Margin Call movie - 4 stars - available on YouTube

Quote from atticus:

Because they're was no warning of impending doom. The view was acutely myopic; that nobody outside this tier 3 IB knew wtf was happening. They used the new vol-regime as a convenience and it's fucking absurd. I did not see it but they added insult to injury by allowing the bank to get netted on the junk? WTF?!

Regarding the bags for the Thompson's: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120815/goofs

Regardless, the bags are not a significant plot element.
More...

I stand corrected on the bags. They were made out of pliofilm.

From google search: "
Pliofilm, developed in 1934 by the Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, was a rubber-based clear (and later dark green) plastic used to protect ..."

You are right about the entire financial plot element. But it was better than other plots. (Wall Street 1, a junior salesmen starts structuring LBO's?)

I saw the real value of the movie about the individuals in the bank and what they valued, what they believed, how they reacted to their situations. And that was generally very authentic (Tucci's character aside).
 
Quote from newwurldmn:

I stand corrected on the bags. They were made out of pliofilm.

From google search: "
Pliofilm, developed in 1934 by the Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, was a rubber-based clear (and later dark green) plastic used to protect ..."

You are right about the entire financial plot element. But it was better than other plots. (Wall Street 1, a junior salesmen starts structuring LBO's?)

I saw the real value of the movie about the individuals in the bank and what they valued, what they believed, how they reacted to their situations. And that was generally very authentic (Tucci's character aside).
More...

Bud Fox's structuring dialogue were by far the weakest elements of WS1, i.e., Anacott Steel "the breakup value is higher" and the Gulfstream scene and Blue Sky. Implausible, but you assume that his "inside" work made him a Gekko insider. It didn't detract from my enjoyment of the movie at all.

Maybe I should watch the movie, but I can't get passed the premise.
 
Quote from atticus:

Bud Fox's structuring dialogue were by far the weakest elements of WS1, i.e., Anacott Steel "the breakup value is higher" and the Gulfstream scene and Blue Sky. Implausible, but you assume that his "inside" work made him a Gekko insider. It didn't detract from my enjoyment of the movie at all.

Maybe I should watch the movie, but I can't get passed the premise.
More...

Personally I didn't like WallStreet. I didn't get it. So many Wall Streeters like it but the moral of the story is that Wall Street doesn't do anything useful and is borderline criminal.

I did like Margin Call (in case you didn't realize :)). I think you should watch it, ignore the finance parts of it, and watch the character development in it.

Of course, Trading Places is the best finance movie ever.
 
This thread, as it so often turns out in other threads, is about those who actually know something about markets and the many that don't.

The movie plot was uninformed and unrealistic in the extreme. It was neither the Lehman model of failing nor the Goldman/JP Morgan model of surviving and thriving. Nothing to do with its low budget, this movie was not only disconnected in some of its parts but also poorly crafted.

There is no harm done for those that enjoyed the film so much and want to believe it was realistic (or choose to ignore that it was all so unrealistic). But from the perspective of actual corporate/professional market activity, none of movie was realistic. None of it. Good actors had to portray dumb attitudes and had to speak shallow nonsensical scripts.

The rule as always in this business (and in life) is to see, and to try to know, how things actually work. Though of course seriously flawed, both Wall Street 1 and 2 got hold of some true elements and at same time told a gripping story.
:)
 
Quote from Cheese:

This thread, as it so often turns out in other threads, is about those who actually know something about markets and the many that don't.

The movie plot was uninformed and unrealistic in the extreme. It was neither the Lehman model of failing nor the Goldman/JP Morgan model of surviving and thriving. Nothing to do with its low budget, this movie was not only disconnected in some of its parts but also poorly crafted.

There is no harm done for those that enjoyed the film so much and want to believe it was realistic (or choose to ignore that it was all so unrealistic). But from the perspective of actual corporate/professional market activity, none of movie was realistic. None of it. Good actors had to portray dumb attitudes and had to speak shallow nonsensical scripts.

The rule as always in this business (and in life) is to see, and to try to know, how things actually work. Though of course seriously flawed, both Wall Street 1 and 2 got hold of some true elements and at same time told a gripping story.
:)
More...

You are right. There are those who understand how things work and those who only know about Lehman and JPMorgan because that's all they could read about in Time magazine.
 
Quote from Cheese:

This thread, as it so often turns out in other threads, is about those who actually know something about markets and the many that don't.

The movie plot was uninformed and unrealistic in the extreme. It was neither the Lehman model of failing nor the Goldman/JP Morgan model of surviving and thriving. Nothing to do with its low budget, this movie was not only disconnected in some of its parts but also poorly crafted.

There is no harm done for those that enjoyed the film so much and want to believe it was realistic (or choose to ignore that it was all so unrealistic). But from the perspective of actual corporate/professional market activity, none of movie was realistic. None of it. Good actors had to portray dumb attitudes and had to speak shallow nonsensical scripts.

The rule as always in this business (and in life) is to see, and to try to know, how things actually work. Though of course seriously flawed, both Wall Street 1 and 2 got hold of some true elements and at same time told a gripping story.
:)
More...

First and foremost, here is a link to the director saying the show was based off of Lehman, so pack up your false accusations that some people here you're pointing to are stupid and wrong: http://articles.businessinsider.com...6_1_investment-bank-lehman-brothers-dick-fuld

Lighten up Cheese, I don't see anybody purporting it to be a definite copy of any particular firm. I liked the movie, despite not being a movie guy, because of the scenes harkening back to over half of the floor being let go, the bridge guy, the moper, etc. -all of these details are quite accurate. I have no way to be certain either, but that rocket kid's jet black eyebrows were similar to one of the lawyers at Lehman. If you believe these things are supposed to be dead realistic, then you should probably be watching CSPAN instead for entertainment.

Given, some parts obviously designed to spice things up and keep things moving (the 'aha' moment), and dialog, was silly for anyone classier than a glass of water.

And btw, regarding unrealsim, the abs securities they were dumping was exactly Lehman before the collapse. The show ended after just one market day, so it didn't chronicle the collapse of Lehman. The scene where the guy almost jumps was also at the AMEX tower (where Lehman was).
 
Quote from GordonTheGekko:

I have no way to be certain either, but that rocket kid's jet black eyebrows were similar to one of the lawyers at Lehman.
More...

Respectfully, that's just retarded.
 
Quote from atticus:

Respectfully, that's just retarded.
More...

He also had a nose. I think some of the Lehman quant's had noses too.

The movie was not about Lehman, JPM, the Fed or any of the other major players in the financial crisis. If you want a play by play or a history lesson read one of the books or watch Too Big to Fail.

This is a movie about 6 guys at a bank at varying levels dealing with the stress of their business' sustainability on the eve of the financial crisis. There is no bad guy. There is no history lesson. Each character is trying to help (as they generally do in stressful situations in reality). Each character has a different value system and perspective (again like in real life).

The movie has flaws but it's the first movie that shows Wallstreeters are more than just cokeheads who gamble and spend a lot of money - but it doesn't gloss over the fact that Wallstreet is about compensation. It walks this fine line quite well.

My favorite scene is when the senior trader tells off his boss's boss. The whole time he talks about boozing, hookers, adreniline rush's etc. But when it comes to backstabbing his boss, he shows his loyalty. But then in the next scene he shows his greediness and calousness. This is how real people on Wall Street are. They are greedy, talk about money, and selfish. But they also have emotions and a sense of what is right and wrong (even if it is different from the majority). Some are just sharks (like the MD).

I don't think this movie will win Oscars, but focusing on the details of the finance is missing the real point of the film.

I realize I am beating a dead horse. So I will stop with this now.
 
The film has a pretty good 7.4/10 ratings from 2000+ users and reading the reviews everybody seemed to like it. I assume most of them are not in the industry....

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1615147/reviews

The only disturbing thing about the movie was:

XGpq8.png
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top