Robert De Niro has sunk to a new low

Zac Efron and Robert De Niro exert energy in "Dirty Grandpa." Image courtesy Lionsgate.

I have no idea why Robert De Niro chose to participate in “Dirty Grandpa.” I doubt very much that he needs a cash influx – being Robert De Niro creates access to choice roles not offered to the Burt Reynolds of the world. There is a chance De Niro just likes these types of films – he did star in multiple “Meet the Parents” flicks over the years – although his palpable boredom and sincere lack of effort on screen makes that a no. Maybe he just wanted to exchange lazy innuendo with Aubrey Plaza, which, really, is difficult to fault a person for doing at all. Whatever the reason may be, the result is a dreadful film that has one of the greatest cinematic figures repeatedly jamming his thumb up Zac Efron's butt and dropping a lot of discomfiting racist and homophobic humor because why not.

Before all of that happens though, De Niro's Dick Kelly is mourning the loss of his beloved wife, who died after a very long battle with cancer. Supposedly grief stricken, De Niro recruits his grandson Jason (Efron), a young lawyer at his father's (Dermot Mulroney) firm, to drive with him from Atlanta to Boca Raton Florida to play a little golf and bond. It’s worth nothing that this plan, for whatever reason, takes place a week before Efron's wedding to stereotypical controlling fiance Meredith (Julianne Hough).

De Niro’s plan gets derailed once he and Efron encounter college students Plaza (about a decade too old for this role, but whatever), Bradley (Jeffrey Bowyer-Chapman, also a decade too old for his part) and Efron's former classmate/token love interest Shadia (Zoey Deutch, actually the appropriate age for her part) heading to Daytona Beach for spring break weekend.  De Niro really, really wants to spend some quality time with Plaza, and coerces Efron to head to the beach for a weekend of debauchery. There they encounter irascible drug dealer Pam (Jason Mantzoukas), LAX bros Cody and Brah (Jake Picking and Michael Hudson, respectively) and some morally squiffy cops (Mo Collins and Henry Zebrowski), among others. Such racism, along with shenanigans involving penises, drawings of penises, sexual harassment, drugs, booze, flexing, punching and everything else that happens during an average weekend in Florida, ensue.

Something “Dirty Grandpa” deserves credit for is delivering exactly what the previews and title promise; De Niro saying and doing filthy, disgusting things. For anyone who wants to see Jimmy Conway do such things, this is probably the best opportunity he or she will ever have to witness such things, regardless of how effective Jake LaMotta is at actually performing it. The answer to that remains to be determined; as mentioned above, De Niro really isn't putting in that much effort into this one – even his emotional scenes underwhelm – so he gets a begrudging incomplete. It is, however, fair to provide an “F” to the person who decided to cast young Vito Corleone as the comedic driving force for this film.

I'd say De Niro doesn't quite fit this type of film, but I'm not sure the filmmakers (director Dan Mazer and writer John Phillips) are up to the task of serving a proper film. The plot, which is trite and obvious, makes zero sense and stretches the limits of credulity frequently. There are also a number of weird plot holes that need filling in, most notably how Efron and Deutch could have taken a class together when the former is an established attorney and the latter hasn't graduated college. Add to that some noticeable continuity errors and frequent syncing issues with the audio, and you have yourself a rather lovely mess of a film.

A comedy can overcome such issues, although a movie does actually have to be funny to do so. I shouldn't say “Dirty Grandpa” is a dire film that acts as a sinkhole for jokes – humor is subjective after all – but  I can say whatever laughs are to be found in this film are based on stereotypes, sexual anatomy, De Niro, or some combination of the three. In other words, it's not very inventive, although neither is the depiction of women as, to put it uncomfortably bluntly, sluts, saints and shrews. “Dirty Grandpa” aims for the reliable lowest common denominator and strikes gold at the expense of social progress, the state of comedy, and De Niro's dignity, or at least what's left of it.

Rating: One and a half out of Five Stars

Click here to see the trailer.

Rating: R

Run time: 102 minutes

Genre: Comedy

Ask Away

Target audience: Anyone who wants to watch Robert De Niro curse wantonly.

Take the whole family?: An onslaught of junk shots makes this rather inappropriate for kids, so keep anyone below their mid teens at home.

Theater or Netflix?: Netflix and other streaming options only if you must.

What does work in 'Dirty Grandpa'?: A couple of jokes do land to bump it from miserable to just bad, and Jason Mantzoukas and Aubrey Plaza are both very game, even if the former's character belongs in a radically different film. Despite my reservations about this film, “Dirty Grandpa,” somehow, could've been a whole lot worse.

Watch this instead?: You're better served checking out a couple of movies featuring the stars of “Dirty Grandpa.” Both “Neighbors” (which has Mantzoukas and Zac Efron) and “The To Do List” (featuring Plaza) are silly, gross-out comedies, but they're smarter than expected and much better executed than this one.

Reveling in the little victories

A scene from the film "Mustang." Image courtesy Cohen Media.

“Mustang” begins with the coda for what the film will be about, a simple statement delivered by a young girl in a way that belies the cruelty and sadness that will follow. Like the film, the girl tosses off the misery to come with a verbal shrug and and underlying sense of acceptance for the darkness that lies ahead. Yet the matter-of-fact nature of the comment also hints at the possibility the girl will not go into the dark without a fight.

Before all of that though things start off well for the sisters in “Mustang.” Lale (Günes Sensoy), Nur (Doga Doguslu), Ece (Elit Iscan), Selma (Tugba Sunguroglu) and Sonay (Ilayda Akdogan) engage in some mild capers on the way home to their small Turkish village for the summer, swimming with boys and stealing apples from a farm. Their playfulness is seen in a rather different light by their grandmother (Nihal Koldas), who lashes out at them for upsetting the very strict conventions embraced by their village. The situation gets worse once their uncle Erol (Ayberk Pekcan) gets wind of their actions, resulting in the start of a film-long revamp of the home into a prison, or “wife factory” as Lale says in the voice-over. The girls are forced to wear more conservative clothing and spend their days training with their aunts to become wives in lieu of an education. Tired of being locked up, the sisters sneak out of the house one night to catch a joyous soccer game and are punished with more bars and the beginning of the end of the fun times. The family starts auctioning off the sisters to families as young wives, and it only gets worse as their chances of escaping the fate that befell their aunts and the women in the family before them decrease.

“Mustang” sells itself as a drama, but it is at heart a horror film in which the girls are picked off one by one until the final girls remain alone in a foreboding, loveless place. The situation is quite horrifying as the family marries the girls off with no regard to choice, happiness or even basic compatibility; the sales pitches are short and conducted around the bride and the groom, who can only sit and watch their future unravel before them. It's not as if the girls are safe even after marriage; as the film shows, failure to live up to the contract could easily result in death. The odds are perpetually against these girls, whether it's within the family – Pekcan's Erol makes for a terrific horror villain – or outside of the prison built to keep them in. Director Deniz Ergüven and screenwriter Alice Winocour set an atmosphere where even the voices on television enforce the societal rules made to keep women from expressing any semblance of independence. A small act of freedom in “Mustang” is enough to justify increasing levels of security, and it's always the girls who are at fault in a situation; boys are viewed more like victims or at worst scamps by their peers.

Life is stacked against the girls in “Mustang,” although the film does all it can to paint these girls as the smartest ones in the room. They are equal turns daring, mischievous, clever, silly and resourceful when need be. Most importantly, they aren’t afraid of the consequences for spending a night out at a soccer game or sneaking off for a night with a boyfriend; those risks are just part of playing the game, and they know it’s better to do something rather than stay inside their prison all day. To paraphrase the motivation one sister has for attending the fateful soccer game, some action is always preferable to inaction.

And that's why “Mustang” is often heartbreaking; watching the girls lose hurts every single time, and even the ending doesn't offer easy answers. Ergüven and Winocour establish the hell out of the sisters' relationship without overdoing it; they let the relationship build through the realistic little moments, whether it's splashing about in the water or getting into petty arguments siblings (especially sisters) engage in. It's a sad enough film based on the situation, but Ergüven and Winocour care enough about their characters to make viewers feel miserable when they fail and rapturous when they win.

Review: Four and a half out of Five Stars

Click here to see the trailer.

Rating: PG-13

Run time: 97 minutes

Genre: Drama

Ask Away

Target audience: Teen to tween girls, along with anyone interested in a well-made drama.

Take the whole family?: Some mild cursing and a rather shocking moment ensure kids younger than 10 will have issues with it.

Theater or Netflix?: Theater if you can find it in the area; otherwise wait for home rental.

Is the film culturally condescending?: Not necessarily. “Mustang” very much does look down on the early wedding practice, but it leaves much sympathy for the girls and for the older women who went through it as well. The grandmother and the girls' aunts aren't portrayed as monsters like Erol is; they're doing what they can to prepare their nieces for what they think is important to know about life. One of the aunts even goes to extreme (and humorous) measures to protect her nieces from what would have been violent repercussions.

Watch this as well?: There is a bit of Ingmar Bergman's “Fanny and Alexander” in “Mustang.” The former features children whose happy lives are uprooted due to tragic circumstances and are then forced to live in a dour, detrimental environment. “Fanny and Alexander” also has one of the best Christmas celebrations ever depicted on film.

Stay away from 'Norm of the North'

Rob Schneider voices Norm in "Norm of the North." Image courtesy Lionsgate.

I'm not even sure where to begin with “Norm of the North.” I just do not know where to start with this wretched, aesthetically hideous little film guided by intellectual laziness and a star best known for making copies. “Norm of the North” represents much of what’s wrong with children's entertainment and movies. It fails on almost every conventional level, but does so in the least entertaining fashion possible. It's less of a train wreck than a toy locomotive spinning its wheels sideways on the edge of the track that was never going anywhere anyway.

“Norm of the North” is about a polar bear named Norm voiced poorly by Rob Schneider. Norm is special because he can talk to humans, just like his missing grandfather (poor Colm Meaney), so he's not really all that special, but whatever; it's the closest the film gets to offering him some semblance of uniqueness. He usually doesn’t employ his gift of gabbing with humans (although he converses interminably with everything else), but he is required to use that talent to save his arctic home from evil rich fellow Mr. Greene (Ken Jeong) who plans to build condos on the North Pole. For reasons that are known to somebody else, the mission to save his home takes Norm to New York City, where he pretends to be human and auditions to become the new corporate spokesperson and work with Mr. Greene’s morally conflicted assistant Vera (Heather Graham).

The plan, apparently, is for Norm to become so popular people will listen to him speak out against building in the arctic. It’s an exceptionally terrible idea and it backfires magnificently for obvious reasons. So Norm then has to do a few things to create a happy ending that saves his home, ruins Mr. Greene’s plans, brings Vera closer to her daughter Olympia (Maya Kay), saves his grandfather, and offers enough time for the stupid polar bear to dance. There are also lemmings involved in all of this; three awful, annoying, insipid lemmings who try ever so hard to pass themselves off as non-union Minions.

“Norm of the North” isn't as awful as it sounds; it's far, far worse. It's a garbage film made by clueless people and carried by a man whose most discernible talent is a grand ability to annoy. “Norm of the North” is an endeavor that feels as if it lasts forever but somehow can't even make it to the 90 minute mark. And, really, there isn't enough of a plot for the movie to make it that far; the film includes two sequences that repeat scenes from earlier in the movie and seven (seven!) soul-sucking dance sequences, including three in the first act. The filmmakers even toss one in after what could have been a tolerable ending because kids needed to see Norm do the so-called Arctic Shake dance routine one last time. The flashbacks and the numerous dance sequences are indicative of an undercurrent of laziness that carries “Norm of the North” to its uneventful, anticlimactic denouement. The jokes are frequently scatological in the least interesting fashion possible, or are outright stolen from films like “Austin Powers.” Much of what isn’t potty humor is weird in a discomfiting manner; there’s just something off about watching an orca consume a seal right after a dance scene. There's no real thought put into this film, no consideration for children's intelligence or their ability to pick things up instead of having characters just vomit out plot points via characters who never shut up. Schneider's Norm just chatters through this movie like a myna bird on pep pills, and what he has to say has less value than what the speed-addled bird would spew.

And yet “Norm of the North” still can't talk itself out of the abundance of plot holes that only strengthen the vortex of suck. The plot makes zero sense logistically and logically and requires far more complications than just having Norm come out as a polar bear who speaks human (human meaning English, because of course it does).

The stupidity this film possesses is mind boggling and frightening, and it treats the children it wants to entertain as dolts. The thing of it is, kids are not stupid; they can figure out emotional nuance and plot machinations without too much help from an adult. Then again, perhaps “Norm of the North” isn’t condescending to viewers; rather, the film needs to announce what’s happening so it knows what’s going on.

Review: A Half out of Five Stars

Click here to see the trailer.

Rating: PG

Run time: 86 minute

Genre: Animated

Ask Away

Target audience: Suckers.

Take the whole family?: Technically it is family friendly, although it doesn't quite work for the youngest set due to some poorly done adult humor.

Theater or Netflix?: No. Just no.

Does “Norm of the North” do anything right?: I kept the half star in there because there is a nugget of an interesting idea in using the condo scheme as a comment on gentrification. The execution fails miserably because this movie lacks the most basic levels of competency, but that little bit is just enough to keep it from getting a complete zero.

Watch this instead?: Almost anything else. To be more specific, watch the tremendous Cartoon Network show “Steven Universe.” An average episode – all of 11 minutes – has more heart, laughs and vibrancy than anything “Norm of the North” has to offer.

The perils of violating nature

Leonardo DiCaprio stars in "The Revenant." Image courtesy 20th Century Fox.

Nature is a cruel, beguiling presence in “The Revenant.” It’s a being capable of inflicting great pain upon Leonardo DiCaprio's ill-fated Hugh Glass or providing the perfect situation for revenge, and does so while remaining neutral to the conflicts taking place within it. Nature’s fickle and complex, making it the most well-rounded being “The Revenant” has to offer, which is less an insult toward the film than a reflect of director and co-writer Alejandro González Iñárritu's view on mankind's lack of importance in the grand scheme of things.

The men in “The Revenant” aren't exactly the most virtuous of people either though. DiCaprio's Glass, a scout for a small fur trapping expedition in the 1820s, is the closest the audience gets to a likable character. He works alongside his son Hawk (Forrest Goodluck) as guides for the expedition, at least until the group is attacked by Ree warriors searching for leader Elk Dog's (Duane Howard) kidnapped daughter Powaqa (Melaw Nakehk'o) and forced to flee for its lives. DiCaprio knows the way to the nearest fort, but is unfortunately mauled by a bear and cannot walk or talk, let alone guide a collection of confused men back to safe territory. Unable to carry him up a mountain, expedition leader Capt. Andrew Henry (Domhnall Gleeson) leaves Goodluck, young trapper Bridger (Will Poulter) and malcontent John Fitzgerald (Tom Hardy) to tend to DiCaprio until the man finally dies. It doesn’t come as much of a surprise when Hardy ends up betraying DiCaprio and leaves the injured frontiersman for dead. Left to fend for himself in his own grave, DiCaprio drags himself out and begins the perilous journey to the fort, facing off against the woods, the Ree warriors roaming the countryside, and his mortality.

“The Revenant” has all the trappings of a man vs. nature narrative. It's DiCaprio effectively alone in the woods fending off the cold, the snow and the vicious creatures thrown at him by an uncaring deity. But any victory Iñárritu shows during the course of the film is very much short term and often detrimental to those who opt to assist DiCaprio in his quest. As Iñárritu frames it, nobody really wins against nature; the best a person can do is survive and find another way to die.

Since a fight against nature is a losing battle, Iñárritu frames the true conflict in “The Revenant” as one among men tainted by the evils of revenge, greed and cowardice. Human nature is the driving force of the main conflict, represented by the triangle of death between DiCaprio, Hardy, and the Ree warriors who are on a quest that could very well be a film of its own. (It has been when the races were flipped in movies like “The Searchers”). Their conflict is fueled by sin and self-righteousness and doesn't end until the last bits of blood are absorbed by the natural world as a sacrifice of sorts for survival.

Blood is almost currency for “The Revenant,” at least considering how much of it is spilled and flowed. Poor DiCaprio gets the worst of it by far – the man grunts and screams in agony more often than he speaks – although a fair number of participants are stabbed, shot, castrated, raped, lynched, strangled and beaten mercilessly in the pursuit of self-preservation and revenge. It's as if the film is built on pain, both the physical sensation inflicted on DiCaprio and friends and the mental wounds inflicted upon the unfortunate DiCaprio. The film is built to hurt and built to cause audiences to squirm in reaction to that pain; the bear attack and its aftermath stirred a few groans and knuckle nips among viewers.

Contrasting all of the brutality felt by the humans is the tranquility of the setting around them. “The Revenant” is often blissfully quiet, with Iñárritu keeping his character’s mouths shut to tell his story through the eyes of the natural world. The ambient noise speaks volumes in this film, as does the images of snow melting and the river running and the reminder that, perhaps, things would be better if the humans weren’t around to trespass on the tranquility.

Sadly, much of the dialogue that is spoken is heavy and absent of subtlety. The messages sent by “The Revenant” are very, very clear, but Iñárritu still insists on having the characters spout it out to hammer home a clear and unnecessary point. For a movie that just breathes mystery and wonderment, a few words less would have said more than anything uttered by the characters themselves.

Review: Four out of Five Stars

Click here to see the trailer.

Rating: R

Run time: 156 minutes

Genre: Adventure

Ask Away

Target audience: Art film fans and anyone who likes watching wanton bear attacks.

Take the whole family?: The bear attack alone is horrifying enough to keep the kids at home.

Theater or Netflix?: Matinee it to at least see why it’s getting the Academy Award buzz.

Academy Award chances?: It’s another solid contender for a Best Picture nomination, and the film will more than likely nab nods for Alejandro González Iñárritu in directing and for Best Adapted Screenplay. Most notably, Leonardo DiCaprio is the (early) favorite to win his first acting Oscar, which isn't too surprising; he is very good, and the competition isn't that deep this year.

Watch this as well?: Werner Herzog's epic “Aguirre, the Wrath of God” shares themes of colonization and the perils of violating nature with “The Revenant,” although Herzog's film is a little stranger and much more complex. Also take a look at “The New World,” Terrance Malick's beautiful and haunting interpretation of the Pocahontas story.

Actors Jeremy Strong and John Magaro discuss their film 'The Big Short'

Jeremy Strong, Steve Carell, Adam McKay, Ryan Gosling, Brad Grey, Brad Pitt and John Magaro attend the New York premiere of "The Big Short." Image courtesy Paramount Pictures.

“The Big Short,” based on the book by Michael Lewis, revisits the roots of the 2008 financial collapse by focusing on several people who knew the economy would go bust. Led by actors Steve Carrell, Ryan Gosling, Christian Bale and Brad Pitt, those characters bet against the historically stable housing bubble, receiving much derision and flak until the event actually occurred. The movie also points out how easy it was for traders to get away with massive fraud and deception, as well as how easily distracted the American people were at the time.

Jeremy Strong, who plays trader Vinnie Daniel, and John Magaro, who portrays aspiring trader Charlie Gellar, participated in a round table interview to discuss the film, learning about the financial system, and how actors keep their own personal viewpoints from influencing their performances. The interview has been edited for clarity and brevity. A full version of the recorded interview is available here.

Question: (Director) Adam McKay isn't known for political dramas; how did he sell this to you?

Jeremy Strong: Well, I mean, I think it was more about Adam was pitched to Plan B, which is Brad Pitt's company he runs with Dede Gardner and Jeremy Kleiner, and the movie I think had been kind of stalled in turnaround at Paramount. Adam's agent I think said Adam loves this book and he really wants to direct the movie and I think they thought that was really inspired kind of knock out idea. And I think it was; if you spend 30 seconds with Adam it becomes apparent very quickly that he is a brilliant guy and that he just happened to have one kind of platform and make one kind of film. But I think he's eminently capable of breaking out of that mold and doing something different. He understood this stuff and he really cares about it, so it was a real passion project for him.

John Magaro: Yeah, there was no them pitching me on this. They offered me a job. But on top of that, I read the script and I knew I wanted to be a part of this right away. I mean I knew it was something special, I connected with the storytelling I connected with the characters. It just seemed like a lot of fun, so it was me pitching myself.

Strong: “Moneyball,” I loved “Moneyball.”

Magaro: Yeah.

Strong: I hadn't read Michael Lewis' book but as soon as I heard they were doing it I went out and read the book and I was amazed at how, like, gripping it is; it's like a Robert Ludlum book. It really reads at a clip and it has a real engine to it and it's a great story. And that's what he excels at, I think, is taking, in this case, is something that is a very arcane, esoteric subject and he kind of zeroes in on what is really compelling human drama that can unfold within that as a backdrop. And that, to me, I think the movie's very much a human drama that incidentally is about these financial instruments, but it's about these people and the crisis of faith they all go through.

Q: Many of the actors have been very vocal about the political element behind the film. What did you guys think of the political element?

Magaro: You know what, when I initially read it, I didn't look at it as a political piece. I looked at it more from the characters' standpoint and the struggles of the characters, and by the end I didn't exactly see who was the exact villain. I saw more of an analysis of the situation and that there were wrongs but the wrongs were sort of spread around. I don't think you can point to one individual person who created it or cultivated the fraud or whatever. I didn't see such a political tone to it.

Strong: I think, and I'm sure other people feel differently, I think in order to do this job as an actor it's important to remain apolitical because your job really is to connect on an emphatic level to the character and to their point of view. So you're really just one instrument in the orchestra and Adam is the one who has the perspective that's sort of macro perspective. But I think our job is to sort of figure out what makes this person tick. In this case, the character I play had a very strong perspective on all of this, a very innate mistrust of the system and a real contempt for criminality and fraud. So he landed in the middle of the perfect storm in terms of expressing... I mean one thing that Michael Lewis writes about is that all of these people are essentially expressing an emotional point of view through a trade. So in this case we're all betting against something because we are all pessimists and we don't trust the powers that be. So that trade is an expression of an underlying, deeper thing. So as an actor I think that's where we have to go.

Magaro: Yeah, so many things we do to some degree subconsciously or on our own put blinders on to those tones. Especially for Charlie and Jamie (Shipley, played by Finn Wittrock), and there story line is more seasoned Wall Street traders hedge fund analysts, they're new to this and they sense something might be wrong but they don't really know the actual implications until Brad's character lays it down to them toward the end of the film.

Strong: There is a political aspect to it in so far that the character has a political aspect to it. Which you then try to embody.

Q: But since you're not working on it, after the fact, does it piss you off how much people got away with?

Magaro: Yeah.

Strong: Now talking as a civilian so sure I think the movie makes you mad.

Magaro: I think it pisses these guys off too.

Strong: Yeah, it pissed Vinnie off for sure.

Magaro: But that being said, I can't point the blame on the right, I can't put the blame on the left. There's plenty of blame to be shucked around. I'm pissed off, and I know things need to change, but I'm not going to say this guy's the villain, that guy's the villain.

Strong: I would've just as happily played an exec at Goldman Sachs, you know what I mean? Outside of it I do have personal feelings but I kind of think that's not the arena to express that.

Q: Do you think that's part of the point of the film as a reminder it wasn't that long ago? There's still a lot of push for deregulation again; there are a lot of people who wouldn't mind those circumstances occurring again.

Strong: I think that's why Adam made the film and I think he felt it was urgent and he had a sense of outrage about it all and outrage in the sense that we as a culture are paying attention to white noise and Britney Spears; you guys saw the film, all the montages of popular culture, while all of this kind of stuff is going on. Sort of bread and circuses. And so I think he's made the film as a way of kind of igniting, hopefully, a larger examination and awareness and kind of a wake up call and I think the movie does make you mad. I think it can't not. But it also makes you laugh; he doesn't lose his sense of humor, which is what I think makes it so special. He takes something that could easily sermonizing and didactic and he makes it... I was really entertained by the movie, I was kind of amazed how much fun I had watching the movie.

Q: You both have solid careers already but you can't work with this cast without learning a few tricks. What did you guys each get working with them?

Magaro: Well working with McKay, first of all, is kind of... even if it's typical comedy it's such a master class on being quick, doing your homework, being able to shift at any moment and try something new and be spontaneous. And nobody does that like he does, so that was such a gift. And working with Brad, who is so funny that I don't think people don't realize how funny he is. But if we think of the great characters he's played like in “Snatch” or “True Romance” or “12 Monkeys” they're all kind of quirky, off the wall, kind of comical characters. And he brings such spec- specif- specifity. I can't even say the word. Specificity, Jesus.

Strong: And imagination.

Magaro: And imagination and nuance and detail to his work. Seeing that was something.

Strong: It's a hard question because I don't know if acting works that way. I don't think you pick up any tricks, but I think every experience you have sort of, you reinforce and discover your own way of working and you learn a lot from each process because they all demand different things from you. So I think there was a lot I think I learned from working on this and you always try to push your boundaries and go out on a different limb than you've gone out on before. So that inevitably makes you grow in a way we all do that in whatever our form is. In terms of these actors, I think they all have the same thing. I think they're all really talented people who are also each time struggling to find it and sometimes on the ropes and then sometimes inspired and sometimes knock it out of the park and we're all the same.

Magaro: I think it helps demystify it to some degree and that's, for any creative person, that's a nice reassuring thing to get once in a while.

Q: How did you guys dive into the subject? It's still not easy to grasp.

Magaro: Spending a lot of time, or as much time as we could, with our real-life versions of the characters.

Strong: Vinnie calls me synthetic Vinnie.

Magaro: Spending time with them, having them lay out what they went through and what they were dealing with at the time. We also had a great adviser, Adam Davidson, who was NPR's financial correspondent for a long time. He was involved with a great piece that was on NPR which also inspired Adam McKay in a lot of ways in the storytelling of our film. We had a lot of support. And for a month or two months before we started filming it was a crash course of trying to absorb as much as we could so we could apply it when we got on set.

Strong: I think it's probably similar to what you guys do. I think there's a journalistic aspect to acting in that you try to become an expert, try to become a sponge, you have the time when you're working on it you have an insatiable curiosity about a topic because you need to master it in the time you have. I read a ton of books, and there are great, great books about this. That Charles Ferguson documentary (“Inside Job”), there's a bunch of documentaries. Really, actors, I'm not an authority of any of this. What I'm trying to do is absorb enough of so I can have an understanding on an emotional level of what it all is.

We're trying to, I think, do enough, as much as we can possibly do to make it credible. But in terms of really understanding this stuff, it's all gone now. It's like you’re a rain cloud, you're absorbing it and you rain it all out in the performance and then it's gone.

Magaro: If I were you I would not give me money to invest.