Glimmerubro It is not deep, but it is fun to watch. It does have a bit more of an edge to it than other similar films.

Chirphymium It's entirely possible that sending the audience out feeling lousy was intentional

Humaira Grant It’s not bad or unwatchable but despite the amplitude of the spectacle, the end result is underwhelming.

Janae Milner Easily the biggest piece of Right wing non sense propaganda I ever saw.

jonathanruano Renowned film director Constantin Costa-Gavras has attempted to make a film about the cut-throat world of international banking, with Marc Tourneuil (Gad Elmaleh) as his main anti-hero. Tourneuil is unexpectedly catapulted into the job of CEO of Phenix Bank after its previous CEO succumbs to an advanced stage of testicular cancer. After a few jokes about testicles, Tourneuil must head off political intrigues in order to stay at the helm of the firm.A movie like this works when there is lots of sly wit and plot developments to hold our interest and compensate for the absence of sympathetic characters. The problem with "Le Capital" is that it is somewhat deficient in these two areas, though not to the extent that I would not recommend the picture. To begin with, Costa-Gavras clearly wants to show that multinational banking is destructive to the economy and to people's lives, but he does not expand on these themes in any meaningful way. Tourneuil's comment about being ignorant of the financial instruments which Phenix Bank sells remains a loose end. Likewise, Tourneuil's significant remark that bankers are akin to children who play with other people's money until the financial system blows up remains an enigmatic portend. A great film would attempt to explore these themes more fully through the life of Tourneuil. We do not get any insight into the shortcomings of securitized assets, or the pressures that bankers come under to sell these combustible assets to capital markets, or even Phenix Bank's lobbying of governments in order to change the financial regulations in its favour. This film cannot be faulted for not having a message. Constantin Costa-Gavras is too much of the intellectual to make a film without a point, but he doesn't explain why his core message is important and he doesn't try to present that message in an original way.The plot developments about the vicious intrigues in international banking are entertaining, but we have seen this story being told before in much more exciting ways. Normally a film about the global financial system would have bankers coming up with flashes of sly wit. There is occasionally some sly wit in this picture, particularly in the last scene ("I am the modern Robin Hood. We will continue taking money from the poor to give to the rich"), but not nearly enough in order to underscore how shrewd and unscrupulous Tourneuil and the other bankers are. This is a pity, because the cast is clearly talented. Lastly, Dittmar's attempt to screw over Phenix Bank is so transparent that it is strange that Tourneuil, being as brilliant as he is, took so long to figure out what Dittmar was up to.Another major weakness of this film is the super model/prostitute, Nassim. Nassim seduces Tourneuil, plays with his credit card, plays an international game of tag with him, and implies that she will give into his sexual pleasures. I have no problem with Liya Kebede's performance as Nassim, but I feel that she is an unnecessary character who slows down the film whenever she is on screen. If this film focused more on international banking instead of Tourneuil attempts to have sex with Nassim, it would have been a better movie."Le Capital" has good performances and is somewhat entertaining, but it is often lacking in interesting dialogue and plot development and gives us little perspective into the Machiavellian, egotistical world of international banking and the financial geniuses who were so sure of their gifts that they almost sent the entire global financial system crashing down.

don2507 Le Capital follows the course of a newly-appointed CEO of a hypothetical major French bank with global reach. The protagonist is a smart, ambitious and hard-nosed executive, but the constant pressures he faces at the helm of Phenix Bank from his board, which didn't favor his taking command but feel they can control him, from his employees who are unclear as to the direction in which he wants to take Phenix Bank compared to his cancer-stricken predecessor, and most keenly from his shareholders, particularly a U.S.-located hedge fund, almost want to make you sympathize with him. But his ruthless, hard character and the cold but correct way he treats his family ultimately prevents this identification. (I've read that the actor portraying the CEO is a comedian on French television so this must be quite a switch for him.) The heart of the film is the pressure that the American hedge fund, as represented by a character who would put Gordon Ghecko to shame, places on the CEO to initiate drastic actions to pump the stock price. Apparently, the hedge fund has acquired a dominant position in Phenix's stock that enables it to virtually dictate policy to the bank, or at least to this CEO. Of course the dictation is smoothed by the fact that he's promised huge bonuses to implement these "suggestions". The initial directive is to fire 10,000 of the bank's employees which he does gratified by the promised bonus and seemingly unconcerned by the fact that "his" bank does not appear to have an excess labor force. The final "directive" is for Phenix Bank to make an acquisition of a troubled Japanese bank with poor assets. At last some resistance begins to form in our CEO because he senses he'll be the "fall guy" for such an ill-advised acquisition and that the adverse impact of such an acquisition on Phenix's stock price would apparently enable the hedge fund to acquire complete control of the bank at a cheaper price. (One could nitpick and say that the filmmakers in their anti-capitalist bias are confusing corporate raiders who do hostile takeovers with hedge funds who are content to be "activist" investors and prod the company's management and not manage the company. Moreover, why would the hedge fund want to manage the troubled assets of the Japanese bank as part of the larger Phenix Bank, particularly if they were acquired with cash most likely burdening Phenix Bank with much increased debt? A stock-for-stock exchange might affect the target bank's shareholders with a lower value for their stock.) What the CEO ultimately does about the Japanese bank and his erstwhile hedge fund friends I'll leave for those who choose to view this film. I, for one, enjoyed it. I found the banking scenes to be interesting and the characterizations to be provocative although in some cases over the top. For non-French speakers like this English speaker, I think you'll need to go back a bit a number of times on a DVD to refresh the sub-titles in order to follow the financial ramifications of the plot.The filmmakers' attitude toward high-finance capitalism is most apparent in an amusing but over-the-top scene where our banking CEO says in an opulent boardroom among well-dressed board members that our new paradigm is to "rob from the poor and give to the rich" to which he's met with enthusiastic applause. I'm sure the vast majority of bankers don't believe this or follow this goal explicitly; however, their actions may sometimes indeed perform this transfer of wealth, e.g., the LIBOR interest rate manipulation which served to enrich banks and their usually wealthy shareholders (but also including 401k holders) but increased the cost to homeowners with variable-rate mortgages. I would guess the basic question underlying films like "Capital" is whether economic systems like capitalism promote the kind of greed and exploitation we see in "Capital" or whether greed-filled and exploitative people perform their misery in any kind of system (for you socialists out there, socialism did not really end greed and exploitation; it was just manifested in another form, the form of political power and perks). Perhaps the filmmakers' message is that financial capitalism allows monetary greed to be more fully realized.

ensetaro-1 Very interested 2012 French film by Costa Garvas. Shows how a large French bank operates in the world's financial market and how it integrates into the international banking system. An aging CEO is replaced by a younger executive. He finds himself with a lot of internal and external pressures. Some scenes of it reminds of Wall Street 2. A different approach to the financial market at a fast pace, in some moments too fast to follow and grasp. Also shows the relationships between the different executives and its lower level employees when the new CEO starts laying off people to tune up the finances of the bank with ruthless practices and little concern about employees needs and their respect. Worth while seeing.

GUENOT PHILIPPE Since four years now and the beginning of the world wide economic crisis, this kind of films emerges from nearly everywhere. This movies is not an exception. It describes the ruthless, fierce, cruel and greedy financial world - I would say underworld. Many people have said this is too much in caricature, full of clichés. Yes I agree with that, but it's very realistic. And so cynical too. As I have rarely seen before. Costa Gavras tries so hard to disgust the audience, make the viewers puke all over the joint in watching this feature. What is the most interesting, is that the lead is actually a disgusting hero. I have never seen a hero described in such a way. Never in a life time watching films. I Love this. But that doesn't make it a great film. Only surprising about this detail. That's all. I prefer it to WALL STREET films. Although it's not better.Worth the look. No more.