'The Big Short', the real ship of fools

The Big Short

‘The Big Short’ is one of these rare occasions when, after watching a movie, you go looking for the book and, let’s admit, the film beats it (probably because Michael Lewis’ work, despite being absorbing and dynamic, demands a very high level of concentration and knowledge of banking, financial products and American economy). Praise director Adam McKay’s ability to build a film that doesn’t hide the complexities and dramatic consequences of its subject. It has plenty of information, dense yet important information. But manages to remain engaging, enjoyable, thoughtful and, at times, truly vibrant. I left the theater wanting to talk about it: about Ryan Gosling breaking the “fourth wall” and being obnoxious, but also about how the most absurd and blatant fraud ever made by capitalism, out of any control, provoked a global economic disaster based on incompetence, greed and stupidity. But it's worse than that. After all the mess caused, we are still worshipping the market, like fanatics believing on a God with their feet completed covered on blood and mud (how appropriate, right?). Obedient lambs in our way to the slaughterhouse...

‘The Big Short’ tells the story of how the market crumbled down in the US in 2008, causing the major breakdown worldwide, whose consequences we are still facing. But McKay is not interested on a documentary deep on analysis, facts and figures. No, he wants way more than that. He wants a movie of vital pace that entertains while explains you how we got robbed (never forget, it wasn’t a crisis but a gigantic scam). And he delivers, thanks to a script that takes it time to descript sub-prime loans, CODs and other vile financial products, but through the actions and challenges their main characters have while the movie develops. And, when it’s needed, requesting a pretty surprising yet simple and effective resource: pop culture, meaning celebrities. Speaking directly to the audience, detailing economic aspects our regular persona might not be interested to listen to (it’s really complicated & boring) but that a famous star can make understandable and even cool. Brilliant.

But make no mistake, behind all its lush, state-of-the-art surface perfect for Millennials and people who can only watch series, ‘The Big Short’ encompasses all the rage, the hypocrisy and pathetism the story demands. Through the groups of traders who discovered that the housing market, specifically their loans, major pillar of American economy (Spanish too) were actually a bunch of utter crap in the form of repackaged bad loans that, thanks to the freedom of Wall Street, the big sharks’ of the banks and the agency ratings (a true mafia), were about to ruin us all. As they did. And, McKay points out clearly, could very well do that again...

The road to perdition, a real one, is developed here in a poliedric way, so the puzzle shows the most complete picture. Here’s the pioneer, the ultra-freak aka genius Michael Burry (performed by Christian Bale, in my opinion the most dubious performance, too heavy on mannerisms, too 'weirdo' to entirely believe is a real person, as Burry is), the first wager against sub-prime loans, and the guy who discovered the housing marked was built on trash while managing awkwardly his hedge fund. Here’s the trader who detects Burry shocking bet against the “most solid marked in the country”, a posh asshole named Jared Vennett (based on Greg Lippman, and smoothly, easily played by Ryan Gosling, by far the funniest & caricaturesque character of the film, but also including a poignant dose of merciless realism), also in charge to interact directly with the viewers about how unstoppable, but foremost completely dumb, was the whole financial system. Here’s the one Vennett tries to get money from, Mark Baum (based on Steve Eisman and played by Steve Carell who, in my opinion, deserved an Oscar nomination and becomes the real presence of the film, a character so personally damaged and enraged it hurts, it’s hard to believe he doesn’t suffer from a heart attack while he swallows his bile and keeps his educated manners). A troubled person that knows corruption rules the world and joins the seemingly crazy path Vennett is offering him… because he wants to believe him. He wants to be right about his pessimistic look at life… Until he realizes he was right, but the disaster was even bigger than he ever imagined. And there’s a fourth inter-linked story, probably the weakest one (one of the few flaws of the film), about two young entrepreneurs on finances (played by Finn Wittrock and John Magaro) who, almost by pure chance, also discover Vennett’s plan (then we are allowed to know that’s all fiction) and, with the help of a retired trader tremendously critic on Wall Street (very restrained and solid Brad Pitt), get into it.

The film is full of memorable moments (the aforementioned with famous faces making simple explanations of CDOs and “creative finances”) but the best are the ones that, behind the smile or the laugh, also show the cruel, depressing consequences of such a demented and despicable system, as well as highlighting that our “heroes” are far from being nothing more than a group of smart hypocrites. Baum and his colleagues interviewing a couple of over-the-top, insufferable hotshot traders bragging (that’s the key word) about how they worked with the people with lowest incomes. Baum and Co. talking with Standard & Poor's on how the ratings were still so high, despite the economy indexes falling. Brad Pitt reminding his young pals what the banks accepting their “bet” against the housing market means if they are right for the people. The ship of fools. Real fools. The tragedy behind the farce. We should praise movies that are brave enough to talk about the times seriously while taking risks trying to adapt to the times. And, of course, we should never forget. For our own good. Or next time we will have a fascist billionaire running for U.S. president. Oh, wait...

SCORE: 7,5

"American Hustle", the Big Empty

American Hustle

How many times I have written this before? Hype, the problem is the hype. You can have a flamboyant cast, the coolest aesthetics, a thousand nominations and all the favourable praise... but do you have a movie, one with substance, one that endures after the final vanish? I'm afraid not. "American Hustle" is a well-designed, extremely well in what regards to looks, entertainment product, but not a film that deserves to be remembered.

The other word that comes to my mind with "American Hustle" is fake. David O. Rusell wanted to have it all. Professional grifters caught by the police, who want to use them to catch a "bigger fish", so here's a thriller aiming to be the next "The Sting" (but loosely based on a real case, the ABSCAM operation)? Check. A tale about late 1970s -early 1980s, so every single scene must say something about how people dressed and behaved then?. Check. An eccentric comedy, with husbands, wives and mothers, all full of obsessions (again the looks)? Check.. Some sexual tension between the main characters, so we can add something else to the betrayal's game? Sure, check. A bit about corruption, but including an honest man? Check. Some dances? Check. And even Robert de Niro doing the mob impersonation once again, so you can proudly show what you are aiming for? Check, check, check. I know you already know what I'm going to write about: too much. Obviously, and that make the movie hard to believe.

"Silver Linings Playbook" was less pretentious, and to my view, although far from being memorable, it worked better as a whole. Primarily, because there was space for the characters to develop their roles, so Bradley Cooper and Jennifer Lawrence had the chance of showing their acting talents throughout the film. But in "American Hustle" the stunning cast doesn't have the chance. Lawrence's role as the vulgar and explosive Rosalyn Rosenfeld is just a need of the script (pretty weak imo) and a resource for funny scenes. Cooper as the cop Richie DiMaso and Christian Bale as Irving Rosenfeld do as much as they can with the material provided, but they are supposed to be suffering hell in one scene to be making fun in the next. Hard to believe. Amy Adams as Sydney Prosser might have the most interesting role... I can't see why does she need to be showing her cleavage in every single scene, but I'm certain she makes the film get going.    

I won't spoil the film for you, don't worry, but being a movie about scams, there's a gigantic one, and then THE TRICK. Couldn't buy it sorry, and wasn't that interested on the process to achieve it. Same goes about the finale, seriously lame. I concede that it could be just me. Entertaining? Yes. With some charm and some sort of originality? Agreed too. But not much aside from that. Seriously overhyped.

SCORE: 5/10

"The Dark Knight Rises", Batman needs holidays

The Dark Knight Rises
 
Hollywood's machinery, as well as the critics' unbalanced massive reviews on the grandeur of "The Dark Knight", the second part of Christopher's Nolan trilogy on Batman, are probably the ones to the blame. Indeed, the film easily ranks among the best ever made based on a superhero. And agreed, it was not only a bombastic, spectacular action hero film, but a more complex and dark, and therefore endurable entertainment, miles away from the average blockbuster. But many made quite pedantic references to Dostoevsky, philosophy, theory of chaos, existentialism, democracy and political theory when valuing its virtues. It's always exciting to speculate/discuss around motivations on cinema and they succeeded giving another, more prestigious dimension to the film, but they went too far.

So, probably as a consequence, the announced end of the trilogy, "The Dark Knight Rises", had to be even better: bigger, bolder, more spectacular, more epic (careful with the thunderous, repetitive soundtrack) more complex and profound. But it is not. Nolan tries, too hard in my opinion, with unsatisfactory results.

I'm a script moviegoer. It's the most important part of a film to me. I need stories, and they have to grab and keep my attention. The script gives complexity and richness to the situations and characters, allowing the actors to show their abilities. "Batman Begins" had an interesting focus on the reconstruction of Bruce Wayne's complex and tortured character, letting us know his pretty obscure and mundane motivations. The "The Dark Knight" an even more intriguing, even sophisticated confrontation between Batman and Joker (brilliantly played by Heath Ledger), so the distance between the hero and the villain wasn't that far away, plus a fantastic end in which the hero has to be defeated, blamed, to "save" the city. "The Dark Knight Rises" doesn't have such an "anchor", such a story. The plot is seriously lame by comparison.

And linked with the script weakness, the other major factor. A terrible management of time. "The Dark Knight Rises" begins eight years after Batman's takes the blame for Harvey Dent's death in order to put in practice the "Dent's Law" (quite similar to the ultraconservative Patriot Act it seems?) against crime in Gotham, but time has only taken its toll on Bruce Wayne (solved with a good shave and a couple of beatings), not in Alfred, Comissioner Gordon, Lucius Fox, the major, etc... Anyway, Bruce doesn't want to go back to his Batman's job: he's bitter, reclusive, heartbroken, but he will "have to", desperately, after he's informed of the apparation of the super-villain Bane, while he deals with the sexy thief Selina Kyle and tries to decide what to do with his failing business empire, which involves the also sensual Miranda Tate.

So, there's when time management really fails. On a double level. First, on the length of the film itself, extremely long, with many situations/scenes that after presented, are poorly developed or left behind, while others consume a considerable amount of time being, with the Bane's and Bruce's common origin and the escaping from the hole/prison on top, quite dull and unnecessary. Second, and as I saw on "Inception", Nolan might have a problem of megalomania, a tendency to excess. He wants to film a "race against time" thriller with an unexpected twist, but also aims to give a political background to it, with Bane's artificial revolution (a pure dictatorial regime), while he shows how far Batman has to dig inside himself to find the way to defeat the monster. He tries to include a social comment, the downturn of economy, the people's discontent, romance (wait, wasn't Bruce too devastated?, wasn't that bad then, I guess), a noble young policeman who knows his secret identity and has a common background with Batman., a visit from a "ghost", lots of spectacular gadgets, thousands of extras, the destruction of Gotham (a more recognisable NY than ever).... Time shifts brutally, five months turn into 23 days, next scene into hours... I could go on and on, pointing the amount of unresolved or incongruent missing little pieces of this puzzle, but I guess you get the idea. "The Dark Knight Rises" is chaotic.

Then it's probably better to review "Batman III" as a mere entertainment, so there's plenty to praise. The action scenes are pretty spectacular: the stock exchange, the bridges collapsing, the implosion of the tunnels and the stadium are stunning ones. Bane, played by Tom Hardy, might not be as memorable as the Joker, but is a very remarkable villain, with a powerful screen presence (wasted in my opinion). Christian Bale does all he can with such a tortuous script for him, Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Gary Oldman are solid as expected as the "good cops", while Michael Caine excels again in his few but emotional scenes (he might be the only character with credible human feelings). But the two girls, Anne Hathaway as an irresistible, "down to earth" Catwoman, and the always magnetic Marion Cotillard as Miranda Tate, are the ones who steal all the scenes in where they take part. I didn't like the flying Batmobile, but the Batbike looks great with Catwoman's on it.

As a mere entertainment, a superhero action film, if we compare it with "Thor", "Iron Man" or "Captain America", "The Dark Knight Rises" is still far superior and more enjoyable. But it is also a disappointing last chapter of Nolan’s trilogy, with its length and lack of measure resulting in a seriously unbalanced film. It's probably time for the holidays, Batman.

SCORE: 5,5/10

Best Movies of (My) Year 2011

A week before closing 2011 is a good moment to rank the best movies seen this year. Maybe in a different country the list would have looked like a proper summary of the year releases, but in Spain theatres and distributors "work in a different way" (ironic mode on), so some of the films listed have not even being released here yet. That's why the (My) of the title. Enjoy!

10. Synecdoche, New York
Creating a play of your life, as complex and detailed as your life. It has to be excruciating. Almost as hard as making a movie of that play. For what reason? Because you want to find an answer to existence, which is impossible. Except for Charlie Kaufman. In  "Synecdoche, New York", the world is a vast stage in which we all play an exclusive, starring role: our life. His first directing attempt was a megalomaniac, abysmal, somewhat failed masterpiece, but also the bravest film ever attempted to be made.

9. The Fighter

A boxing background excuse for a story of underdogs with real, flesh and bone characters and terrific playing from Mark Wahlberg and Christian Bale. In "The Fighter" the combat is not in the ring. Is against the filthiness of a life that seems fated to desolation, the need for survival and family curses that demand a lot of courage to confront. Loads of honesty and care for characters in the script and direction.

8. The Take
Another world is possible, but it won't happen without action. Argentinian workers decided to fight for their futures through a change of the economic system after "el corralito", becoming the workers and owners of the factories ruined thanks to the wild capitalism and the tyranny of the markets. Activist Naomi Klein and director Avi Lewis were there to film it and show us, that we need a global "The Take" today. That would be the real revolution.

7. Fish Tank

Desperation and bleak realism, combined with a tremendous hunger for life. Following the tradition of social British cinema (Ken Loach, Mike Leigh) "Fish Tank" hits hard and compels, thanks to the strikingly powerful character of Mia (extraordinary acting from newcomer Katie Jarvis) and the sharp script and direction of Andrea Arnold. 

6. Submarine
Meet Oliver Tate, a very peculiar kid facing his coming-of-age in a tragicomic and surreal ride. Enveloped in a wonderfully creative visual display, Richard Ayoade, on his directing debut, is able to capture the confusion and fun of Joe Dunthorne's book (currently reading) that surrounds the growing up Oliver with genuine charm. Add the amazing tunes of Alex Turner's soundtrack and the result is obvious. "Submarine" is our indie crush of the year.

5. Talihina Sky: The Story of Kings of Leon
The best music documentary seen on 2011 is not about KOL, a band which I don't particularly like, but as about their demons. And they have quite a few. The band trip to stardom clashing with a traditional family meeting. The universal success and its consequences battling with their roots. A past they cannot leave behind. "Talihina Sky" is an absorbing film about four people trying to deal with their contradictions.

4. Midnight in Paris
And when we thought we had lost him, the best Woody Allen returned. In "Midnight in Paris", the city and its romanticism, an overused topic with a very high risk of becoming a cliché, is used by our favourite neurotic to insufflate a much needed dose of magic to a tale where dreams and nostalgia can be haunting, but has to be overcome for a real desire to live the life we have in our hand. Prepare yourself to laugh and fall in love with the NY genius again.

3. Beginners
What a pleasant, loveable surprise this movie was. Director Mike Mills achieves a very rare feature with "Beginners". He created a bewitching story of love, loss and discovery, profoundly personal and with a peculiar structure that, at the same time, is capable of captivating and affecting the viewer thanks to a trio of leading characters so well constructed (and brilliantly acted) that their quest to find their own identities becomes something to empathise with.

2. Exit Through the Gift Shop
Documentary? Deep reflection on what's art today? Or just the best hoax ever filmed? Whatever your choice is, the result is invariable: a total triumph. As street-artist Banksy, the mastermind behind "Exit Through the Gift Shop" says during the film, this is "Basically the story of how one man set out to film the un-filmable. And failed." True, but nothing is what it seems. Who knew that sentence would hide so many, and amusing, meanings?

1. Blue Valentine
On top of the ranking, this raw and compelling dissection of a relationship. I saw the movie in July, and I'm still scared by the brutal, devastating deconstruction of a couple dynamiting their love. There's no way to hide in "Blue Valentine", no loopholes for pain relief. Even the good moments stress how awful will be the fall. This deep, to the bottom study-character could only work with two great actors capable of carrying Dean and Cindy in their shoulders. Ryan Gosling and Michelle Williams gave the best of their amazing talent, making every bit of their complex, human, fierce and sad relation credible and painful. Masterpiece.  

"The Fighter", boxing and family triumph by K.O.

The Fighter
Great surprise. Wasn't expecting much, because boxing has been overused by Hollywood, and so the topic of redemption/second opportunity through sport, which is on the verge of being a worrying cliché. But luckily, "The Fighter" offers a lot more.

To start with, because boxing remains on the background of the movie, and although it is based on the true story of "Irish" Micky Ward, a local hero from Lowell, Massachusetts, the film instead reveals itself as a familiar drama where there are far more punches at the emotional level that inside the ring.

During the first hour of "The Fighter", we saw a family holding on to nothing, struggling with the decadence of Dick Ecklund (Christian Bale), once a boxing local legend, but now a human waste, consumed by crack addiction. The family is sticking with him, living of the past glory, dragging his younger brother Mick Ward (Mark Wahlberg), who also tries to be a boxer, with them. There's no glamour in this portray, as director David O Russell shows us how poverty is around the corner, and how family and the familiar business boxing is, is disgusting and ugly.

Russell really manages to make us feel the suffocating environment in which Mick is trapped because of his family. He also is able to bring the outsider character into the mix, in the form of a girlfriend (played solidly by Amy Adams), someone really meaningful to Mick who has no fear in saying the things he cannot say to his mother and sisters. She's liberation for him, a reason to keep fighting, and deciding to walk his own way. 

It might be true the second half of the film is more uplifting, with a happier, friendlier tone with the characters. Being a true story I feel inclined to believe it, or maybe, by the time the second opportunity arrives, I cannot avoid to feel a bit compelled by it. But even then, the film has glimpses of harsh reality in a poignant dialogue, a gesture, or awkward situation where the unbalanced relation between the brothers still arises. This wouldn't be possible without the brilliant job of the actors, not just Bale's manic impersonation of Dick, which made him won a deserved Oscar, but everyone on screen. Special credit to Wahlberg's performance, carrying the film on his shoulders, sometimes with just an appalled face.

So, yes, this is another movie about underdogs trying to succeed. But this time the fight is for survival, there's real darkness, filthiness, consistency, and a remarkable honesty in the script, acting and direction. Overall, a knockout triumph.

SCORE: 7,5/10