Film Reviews by Tommy

For me, of course my own opinion, this should have won the best picture Oscar. And it had an argument for every category it was nominated. This simple and perhaps stereotypical, even predictable, story and it's characters succeeds in all the right ways. It has everything in good, old cinema. The characters drive the plot and push the themes. The whole feel of this film is what is lacking in cinema. I'm not of the opinion that films aren't good anymore, or that films were better years ago. Partly because i am still younger in age and because i think i am fair in my judgement. But The Holdovers is refreshing in it's nostalgia and homage to the 70s era. The cinematography is incredible. It looks like a 70s film. It feels like a 70s movie.

It is about empathy in the best way, in a positive way. To some empathy may be a bad word, it is not and another conversation, perhaps. This focuses on characters who drive the story. The script slowly reveals their inner pain and with each other they find something, not just to get them through the week, but also something to keep for the future. Hope, memories. Something they may not have had previously or had at the school.

It has everything along the way. Laughs and tears, literally. They clash of course. Particularly student Angus Tully and teacher Paul Hunham. Obviously. And this is a careful story that patiently glides along but within the first few scenes we see, with both of these characters, good and bad. Annoying and likable. We see Paul's infuriatingly stubborn and strict teaching style and personality. We see Angus' rebellion and his own stubbornness as well as his smart and kind character. Paul rips into his students and doesn't let them get away with much. He insists on respecting the rules and traditions of the school and it's curriculum but when the students show disrespect and entitlement he doesn't let it slip. He cares when he seems not to but seems to have little in his own life. Something Angus can relate with. Mary the cook and grieving mother also stays for the holiday. Randolph won an Oscar for this and to be fair she deserved it. Again nothing original or new but like the film she performs the role perfectly. There is a high drama and emotional scene but it sits well in the film. It hits as it should but it also doesn't last for an age. The flow of the film is perfect. There are farcical moments of drama and humour but they're not out of place. Each scene is there for the purpose of character development and to encourage the themes. Simple and obvious, sure. That's why it's good. It's so well directed and edited.

There are similar films in premise but why is that important? This is one the best films i've seen. Certainly of recent years.

This is a film i knew of but never watched. Never come across it on TV but decided to add to my list. I knew of the hype but unsure of the subject. Just not my thing, really, political films.

Without doubt it ticks the boxes of a good film and one that ticks the boxes of the Oscars. I can see why there was hype. However, i found it unmemorable. I kinda wanted it to finish, to see how it ends - i didn't know much about the real events other than a quick search on Wikipedia. It is very well made. The directing it great by Affleck, the actors are great too. The tension is there, the camera, score / music and editing is great, all coming together for a really good drama. There is dread and you fear and care somewhat for the characters. It did the job but i didn't think it did anything new or different. I felt like i had seen it before. I probably had, being Hollywood.

I am a Ben Affleck fan. "Gone baby Gone" is great, and i actually like "Live By Night" - a film i think would have been great with a tweak or two, similar with "Triple 9". With this film he does the right things but didn't give it something else, for me. Was it all him or the script i don't know, i haven't given it loads of thought but that's how i felt watching. I wanted more of a 'heist' in cleverly planning getting the people out, which is kinda what i thought it was. Hollywood marketing, i guess. This is certainly one if you're into political history, and in films.

The irony of Tommy Wiseau and "The Room". He wanted and thought/thinks he is a great thespian. He made a film with a decent amount of money (somehow), which he should have spent or invested in something else, but you have to admire his determination and desire. But it was so bad it made him famous and, eventually, it made money as it became so popular. If you haven't heard of this then look it up and watch clips of the real film on Youtube.

I was hoping for a piss take to be honest but credit to James Franco, really, he focused on the character, his motivation and his love of performing and his determination to succeed. He didn't really but he got something most people won't get despite his massive lack of talent and plain, straight up weirdness. Despite being laughed at by his own crew he carried on. Delusional, sure, but he made a film and became famous. What a nutter but good on him.

There are the expected farce, silly moments. My favourite being during Tommy's (also my name. We took at hit with Wiseau but we have Hardy, Hanks, Holland etc) first scene. He can't remember his lines despite writing the bloody script. They read it out for him ... many times. Then the whole crew, after many, many takes, keep telling him the line. They just want it done and are so happy when it is. Wiseau is delighted, thinking he is James Dean.

This is what Franco focuses on. Wiseau is delusional, talentless, strange but determined, brave and passionate. Just misplaced. He wants to be famous but doesn't recognise he shouldn't be doing it - or should he? It was his own money. He also shows a lack of knowledge of actors, films, and anything to do with making a film like not know what a DOP is. Something a director should know. Was he just naive?

Even though it probably made the film better, focusing on Wiseau and Greg (Dave Franco), the other main actor, i didn't laugh as much as i thought or hoped. I did want more silliness expected from a Franco, Rogen comedy. It's still funny and amusing but i heard better things. This doesn't bring anything new to biopics or this sort of comedy. It could of been funnier, had more drama, been weirder too. Still worth the watch. You shouldn't be let down. At the very least you should watch it for the end credits showing the real scenes from "The Room". Hilarious, but you can get online to be fair.

Essentially a film about the film making process. Which is something that can be pretentious and self indulgent. However for this, and particularly for the horror genre, it makes sense. The journey, for want of a better word, Georges goes on is very much like the making of a film. The inspiration, the desire, the problems and the solutions, plus seeing the reality, good and bad. Georges in the story decides to make a film around this jacket so it's not subtle but is a well made film with a taut script. Naturally not everyone's cup of tea. Like the jacket.

The plot and for the character, Georges is having a midlife crisis. He seems happy and passionate about a deerskin jacket but their may be more to it. Or is the jacket genuinely possessed. This jacket takes over this seemingly crazy guy who spends too much on something that doesn't really go with anything. No one could look good in it. With the jacket he gets a camera which gives him the inspiration of filming himself in the fringe piece of deerskin.

This is a film for you to interpret what it's about but crucially this is unsentimental and made without pretension. It's a fun horror with a light touch of humour. This shows the ridiculous of mostly men who buy random eccentric things they don't need, normally that are expensive. Georges makes strange self destructive decisions along the way. Decisions that escalate like his ensemble - he finds other deerskin clothing, making a whole bloody outfit. He thinks he looks great, the fool. Adele Haenel is Denise who becomes his editor, played with understated charm and determination.

This is pretty daring by the director Dupieux and Dujardin as Georges. What stands out is how this is absurdist and slasher horror, with enough gore to put it along side any other, could easily have been even more out there. "Deerskin" is a tight film in run time and in it's script. It's superbly handled by Dupieux and i'd recommend watching this after Peter Strickland's "In Fabric". There are other similar films but In Fabric is a 2018 film and comes to mind straight away, both could make a decent double feature.

The Coen brothers personally never let me down. They are always a go to, whatever my mood they have a film i can watch irrelevant of how many times i've seen it. They have made all types of genres but their particular style and tone is always a hit. The mix of comedy and drama balanced with the themes and characters being the focus is always spot on. Despite the silly comedy at times there is always a focus and respect on the stories, characters, cinematography, music/score etc. In my opinion of course. With the exception of The Ladykillers.

This is an early film for them. A homage to film noir. This has all of what you expect from noir in the 40s, 50s etc. The awesome thing is this works as it's own film. The characters and plot is clever in it's balance of homage and creativity to be it's own thing. The main thing for that is the brothers' own style. Their humour and technical ability is all there. Not flawless but that doesn't always mean it's not a great film. This is. To make it's point with in the film the violence is hard hitting. It's not constant but when needed it makes the point that the world these gangsters live in is hard. It suggests that the character we follow is in genuine danger, this might not be a happy ending. Good as this can make a story more meaningful and memorable. Apart from The Ladykillers.

I don't think this tries to hard to be really dramatic or funny. I think this picks the tropes and homages at the right times. Millers Crossing also is well paced. It doesn't rush to get everything in or over complicate the plot. It waits that extra beat with the character to have us feel something during the drama consequences or emotional scenes. This also doesn't try to make the characters likable. It shows the flaws. The Coens always do these well. Apart from the Ladykillers.

Martin McDonagh keeps producing these terrific films. Character based stories that are different to anything else. Obviously like anything you can box it up by genre and find films that are similar, but still, his films are refreshing. Refreshing and a delight to watch even though they are mostly sad. They're mostly about sad, lonely characters who get out of their depth somehow or make some choices which don't lead to where they intended. Despite this they are never boring or depressing. Three billboards outside Ebbing, Missouri had a very deep, intense premise and themes. This is smaller in scale but is arguably his saddest yet. But again, don't be put off. It is a thoughtful film with some heartbreaking moments but this makes it meaningful and clever in it's writing, direction, and acting to make this his best film yet. There is arguments for this being the actors' best performances too, more so for Brendan Gleeson, Colin Farrell and Kerry Condon.

This is all based on two guys, one doesn't want to be friends with the other. Basically that's it. The other one doesn't understand why. They have a routine and enjoy each others company, until one doesn't. There is unraveling from there. McDonagh is a master of revealing the characters and their secrets. The plot develops, other characters come into play who are entwined, each with their own intentions and back stories. There is always a point in his films, i'm sure plays too, where it seems like the character(s) won't get out of the hole their in, or the situations won't be resolved but McDonagh finds a why out. Always with creativity and wit. The characters and themes always in sync to give the story meaning and entertainment.

And this certainly has that. At one point in particular comes the impasse. How can this develop? They aren't friends anymore, that's it. But this does turn into something dark, funny and inventive. Remarkable in my opinion for the premise. Then after the impasse one of the characters does something crazy which you can't understand why they've done it. Now this is probably well known but when watching and you don't now it is a "what the hell" moment. Before you can empathise or understand but this takes it to another level. To carry on from there, to care about the characters is terrific writing. There is melodrama without being melodramatic and being hard to watch without being able to look away, while we follow Gleeson and Farrell. Particularly when involving the supporting characters and revealing everyone's reasons for being in the story. Everything in this happens for development of the characters, and therefore the plot. Always entertaining and bold with humour and meaning.

This is a typical David Leitch film, the action is great and has some style, however it's what we've seen before. John Wick, Atomic Blonde, Deadpool 2. Leitch is a stunts guy. A former stuntman, coordinator etc so obviously he shouldn't be something he isn't. Maybe after more experience perhaps but he is one of the best at it. What he lacks is some originality as he makes more films. The action is always great, it looks good, a neo noir style with bright colours, and has comedy, but that's all shallow. This is good but it needs more to it.

The premise, especially here is interesting. On a train with a McGuffin, with a decent cast which allows some varied, eccentric characters in a Tarantino / Guy Ritchie vain. What this lacks is originality and enough of a difference from those two in particular. Tarantino and Ritchie don't particularly offer anything new in terms of tropes, characters or themes, they homage a lot. What they do have is in their own style in modern cinema. Leitch has the fighting and stunt work nailed down with his company 87eleven but the films, this at least, needs more to it. The themes and characterisation is basic. He's one of the go to for action without doubt but i'd like more underneath the action.

The entertainment is there, it's certainly worth watching. However at times my attention anyway wasn't there but when it was i was more than involved. The action and humour was repetitive and when it's limited to a train, albeit a large, fast bullet train, it shows. The emotions and motivations of the characters is too predictable and cliched. I'd like to see more originality to them. The characters are too one dimensional. Once the plot gets set, develops towards halfway it stutters. Yeah there are some reveals but it's nothing new and it's expected.

I really liked it but personally there are so many of these films the genre needs someone other than Tarantino and Ritchie to give it something different. And Ritchie himself needs to adapt his style now. Leitch i hope will not get complacent because he makes some great films in the genre. There needs more variety to the characters and some meaning in the themes. The characters all have their story. Being brothers and having an existential crisis is all good but what is it going to offer us that other films haven't. It doesn't have to be a big, original addition to cinema, a small difference is great too. Like i said it's on the shallow side. People are too swayed by the fast action and witty dialogue but those elements don't always make it good.

Being a story of two young guys who start a arms dealing business during the Iraq war you'd think this would be some sort of satire. This is perfectly set up for one. A hard hitting, fast paced, action comedy. A story that can break the fourth wall - here there is a voice over, and it does try to keep the pace up. I was hoping for something like The Big Short on the war and arms dealing, the greed taking advantage of war.

But the script for this is basic. War Dogs goes somewhat into the dodgy dealings they get into, the obvious greed and lack of guilt, or even acknowledgement of the law breaking, particularly by Jonah Hill's Efraim. Efraim has a funny laugh the first, maybe second time but by the fifth and sixth it becomes boring. This doesn't show much profound message or point. By the director of The Hangover, you can expect the same humour. I don't think Todd Philips is wrong for the film, on the contrary. The irreverence is sometimes the best way to show the petty but also serious greed and corruption during wars. But War Dogs falls short in just focusing on the shallow. There is a focus on Miles Teller as David and his young family. Ana De Armas is great as his girlfriend but underused and underwritten. It shows David's motivation to make money for her and their young baby despite both being against the war. This soon get forgotten somewhat, fair enough as greed steps in etc, but again, the themes are underwritten. The direction always goes back to the type of jokes seen in The Hangover. The actors aren't bad but the film is a basic story. Amusing but nothing underneath or original.

This has a great cast including a Brad Pitt cameo. Action comedies like this normally for me aren't that good but occasionally they're good. A lot include Sandra Bullock and Channing Tatum. You'd think this would be light in it's comedy and action but fun with something, maybe small, to make it slightly different to others of it's similarity. This is not that. Nothing in this would make me recommend it unless you just want to make your own mind up. Go for it if so, that's what i did, but i wish i didn't. This has good reviews elsewhere and i don't understand why.

It has a vaguely amusing premise, and obviously with the cast, that's the appeal. But the action is over the top without executing the jokes and with nothing we haven't seen before. The jokes are poor. The romantic plot is annoying. 'Red Notice' with Ryan Reynolds, Gal Gadot and Dwayne Johnson is something fairly similar that is a better watch, although i wouldn't call that a particularly good film but miles better than this. Reynolds would have made this better in my opinion though. He adds a star to literally any comedy. This script seems an early draft to me and needed another writer and a different director to give it something else to make it interesting.

As i was watching the opening scenes of the first episode i felt unsure, i heard of the hype surrounding this and i read about it online. It was by Scorsese. That was enough for me, to be fair. It had me with his name. So i was excited and maybe that's why maybe i felt unsure of it's quality. There was obvious CGI and maybe it was a little too what i expected, bottles of liquor being smuggled during prohibition into Atlantic City - maybe a little reason i was unsure, i wanted New York or Chicago perhaps. Steve Buscemi as the main character was an appeal for me, he wasn't the problem, Michael Pitt maybe?. But anyway i was wrong, it just took me a little time to get into the rhythm. I should have watched the episode again but after 10 minutes i was hooked and didn't look back.

The Boardwalk of Atlantic City has a fair bit of CGI but only where it needs. Regardless it is consistent in it's design and looks awesome. It's glossy and stylish but realistic and provocative too. The whole production matches perfectly, music, costume, the lot, seriously cool and means business. It doesn't rush anything, the story follows the characters who drive the plot.

Steve Buscemi is an amazing actor and this role as Enoch 'Nucky' Thompson is written for him (not sure if it was literally was). Boardwalk Empire doesn't hide the fact that he is fairly complicated. It shows all the sides to him which is able to show Buscemi's wit and ability to be nasty too, to turn with in seconds in the corrupted world where greed drives most, with varying degrees of success. Kelly McDonald as Margaret Schroeder is there to give us a moral center, to be along side us as we into the murky, gritty duel world of violence and lavish 20s luxuries. But even with the down to earth Margaret, she gets drawn in and is shown to have more to her, albeit with a desire to give herself and children a better life. Michael Pitt is the co-lead to be fair as James 'Jimmy' Darmody. He is someone who starts at the bottom, working for Nucky. With a young family, he wants to provide. Pitt took a little time to realise that he is crucial to this series success. Through the episodes it becomes somewhat disappointing when he isn't on screen. Jimmy isn't unlike Leo DiCaprio in 'Gangs of New York'. The writing keeps up it's high standard as it progresses. And Michael Shannon ... need i say more. He is playing a type of character he is known for but this was 10+ years ago now. Such intensity but shows duality, again. Oh, and Stephan Graham is another who's name should be a reason to watch. Awesome as a younger Al Capone starting out just like Jimmy.

This genre is common, particularly of this period, some great, other not so much. Films and TV series. A reason, for me, is they can begin focused on characters but lose that perspective as it progresses. Some try to fit too much in and try too hard to be fast and cool. The balance of style and grittiness isn't always on point. They skip across years which in a film is probably a reason it loses the edge. Boardwalk Empire is sometimes slow but in a focused, thoughtful way. It knows what it wants, is aiming for. It doesn't rush to make it's point and yet it doesn't get bogged down. The characters are set in an interesting story with a perspective and motivation, but that gets twisted later on. The continuation is amazing for a series of 12 episodes. This is violent, it has style but it doesn't glorify anything. It shows some romanticism, if the right word, but it has to be entertaining. We have to follow these characters in this world. It shows consequences but doesn't particularly tell the audience to judge. We know what is right and wrong but this is attentive on the grey areas, the ambiguity, in a large operating scale of Nucky's business, and in the characters minds and relationships.

This is up there with any series. Better than most actually. This is driven by the characters. Shootin' up gangsters and looking good doin' it.

This is, despite a two star rating by myself, worth the watch. The Chicago gangster 50s era thriller is classy, and being in two rooms of a tailor shop, efficiently made. The acting is mostly very good, lead by Mark Rylance who is, as always, exceptional. Visually and in it's concept it has life. It's likable, watchable. This could easily be a theatre production, i have little knowledge of plays, or perhaps there is one somewhere that's similar. The play type concept of being in two rooms over a night makes it both intriguing but i find it can hold itself back too. Like i said it's worth it but lacks in areas that matter, for me.

The script, mostly. The Outfit is lacking in areas to make it a really good film. It is missing the deeper themes to give it more meaning. This is written with everything in mind - the characters have motivations and fears, a twist, it has tension and conflict but it's too on the nose. The Outfit doesn't have a profound edge. The focus is too on building for the twists and turns, something it does well but i would've liked a bit more underneath. Essentially this is about the film making process, a common trope or story telling device. Using and highlighting the art of cutting as means to show us the process of both. The extreme organisation of Rylance's character shown at the beginning is absorbing to watch.

Soon the organised world of Rylance's Leonard and Zoey Deutch's dreamer Mable is turned upside down by some gangsters who come to Leonard for their suits. Mable dreams of seeing the world, she believes she can achieve more, have a better more interesting life. The two have a sort of father / daughter relationship but this isn't particularly explored. Mable has a eye for Dylan O'Brien's gangster which has some consequences as the plot gets going. Zoey Deutch is very good but is given little or cliched dialogue which is a shame. Deutch has charm and is likable, she has humour and a kind of playfulness. I would have liked to have seen her given more to do, Mable a bit too on the nose for her motivations. She needed something different, an edge, something the other characters have to a point. Deutch could bring something different to these genres. Buffaloed (2019) for example showed she is an interesting actor.

But these character relationships is only touched upon, the thriller plot takes over building towards twists and narratives techniques. Which did leave me disappointed and is the difference between a good film and great one. The score, costume design, production design and photography is excellent throughout, though.

This is a must see. This is not a perfect film and it's not a thrilling watch the whole way through. It's not particularly original or an inventive story. But this is Wes Anderson's first feature. That alone should be reason to watch, it is worth it for a fan of his or not. It's Wes Anderson, not everyone, naturally is going to be a fan but he is an important director. This is a charming story of some idiots who have a plan to make money, although the main motivation is probably an immature one to become criminals, but this ends up as a quirky, kinda coming of age story.

Most people i think, like myself, would have seen Anderson's later work before this, so it is interesting to watch, to see how he has developed his career and style that he is so famous for. To see where he started, if he always began with the same quirky style in story, characters and visually too. Naturally this being his first is lower budget so it doesn't have the production design that is so eccentrically Anderson - the bold colours in particular. This has the photography though. The symmetry and framing is there. So too Owen and Luke Wilson. Bottle Rocket is certainly Anderson as we know him, just a smaller scale version.

Importantly the characters and themes are quintessential Anderson. This is a well meaning, funny story of two, at times three, ultimately troubled and sad friends trying to make more for themselves and each other. They are idiots so it doesn't go well. One finds love, it's arguably soppy but it's likable and sweet, just like all his films. This is a focused story, if a little slow and it slightly drags during the characters laid back period at a cross roads, do they go back or gamble to carry on the "plan". The Texas setting is a great pairing for the unsure decisions they have to make to get out of the whole they have found themselves, during the middle of the film. There isn't much to fill the screen at times, fields and sandy roads around a typical, basic American motel but it is beautifully filmed for a low budget, representing their empty lives, possibly, or the thrill they need. Both, different for each character. There are classic Anderson action moments too - a few heist/robberies and a chase, which again in it's low budget, is effective and efficient. The drama and comedy is both light but with meaning to the characters.

This isn't rock solid throughout, you may have to stick with it but it has clever moments that are expertly created and handled by Anderson. A story similar to the Coens, both whose films never let me down.

These types of sports films, films in general really, a comedy about underdogs particularly with disabilities are mostly sentimental. Gladly, for me, this isn't. This is so incredibly feel good, funny, likable and unsentimental, it felt refreshing. I was pretty skeptical and was sure it would be. Teenagers and young adults, with various disabilities and a passion for basketball in a small town, get a new coach who has lost his good reputation and then his passion, reluctantly takes the job. How wrong.

It has all the ingredients of a sentimental, predictable film - the passionate players without much talent, but one who has all the talent and won't direct it for the team/coach, a coach with a bad reputation and/or drink issue, plus higher people possibly owners getting in their way to win for whatever reason. Normally included is the coach or player, after success, having an opportunity to move to the big leagues putting the teams success in jeopardy in the process. Include a love interest to sometimes be the Yoko but not in this case, thankfully.

Woody Harrelson is that coach, played with his typical rough charm and cynical comedy timing. All the players who have disabilities in real life are amazing. They play the comedy to perfection and the light drama is superbly acted, with a focus on two or three more of course for narrative reasons. The direction is brilliant too, so well handled. This seemed to be made with a positive energy and just a focus on making a fun movie to show what a passion for a sport can do whatever your ability. A great message without being teaching you anything.

Make no mistake this does have predictability but for me this was still refreshing, and in places didn't have quite the predictable moments you think. The script is spot on. This keeps you hooked, no doubt. The comedy is great and is clever to pick the right moments for it. There is drama but it's fairly light, and when it comes to the off the court drama between the characters it is arguably realistic, especially for what you'd expect. On it is firmly fun first. Both a decent example of unsentimentality.

Farrelly keeps the balance for both humour and conflict. The relationship between Harrelson and Kaitlin Olsen as a big sister has clashes in personalities and decisions but an example of not over doing it, it stops short of getting bogged down in the drama.

This is a must watch whatever films you're into, sports fan or not give this a chance. It won't let you down.

Adam Driver has an impressive filmography, no doubt. From smaller parts where he efficiently shines, in Lincoln, Frances Ha and Inside Llewyn Davis, to post Star Wars where he has bigger roles to incredible effect, Paterson, Silence, Logan Lucky, BlacKkKlansman, Marriage story, The Last Duel and House of Gucci, among others. He as shown range and worked with some of the best directors working today. Driver shows empathy and humbleness whatever the character he plays, like Silence to Gucci, different characters but his casting in them is irreplaceable. He has an incredible likability and obviously is careful to choose the next film, taking advantage of his success to work with some great film makers, actors and scripts etc. So this ultimately lifeless, poor script makes it so surprisingly disappointing.

This is an action film with some emotion inbetween the character driven dramas he usually does. That's fair enough, mix it up but this is blip on paper for Driver. The script is underwritten or more likely unfocused and unsure what to focus on. There is some of everything a sci fi is expected to be, world building of environment and technology, back story and flashbacks linked to the emotional drive, plus action heavy set pieces showing off some special effects. However it is unsure on which to narrow in on. Driver and his young co star are good but let down by this. After a beginning with potential the effects are unremarkable, the world building including technology from the future is not expanded upon in an interesting way, and along side the characters' drive and motivation could have been intriguing if not for the generic seen it before emotional tropes. The attempt of atmosphere and tension is average with Driver leading it but unable to make it better on his own and deserved better. And ultimately the action with dinosaurs is a let down, with an ending that seems lazily written and directed. The premise is enticing and with all the past films of this sub-genre this had to be better than this. It had to offer more but certainly didn't.

Story of stock of Gamestop, a video game shop found in a shopping center and high street, where a youtube streamer sees the stock is being deliberately driven down so already rich guys can profit causing many average income people to lose money. Paul Dano decides he can make money himself if many people go in on shares with him, basically. Everyone thinks he's mad, he's convinced. And in 'The Big Short' style we see the story unfold as he stands up to the big hedge fund investment firms, while we follow normal people who invest because of his word on the live streams, and naturally it doesn't result in instant success, plus the morally questionable, sometimes illegal, responses of the firms.

This may need some knowledge before hand to watch, especially at the beginning as you get into the flow, as this is fast paced - needed due to the subject. Personally, i had some knowledge and read about it before avoiding spoilers where i could. This i recommend. Not necessarily the story of gamestop and Kieth Gill (Dano) but of investing stocks and shares. Not for long but just the basics. This gets into it from the start without telling you explicitly how it works as Dano and his mate chat about Gamestop. The friend thinks he's throwing away money, Gill won't even buy a more expensive beer.

Through the film they tell us what they're on about but to be honest most of you know about stocks and shares, and most of us don't know much about the investment and financial world of 'short squeezing'. But we know it is a corrupt world, morally and legally. Most of us will gather what is going on as we watch. The film makers knew the audience wouldn't have the patience to learn and then watch the drama. This gets to it in a high pace, the weeks and months pass quick as we watch the stock rise and fall. The obvious inspiration in The Big Short. Dumb Money is a little brother, or sister if you will. The same irreverent humour, tone and pace is applied here. To varying degrees of success but for me, mostly enjoyable. Similar overall realism is there too, reminding us of real people sometimes lose their money which changes their lives. The difference with The Big Short and this is people in Dumb Money are choosing to invest money and know the risk. I do the same IRL. ONLY SPOILER - The real Gill came away really nicely but he took risk. Kieth Gill lead the uprising. He convinces the masses to stand up to the greed of bully investment firms. The gamestop stock being a once every few years opportunity to do so. This doesn't happen often so take the risk, he says (paraphrasing).

This is a solid if unremarkable telling of this subject and kept my interest. Focusing on Gill and his motivations for risking his mortgage, future etc, with a wife and child. He is a middling financial advisor approaching middle age, a formally fairly successful runner, and crucially to the character had a sibling who died. It's not a biopic or a remarkable story but Dano is so good. A quirky character who is looking to make an impact in his field, his brother less obviously motivated. The rest of the cast a solid too, showing greed with an eccentric sense of humour, mostly, balanced to keep the reality in sight.