slythinker

Don't waste your money on this flick: you'll feel just as scammed as the marks to whom Jordan Belfort peddled his worthless penny stocks. There is no depth to this story whatsoever. The plot is a trite, predictable morality tale and the characters are one-dimensional. DiCaprio is entirely unconvincing in this role. The only redeeming qualities of this film are a few laughs and lots of scantily clad hot bodies. You'll get much better bang for your buck (and better return on your time investment) by renting a 15-minute porno.

Minimum reviews on IMDb are 10 lines. This movie isn't worth that many,so here's a taste of the filler that pads it: Drugs, Sex, Drugs, Sex, Drugs, ... get the picture?

This movie is a good basic primer about the financial crisis of 2008 for those who haven't really been following this story and have little or no financial knowledge. The official description promises that if you get angry when you think about the crisis, you're going to get even angrier after you watch the movie. It delivers on that promise. Several of the interview scenes also deliver a few good laughs. The movie's main strength is the way it explores academia's contribution to the collapse. It exposes the conflict of interest of academics who are supposed to be independent, expert voices in the field but who derive the bulk of their very lucrative incomes from paid consulting engagements on behalf of the financial services industry. This is an angle I hadn't seen covered before.

It also illustrates how little has changed in the American financial world, despite Obama's rhetoric. Rather than being held accountable for their role in the collapse, many of its architects remain in key positions of power

On the downside, the movie oversimplifies the causes of the crisis. It focuses primarily on deregulation and Wall Street's incentive structure and culture of reckless risk-taking and lax morals and ethics. It also briefly mentions poor risk assessments by credit rating agencies and predatory lending, without really explaining what it was or getting into any depth on the matter.

Sub-prime lending was mentioned only in a very cursory manner. There was no mention of the Clinton Administration's push for sub-prime lending to expand mortgage loans to low and moderate income people.

There was no mention of the Federal Reserve's contribution to the housing bubble as a result of it's policy to ease credit conditions in the early 2000s to soften the impact of the collapse of the dot com bubble and the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

There was no mention of the shadow banking system; how it contributed to the crisis and how it greatly amplified the losses.

There was no mention of David X. Li's Gaussian copula formula and how it was used by credit rating agencies to justify AAA ratings for collateralized debt obligations (CDOs) that consisted of baskets of higher risk debt instruments.

I expected more from a full-length feature documentary. I've seen TV shows that delved into greater depth on this issue. This movie pushes the right emotional buttons but ultimately, it's light fare for those on a low-intellect diet.

This is a biopic about how King George VI, the father of Queen Elizabeth II, overcame his stuttering problem. Widely considered by all but his father unfit to be king, George is reluctantly thrust unto the throne and into the spotlight after his brother is forced to abdicate. Overshadowed on the global stage by powerful orators like Adolph Hitler and Benito Mussolini, the King relies on the help of a little-known Australian speech therapist named Lionel Logue to find his voice and courageously lead his people into the most devastating war humanity has ever faced.

This is a powerful, hilarious and deeply moving story, told against the backdrop of a critical juncture in modern history, of the emergence of a deep friendship out of a professional relationship between two men who would otherwise never have socially interacted. The screenplay, written by David Seidler (who also wrote Tucker: The Man and his Dream), is excellent. The dry British wit is hilarious. I was literally slapping my knee during some of the scenes. Tom Hooper (Elizabeth I) does a superb job directing this movie. The buildup to the climactic finale is skillfully executed and prompted the audience to erupt into spontaneous applause. (Apparently, this also happened at the Roy Thomson Hall premiere.) Geoffrey Rush (Elizabeth: The Golden Age) does a fantastic job as Lionel Logue and Colin Firth (A Single Man) is excellent as King George VI.

I saw the second public screening of this movie at the Ryerson Theater during the Toronto International Film Festival (TIFF). Tom Hooper was present to introduce the movie. He was joined by Colin Firth and Geoffrey Rush after the movie ended for a brief Q&A.

It turns out that David Seidler also had a stuttering problem as a child and drew inspiration from the king's struggle. Early in his career he wanted to write a screenplay about it. He dutifully asked the Queen Mother for permission. She agreed but told him "not in my lifetime". Little did he know she would live to be 101 and he would have to wait another 30 years.

Another interesting tidbit we learned was that near the end of the shoot, the crew finally located one of Lionel Logue's grandsons, who just so happened to live about 10 minutes away from the director. They got access to Lionel's diaries and correspondence and managed to incorporate some of it into the script.

This movie is an unqualified must see.