This is How Movies Should Be Made

A brilliant film that helped define a genre

This is a must-see and one of the best documentaries - and films - of this year.

While it doesn't offer any answers, it both thrills and makes you think.

Another film about corporate power and greed, "The Bank" puts a slightly different spin on the subject. Set in Melbourne, a young Ph.D. mathematician named Jim Doyle (David Wenham) uses fractal theory, similar to chaos theory, to predict changes in stock markets. A ruthless, unethical CEO named Simon O'Reilly (Anthony LaPaglia) hires Doyle to employ his equations to benefit Simon's bank which, in a separate development, tries to swindle a working class couple out of their belongings. "The Bank", obviously, does not portray financial institutions favorably.The tone here is cold and technical, with dialogue that includes lots of techno-babble. And there are some potent lines, like when Simon spews out his politics to Jim's girlfriend. "We (the banks) can react against any government until they do exactly what it is we want them to do ... We have now entered the age of corporate feudalism ..."; the girlfriend responds angrily: "What do you call yourselves, bastards without borders?"Indeed, the story takes Oliver Stone's "Wall Street" a step further. Whereas Gordon Gekko's mantra was personal greed, Simon's goal is nothing less than global domination, a world run by ruthless banking executives.The film's plot is not altogether clear when first viewed, as a result of flashbacks. And some plot points are left unexplained, perhaps intentionally. Also, I must say that the story, in its totality, is somewhat implausible. But there's plenty of tension as we approach the climax, partly as a result of the film's splendid graphics.And those graphics, in the form of line schematics, are the portal from which we descend into fractal theory, a veritable black hole for some of the characters. A couple of subtle references to Hal9000 solidify a black box future, amplified by color cinematography that is dark and menacing.We've seen this overall concept before, in other films. It's hardly original. And the characters are not really sympathetic. Still, "The Bank" is technically well made. For most viewers, Simon's motivations are chilling. They remind us of what can happen when big, powerful institutions are given unlimited control.

I can't quite make my mind up about this Australian movie, The Bank. I've watched it three times now, and it's certainly a pretty good movie, entertaining and well made. But it should be a very good movie, and somehow it's not. I'm still trying to decide quite why.The central premise is quite interesting. Math genius Jim Doyle (David Wenham), has written a computer program that will allow him to beat the stock market. It will accurately predict ups and downs in share prices so well that he – or anyone who uses it – will be able to make the ultimate insider dealer killing at the expense of the market. Or save themselves from financial ruin, depending on your viewpoint. But the program is not quite ready, it still needs some tweaking and that requires the kind of computing power only a rich financial institution such as a major bank can provide. Enter Anthony LaPaglia, playing Simon O'Reilly, an antipodean Gordon Gecko, the boss of an Australian bank who has just been told by his board to increase the profit margin pronto or seek alternative employment. Add a supporting cast of assorted bank employees, Jim's genius Japanese friend, a young couple losing their business to bank foreclosure and their son to tragedy, and a love interest (Michelle Roberts played by pretty Sybilla Budd), and we have the potential for an interesting and reasonably original movie. And let's face it, there haven't been that many riveting films about high finance, so it has an open field.But will Jim get his program perfected in time, can anyone – even a banker – truly be as one dimensionally unpleasant as Simon O'Reilly (and that's a reflection of the script not Anthony LaPaglia's acting, which is fine), is the love interest really a bank insider planted to keep an eye on Jim from under the sheets and is Jim Doyle even who he appears to be? The plot is fairly unlikely, as the chances of one man, no matter how clever, being given uncontrolled access to a bank's supercomputer, are remote. However I am quite willing to believe that a bank or any other major institution might readily bend the law to increase profits (think Enron), so suspending belief here isn't that much of a stretch. There is a bit of a twist in the end, but I found the characters all a little one dimensional. I wasn't convinced by the "genius writing formulae on tablecloths" characterization of Jim (all the math/engineering types I used to know used cigarette packets. Is the tablecloth a politically correct substitute for a non smoking world?) but the movie looks like it cost quite a lot to make, which is a credit to the director, as I suspect by Hollywood standards it cost very little, and the fractals are worth the entry price alone.My main problem is that some of the dialogue is little clichéd. For example, Jim and Michelle's exchange when they go back to his apartment after their first date; Jim (as they undress each other): "Shouldn't we get to know each other first?" Michelle: "But supposing we don't like each other?" Jim: "You're right". Quite. Cut to morning-after-the-night-before shot of Jim awaking looking suitably tousled while Michelle – obviously an early riser – takes the opportunity to go through his private possessions.Now I will say at the outset that I'm a little biased, as David Wenham could stand in front of the camera reciting nursery rhymes while wearing a monk's habit and I would pay to watch (oh hang on, wasn't that Van Helsing?) Seriously, he gives another good performance. Whenever has he not given a good performance? Anthony LaPaglia is a terrific actor too, and they should both be much better known here in the USA than they currently are. Sybilla Budd was, perhaps, a little flat as Michelle, but again that's probably more a reflection of the dialogue than her acting. I found the scene at Simon's party where she launches into a tirade against her host, quite unconvincing. Surely no one over the age of consent could be that naïve? The cast were pretty solid, and the cinematography fine, but that basic central premise Big Bank Bad, Small Guy Good is just too simplistic for this particular middle aged cynic, and I really find hard to swallow that 700 thousand (Australian?) dollars in their bank account is any recompense to a couple who have just lost their only child and then been truly and publicly screwed in court. And hang on, haven't the bank just gone bust, so where did that 700 grand come from again? But I'm struggling here to decide exactly what it is that disappoints me about this film, and I have to come to the conclusion that maybe the fault is with me, and not the movie. I guess I'm just too cynical?

I liked the movie, but was terribly disappointed in the ending.The premise of the film was good, but has been done quite a bit. Some of the plot twists were very good...and a few really threw me. There was enough suspense to definitely keep me interested.It was an interesting twist on a concept that I previously felt had been overdone. The writer made this part work. The "bad guy" was underacted yet overdone by the dialog. A rock could have delivered that performance. The lead actor was quite good, however, and made this film worth my 7 out of 10 rating. I'd like to see more of his films.I probably wouldn't purchase the movie, but I would watch it again if it was on.

Greed is at the core of this film. It's incredible how money can corrupt people to the point that it will make them do things that ultimately, they will live to regret. It was a surprise to see this Australian film that only played a couple of weeks in New York. It's a much better picture than some of the very highly regarded ones that came out just about the same time and are still around, while this one went back to Australia, probably.The director, Robert Connelly presents us with a story that's very plausible. In it, the greedy banker, played with fine assurance by Anthony LaPaglia, wants to be able to get rich with a scheme that is presented to him by the mysterious David Wenham.Aside from some of the technical aspects of the financial world, it is very entertaining and very nicely acted by all the actors in it.