Saw this at New Directors festival in NYC and really enjoyed and was engrossed in this film. A great cast with splendid performances. The film is very intense and although it is about a company involved in the financial meltdown of 2008, it really is about much more. I particularly liked the way the film depicts the frightening absolute and ruthless power of the corporation over the lives of people that work there as well as the implications and ripples for everyone else.How those people get sucked in to the embrace, security and pleasures of what the corporations have to offer and the consequences and vulnerabilities of those choices.The freedom and comforts that we cherish here in twenty first century USA are not as secure as we might think. Don't want to say much more, other than that "Margin Call" is very involving and in the end affecting and thought provoking.It packs a powerful punch.
382 Reviews
First-Time Filmmaker Deftly Handles the Financial Meltdown on Human-Size Terms
EUyeshima23 October 2011
Having been the victim of corporate downsizing more than once, I was immediately engaged with this propulsive 2011 corporate drama from the beginning as Stanley Tucci's character, a seasoned risk management executive named Eric Dale, is told in a coldly indifferent manner that he is being laid off after 19 years with the same unnamed Wall Street firm. It's a piercing yet dramatically economical scene that perfectly summarizes how bloodless the corporate world can be, and in first-time writer/director J.C. Chandor's effort set on the eve of the 2008 financial crisis , it is very cold indeed with 80% of the trading floor being let go. As Dale is escorted out of the building, he hands a flash drive to his prodigious assistant Peter Sullivan and tells him to take a look at it and "Be careful."
Once Sullivan analyzes the data, he realizes the universal gravity of Dale's warning - that the firm is so over-committed to underwater mortgage-backed securities that the total potential loss exceeds the firm's total market capitalization value. In other words, the projected scenario means the firm will soon owe a lot more than it's worth, and the market will be on the verge of an apocalyptic meltdown. What happens after this discovery is a series of sharply intense clandestine confrontations with each level of higher-ups recognizing the ramifications of the inevitable disaster, each one far more nuanced in character than we are used to seeing in films from Oliver Stone about greed and immorality. Blessedly, Chandor doesn't stoop to the customary stereotypes in this corporate cage match, but what he does manage is capture the moral compass underneath each player by way of a cast that really delivers the goods with powerfully implosive performances.
Zachary Quinto ("Star Trek") is initially at the center of the plot as Sullivan and performs well enough in the constraining, semi-heroic role, but the veterans really stand out here beginning with Kevin Spacey, who effectively plays against type as Sam Rogers, a genuine company man, the seen-it-all head of the trading team who rallies what's left of the trading floor with corporate brio but then faces his own cross to bear struggling to commandeer a fire sale of worthless assets dumped on unsuspecting clients. The other standout is Jeremy Irons, who masterfully resuscitates the cool cunning of his Claus von Bulow from "Reversal of Fortune" as the acerbically survivalist CEO John Tuld. He handily controls the boardroom scene with cutting humor and hostile precision. One of the film's more pleasant surprises is Demi Moore in cool, brisk form as Sarah Robertson, the top risk officer and lone female executive who knows her career is at stake with the discovery of this folly. Tucci is excellent in his smallish role as Dale and gets to show off his resigned character's engineering aptitude with a brief monologue about building a bridge.
Comparatively less impressive but playing their more predictable roles fitfully are Penn Badgley as Sullivan's younger, overtly money-obsessed colleague Seth Bregman; Paul Bettany as Dale's nihilistic, snake-oil salesman of a boss, Will Emerson; and Simon Baker as the most morally despicable executive of the bunch, Jared Cohen. Mary McDonnell has a brief and frankly unnecessary scene as Rogers' ex-wife, and I didn't even recognize the usually hilarious Broadway personality Susan Blackwell as the hatchet woman in the opening scene. There are a few flaws with Chandor's observant screenplay, for example, the overly analogous scenes of Rogers dealing with his dying dog and a rooftop scene that plays up Emerson's nihilistic nature too predictably. In addition, some scenes play either too murkily or too clinically to achieve the precise dramatic effect they should. I think the absence of a musical score also contributes to the sterility of the proceedings. However, as a first-time filmmaker, Chandor more than impresses with his deft handling of such a zeitgeist moment with the Occupy Wall Street protests gaining understandable momentum right now.
Once Sullivan analyzes the data, he realizes the universal gravity of Dale's warning - that the firm is so over-committed to underwater mortgage-backed securities that the total potential loss exceeds the firm's total market capitalization value. In other words, the projected scenario means the firm will soon owe a lot more than it's worth, and the market will be on the verge of an apocalyptic meltdown. What happens after this discovery is a series of sharply intense clandestine confrontations with each level of higher-ups recognizing the ramifications of the inevitable disaster, each one far more nuanced in character than we are used to seeing in films from Oliver Stone about greed and immorality. Blessedly, Chandor doesn't stoop to the customary stereotypes in this corporate cage match, but what he does manage is capture the moral compass underneath each player by way of a cast that really delivers the goods with powerfully implosive performances.
Zachary Quinto ("Star Trek") is initially at the center of the plot as Sullivan and performs well enough in the constraining, semi-heroic role, but the veterans really stand out here beginning with Kevin Spacey, who effectively plays against type as Sam Rogers, a genuine company man, the seen-it-all head of the trading team who rallies what's left of the trading floor with corporate brio but then faces his own cross to bear struggling to commandeer a fire sale of worthless assets dumped on unsuspecting clients. The other standout is Jeremy Irons, who masterfully resuscitates the cool cunning of his Claus von Bulow from "Reversal of Fortune" as the acerbically survivalist CEO John Tuld. He handily controls the boardroom scene with cutting humor and hostile precision. One of the film's more pleasant surprises is Demi Moore in cool, brisk form as Sarah Robertson, the top risk officer and lone female executive who knows her career is at stake with the discovery of this folly. Tucci is excellent in his smallish role as Dale and gets to show off his resigned character's engineering aptitude with a brief monologue about building a bridge.
Comparatively less impressive but playing their more predictable roles fitfully are Penn Badgley as Sullivan's younger, overtly money-obsessed colleague Seth Bregman; Paul Bettany as Dale's nihilistic, snake-oil salesman of a boss, Will Emerson; and Simon Baker as the most morally despicable executive of the bunch, Jared Cohen. Mary McDonnell has a brief and frankly unnecessary scene as Rogers' ex-wife, and I didn't even recognize the usually hilarious Broadway personality Susan Blackwell as the hatchet woman in the opening scene. There are a few flaws with Chandor's observant screenplay, for example, the overly analogous scenes of Rogers dealing with his dying dog and a rooftop scene that plays up Emerson's nihilistic nature too predictably. In addition, some scenes play either too murkily or too clinically to achieve the precise dramatic effect they should. I think the absence of a musical score also contributes to the sterility of the proceedings. However, as a first-time filmmaker, Chandor more than impresses with his deft handling of such a zeitgeist moment with the Occupy Wall Street protests gaining understandable momentum right now.
Accurately encapsulates the psychology of the GFC
cpouras-1707126 December 2019
I was a stockbroker in '08/09 and will never forget the panicked feeling on the trading desk on a daily basis. Unfortunately, nothing has changed. Greed still drives the market, inexorably towards the next GFC. Lessons were given out but none learnt.
And Demi Moore....wow.
And Demi Moore....wow.
Great psychological insight
philipp8216 October 2011
The movie "Margin Call" depicts the events that immediately preceded the Financial Crisis in 2008 within a nameless Investment Bank. What I like especially about the movie is the fact that it doesn't try to explain the technical causes of the Financial Crisis but the psychological causes - human failures, which are the real cause for the Crisis: greed, egotism, ignorance. Many scenes in this movie deal with very little dialogue, instead the body language and the unique atmosphere speaks for itself. The ensemble is just brilliant, especially Kevin Spacey and Jeremy Irons.
The movie works solely from inside the nameless firm – apart from minor steps outside. It only portraits the people working inside this company - the "normal world" is completely left out. The effect is a very clever one: The life of these bankers seems totally severed from the outside world, they have no real connection with normal people and seem to – speaking exaggeratingly – lack an understanding of real human values, that there could be more behind life than just maximizing and making money. They are completely left behind in their own world, which somehow got out of control. Even when the imminent truth reveals and the consequences are becoming more clearer, it always feels like they are cut off; there is a scene in a taxi with Quinto and Badgley that underlines this.
But one can also witness the cold-blooded atmosphere in the system itself, where every person could easily be mistaken as a number. A key figure of the film, Eric Dale, who gets sacked in the beginning, is confronted with two managers in a scene like from "Up In The Air". Either are these women robots or have never experienced something like social warmth. One widely held position is that eventually bankers themselves didn't understand their own system and products with Derivatives and Futures, etc. anymore. Almost hilarious, but sadly true is the fact that many people in these companies seem to have no understanding of Economics and just got into their position due to influence or money. When they are sitting in their conference room and discuss the incident, it feels somewhat grotesque.
Although this movie works almost completely without music, the tension is so immense - thanks to the brilliant actors - that one is forced to focus.
The movie works solely from inside the nameless firm – apart from minor steps outside. It only portraits the people working inside this company - the "normal world" is completely left out. The effect is a very clever one: The life of these bankers seems totally severed from the outside world, they have no real connection with normal people and seem to – speaking exaggeratingly – lack an understanding of real human values, that there could be more behind life than just maximizing and making money. They are completely left behind in their own world, which somehow got out of control. Even when the imminent truth reveals and the consequences are becoming more clearer, it always feels like they are cut off; there is a scene in a taxi with Quinto and Badgley that underlines this.
But one can also witness the cold-blooded atmosphere in the system itself, where every person could easily be mistaken as a number. A key figure of the film, Eric Dale, who gets sacked in the beginning, is confronted with two managers in a scene like from "Up In The Air". Either are these women robots or have never experienced something like social warmth. One widely held position is that eventually bankers themselves didn't understand their own system and products with Derivatives and Futures, etc. anymore. Almost hilarious, but sadly true is the fact that many people in these companies seem to have no understanding of Economics and just got into their position due to influence or money. When they are sitting in their conference room and discuss the incident, it feels somewhat grotesque.
Although this movie works almost completely without music, the tension is so immense - thanks to the brilliant actors - that one is forced to focus.
Well made
SnigBhaumik17 September 2019
Not a money guy myself, I was initially jittery about watching this one fearing difficulty understanding it. However, quite pleasantly the movie is built so smoothly and without much Wall Street sort of jargon, it was pretty easy watch.
And gladly, it made me have a peak show to those institutions who control our financial lives throughout. The casts, the acting are top notch. Only the dialogs were enough to build, mount and keep the tension level high. Go for it.
And gladly, it made me have a peak show to those institutions who control our financial lives throughout. The casts, the acting are top notch. Only the dialogs were enough to build, mount and keep the tension level high. Go for it.
Quietly gripping morality tale - a near perfect movie
mgorman-623 October 2011
Saw this last night. Set at a Wall Street firm on the night in 2008 when the leaders realize that changes in the market will wipe them out if they don't immediately stop selling the products that have been making them all rich, the movie centers on the moral dilemma - recognized by some characters but dismissed by others - that they face in unwinding their positions, saving themselves but shifting the pain to others.
The movie finds a way to hold the mirror up to our civilization, showing how we are all complicit in a collective 'dream' (one character says at one point, in response to another who says he feels like he is in a 'dream', 'Funny, it seems like I just woke up'). The dream is the illusion of easy, risk-managed wealth that the financial markets manufacture, again and again, since the emergence of capital markets 200 years ago, until the illusion morphs overnight into a panic. Reality intervenes, fear takes over, and the 'survivor' is the guy who first reaches the lifeboat. So there are no villains in this movie, just people, richly drawn, beautifully acted characters realized by some of our best actors who relish the opportunity to show what they can do given a killer script and enough screen time between lines to actually be the people they are portraying.
Central to the movie's success:
1) It gets across the essence of what is going on in the financial markets without bogging us down or dumbing it down
2) finding a moral question that can be resolved in a night, yet which is nevertheless a perfect allegory for the whole set of moral questions raised by an economy that works the way ours does, rewarding false confidence, recklessness, and deceit as often as industry, skill, and integrity
3) the placement of young, innocent but perceptive characters at the center of the drama, who function as our eyes and ears, who are like stand-ins for all of us who weren't there, at the heart of the dream machine, when the latest fantasy of easy wealth was exposed as a collective delusion
4) really 'gets' the trader ethos and manner - they are a kind of warrior caste, foul-mouthed, impulsive, deeply selfish, surviving by their ability to outplay their counterparts, and yet living by a warrior code that sets boundaries on what they will and will not do to one another (having spent three years on Wall Street several panics ago, it rang as true as any movie I have seen on the subject)
It's like Mamet, except you don't have to work as hard to figure out what everyone's up to. It's like Chinatown, except the 'crime' is something far worse than molesting a single young girl. These guys f****d the entire planet, for Ch*****sake. It's like the best movie I've seen in a little while.
What an incredibly sure hand from a director on his maiden voyage! Who is this guy? Whoever you are, please don't stop. I would pay a lot to see what he could do with topics like 'the decision to go to war', or 'the emergence of China/India/Brazil/Indonesia from poverty to global player'. Hell I would go see him revive Mother Goose, after this debut.
I'll calm down now. Enjoy.
The movie finds a way to hold the mirror up to our civilization, showing how we are all complicit in a collective 'dream' (one character says at one point, in response to another who says he feels like he is in a 'dream', 'Funny, it seems like I just woke up'). The dream is the illusion of easy, risk-managed wealth that the financial markets manufacture, again and again, since the emergence of capital markets 200 years ago, until the illusion morphs overnight into a panic. Reality intervenes, fear takes over, and the 'survivor' is the guy who first reaches the lifeboat. So there are no villains in this movie, just people, richly drawn, beautifully acted characters realized by some of our best actors who relish the opportunity to show what they can do given a killer script and enough screen time between lines to actually be the people they are portraying.
Central to the movie's success:
1) It gets across the essence of what is going on in the financial markets without bogging us down or dumbing it down
2) finding a moral question that can be resolved in a night, yet which is nevertheless a perfect allegory for the whole set of moral questions raised by an economy that works the way ours does, rewarding false confidence, recklessness, and deceit as often as industry, skill, and integrity
3) the placement of young, innocent but perceptive characters at the center of the drama, who function as our eyes and ears, who are like stand-ins for all of us who weren't there, at the heart of the dream machine, when the latest fantasy of easy wealth was exposed as a collective delusion
4) really 'gets' the trader ethos and manner - they are a kind of warrior caste, foul-mouthed, impulsive, deeply selfish, surviving by their ability to outplay their counterparts, and yet living by a warrior code that sets boundaries on what they will and will not do to one another (having spent three years on Wall Street several panics ago, it rang as true as any movie I have seen on the subject)
It's like Mamet, except you don't have to work as hard to figure out what everyone's up to. It's like Chinatown, except the 'crime' is something far worse than molesting a single young girl. These guys f****d the entire planet, for Ch*****sake. It's like the best movie I've seen in a little while.
What an incredibly sure hand from a director on his maiden voyage! Who is this guy? Whoever you are, please don't stop. I would pay a lot to see what he could do with topics like 'the decision to go to war', or 'the emergence of China/India/Brazil/Indonesia from poverty to global player'. Hell I would go see him revive Mother Goose, after this debut.
I'll calm down now. Enjoy.
Great actors but limited tension
SnoopyStyle25 October 2013
A financial investment company is facing possible meltdown as they face bank breaking write downs of their securities. As the discovery of the risk spreads, all the company men/woman scramble to save the company and their own jobs.
The list of great actors is quite impressive. They all work brilliantly as an ensemble. Nobody is really a standout only because everybody does a good job. I wish that they had more interest material to work with.
This is a minimalist style movie. It's not only the setting, but also everything else. There's just isn't anything eye opening. The story of financial meltdown has been raked over with a fine tooth comb. We all known how this thing is ending. There's no surprises here. The only way to do this story is to do the REAL story. This is no more than an imitation of the real thing.
The list of great actors is quite impressive. They all work brilliantly as an ensemble. Nobody is really a standout only because everybody does a good job. I wish that they had more interest material to work with.
This is a minimalist style movie. It's not only the setting, but also everything else. There's just isn't anything eye opening. The story of financial meltdown has been raked over with a fine tooth comb. We all known how this thing is ending. There's no surprises here. The only way to do this story is to do the REAL story. This is no more than an imitation of the real thing.
Fantastic film, but not for everyone.
J. Ryan23 October 2011
It's difficult to review Margin Call. Those of us who were close to the events of 2008 will find something personal in the story-telling. Others may see it as more examples of greed and hubris. In any case, the following observations apply to both groups.
The performances are top notch. Everyone from Zachary Quinto to Demi Moore brings their A-game. Even supporting characters are oddly fleshed out for a film with such an ensemble cast. Kevin Spacey and Paul Bettany give the performances of their careers, I think. Only the Jeremy Irons character (John Tuld, aka Dick Fuld) feels a bit over the top, while the rest are truly believable well-rounded depictions.
Despite having good characters and amazing cinematography, the film lacks plot. The backdrop and setting are tense, but this doesn't feel like a "movie" in the traditional sense. There's no evolution of characters, no arcs, and the ending may leave some wanting. You can compare it to Michael Mann films where plot and pace are unconventional.
Not sure how the film will perform commercially, given the material is esoteric. If you're a film buff (and enjoy great performances) or you've been in finance, this is a must-see. Other may likely pass.
The performances are top notch. Everyone from Zachary Quinto to Demi Moore brings their A-game. Even supporting characters are oddly fleshed out for a film with such an ensemble cast. Kevin Spacey and Paul Bettany give the performances of their careers, I think. Only the Jeremy Irons character (John Tuld, aka Dick Fuld) feels a bit over the top, while the rest are truly believable well-rounded depictions.
Despite having good characters and amazing cinematography, the film lacks plot. The backdrop and setting are tense, but this doesn't feel like a "movie" in the traditional sense. There's no evolution of characters, no arcs, and the ending may leave some wanting. You can compare it to Michael Mann films where plot and pace are unconventional.
Not sure how the film will perform commercially, given the material is esoteric. If you're a film buff (and enjoy great performances) or you've been in finance, this is a must-see. Other may likely pass.
Different, yet interesting film
danielmanson3 June 2021
I'll have to start by saying this film will not be for everyone. This film lacks the needed tension for a Friday film night for example, but this film is heavily relatable and the acting and characters are superb and carry this film.
So why did i find this interesting? The characters. What this film is illustrating is the "behind the scenes" of a giant corporation and how they deal with a giant crisis. The characters that stood out for me were Penn Badgeley, Paul Bettany and Kevin Spacey. To start they were acted superbly well, but I really did relate to them, Penn in particular, and it had me absolutely hooked in.
It's a weird review to write, because I'd normally talk about the plot seen as though that's the main thing you notice about a film when you watch it and it makes or breaks any movie. This is just a little different, because as mentioned prior this film lacks a certain tension needed. The film itself is really smartly written, but it needed a little more to it, to entice you in more.
I personally enjoyed it, but I will guarantee people will hate it due to the lack of things going on. But if you really focus on the characters and their characteristics, it's a really enjoyable and relatable watch. 7/10 from me.
So why did i find this interesting? The characters. What this film is illustrating is the "behind the scenes" of a giant corporation and how they deal with a giant crisis. The characters that stood out for me were Penn Badgeley, Paul Bettany and Kevin Spacey. To start they were acted superbly well, but I really did relate to them, Penn in particular, and it had me absolutely hooked in.
It's a weird review to write, because I'd normally talk about the plot seen as though that's the main thing you notice about a film when you watch it and it makes or breaks any movie. This is just a little different, because as mentioned prior this film lacks a certain tension needed. The film itself is really smartly written, but it needed a little more to it, to entice you in more.
I personally enjoyed it, but I will guarantee people will hate it due to the lack of things going on. But if you really focus on the characters and their characteristics, it's a really enjoyable and relatable watch. 7/10 from me.
the unofficial wall street sequel
kosmasp8 September 2011
While I am a big fan of Oliver Stone and I did enjoy his second Wall Street movie, I have to admit, that this one is superior in every way. Great acting talent at hand, great (unfortunately) real story, which might be a bit heightened for obvious reasons, but still very scary if you think about the whole thing.
As stated above the actors make a big difference. They have to convey decisions and stand by things that you shouldn't normally do. But then again it's not as if this didn't happen (one way or the other). The movie also seems to have affected people since its original slated release date got pushed forward. Festival releases (where I saw it too) and the general good response made that an easy decision. Watching this should be one too ...
As stated above the actors make a big difference. They have to convey decisions and stand by things that you shouldn't normally do. But then again it's not as if this didn't happen (one way or the other). The movie also seems to have affected people since its original slated release date got pushed forward. Festival releases (where I saw it too) and the general good response made that an easy decision. Watching this should be one too ...
An acting showcase that runs a little thin.
Rockwell_Cronenberg22 October 2011
This is a film that is sure to get some comparisons to Glengarry Glen Ross and as a deconstruction of stoic men hitting a breaking point, it does offer a similar kind of study (albeit not nearly as good) with a fantastic cast of great male actors. As it starts out, it seemed like the story was going to give some attention to the moral complexities that must have occurred with men in this position (the investment brokers on the eve of the financial crisis), but as the film progresses it turns more and more into an acting showcase with a little bit of focus on the ramifications of what they were involved in.
I feel that someone like Sorkin could have given it a lot more bite, but as it stands it still works as a fine display of some solid acting skills. Paul Bettany, despite a horrendously confusing and uneven accent, gives one of the best performances of his career. Stanley Tucci isn't in it much, but he absolutely steals every scene he has. Simon Baker and Jeremy Irons are expertly ruthless and Kevin Spacey gives us a glimpse of that talent he displayed in the '90s that has been far too absent this past decade. The film peaks too early, leaving a final act that drags quite a bit, and there's a symbolic subplot with Spacey's dog that is embarrassingly heavy-handed, but it's certainly worth watching if only for the chance to watch a great male cast do their thing.
I feel that someone like Sorkin could have given it a lot more bite, but as it stands it still works as a fine display of some solid acting skills. Paul Bettany, despite a horrendously confusing and uneven accent, gives one of the best performances of his career. Stanley Tucci isn't in it much, but he absolutely steals every scene he has. Simon Baker and Jeremy Irons are expertly ruthless and Kevin Spacey gives us a glimpse of that talent he displayed in the '90s that has been far too absent this past decade. The film peaks too early, leaving a final act that drags quite a bit, and there's a symbolic subplot with Spacey's dog that is embarrassingly heavy-handed, but it's certainly worth watching if only for the chance to watch a great male cast do their thing.
11 years on, you realise little has changed.
neilwaynesmith10 December 2019
Warning: Spoilers
A superb, low-key dramatisation of the initial stages of the sub-prime & financial market meltdowns. This film doesn't rely on overly-theatrical meltdowns and explosive, shouty alpha-male showdowns to have impact, rather it relies on a superb cast, great dialogue and excellent performances by a totally on-form ensemble cast. Stand-out performance from Zachary Quinto who's shock/horror when he realises what's unfolding is a definite watch/rewind/watch moment. Paul Bettany is great as the 'guy who is great at his job, but not quite great enough' as we see in his thouroughly embittered reply 'it happens..... but not to me' line when referring to the senior executives. Simon Baker and Stanley Tucci give their usual excellent performances in.their own inimitable styles, Baker's incomprehension of events superbly demonstrated by him asking the time, muttering ' me', then a few seconds later, asking the time, muttering 'f me'..... etc.
This film proceeds at a modest pace, allowing events to unfold naturally, but the climax, the dramatic 'fire sale' to me highlights why so many hold investment banking in contempt (although this is perfectly balanced by Bettany's 'hypocracy' rant earlier in the film). Overall, very watchable.
Quite engaging
cardsrock19 October 2020
This film is surprisingly interesting and tense given its subject matter. The stellar cast does most of the heavy lifting, though it's very competently made. Jeremy Irons is the standout, though the rest are excellent as well. Margin Call explains the 2008 financial collapse in easy to understand terms and smartly focuses on the morality of what to do when finding that information out early.
Disappointing
ezriderz25 October 2011
Warning: Spoilers
I was hoping for something more informed and informing, as well as exciting and compelling in this movie. Unfortunately, both my wife and I felt that it lacked some requisite elements of an enjoyable movie. It kept talking around things instead of actually coming out and saying what they were talking about. It was hard to follow at times because of the innuendo. It was almost like hearing sentences without subjects or action verbs. And very little was revealed about the actual nature of the financial crisis other than their formulas were broken. I wanted more.
The ending was weak to say the least. It just ended with the Spacey character burying his dead dog in his ex-wife's yard while she tells him that he doesn't live there anymore. Then into the credits with no real resolution. It may have been realistic, but not satisfying.
Compared to Fair Game or Inside Job, I felt this was considerably weaker given the strong cast members. Bad screenplay in my opinion.
The ending was weak to say the least. It just ended with the Spacey character burying his dead dog in his ex-wife's yard while she tells him that he doesn't live there anymore. Then into the credits with no real resolution. It may have been realistic, but not satisfying.
Compared to Fair Game or Inside Job, I felt this was considerably weaker given the strong cast members. Bad screenplay in my opinion.
Perfect visualization of recent financial crisis, showing how people on all levels in the financial industry act and think
JvH4817 October 2011
I saw this film as part of the Ghent filmfestival 2011. Its announcement promised an inside view in the financial industry, and particularly how it could cause the recent financial crisis. And precisely this is what it did splendidly. I gave it a "very good"mark (5 out of 5) for the public prize competition when leaving the theater.
I particularly liked the way they avoided the techno babble about financial products, from which we all learned the hard way to be paper constructs only, none of these related with things in the real world. The story also clearly illustrates that higher echelons in the financial industry do not understand those technicalities either, something we assumed all along but didn't dare to ask for confirmation.
Departing from the very different purposes and backgrounds of the main characters, the story line got us involved in the attempts of each of them to cope with the situation at hand. Though their job motivations may drastically differ from yours and mine, this film had no really distinct good and bad guys.
The main characters were properly introduced in the time-line when logically needed. We got the chance to know each of them, with their own coping behavior in this volatile environmeant, yet everyone bringing along his own human characteristics. In the process we also saw the golden chains to attach each of them to the company, making it virtually impossible to cut themselves loose from this line of work. We may call it greed, but it is a fact of life that everyone gets used to incoming cash flow, however large and unnecessary it may seem in our eyes. Once being there, it is logical to buy a bigger house and to send kids to expensive schools. After that there is no easy way back, and each one smoothly grows into a life style that is difficult to escape from.
The story line as such is not that important, apart from the fact that it succeeds very well in tying all the above together. It also maintains a constant tension all the time. I consider both aspects an achievement in itself, since nothing really happens in terms of dead bodies, physical fights, and chasing cars. Only a few short scenes were shot outside, but all the rest happened in a standard office building. The final outdoor scene was a bit unexpected (I won't spoil it for you), but it shows that even bankers are human after all.
I particularly liked the way they avoided the techno babble about financial products, from which we all learned the hard way to be paper constructs only, none of these related with things in the real world. The story also clearly illustrates that higher echelons in the financial industry do not understand those technicalities either, something we assumed all along but didn't dare to ask for confirmation.
Departing from the very different purposes and backgrounds of the main characters, the story line got us involved in the attempts of each of them to cope with the situation at hand. Though their job motivations may drastically differ from yours and mine, this film had no really distinct good and bad guys.
The main characters were properly introduced in the time-line when logically needed. We got the chance to know each of them, with their own coping behavior in this volatile environmeant, yet everyone bringing along his own human characteristics. In the process we also saw the golden chains to attach each of them to the company, making it virtually impossible to cut themselves loose from this line of work. We may call it greed, but it is a fact of life that everyone gets used to incoming cash flow, however large and unnecessary it may seem in our eyes. Once being there, it is logical to buy a bigger house and to send kids to expensive schools. After that there is no easy way back, and each one smoothly grows into a life style that is difficult to escape from.
The story line as such is not that important, apart from the fact that it succeeds very well in tying all the above together. It also maintains a constant tension all the time. I consider both aspects an achievement in itself, since nothing really happens in terms of dead bodies, physical fights, and chasing cars. Only a few short scenes were shot outside, but all the rest happened in a standard office building. The final outdoor scene was a bit unexpected (I won't spoil it for you), but it shows that even bankers are human after all.
Fixing a Hole
ferguson-622 October 2011
Greetings again from the darkness. It is absolutely understandable if you have reached your limit for dissecting and analyzing the 2008 financial crisis. However, if you can't get enough, or are still trying to find someone to blame for looting half your retirement plan, this film offers a different perspective and one that proves more personal.
Hopefully you saw "Inside Job", a fine documentary that provided an overview of the collapse. HBO's "Too Big To Fail" gave us a glimpse inside the Fed's decision making process during the crisis. This movie narrows the focus down to a singular investment bank. Writer/Director JC Chandor serves up a dramatized story that begins with massive layoffs. We see the hatchet crew arriving replete with security escorts, as high paid executives are led out to the sidewalk. Stanley Tucci plays a middle manager in the Risk-Analysis department. As he is headed to the curb, he hands a flash drive to one of his young analysts (Zachary Quinto) and tells him to finish it and "be careful".
Flash forward a few hours and the surviving staff heads out for celebratory drinks while Quinto's character starts churning away on Tucci's formula. Once he realizes that the risk formulas on MBS (mortgage backed securities) have threatened the stability of the firm, he places an emergency call. It is quite interesting to see how this emergency escalates as we are introduced, one rung at a time, to the hierarchy within the firm ... Paul Bettany, Kevin Spacey, Demi Moore, Simon Baker. This culminates in a late night conference room meeting when the CEO (Jeremy Irons) arrives by helicopter.
There are so many facets to this story. We see how some are in the game for money. Penn Badgley says it's all he ever wanted to do, but his obsessive behavior over the income of each manager shows us why. Paul Bettany is a middle manager who realizes the "killers" such as Simon Baker have passed him by. Demi Moore plays the type who doesn't mind finding a fall guy, as long as it's not her. Kevin Spacey is 30+ year career man who has survived many crisis by being loyal to the firm, while also doing right by the client. Jeremy Irons is the charming, powerful CEO who laughs about being as smart as a Golden Retriever, but laser-focused on keeping the firm viable.
What you can't help but notice is the number of managers who point out that they don't understand the charts and graphs and numbers, and just need someone to explain it to them in "plain English". We also see self-preservation at its finest/worst and the struggle that some of the characters have in deciding what is the "right thing to do". It is not surprising, yet frightening still, to see that the red flags were flying before anyone acknowledged their presence.
When the CEO says the three ways to win are to: "be first, be smartest or cheat", we realize huge decisions are made only in the best interest of the firm ... not the economy, and certainly not an individual investor. Although this investment firm remains nameless through the film, I did find it interesting that Irons' character name is John Tuld. John Tuld ... Dick Fuld ... Just sayin'
Hopefully you saw "Inside Job", a fine documentary that provided an overview of the collapse. HBO's "Too Big To Fail" gave us a glimpse inside the Fed's decision making process during the crisis. This movie narrows the focus down to a singular investment bank. Writer/Director JC Chandor serves up a dramatized story that begins with massive layoffs. We see the hatchet crew arriving replete with security escorts, as high paid executives are led out to the sidewalk. Stanley Tucci plays a middle manager in the Risk-Analysis department. As he is headed to the curb, he hands a flash drive to one of his young analysts (Zachary Quinto) and tells him to finish it and "be careful".
Flash forward a few hours and the surviving staff heads out for celebratory drinks while Quinto's character starts churning away on Tucci's formula. Once he realizes that the risk formulas on MBS (mortgage backed securities) have threatened the stability of the firm, he places an emergency call. It is quite interesting to see how this emergency escalates as we are introduced, one rung at a time, to the hierarchy within the firm ... Paul Bettany, Kevin Spacey, Demi Moore, Simon Baker. This culminates in a late night conference room meeting when the CEO (Jeremy Irons) arrives by helicopter.
There are so many facets to this story. We see how some are in the game for money. Penn Badgley says it's all he ever wanted to do, but his obsessive behavior over the income of each manager shows us why. Paul Bettany is a middle manager who realizes the "killers" such as Simon Baker have passed him by. Demi Moore plays the type who doesn't mind finding a fall guy, as long as it's not her. Kevin Spacey is 30+ year career man who has survived many crisis by being loyal to the firm, while also doing right by the client. Jeremy Irons is the charming, powerful CEO who laughs about being as smart as a Golden Retriever, but laser-focused on keeping the firm viable.
What you can't help but notice is the number of managers who point out that they don't understand the charts and graphs and numbers, and just need someone to explain it to them in "plain English". We also see self-preservation at its finest/worst and the struggle that some of the characters have in deciding what is the "right thing to do". It is not surprising, yet frightening still, to see that the red flags were flying before anyone acknowledged their presence.
When the CEO says the three ways to win are to: "be first, be smartest or cheat", we realize huge decisions are made only in the best interest of the firm ... not the economy, and certainly not an individual investor. Although this investment firm remains nameless through the film, I did find it interesting that Irons' character name is John Tuld. John Tuld ... Dick Fuld ... Just sayin'
Great thrill night
umairlooms24 May 2020
If you liked the TV series, suites, or any office drama, this is the same thing but much MUCH more polished.
Not only is the cast of the movie great, but most of the performances are also very very well done. Despite very little direct character building, you can 'just fee', where everyone comes from. Its the short dialogues, the small instances, where you can pick out on who they are and what they have been through. No flashy exposition, no real gimmickry, its just smart script writing and performances, on full throttle.
Also, I have rarely seen a cast work in such a manner as they do here. Everyone is out of place, yet on a team at the same time (as it usually is). Everyone is looking out for themselves and the team, at the same time. No BS chivalry, no over the top sacrifices, just BUSINESS
Its surely a thrilling ride and captures the stresses of a mammoth situation like a financial crises, perfectly well.
Not only is the cast of the movie great, but most of the performances are also very very well done. Despite very little direct character building, you can 'just fee', where everyone comes from. Its the short dialogues, the small instances, where you can pick out on who they are and what they have been through. No flashy exposition, no real gimmickry, its just smart script writing and performances, on full throttle.
Also, I have rarely seen a cast work in such a manner as they do here. Everyone is out of place, yet on a team at the same time (as it usually is). Everyone is looking out for themselves and the team, at the same time. No BS chivalry, no over the top sacrifices, just BUSINESS
Its surely a thrilling ride and captures the stresses of a mammoth situation like a financial crises, perfectly well.
The Salesmen Are In Charge
boblipton25 January 2023
It's 34 hours at a major Wall Street trading firm that realizes the securities it trades in are worthless and decides to get out, destroying the market and the firm in the process. Judging by some clues, it appears to combine aspects of Lehman Brothers and Goldman Sachs and concerns the market meltdown in 2008.
Although the point of view shifts around, a major portion of it is told from the viewpoint of Kevin Spacey, head of trading of the firm.... a quarter of a century after he appeared in Glengarry Glenross. Here, he's dealing with a dying dog, and this reminds me of what a friend told me when he interviewed with Goldman Sachs. The man conducting the interview told him "If you want a friend, get a dog. This place is about money."
The thesis of the movie is that they were dealing in securities they didn't understand, devised by rocket scientists -- actually rocket science involves much simpler maths than the quants of Wall Street work with. To a firm run by salesmen, this was an opportunity, the same old stuff covered by the fig leaf of science, and the fact that they didn't understand what they were dealing in led to the destruction. The head of the firm, played by Jeremy Irons, ascribes the destruction that the financial world has wreaked repeatedly on the globe, to winners balancing losers, and that's just the way people are. True enough, some people are like that, and since they're interested in money, rather than something useful, that's what they get and lose. If you're a physicist, you get rockets to the moon and atomic bombs. If you're a good salesman, you sell; a great salesman worries about his clients being satisfied, but a good salesman worries about the sale he's making, and makes a lot more sales for a while; and that's what the financial firms went with and put in charge.
None of these ramblings get at the core of the movie as a movie, written and directed by J. C. Chandor, and performed by some fine actors, including Stanley Tucci, Paul Bettany, Zachary Quinto, Simon Baker, and Demi Moore. It's a dry, cold, pessimistic movie, and my understanding of how the financial industry operates informs my appreciation of it. I liked it a lot, while seeing things to argue about. Whether you like it or not would depend on how much you understand about these things, how badly you got hurt in 2008, and your politics.
Although the point of view shifts around, a major portion of it is told from the viewpoint of Kevin Spacey, head of trading of the firm.... a quarter of a century after he appeared in Glengarry Glenross. Here, he's dealing with a dying dog, and this reminds me of what a friend told me when he interviewed with Goldman Sachs. The man conducting the interview told him "If you want a friend, get a dog. This place is about money."
The thesis of the movie is that they were dealing in securities they didn't understand, devised by rocket scientists -- actually rocket science involves much simpler maths than the quants of Wall Street work with. To a firm run by salesmen, this was an opportunity, the same old stuff covered by the fig leaf of science, and the fact that they didn't understand what they were dealing in led to the destruction. The head of the firm, played by Jeremy Irons, ascribes the destruction that the financial world has wreaked repeatedly on the globe, to winners balancing losers, and that's just the way people are. True enough, some people are like that, and since they're interested in money, rather than something useful, that's what they get and lose. If you're a physicist, you get rockets to the moon and atomic bombs. If you're a good salesman, you sell; a great salesman worries about his clients being satisfied, but a good salesman worries about the sale he's making, and makes a lot more sales for a while; and that's what the financial firms went with and put in charge.
None of these ramblings get at the core of the movie as a movie, written and directed by J. C. Chandor, and performed by some fine actors, including Stanley Tucci, Paul Bettany, Zachary Quinto, Simon Baker, and Demi Moore. It's a dry, cold, pessimistic movie, and my understanding of how the financial industry operates informs my appreciation of it. I liked it a lot, while seeing things to argue about. Whether you like it or not would depend on how much you understand about these things, how badly you got hurt in 2008, and your politics.
Well worth watching
jestak22 March 2022
My wife and I were scrolling through Netflix for something to watch. We went right through Margin Call several times. A couple of times was because it was made in 2011, so a little old. The brief description was not overly attractive and the picture didn't do it justice. We finally watched it when we were semi-desperate.
So wrong to over look it. If you are even marginally interested (yes a slight pun) in finance and the meltdown in 2007-2009, then you must watch it. Very underrated film, well done. If you understand finance even slightly or some of the terms used, then you can intuit some of the action. But even then, you get the jist.
I loved the cast, the dialogue, the meaning of the film. Don't make the mistake we made and scroll right over it. A great watch.
So wrong to over look it. If you are even marginally interested (yes a slight pun) in finance and the meltdown in 2007-2009, then you must watch it. Very underrated film, well done. If you understand finance even slightly or some of the terms used, then you can intuit some of the action. But even then, you get the jist.
I loved the cast, the dialogue, the meaning of the film. Don't make the mistake we made and scroll right over it. A great watch.
Well Explained, Well Filmed
martymoves27 January 2023
This film was a very straight-forward, tell-it-like-it-is approach, that doesn't complicate things with terms you can't comprehend.
The cast is absolutely phenomenal. Just about everybody bangs it out of the park. It is shot with a very moody approach that lets you know this is intense, and that's all it needs to be.
You see several different perspectives and the conflicts they all face. It humanises those we feel are monsters, and also villifies those we feel are monsters. Its quite articulate in its telling.
The dialogue is easy to keep up with and the scenes are shot with such distinction.
Overall Rating 7/10 Entertainment value 7/10 For such solidly delivered performances by the whole cast.
The cast is absolutely phenomenal. Just about everybody bangs it out of the park. It is shot with a very moody approach that lets you know this is intense, and that's all it needs to be.
You see several different perspectives and the conflicts they all face. It humanises those we feel are monsters, and also villifies those we feel are monsters. Its quite articulate in its telling.
The dialogue is easy to keep up with and the scenes are shot with such distinction.
Overall Rating 7/10 Entertainment value 7/10 For such solidly delivered performances by the whole cast.
"So That...We...May...Survive!"
freecrafted23 October 2011
Warning: Spoilers
So here goes my first review on IMDb.
This is a movie for those that want to see the human element when an investment bank realizes their models are wrong and that they are sitting on a large amount of assets worth less than they are currently marked at.
There are 2 errors that just about everybody is making about this movie, though. The first is that this movie is about the September 2008 financial crash. That is false. This movie is about the collapse of the CDO/MBS market in *2007*(what led to I-Banks going belly up in 08). That also didn't happen in 1 day(while there were some very bad days), it occurred over several months. Google "ABX Index" and select images and you'll see that for yourself. But for the interest of time and simplicity "Margin Call" simplified the actions of firms over those several months into 1 day and the actions of dozens(if not hundreds) of people into a handful which is understandable.
The second error is that this nameless firm is one of the I-banks that went under or was sold like Lehman, Bear, Merrill, etc. The movie is clearly (in my mind at least) modeled after Goldman Sachs. The first reason is because they are seen as the first I-bank to aggressively try to scale back their exposure to MBS. The second reason would be a spoiler, but lets just say that Goldman is pretty aggressive at "making way for new blood" relative to the others even though the movies depiction was way overblown.
I think many will be happy to know that the amount of "inside lingo" is kept to a minimum, but that doesn't mean that you will be able to understand a handful of things mentioned without a pretty good cursory knowledge of financial jargon. Don't worry though its not needed to understand the movie.
For those that are looking for a story depicting causes of the financial crisis this movie isn't it. If your looking for a movie depicting evil people conniving in a board room to screw over the public this isn't it.
This movie is about an analyst who discovers that the volatility assumptions in their MBS portfolio were false and that it could very easily take down the entire company. Its a movie depicting the increasingly suspenseful and gripping atmosphere when a firm realizes they are sitting on a large pile of illiquid assets worth less than they thought. Its a movie depicting the concern of particular players that their reputation will be shot when they are forced to market make assets that will "kill the market" for MBS.
Its a movie that depicts the actions of a firm "So that...they...may...survive."
Acting was great. Direction was great. Script was decent! Watch this movie if you want to understand the most accurate depiction so far of the types of characters inside Investment Banks during a scary period.
This is a movie for those that want to see the human element when an investment bank realizes their models are wrong and that they are sitting on a large amount of assets worth less than they are currently marked at.
There are 2 errors that just about everybody is making about this movie, though. The first is that this movie is about the September 2008 financial crash. That is false. This movie is about the collapse of the CDO/MBS market in *2007*(what led to I-Banks going belly up in 08). That also didn't happen in 1 day(while there were some very bad days), it occurred over several months. Google "ABX Index" and select images and you'll see that for yourself. But for the interest of time and simplicity "Margin Call" simplified the actions of firms over those several months into 1 day and the actions of dozens(if not hundreds) of people into a handful which is understandable.
The second error is that this nameless firm is one of the I-banks that went under or was sold like Lehman, Bear, Merrill, etc. The movie is clearly (in my mind at least) modeled after Goldman Sachs. The first reason is because they are seen as the first I-bank to aggressively try to scale back their exposure to MBS. The second reason would be a spoiler, but lets just say that Goldman is pretty aggressive at "making way for new blood" relative to the others even though the movies depiction was way overblown.
I think many will be happy to know that the amount of "inside lingo" is kept to a minimum, but that doesn't mean that you will be able to understand a handful of things mentioned without a pretty good cursory knowledge of financial jargon. Don't worry though its not needed to understand the movie.
For those that are looking for a story depicting causes of the financial crisis this movie isn't it. If your looking for a movie depicting evil people conniving in a board room to screw over the public this isn't it.
This movie is about an analyst who discovers that the volatility assumptions in their MBS portfolio were false and that it could very easily take down the entire company. Its a movie depicting the increasingly suspenseful and gripping atmosphere when a firm realizes they are sitting on a large pile of illiquid assets worth less than they thought. Its a movie depicting the concern of particular players that their reputation will be shot when they are forced to market make assets that will "kill the market" for MBS.
Its a movie that depicts the actions of a firm "So that...they...may...survive."
Acting was great. Direction was great. Script was decent! Watch this movie if you want to understand the most accurate depiction so far of the types of characters inside Investment Banks during a scary period.
Not-so-ordinary Thriller
TroyeEvans12 November 2011
Warning: Spoilers
This is no usual thriller, but it still manages to deliver the thrills while revealing the truth, as this is based on the starting period of the financial turmoil. It also leads to some reflections about our actions during that period.
The performances are solid and the story is good. Different people in a company are faced with a crisis that can take the whole company down. I am not sure if I understand it fully but basically it is a choice of morality - whether to sell the "soon-valueless" stocks to the market and saving the company.
Indeed, what makes the film good is not the plot itself, but the different attitudes of the depicted characters towards such a decision. Some think it's the only choice to "win" the game while some think it is an action that can only temporarily save the corporation but ruining the name of the company. With the foundation of good acting, the film succeeds in showing us the different purposes and conflicts.
While this is not really a thriller that has a certain explosion of climax, the tense environment created is realistic enough to convince viewers. I'd have to conclude that this is a good thriller, but definitely not for everyone. Kids will surely be bored to death, and people who have absolutely zero interest in the stock markets may find it uninteresting. I'm one of those that liked it, but not so much.
The performances are solid and the story is good. Different people in a company are faced with a crisis that can take the whole company down. I am not sure if I understand it fully but basically it is a choice of morality - whether to sell the "soon-valueless" stocks to the market and saving the company.
Indeed, what makes the film good is not the plot itself, but the different attitudes of the depicted characters towards such a decision. Some think it's the only choice to "win" the game while some think it is an action that can only temporarily save the corporation but ruining the name of the company. With the foundation of good acting, the film succeeds in showing us the different purposes and conflicts.
While this is not really a thriller that has a certain explosion of climax, the tense environment created is realistic enough to convince viewers. I'd have to conclude that this is a good thriller, but definitely not for everyone. Kids will surely be bored to death, and people who have absolutely zero interest in the stock markets may find it uninteresting. I'm one of those that liked it, but not so much.
- dchgl.blogspot.com
From one Banker to another
sharon-campone-evans5 October 2019
Recommended
mgd_m29 April 2019
Margin Call is one of those movies that stand out not for what they say, but for how they say it. I care very little for a story about the financial crisis, and for the moral theme involved; but this movie does a very good job in storytelling, so that the story becomes interesting. The idea of focusing on the very first hours of the crisis is very smart. The direction is good, the dialogues are flawless, there's a lot of interesting characters, and the acting from an outstanding cast is fantastic.
Dances around brilliance, but never finds it.
saltman9524 October 2011
Warning: Spoilers
Have to say I was disappointed as is often the case movies about Wall Street, save for the original Wall Street.
This is very much in the mold of Glengarry Glen Ross as someone correctly pointed out earlier. I will agree that the acting was for the most part very solid. I thought Simon Baker and Jeremy Irons stood head and shoulders above everyone else.
If you work in the industry, this movie will frustrate you. First of all, it will take you no time to figure out the film has nothing to do with margin calls and but rather trading desk operations. The technical aspects are pretty accurate, but they never really fully explain the true nature of the issue.
The film lacks a protagonist and for that matter antagonist. Everyone is just sort of there, which is real, but not real entertaining. In my opinion this film is little more than a collection of well acted scenes that struggle when put together.
And no this firm did not act in a manner similar to Lehman, but closer to Goldman as someone already pointed out.
This is very much in the mold of Glengarry Glen Ross as someone correctly pointed out earlier. I will agree that the acting was for the most part very solid. I thought Simon Baker and Jeremy Irons stood head and shoulders above everyone else.
If you work in the industry, this movie will frustrate you. First of all, it will take you no time to figure out the film has nothing to do with margin calls and but rather trading desk operations. The technical aspects are pretty accurate, but they never really fully explain the true nature of the issue.
The film lacks a protagonist and for that matter antagonist. Everyone is just sort of there, which is real, but not real entertaining. In my opinion this film is little more than a collection of well acted scenes that struggle when put together.
And no this firm did not act in a manner similar to Lehman, but closer to Goldman as someone already pointed out.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
