What a crock! The Tommy Lee Jones character is super wealthy and the Chris Cooper character should have loads of money saved up. Even the Affleck guy being a sensible MBA would have put away loads in 14 years.
Most of the movie is only within 4-6 months of them losing their jobs. The Cooper character can't pay his daughter's tuition after working for 35 years and being at a high level? It's so bad that he has no hope? I can see where the Affleck guy would have to cut back on expenses, because a lot of guys in his salary/benefits range overextend themselves, but it wouldn't be drastic right away.
Also,the economy was the bad guy, not the company itself. Or is this all about one CEO making a bundle? The people were given generous severance packages and career counseling services.
I don't even get the movie. I suppose the message is that big corporations are good when you work for them and make a bunch of money, but they are evil when they lay you off. Dry Wall guys who work with their hands and drink beers after work are spiritually holier than business executives? There was no character development of the CEO and very little of the other folks. Jones was an adulterer and kind of aggressive and rude. But suddenly he's an idealist? Affleck's guy seemed pretty shallow throughout, although he redeemed himself by helping a black guy find work.
I know that this was supposed to be some kind of profound statement about wealth inequality or the value of hands-on labor or the working class. But it didn't make the case very well. I was left wondering what the hell the point was. They had good jobs, the economy went south, and they lost the good jobs. They weren't protesting anything before they were let go.
I did enjoy the general scenery, and Affleck does have an appealing way about him on screen. Jones is the same guy in every movie.
If you watch it, keep your guard up and try to figure out what the heck the writer is trying to say, other than the basic "Occupy" manifesto.
Most of the movie is only within 4-6 months of them losing their jobs. The Cooper character can't pay his daughter's tuition after working for 35 years and being at a high level? It's so bad that he has no hope? I can see where the Affleck guy would have to cut back on expenses, because a lot of guys in his salary/benefits range overextend themselves, but it wouldn't be drastic right away.
Also,the economy was the bad guy, not the company itself. Or is this all about one CEO making a bundle? The people were given generous severance packages and career counseling services.
I don't even get the movie. I suppose the message is that big corporations are good when you work for them and make a bunch of money, but they are evil when they lay you off. Dry Wall guys who work with their hands and drink beers after work are spiritually holier than business executives? There was no character development of the CEO and very little of the other folks. Jones was an adulterer and kind of aggressive and rude. But suddenly he's an idealist? Affleck's guy seemed pretty shallow throughout, although he redeemed himself by helping a black guy find work.
I know that this was supposed to be some kind of profound statement about wealth inequality or the value of hands-on labor or the working class. But it didn't make the case very well. I was left wondering what the hell the point was. They had good jobs, the economy went south, and they lost the good jobs. They weren't protesting anything before they were let go.
I did enjoy the general scenery, and Affleck does have an appealing way about him on screen. Jones is the same guy in every movie.
If you watch it, keep your guard up and try to figure out what the heck the writer is trying to say, other than the basic "Occupy" manifesto.