Lists

Picture of a movie: I Used to Be Famous
Picture of a TV show: Collateral
Picture of a movie: The Conductor
Picture of a movie: The King's Choice
Picture of a movie: The Man Who Knew Infinity
Picture of a movie: The Stanford Prison Experiment
Picture of a movie: Unbroken
Picture of a movie: Race
Picture of a movie: Aftermath
Picture of a movie: Megan Leavey
Picture of a movie: Denial
Picture of a movie: The Grand Budapest Hotel
Picture of a movie: Molly's Game
Picture of a movie: About Time
Picture of a movie: I Give It a Year
Picture of a movie: American History X

21 Movies, 1 Show

Se med M +P

Sort by:
Recent Desc

movies
movies

I Give It a Year

2013
After a seven month long passion-filled courtship, thirty-something Londoners Natasha Redford and Josh Moss get married despite they being mismatched in personality and temperament, something that their closest friends and family members can see - some who predict the marriage won't last a year - even if Nat and Josh themselves don't see it. Nat, a marketing company manager, is more professional and controlled. Josh, a novelist with a current case of writer's block, is more carefree and childlike. Nine months into their marriage, Nat and Josh have their first session with arguably the most distracted marriage counselor in the city, that session which may be the deciding factor in whether they continue in being husband and wife to each other. Their issues over the preceding nine months are told in flashback, and include little idiosyncrasies which annoy the other, and tensions with each's in-laws, beyond the general differences in their personalities. But what may be the biggest threat to a happily-ever-after for them as a couple may be temptations with others to who, at least on paper, each is more well suited. For Nat, that temptation is client Guy Harrap, an American manufacturer who, unknown to Nat, hired her firm solely in his personal attraction to her. For Josh, that temptation is his old girlfriend Chloe, an aide worker who only recently reentered his life after a four year stint away working in Africa, the two of them in theory never having really broken up in the first place.

Inspired by this list

Picture of a movie: The Big Short
movies

The Big Short

2016
Three separate but parallel stories of the U.S mortgage housing crisis of 2005 are told. Michael Burry, an eccentric ex-physician turned one-eyed Scion Capital hedge fund manager, has traded traditional office attire for shorts, bare feet and a Supercuts haircut. He believes that the US housing market is built on a bubble that will burst within the next few years. Autonomy within the company allows Burry to do largely as he pleases, so Burry proceeds to bet against the housing market with the banks, who are more than happy to accept his proposal for something that has never happened in American history. The banks believe that Burry is a crackpot and therefore are confident in that they will win the deal. Jared Vennett with Deutschebank gets wind of what Burry is doing and, as an investor believes he too can cash in on Burry's beliefs. An errant telephone call to FrontPoint Partners gets this information into the hands of Mark Baum, an idealist who is fed up with the corruption in the financial industry. Baum and his associates, who work at an arms length under Morgan Stanley, decide to join forces with Vennett despite not totally trusting him. In addition to Burry's information, they further believe that most of the mortgages are overrated by the bond agencies, with the banks collating all the sub-prime mortgages under AAA packages. Charlie Geller and Jamie Shipley, who are minor players in a $30 million start-up garage company called Brownfield, get a hold of Vennett's prospectus on the matter. Wanting in on the action but not having the official clout to play, they decide to call an old "friend", retired investment banker Ben Rickert, to help out. All three of these groups work on the premise that the banks are stupid and don't know what's going on, while for them to win, the general economy has to lose, which means the suffering of the general investor who trusts the financial institutions. That latter aspect may not sit well with Baum. Some of these assumptions may be incorrect and may be far more manipulative than they could have ever imagined, which in turn may throw curves into the process.