Writer/Director Nicholas Jarecki gives us Robert Miller, as portrayed by Richard Gere, for the face of Wall Street fraud, corporate greed, narcissism and deceit at it's finest. ANYTHING for money: family, love, dignity, you name it, is all dispensable when millions (or billions) of dollars are involved.
I thought it was pretty good, BUT the thing that really screwed it up for me from the word go, realism wise (and i'm big on that, though i can totally suspend my disbelief when needed or wanted as well), was that his car flipped on NOTHING!! it made NO sense at all! he was skimming his car against the divider, creating sparks, then woke up, turned his steering wheel slightly and outta nowhere & on nothing & for NO reason at all (except the plot), his car flipped 3-4 times.
i overlooked it at the moment, but the person i was seeing it with said at that instant "okay, this is a bad movie. they ruined it. that wouldn't happen, was stupid & now no matter what i can't buy into it". this is also the person who said that "walk the line" would have been interesting, better, watchable, etc. had the entire movie had joaquin phoenix simply WALKING A LINE! hahaha. this person has pretty excellent taste in films, but has ZERO interest in johnny cash, his life, and more importantly, things that are NOT logical.
i have to say i'm big on logic as well & realism & have a very hard time enjoying films that are entirely based upon CGI w/little to no plot, or even good films w/BAD CGI. arghhh. i'm not against CGI at all, i just want it to look good, to look realistic. besides look at michel gondry and "eternal sunshine of the spotless mind", where he did it ALL (or like 99%) organically, the way they USED to in films!
but i digress....."arbitrage" IS a decent film. i thought it was better when i was actually viewing it. thinking back there are tons of holes in it, which bother me & my friend is correct in that the accident, the ENTIRE basis for the plot & suspense that ensues is so key to the film, that if it doesn't make any sense, that screws up the entire movie. (roger ebert gave it 4 stars, but he has GREATLY loosened up in his critiques and estimation of films in the last decade or so. he's older? he's happier? he's less judgmental since his own personal tragedies? i don't know. but i used to almost always agree w/him on his reviews & take on each film. i still do on many, or to a point. i will read reviews by him, or google them or imdb them before or after i've seen a film. 1. if i haven't heard of it, nor seen a trailer, i want to see if i think it's "worth it" and 2. i want to see how many people agree w/my thoughts on any particular film.
to be more specific, i thought richard gere's performance was one of the best i've ever seen from him. never have been a huge fan, but he's okay. oh, i thought he was a GREAT psycho in "looking for mr. goodbar", such a creepy film, so was tom berenger, though his role was pretty tiny, i was impressed w/his acting, also he was GORGEOUS too back then!!! geez louise. some beautiful men. they are still good looking now, of course, i'm just saying.
it's like tony soprano...as gandolfini himself said "why are people (women) finding a fat, balding guy in a bathrobe attractive?" (i'm paraphrasing). but i was too!! there is something about that confidence that comes w/power that IS seductive, attractive, etc.
