Barbarians at the Gate (1993)

I read once, in James Garner's Biography, that he did roles in quality TV like (Barbarians at the Gate). Now whoever wrote this lie will burn in hell forever, because this movie isn't quality TV, unless TV stands for Tormenting Vanity ! It's natural that too much of something is bad enough. Here you are a movie to know that better. The dialog is just TOO DAMN MUCH to unbearable degree. It could destroy the movie and us.The first 20 minutes are a headache. The characters speak with tons of elegant gibberish. The dialog has too many very deep information, and most of all it goes on non-stop too. Plus, it couldn't make any tie-in between us and the main character. I couldn't make any initial viewpoint towards him. They were busy making him talk, talk, and talk for all the time without presenting him appropriately. So, it was exactly like a stock market program, running annoyingly on-screen, without any drama but the tragic one in my brain !After that…the stock market channel breaks loose. There are more stiff characters in suits (too many, with no true presentation, so with the unbroken mentioning of their names I couldn't tell who's who ?!). And the case is that we have them talking in great energy, with more of the same – fully detailed – gibberish, without funny comedy, clear drama, something to understand, or a MOMENT OF SILENCE ! The scriptwriter of this movie is one rare person. He proved for someone like me, who watched countless good and bad American movies before, that America has real windbag scripts! That lethal flaw I saw in many not American movies. But who said that anyone or anything is perfect. Actually its dialog can fill 3 movies and 4 newspapers I don't buy ! The main event, as I desperately understood, is ironic, satirical, and supposedly hot. But this 1000-words-per-minute dealing made it like a sweeping speech torrent where nothing is distinct or intelligible from start till the very end; why they selected the lower offer ? The lead is portrayed eventually like a defeated knight, so why he's a knight ? Why they wanted to defeat him ? And how they did it ?!! I'll never know…from this movie ! To make the matter worse, (Glenn Jordan)'s directing was dead, literally dead. The image doesn't say a thing. I believe there isn't one in the first place, since none was portrayed by it. All what I saw is people talk while walking across closed rooms, and that's it. Without much concentration, you can notice that (Jordan) intended to wrap it up as fast as he can, even if so many things, if not all the things, died out of heart failure, or we did earlier out of apoplexy. Hence the outcome was the most long, unfunny and humdrum sitcom's episode in history !The sets are all the same. Forget the cinematography. The music is primitive electronic thing; aside from being wearisome, it fits more a kid's show. Save (Jonathan Pryce), all the actors talked the same tone. The good acting was like a fish in deep black water; hard to hunt, and hard to see. The editing made the movie so crowded without a space to breathe. Sometimes I wanted the cast to speak slower, sometimes I wanted a translation's boards, and sometimes I wanted to just scream !So, with no smart writing and no directing this lost its way, being a huge turn-off. Whenever I recall an American movie where its dialog ruined it, this is the first one to remember. I saw theatricals, but flu hallucination, with more vitality and less talks. (Barbarians at the Gate) isn't a comedy about money. It's a nightmare about something I, with considerable struggle, couldn't totally catch on!Uninteresting isn't the right word for it. It's SHUT UP !

A story of greed, F. Ross Johnson's attempt to rid himself of troublesome shareholders who bug him with cries to curb his excessive management and lifestyle ignites a bidding war for ownership of RJR-Nabisco. Through sessions of number-crunching, men's room meetings, and personal loyalties and competitions, the fate of the company and those involved is decided and standards set for what will be allowed or punished by the captains of industry of the 1980's heyday.For a movie dealing with such despicable and probably in real life boring characters, the final product is delightful, entertaining, and almost educational. While the level of greed and excess is appalling, you can't help getting caught up in the wheeling and dealing and the competition, rooting for one side or the other while knowing you shouldn't like either one. The greedy CEO or the heartless junk-bond trader (Henry Kravis), take your pick and enjoy. No one is immune to the satire of the film, down to the trophy wives and their manicurists who know more about Wall Street than they do. Still, the comic tone is maintained; as much as you want to hate them, the film avoids moralizing, content just to ridicule and make the audience laugh.The attention to detail in the movie is simply brilliant. Whenever there is a TV screen or someone lighting a cigarette in the background, pay attention or you may miss a good laugh. It boasts clearly the best costumes of any Wall Street movie, from costume parties to Bush-Quayle hoedowns. Witty and satirical dialogue is accompanied by a well-chosen score. Details and incidents with little to do with the actual plot add to the entertainment value while not distracting from the story. Overall a great movie, funny and cool, makes you think a little: would you really want to be one of them?

HBO Films has done it again. This 1993 release is yet another example of why they are one of the greatest producers of telefilms. In this film, James Garner portrays F. Ross Johnson, a crafty CEO who tests the many theories and predictions of the possible success that RJR Nabisco Corporation can have with a "smokeless cigarette" product. A satrical tale that's based on a true story.

Can a made-for-TV movie about leveraged buy outs ("LBO"s) be funny? Yup. I haven't read the book but the teleplay by Gelbart is very amusing and sometimes hilarious. Be prepared for the profanity which generates some of the best laughs. "There should be a warning on every pack: Danger, these cigarettes will tear your b***s off." But it isn't just the swearing that makes this movie as funny as it is. The set ups are marvelously done. The initial big celebration held by RJR Nabisco features a character who suffers a cruel cough every time he tries to light his cigarette until Garner comes over and flicks open a lighter to help him. All the characters' roles are well written but I wish Fred Dalton Thompson had an expression other than his default -- as if he were watching his daughter marry a biker with a face tattoo. James Garner gets the palm, not just for his unforced and vulgar wit but for a breezy disregard for everything except his own wealth, exemplified in his fleet of jet airplanes with their private hangar. Garner keeps denigrating the pursuit of wealth for it's own sake -- "After all, how many sets of golf clubs can you be buried with?" -- but acts all the way through as if that were his one and only priority. In his own defense, he says indignantly, "I don't plan to be homeless -- or planeless either for that matter." There must have been enormous pressure on Gelbart and the others involved to turn this movie "serious" towards the end, to bring in cancer and emphysema, a sobbing victim, a military-industrial conspiracy to undermine the health of the proletariat, to expose big business for the angry, villainous, mean-spirited, duplicitous cretins that they are but, thank Bog, Gelbart resisted any tendency to make the movie "about something." He keeps the ending as ironic as the rest of the film. Poor Garner. He loses his job, "The first time I've been out of work since I was fourteen," he moans, and retires with a severance package amounting (after taxes) to only $23m. Close on a shot of a mansion in Palm Beach.