I can't quite make my mind up about this Australian movie, The Bank. I've watched it three times now, and it's certainly a pretty good movie, entertaining and well made. But it should be a very good movie, and somehow it's not. I'm still trying to decide quite why.The central premise is quite interesting. Math genius Jim Doyle (David Wenham), has written a computer program that will allow him to beat the stock market. It will accurately predict ups and downs in share prices so well that he – or anyone who uses it – will be able to make the ultimate insider dealer killing at the expense of the market. Or save themselves from financial ruin, depending on your viewpoint. But the program is not quite ready, it still needs some tweaking and that requires the kind of computing power only a rich financial institution such as a major bank can provide. Enter Anthony LaPaglia, playing Simon O'Reilly, an antipodean Gordon Gecko, the boss of an Australian bank who has just been told by his board to increase the profit margin pronto or seek alternative employment. Add a supporting cast of assorted bank employees, Jim's genius Japanese friend, a young couple losing their business to bank foreclosure and their son to tragedy, and a love interest (Michelle Roberts played by pretty Sybilla Budd), and we have the potential for an interesting and reasonably original movie. And let's face it, there haven't been that many riveting films about high finance, so it has an open field.But will Jim get his program perfected in time, can anyone – even a banker – truly be as one dimensionally unpleasant as Simon O'Reilly (and that's a reflection of the script not Anthony LaPaglia's acting, which is fine), is the love interest really a bank insider planted to keep an eye on Jim from under the sheets and is Jim Doyle even who he appears to be? The plot is fairly unlikely, as the chances of one man, no matter how clever, being given uncontrolled access to a bank's supercomputer, are remote. However I am quite willing to believe that a bank or any other major institution might readily bend the law to increase profits (think Enron), so suspending belief here isn't that much of a stretch. There is a bit of a twist in the end, but I found the characters all a little one dimensional. I wasn't convinced by the "genius writing formulae on tablecloths" characterization of Jim (all the math/engineering types I used to know used cigarette packets. Is the tablecloth a politically correct substitute for a non smoking world?) but the movie looks like it cost quite a lot to make, which is a credit to the director, as I suspect by Hollywood standards it cost very little, and the fractals are worth the entry price alone.My main problem is that some of the dialogue is little clichéd. For example, Jim and Michelle's exchange when they go back to his apartment after their first date; Jim (as they undress each other): "Shouldn't we get to know each other first?" Michelle: "But supposing we don't like each other?" Jim: "You're right". Quite. Cut to morning-after-the-night-before shot of Jim awaking looking suitably tousled while Michelle – obviously an early riser – takes the opportunity to go through his private possessions.Now I will say at the outset that I'm a little biased, as David Wenham could stand in front of the camera reciting nursery rhymes while wearing a monk's habit and I would pay to watch (oh hang on, wasn't that Van Helsing?) Seriously, he gives another good performance. Whenever has he not given a good performance? Anthony LaPaglia is a terrific actor too, and they should both be much better known here in the USA than they currently are. Sybilla Budd was, perhaps, a little flat as Michelle, but again that's probably more a reflection of the dialogue than her acting. I found the scene at Simon's party where she launches into a tirade against her host, quite unconvincing. Surely no one over the age of consent could be that naïve? The cast were pretty solid, and the cinematography fine, but that basic central premise Big Bank Bad, Small Guy Good is just too simplistic for this particular middle aged cynic, and I really find hard to swallow that 700 thousand (Australian?) dollars in their bank account is any recompense to a couple who have just lost their only child and then been truly and publicly screwed in court. And hang on, haven't the bank just gone bust, so where did that 700 grand come from again? But I'm struggling here to decide exactly what it is that disappoints me about this film, and I have to come to the conclusion that maybe the fault is with me, and not the movie. I guess I'm just too cynical?

I liked the movie, but was terribly disappointed in the ending.The premise of the film was good, but has been done quite a bit. Some of the plot twists were very good...and a few really threw me. There was enough suspense to definitely keep me interested.It was an interesting twist on a concept that I previously felt had been overdone. The writer made this part work. The "bad guy" was underacted yet overdone by the dialog. A rock could have delivered that performance. The lead actor was quite good, however, and made this film worth my 7 out of 10 rating. I'd like to see more of his films.I probably wouldn't purchase the movie, but I would watch it again if it was on.

The Bank is a great story well told. It leaves you feeling that banks always take you for a ride. I thought David Wenham's character was so well played but the ending was a bit flat. I think that the ending did not reach any real level of interest for the audience

This is an Australian suspense thriller about a mathematician, Jim Doyle, who develops a new theory based on chaos analysis that will enable a user to predict just about anything. A senior banking executive, Simon O'Reilly, gets a hold of the news and hires Jim to work for them, to develop a system that will predict financial markets.Jim is altruistic - he wants to predict market collapses so that regular people can react in time. Simon sees a way to get rich. Simon is also one of those Gordan Gecko types who sees himself as part of the new feudal lords of capitalism, a member of the elite whose duty he sees as crushing the opposition.This is a pretty clever film and I want to be careful not to give away the ending. You can sort of see it coming, but the actor playing Jim, David Wenham, is so under control that he doesn't give away a thing. You might recognize Wenham from his role as Faramir, Boromir's brother in the second installment of the Lord of the Rings trilogy. His acting makes this film succeed.Anthony LaPaglia plays the ruthless banker, Simon, and he manages to make himself hateful for the audience. Sibylla Budd also plays the love interest of Jim very well (she has a deliciously sly smile).Short on elaborate production values, but the story and the acting make this film exciting and one I'd recommend.