MovieChat Forums > Inside Job (2010) Discussion > this thing is so overrated

this thing is so overrated

posted 12 years ago by tpgalvin
12 replies | jump to latest

It was a good concept worth making a documentary on, but once you get past the basics of what happened, there is nothing else there. Endless boring one-liner interviews, many of which seemed sneak attack style. So you've got a bunch of people stammering around for words, telling you absolutely nothing of interest much like most people would be if you just walked up to them and started asking them point blank questions.

Was the point of these interviews to provide anything thought provoking or worth considering, or just for the docmaker to "get even" with the people responsible for the collapse/who he felt was responsible for the collapse?

Then you've got the predictable scenes of poor people working in factories. ZZZZZ. When it got to the people in tents is the part i started fast forwarding realizing there was nothing but more of the same "look how sad this is" and "you stink. how could you let this happen?".

[–] karsultimate 12 years ago

I think we know who you're batting for. Funny, is it?

Indeed the interviews did not say much, but the absence of the people who declined said more about them than they ever could have themselves.

[–] victor-221 12 years ago

I would agree that people who declined probably had a LOT to hide. However, the documentary kinda proves that even if the HAD consented, their remarks would have been chopped, edited, scrambled and butchered to the point that they would have been made to look like idiots at best and criminal at worst. Given that, why would ANYONE choose to participate? It is funnier and more entertaining with quick edits, but far less enlightening. I think the PBS "Frontline" series does a far better job at explaining these complex issues. "Frontline" may not be as much "fun" as "Inside Job" but I think people are more willing to be interviewed if they feel they're given a chance to tell their side.

[–] DCI77 12 years ago

>>I think we know who you're batting for. Funny, is it?

Let me see, you actually think this doc is amazing.

2013 Most Anticipated - Stoker, The Spectacular Now, Frances Ha

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] JWJanneck 11 years ago

Well, I found many things in it delightfully revealing. The interview with R Glenn Hubbard is an instant classic, IMO.

[–] alteransg1 11 years ago

As every "propper documentary" should this movie is trying to play on the viewer's feelings. Yes, whoever wrote this read a paper or two about how the mechanics of the crysis worked. The point where they started interviewing an "actual" prostitue and the overal zeitgeist-like conspiracy structure of the film is where they lost me. People who declined maybe had something to hide, or maybe just didn't want to acknowlege this as a worthy documentary. Either way the fact that this won an oscar is pretty indicative of how Holiwood is trying to "guide" people's views

[–] fnimms 11 years ago

I somewhat agree with what you are saying. There are definitely some very provocative statements made in this film, including interviewing a random prostitute for titillating effect. Because some executives and brokers partake in these activities, does not mean the entire industry does. I felt there were few statistics in this film other than listing the names of people in the various presidential administrations who came from investment banking. Personally, I'm turned off by documentaries that come across heavy handed, caricaturing people in an industry as evil villains (enhanced by dramatic music at the right moments in an interview).

I do, however, think that the topic of the 2008 financial crisis needs to be examined from many different viewpoints, and this film is important as a voice in asking why did it happen. I think the documentary could have been more even handed. Contrasting this to HBO's, "Too Big To Fail," which colors some of these same people as U.S. heroes is a good place to start. (Note: based on the book by the same title). Were there people who are probably criminally responsible for what took place? Maybe. Where do you start? The inventor of the mortgage-backed security? The government that let it go unchecked for years? The hapless mortgage broker trying to compete in a saturated industry? The home buyer for not understanding basic math and interest rates? I think there is more blame to go around than just the industry itself (fyi, I don't work in the industry).

Still the film is worth watching.

[–] somesunnyday 10 years ago

I think the documentary could have been more even handed.

Even handed? seriously? Do you think that's what the CEO's of these banks hand in mind at the time?

Where do you start? The inventor of the mortgage-backed security? The government that let it go unchecked for years? The hapless mortgage broker trying to compete in a saturated industry? The home buyer for not understanding basic math and interest rates? I think there is more blame to go around than just the industry itself (fyi, I don't work in the industry).

How about all the fat cats on the Financial Services Roundtable who managed to convince (manipulate) the Government into agreeing that regulation was not required for CDOs and would hurt the workings of financial companies and impede the wealth making of a free nation?

How about the regulators who seemed to be wooed by the companies they were supposedly regulating (30% of them ending up working for the companies they were supposed to regulate)? When it came to the crunch they actually state when questioned under investigation that their advice should have just been taken as "opinions" and nothing else. What's the point of a regulatory body when they can't stand by their codes?

Obama makes some grand statement that more regulation needs to occur after the 2008 disaster happens but in reality he soon realises that he is powerless to do anything to genuinely improve regulating this monster of an industry that pulls all the strings. Just like gun laws in the USA.

The fact is that nobody, nobody was held accountable or prosecuted for their heinous actions that were a simple case of knowing the not so long term implications of what they were doing (please dot't tell me they didn't see it coming, BLIND FREDDY COULD SEE), making hay while the sun shines to line their own revoltingly greedy pockets at the expense of tens of millions of ordinary people and a world wide economy.

In a just world, the regulatory body staff should have been hauled over the coals, the CEO's of those banks should have had their own personal wealth stripped from them to help compensate for the billions of dollars the Government had to throw in to try and save the day. The Government leaders at the time should have been sacked for negligence, just like Gough Whitlam's Government was in Australia back in 1975. Ultimately the Government should have ensured there were proper regulatory bodies in place to be the watch dog for the industry and prevent such a catastrophe.

This whole saga makes me sick to the stomach and the fact that nothing has changed since makes me lose all hope for humanity.

EDIT: I just realised I'm a complete numb nuts and mixed up the regulators with the raters. All the same the raters and the regulators combined have played a big hand in creating this catastrophe. How the hell do you have AAA rated COD stocks that are "crap"? That's really scary for investors.

[–] edahlmano 10 years ago

No one really predicted the CDO failure except 1 hedge fund who speculated it would fail, just a short while before the crash. So don't make it sound like everyone knew this was going to happen. Rating agencies are companies that predicts failure or success - just like any other fund or bank. They can't be expected to be right all the time.

I blame this crisis on everyone in U.S and Europe. We haven't regulated the markets properly. Government isn't doing its job if it managed to get manipulated as you put it.

[–] Darkwalker173 10 years ago

Do you actually believe any of what you are saying?
The crash was inevitable, and everyone in the industry knew it was going to happen sooner or later. Greenspan is the one who should be prosecuted, he had ample opportunity to stop it, but chose to do nothing in return for a generous off the books bonus, I am sure.
As for the ratings companies, they were paid for their AAA "predictions", and had they rated them lower, would not have been compensated.

In the end, the blame can be put on a vast number of people, but the final failure was the governments for not stopping the wholesale chicanery that was going on.

I laugh in the face of danger, then I hide until it goes away.

[–] Number_One_Birdlawyer 10 years ago

Is this your first documentary? Maybe watch it again in a couple years when you start growing pubes.

[–] djsnafu23 9 years ago

I loved the documentary because of its message and truthfulness, and thnk it's really important that people who haven'[t studied Economics watch it to understand how this all happened, and whop the people responsible are. I do however agree that the interviews were far too choppy, they should have played out for much longer and without edits. It's a shame as the stylistic methods weren't needed at all to convey the point. I also agree that the hookers and drugs references were unneeded, those vices are not what brought the economy down, that's just personal stuff that can well coexist with moral decisions and financial transparency.

...

http://soundcloud.com/dj-snafu-bankrupt-euros

Coz lifes too short to listen to Madlib