Five Minutes watching....Winning Time: The Rise of the Lakers Dynasty

I don't watch a lot of movies because, well, at this point I just don't. I don't watch a lot of TV either. As I've said before, a lot of movies and television as of late have become much more niche oriented. And I ain't in their niche. Plus I'm STILL trying to be productive. And do some writing. Well, a little bit, I need to get back to it. I also still have a ton of video games I bought on sale I still want to play. Wait, I don't watch TV, play games or write...what am I doing?  

Winning Time surprised me by being a pretty good show.

But, Winning Time on NOT the true story of the behind the scenes of the creation of the Los Angeles Lakers basketball dynasty, which also just coincidentally is the beginning of the rise of the modern NBA. It's just not. It says so in the bumper of every episode. It states clearly it's all be dramatized. It is Historical Fiction, right up there with Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter. Each week there is a podcast and about twenty Youtube shows picking through the script looking for where they stretched if not outright lied about what happened. This is very clear.

And yet people are upset that the show is not a documentary. Go figure.

The show is an ensemble piece, following the story of hedonistic wheeler-dealer owner Dr. Jerry Buss taking a big gamble on basketball, the slow growth of Pat Riley from junior announcer to legendary coach, and the maturation of Magic Johnson from college star to NBA superstardom. Along the way you learn about some the machinations Dr. Buss had to pull off to make it all work, a fresh look at a long forgotten coaching drama and see an idea of the shift from the young wet behind the ears rookie Ervin learning the ropes to Magic, the leader of a championship team. And while it's a great story, it's there is a lot of bullshit. A lot. 

It's a...um, gumbo if you will, of fact and fiction for dramatic purposes. Norm Nixon, the point guard of the Lakers when Magic was drafted has explained that no, he did not play Magic one on one while wearing a white fur coat at a party the summer before the rookie's first year. But it's a hell of scene. Jerry West is portrayed as angrily obsessed with winning. But a lot of this version of him are as I understand it, is taken from his own stories about his life, in that he broke a lot of golf clubs and could not watch the teams he assembled actually play the games. Pat Riley had left the announcing booth long before signing on as Westhead's assistant, but the idea of him sending down notes to the sidelines during games shows a hunger. Dr. Jerry Buss comes across as a guy with everything to lose but who refuses to back away from the table. Well, I understand his daughter is very involved in the show, so maybe that part is true. The starting coach that season, the man who actually designed the foundation for the Lakers fabled Showtime offense was only in a coma for three days, not weeks and the fight with Westhead didn't happen. And yes, even the games are out of order, but they way they were arranged builds drama, which is why we watch. I mean, we know the ending...it's in the title of the show, so filling out this space in the middle has to be good television. And it is.  

Good television? You find yourself rooting for characters you didn't even like or notice. Or realizing there is more to a portrayal than there first seemed. Or recognizing a character arc halfway through without the changes being spoon fed to you. Or appreciating the characterization of even the supporting roles. Now, it's not the Wire or Breaking Bad, but it is good writing and very good acting. The editing feels a bit frantic at first, and they do show some portions of games but not much the real drama isn't in the seconds left on the clock but the tension between the front office, coaches and what goes on between dribbles.   

Half the fun of watching are the these characters meet other actors playing other famous people. It is LA after all. From early court-side Jack to Richard Pryor, Iman and Milton Berle, as well as other legendary NBA notables throughout the season, including more than a few unexpected drop-ins and quite a few actual history lessons. .

More, one of the cool aspects of the show is that those actors for the most part fit. And while John C. Reilly and Sean Patrick Small give what are apparently inspired impression of Dr. Buss and Larry Bird, I'm not sure where they even found Quincy Isiah. There are times he appears to become a young Magic Johnson. I don't know if it's the way he holds his face, the angle, the lighting or even a little CGI trickery, but it's there. The actor portraying Kareem I think gives the elder statesman of the game the proper gravitas considering where he was in life. The show takes the time to cover a portion of his personal growth, as well as explain a number of things about a number of other players. Plus, the ball players are all actually tall, it's not camera tricks.

It really is worth a watch. If only to see just what Jerry West is ready to sue everybody involved for.  

Barkeep. One for the Lakers. On Dr. Buss' tab.

Note - Yes, Magic did actually pass on signing with Nike, which at the time made sense. But oh what could have been.

Five minutes watching... Dune

I don't watch a lot of movies because, well, at this point I just don't. A lot of movies and television of late have become more niche oriented and just plain horrible, and I'm trying to be productive, and also write this thing (second draft) and moreover I have a ton of video games I bought on sale I still want to play so there. So, I watch a movie or a little TV when I get a chance. Go figure. 

So I watched Dune. All two hours and thirty-five minutes of it.

It was....ummm, er.

Boy am I jaded.

Maybe it's because I first experienced Dune more than thirty years ago and unlike a quite few books I still own, I've never gone back to it. It was one of those things you were supposed to experience as a nerd in the eighties, so I did. A whole bunch of it didn't make sense to me back then, because I was young, and because it went in a wholly different direction of the big 'Stars' types (you know, Wars & Trek), I used to read everything back then so it got lost in the shuffle. Later on I would grow to appreciate the type of world-building that Herbert did here, but at the point in my life I indulged I wasn't there yet. Now comfortably aged, but not immune to nerd pressure, I tuned into my HBOMax and gave it a look.

I know a story as dense as Dune is hard to bring to the big screen. it's got a lot of backstory, side plots and intrigue wrapped in little pieces of lore that a veteran sci-fi reader gobbles up like candy. So the reality is you have to cut out a lot of what makes the story the story to get it down to your standard movie run time. And even though this went long, the director still put too blunt a blade to this thing. Trying to be inviting to someone new to the story without throwing too much exposition at them early was a great idea, but handled badly, and so they've unfortunately crafted a film where most viewers are are going to miss pieces without repeated viewings (which again given the length of the film probably is unlikely) or doing some homework. As it is I suggest you at least go read the Wikipedia entry for the story so you'll understand why a bunch of stuff is happening.
 
so, SPOILERS from here on out. 

The film suffers from three things really: Long slow 'Lawrence of Arabia' type establishing shots coupled with long pregnant moments before something happens, the set decorator's complete lack of imagination and the missing pieces of the story. Well, four things really, but let's tackle these three first.

Dune is supposed be this epic tale of an Empire, while most of this part of the tale takes place on the desert world of Araakis, sole source of the melange...um, spice. To convey the grand scope, we're 'treated' to several large stately set pieces and ceremonies early in the film to let you know the Empire is big, space ships the size of small towns rising and all that, then sweeping shots of backgrounds and open space when they reach Araakis. This is where I think the film could have benefited from a widescreen format. I saw it at home, maybe in the theater it's aspect ratio is better. But most of these shots are either the city (framed badly and unimpressive CGI) or the sparsely populated (read: empty) shots of the desert. We get shot after shot of this. It just does not work, and at times with it's very less than convincing CGI makes it look like it was shot for television. I know establishment shots are needed, but I'm of the opinion they could have removed or cut down some of these less than grand ones and added in more story, did a bit more fleshing out or adding in some other subplot.    

Which bleeds really into the second issue with really most sci-fi films, in that all the set decorators seem to think everyone who ever owned a spaceship is a minimalist. The outfits and costumes worn by the characters were nice, but the sets were barren, empty spaces bereft of decoration. Big blocks of empty space. Just nothing. Empty. That it sparsely populated doesn't help, but empty just feels wrong. Oddly, the last time I saw someone consider the a sci-fi story as an actual place was The Fifth Element, where the spaces looked lived in. By like people. This does not do that.

And finally, the missing pieces of the story. Again, as I've alluded to earlier, it would have helped had it been made clearer that Duke Leto knew that the Emperor granting him reign over Araakis was a trap, but one that he could not refuse. Or some of the interplay between secondary characters that hopefully will show up in "Part 2" since that's confirmed now. Having Hawat show up aiding the Harkonnen makes no sense because we missed a whole subplot where he suspects Paul's mother of betraying Leto. There are a lot of things going on in this story that had to be cut to make time for ...long shots.

Which brings us the fourth problem.

So, um, Dune was a white savior story? Huh.

Now, I saw the first version, back with Sting, on something ages ago. HBO, Cinemax, something, but I remember that the native Fremen in that film were just a bunch of dudes from central casting. And I didn't really get that deep into the book, so I didn't make a connection at that point either. To be honest, this didn't even crystalize for me until the last five or ten minutes of the film, during the fight scene. I should have gotten it earlier during Paul's visions, but nope. You know, I don't even think that effect was intentional, more along the lines of semi-awareness woke-type thinking of "wouldn't it be a bit silly if we cast a 'Nordic' look for people of the desert?" But then that gets us here, which is equally problematic. But then, the book is from the 60's, written by a guy mostly likely raised on Tarzan movies. Go figure.

Which presents a major issue for the second part. Because while the white savior aspect was hard to spot in the first movie, that aspect will be front and center in the second. Paul the chosen one, and all those brown people. Wow. Didn't we just have this issue with GoT a few years ago? Apparently we've learned nothing.

Barkeep. Just a coke and some chips. Thanks.

Turning up the color on my TV

Ramblings Post #322
I am of the opinion that what I am doing now is preparing for the next stage in life. In that stage a lot of the trivial things that cause us needless anxiety will be be banished to the far edges of my periphery, and my concerns, although esoteric, will be much more palatable. This is a fancy way of saying in the not too distant future I want my major problem to be deciding what to have for lunch. By the way, this has absolutely nothing to do with the piece that follows. Thank you. 

So I tried to do my part and watch some television focused on people who look like me, and didn't quite make it. 

I started with Queen Sugar, a new slow drama on Oprah's network. I'm not quite sure what the deal is there, because I was only able to get through the first thirty minutes before I just couldn't sit there anymore. In that first thirty minutes we meet three of the main characters, the rich daughter in LA, the earthy daughter who sells a little weed, the son who is just desperate and the impetus of the story, the father who works as a janitor at night and still has some beautiful acreage that used to be produce a nice sugar crop.   

And in this half hour where had this Empire - someone would have gotten shot, three people would tried a hostile company takeover, the company would have been in financial peril, two albums would have dropped, an evil twin would show up and someone would have gone to prison and got out. But on the slightly more sedate Queen Sugar, I think you got a day and a half where ONE scandal broke and one store got robbed. The characters and scenes just linger, with lots of long pauses and wide shots of Bayou that make you wonder if the show is sponsored by the tourist board.

I stopped watching however, because of the little boy. The desperate son has a child named Blue, and just looking at him made me wonder if parenting isn't such a bad thing. He's that cute. And because he was such an effective little emotional tool, looking at one point just so sad because the other kids won't come to his birthday party, I couldn't watch anymore. Because this isn't a comedy where he'll have three or four smart lines an episode, this is a drama which means that child character is going to experience nothing but heartache. And since I understand the first of his many tragedies happened in the first episode, because the whole thing is based on a book about the adults teaming up to keep the farm after the father passes, I'm not really up for watching children, even just actors, go through those kind of emotions regularly on a Tuesday night. So this isn't for me.

Atlanta. via Donald Glover.

So I flipped over to FX and caught the rebroadcast of the premiere of Atlanta, Donald Glover's show about the ...um, well, it's about something.

There is something weird about Donald Glover, and I don't know what it is. Maybe I'm just old, but the show seems to move between goof ball comedy (the WET lemon pepper wings glowing inside the box) to goof ball weird (the guy on the bus demanding Glover eat a sandwich) to family drama to racial statement to police and sexuality issues (the episode Earn spends in processing) to an exploration of blackness and celebrity from the inside. Donald's character is broke, a father, a ivy league school college drop-out, his parents are tired of giving him money and just seems lost. All of which would be cool if this were an indie film, but as a weekly show leaves something to be desired. And for a show that on it's face appears to be about the nuances of a certain type of blackness*, Glover's character seems... other. Not white middle class, but some odd hybrid that certainly exists somewhere in real life, but is hard to relate to or identify with.     

I like the other characters, his cousin, the Paper Boi, who is rough, rugged and raw but also thoughtful is very interesting. Far too often a thug character is just bad, instead here is more realistically depicted as someone who becomes aware of how is actions are affecting those around him. Paper Boi's sidekick character may just be pure comedy relief, as he always feels like you're only getting half the conversation - but since the other half is strictly in his head, you're not missing what you think you are. That he sounds like Dave Chappelle and looks like he could be Chapelle's younger hungrier brother only makes it funnier. I want to comment on the woman supporting Glover's character, but we barely see enough of the baby's mother in the first two episodes to get a good feel for her, other than she is doing okay while he struggles. 

A lot of the story is quiet, but deceptive in what it shows and what we take from it. Take the scene where up with the mother of his child, who he still intimate with, only to find out she has a date that night so he'll need to watch their child. Had the positions been reversed, the guy would have been viewed with disdain. I've read other reviews, and it's taken as just a woman exploring her options because the main character is supposed to be so downtrodden. Interesting. Or the white character casually using the N-word with Donald Glover's character, but realizing that wouldn't be wise with other black people around. Little things. That aside, I think this show will live or die on just how interesting the audience finds the city of Atlanta, which is being pushed as a character in the story, much as a story about NY would emphasize how much the borough shapes it's inhabitants. There is a scene in the second episode where the guy just starts telling Glover's character his story because he just needs to tell someone, has actually happened to me. And that guy sounded just like the guy on the show  - a distinctive Southern urban patios that is as identifiable as face tattoo. But that vibe is an acquired taste. Still, a story where the hero rides the bus should always be given a chance. 

So Queen Sugar looks like it might be something, so far well written and expansive for sure, but I'm not gonna sit there and watch it every week because reasons. But I think people should see for themselves what's up with that. As far as the FX offering, as soon as I can figure out exactly what Atlanta is supposed be, I'm certain I'll enjoy it more. A quirky rap political statement comedy?  

Barkeep. I need a some wings, fries and beer. You got buffalo wing sauce? No, not medium, buffalo wing. Fine, lemon pepper then. 

*Contrary to popular belief, black people are not socially homogeneous. A black man can listen rap and appreciate Jordans, or prefer jazz and want to rope cattle on weekends. The Autobiography of Malcom X or Beowulf. We are all different, yet all black.  

Five Minutes watching: The Night of...

I used to not watch a lot of movies because I didn't have a lot of time. Now I have time, and a lot of television is horrible, and Turner Classic Movies isn't always on point. So, I watch a movie or two, or five, when I'm not writing, or reading, or playing video games, or sleep. You know, I guess I really don't watch a lot of movies. Go figure. 

This is really more of a critique/recap of the the last few episodes than anything else. Spoilers ahead by the ton, so if you haven't watched the series or the finale, ready the first paragraph comeback later after you're done. If you went into this thinking there would be a definitive ending, that we would find out what happened that night, that you're going to be sorely disappointed. I both like and don't like the ending, in that while there was no "earth shattering kaboom," the story doesn't as much end, as peter out into nothing and much like life, just keeps moving.

John Stone. Attorney. photo from HBO

First, to be honest, I didn't realize it was a ninety minute finale until the first half hour was over, which eased my fear that the show was going to end with the setup of the jury returning and the the setup being a fade to black there or an abrupt cut right after the phrase "We the jury find the accused Nasir Orenthal Khan..." Don't laugh, that's a critical darling dramatic ending, and I really didn't want to see it. What I really hoped to see that was that Naz would have been found not guilty in the first twenty minutes or so, and the rest of the episode focus on the aftermath for all the characters; from the mundane wheels of justice rolling on to Freddy figuring out his next move to Naz trying to figure out what happens from here, his relationship with his family or perhaps an examination of the current culture we live in, where verdicts don't matter just public opinion. But what we got was okay. 

I enjoyed a number of things about the series, and seeing the machinations that happen behind the scenes. What particularly rung true for me in this finale was the Prosecutor's decision to keep the case going even after Det. Box turned up new evidence. This was a perfect example of what happens sometimes, in that the prosecutor isn't interested in guilt or innocence, but only who can be reasonably prosecuted. It's an imperfect system, but it's what we have, and I think seeing it onscreen might give a few people pause after living with the nobility that was Law and Order for so long. I'd like to think that most of the time that once you get the guy with the bloody knife leaving the scene, well, then you've got your guy. But you've still got to do your due diligence, which this episode and Chandra's court room tactics showed the police clearly had not done. Which brings us to Chandra.

 

Poor Chandra. It was fascinating watching Chandra mature, then fall apart as the episodes went on. Pulled from legal obscurity into the courtroom, it looked like she was rising to the task and would end the series a slightly less jaded version of John Stone. So it was shock when she made out with Naz in holding, me screaming loudly at the television "what are you doing!?" And it just went down hill from there. I still can't for the life of me figure out why she decided to put Naz on the stand. That you do not do this is a basic concept of criminal law class, right up there with never ask a question for which you don't already know the answer. And that after she'd made that boneheaded decision, then saw her client was unstable, she KEPT GOING WITH IT, even bringing him the drugs he needed for his fix. This was the part that was beyond belief for me. Maybe she got a little overconfident with the him testifying thing, but for such a relatively naive lawyer to take such risks with her own career is just ....I'm still lost, why exactly I don't know.  

And then, after the disaster that was Naz's testimony, and it was a disaster, Box flipped the apple cart over by using the equivalent of  what is referred to in legal terms as a "noisy exit." By getting up and walking out during Helen's closing statement, loudly and looking disgusted, he may have been communicating with the jury that even he, the detective whom they knew had helmed the case wasn't okay with all this anymore. And it wasn't an accident, because having been on the force as long as he had, Box had to know what he was doing. Subtle beast indeed.  

And then we very neatly find out why John Stone, possessor of such a capable legal mind and wise to ways of the legal jungle relegates himself to the kind of law he practices. Despite his knowledge of what needs to be done, John almost can't do it. Forced to give the closing argument, his previously vanquished eczema returns with a vengeance, brought on by the stress of being responsible for man's life with his words. It was sad to watch in a way, and it explains why he pleads out clients he knows are guilty. It lets him sleep at night. But shrewd mind that he is, he's able to work his circumstance into his closing, sounding like a exhausted warrior at the end of a long battle giving that last rousing speech before he leads those who follow into hell. Which produces the definition of an  ambiguous hung jury. I was pleasantly surprised by Helen's decision not to re-try the case. But then I remembered Helen's uncharacteristically weak close, this after her almost gleeful gutting of the defendant. It was as though both she and Box had lost the heart to finish what they'd started.  

As stark as the case looked, and as disassociated as the characters were, it was nice to see bits of humanity seep through.as these cogs of the system going out on a limb for Naz. I'm sure that's what Chandra thought she was doing (after getting used by her boss for her race), but the real care came from John Stone and oddly, Freddy the prison bully. While John first seemed just interested in Naz as a client, a big payday and perhaps as the case that might change his career trajectory, he later became a shaman of sorts. Freddy I think, actually liked Naz as a person. It was Freddy who gave Naz the shoes for the shower, tried to get him the proper color shirt for trial, the private cell, and forgave him for not snitching. You could tell that even as the big bad, Freddy needed a friend, which is what he was finding in Naz. And then realizing his friend was innocent, made the move that should have gotten  his friend a mistrial save for a persnickety judge. This actual caring made it particularly sad that Freddy couldn't say goodbye to Naz when it was all over. 

Now....

Reading the overnights, I was expecting and found the howls of anguish at how Chandra's character was underdeveloped and wasted, which I read in large part to mean that it's a sexist racist misogynistic travesty that the woman of color didn't emerge the triumphant victor. As much as the parts which baffled me - the kiss, the drugs, the putting him on the stand - seem to come out of nowhere, the idea that she was under written, a plot device or part of the background after all the screen time she had is a hell of a stretch. Yes, she was introduced as a PR prop by a grandstanding attorney, but she turned into an able lawyer learning from an veteran lawyer, felt ashamed for her client's parents whom she tried to console, put together a pretty good case and maybe over identified with the client. Then a little heady from her success in exposing the narrow mindedness of the police investigation, got a little too cocky and went a little too far. It may have been ego which did it, we'll never know, because here is the part I didn't like: that we have no idea what comes next for her like we get for all the other principals. That part I'm angry about.  

 

Was it a good show? Yes, I found it worth the hours invested, and the hours I spent re-watching parts of it. It was well acted, well thought out as to be purposefully muddled, and excellently done from an acting standpoint. I liked it. 

Little Things....

 

■ There were a lot of little moments that became things later on.  I want to go back to the first episode and see if that new suspects photo was in the frame by the bed like I think it was.

■ I don't think they showed the passage of time right. There should have been about a year between the arrest and the court date, but it looks like he got arrested in October, and the trial was in February the following year - as evidenced by the date stamp on the camera that caught Chandra getting Naz his "stuff."- Seemed a little quick, but this is dramatized for your protection.

■ In trying to figure out why Chandra kissed Nas, and I think that the writers tried to setup a rationale but failed. During the lovable scene where Stone reveals the holy grail of jurors - Young urban females - Chandra admits she's depressed because she broke up with boyfriend, and now feels alone. Stone offers some weak sympathy, but we leave it there. Now, the prep for murder trial leaves little room for socializing, so it's possible that Naz and Chandra's shared loneliness caused a lapse in judgment. I realize I'm grasping at straws here, it's not like Chandra had a complete lack of sense. And if you could think of another way to get Stone into the first chair, let me know. 

■ It may have seemed like a tossed off moment, but I think two things spurred Box to try, even at the eleventh hour to go back to see what he missed. First, it was Chandra putting him on the stand to talk about his history, the procedure he'd disregarded and all the suspects he overlooked, and second, it was the overheard conversation in the bar, about the cop who doesn't care. Box realized he was that cop, that he'd become a bored professional, and it irked him.

 

■ John, lose the cat. I'm a dog guy.

Five Minutes watching: The Big Bang.

I don't watch a lot of movies, because I don't have time. But at the end of day of work, then class, then reading for the next class, and writing down what I wrote so I can remember it all, I'll turn on one of them pay channels I have for just such an emergency and catch five minutes of something.



This review is not to be confused with the television show the Big Bang Theory, a show which I've actually found to be at times ridiculously enjoyable despite it's now strained original concept. No, this is about the movie, The Big Bang, a film trying very hard to be noir, is about a world weary detective, a missing woman, the mob, hidden diamonds and the Higgs-Boson particle. Yes, that Higgs-Boson particle.

It stars Antonio Banderas, Sam Elliott, this guy who had to be seven feet tall, with cameos from Bill Duke and Snoop Dog. I don't think ever saw the inside of a cineplex. One night I saw the trailer online and thought it looked interesting, well, if it's on don't change the channel interesting, so when it popped up on Encore the other night I decided to tune in. That it was on the Black oriented Encore channel I found strange, until I sussed out Encore's version of black includes every movie starring a non-white person.

But I digress. The film, how can I describe it? You ever see a film that would be good if they remade it, and when they remade it they actually put some effort into it this time? Yeah, this was that movie. Because the story was actually only 30% Hollywood re-hash, the cutesy physics angle and associated wordplay wasn't' too cutesy, and I honestly didn't figure out the twist until the characters did. The down sides? A weird, supposedly arty, slantly camera angle that got annoying after a while, bad acting, and the special effects at the end could have used a bit more polish.

It's a film that if they remade it with George Clooney or Sam Worthington, better. And I don't mean a re-write, I mean a word for word - shot for shot remake of this, it would be amazingly good. Or keep it ethnic and use Terrance Howard, Chiwetel Ejiofor or Idris Elba. Even Mos Def who can act when he wants could have pulled it off. Some of the trouble was Banderas, whose wandering accent made pieces of dialogue and the whole voice over thing hard to understand, and whose acting left a bit to be desired. Like if he had tried actual acting.

Seriously, ramp up the production values by 20% (or use darker sets) and you might actually have a good movie here. As it is, it's the kind of movie you watch only because the trailer was good, and once you've started watching it you just want to see the end. It's not Shakespeare, or even anything close. So if you're not doing anything else.

Five Minutes Watching: The A-Team

I don't watch a lot of movies, because I don't have time. But at the end of day of work, then class, then reading for the next class, and writing down what I wrote so I can remember it all, I'll turn on one of them pay channels I have for just such an emergency and catch five minutes of something.


Utilizing my new found freedom, and as a present for doing my homework, and because it was on, I watched the A-Team movie the other night, starring Liam Neeson as the venerable Hannibal Smith. Er, was George Clooney not available? Maybe even Bruce Willis in a bad wig? Because the guys who played Face, Murdock and B.A were on point, but Liam Neeson just looked out of place. Like he was trying too hard. Like he wasn't playing Hannibal, but doing an impersonation of George Peppard as Hannibal. There were times he even looked like Al Bundy playing action hero. And this selection alone lowered the whole thing to parody.

That and the final showdown, but more on that later.

Now, to be clear, the writing for the film version of the A-Team actually wasn't horrible. Considering how bad Hollywood has done some other ideas, a great deal of it actually made "action movie sense", in that it worked as long as it stays in its own little universe.
The trying to "fly the tank" bit was good, and the some of the set pieces were nice, although the obvious (and I mean really obvious) use of CGI kind of snatched away some of the thunder.

But there were one too many coincidences. One too many shots of Liam Neeson looking like he ate something bad. And the use of the new Hollywood hot villain - the rogue agent. Hasn't this character been the antagonist of ALL three Mission Impossible and the Jason Bourne movies, as well as every other spy movie for the past five years? Maybe we could have like a villain type villain going forward. At least James Bond tries to shoot somebody NOT on the same payroll. I will admit it was a nice bit of writing to work the rouge agent trope into the origin story trope, but I'm really kind of tired of that fighting against an insider concept.

That concept, and the way they did the final showdown. First, it was Face's plan and not Hannibal's which was the first problem. Then in the middle of it you have that obviously CGI mess that makes no, and I mean NO sense. I realize there was the ability to print your own money at stake - although how long you could get away with NEW small faced hundreds is anyone's guess, but all the running through the streets shooting at people? The explosions at the end (they blew up a ship!) should garnered some interest, from some kind of law enforcement. Even if they had a stand down order from rogue agent. Somebody should have noticed. Somebody. Anybody?

Five Minutes Watching : Too Big to Fail.

I don't watch a lot of movies, because I don't have time. But at the end of day of work, then class, then reading for the next class, and writing down what I wrote so I can remember it all, I'll turn on one of them pay channels I have for just such an emergency and catch five minutes of something.

William Hurt as Hank Paulson in HBO's "Too Big To Fail"

Hank Paulson sure was great guy. Yeah, right.

One day, when I have time I'm going to go back through and see if this movie was financed by Goldman Sachs. Because in it the masters of modern finance - the aforementioned Goldman - look like ordinary bankers, and their former head, and then Treasury guy Paulson is a selfless paragon of patriotic virtue. Um, you don't get to be the head of Goldman Sachs, the dominant financial beast on Wall Street of the last two decades, by being a selfless paragon of virtue. You just don't.

Other than that, it does a fair job of explaining what happened to cause the failure. And if you watched the last few seconds, yes, that number is about right. That's what Duke and Harvard have it figured at.