances are excellent, helped in part by Christopher Nolan’s incredible use of close-ups. This is a living, breathing war and as the audience, you feel as claustrophobic as the 400,000 men did waiting on that beach in 1940.
Moreover, the sound is just astonishing. I have never known a film use sound to such an extent to convey sheer terror. The score by Hans Zimmer, coupled with the deafening aircraft flying overhead and the rapid gunfire is incredibly harrowing and makes Dunkirk very hard to watch at times – despite its 12A certification.
Dunkirk is also a masterclass in practical effects. Nearly everything you see on screen was shot without the use of CGI and my goodness you can tell. We’re so used to seeing blockbusters filled to the brim with computer generated imagery that it’s easy to forget just how good practical effects can be.
Overall, Christopher Nolan has created a tasteful homage to a day that has been etched into the minds of generations of people. It would’ve been easy to create a film that focused on the action rather than the human details of this incredible story, but Nolan has managed to craft an absolute triumph. It’s one of the best films of the year and an absolute must-watch.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/07/23/dunkirk-review-a-triumph/
With war, you have to respect the past whilst allowing modern-day film-goers to truly understand the brutality that ordinary people like you and I went through on a daily basis.
In May 1940, Germany had advanced into France, trapping Allied troops on the beaches of Dunkirk. Under air and ground cover from British and French forces, troops were slowly and methodically evacuated from the beach using not only military ships but civilian boats too. At the end of this incredible story of courage, 330,000 French, British, Belgian and Dutch soldiers were safely evacuated.
I found a quote the other day that said “Christopher Nolan is like Michael Bay for people who have ever read a book” and in Dunkirk that seems more apt than ever. Of course there are explosions, many of them, but they are interweaved with some incredible storytelling.
Split into three separate timelines, Dunkirk follows fisherman Mark Rylance as he sails to the beaches as part of the civilian rescue effort. On land we shadow a group of young soldiers desperately trying to get back home. Finally, the film flies alongside Tom Hardy’s brave Spitfire pilot as he tries his best to keep the beaches safe.
Each of the stories has something to offer but Mark Rylance’s performance is definitely the best, making his timeline the most interesting and often the most emotional. Addressing the elephant in the room, Harry Styles, is probably best at this part of the review – he’s excellent and in a much larger part than I had imagined.
In fact, all the performances are excellent, helped in part by Christopher Nolan’s incredible use of close-ups. This is a living, breathing war and as the audience, you feel as claustrophobic as the 400,000 men did waiting on that beach in 1940.
Moreover, the sound is just astonishing. I have never known a film use sound to such an extent to convey sheer terror. The score by Hans Zimmer, coupled with the deafening aircraft flying overhead and the rapid gunfire is incredibly harrowing and makes Dunkirk very hard to watch at times – despite its 12A certification.
Dunkirk is also a masterclass in practical effects. Nearly everything you see on screen was shot without the use of CGI and my goodness you can tell. We’re so used to seeing blockbusters filled to the brim with computer generated imagery that it’s easy to forget just how good practical effects can be.
Overall, Christopher Nolan has created a tasteful homage to a day that has been etched into the minds of generations of people. It would’ve been easy to create a film that focused on the action rather than the human details of this incredible story, but Nolan has managed to craft an absolute triumph. It’s one of the best films of the year and an absolute must-watch.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/07/23/dunkirk-review-a-triumph/
Clarity: Clear Mind, Better Performance, Bigger Results
Book
LEARN TO CLEAR YOUR MIND AND THINK LIKE A WINNER We all have so much going on. A million different...
RəX Regent (349 KP) rated Bad Boys II (2003) in Movies
Feb 25, 2019
What ya gonna do
this time?
Contains spoilers, click to show
Whilst the first outing of the Bad Boys shocked me by how good it actually was, this one left me a little disappointed. I was hardly expecting an Oscar winning deal here, as this was always going to be a Michael Bay adrenalin rush, but for a film with a two and a half hour running time, the adrenalin came in too short a bursts.
Bad Boys was Bay's first film and was but a taster of his over the top film making, which first arrives in The Rock a year afterwards, but this made eight years later was obviously going to take this to the next level, if not several levels further than that. But to me, it didn't. Granted, the action was thrilling, outrageous and very enjoyable, but the character development was barely visible. They bicker, Lawrence moaned a lot and Smith was cool and likable but there was just a shell of what there should have been. The entire story, including what's left of their character dynamics are only present to set up the next great action sequence.
Then, the was the taste issue. The crux of the plot as it developed was that the drug dealing villains where using corpses to smuggle drugs, and this was used to "Comic Effect" in two major set-pieces. Though in the first, a car chase, it was black comedy as bodies came thick and fast from the back of a van to be run over by the pursuing cars, the second was pushing the boundaries in a to a more disturbing area.
A criticism levied at Michael Bay by British critic Mark Kermode has been that he is a filmmaker with "pornographic sensibilities". Not just in the literal sense, but in the way that he views everything from cars, women and explosions for example. But this was no more clearly re- enforced than in a scene about 90 minutes in, when our two 'bad boys' are searching a morgue and after pulling back the sheets on fat white guys, they reveal a large breasted young woman, who is refer to as "The Bimbo" if my memory serves. It's worrying because I don't know whether this was being played for laughs or was supposed to be a titillating shot of a well endowed woman? Is it right to show a dead woman, who looks to have been strangled to death and referred to a bimbo in a mainstream 15 certificated movie?
I don't want to sound like a prude but the tone of this and pretty much every scene with the bodies being used, seemed to be in plain Bad, BAD taste and though this humour can play well in the right genre of movie, this just simply wasn't the film to do it in, in my opinion. But, that criticism aside, my main issues are the pacing. It was just too hollow to sustain its running time and my mind was beginning to wander from time to time between the spectacular action and the few moments of decent comedy.
It just didn't have the magic of the 90′s actioner, a genre which had faded considerably by the early 2000′s, and without offering anything new besides improved action, which was worth the ticket or DVD price in its own right, or even retaining the original character of the original, this was a sequel failed to hold its own.
Bad Boys was Bay's first film and was but a taster of his over the top film making, which first arrives in The Rock a year afterwards, but this made eight years later was obviously going to take this to the next level, if not several levels further than that. But to me, it didn't. Granted, the action was thrilling, outrageous and very enjoyable, but the character development was barely visible. They bicker, Lawrence moaned a lot and Smith was cool and likable but there was just a shell of what there should have been. The entire story, including what's left of their character dynamics are only present to set up the next great action sequence.
Then, the was the taste issue. The crux of the plot as it developed was that the drug dealing villains where using corpses to smuggle drugs, and this was used to "Comic Effect" in two major set-pieces. Though in the first, a car chase, it was black comedy as bodies came thick and fast from the back of a van to be run over by the pursuing cars, the second was pushing the boundaries in a to a more disturbing area.
A criticism levied at Michael Bay by British critic Mark Kermode has been that he is a filmmaker with "pornographic sensibilities". Not just in the literal sense, but in the way that he views everything from cars, women and explosions for example. But this was no more clearly re- enforced than in a scene about 90 minutes in, when our two 'bad boys' are searching a morgue and after pulling back the sheets on fat white guys, they reveal a large breasted young woman, who is refer to as "The Bimbo" if my memory serves. It's worrying because I don't know whether this was being played for laughs or was supposed to be a titillating shot of a well endowed woman? Is it right to show a dead woman, who looks to have been strangled to death and referred to a bimbo in a mainstream 15 certificated movie?
I don't want to sound like a prude but the tone of this and pretty much every scene with the bodies being used, seemed to be in plain Bad, BAD taste and though this humour can play well in the right genre of movie, this just simply wasn't the film to do it in, in my opinion. But, that criticism aside, my main issues are the pacing. It was just too hollow to sustain its running time and my mind was beginning to wander from time to time between the spectacular action and the few moments of decent comedy.
It just didn't have the magic of the 90′s actioner, a genre which had faded considerably by the early 2000′s, and without offering anything new besides improved action, which was worth the ticket or DVD price in its own right, or even retaining the original character of the original, this was a sequel failed to hold its own.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Big Short (2015) in Movies
Apr 19, 2020
Gets Better On Each Rewatch
Most of you reading this review remember the last time the U.S. had a downturn in it's economy - it was 2008 and the downturn was caused by a bubble that burst in the housing market. Michael Lewis' (author of MONEYBALL) book THE BIG SHORT attempted to explain what happend in lay man's terms. This books was considered "unfilmable" until the most unlikeliest of artists stepped in to make a wonderfully crafted and educational film that was also entertaining.
That person was Adam McKay - up until that time, known as the Director of such Will Ferrell films as STEP BROTHERS and ANCHORMAN.
Set in the timeframe right before - and during - the economic downturn (approx. 2006-2008), THE BIG SHORT follows 4 groups/individuals that begin to see that something is wrong - both with this seemingly "bullet proof" housing market and the institutions/regulations and governance around them.
Christian Bale is outstanding (and was nominated for an Oscar) for his work as Dr. Michael Burry a socially awkward genius who is the first to ferret out that something is wrong and "bets against the market". Bale's portrayal of a non-social (almost) recluse who speaks his mind is engaging and fascinating to watch. It was with this performance that I decided that Bale is, perhaps, the finest actor working today. Also stepping up his game - as a surprise to me - is Ryan Gosling as the narrator of this story. He has the right balance of charm and "smarminess" and often breaks the 4th wall to explain to us what is going on. Also on board, strongly, is Brad Pitt (one of the Producers of this film) as an ex-Wall Street maverick who is pulled back in by the opportunity this impending crash is creating.
But, the surprise to me in this film is the heart-breaking, gut-wrenching turn of Steve Carrell as Wall Street broker Mark Baum who's caustic personality hides some serious scars underneath and who takes the failures of "the system" to protect the people personally. Carrell was nominated for an Oscar the year before in his first major dramatic turn - FOXCATCHER - but I think his work here is stronger, more layered and nuanced and (if there is a hero in this story) had you rooting for this guy throughout the film.
But...none of this would have worked if McKay didn't figure out a way to make the boring-ness and tedium of explaining the housing financial system (tranches, CDO's, default swaps, etc) in such a way that educates and entertains the audience - and find a way he did. By pulling celebrities like Anthony Bordain, Selena Gomez and Margot Robbie in to break the 4th wall and explain extremely dry subject matter in such a way as to make it understandable and enjoyable, he makes this film succeed.
And, succeed it does, as it's 5 Oscar nominations (including Best Picture, Best Director and the aforementioned Best Supporting Actor nomination for Bale - a nomination that I would have been happy had Carrell gotten) would attest to - it did win the Oscar for Best Adapted Screenplay (for McKay and Charles Randolph).
This is a film that gets better for me on each rewatch, for I understand just a little more. If this is your 1st time watch - or your 10th - check out the BIG SHORT, it will be worth your time.
Letter Grade: A
9 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
That person was Adam McKay - up until that time, known as the Director of such Will Ferrell films as STEP BROTHERS and ANCHORMAN.
Set in the timeframe right before - and during - the economic downturn (approx. 2006-2008), THE BIG SHORT follows 4 groups/individuals that begin to see that something is wrong - both with this seemingly "bullet proof" housing market and the institutions/regulations and governance around them.
Christian Bale is outstanding (and was nominated for an Oscar) for his work as Dr. Michael Burry a socially awkward genius who is the first to ferret out that something is wrong and "bets against the market". Bale's portrayal of a non-social (almost) recluse who speaks his mind is engaging and fascinating to watch. It was with this performance that I decided that Bale is, perhaps, the finest actor working today. Also stepping up his game - as a surprise to me - is Ryan Gosling as the narrator of this story. He has the right balance of charm and "smarminess" and often breaks the 4th wall to explain to us what is going on. Also on board, strongly, is Brad Pitt (one of the Producers of this film) as an ex-Wall Street maverick who is pulled back in by the opportunity this impending crash is creating.
But, the surprise to me in this film is the heart-breaking, gut-wrenching turn of Steve Carrell as Wall Street broker Mark Baum who's caustic personality hides some serious scars underneath and who takes the failures of "the system" to protect the people personally. Carrell was nominated for an Oscar the year before in his first major dramatic turn - FOXCATCHER - but I think his work here is stronger, more layered and nuanced and (if there is a hero in this story) had you rooting for this guy throughout the film.
But...none of this would have worked if McKay didn't figure out a way to make the boring-ness and tedium of explaining the housing financial system (tranches, CDO's, default swaps, etc) in such a way that educates and entertains the audience - and find a way he did. By pulling celebrities like Anthony Bordain, Selena Gomez and Margot Robbie in to break the 4th wall and explain extremely dry subject matter in such a way as to make it understandable and enjoyable, he makes this film succeed.
And, succeed it does, as it's 5 Oscar nominations (including Best Picture, Best Director and the aforementioned Best Supporting Actor nomination for Bale - a nomination that I would have been happy had Carrell gotten) would attest to - it did win the Oscar for Best Adapted Screenplay (for McKay and Charles Randolph).
This is a film that gets better for me on each rewatch, for I understand just a little more. If this is your 1st time watch - or your 10th - check out the BIG SHORT, it will be worth your time.
Letter Grade: A
9 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)