Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘Oliver Stone’

Who’s Gonna Love Me, Dad? Who’s Gonna Love ME?

Posted in General Comments, Movie Review, Movies, Reviews, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on April 20, 2026| 3 Comments »

“Born On The Fourth Of July” (1989)  —  movie review
Today’s review is for the Vietnam War / biography drama “Born On The Fourth Of July”, directed by Oliver Stone and starring Tom Cruise as Ron Kovic, the patriotic Long Island kid who volunteers for the Marines, is paralyzed in combat, and returns home to a country he barely recognizes;  Kyra Sedgwick as Donna, the high-school sweetheart whose life moves on while Ron’s collapses;  Willem Dafoe as Charlie, the bitter, broken veteran Ron meets in Mexico;  Raymond J. Barry as Ron’s father, a proud, emotionally distant man who doesn’t know how to help his son;  Caroline Kava as Ron’s mother, whose Catholic faith and rigid expectations clash with Ron’s growing anger;  Jerry Levine as Steve, Ron’s childhood friend;  and Frank Whaley as Timmy, another local boy whose life is also shaped by the war.  The film follows Ron from idealistic teenager to disillusioned veteran to anti-war activist, tracing the cost of war on one man’s body, family, and sense of self.
Background:  This was my first viewing of this film and it really brought up memories from my own past.  I volunteered to serve in the Army for four years when I was 19 years old.  I read an article in “Newsweek Magazine“, which said not enough young men were joining the services and if we weren’t willing to defend the country, who would?  I remember the hype around this film when it came out, mostly because it was Tom Cruise “going serious” and doing an injured Veteran role.  Released in 1989, “Born On The Fourth Of July” was a major critical success.  It received eight Academy Award nominations and won two:  Best Director (Stone) and Best Film Editing.  Cruise received his first Best Actor nomination for this role.  Historically, the film is significant because it brought Ron Kovic’s memoir to a wide audience and forced a lot of Americans to confront the long-term consequences of the Vietnam War — not just on the battlefield, but in hospitals, living rooms, and public protests.  It’s also one of the more prominent films to show the arc from patriotic enlistment to anti-war activism through the eyes of a single veteran.
Plot:  The story begins in Massapequa, New York, where young Ron Kovic grows up in a patriotic, Catholic household. Inspired by speeches, parades, and a sense of duty, he enlists in the Marines right out of high school.  His second tour in Vietnam is chaotic and brutal.  During a firefight, Ron accidentally kills a fellow Marine (a moment that haunts him) and later he is shot and paralyzed from the chest down.  The VA hospital scenes are grim:  overcrowded rat-infested wards, neglect, and a system that seems indifferent to the men it’s supposed to heal.  Ron eventually returns home to a family that loves him but doesn’t understand him, and a community that has moved on.  His frustration grows into anger:  at the war, at the government, at himself.  After a disastrous attempt to find escape in Mexico, Ron eventually channels his pain into activism, joining Vietnam Veterans Against the War.  The film ends with Ron preparing to speak at the 1976 Democratic National Convention, finally finding a voice and purpose beyond the uniform he once wore so proudly.
So, is this movie any good?  How’s the acting?  The filming / FX?  Any problems?  And, did I enjoy the film?  Short answers:  Yes;  outstanding;  intense and immersive;  a few;  mostly yes.
Any good?  Yes.  “Born On The Fourth Of July” is a powerful, often difficult film that doesn’t flinch from showing the physical and emotional cost of war. It’s not subtle (Oliver Stone almost never is) but the directness works here.  The movie captures the arc from idealism to disillusionment in a way that feels honest, even when the film-making gets heavy‑handed.  The hospital scenes, the family arguments, the protests all land because the film commits to showing how messy and painful the journey really was for Kovic. It’s not an easy watch, but it’s an effective one.
Acting:  Cruise gives one of the best performances of his career.  He plays Ron’s transformation:  from eager teenager to shattered veteran to determined activist, with real conviction.  The physical work (Cruise) alone is impressive, but it’s the emotional unraveling (of Kovic) that stands out.  Sedgwick is warm and believable as Donna, though she’s not in the film that much.  Dafoe brings (his typical) raw, chaotic energy to Charlie, in the Mexico scenes.  Caroline Kava and Raymond J. Barry feel like real parents caught between pride, fear, and denial.  The supporting cast fills out the world convincingly, particularly in the early hometown sequences.
Filming / FX:  Stone’s direction is intense and sometimes overwhelming.  The Vietnam scenes are chaotic, loud, and disorienting — which is clearly the point.  The hospital sequences are grim and claustrophobic.  The cinematography shifts tone as Ron’s life changes:  bright and nostalgic early on, harsh and unsteady after the injury, and more grounded during the activism phase.  There are no “effects” in the modern sense, but the practical work:  especially the battle scenes and the physical depiction of Ron’s paralysis are believable.
Problems:  A few.  Stone’s style (IMHO) is heavy-handed, especially in the early patriotic scenes and the protest sequences.  The Mexico section feels unexplained – like it belongs in a different movie.  Some of the dialogue feels forced.  The film also feels like it compresses a lot of Kovic’s activism into a short stretch, which makes the final act feel confusingly abbreviated.  None of these issues ruin the film, but they do keep it from being as tight / meaningful as it could be.
Did I enjoy the film?  Mostly yes.  “Enjoy” is a tricky word for a movie that is very often painful to watch, but I found it compelling and worthwhile viewing.  Cruise’s performance carries the film, and the story (IMHO) feels important — not in a preachy way, but in an injured / betrayed human way.  The movie made me think about the cost of war, the failures of the systems meant to support veterans (then and today), and the courage it takes to rebuild a life after everything falls apart.  It’s not a film I’d re-watch often, but I’m glad I finally saw it.
Final Recommendation:  Strong recommendation.  “Born On The Fourth Of July” is historically significant for its awards, its cultural impact, and its unflinching portrayal of a veteran’s journey from patriotism to protest.  Cruise delivers one of his defining performances, and Stone’s direction gives the film emotional weight.  If you’re interested in Vietnam War stories, biographies, or films that tackle the long shadow of war, this one is well worth viewing.  A caution to sensitive viewers:  the film is appropriately rated “R” for language, nudity / sexual content, drug use, and violence / gore.
.
Click here (20 April) to see the posts of prior years.  I started this blog in late 2009.  Daily posting began in late January 2011.  Not all of the days in the early years (2009-2010) will have posts.

Read Full Post »

Most Americans Don’t Want Freedom… They Want Security

Posted in General Comments, Movie Review, Movies, Politics, Reviews, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on April 8, 2026| Leave a Comment »

“Snowden” (2016) — movie review
Today’s review is for the biographical political-tech-thriller “Snowden”, directed by Oliver Stone and starring Joseph Gordon-Levitt as Edward Snowden, the young intelligence contractor whose growing alarm over mass surveillance pushes him toward a life-altering decision;  Shailene Woodley as Lindsay Mills, Snowden’s girlfriend, whose relationship becomes strained as his secrecy deepens;  Melissa Leo as Laura Poitras, the documentary filmmaker who helps bring Snowden’s story to the world;  Zachary Quinto as Glenn Greenwald, the journalist whose reporting ignites the global debate;  Tom Wilkinson as Ewen MacAskill, the veteran reporter providing balance and caution;  and Rhys Ifans as Corbin O’Brian, the composite mentor figure representing the intelligence establishment’s worldview.  Supporting roles include Nicolas Cage as Hank Forrester, a sidelined intelligence analyst who hints at the system’s long-standing excesses, and Timothy Olyphant as a CIA operative who embodies the “ends justify the means” mentality.  The film follows Snowden’s path from idealistic Army recruit to disillusioned NSA contractor, showing how a series of small realizations accumulate into a moral crisis.
Background:  I first watched this film with my brother pre-COVID.  He was a massive conspiracy theorist and saw the NSA and CIA behind every political occurrence – domestic or international.  This is my third viewing since COVID and second in the last year, but I’ve just never gotten around to reviewing the film.  I first heard about Edward Snowden back in 2013 when the news broke about the NSA’s mass-surveillance programs.  At the time, I didn’t know what to make of him:  whistleblower, traitor, hero, something in between,  and frankly, I still don’t have a neat label.  Released in 2016, “Snowden” did not receive any Academy Award nominations, but it is historically significant because it dramatizes one of the most consequential intelligence leaks in modern history.  The film is based partly on Luke Harding’s book “The Snowden Files” and partly on the real-life documentary “Citizenfour” (which won the Academy Award for Best Documentary Feature).  While the movie takes dramatic liberties, it captures the broad arc of Snowden’s transformation and the global debate his disclosures triggered about privacy, security, and government power.
Plot:  The film moves between two timelines:  Snowden’s interviews with journalists in a Hong Kong hotel room in 2013, and the earlier years that led him there.  We see him join the Army, wash out due to injury, and then enter the CIA as a bright, patriotic computer specialist. Under Corbin O’Brian’s mentorship, Snowden learns the technical and political realities of intelligence work.  As he moves through various assignments (Geneva, Japan, Hawaii) he becomes increasingly disturbed by the scope of surveillance programs that sweep up data from ordinary citizens with little oversight.  His relationship with Lindsay suffers as he becomes more secretive and stressed.  Eventually, Snowden decides he cannot stay silent.  He gathers classified documents, contacts Poitras and Greenwald, and meets them in Hong Kong to reveal what he has taken.  The film ends with the publication of the leaks, Snowden’s flight to Russia, and a brief appearance by the real Edward Snowden discussing the consequences of his choice.
So, is this movie any good?  How’s the acting?  The filming / FX?  Any problems?  And, did I enjoy the film?  Short answers:  Yes;  strong;  clean and effective;  a few;  yes.
Any good?  Yes.  “Snowden” is a steady, accessible political drama that focuses more on the human side of the story than on the technical details.  It doesn’t try to overwhelm the viewer with jargon.  Instead, it shows how a series of small compromises and realizations can push someone toward a drastic decision.  The film is not a thriller in the traditional sense.  It’s more of a character study wrapped in a political argument.  And it works on / within its own terms / framework.
Acting:  Gordon-Levitt gives a controlled, thoughtful performance.  He captures Snowden’s quiet mannerisms and internal conflict without turning him into a caricature.  Woodley brings warmth and frustration to Lindsay, grounding the story in the personal cost of Snowden’s secrecy.  Melissa Leo and Zachary Quinto are convincing as the journalists trying to understand the magnitude of what they’re hearing.  Rhys Ifans is particularly effective as O’Brian — calm, confident, and unsettling in his certainty that surveillance is simply the price of modern life.  Nicolas Cage’s small role adds a touch of melancholy, hinting at how long concerns about overreach have existed inside the system.
Filming / FX:  The filming is clean and straightforward.  Oliver Stone uses a mix of handheld shots, muted colors, and digital overlays to show how surveillance systems operate without turning the movie into a tech demo.  The scenes in the Hong Kong hotel room are tight and tense, relying on close‑ups and quiet conversations.  The visual effects are minimal:  mostly screens, interfaces, and a few stylized sequences showing data flows, and they serve the story rather than distract from it.  The film’s pacing is steady, and the editing keeps the dual timelines clear.
Problems:  A few.  The film simplifies some of the technical and legal issues, which is understandable but occasionally makes the story feel too neat.  Some characters, particularly the intelligence officials, are drawn broadly, leaning toward archetypes rather than fully developed people.  The romance subplot sometimes feels like it’s there to break up the political material rather than deepen it.  And the final cameo by the real Snowden, is interesting, but kind of breaks the fourth wall.  None of these issues spoil the film.
Did I enjoy the film?  Yes.  It’s a thoughtful, steady drama that raises important questions without shouting at the audience.  I appreciated that it focused on Snowden as a person:  his doubts, his health issues, his relationship — rather than turning him into a symbol.  The film doesn’t demand that you agree with Snowden’s choices;  it simply shows how he arrived at them.  It’s not a movie I’d re-watch often, but it held my attention and made me think.
Final Recommendation:  Strong for the film / MUST see for the political threat it establishes for the viewer:  so, strong to must see recommendation.  “Snowden” is a well-acted, accessible political drama that captures the tension and moral weight of one of the most significant intelligence leaks in recent history.  While it didn’t receive Academy Award recognition, its historical significance is clear, and the film provides a solid entry point into the debate over privacy, surveillance, and government power.  If you’re interested in modern politics, civil liberties, or character-driven dramas based on real events, it’s worth watching.  Just remember:  the real story is still unfolding and will get MUCH worse in the next few years as Artificial Intelligence takes over the surveillance. “A word to the wise should suffice…“
.
Click here (8 April) to see the posts of prior years.  I started this blog in late 2009.  Daily posting began in late January 2011.  Not all of the days in the early years (2009-2010) will have posts.

Read Full Post »

What Is Past Is Prologue

Posted in General Comments, History, Movie Review, Movies, Politics, Reviews, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on February 9, 2026| Leave a Comment »

“JFK”  (1991)  —  movie review
Today’s review is for the political‑mystery drama “JFK” (1991), directed by Oliver Stone and starring Kevin Costner as Jim Garrison (the New Orleans District Attorney who becomes convinced the Warren Report doesn’t add up);  Tommy Lee Jones as Clay Shaw (the polished businessman Garrison eventually brings to trial);  Gary Oldman as Lee Harvey Oswald (portrayed here as jittery, opaque, and possibly manipulated);  Joe Pesci as David Ferrie (a nervous, volatile figure whose contradictions fuel suspicion);  Sissy Spacek as Liz Garrison (Jim’s wife, trying to keep the family steady as the investigation consumes him);  and Kevin Bacon as Willie O’Keefe (a fictionalized composite whose testimony pushes Garrison deeper into conspiracy).  The ensemble is rounded out by Jack Lemmon, Walter Matthau, Donald Sutherland, John Candy, and others, creating a dense portrait of a country trying to make sense of a national trauma.
Background:  This is my first viewing of this film.  I have never believed the “Warren Commission” version of President Kennedy’s assassination, but I have also never believed Stone was a legitimate conduit for arriving at the “truth”.  We are approaching the 2029 information release date, but I don’t have a lot of faith our government will release the whole of the evidence (or what’s left of it).  Released in 1991, this film arrived at a moment when public trust in government was already shaky, and Stone’s take on the assassination poured gasoline on that fire.  The movie was controversial from the start — praised for its craftsmanship and attacked for its liberties with fact.  It won two Academy Awards (Best Cinematography and Best Film Editing) and is widely credited with helping push Congress to pass the JFK Records Act, which forced the release of millions of pages of assassination-related documents.  Whatever one thinks of Stone’s conclusions, the film had real-world impact and remains one of the most debated political dramas ever made.
Plot:  The story follows Jim Garrison, the New Orleans DA who reopens the Kennedy assassination case after noticing inconsistencies in the Warren Report.  Garrison and his team interview witnesses, chase leads, and try to piece together a coherent explanation from a mountain of conflicting accounts.  Stone mixes archival footage, reenactments, imagined scenes, and rapid-fire editing to show what Garrison believes happened — a coordinated conspiracy involving multiple shooters and a subsequent cover-up.
The investigation eventually leads Garrison to Clay Shaw, whom he charges with conspiracy.  The trial becomes the film’s climax, though it’s less about proving Shaw’s guilt and more about Garrison laying out his entire theory in front of a jury.  The film ends with Garrison losing the case but insisting the truth still matters.  Stone clearly agrees.
So, is this movie any good?  How’s the acting?  The filming / FX?  Any problems?  And, did I enjoy the film?  Short answers:  Yes;  very strong acting;  striking filming and editing;  several issues;  yes.
Any Good?  Yes.  “JFK” is long, dense, and sometimes overwhelming, but it’s also gripping.  Stone keeps the film moving with a mix of documentary-style footage, dramatizations, and courtroom scenes that never feel static.  The movie has a clear point of view and pushes it hard.  Whether you agree with that point of view is another matter, but as a piece of film making, it’s compelling and surprisingly watchable for a three-hour political investigation.
Acting:  Kevin Costner gives a steady, grounded performance as Garrison — earnest, methodical, and increasingly frustrated.  Tommy Lee Jones plays Shaw with a polished, slightly smug confidence that fits the character.  Gary Oldman’s Oswald is jittery and opaque, which matches the historical uncertainty around the real man.  Joe Pesci goes big as Ferrie — maybe too big — but he’s memorable.  Sissy Spacek brings emotional weight to Liz Garrison, especially as the investigation strains the family.  The supporting cast is deep, and even small roles feel lived‑in. Nobody coasts.
Filming / FX:  The editing is the standout.  The film won the Oscar for it, and it’s easy to see why.  Stone and his editors jump between film stocks, timelines, and perspectives, but the result is more energizing than confusing.  The cinematography by Robert Richardson gives the movie a restless, slightly paranoid feel that matches the subject.  The courtroom scenes are straightforward, but the investigation sequences have a sharp, documentary‑style edge.  The film uses visual tricks and archival footage to keep the viewer off balance, which is part of its effect.
Problems:  Several.  The biggest is the film’s confidence in its own speculation.  Stone presents theory and fact with the same level of certainty, and the line between them isn’t always clear.  Garrison’s real investigation had flaws, and the film smooths over many of them.  Some scenes feel like they exist mainly to make a point rather than reflect anything verifiable.  The runtime is another issue.  The middle stretch can feel like a wall of names, dates, and theories.  The film demands attention, and if you’re not in the right mood, it can feel like homework.  None of these problems ruin the film, but they do make it more of a commitment than a casual watch.
Did I Enjoy the Film?  Yes.  Despite its length and its tendency to blur fact and speculation, “JFK” is a compelling movie.  The acting is strong, the pacing mostly holds, and the filmmaking is confident.  You don’t have to agree with Stone to appreciate the craft.  The film also has historical significance because of the government transparency it helped trigger.
Final Recommendation:  Strong recommendation — with context.  “JFK” is not a neutral film, and it shouldn’t be treated as a documentary.  It’s a well-made, ambitious political drama with excellent acting, memorable editing, and real cultural impact.  Watch it for the performances, the craftsmanship, and the way it captures a moment when the country was struggling to understand a national tragedy.  It’s long, but it’s worth your time if you’re interested in American history, political mysteries, or films that challenge official narratives.
.
Click here (9 February) to see the posts of prior years.  I started this blog in late 2009.  Daily posting began in late January 2011.  Not all of the days in the early years (2009-2010) will have posts.

Read Full Post »

Internal Warfare

Posted in Movie Review, Movies, Reviews, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on July 2, 2023| Leave a Comment »

Platoon  (1986)  —  movie review
Today’s review is for the Vietnam war drama “Platoon” directed by Oliver Stone and starring:  Charlie Sheen as Private Chris Taylor (the narrator and main character), Tom Berenger as Staff Sgt. Barnes (the “bad” sergeant) and Willem Dafoe as Sgt. Elias (the “good” sergeant).  The movie is a morality play set in the context of the Vietnam war and is basically a battle for the soul of Pvt. Taylor.  Of course, nominally, the U.S. forces are there to defend “freedom” in Vietnam from the commies in North Vietnam.
The basic plot is that a young man is seeking to do “something” meaningful with his life and so he volunteers to join the Army and go to Vietnam as an infantryman.  The film begins with his arrival in country, moves to his first couple of patrols, jumps to his making friends, jumps to an incident where the platoon destroys a village (a “Mỹ Lai” recast) and then jumps to a climactic battle where the Americans are overrun and we see which side (“good” or “evil”) Pvt. Taylor chooses and why.  The movie ends with Taylor and a handful of others surviving the battle and on a chopper being medevaced before getting sent home (back to the U.S.).
Is this movie any good?  How is the portrayal of war?  The acting?  The drama?  And, do I recommend this film?  Yes.  Very good.  Very good to excellent.  Dark and tense.  Yes, very highly (with qualifications).
Any good?  –  This is easy!  The film was nominated for eight(8) Academy Awards and won four(4) including “Best Picture” and “Best Director“.  It is widely considered to be a “classic” and one of the best “war” movies of all time.  I don’t disagree with either assessment.  It is also considered to be an anti-war movie, which I disagree with.  I found it to be an anti-Vietnam War movie, but not an “anti-war” (itself) movie.  It is NOT a “rah-rah” John Wayne style (“The Green Berets“) movie, but it did show acts of courage, selflessness, and genuine caring for your fellow comrade-in-arms.  It also went out of its way to portray the brutality of wars and individuals fighting in wars, particularly when the combatants feel abandoned and misled by their country and government.
How is the actual portrayal of war / combat?  I would say it was so-so to very accurate.  The casual viewer probably doesn’t notice such details, but there is a difference between fighting a war and shooting the fighting of a battle.  In reality, soldiers are trained to disperse and stagger.  This is so individual enemy explosions don’t injure or kill multiple soldiers.  This, however, doesn’t make for good filming.  In this film, when there are long shots, you can see the troops deployed correctly.  When there are close-ups, you (the director) do what you can to keep the actors engaged for drama.  I didn’t have any problem with this, and, in fact, “like” it because it shows the audience real tactics when it can.  Most movies show combatants bunched together all the time, so they can have face time and exchange words “in-frame”.  War is dirty, wet and terrifying in a jungle.  (Actually, war is dirty and terrifying in any climate.)  It is also isolating.
I also favorably noted “little” Vietnam things which added to the realism.  One detail, in particular, was showing the Vietnamese soldiers tying off their arms and legs with straps before attacking.  It’s not explained in the movie, but North Vietnamese Army (NVA) did this to prevent bleeding out when attacking and while expecting to be injured.  As it was explained to me:  our main infantry weapon (M16) fires at high muzzle velocity bullet, but what it adds with speed to target, it lacks badly in “dropping power”.  A NCO (non-Commissioned Officer) I worked with in Germany said he’d been in a firefight and he hit someone with his M16 multiple times and the guy just kept running towards him.  The sergeant released the rifle, pulled his pistol and shot the guy.  It was a “fast-draw” shot and he missed the guy’s body but hit him in the hand.  The force of the slower but heavier bullet spun the attacker around and knocked him to the ground.  Already dying from the M16 wounds, the attacker was not able to get up to continue his advance. The sergeant was not known to be a braggart, so I took him on his word this happened.
As to the “qualifications” mentioned above, there are several scenes with either cruelty to “presumed” combatants, civilians, and dismembering of enemy dead bodies (ear trophies).  There are also numerous scenes of badly injured and deceased U.S. forces (and enemy forces), so let the squeamish beware.
Acting?  –  Generally, I found the acting to be very good to excellent.  Of course, the big three (Sheen, Berenger and Dafoe) deserve full marks for their performances, but a number of the bit roles were also believable – if not relatable.  In particular, there are a couple of great scenes where you see the actors look at each other and you can “see” the hatred / fury in their eyes.  Great acting and great filming!  Both Berenger and Dafoe received nominations for “Best Supporting Actor” Oscars, although neither won.
Drama?  –  As a non-combat veteran, I found the film to be both realistic and dramatic.  There are both light (daytime) and dark (night time) scenes which are used to alternate between exposition and action.  It works.  The film is frequently claustrophobic in its build up to an action sequence (battle / tension release) and without using “ha-ha” humor, it reminds us that war can be both sarcastically “funny”, futile, bonding and isolating – ALL at the same time!  The film high-lights that in war, sometimes none of your “best choices” are necessarily good options.  Spoiler alert:  Bad sergeant tries to kill good sergeant and then abandons him behind enemy lines to inevitable death;  protagonist kills bad sergeant in retribution “for the loss of the good sergeant”;  but, in the end, he must live with his bad choice (fragging a fellow soldier) for the rest of his own life back in “the world“.
Final recommendation:  Very Highly recommended!!  As previously stated, this film is a “classic” and considered one of the best in it’s genre – of ALL time.  Again, there are scenes of severe injuries and death, a moderate amount of foul / racist language and drug use, an off-camera but stated attempted rape of a young female Vietnamese, and any number of other atrocities by American forces.  It is arguable if these were as frequent and / or widespread as implied by this film;  it is not arguable that they did occur (in Vietnam, anyway).
Side Note(s):  I am a Vietnam Era veteran and a volunteer (not drafted).  I did NOT serve in an active combat zone – two years stateside and two years in West Germany.  My direct military experience is limited to my own training in field artillery exercises and standard infantry tactics in basic training and NCO Academy.  The term “fragging” refers to the use of a fragmentation grenade to kill someone in your unit (generally higher in your chain-of-comand) because they have offended you or you believe they will cause unnecessary injury or death to you or others in your unit.  It is also used (as in this film) to describe shooting that other person with intent to kill them.  And, believe it or not, this was my first viewing of this film!  I have generally been indifferent to viewing movies about the Vietnam War and am only now catching up on what I previously chose to skip.
.
Click here (2 July) to see the posts of prior years.  I started this blog in late 2009.  Daily posting began in late January 2011.  Not all of the days in the early years (2009-2010) will have posts.

Read Full Post »

Wall Street – Movie Review

Posted in Faith Family and Friends, Movies, Uncategorized, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , on September 26, 2010| Leave a Comment »

Wall Street:  Money Never Sleeps (2010)  —  movie review
I must admit I’ve really been looking forward to the release of this sequel.  I’ve only seen the original (maybe) three times in full, but everyone has seen Mike do Gekko, “Greed is good!” a million times.
I took along my youngest (Sarah), unfortunately – for her.
Visually, the movie was appealing to me in a TRON / PowerPoint kind of way.  Using the NY skyline as a backdrop for stock market ups and downs, and the roads as ticker runs was good.
Greed and excessive wealth were on display – but both lacked emotional appeal.  The characters kept saying “It’s not about the money”, when clearly, it was all about the money.  There were long, slow pans of skinny, tanned, bejeweled ladies and fat, mostly older, white guys.  …And lots of stiffs in suits.
I did enjoy the “finding family” aspects of the film even though they were not particularly believable, but then it’s entertainment not real life!!  I’ve not followed Shia LaBeouf before (other than Transformers), but I now think he can act.
I think the movie will reach a certain crowd – those who saw and understood the first movie and those who have followed (and understand) the economic problems of the last decade.  Unfortunately, I don’t believe there are very many folks in either group.
I think the liberals will vilify Stone (again) for not explaining the problems government (Bush and Obama) had or at least offering any evidence there were viable options.  Nothing but the bailout or economic collapse are given as options – black and white (binary) in a world of nuance.  I think the conservatives (and Tea Baggers) will vilify Stone (again) because he presents a harsh look at the new corporate greed – which is offered as FAR worse than individual greed (but doesn’t explain why).
The film is a lot of investment banking and Wall Street bashing, pure and simple.  I don’t have a big problem with that, per se, they are big boys who can take it, and they did screw up (and are continuing to do so).  The shortfall of the movie is it was a missed opportunity to be a learning moment:  it could have said more about what happened, why it happened, why it was allowed to happen, and what were some of the other options (for future reference).
Sarah’s review – if the chairs were more comfortable, she’d have fallen asleep after about 20 minutes.  (From the mouths of babes…)
Final recommendation:  if you are one of those two groups mentioned above, or if you love Oliver Stone (hate the government, hate the rich, hate the corporations), you’ll probably enjoy this film.  As a film buff, I’ll wait for the X-mas twin pack to come out and re-watch them both.  (Life is hard for film nerds!)
.
Click here (26 September) to see the posts of prior years.  I started this blog in late 2009.  Daily posting began in late January 2011.  Not all of the days in the early years (2009-2010) will have posts.

Read Full Post »

Design a site like this with WordPress.com
Get started