livesoft wrote:I think it is in limited release. From the reviews, it appears to be one of those documentaries that you would watch on PBS. I do not think it will appear in a theater near me, so I will probably watch it online after it appears on PBS.
bobcat2 wrote:I have an advantage in posting about this movie, because I have seen it. I think the best parts are where Ferguson is interviewing someone involved with the financial crisis and he asks the individual why his/her organization did something really stupid and/or really risky, instead of something savvy and/or low risk. Then the interviewee gives a really dumb defense of the actions that were taken, apparently expecting Ferguson to be as clueless about finance as most members of the news media and accept this nonsense reply with no follow-up questions being asked.
Instead the mild mannered appearing Ferguson says that is really stupid. The interviewee, somewhat staggered at that point, asks why. Ferguson plainly tells him or her why. That is followed inevitably by something truly lame such as the one guy asking, "Can we turn this stuff off now?"
tadamsmar wrote:The ambushes of the professors and deans at top business schools were good because these guys were totally blindsided by questions related to the fact that they were paid write this or that policy paper.
denismurf wrote:It's hard to imagine a movie that could reveal anything significant about those events that was not already revealed in Too Big To Fail, which I just finished.
I was depressed all over again by the fact that not one of the arrogant, lying, wealthy captains of finance that came within a gnat's eyelash of destroying the world financial system has served a day in jail for their behavior.
tadamsmar wrote:2. The fact that the Justice Department is not putting the heat on higher ups in wall street using information they have about them buying hookers and drugs on expense accounts. This could be used to make them turn state's evidence.
magellan wrote:tadamsmar wrote:2. The fact that the Justice Department is not putting the heat on higher ups in wall street using information they have about them buying hookers and drugs on expense accounts. This could be used to make them turn state's evidence.
This was a good case of the flicking around I mentioned. IMO, the most interesting part of this story was the difference in treatment between the Wall Street execs and Spitzer. I know we shouldn't go there on this forum, but the movie just dropped a slight hint about this and moved on.
There was no reporting or investigating of the prosecutors or their motivations to shed light on why the disparity existed. They spent lots of time showing video of red light districts and interviewing a madam. But that footage didn't tell me anything I didn't already know about how some corp execs behave. If that's all they had, it should have been left on the cutting room floor. IMO, there's nothing in that story that helps explain the crisis or that's unique to wall street.
tadamsmar wrote:The new part is about the non-agressive prosecutors. Right? So you wish they had not learned about the non-agressive prosecutors? Why?
Candidly I think not, and after seeing(Not that a movie makes up my mind) Client 9:The rise and fall of Elliot Spitzer. Simply reinforces my opinion. I'd thought about this years ago,........Like the powers that be left the Kennedy clan, when they turned on them. For decades Kennedy's were killed, vilified, or died in accidents. Elliot Spitzer was undoubtedly set up by big Wall Street money. He was both interfering with and exposing "their" schemes as AG, and they didn't forget that as he was approaching higher political office. JMOSP-diceman wrote:tadamsmar wrote:do what they did to Eliot Spitzer.
I thought he did it to himself.
Adrian Nenu wrote:Moral hazard - what should have happened to AIG, Citi, Merrill, Morgan Stanley, Bank of America, etc executives: