I agree, although I've never seen it...I'm not that interested in watching...yet, another...movie about the 2008 housing crisis/market bubble. There's quite a few out about it already, not to mention that event is kind of ancient history already. I'd rather watch a Wall Street 3...long live Gordon Gekko!~ Wall Street 1987 was awesome; Wall Street 2010 was horrible. Michael Douglas is too old though, to play GG again...they would need to hire someone similar...who is, and looks more, hungry and visceral and cunning.
Is the Big Short doing any better after being out for a while? I liked it. But what surprises me is that absolutely everyone I talk to in my age group (I'm 59) wants to see it, including people who know zip about the equity or bond markets and have no interest in anything of the kind.
Then why are you chirping in this thread anyway??? And if WS2 sucked why do you think WS3 would be any good? You don't make any sense dude. ------------------------------------------------------ Now let's look at box office: "Holding on in seventh place with the smallest drop in the top 10 (30%) was The Big Short which made an estimated $6.3M bringing its total up to $42.8M for Paramount. " So they already made back the 25 mill cost.* It also has staying power like that movie about the sinking ship. It got 5 Oscar nominations, although one should realize the Oscars are nothing but PR for the movie industry. I saw the Revenant, it is a rather boring straight forward adventure movie and got 12 nominations, should have got none... *some dumbass was crying about box office a few weeks back
You look for the birds. They're going to help you, those birds. You'll see. Good luck." --Eli Wallach, Wall Street Money Never Sleeps. 2010
Just saw it. I know this movie is named after the book, but after watching all the drama it should have been titled, "The Drawdown".
Just watched The Big Short. Thumbs up here as well, managed to keep focused on the movie while getting hammered in some european position. Not a mild feat.
The movie completely omitted the root cause of the problem where government housing agencies reduced home loan underwriting requirements for low income buyers who would otherwise not qualify. All the emphasis in the movie was on Wall Street. I read a comment on another forum which sums up this bias ... this movie was a $28 million campaign ad for Bernie Sanders.