First and foremost, before i watch this movie, i thought that i'm going to love this moview. It took my attention. The idea is nice: An answer of a neurotic and thief on how to be a license to print money. But it is a great lack that there is no display of thsubstructure of character's work that he was doing. I mean it is really that there is no basic detail about that on a movie which shows everything realistically. It looks surreal that the character tells that "He learns everything on Internet" even if he acts realistically. Therefore there are two main problems underlying the movie: First is the contradiction between the movie's realistic process and its unreal scenario. I mean it really worths nothing for a machiavelist man, who hates all "empty career achievement words" and his main goal is to become a media boss. However, the main goal of a man who makes all this masterplans in the movie, should not be as simple as that.
Second main problem is the moral sentiment of the movie. The machiavelist type of the character is getting much disturbing with the great acting of Jake Gyllenhaal. However there comes a moral judgment in the eye of the watchers, with the intention of producer: There is only one man who is an utter machiavelist and this machiavelist makes his job best. Therefore, there comes a judgment that, "i don't want this man to be successful." At the end of the first half of the movie i thought that, there are two possibilities for the ending of the movie. Either, this machiavelist, greedy man will obtain his goal or the ethical values and the moral principles will overcome the story's itself and everything will be upside-down and this greedy man will fall. So the ending is easy to predict but i wanted the second possibility at least but it did not happen ant it really distrub the viewer. Okey, it is the reality of life you can not achieve something, without stamping someone. Nevertheless, when i say that i "generalize" it. I know that it is wrong but i would have tied the ending to more psychological thing. At least i would have tied the ending, for the character who lives like a robot and does not have a background, to a more suitable and tangible thing which would have made it a good villain. The best thing about the disturbance of the character is the acting of Gyllenhaal.
Second main problem is the moral sentiment of the movie. The machiavelist type of the character is getting much disturbing with the great acting of Jake Gyllenhaal. However there comes a moral judgment in the eye of the watchers, with the intention of producer: There is only one man who is an utter machiavelist and this machiavelist makes his job best. Therefore, there comes a judgment that, "i don't want this man to be successful." At the end of the first half of the movie i thought that, there are two possibilities for the ending of the movie. Either, this machiavelist, greedy man will obtain his goal or the ethical values and the moral principles will overcome the story's itself and everything will be upside-down and this greedy man will fall. So the ending is easy to predict but i wanted the second possibility at least but it did not happen ant it really distrub the viewer. Okey, it is the reality of life you can not achieve something, without stamping someone. Nevertheless, when i say that i "generalize" it. I know that it is wrong but i would have tied the ending to more psychological thing. At least i would have tied the ending, for the character who lives like a robot and does not have a background, to a more suitable and tangible thing which would have made it a good villain. The best thing about the disturbance of the character is the acting of Gyllenhaal.