Avaliações de usuários

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

There are a few inaccuracies and things that 'just wouldn't happen', but I've got to say, this was scarily accurate (I was a banker in 2008)

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.

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.

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.

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 ...

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.

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.

Worth a watch. Deals well, in a measured yet compelling way, with the money-grabbing, back-stabbing, power-playing events of 2008 through a micro-view of a few individuals in one firm.

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'

"I think this is one of the best movies of the past several years-or at least the most thrilling, finely crafted, and piercingly insightful one yet made about the 2008 crisis and contemporary capitalism.

There is, admittedly, not a lot of competition there. Cynical though it may be, one can understand how profit-minded studio executives might be skeptical of drama manifested in numbers and balance sheets. Most other entries in the genre (let's call it 'financial thriller') tend to be squarely polemical-either satirical depictions of greed like The Wolf of Wall Street or Oliver Stone's 1987 Wall Street, or else advocacy documentaries like Capitalism: A Love Story or Charles Ferguson's Inside Job. Margin Call strikes something of a balance between the two, giving us a sense of the numbing scale and complexity of the crisis as well as the way it affects-and is affected by-the human qualities of the people involved, and for this reason its portrayal of a Wall Street firm feels both more realistic and more insightful. It's the rare fact-based story that finds drama not just in showing what happened, but in trying to understand why it happened.

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.

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.

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.

In recent times I have looked at a couple of films about financial markets. Two of them ("Margin call" (2011, J. C. Chandor) and "The big short" (2015, Adam McKay)) are about the financial crisies of 2008.

Of these two "The big short" is more substance and "Margin call" is more style. In "The big short" a character sometimes looks right into the camera to explain the mortgage market to the spectator, which leads to a somewhat artificial impression. In "Margin call" there are dialogues with an abbreviation such as "MBS" (Mortgage backed securities) in it, which is never explained. To be honest, I did like the substantive approach of "The big short" better than the more stylish "Margin call", not denying that the latter has its merits too.

In "Margin call" a young employee of an investment firm finds out that his employer has a lot of worthless paper on its balance sheet. As indicated earlier there is not explained what the paper is all about and why it is wortless.

This discovery leads to a nightly meeting of the big shots of the firm. Ultimately the decision is made to go for a complete closeout ("my loss is your gain") and to sell the trash before the rest of the world will also find out that it's worthless. When early in the morning the dealers start dropping in they get their orders.

The nightly meeting, with panic gradually taking over, takes up most of the movie. The empty office building with al the computer screens on (unlikely but giving a big effect) makes for a spooky atmosphere, the film almost taking on the character of a haunted house horror movie.

Between the nightly meeting and the moment the traders start getting in all the main characters are visited once again at dawn. Nothing much is happening in this entre acte, but it is nevertheless beautiful. It reminded me of a similar sequence (wise up sequence) in "Magnolia" (1999, Paul Thomas Anderson).

I told earlier that I did like the substance of "The big short" better than the style of "Margin call". A couple of years later director J. C. Chandor would prove with "A most violent year" (2014) that he could make a film with both style and substance.