Redundant and unnecessary.

I really wanted to like this movie. I feel terribly cynical trashing it, and that's why I'm giving it a middling 5. Actually, I'm giving it a 5 because there were some superb performances.

Blistering performances.

It's the kind of movie you'll want to see a second time with someone who hasn't seen it yet, to remember what it was like to watch it for the first time.

When I first decided to watch 'The Bank', I really new very little about it, only that got some pretty good reviews and had two of Australia's finest actors in it. Afterwards, I can say that it offers a very well structured and acted piece of work, with a very neat twist towards the end.What is most important about this film, though in many ways it is a mystery, is it's focus on greed, and how incredibly focused one has to be in the business world. Wenham, who plays the part of a brilliant mathematician who has developed a formula for anticipating the stock market, is constantly challenged by the 'banks' CEO into forgetting all morality for a buck.Overall, there's a great deal of great characterizations in this fine tale, but revealing anything else about the flick would probably ruin it for most, so all I can say is that I recommend it to anyone who can find it.

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?

We all hate the banking industry. Banks have been around for a long time. Unsympathetic institutions that can either break you or make you. This good film,from Australia,gives us the insight dealings of a major bank and the individuals who run the bank and will go to any length, make a profit, regardless of who they hurt. This film is about one such bank and how it collapse,by their own greed,. Now,this is not to say banks are evil,after all where would we be without them. But, like anything else, the bad exists as well as the good. The Bank,with a good cast,will keep the viewer glued to the television set. Filmed in Australia,a good cast of Australian actors do a good job in their acting ability to bring this film to the screen. American actor,Anthony LaPaglia plays,the head executive of this bank.

"The Bank" teams a math whiz kid (Wenham) and his proprietary computer program which can accurately predict stock market trends with a ruthless bank CEO (LaPaglia) as they set about to make an obscene fortune at the expense of widespread econimic ruination . The film focuses on the institution everyone loves to hate, the bank, and pits ethics against hardball business while mixing in a dash of romance and murderous intentions. Not bad for a journeyman auteur (Connolly) with a low budget, "The Bank" conjures some solid drama for those who can get past the technobabble and make the few leaps of faith required to get mentally in the envelope. Slick but not without its plotholes, "The Bank" is a lukewarm three star drama worth a look. (B-)