Margin Call

"There are three ways to make a living in this business: be first, be smarter or cheat."

Margin Call is the story of one night at a the trading floor of a fictional investment bank (it reflects Lehman Brothers primarily) where a young analyst (Zachary Quinto) discovers a serious problem; the volatility of the mortgage-backed securities on the firm’s books is too high and a massive swing downwards would create a loss larger than the market cap of the entire company. He tells his superiors, there a bunch of meetings, the CEO is brought in on a helicopter, they are forced to sell their position of worthless securities into the market and a bunch of people get fired. The movie attempts to simulate the decision making process that some of the big banks in the US went through that led to their eventual downfall. The problem with the movie is that it is a myopic view of a very complex event.

Margin Call plays right into the Occupy nonsense ideal that has been pervading popular culture; essentially, that the entire financial crisis was caused by greedy banks and it’s all their fault. The movie never once addresses any of the reasons behind why the mortgage-backed securities becoming worthless (greedy Americans entering into homes they couldn’t afford and agreements they didn’t understand, then declaring bankruptcy and leaving the banks to foot the bill). It only focuses on the banks’ securitization of the mortgages and getting stuck with them once they were worth nothing. I am not defending their decision to ditch their positions knowingly full well they were worthless, which was objectively unethical, but it is a very small part of the whole series of events. I recognize that this movie is meant to only be about one specific event, but the fact that the movie is about an unnamed bank is clearly meant for the audience to assume it is a proxy for all banks and they all did something similar to this. The entire film reeks of anti-capitalist bias and I found it extremely off-putting.

The specific story in the film of how the bank discovers the problem and deals with it is, for the most part, fairly realistic. There is some absurdity to be found, such as the analyst who discovers the issue being a literal rocket scientist, because of course, no one (including the audience) would ever doubt the financial analysis done by a rocket scientist. This movie assumes the audience has the brain of a monkey and cannot do any critical thinking for itself. The big question is: of all the things that Wall Street banks did during the financial crisis, why was this chosen to be the focus of the story? Why not Goldman Sachs’ selling of mortgage-backed securities and then betting against them with the firm’s own money? There are many more interesting stories to do with unethical bank dealings that this movie could have been about; I don’t know why the screenwriters chose this.

Actually, yes I do. The real, underlying problem with Margin Call is that it was written by people who have no idea what they are talking about when it comes to finance. Even the title of the film is inaccurate. A margin call is imposed on a borrower by an outside lender who forces the borrower to raise cash by selling securities. In contrast, the fictional investment bank in this film decides to ditch its position in the mortgage-backed securities because the value of the securities fell outside the bank’s value-at-risk (VAR) computer-model parameters. Nobody outside of the firm was demanding cash and the firm was not suffering from a liquidity crisis like real-life Lehman Brothers experienced before it went under. This movie was written by people who just want to blame banks for everything and have probably read the Wikipedia articles on the financial crisis and have proclaimed themselves experts. This movie’s overall tone is propagandist nonsense and is insultingly one-sided against the financial industry.

A story about people meeting to discuss increased volatility of mortgage-backed securities is not exceptionally interesting, so the movie fills the gap with a star-studded cast. The performances are admittedly very good, particularly the late show-stealing appearance by Jeremy Irons as CEO John Tuld; a thinly-veiled reference to Lehman CEO Richard Fuld. Stanley Tucci is also fantastic as one of the senior risk managers, though he is in about three scenes total. However, the characters could not be more clichéd if you were reading a textbook about clichéd characters. Each character has precisely one dimension, and they are as follows:

• The smooth-talking CEO who only cares about himself.
• The young analyst who only cares about money, who idolizes up to...
• The young manager who makes more money than he knows what to do with.
• The young analyst who discovers a problem everyone else missed because he is a rocket scientist genius.
• The middle manager who wants to do the right thing but struggles with it because he has sacrificed his entire life for the company.
• The boss of the middle manager who is too young for his job and also only cares about himself.

There are some other characters floating around but they are basically variations of the above. The best character is actually Paul Bettany’s, the self-obsessed young manager from above, who says most of the intelligent things in the movie. He has a particularly good monologue towards the end of the film that I enjoyed. It’s sad because scenes like this show the potential that this movie had and squandered.

The movie’s bias against finance professionals kicks into high gear during the last ten minutes of the film where you see one character talk about how he was once an engineer and found that much more fulfilling, and another character who is divorced from his wife because he cared more about his career. Even the rocket scientist professional questions at one point the ethicality of paying any one person as much as some of his coworkers are. Give me a break. Are there any normal, ethical people working for the company, are happily married and do their jobs so they can provide for their family? Of course not, because that wouldn’t jive with the whole “everyone in finance is greedy” vibe of the entire film.

Bottom line, beyond the good performances of the actors, there’s not much good here and I don’t recommend this movie. It’s one-sided, clichéd, uninteresting and boring. Save your time and watch the fantastic Inside Job by Charles Ferguson instead.

The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo

"Hold still. I've never done this before."

Let’s get this out of the way immediately: I have not read Stieg Larsson’s The Girl with The Dragon Tattoo nor have I seen the Swedish film adaptation. The book is on my to-read list, but in all honesty, it’s pretty far down the list. As a born skeptic, every time a book gets as much attention as the Milennium Trilogy has, I become wary and usually assume it is akin to another Dan Brown novel (no offense to Dan Brown fans) and decide to read something else. I can’t discuss differences between the movie and book or the relative merits of each; I can only tell you what I thought of this movie as it stands on its own.

Regardless of the way I personally choose what books to read, The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo is immensely popular in North America, most people are too lazy to read the subtitles of the Swedish film, so obviously a Hollywood adaptation was in order. David Fincher, riding high from the success of last year’s The Social Network, takes the director’s chair and returns to the type of crime story he told in Seven and Zodiac. As a huge fan of most of Fincher’s work, I think he is at his best in these types of stories.

The film stars Daniel Craig as Mikael Blomkvist, a journalist fresh out of a court battle that has ruined his reputation and drained him of his life savings. To get away from it all and to make some money, he takes a job from Henrik Vanger (Christopher Plummer) to try and solve a mystery that has gone unsolved for forty years: the disappearance of his grandniece, Harriet. The story focuses on Mikael slowly piecing together the mystery through his run-ins with Vanger’s estranged relatives and looking at old police reports and newspapers.  

Running parallel to Mikael’s story is the tale of the titular girl with the dragon tattoo, Lisbeth Salander, played to perfection by Rooney Mara (Zuckerberg’s ex-girlfriend from the Social Network). Her transformation into Lisbeth is truly remarkable and the movie is worth watching for her performance alone. Her character is, sadly, a bit clichéd, and most of the story is solved by her being a computer genius and good at everything. You just have to take it at face value that she has access to all information everywhere whenever she wants and she is always one mouse-click away from what she needs. This is lazy writing, both in the movie and I assume in the book; it’s akin to the “zoom, enhance” nonsense from CSI shows. It gets out of control in the last twenty minutes of the film where she turns into James Bond and somehow has all of the skills of an international spy. Aside from this silliness, Lisbeth’s character is genuinely interesting. I enjoyed learning the bits and pieces that are offered about her life so much so that it makes me want to read the Milennium books just to learn more about her.

The mystery itself is interesting and well-told for the most part, but it relies far too much on the audience’s ability to memorize the names of the characters (and there are many). My advice to those watching (who, like me, have not read the book) is to pay close attention to everyone’s names moreso than you usually might when watching a movie. The final reveal is surprisingly fast and oddly without any real drama and it is easy to miss the quick line of dialogue that communicates the final twist in the story. There is a bit of a rushed feeling to the whole movie, like it constantly wants to move forward and doesn’t want to dwell on anything for too long. Even the final shot of the film, which is at the end of a fairly emotional scene, ends abruptly and the credits come on faster than a sitcom. It’s almost like the movie is telling you not to reflect on the scene and wants you to go away. This feeling, unfortunately, pervades throughout, and I would have gladly sacrificed some of the scenes that feel like they were there solely because they’re in the book for a simpler, slower version of what is not a very complicated story.

It may sound like I didn’t like this movie, but that isn’t the case. I think I just expected it to stand more on its own and for Fincher Zaillian (who also wrote this year’s fantastic Moneyball) and to make it more of their own film. I am confident that the last twenty minutes would have been cut had they not been adapting such a popular book. This section is unnecessary to this story in particular, is overlong, and I assume is important in the sequels. In this film though it just seems like padding. The movie is nearly three hours long and I can think of several scenes that could have been cut and the movie would have been equally as coherent (although I am told there are large sections cut from the book anyway, so it seems like not everything was sacred).

Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross again provide the score (they also did the phenomenal Social Network soundtrack) and they do not disappoint. The duo again uses electronic sounds and ambient noises effectively to help push the tension created by the film's cinematography. The opening cover of Led Zeppelin's Immigrant Song (featuring Karen O. on vocals) has also made its way on to my iPod.

Despite my nagging issues, this is a well-made film and I recommend it to anyone who likes a good yet somewhat predictable mystery, whether you have read the book or not. Mara’s performance as Lisbeth is the birth of a modern movie star, like Noomi Rapace’s was in the same role in the Swedish version (you can catch her in the new Sherlock Holmes movie). The movie is highly graphic, so keep that in mind when watching with the family. Just remember to pay attention to the names.

50/50

"No one wants to f**k me. I look like Voldemort."

I had high expectations for 50/50 and it is quite a feat that it has managed to both meet and exceed them. Joshua Gordon-Levitt, like Ryan Gosling, has shown he is exceptionally good at picking his roles and I am at a point now where if he is in a film I know there is a good chance I will enjoy it. His streak of great choices continues in 50/50 and he gives one of the best performances of his career. Gordon-Levitt comes across as so likable you can’t help but root for him in whatever he’s got himself into, whether it’s misplaced love, invading dreams or dealing with cancer.

50/50 is the story of Adam (Gordon-Levitt), who is diagnosed with a rare type of cancer and is given a 50% chance (get it?) of surviving. You see all the steps of his disease; the diagnosis, the chemotherapy, the surgery, and witness firsthand the effects his situation have on himself and those close to him.

The film is loosely based on the life of Will Reiser, the screenwriter of 50/50, which I think helps the script’s ability to come across as so real. Kyle (Seth Rogen), is Adam’s best friend and the one he leans most on as he tries to help Adam stay afloat. Seth Rogen is actually a close friend of Will Reiser, so who better to play the character of himself than himself? Rogen is channelling true emotions in his character because he was there for the real deal. Seth Rogen pretty much plays the same character in every movie because I assume he is playing how he is in real life, but his stoner humour comes across less forced here than it usually does compared to Funny People or Knocked Up.

Anna Kendrick (who is really starting to grow on me, and I will excuse her Twilight roles) plays Adam’s inexperienced therapist who gets some of the funniest dialogue in the film. Watching her and Adam’s relationship develop is one of the highlights of the story and their scenes contain some refreshingly natural dialogue. Anjelica Huston and Bryce Dallas-Howard round out the cast as Adam’s mother and girlfriend respectively. Adam’s mom is the typical worried mother (and who can blame her?), though the manner in which he responds to her reaching out to him may have you re-examining the way you talk to your own mother.

The film has an impressive ability to go back and forth between scenes that are genuinely hilarious and scenes that are extremely emotional. This movie is not always for the faint of heart, and though the ending is fairly predictable, the way it gets there will tug your heartstrings more than once. I particularly enjoyed watching Adam realize he was not alone with his disease and the impact of having a loved one have cancer (say, a best friend or a son) can be nearly as devastating as having the disease itself but in a different way.

I like that the movie didn’t spend any time on life lessons and had no scenes where he promised everything would change if he beat the disease. I like that the scenes that are dramatic are told using imagery or subtle dialogue without having the actors stand up and yell THIS IS EMOTIONAL at the top of their lungs. I hope other screenwriters and directors watch this film and use it as inspiration for how to handle these scenes. What I loved most of all about 50/50 was the ending. There is no campiness to be found, no overflow of jokes to try and break the tension, no sudden change in tone that is inconsistent with the rest of the film (ahem, Knocked Up). The end just happens and the movie ends. I wish all movies ended like this.

Bottom line, I can’t think of anyone who wouldn’t enjoy this movie and wholeheartedly recommend it to everyone. If you or someone you know has dealt with cancer firsthand, this story will grab you and refuse to let go. Don’t miss it. 

Crazy, Stupid Love

"Are you the billionaire owner of Apple computers?"

"No."

"Then you have no right to wear New Balance sneakers. Ever."

Crazy, Stupid Love was a frustrating experience for me and I had a constant love-hate relationship with the film overall. I really want to like this movie; I like the cast, I like the idea behind the film, but poor writing and direction end up producing a shallow mess. There are great scenes in this film floating among an ocean of mediocre campy nonsense and it ends up being just a series of missed opportunities.

This unfortunate reality is, sadly, not surprising given the pedigree of the those involved. The writer, Dan Fogelman, also wrote the screenplays for Cars and Cars 2, far and away the worst Pixar films ever made (though he also contributed to Tangled, which I enjoyed). The film was directed by directing duo Glenn Ficarra and John Requa, the masterminds behind such classics such as Cats & Dogs and Cats & Dogs: Revenge of Kitty Galore. You can see where I am going with this. However, everyone deserves a chance to redeem themselves for past missteps, but unfortunately this team does not succeed here.

Crazy, Stupid Love is about Cal (Steve Carrell) who is trying to piece his life back together after finding out his wife, Emily (Julianne Moore) had an affair with another man (Kevin Bacon) and wants a divorce. Cal moves into a small apartment and starts hanging out at a bar where Jacob (Ryan Gosling, dashing as ever) is, of course, able to nail every girl in the place. Jacob takes pity on Cal and his situation and offers to help him brush up his wardrobe and lady skills so he can also nail girls and get on with his life.

Cal’s tale is the main thread of the story, but several other stories take place at the same time. Hanna (Emma Stone, who I always enjoy) is a stressed out law student with a crappy boyfriend, Cal’s fourteen year-old son Robbie is in love with his older babysitter (who incidentally is in love with Cal), and Cal’s ex-wife begins to question her decision to leave her husband. The movie hops around each of these stories randomly until they all come together abruptly toward the end. While it is a clever idea to have the simultaneous stories intertwining together, it prevents the film from developing any one character (save Cal) to any real extent. The film spends so much time flipping around between the stories without anything eventful happening that it becomes tiresome rather quickly.

One of my biggest issues with this movie is that it spends far too much time on Robbie (the son), who is a completely unbelievable character. I am not sure what thirteen year olds Dan Fogelman (the screenwriter) has been hanging around, but most are more concerned with Call of Duty than their perceptions of love and what it means to be in love. It is not unrealistic for a younger boy to have a crush on his older babysitter (I had a huge one on mine), but the lengths that this film takes his silly story are maddening. I had the same issue with Manny in Modern Family for the first season but the writers quickly recognized the absurdity of his character and have toned him down significantly over subsequent seasons. I am not sure where this Young Boy Obsessed with Love with Wisdom Beyond His Years character came from (yes, I just invented this term) but it needs to go away and fast. The speech scene at the end of this movie made me literally uncomfortable and it was painful to endure to the end.

Jacob (Ryan Gosling) is the most interesting character in the movie and represents the story’s biggest missed opportunity. In one of the film’s best scenes, about two thirds through, you finally get to see beneath his shell at his true person. This is handled well and adds significant depth to his character. However, after this point he is barely in the film again and becomes a background decoration in the remaining scenes. We finally got to learn more about an interesting character (though a bit clichéd), but the writers are simply done with him and we are back to Robbie and his nonsense.

Crazy Stupid Love’s story is great in concept and it has a few good ideas and story twists (the main of which I actually did not see coming), the performances are great, but even the acting cannot overcome the poor dialogue, absurd scenarios and terrible pacing. I want to like this movie, and wish I could see past everything and appreciate a nice, heart-warming story, but I just can’t.

Warrior

"Break out the yellow tape, Sam. Tommy's walking away from the cage like he's leaving a crime scene."

Warrior was, for me, the most pleasant surprise of the year. I started doing MMA (mixed martial arts) as a sport earlier this year and enjoy it much more than I expected to. I never watch UFC and have no interest in beating people up, but I was looking for an alternative to running as a form of cardio and needed to add some variety to my exercise. It’s a great sport and there is much more strategy to it than the casual observer understands.

With MMA increasing in popularity exponentially over the past decade, it seems it was only a matter of time before they made a movie with the sport at the centre in the vein of Rocky or other boxing classics. I don’t think anyone ever expected that the end result would be such an emotional, well-written and well-directed film that uses MMA only as one of several tools to tell a great story.

Warrior centres on two brothers, Tommy (Tom Hardy) and Brendan (Joel Edgerton) who both enter the same MMA tournament to compete for the grand prize of a whopping five million dollars. Each brother has their own motivations for entering the tournament that are drip-fed to the audience through the course of the story. Tommy and Brendan share a dark past with their alcoholic-turned-Christian father, Paddy (Nick Nolte) that you are able to piece together slowly through the character’s conversations. The brothers have not seen each other in many years and have gone down very different paths and this tournament has brought them together again. The movie swaps back and forth between each brother’s story giving each roughly the same amount of screen time.

For those who do not follow MMA, the two primary fighting styles (among several others) that are utilized by fighters are Muay Thai (punching and kicking to try and knock out your opponent) and Jiu-Jitsu (grappling on the ground and trying to inflict enough pain on your opponent to cause them to tap out). These two fighting styles are extremely different and it requires years of training to excel at both and learn to utilize them together.

Each of the brothers represents a separate fighting style that is a reflection of their character. Tommy is an ex-marine; brooding and full of hatred, he bottles up his anger and looks ready to explode in every scene. During his fights, he taps into that bottle and is fierce and unstoppable. Tommy fights primarily using Muay Thai and does not bother to slow down and worry about jiu-jitsu; his aggression and speed more than compensate for his weakness on the ground. Brendan is a physics teacher; he is married with two daughters and wants nothing more to provide for his family and give them a better life than the one he had as a child. Cool and collected, Brendan is smaller and slower than most other fighters, but his patience through Jiu Jitsu allows him to succeed and submit more aggressive opponents.

While Warrior reuses many of the clichés that are used to death in sports movies and rags-to-riches stories (the abusive father, the unsupportive wife, the training montage), they are handled so well that it doesn’t really matter. The movie is, for the most part, fairly predictable, and just by watching the trailer or reading this writeup I am sure you can figure out who the final fight of the tournament is between. However, something that the dual story dynamic introduces is that you end up rooting for both brothers equally, and the story introduces enough reasons for you to root for both of them. This buildup of events, combined with the strong feelings the brothers have towards for one another due to their past, make for one of the most emotional bouts ever put on film. Both brothers desperately need to win to find stability in their lives and they put years of past feelings into every punch. I sat on the edge of my seat during the entire finale and was immensely satisfied with the result.

The movie is well-paced and moves smoothly back and forth between stories without jarring transitions. The fights are brilliantly choreographed and if you aren’t interested in MMA at the beginning of the film you likely will be by the end. The performances are powerful, with Tom Hardy putting in one of his best turns to date. Hardy has certainly become someone to watch as of late, finally coming into the spotlight with his show-stealing role in Inception as Eames. His true breakout role was in Bronson a few years back, but I don’t know anyone who has seen that movie (I highly recommend it). We will get to see him beat the crap out of Batman as Bane in the Dark Knight Rises this summer and I look forward to seeing what he can bring to the character. Watching Joel Edgerton is watching the making of a movie star and I look forward to seeing how he springboards from this film.

Warrior joins the small handful of movies that I have watched twice in one day. Something in this film resonated with me and I love watching it over and over. Maybe it’s that I started MMA this year and it’s well timed and I appreciate the fight scenes. Maybe it’s that they used one of my favourite songs by The National during the final scene. Whatever it is, I enjoyed Warrior immensely and recommend it to anyone whether you appreciate MMA or not.