Inside Job (2010) User Reviews (175)

Love and Hate

[Astralan · 9/10 · 2 March 2011]

I work. I have worked since I was 16. I worked when going to college. I worked between college. I worked after college. I worked while raising a family. I worked, sometimes 3 or 4 jobs at a time. I'm still working. And after retirement, I don't think I would be able to quit doing something, even if it meant being a greeter at Wells Fargo. I put in my overtime. I put in my dues. I will not really have enough money to live on when I retire, but that is all relative to my lifestyle at that time. I certainly will not be able to afford the house, but I will have some foreseeable comforts. I may not have worked as hard as others, but I have worked dependably and consistently. My conscience is fairly clean.

I have never been in a position to make vast amounts of money. Most of my life I have lived from paycheck to paycheck. I am not a financial planner. I can be an impulsive buyer at times but when I get that craving I make sure that whatever I get will last me. I'm probably the perfect Joe Schmoe.

I watched this film. I don't know why. Maybe I was curious about it winning an Oscar. Maybe I'm just into masochistic tendencies, but I did watch it all the way through. I sat their like the wedding guests in the Rhyme of the Ancient Mariner as he spun his story wondering how all this stuff could have happened over such a long period of time and realizing how gullible and uninformed I am. When it comes to Government, I am like an ostrich with its head in the ground: Just let me do my job, I don't want to worry about you doing yours.

I don't think I am the only one with this sentiment. However, when one of us Joe Schmoes handed over billions of dollars to the people that engineered the collapse of so many financial institutions; to realize this has already happened; to realize there is nothing to be done just increases resentment.

The documentary was skillfully done. The preface to this movie followed the decline of Iceland during their deregulation period. Within 5 short years they went from picture perfect to poverty, the only success stories probably laughed about over drinks and cigars. The movie then proceeds to tactfully follow the events from the Regan era deregulation to the panic of the collapse of insurance, banks and brokerage houses. It then moves on to the signing of the bailout then to the wake of their carnage in the world financial structure. The appalling fact of this is no one went to jail. To the contrary, they all walked off with billions.

Matt Daemon does an excellent job of narrating the facts in a flat unsympathetic tone. The directors are quick to point out those individuals that did not let an interview happen, casting a higher level of doubt to their credibility. All in all, much was exposed and even if 30% of it is true, it is disappointing it ever got to this point.

Unlike Moore, seeing this was a serious piece I appreciated the fact the production wasn't degraded by any comic relief. There was much to love and hate about this film. The production of it was crisp, clean and too the point following a well thought out introduction and ending, but you sure do end up hating capitalism by the time the ending credits start to roll.

The Best Crash Course on the Crash of 2008

[mbanak · 9/10 · 21 October 2010]

About 30 people at the 7PM show in the Music Box theater in Chicago last nite, and I was one of them.

I am always looking for two things on this economic disaster: 1) A better understanding, and 2) a means of explaining it better to others. This film delivers in both counts.

For me the key sequence came when the graphics, under solid narration, illustrated how 3rd tier investors were placing bets on bets. I.e., that's what derivatives are. I always knew this was happening, but the film made it very clear. That was the break point (in my analysis of the problem).

The film was nearly void of political leanings, which made it an important contribution. The only part that bothered me is that Congressman Barney Frank was framed as an expert looking back with wisdom on the ill-conceived passage of the "Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000", and, behold! Barney Frank *voted* for it. It would be better to interview all 4 Congressmen who voted against it: Ron Paul, Nick Smith, Gene Taylor and Peter DeFazio. [2 from each Party! How's that for Bipartism opposition? It took me 10 minutes to confirm these names, and I'm not even making a movie.]

It is significant that a continuum of hoodlums are seen on the podium with a continuum of Prsidents: Regan through Obama. The infestation of their ilk into the Political World is there for all to see.

Please see this film any way you can, and lock it in!

"Inside Job" is a stunning analysis of the greed that caused the Wall Street crash.

[fergo-2 · 9/10 · 7 November 2010]

Charles Ferguson's "Inside Job" is strong, fair, and rational. The director tries mightily to untangle the complex architecture of the financial meltdown that has cost millions their jobs, their homes, and their savings. If you consider skipping it because it sounds boring, please think again. My blood is still boiling.

Why does this documentary leave us sunk in despair? Because it confirms the certainty that there is no one left we can trust. The fact that much of what brought the economy to its knees was legal, not criminal, signals a financial sector run by ethical nihilists who will pursue every legal loophole to enrich themselves. Human nature, you say? Then bring back the stringent regulation that gave the industry forty years of reasonable corporate success before Reagan era deregulation. The schoolyard bullies need supervision.

America's bubble of private gain and public loss was pierced by the collapse of Lehman Bros. and AIG. Banks merged into "too big to fail" behemoths; safeguards were overturned; regulation of derivatives was banned; This vacuum quickly filled with money laundering, defrauding of customers, cooking the books, and stuffing of the pockets of top officers with money. Larry Summers took 20 million as adviser to a hedge fund. Lehman's CEO took 485 million, the CEO of the failing AIG 315 million. Fired by Merrill, CEO Stan O'Neal departed with a severance bonus of 161 million.

When Mortgages were bundled and sold to the bloated investment banks, lenders no longer cared if they were repaid. Goldman, Lehman, and Merrill were all players. Summers, Bernanke, and Geithner all stood against corrective measures and would play pivotal roles in the Obama administration.

Absent limits on the impulsive risk takers, Wall Street plunged into personal pleasure. There was never enough: penthouses on Park, private jets (six for Lehman alone), vacation homes, art collections, drivers, private elevators, drugs, alcohol, strip bars, and prostitution - one private supplier within spitting distance of the stock exchange counted 10,000 men among her customers..

Three ratings agencies made fortunes bestowing unwarranted ratings right up to two days before Lehman failed, later testifying before congress that these were merely "opinions", not guides for investors. The crowning disgrace is the corruption of the universities. Business school professors consult with companies. Glenn Hubbard, dean of Columbia Business School, takes $250,000 as a board member of Met Life. Larry Summers, back at Harvard, continues to rake in consulting and lecture fees.

The presidents of Harvard and Columbia refused comment. You will appreciate the honesty of Raghuram Rajan who wrote strong warnings and French Finance Minister Christine Lagarde, who spoke with disgust of the debacle.

It used to be that respected academics could be counted on to be the conscience of democracy. Now they are reduced to being interchangeable components in the conflict of interest chain that links business/government/university. Credit Charles Ferguson with a superb investigation and give thanks that we still have a free investigative press to wake the sleeping citizenry.

Probably the best documentary I have ever seen

[winterhaze13 · 10/10 · 31 December 2010]

Inside Job is an enthralling documentary about how the reckless actions of Wall Street lead to the near collapse of the financial sector and subsequently the deepest recession since the 1930s. This is the second film by director Charles Ferguson, the first being No End in Sight an equally engaging indictment of the Bush Administration's handling of the occupation of Iraq.

Ferguson focuses on the Wall Street culture and the blatant arrogance of a half dozen men as the main causes of the financial turmoil. Inside Job begins in Iceland where the deregulation of the financial system in the 1990s lead to three banks accumulating assets almost ten times the small country's gross domestic product.

It becomes clear by the midpoint of the film that Iceland is a micro example of what has become a global problem. Runaway banks have been accumulating assets through toxic loans and other manoeuvres while paying themselves lavish bonuses.

Inside Job is easily one of the most frustrating documentaries ever made. And that is undoubtedly Ferguson's intention. The film is critical of Wall Street executives, credit agencies and especially regulatory agencies for the crisis.

Inside Job includes interviews from IMF head Dominique Strauss-Khan, congressmen Barney Frank, former New York attorney general Eliot Spitzer and many others. Ferguson traces the evolution of the banks from a small, largely local service to an out of control industry. He does not hold back criticizing every administration since Ronald Reagan in the 1980s.

Ferguson argues that despite what most people think, there were many people warning of an impending crisis in global financial markets. Ben Bernanke, Alan Greenspan and Timothy Geithner ignored various signs of impending doom. Not to mention former treasury secretary and incidentally former Goldman Sachs CEO Henry Paulson.

Inside Job makes the argument that the federal regulators are as responsible for the breakdown of the system as are the executives of Goldman Sachs, Lehman Brothers and Bear Stearns. More frustrating still is the revolving door between Wall Street and government agencies.

As the banks became more deregulated, the more speculation became a problem. Derivatives, and credit default swaps, complicated trading schemes that most people do not understand is what caused the collapse of Lehman Brothers sending shockwaves through financial centres all over the world.

Credit agencies like Moody's and Standard and Poor gave firms like Bear Stearns, Lehman brothers, and Morgan Stanley A grade credit ratings within weeks before they nearly collapsed. And also having one of their executives standing up in front of a congressional committee and telling congressmen that their ratings are just merely 'opinion'.

It becomes clear that this is not a problem that emerged from the housing boom early in president George W. Bush's second term. Rather this was a systematic breakdown driven by a neoliberal ideology supported by Ivey league economic schools across the United States.

Inside Job is simply a story of bankers more interested in collecting bonuses and making more money than providing what should be an essential service. What makes it even more frustrating is that many of the key figures behind the crisis are currently on Barak Obama's staff. The film leaves us with a bitter pill to swallow.

As Ferguson notes, Wall Street has returned to normal with no federal prosecutions against any of the guilty. And one of the most poignant scenes in the film comes from Robert Gnaizda, the former head of the Greenlining Institute, a consumer lobbyist group who laughingly dismisses recent legislation to regulate banks with a simple 'Hah'.

Inside Job helps explain many of the complex terms such as derivatives and insurance backed securities that confuse those not immersed in the banking community. It is essential viewing for any citizen concerned about our broken system.

Jerks and Suckers

[Michael Fargo · 10/10 · 29 November 2010]

It was the last thing I wanted to see as the holiday Season sets off: A documentary explaining the World wide economic depression. But it was probably something I should have put before, say, "Burlesque." This is a serious film that has no particular political axe to grind in terms of "Republican" vs. "Democrat" since each successive administration beginning with Ronald Reagan is thrashed for bowing down to Wall Street rather than protecting American citizens from the most immoral graft and greed, that I can remember in my 60 years as a U.S. Citizen. While it's true that "deregulation" is the hue and cry of one particular political party, what occurs with investment and banking firms is so entwined with our national representatives, that it does no good whatsoever to point fingers at one party.

The film opens with the simplest explanation of the impact of investment banking firms in the tiny country of Iceland. When investors move in and create a financial "bubble" for the sole purpose of letting it burst while taking off with enormous profits for themselves, the opening credits then start and introduce us to the players who would come to power with Reagan (Volker and Greenspan) and remove restrictions that had been put in place—we should all remember for good reason; regulations were set up because people had abused an open market—we see the rise and fall of the U.S. economy which became based on nothing but investment since all our "production" had been poorly managed and sent abroad, i.e. steel, automobiles, etc. What was left was goods and services and a tiny, though prosperous, "information technology." When Reagan gutted regulation and regulatory agencies, a system of credit developed where finance agencies sold risky loans to entities, and at the same time "bet" on those loans to fail, setting up a situation that the more risky the loan, the bigger the profit for lender. Various "talking heads" and bar graphs come across the screen, and they're all helpful in explaining what happened. But it's the deeply amoral points of view that get stated by people who were or are still in control of the financial banks and markets of this country that really appall.

And we're left with a sense of outrage and not more than a little sense of futility because there's nowhere to go for either compensation or redress. At the end of the film "Fair Game" about another kind of government takeover, we're given a civic's speech about how the country belongs to the people and it's up to us to make it work. Here, in "Inside Job" there's nothing anyone can do. We elected a president who was sent to prevent the problem from happening again, but instead he appoints many of the same people who set up the situation and profited from the first round.

I didn't find the small section of the film describing the "type A" personality of the players involved who use prostitutes and drugs to be either relevant or convincing. We see a former call girl allude to many in the financial world, but so what? There's a small dig at Elliot Spitzer, but he offers it himself. As well, we're given a psychiatrist who "can't reveal names" but can say for certain many in the financial industry are addicted to drugs and prostitutes, but so are many outside that world. It came across as a cheap shot in a film that brings forward many significant players (and names many who refused to appear in the film) and exposes them for what they are. They need no further tarnishing.

I did see one area that could be addressed as a beginning of reform. Various economic professors who are brought from institutions of higher learning to "advise" the government and then return to their teaching jobs aren't—for baffling reasons—prohibited from making profit off the policies they recommend. That needs to be stopped. In most disciplines, university professors can't use their research and publications for personal gain. Those in the field of economics need the same kinds of restrictions. And students should demand it.

We should all demand a lot more than we're getting from our government, but I guess we hope we're going to be one of the few to reap those enormous profits (which is a real sucker's bet). It's baffling and infuriating to watch this film and walk out into the light of day where the practices on display are still going on.

Economics explained beautifully

[bagabaga77-1 · 10/10 · 18 July 2010]

This film portrayed a horrific set of circumstances in a measured and brilliantly illustrated manner. The economic issues were explained by clear, understandable graphs. Many major players appeared on camera to their detriment. The few that didn't appear were shown through press clips.

The most awful scene to me was the footage of the tent city with unemployed, lost and bewildered American workers, their jobs lost directly because of the antics of the Wall Street monsters. It could easily happen here in Godzone.

Highly recommended.

a few small flaws

[fliphop · 9/10 · 25 November 2010]

I still believe the best movie on the crisis is 'The Other Guys'. But this is a close second.

There are a few minor flaws though.

The most glaring is the softpedal of Barney Frank, who had pushed Fannie and Freddie to go into subprime, and was mysteriously un-inquisitive of Countrywide during the crisis.

An other issue is the scenes with hedge fund manager Bill Ackman. He has great insight in the film, but his major contribution during the crisis was his outspoken criticism against MBIA, an insurance company that he was also shorting. IE when MBIA faltered (due to CDOs it 'insured'), Ackman made lots of money. This is told by Christine S Richard in the book Confidence Game. As in 'The Big Short' by Michael Lewis, even the 'whistleblowers' themselves had conflicts of interest. None of this is anywhere in the film.

Another problem is that the film never distinguishes between Synthetic CDOs and 'Cash' CDOs. The Synthetics were basically a form of gambling, as they were not made of any real asset, just credit default swaps. It's sort of a weird subject, but it is kind of important, because without the Synthetics, the market (thus the problem) would have been much much smaller.

The laudatory tone towards Europe is a little difficult to understand, since Europe was up to it's ears in CDOs. And one 'wall street' firm up to its armpits in subprime, Deutsche Bank, is not even American. Europe had housing bubbles and banking bailouts and other problems as well coming to roost in 2010.

The positive view of the Chinese banks is also odd, since China was in CDOs and had a bank that almost merged with Bear Stearns. China's financial industry is about as pure and well regulated as their milk or toy paint industry.

Also I laughed at the section about how in the US 'high tech sector' jobs were 'easy' to come by. Considering the place where I work uses software owned by a company in India and the number of underemployed computer people I know.

But the film also has a lot of stuff I haven't seen in the books on the crisis, most importantly the massive conflict of interest and corruption between academia, government, and business. Especially effective was how the interviewees on this subject didn't seem to 'get it'. The book EConned by Yves Smith describes the problems with the modern study of economics, but Mr Ferguson draws us some extremely specific lines between men who worked high in government, the conclusions found in their 'academic' writing, and the industry that pays them for their 'outside consulting'. This is the most devastating part of the film, to me.

And the film does fantastically with the short time it's given. I would give my eye's teeth to see the full interviews. Gillian Tett gets under a minute of screen time but she has written an entire book about how Credit Default Swaps were invented by a handful of traders at JP Morgan and how the idea was 'perverted'. (it's not really mentioned in her interview). The same could be said of many other authors interviewed.

A nice Hollywood ending might have been discussing how the Swedes dealt with their banks, but... its Charles Ferguson, don't expect a Hollywood ending.

A great overview of causes of financial crisis

[tnrcooper · 10/10 · 7 April 2011]

Charles Ferguson also directed the very good "No End In Sight" about the failures of the Bush administration with regard to Iraq and on how poorly thought-through their ideas were on that topic. His focus in this movie is also on the failure of power to prepare for what many could see was a nightmare in the making. Ferguson in this film traces the failure, and in many cases, the unwillingness of government, academic, and financial elites to make policy which ensures financial health for all. Ferguson made a lot of money as an Internet entrepreneur and can now make the film the way he wants, and it's caught on by word of mouth, by virtue of a little man named Oscar, and probably by the zeitgeist.

Ferguson tracks some of the key decisions which greased the rails for the meltdown-from the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act which destroyed the division between investment and savings banks, to the destruction of the reputation of Brooksley Born who had desired to put derivatives under the regulation of the CFTC of which she was the head, to the laissez-faire attitude of Alan Greenspan during his tenure as Fed chief. He interviews academics whose imprimatur and intellectual reputation were made available at a price. Ferguson also notes the popularity of cocaine and prostitutes on Wall Street at the time of this boom.

Ferguson interviews some of the key movers and shakers. If they're unwilling to be interviewed for the film, a message saying that that person declined to be interviewed appears on the screen. This is nearly more damning than if they do participate as it suggests they have something to hide. Ferguson doesn't suffer fools lightly and if he feels that an interviewee is not being straight with him, he is not shy about noting this. This is to our benefit as viewers and ensures that we see who is responsible for what. The movie is paced well, Ferguson is an intelligent, detail-oriented director and Matt Damon narrates the film quite ably.

If you don't know what derivatives are, this is a good film to fill you in, in a substantive and adequate way, on all the key points you need to know in order to understand the crisis. If you have followed the economics news closely, this is an excellent summary of the crisis. This really should be required viewing for all in the US.

No end in sight

[JohnDeSando · 8 November 2010]

"If a bank forecloses on you, don't move and demand they produce a copy of your mortgage. In many cases, they can't." Marcy Kaptur (D-Ohio)

In the course of the angry and benignly biased documentary, Inside Job, Marcy Kaptur predicts what is happening right now: Banks are being forced to halt foreclosures because of faulty paperwork. But such mistakes are only a symptom Charles Ferguson reveals of the 2008 world-wide financial crisis, which involves high-ranking government officials like Larry Summers and Timothy Geithner increasing their power while the policies they make cause certain harm to the people like us who have trusted them.

Like Fergusin's No End in Sight about the Iraq War, but more interesting and dramatic, Inside Job lays out logically the participation also of George Bush and Barack Obama in the global meltdown. Dispiriting are the derivative dispersal and shameful sub-prime lending that directly led to the breakdown of middle-class wealth while the purveyors of this massacre walked away with billions and no indictments. The Ponzi schemes of Kenneth Lay, Bernie Madoff, and their ilk are but small components of the charade that drew millions of hard-working, well-meaning citizens into debt and financial ruin as the value of their most cherished retirement vehicle, home value, dissipated right in front of their eyes.

Ferguson's documentary style is to remain behind the camera while letting the notables indict themselves. Unlike Michael Moore, he cares not to intrude or make a character of himself, something like Citizen Kane's reporter Thompson. Except when in a moment of profound pique he challenges the disaffection of Frederic Mishkin, a former member of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors: "I'm sorry, I'm sure that your textbook is important and widely read, but didn't you think that more important things were going on in the world?"

Unlike the recent screed of Davis Guggenheim against organized education in Waiting for Superman, in which teachers' unions could do no right and charter schools no wrong, Ferguson seems more honest in presenting only the facts. As I demanded of him to present the other side of the financial crisis, I couldn't think of what he could say to counter the welter of facts indicting those in front of his camera.

One of the most telling moments is that of Bush's Chief Economic Adviser, Glenn Hubbard: "You have three more minutes. Give it your best shot!" That arrogance informs the documentary and our grim lives for the foreseeable future.

Money troubles

[deastman_uk · 7/10 · 25 February 2011]

A very well photographed tour of the places and people that the 2008 financial collapse touched. Which is pretty much everyone and everywhere.

What the documentary does well is explain the legal, business and regulatory triangle that was seen to be broken by anybody who actually looked. The road to disaster is well examined.

Getting interviews with people you are going to slag off is not easy; most of the guilty interviewees are either still in denial, not used to being questioned or consider the whole thing academic. Mostly they hang themselves.

Some of the angles are less fruitful. That the bankers snorted cocaine and used prostitutes does not imply they were loose on financial regulation.

One aspect that marks this as the real deal is that it does not push the idea that bankers were naturally bad, rather that they were happy to manipulate a system full of people who did not understand Credit Default Swaps.

An added extra looks at the role of academics; many of whom put their name to a system that eventually collapsed.

Very important

[stevespeedy · 10/10 · 19 November 2010]

Ferguson has used the ambush interview popularized by CBS' 60 Minutes to grill both the guilty and the extremely guilty in a way that commercial television will never do for fear of offending its sponsors. The Keiser Report on Russia Today is the only exception.

The film starts with the collapse of the Icelandic banks, although the banking crisis began with Public Service Announcements on talk radio pushing loans for minorities. The banks -- many of them local -- feared congressional investigation coupled with potential charges of dreaded racism, so they arranged loan packages that enabled the marginally qualified to purchase houses. The local banks unloaded the mortgages as has become the norm in the industry. You can forget about such quaint notions as the Bailey Building and Loan anymore. This bubble began in 2006, but the Iceland saga was later in 2008.

YouTube has been showing a satire on the subprime crisis by John Bird and John Fortune that has aired since January 2008 which summarizes this film in 8 minutes. But, this film gets to the root of the problem by mercilessly grilling the shysters. Elliot Spitzer got air time, but even he caught the stinging end of the lash from the producer. Apparently, the vanity of of the players left most of them unprepared. The only drawback to Inside Job is the extensive face-time given to the smarmy George Soros -- the mastermind behind global financial speculation.

I expected more from a full-length feature documentary

[slythinker · 6/10 · 12 September 2010]

This movie is a good basic primer about the financial crisis of 2008 for those who haven't really been following this story and have little or no financial knowledge. The official description promises that if you get angry when you think about the crisis, you're going to get even angrier after you watch the movie. It delivers on that promise. Several of the interview scenes also deliver a few good laughs. The movie's main strength is the way it explores academia's contribution to the collapse. It exposes the conflict of interest of academics who are supposed to be independent, expert voices in the field but who derive the bulk of their very lucrative incomes from paid consulting engagements on behalf of the financial services industry. This is an angle I hadn't seen covered before.

It also illustrates how little has changed in the American financial world, despite Obama's rhetoric. Rather than being held accountable for their role in the collapse, many of its architects remain in key positions of power

On the downside, the movie oversimplifies the causes of the crisis. It focuses primarily on deregulation and Wall Street's incentive structure and culture of reckless risk-taking and lax morals and ethics. It also briefly mentions poor risk assessments by credit rating agencies and predatory lending, without really explaining what it was or getting into any depth on the matter.

Sub-prime lending was mentioned only in a very cursory manner. There was no mention of the Clinton Administration's push for sub-prime lending to expand mortgage loans to low and moderate income people.

There was no mention of the Federal Reserve's contribution to the housing bubble as a result of it's policy to ease credit conditions in the early 2000s to soften the impact of the collapse of the dot com bubble and the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

There was no mention of the shadow banking system; how it contributed to the crisis and how it greatly amplified the losses.

There was no mention of David X. Li's Gaussian copula formula and how it was used by credit rating agencies to justify AAA ratings for collateralized debt obligations (CDOs) that consisted of baskets of higher risk debt instruments.

I expected more from a full-length feature documentary. I've seen TV shows that delved into greater depth on this issue. This movie pushes the right emotional buttons but ultimately, it's light fare for those on a low-intellect diet.

While the film has a good point to make, it also suffers from tunnel vision and only addresses a part of the problem.

[planktonrules · 5/10 · 13 November 2013]

"It was caused by an out of control industry"

"Inside Job" is a documentary that recently won the Oscar for Best Documentary Feature. It's narrated by Matt Damon and his interviews are often very confrontational and effective. It is very slickly made and produced and features film from around the globe and interviews with TONS of insiders. Its focus is the financial meltdown in 2008 and how mega-banks are responsible for this.

I am glad that a film like "Inside Job" was made, as we desperately need to learn from our recent financial meltdown. Times have become hard and people SHOULD be asking questions and looking to stop this from happening again (which, unfortunately, is inevitable). However, while "Inside Job" has many good points about banking, derivatives and greed and is very slickly made, it suffers from a sort of tunnel vision, as it only focuses on a part of the problem and gives the viewer a false sense of the seriousness of the problem. The film seems to blame ALL the recent financial problems on greedy investment bankers and some government insiders. While this is a part of the problem, it also tries to boil a complex problem down to a single cause. However, the government** (such as Congress and the President) is also a huge and probably larger part of the problem. Politicians who were in charge of regulating the banks and financial system now talk about 'those evil banks'--even though THEY oversaw these banks* and wrote the rules for the banks! Plus, no mention is made about government overspending across the globe--creating unfundable pension plans as well as defense and social spending that are GREATER than the gross national product in many cases! Another part of the equation is the public--a public who votes for these thieves and want TONS of government-supplied perks that cannot be paid for except by printing more money and more deficit spending. I am sure the equation is even larger--these are just a few of the problems apart from just investment banks. But to blame it all on just bankers is disingenuous and overly simplistic.

*The most frustrating of all the interviews in this film were with Barney Frank who talked about the evil banks. He was the chairman of the House Financial Services Committee for years and took $42,350 from groups like Fannie Mae. Where is his shame? How is it also not his fault?! In fact MANY politicians were heavily involved in causing the problem yet get a free pass in "Inside Job". Additionally, the sub-prime loans were all blamed on banks, but in many cases US government laws made it almost impossible NOT to make these sort of loans to folks who could not afford to repay them. Again, a case where BOTH government and banks share blame. Until a documentary looks at the whole picture, then we aren't getting serious about the financial system.

**While government was mostly given a pass in this film, it did take a few jabs at the recent administrations. However, not enough emphasis was placed on prior administrators and no mention of government spending was mentioned--just a need for more regulation. Again, this is addressing a part of the problem but only part.

MUST SEE for Various Reasons

[Jamester · 9/10 · 9 September 2010]

I saw Inside Job at the Toronto International Film Festival opening night at Ryerson Theatre to a packed house of 1,000 or so people with director, producer, and Financial Times journalist present, and fielding questions after this eye-opening and thought-provoking movie narrated by Matt Damon who was paid at 'substantially below his commercial rate'. This is a very important movie to watch. I think it's important that we all see how and why this could have happened if we want to prevent it from happening again.

Before I get to the good parts, I want to call out what I thought was missing from this documentary: a strong objective on what me, the viewer should do. What's the call to action? Should I be enraged and (were I American) call my house of representative to vent my frustration about the lack of and need for change? Perhaps. But I didn't feel that. That strong emotional reaction was missing. If that's important to you, maybe it won't be a satisfying movie, but regardless, I still say this is on a VERY important topic, and it's done VERY well, that people should see this.

What was good about it? 1) It explains the events and potential complex Financial concepts in a concise, easy-to-understand manner. The director has a PHD from MIT, and it shows. The writing is intelligent, the story tells with an economy of language and is well structured.

2) It is logical, comes across as factual, paints various people in often uncompromising light, to reveal a picture of Financial greed, excess, and lack of honesty in the US financial system. It shows why this picture is believable, and makes a convincing argument that this greed, excess, and lack of honesty in the system will NOT change.

3) Is it horrifying? No. Some people might paint a picture of the movie like that, but for me, it was reasonable in its claims. Sure, it was hard on people and things. And it feels like a very complete and real world view to me, pulling together all the tidbits I've read/heard of into one conclusive thesis....which I LOVED.

4) It did make me think, what if I became employed in the industry in the early 2000s...would that have been a good thing or a bad thing? Interestingly, it showed how doing so would and could have been very good for someone to do so (become exceedingly and perhaps unfairly wealthy), with very little accountability if things failed. Yes -- we should ALL have done so if we could. Because so many people got away with it. Greed. Excess. The immoral crap doesn't exist. The system is flawed. So take advantage until the government does something. BUt they do not. Or did not, and may not. The ugliness may not clean itself up. That's part of the message. And if you 5) So -- what to do now? Take money out of the markets. Don't support these US institutions (Investment banks/large US financial institutions). That was the subtle message for me.

AND --> tell everyone about this movie. To watch it. To be warned that all is not well. And perhaps someone will do something, say something, or perhaps act a little more honestly to try to right the wrongs of this world.

This movie was courageous. It gets my support.

A wake-up call of macroeconomic proportions

[crappydoo · 8/10 · 10 July 2010]

Inside Job belongs to a genre of new documentaries, like The Cove, Dear Zachary and Bowling For Columbine, that are not only made to document the background of a phenomenon but also to encourage people to do something about it. Dividing itself into five sections of a 'report', the film looks at the background and effect of the recession and its effect on politics, the world, society, the economy, public welfare, education, the present and the near and distant future.

Inside Job is undeniably motivational and does well to extract the hypocrisies and selfishness of the main perpetrators and other persons linked with the crisis. Indside Job depicts the global financial from only one perspective and does not give due weighting to the alternate point of view. Of course, it does not help that the main protagonists involved in the entire affair are obviously missing from this documentary, a fact that is rubbed on to the audience time and again.

On the flip side, economics, being a head scratcher for several budding commerce students by nature, the spoken narrative of figures and key personnel could perhaps have been better explained with a clearer use of graphics. However since the film makers are not lecturers it would be too much to expect them to be aware of the concepts of pedagogy.

Well crafted and edited, Inside Job is a good introduction to the cause and effect of the financial crisis, it falls just short of being the definitive version. It is a good watch nevertheless and provides sufficient food for thought and plenty of opportunity for future cocktail party discussion.

The financial crisis made crystal clear

[elisafranco440 · 10/10 · 10 October 2010]

A free market, some argue, has always been the key to the success of the United States. So believed Greenspan and all the main financial chiefs of the last decades. A free market will just regulate itself and allow the economy to flourish in the right directions. This theory never made much sense to me, but I am an engineer, not an economist, so I had to suspend my judgment.

After watching this excellent movie, it is now crystal clear to me why the whole system collapsed. It is precisely because the derivatives market was highly unregulated: no feedback mechanism between the credit institutions, rating agencies and the investors who bought all the junk securities; even worse, banks themselves where borrowing ridiculous amounts of money relative to their assets. To make a down to earth comparison, it's like if you were driving on the freeway with your eyes closed, at full speed, and little fuel in the tank. You will crash at some point. Unless someone throws you a giant parachute. (Which is what happened with the bailouts.)

The movie also touches on the disturbing role that the academic world played into this. A generation of future leaders was (and probably still is) taught to believe in the unstable financial structure, that has been progressively created since the seventies. This, without full disclosure of the financial conflicts that several faculty members have, being on the board of big financial giants, or their direct consultants.

I wish most Americans watched this movie.

Brilliant

[buttakid · 10/10 · 21 February 2011]

The producers and writers did an excellent job in their research for this documentary and the interviewer was fantastic. The interviewer asked many of the same questions that we all would ask, if we were sitting in front of these white collard crooks.

My conclusion is that there is almost nothing the average citizen can do to correct any of this chaos. People from all around the world have been effected by these greedy and soul selling executives who would sell their first born child if it meant they could live in riches. The same people who are responsible for this mess are now put into political power and given government jobs to help create the mess that they caused. How does this make any sense? Why would the government hire people who worked for these billion dollar companies who helped put them under and now think they can fix it? How would this be any different than allow a criminal to be his or her own judge in the court room?

There once was a time when respect, dignity, professionalism and taking responsibility for ones own actions meant something. Today it is all about the mighty dollar and self destruction.

It's a Wall Street Government.

[lastliberal-853-253708 · 8/10 · 30 March 2011]

There is no possible way that all of the contributors to the financial meltdown can get adequate attention in a two-hour documentary. There were many factors involved, and some get short shrift in the film to focus on what would be easily comprehensible by most viewers, and, one can safely assume, to fit the biases of the producers, director, writers, etc. It's their movie, after all, and no documentary can avoid the bias trap. None that I have seen anyway.

Think of the film as a departure point. If one is really interested, they will dig deeper into the question through other documentaries and books on the subject. There will be plenty in the years ahead. More evidence will come to light, and more questions will be answered.

Let it be said that this film will make you angry. It will also make you a more informed individual and a better citizen.

It is not easy to get through two hours of discussion on why the financial meltdown occurred, but this film is probably the most painless way to do it. and it did it very well.

Joe Six Pack should see this!

[deskman36 · 8/10 · 17 October 2010]

Especially right now, in light of the unfolding crisis in the mortgage industry, where as much as 60% of the mortgages in the U.S. could be found defective, this is an important movie.

I found the movie very well put together with emphasis on the important lessons that should be learned. Almost at the end, where one of the interviewees says, "Wall St. controls the government now", this is what the American people NEED to know. Mr. Ferguson also makes it very clear that this is not a partisan issue, as Obama gets just as much blame as Bush and Clinton, etc.

What the movie fails to show is how this criminal misconduct on behalf of the banking industry is not a disease but a symptom. The very structure of the U.S, and global, financial system will ALWAYS drag the people from one crisis to the next. Regulations cannot solve it because the system is built upon it. I am not talking about greed and avarice, I am talking about a single industry, the banking industry, enjoying a marked advantage and power over all other forms of industry.

These Wall St. oligarchs have presided over the economic destiny of the world since the middle of the last century. J.P. Morgan Chase, and Citi, are banks that have existed since the days of the civil war. The mighty and powerful families at the core of the elites that have guided the development of the western world have been the same for time immemorial. Which isn't to say that certain people should be held accountable, but rather, the system fosters this elitism, change the names and faces and new names and faces will emerge to replace them.

What MUST be changed is the system. Take the "money power" back from private corporations and return to the people. Power and wealth will always concentrate into fewer and fewer hands as long as the power to create money is bestowed upon a select few "experts" in high finance and Ivey League academia.

Sorry for the diatribe, but I couldn't resist. And let me be clear, I am not disappointed that this movie didn't dive deeper into the esoteric information at the center of the crisis, on the contrary, it dove just deep enough.

Please pay close attention to the ongoing crisis in the banking/mortgage industry which will certainly find more headlines in the coming weeks and months. Frame your mindset and understanding of it in light of the information provided by "Inside Job".

A good introduction, but one-sided

[mattbg · 7/10 · 14 March 2011]

This is a good -- a very good -- introduction to the mechanics of the 2008 financial crisis. Through the use of clear narration and uncluttered visuals, it illustrates the concepts involved and makes them understandable to most people, though by their very nature these concepts take some effort to understand.

So, as a summary of the mechanics -- why did we have problems in the financial system in 2008? -- it is excellent.

Where it falls a bit flat is in the characters it is able to interview. Many of the most important figures apparently refused to be interviewed, which diminishes the overall effort a bit. The ones that do agree to be interviewed and who are not critical of the system often appear flustered or confused, which is interesting and valuable in itself, but it doesn't help to further our understanding of what was going through these peoples' minds when they were making these huge bets.

Maybe it is as simple as greed and deception, as we are led to believe. But there's no conclusive proof. We are left thinking that it must be so because there's no proof to the contrary.

The analysis is fair from a political point of view. The facts are stated with no real agenda to blame one party or another. The financial system is painted as being above politics -- as if politicians are powerless to stop it and are just playing along.

Although this title is nowhere near as problematic as Michael Moore's "Capitalism", it does leave an important part of the problem out of the discussion. That problem has to do with citizens' expectations about the type of life they want or "deserve", whether or not they can afford it. While bankers should receive most of the blame, we also have to ask why people were so willing to take on loans that they knew they could not afford or would not be able to pay back. What is it about our culture that makes this OK? This issue was not really even touched, yet it is a key issue even today, as governments take on huge amounts of debt to fund perceived entitlements. The problem from either side has not been solved.

Accessible, very well structured, very well presented – but of course also rather depressing

[bob the moo · 6 March 2011]

A few days after it won the Oscar I got to see this film and I can see why it won. Not only is it of its time but it goes after the villains of the day and does so in a way that is accessible without being dumbed down and is indignant without ever becoming the sort of "bang the drum" anger of Michael Moore. There were a couple of quotes that hit home with me: "what can we believe in? There is nothing we can trust anymore" said one commentator on the feeling of the public when the collapses started and, in regards the aftermath of it all another said simply "the poorest, as always, pay the most". These two quotes stayed with me because this film is the type of one that will make you angry – angry at injustice, angry at how it could have been allowed to happen and angry that rules that apply to you and I somehow don't apply to those with money and power.

However I didn't feel angry and the reason I didn't is because the film is much better put together than that. Anger comes from emotion and I don't always like it when a documentary starts pulling emotional strings on me. Mostly Inside Job lets the facts speak for themselves and, in doing so it left me quite incredulous, so quite amazed at the scale of things that I couldn't get worked up – it was more a matter of "shock". The saying is safety in numbers and Inside Job very quickly lets us in on why that title was chosen – because there appears to be nobody here who is guilt free. While many of the players understandably refused to be interviewed for this film, Ferguson does make the most of the access he does get and uses these interviews to illustrate key things as the narrator (Matt Damon) unfolds events along the timelines.

So we of course get interviews that fill in the details but more tellingly we get people who unwittingly demonstrate the sort of apathy and self-interest that contributed towards the global crisis. Politics is in the target of course because the names just all seem to change seats every few years and, although one would love to believe that someone coming into politics can cut these conflict of interests, the film shows literally millions of reasons why this is not a realistic thing to expect. The film also adds a new target to the mix by looking at the relationship between the banks and funds and academia. Knowledgeable professors and the like are put on the spot and it is hard not to enjoy it while they squirm, get shifty, shirty or just plain look uncomfortable. I'm not sure if my favourite is the guy paid by Iceland to right a study on their economy (conclusion? It's awesome!) when it is pointed out that the title (Financial Stability in Iceland) is retrospectively titled "Instability" when it comes to his CV listing, or the guy who denies any conflict of interest with people being paid by the organisations they are writing independent studies or when he is asked a hypothetical about medical research & pharmaceutical companies and has to wrestle himself to avoid the phrase "conflict of interest" in his answer.

The footage behind and around the contributions (themselves well shot) is engaging as well and the film does look good. The editing down and use of all the footage is impressive – it makes its point, keeps things punchy without feeling like people are being cut off and only once or twice did I feel that the answers or statements were being perhaps a little unfairly edited. Despite this though all of it is engaging, enthralling and rather sickening. Those hoping for a happy ending should be praised for their naivety but warned of watching this, because this is an inside job – the poor will lose what little they have and the middle majority will continue to look up to those in charge telling us about change and reform while acquiring a greater and greater percentage of the world's wealth.

A very well put together documentary that engaged me to the point that I almost forgot how incredibly depressing it all is.

Great Film

[eastbergholt2002 · 9/10 · 20 April 2011]

Inside Job is a fascinating and enjoyable film. I have lived through various financial crises dating back to Long Term Capital Management's collapse in the mid-1990s. With each succeeding market meltdown the culprits seem to get progressively greedier and the regulators look increasingly stupid. What is worrying is that business ethics seem to be a thing of the past.

Dating back to the 1920s it seems that given complete freedom to speculate, investors will act irresponsibly. Roosevelt concluded that tighter regulation was necessary to stop a repeat of the 1929 crash and he was probably right. Greenspan and his followers seem to have believed that people are smarter today and government intervention was no longer necessary. The film shows that markets can't be trusted to regulate themselves.

In a recent PBS documentary there was a report Brooksley Born's attempt to regulate derivatives in the 1990s. Born was the chairperson of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission and was stopped by a cabal consisting of Greenspan, Summers and Rubin. Born received no support from Bill Clinton who appointed her. Her resignation is also mentioned in Inside Job. Before the crash Greenspan was considered by the press to be almost a wise Yoda-like genius. His views carried the day but eventually his luck ran out. Things may have turned out differently had Born been listened to.

Many of the academics interviewed in the film now look ridiculous for their support of big finance. In my experience academics don't really understand how markets work. They have very simplistic theories based around the idea that markets are rational and efficient. I just interviewed two recent MBA graduates from good schools and its amazing they are still being taught stuff I learned 30 years ago, which I now know is seriously flawed. Various crashes have taught me that most academic theories in finance don't really survive in the real world. It's a case of the blind leading the blind.

Greenspan admitted to Congress that his understanding of the way markets work may have been wrong. However,as the film reveals, academics have often provided intellectual cover for the bankers and speculators. They are supposedly independent but they have become articulate and convincing cheerleaders for free markets. Unfortunately they have also become useful idiots. People tend to blame the Republican's for being too easy on big business, but George Bush's initiated the Enron trials and Jeff Skilling their former CEO was sent to prison for 24 years. Bush also introduced the Sarbannes-Oxley legislation. The shocking thing about Inside Job is that under Obama nobody on Wall Street was punished and the legislation he introduced has really changed nothing. He is clearly no Roosevelt. You got the impression from the film that both Obama and Clinton employed advisers that were too close to Wall Street.

Hopefully after the next meltdown, serious change will happen, however don't bet on it.

Oscar Winner, thanks to its subject more than its skills.

[MovieGeekBlog · 7/10 · 13 March 2011]

When reviewing a documentary like this I think it's fair to make a distinction between the subject matter of the documentary and the actual merits of the film-making itself. On the subject matter front, "Inside Job" surely deserves all the awards it is receiving (it recently won the Oscar for best documentary too). The film sets to explain the reasons (or arguably, some of the reasons) behind the financial crisis that's hit the whole world. How did we end up where we are and whose to blame? It could be a fairly dry and dull subject , and a rather complicated one too, but Inside Job, for most of it, manages to keep it simple and gripping at the same time without dumbing it down too much. Inevitably it ends up focusing more one one side of the argument (the bankers) as opposed to following the more controversial route (going against the politicians. Though they do get mentioned, the film prefers not to be so hard on them as it is on those corporate people, obviously a much easier target). And since we are all on the same boat in this never-ending financial crisis and we are so angry at the way the whole thing has been carried out and handled, we are perfectly happy to see it all laid out the way it is and eventually everyone will come out it feeling even more angry and frustrated than they were before. On that respect the film obviously really works. As a piece of film, "Inside Job" is less interesting. Its pace is very uneven: sometimes a bit too fast when it should be slow and a bit slow when you just want it to get on with it, for example there are way too many beginnings (one of them is probably there just because it plants the seeds for one of the best jokes of film later on about the instability of Iceland). Not everything hits home as it probably should and not everything is as clear as it should be. After a while one million begins to sound a lot like 10 millions or 100 millions or even a billion… it's just a whole lot of money which we'll never see anyway… It gets slightly repetitive. In most sequences the documentary unravels like a series lectures of economy: it is mainly voice over driven (read by Matt Damon who seems to be everywhere these days), visualised by unimaginative graphics and straight forward unremarkable archive footage. The real skill here seems to be more in the writing than the actual film-making. That's by no means a criticism. This isn't a film by Micheal Moore and, for most of its length, it doesn't even try to be one: there are no stunts, and, on the surface, no tricks either. And yet, everyone who has seen this film will most likely remember the last third, which is probably the closest thing to something that Michael Moore would do, and to me, the most interesting part. It is the moment the film-makers turn against their contributors: economists, journalists and professors, who are just as guilty as everyone else. Watching them sweat in their seats having to defend themselves when they thought they were just there to give us a history lesson is the most pleasurable part of the film. And because we all want to point fingers and blame everyone for their greedy needs, we probably fail to notice the slightly biased use of the editing: I'm thinking of all those moments when questions are asked off-camera just so that we can catch the surprised faces of the people who are being interviews, and then the films cuts away to the next sequence, without giving them really the chance to answer. We really don't mind though: we hate those people anyway and as long as they look stupid and guilty we are happy with it. In the end, it's great to see a documentary like this, on a subject like the big economic crisis, getting all the awards it's getting and though that doesn't necessarily mean that it's a masterpiece, I hope it does mean we are ready to chance the way people regulate our economy… 7/10 wp.me/p19wJ2-hJ

Half-right

[knappjl · 5/10 · 16 May 2011]

INSIDE JOB got it half-right and, as such, is half-way worth viewing. Yes, the banks and government regulators and mortgage loan companies and Democrats and Republicans were all to blame. But the finger is not pointed at Andrew Cuomo et al who pushed for the sub-prime loan explosion in order to allow people - people who did not have the financial resources or stability to own a home - to pursue the American Dream. And, importantly, the finger is not pointed at American consumers who speculated on home purchases - whether for themselves or in order to "flip' properties - in hopes of making a quick buck. There is a lot of blame to go around - including looking in the mirror.

September 11, 2008

[Squaredealer33 · 18 November 2010]

The film is deficient in the following respects:

1. On September 11, 2008, there was a $550 billion electronic run on the banks. It took place between the hours of 9 and 11 am. The Federal Reserve noticed a tremendous draw down of money market accounts in the USA to the tune of $550 Billion dollars. The money was being removed electronically. The Treasury opened their window and pumped in $150 Billion but quickly realized they could not stem the tide. They decided to close the operation, close down the money accounts and announce a guarantee of $250,000 per account, so there wouldn't be further panic.

The electronic run resulted in the first bailout legislation,. It was reported on the House floor that Congressmen were warned by the Bush Administration that Marshall Law would be declared if the bailout was not passed by Congress. Where was the source of the electronic run?

2. The credit default swaps were a violation of existing federal law.

3. The rating firms are financially tied to the investment bankers who defrauded investors, and those rating firms develop, sell, and rate financial products all at the same time.

4. The US federal government failed then and now to prosecute this fraud. Why not interview the Justice Department and ask them why they gave these criminals a pass?

I don't care what the CEOs of the investment bankers earned, and while I agree that the compensation most likely promotes and produces fraud, this film should have focused on the failure of the U.S. Federal and State governments to police and prosecute criminals. If you want to prevent crime, you need a police force. Why didn't they act, then and now?