22 February 2000

THE STILL BAD: I went to see Boiler Room again over the weekend. As some of you pointed out by e-mail, I wrote about the fact that I had only seen the first two acts of the movie at Sundance. So, I went back, hoping to be more fair about the film. I expected more of the same in the third act. Fast-paced, fact-talking derivative stuff. Eye and ear candy. But I was shocked to find that the third act of the film is actually the worst part of the movie. Writer/Director/Genius-Du-Jour Ben Younger actually slows down the pace so that Boiler Room becomes not only derivative, but boring and pretentious and even more unbelievable than in the first two acts.

This is the Hot Button Challenge for Boiler Room, because I know there are people out there who think this is a good movie. (My apologies to our own Chris Brandon in this regard -- he was not the only one suckered into a glowing review of this one.) What is the point of Boiler Room? What is the message? I'll give something of value to whoever can give me a decent answer to the question.

There are some general spoilers in the next 'graphs, so watch yourself if you want the pure experience. But I can’t really write about what's wrong with this film without exploring what it's about.

Here is what doesn't qualify as a decent answer: "It's this generation's Wall Street/Glengarry Glen Ross." And why isn’t that acceptable? Because it is utter nonsense. The genius of Wall Street was that Oliver Stone took the moment of what was happening on Wall Street and turned it into a metaphor for war that had real ups and real downs. Boiler Room is a movie about people who don't make money for anyone, build their wealth on nothing but illegal scheming and have no moral compass whatsoever. Forget the absurdity of a company like "J.T. Marlin" having existed for years running the scam they run - the scam could only work one time before the house of cards fell in. Where is the challenge to how these guys live? From start to finish, the Giovanni Ribisi character believes that there was no moral ambiguity in running an illegal casino in his house that by definition of being a casino, takes the money out of the pockets of college students who live nearby. Nor is he particularly troubled by the "J.T. Marlin" situation...until he gets caught. The only thing that drives this guy for good or evil is the need for his father's love. Cute, but a cop out. And again, don't get me started on the myriad of coincidences that are required in the third act to bring him to some resolution with his father. Please...about as realistic as flying monkeys, but not remotely as clever a metaphor.

And what of Glengarry? That was a play and a movie about con men who knew 100 percent what they were doing and did it well, but were at the end of their time of being as sharp as steak knives. These were desperate men playing the small con. Each had his own very real personal moral construct. Each was driven by something different. Here, the greatest challenge was envy for the guys who steal real money on Wall Street. None of these characters had anything to lose. Nothing. Except for a particularly lovely sex partner.

Now, I think that Boiler Room could have been a great movie about that. It could have been about a generation that has no foundation and can only imitate that which came before. It could have been about boys driven to have something that really was out of their reach. But it wasn't there in the movie. This is a surface movie. It's always about the suits. So if the guys at "J.T. Marlin" so wanted to be like the guys at J.P. Morgan, why didn't they buy the same suits? And if they wanted to look different, why didn't they buy suits that were really different. No one ever met their clients...they could go to work in jeans if they wanted to...but the issue was never really explored. It was just the easy way to give a bunch of good actors a bunch of loud lines to scream.

And if you are going to try to answer the Hot Button Challenge question, maybe you'll do me the favor of answering these questions too. Why was the receptionist so interested in Ribisi from the start? If the proof that the deals were scams was on the prospectuses, why couldn't the government figure that out on their own? How did the government get a tap on the phone of a sitting judge with no proof he was involved? When Ribisi shuts down the casino because of his employees' incompetence and his presumed inability to hire a new staff he could trust, why does he later claim that he shut it down for his father and why would we believe that? If they train everyone from scratch and these people would all have a hard time getting a job at a "real" brokerage firm, why do they need to be paid double what real brokers get? Why doesn't the Ethan Embry/"J.T. Marlin" character do anything in the movie except provide whores and alcohol? Is Nia Long a slut in this movie or what? If the whole company is about to be shut down, how does the guy who Ribisi is trying to get the money back for actually get his money back, even with a signed "sell" slip and why would stock in the next company be worth a dime? What does Ben Affleck's character do other than give pep talks to the new recruits...this is not a big company?

Look, I understand that the dialogue is cool. And the first two acts move along briskly. But there is nothing new or meaningful in the entire movie. But hey, I'll admit, the scenes of Ribisi on the phone are good. (If you want to see a great phone pitch scene done smartly, rent The New Age and watch Peter Weller find his voice under Sam Jackson's tutelage.) And I've been pushing Nicky Katt since Suburbia. And I was the one who focused on Vin Diesel as The Guy coming out of Saving Private Ryan. Ribisi is a glorious actor. And so is Nia Long…even better if anyone will give her a decent part. But this is a bait-and-switch movie. It's the Cruel Intentions of this year...new director, good and good-looking actors, decent dialogue, no depth. Is it the worst movie I've seen this year? Not close. I don't expect it to be anywhere near my Bottom 10 for 2000. Not in my bottom 30, I imagine. But is it a good movie? No. Like the stocks they sell, it's a sucker bet.

P.S. In the movie, the name "J.T. Marlin" is said to be an attempt to capitalize on the name of J.P. Morgan. However, it seems that Ben Younger had a little more up his sleeve than that. Turns out that John Tepper Marlin was Younger's supervisor in the New York Comptroller's office in 1994 and 1995. Marlin threatened to sue New Line and he settled in less than an hour. Yet another example of Boiler Room being too cute by half.

THE UGLY: The column is already pushing 3000 words for the day, so The Ugly and the rest of the normal Monday features will appear tomorrow. I'm sick of ranting after last week anyway, though maybe I'll rant on Thursday if there's not much news to cover. We'll see. But look for the Miramax Ugly, a golden opportunity, radio show news, a Warren Beatty driven "Just Wondering" and Bad Ad Watch plus more tomorrow.

READER OF THE DAY: TVH writes: "Plenty of people still haven't seen American Beauty and I, for one, am glad it's being re-released. I just saw it for the third and probably last time on the big screen.

If the writer truly believes it to be a great film, they would be running to see it in a theatre again, the way all films should be seen, not just making it "a Blockbuster night".

I really hate that so many people believe seeing it on home video 90% of the time "formatted to fit your screen" with a lower quality picture, etc. is just as good as seeing it in the theatre with other audience members, the way the director intended.

Even with DVD, you're still missing something."

E ME: Do you agree with that sentiment? Anyone going to take up the Hot Button Challenge? Anyone love or hate Hanging Up?