User Reviews

The year 2008 is a distant memory for many things, but for the financial crisis of 2008 it seems just so very recent. This movie, "Too Big To Fail", uses all the real people involved, and likely all the real dialog the filmmakers could dig up. The result is a very realistic, very chilling snapshot of how financial institutions can make or break our economy and our lives.

I am retired, in late 2007 and into 2008 I had a pretty big chunk of my savings in stock market related investments. When the financial markets started falling, then falling more, then almost dropping off a cliff, it was very worrying to think every thing I had spent 30+ years saving up might be worth almost nothing. Seeing this movie gives great insight into what all went on to create the crisis, then to help it level out and eventually start to recover.

Many characters are played by excellent, experienced actors, but the prime focus is William Hurt who does a super job as Henry Paulson , US Secretary of the Treasury. While he had no direct authority to make the large banks take actions that he and his team of specialists thought best, he had a tremendously persuasive position.

After a number of attempts to get a solution, the last desperate act was to get Congress to approve a $700Billion package that would be used as a stimulus, to selected banks, to encourage them to begin lending again. For without lending the economy could not hope to recover.

The news of that caused the stock markets to stabilize, with renewed investor confidence, and set the stage for a recovery. Ironically, the banks did NOT resume lending right away, but it was the news, the promise of better days that sparked the improvement.

The great news is that now 4 1/2 years down the road, the stock markets have reached new historical highs and unemployment continues to drop. There is no guarantee it will continue for long, but at least the indications are that the crisis is behind us.

As a financial adviser, I have two very different thoughts on "Too Big to Fail".

First, I was fascinated by the human element - the relationships between decision-makers, the communication, the uncertainty, the failings and doubts we all possess. We all read the headlines, but rarely are we given even the slightest insight about the decision-making processes that affect us all.

Second, and unfortunately, the story is told with such obvious omissions and distortions that it is clear writer Andrew Ross Sorkin not only carries a partisan grudge, but made little attempt to hide that grudge in the script. Just a few examples of many:

1. One clear "villain" of the meltdown was the American consumer - those who willingly purchased homes they quite well knew they couldn't afford, took advantage of 125% refi's to pay off credit cards so that they could run them up again, tapped into their equity for trips, cars, boats and other goodies, etc. Instead, they were clearly portrayed as victims, and the only time a reference is made to them is when the biggest villain in the film, Dick Fuld, is scoffing at them.

2. Legislators Barney Frank and Chris Dodd, who are documented to have made errors in judgment leading up to the crisis, are portrayed as having absolutely nothing to do with it, completely stunned that this was happening - worse, they come off as passionate defenders of the people. Only someone who knows absolutely nothing of this crisis would fall for this. Come on, Mr. Sorkin.

3. Then-SEC Chairman Christopher Cox, the highest-profile Republican in the story, is portrayed as a bumbling, indecisive, oafish fool. If the rest of the film were not so left-leaning, this portrayal may not have been so obvious. Instead, it falls right in line with the rest of the partisan approach.

4. When assistant Michele Davis asks why regulators failed to notice and act upon the blatant problems in the mortgage industry, Hank Paulson sheepishly responds, "because we were making too much money." What?! The federal government failed to do its job because some people were making a lot of money? Wouldn't an indictment of such magnitude warrant a much larger inspection during this movie? Instead, it's just passed off as "greed". Astonishing.

5. Blame for the entire economic meltdown is placed in one place, and one place only: Those Evil Banks. Not one ounce of blame (outside of the ridiculous statement in #4, above) is placed on the massive failure of regulators to do their job; on the consumers who willingly signed on the dotted line, on the bureaucrats from both parties who pushed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to make bad loans in the interest of "fairness."

I could go on. In short, partisan politics (from BOTH sides) have so polluted our everyday culture that it's now impossible to believe anything you hear, read or see. "Too Big To Fail" is a vivid example.

Here's the problem: This film had a chance to teach us critical lessons about the financial meltdown. An accurate approach could have served as a road map for the future, a warning siren to everyone from politicians to Wall Streeters to regular citizens on the dangers of personal greed, of poor political leadership and of the need for more effective regulation of financial markets.

Instead, it's just another political statement disguised as "fact". What a shame.

.

As we start watching this film, that plays like a documentary, we are given an introduction as to what caused the debacle in the United States economy system prior to the demise of the powerhouse Lehman Brothers. The US economy almost collapse because of the same people that became obscenely rich while the party was going on, were reluctant in fixing the main problem, as well as their responsibility in creating what led to its almost collapse.

Unfortunately, after all was said and done, things remained the same because even though the government, led by then Treasury secretary Henry Paulson, decided to inject cash for the banks to continue lending money to the industries and businesses that depended on it, the little people that did not have the power of the more powerful elite to continue operating were the ones that suffered the most.

On a positive note, the figure of Warren Buffet, the oracle of Omaha, comes out as the most level headed individual of all. He is a humble man when it comes to show off his wealth. In fact, the film shows him as the simple, unassuming person that he is. It is humbling for someone like Hank Paulson to seek advice from this great man that had a clear picture about the excesses the men at the center of the story had committed.

Curtis Hanson directed the HBO film, based on a novel of Andrew Ross Sorkin, with a screenplay by Peter Gould. The high financing world is examined by the filmmakers, trying to make sense about the fateful year of 2008. The best thing they achieved was the almost perfect match in the casting to play on the screen the principals involved in the story. The film requires a certain knowledge to follow the intricacies of that world, something that is not easily grasped by the general public.

William Hurt shines as Hank Paulson, the man at the center of the storm. We watch him walking up Seventh Avenue in Manhattan looking at what was Lehman Brothers' headquarters. Others in the film are Billy Crudup as Timothy Geithner. Paul Giamatti playing the bearded, and somber, Ben Bernanke. As Paulson's Treasury team there are wonderful performances by Cinthia Nixon, Joey Slotnick, Topher Grace and Ayan Akhtar. Almost all the other actors have only limited time in front of the camera, but their collective effort is notable.

The financial crisis has made a splash in the film industry, ironically capitalizing on the failure of unregulated capitalism. There is also "Margin Call" and Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps." I couldn't help think about the LIBOR scandal that is on the horizon as this film mentions the major players and Barclays.

This film goes behind the scenes to show the phone calls and board rooms as the drama unfolds. The all-star cast gave us a credible performance. The characters are introduced by displaying their name and company affiliation on the screen. I wish they had used some flashier fonts and maybe some grindhouse swagger music as they walked in to talk to Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson (William Hurt) who is sometimes seen having breakfast with Fed Chair Ben Bernake played by Paul Giamatti.

Michele Davis (Cynthia Nixon) has to give a press conference and asks how to explain why AIG failed. At this point the movie comes together in one scene which explains the whole crisis in layman's terms and why mommies and kitties will die if AIG goes under...okay maybe not the last part, Ben Bernake does that later.

Billy Crudup plays Timothy Geithner the head of the NY Federal Reserve. His ideas and influence were instrumental in buying time for congress to act.

In looking toward Europe, they is a newer and scarier phrase: "Too big to save." This is a great film. I would also recommend the CNBC documentary "House of Cards."

PARENTAL GUIDE: No sex, no nudity, many F-bombs

The kind of movie I want to like, but the facts kept getting in the way.

So, it's fiction? No, not really, every real person is precisely identified, right down to using actual names and screen labels.

So, it's a docudrama? No, not really, otherwise Hank Paulson would not have been the central character, played by the fine actor William Hurt, nor cast in any role even faintly resembling the financial savior of our Country.

Don't believe me? Then watch the real Senate hearings with the real Paulson, and his constantly changing ready-fire-aim approach while still posturing for Wall Street after arriving late for his sworn job of bank regulator.

If the real facts interest you, watch "Inside Job", which tries to shine some light on this massive corruption at the highest levels and the looting of the American Treasury.

But if you want to see good actors re-enact just how close we came to rending forever the financial fabric of this Country, while playing high stakes "Let's Make a Deal", this movie will git er done.

Matter of fact, with real, official Washington openly throwing around terms at the time like "financial meltdown", one can only wonder what kept it from happening. Wait! I know! John Q. Taxpayer stepped up with $700 billion, later reduced to $475 billion, so that the Wall Street Wizards could continue funding golden parachutes and outrageous salaries. -------------------------------------------------------------------- From the movie, and in reality very close to what happened: "Michele Davis: They almost bring down the US economy as we know it but we can't put restrictions on how they spend the $125 billion we're giving them because... they might not take it!"

The Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Public Affairs upon hearing that the nine bank CEOs may refuse to take free money from the federal government if they had to be held accountable for how they spent it". ------------------------------------------------------------------ BTW, the real Ms. Davis is now Global Head of Corporate Affairs for Morgan Stanley . . . you really can't make up stuff like this.

I agree with many about the ease of understanding, especially when TOPHER GRACE w/ Hurt & Crudup simplify it for Cynthia Nixon (a proxy for us, the American people). Though very strong almost throughout the film, the acting and dialog/banter in this scene is well worth the film's viewing!

There is one more glaring omission/defect in the film, besides Goldman-Sachs larger role; writer Andrew Sorkin and director Chris Hansen leave out the (can't call it criminal, can we?) banking oversight roles of Sen. Chris Dodd & Rep. Barney Frank have in the disaster? The film almost depicts them (w/ Spkr Pelosi) as naive heroes! What were Sorkin and Hansen thinking? Hello - CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS and SWEETHEART DEALS to look the other way? Oh sorry, there was no quid-pro-quo...

Anyone else want that beach-front property in Utah?