CONTAINS SPOILERS This movie consistently makes no sense from beginning to end. It's not only wholly economically illiterate, it also is completely implausible and illogical. The anti-bank, anti-corporation, anti-market slant of the film is so ham-fisted and cliched as to discredit any points the writer/director was trying to make.
The subplot with the couple who lose their kid seems completely extraneous, and is just another example of the director's heavy-handed approach to arguing how evil, evil, evil the market is. And why did the kid die anyhow? Did he commit suicide because he didn't want his parents to get the summons? Why would he go to such drastic measures? Why not just throw away the summons? Since when would a kid think to do that anyhow? None of this is established in the film. We're apparently supposed to believe that he would do this because of a very brief scene in which the father plays with the boy? And the fact that the director seems to think the bank actually *IS* to blame for boy's death just shows how ludicrous this whole movie is.
And the whole fake-identity thing is just ludicrous. The way it's portrayed in the film is just laughable. There's no way he would have been able to pass any sort of security check. Had his identity been questioned in court, there would have been an investigation.
Another completely implausible aspect is that all of a sudden, the character of Jim Doyle suddenly starts agreeing with everything that the president of the bank wants to do. After this long period of disagreement and a hilariously inept attempt at injecting an ethical dilemma, why is it that the president of the bank isn't the least bit suspicious of this change? He just trusts him completely after that? With ALL of the bank's money??? Yeah, sure.
Perhaps most noxious is that the "hero" of the film is portrayed as having done a great deed when he fools the bank and loses all their money in the market. The director apparently forgot about all of the ordinary people that had their money invested in the bank and lost it all due to the stupid revenge fantasy of this schmuck he tries to paint as a hero. The film attempts to have this great sympathy for the economic plight of the common man, but loses all credibility when the heroic act of the film is too destroy the financial portfolios of thousands of hard-working people whose only "crime" is to have invested with the bank.
On a technical level, however, the film is well done. It looks like a first-rate production. The cinematography is occasionally interesting. The acting is pretty good. Anthony La Paglia turns in a solid performance, as always. The overuse of fractal CGI starts to get pretty annoying in the latter half of the film, but works well in the opening credits.
Bottom Line: Avoid this film at all costs. And if you did see this film, please don't believe anything it says about economics. It's truly ironic that this inane attempt at showing how evil the market is, actually shows how illogical and misguided anti-market arguments can be.
The subplot with the couple who lose their kid seems completely extraneous, and is just another example of the director's heavy-handed approach to arguing how evil, evil, evil the market is. And why did the kid die anyhow? Did he commit suicide because he didn't want his parents to get the summons? Why would he go to such drastic measures? Why not just throw away the summons? Since when would a kid think to do that anyhow? None of this is established in the film. We're apparently supposed to believe that he would do this because of a very brief scene in which the father plays with the boy? And the fact that the director seems to think the bank actually *IS* to blame for boy's death just shows how ludicrous this whole movie is.
And the whole fake-identity thing is just ludicrous. The way it's portrayed in the film is just laughable. There's no way he would have been able to pass any sort of security check. Had his identity been questioned in court, there would have been an investigation.
Another completely implausible aspect is that all of a sudden, the character of Jim Doyle suddenly starts agreeing with everything that the president of the bank wants to do. After this long period of disagreement and a hilariously inept attempt at injecting an ethical dilemma, why is it that the president of the bank isn't the least bit suspicious of this change? He just trusts him completely after that? With ALL of the bank's money??? Yeah, sure.
Perhaps most noxious is that the "hero" of the film is portrayed as having done a great deed when he fools the bank and loses all their money in the market. The director apparently forgot about all of the ordinary people that had their money invested in the bank and lost it all due to the stupid revenge fantasy of this schmuck he tries to paint as a hero. The film attempts to have this great sympathy for the economic plight of the common man, but loses all credibility when the heroic act of the film is too destroy the financial portfolios of thousands of hard-working people whose only "crime" is to have invested with the bank.
On a technical level, however, the film is well done. It looks like a first-rate production. The cinematography is occasionally interesting. The acting is pretty good. Anthony La Paglia turns in a solid performance, as always. The overuse of fractal CGI starts to get pretty annoying in the latter half of the film, but works well in the opening credits.
Bottom Line: Avoid this film at all costs. And if you did see this film, please don't believe anything it says about economics. It's truly ironic that this inane attempt at showing how evil the market is, actually shows how illogical and misguided anti-market arguments can be.