Does anyone see the hypocrisy in using a using a big-budget documentary and a-list names (Matt Damon) to condemn the very system they profit off of?
It was cringe-worthy to watch, knowing that without banks and their "Carefree" lending, these Hollywood studios wouldn't be able to make a single cent.
[deleted]
the documentary is not against bankers, it's against criminal bankers, you're delusional.
i mostly will not be able to answer your reply, since marissa mayer hacked my email, no notification
No not really. If Matt Damon made millions legally and without screwing over millions of other people to do it (which is what the movie is condemning), then it's not hypocrisy at all.
shareWhatever. Y'all are ignoring the bigger picture here.
shareAgree. We must demand documentary film makers to use very precarious budgets, better if they spend their own money. Also they shouldn't make their documentaries any appealing at all, so they are forbidden using any mainstream actors as narrators, or any other mainstream mean to attract attention.
Also agree that we are ignoring the bigger picture here: it is not important a bunch of bankers, corrupt politicians and unethical professionals sacked the US people and national treasure, and none of them were prosecuted, nor returned any money. No. The most important thing here is Inside Job is using Matt Daemon as the narrator.
Therefore, this documentary doesn't deserve any attention or credibility at all.
[deleted]
That's not what I was saying at all. Don't put words into my mouth.
shareYep, it was funny seeing Matt Damon criticize teachers from Harvard Berkeley, seeing as he studied at Harvard too and the director of the movie studied at Berkeley.
It's basically populist pandering in the likes of Michael Moore.