willpageauthor

Okay, a case of two scores. The opening scene makes you buckle up, big time. Not just for an appreciation of the scenery of Yosemite, but the pioneering cinematography used to capture it. If this show goes mainstream, then the national parks are going to need a bigger car park as its a great advert for John Muir's legacy. Fine, now the tricky bit is the plot which, in a now classic Netflix fashion, is rushed, convulted and badly acted. At points it looks like a first-time 'take one' effort to utter the lines. You want it to work and you enjoy watching it almost work but, by the end, your head is full of 'what was that storyline doing there' and not 'full of suspence' as intended. It's good, and its better than average but Netflix has a tendency of knocking these out and it is getting too predictable. Scenery saves day - highly recommended for that alone.

There's a lot of 10/10 reviews up here, but I beg to differ, and left the cinema feeling shortchanged. I'll do this so you can emphasise me yet without giving spoilers.

No doubt, the performance of Fernando Torres isn't just exceptional, it's real. There are scenes of motherhood, such as the dining table, where you are sitting there with her and her family - like a fly on the wall Her elegance amplifies her dress code during the first third of the film as each costume helps take you back fifty five years in time. All of the acting benefits from the 'grainy' camera work which underlines the era, and a nod goes to the camera-in-camera scenes where the family film each other.

But.

Whereas the cast hold your hand for the first two-thirds of the film, they let go in the final third in a way that's unfortunate. The director's choice to move the timeline so dramatically, so suddenly, and without justification - and to do so twice - was a huge mistake. You are jolted from a film about patience like you've skipped chapters of a book needlessly and come out feeling short changed. What's more, little time is spent explaining the politics of the region (which is fine when you have Torres taking the lead) but gets exposed when you "jolt" the timeline so much.

I left feeling very short changed - a great two thirds of a movie ruined by a final third which hadn't been thought out. I learned little about Brazil at the time and never got the context to admire and appreciate her legacy. Real shame.

A niche film with a niche audience and it is time well spent for those who want to reflect on one of capitalisms craziest turns during the pandemic.

The cast is impressive, even more so when you already know the real cast of characters involved. If Ken Griffin is suing Sony for the way he was portrayed, that's a good sign the depictions are fair. Several storylines are threaded together to capture the street-level backgrounds of retail traders. One of the most powerful is nurse working all hours during lockdown, who saw her fortunes twist and turn every time she glared into her phone. You emphasise with her, as her essential work was undervalued almost as much as her punt on GameStop was overvalued.

Lead actor Paul Dano (Keith Gill, aka Roaring Kitty) carries the film impressively - sure, it's a little bumpy, but then again so is the story. Perhaps a downside is the vague portrayal of the 'other' bankers, and while I found the quality of music to be impressive (we're talking hits), some reviewers found this to be divisive.

Robin Hood is here to stay, and that makes this film important. The role of retail traders continues to grow, and the relevance of this film will grow with it. Contentious and controversial, sure - but undervalued as IMDb reports that it cost $30m but has only grossed $20m - so ironically, it's under-water. I still like the stock. Hold.