Tuchergson Truly the worst movie I've ever seen in a theater

Chatverock Takes itself way too seriously

Stometer Save your money for something good and enjoyable

Mjeteconer Just perfect...

Philip Schroeder I just watched Bailout: The Age of Greed, and I must say it has been a long time since I last watched such a propaganda filled, poorly acted piece of sh*t. The movie actually starts out great, and we get the back-story of how f*ck-ed our main protagonists' life is f*ck-ed. His wife is recovering from some deadly disease, although it is never told what disease it is, and we just hear about all the crazy expensive medication she needs to recover fully. Meanwhile, our ''hero's'' bank is going bankrupt and that leads them to f*ck the clients who t'bought their fake stocks? It's confusing and seems like Uwe just chose to change the reason the bank f*cks it's clients mid-film so that his genius masterpiece would rally up the people who are actually believing everything from this poorly excuse of a film. Anyway, the first hour we're just following the miserable journey of Jim, who's life only seems to get worse. Eventually, Jim decides to go on a rampage and basically kill everyone he sees in a suit because suits = evil puppet of cooperation. The movie ends very stereotypically with Jim holding some speech of righteousness where he is proclaiming that if the system is not taking care of these banks he will, cause he is the soldier of the people. A real vigilante. Now, you may be thinking that Uwe Boll is some amazing society critic that knows just what he is talking about. but he's not. He's Uwe Boll. The man who raged at the internet because we wouldn't fund his shitty movie. Uwe Boll doesn't know the concept of a vigilante, but a vigilante doesn't kill at least 30 people that there may be the slightest doubt of innocence in. Don't watch this movie unless you want to laugh at how smart Uwe Boll thinks he is.

Finfrosk86 My, my, my, Uwe Boll, you have come a long way!I remember the times of 'House of the Dead' and 'Alone in the Dark', movies that by all logic, should have been awesome, but instead was awful. Those we actually some of my first meetings with just plain bad movies. That special type of bad. Not many movies I see, falls into this category.'Bailout: The age of greed', or 'Attack on Wall Street' which was the name I saw it under, is not that bad at all! It's pretty much like a normal movie, actually. Some of the dramatic parts are a little iffy, but it might be so, that if I didn't know it was Uwe Boll, I wouldn't really have thought about it. Or maybe I would. Dominic Purcell does a great job. The story is not exactly Pulitzer-prize material, but gets the job done. You feel for this guy. If Uwe Boll keeps getting better, maybe in the future he will make a truly good movie? Time will tell.

Pete D. The reviews that call this the best have to be from people with an emotional short circuit in their make up or a stake in this movie. The acting, the story and the pacing are all so predictable as to be outrageously insulting. The overwhelming pile up of the bad things that happen to the lead character could have led to a great cathartic ending if there were a point to any of it. When I watch an action/revenge movie such as this I enter into an unspoken agreement with the director and writer that is something like "you keep me reasonably hypnotized and in the moment of your story and I'll suspend belief and turn off the judging part of my brain". The acting, writing and directing are so bad that I never got to turn the judge-ey part of my brain off. "Bad stuff happened" is in no way a justification for the unbridled and completely amoral killing of total innocents. This movie has no moral center. It's just disgraceful. The blood thirsty climactic violence should be focused tightly on executing (pun intended) said death, mayhem, and cataclysm on the BAD GUYS, not on an office full of men and women that are just doing their 9 to 5 thing. I am in no way an apologist for the scum sucking leeches that came out of the financial crisis with their fortunes not only fully intact, but much larger than before by a few orders of magnitude, all at the expense of the rest of us. However, the fact that there are people out there that think this movie shows a righteous everyman giving it to the man - instead of an unhinged, murderous, slug with no conscience wreaking senseless havoc - scares me. He has clearly gone mad. No, I take that back. There is no attempt to show him "snapping" and losing it. He is shown as an intensely mean and calculating monster. No amount of "YEAH! GIVE IT TO 'EM!!" blood lust excuses what he's done. He needs to be put down, not signed up for a sequel.Again, no moral center, no redeeming value.

sobertool6969 Full of spoilers. You've been warned. The movie starts off with the most unluckiest man in the world. He's a security guard and not a cop, his wife has cancer that the insurance company won't cover, all of his money is in a stock, that goes belly up, and on top of that he's being taken for more money because of a bad stock. He gets a lawyer, who screws him over. During all of this, this huge muscular man is completely calm and barely gives more than a boo-whoo, aw shucks vibe. Never gets angry. Until the ADA blows him off, and he curses at his secretary, but barely. It's supposed to be this profound moment, and it just falls so flat, and so weak. Then his wife kills herself. She cleans the house nice, does all his laundry, and then crawls into bed and fills it with blood. We finally get a little emotion out of our main character. It takes about 70 of the 98 minutes to get into any sort of action, when he accidentally kills the ADA. Then he goes on his spree, magically not being seen by cameras, or people, despite the fact he's using a very loud hi powered rifle in a sweet little Great Neck, Long Island. The climax of the movie starts with him picking people off from a parking garage, and then when he runs out of bullets, he walks out onto a horrifed street. People--who should have ran away but are for some reason just hanging out in perfect shooting range--are crying at the site of the masacre, while this man who walks out of where the gun shots were coming from, looking very angry and disinterested, and holding a freaking mask in his hand, just walks across the street without anyone noticing. If this movie ended with him being a ghost that killed people, that would be more believable. The line at the end of the movie "you know the difference between a banka and a gangsta?".....this guy wasn't a gangster! He was ex-military, he was a security guard, he was taking care of his family.....what's gangster about his character until he has a nervous breakdown at the end? And even then, he's not a gangster......he's apparently a murdering mastermind. Maybe if he'd chosen a profession of heists and murdering people, he wouldn't be in the financial woes that he was in. I watched this movie because I saw that Eric Roberts, Keith David, Edward Furlong, and John Heard were in it, so I figured it wouldn't be AWFUL. The story was bad, boring, drawn out, and ham-fisted. The writing was boring, and so full of agenda that it loses its emotional hold completely. The acting was flat--all around. Eric Roberts is this high powered lawyer that could just as easily be a hippie on W4th. I don't lightly give this a 1 star review. This moving is insultingly bad, and should honestly be ashamed of itself. It's not so bad it's good. It's not redeemable at all.