It can be perceived as a poor allowance for establishing contacts during the transaction. The cinema has no artistic value. Except the property is beautiful, but not shown enough to look at because of it. Score zero.
- I'm not as dumb as you think I am. “Are you a different asshole?” – Future Business Partners
With the emergence of the international movement “Black Lives Matter”, the history of oppression of the African-American population on the basis of racism with all sorts of manifestations of segregation laid its deep imprint on cinema, giving a new round to the development of the subgenre “blaxploitation”. Someone may not like it, but let’s be frank and accept that changes in the cinema are happening in the most obvious way. Moreover, it is not so rare that these thematic films sometimes bring something really worth watching. Not only new facets are revealed, but we also learn something new, learn about fascinating events and interesting personalities. Although you need to be completely honest, because sometimes such films are with a clear inflection, which causes a flurry of criticism. But based on real events, the economic and criminal drama “Banker” refers to fascinating films about interesting events and significant personalities, so watching it was really interesting.
The plot was based on the history of friendship and mutually beneficial cooperation between two talented (if not brilliant) economists, perfectly oriented in the specifics of the real estate market and banking. Their names were Bernard Garrett and Joe Morris, who played Anthony Mackie and Samuel L. Jackson respectively. As you can see, both of them were African-American, but in the mid-1950s, when they developed their activities, almost any of their tribesmen who had an education, caused if not surprise, then contemptuous laughter. But both friends were talented self-taught, which allowed them to do business, but there was only one catch: people with, let’s say, non-white skin, were biased, infringing on rights and freedoms, which forced Garrett and Morris to take on a leading position incompetent in economic matters, but with a fantastic memory of Matt Steiner (Nicholas Holt), who became the “face” of the company because of the “right” skin color. But what Garrett and Morris did at the time was considered a scam, that is, an economic crime. . .
I must say that the screenwriters of the Banker set an intriguing linear development of the action, provided that you do not need to drive horses, but consistently reveal to us the peak episodes of the activities and lives of the characters Mackie and Jackson, as well as the charming Holt who joined them. At the same time, the main character was just the character of Anthony Mackie, whom we are presented with a brilliant businessman who discovered a “golden bottom” in the real estate market. He seemed to have been born for this profession and in modern times would have made a solid fortune, although at that time he could not call himself a low-income person, unlike his brothers huddled in the ghetto. Next, we are introduced to the hero Samuel L. Jackson, who at first glance looks like a stereotypical African-American with criminal tendencies, dressing like a pimp. But it becomes clear that Bernard Garrett and Joe Morris are two halves of a single whole, which almost providence brought together. And do not fear that, as in any economic film, there will be many terms and concepts incomprehensible to unsophisticated people - this is not a sophisticated "Game for the Decline" (2015).
It should be mentioned that the main director of the Banker was George Nolphy, who began as a screenwriter and worked on such films as “Time Trapped” (2003), “Ocean’s Twelve Friends” (2004), “The Guard” (2006) and “The Bourne Ultimatum” (2007). And then he took and directed two successful films - "Changing Reality" (2011) and "Bruce Lee: The Birth of the Dragon" (2016). Now in this enviable list, he can, without a shadow of embarrassment, add the Banker. Good development of characters written on the basis of real people who, apparently, in the 50s, were ahead of their time. The dramaturgy is made at a high level, just necessary for the viewer to feel the right moments of the story of Garrett and Morris, but at the same time it did not much distract from the scenes where they discuss and set in motion epochal events for the same 50s. Thanks to Samuel L. Jackson in the Banker was not without humor, and despite all the seriousness of the story, the jokes of the hero Jackson was on time and on time. The acting also deserves praise and Nicholas Holt, along with Nia Long (played Garrett's wife), brought a variety to the picture. And I want to note the small but bright role of Colm Mini.
In general, albeit not especially expected, but for me, "Banker" was a pleasant revelation, despite the imposed theme, but the story about such curious people as Bernard Garrett and Joe Morris was put on a qualitatively high level with a well-developed script and businesslike acting, where, of course, the duet of Anthony Mackie and Samuel L. Jackson stands out, but other actors on secondary roles do not fall out of the ensemble and convincingly add color and charisma to the picture - this is me again about Nicholas Holt and Neil Long. But of course it is worth saying about the commensurability of the events of biopic and economic vocabulary slang - I do not think that Mackie and Jackson are also easily and masterfully maneuvering in the depths of banking terminology, but this is all done so confidently that it allows us to conclude that the balance in the Banker is very correct.
8 out of 10
P.S. In some scenes, you can see Jesse T. Usher, who in the same year that "Banker" was released played the son of Samuel L. Jackson in the reboot of the Shaft franchise, the first film from which was released in 1971 and is considered exemplary from the subgenre "blaxploitation".
It was not easy for me to absorb this biopic. Something about him was so monotonous and morose. It seems that the racial themes in the cinema are boring, and the situation of African Americans is clear to the smallest detail, and it seems that the drama with intrigue plays its role in the film, but until the middle of the timekeeping we have attempts by the “black” to succeed in the 50s. As a result, the biography of businessmen Joe Morris and Bernard Garrett is tempting, the description of the tape is quite pleasant, and the implementation begins with the brakes, either to prepare the viewer or to alert him.
The film takes the foundations of racial discrimination, presenting us with fairly educated and highly intellectual protagonists. Young and purposeful Bernard performed by Anthony Mackie (something Falcon began to fly over me often) gives an epic speech, embarks on the path of financial fraud. The awareness of the time and situation in the United States is straight out, and given the peculiarities of Bernard, you understand what is to be seen.
The face of the second businessman Joe Morris is the main “mazafaker” of Hollywood – Sam Jackson. The relationships of the characters characterize all thoughts when watching. The guys started buying real estate, but they were in the wrong place at the wrong time. Tactics are there, knowledge is there, loopholes in the law are provided, but what to do with the face? Right! This is where the painting begins to take interest. You need a white puppet, which is Nicholas Holt. It is quite a pleasant spectacle, not devoid of irony, when the “blacks” try to teach the “white”.
It is clear that the true story, but it looks like a mockery, a racial mockery that shoots at the “whites”. This is not resentment, not envy, just the life situation of people whom nature has divided into different sides. Nick Fury and Falcon become the curators of the Beast, so that he could bravely maneuver between profit, real estate acquisition and savvy in accounting and analysis.
The training looks great. Director George Nolphy seems to be bullied, but this comic evokes positive emotions. Next, the film begins to put all its plans and theories into practice. The picture enters the territory of interest rates, loans, loans, agreements and further mathematical calculations, which, of course, will be boring for the average viewer. That’s just Nicholas Holt is also not very clear all the analysis, so the film kills two birds with one stone: and introduces variety for the viewer, and justifies the actions of “white”.
After numerous trainings, the film is gaining good momentum, changing the frames of preparation for practice and vice versa. Ethics and activities of the rich include mandatory requirements, so if you do not want to take part in public events (a dinner party, golf, small talk), then the path to money is closed.
All this is perfectly explained by the film, is displayed on the screen with a comedy element and hits the viewer with a shock wave. Good! But then the biography begins to open people’s eyes, giving birth to blackmail, racketeering, racial discrimination in order to make a rather unexpected move with a horse! Put Nicholas Holt in an individual position to expose the face to justice and make a curtsey to the Supreme Court.
When you have already understood the whole meaning, surprised, happy, the final credits give explanations of the further history, to put all the dots on the "i" before the curtain. As a result, if it were not for the bored elements at the beginning, if it were not for the long swing before the key actions, then it would be perfect. It's so intriguing, but there's sagging. The piece would have been cut, it would have been much easier, but this is a biography that was supposed to convey to the viewer the burden of African Americans in the real estate and finance markets.
The film tells us, ' you have to live your life so you can be played by Samuel Jackson'. Of course, for that to happen, it has to happen a little bit that you have to be born black in the United States in the sixties, and wait for another black man, who will then be played by Anthony Mackie. And together, you two black men in the sixties in the United States, try to buy a bank. White. In Texas.
On the one hand, a very entertaining picture - as if mixed boring 'Green Book' and mixed it with ultra-entertainment 'Catch me if you can' (remarkably - all three stories are based on real events). On the other hand, the director, whose most remarkable work was a very gray in every sense of the movie ' Changing Reality'. The result evokes mixed feelings - there are funny moments, there is admiration for the plot, there is Samuel Jackson's smile, illuminating the screen with the light of a thousand suns, mixed with some clearly improvised beautiful lines, and on the other hand - a very lame rhythm of the narrative, and deliberately cut to moderation picture and musical accompaniment.
Yeah, interesting. Yeah, amazingly clever. Yes, the movie gets bonus points for the fact that, despite the fact that the whole film is actually about racism, it is not turned into a manifesto - the authors focused on an interesting story and characters, rather than hanging slogans. But it’s a shame that the talent of the whole team didn’t have enough to turn this into an IMDB Top 250 movie.
6.8 points
Of these, 6 are Maki and 8 are Jackson.
A beautiful tale of how two slaves a whole regiment of masters fooled. Just wait, it's not a fairy tale - it's a story!
Watch for Jackson and an extraordinary story.
This is a good movie about the nigger community. The trailer is better not to watch, I watched it after the movie and there are only spoilers.
The film is full of events related to business, there are various moves that make you think and you can probably give an example of a similar tape 'Catch me if you can'. In general, I quite admit some true story, but there are moments that are difficult to imagine at that time. Ignoring them, it looks good. The philosophy of this film is the difficulty of running a business of two exceptional representatives of black people under the principle 'white only'. The rest are thieves, murderers, luthers and other scoundrels, but these sons do have an extra chromosome.
The moment I didn't understand: when the Negro's wife rearranged the floor lamp and sofa.
The plot is quite banal, but it is made with a soul.
Everyone has a dream. For Americans, it's American. For African Americans, it is also American, without any additional prefixes.
Bernard Garrett (Anthony Mackie) and Joe Morris (Samuel Jackson) are business partners. They decide to go into real estate (though not immediately together, because at first Garrett had a different companion). They come up with a scheme by which they get rich, and their black brothers can now apply to banks for loans and loans, which was not accepted in the mid-twentieth century in the United States. More precisely, not even accepted, but under a conditional ban because of the color of the skin.
To implement their plan, Garrett and Morris hire a third partner - white Matt Steiner (Nicholas Holt), who is appointed head of their company, and they themselves become a "driver" and "janitor." At the same time, they “manage” the whole process, and Steiner meets with people and makes deals. It is clear that the scheme is illegal, illegal, but it does not harm anyone. And thanks to it, the poor (naturally black) can finally get the money they need from the bank. As it happens, the rope can not twirl for a long time and the threat of exposure hangs over the three heroes. . .
The film is autobiographical and is based on the true story of Garrett and Morris, who for a period of time in the 50s cheated the American system and found ways to improve the lives of their brothers. And if the Banker's goal was to show how they were doing some kind of charity for black people, making it easier for them to live, in my opinion, it did well, even though Garrett and Morris did not forget about their well-being.
Director George Nolphy, known for the film “Changing reality” with Matt Damon and the same Anthony Mackie, and Emily Blunt, probably changed the real story somewhat, because it is simply impossible to believe some facts. For example, the finale of the picture is quite crazy, because the wife waited for Garrett for three years, clearly experienced financial difficulties and housing problems while her husband was absent for legal reasons. All these three years he kept secret the presence of another real estate, which was “rolled out” by his spouse as an unexpected present. If you put yourself in the place of this woman, you are unlikely to be happy that the husband prepared such a “surprise” for her.
The Banker continues its line of films on racial segregation. A couple of such films can be called immediately (and from among the fresh ones) - this is "Green Book", "Just Pardon" and "Marshall". Each of them tells different stories about black people who really had a hard time just because of their skin color. The whole issue of discrimination is ridiculous: you can’t be successful because you’re black. Although similar manifestations exist in modern life, including in Russia, where people of a certain nationality or race are not hired for any company. “Banker” develops this topic well, and does not do it one-sidedly (they say that I am black and will endure all hardships and will be stronger than you, who offend me), but showing the attitude of blacks to whites by the example of Jackson’s hero. For him to wipe the nose of those who vomit because of the color of the skin is a matter of honor and Mr. Joe Morris uses every opportunity.
And if you look at these two people, whose images Jackson and Mackie tried on themselves, and many others (including the characters from the above films), they took small steps toward recognizing black rights. Their obstinacy and desire to change something still gave a certain result and only they knew or knew what they had to go through. Again, Mackie’s character had to face a color problem in the beginning, when his partner was Colm Mini. When you’re black, your signature can’t stand a priori, which automatically reduces your chances of splitting your property by 50%. Sad but true.
"Banker" is a good movie. He tells his story and does it well and interestingly. The story itself, although serious, is not without a certain amount of irony, due to which it looks quite easy.
But look at you. I do not impose my opinion on anyone.
It is no secret that in the past few years, numerous companies have decided to grab their tasty piece of the now popular streaming services business and announced the launch of their services. In the most unfavorable position is the streaming service ' Apple' which not only does not have an impressive library of films and TV series, but also develops new projects slowly and slowly. The company was unlucky with this film, which they wanted to promote in the award season and at the Oscars, but as a result of the discovery of a scandal with sexual harassment, they were forced to disown their work. But how did George Nolphy's movie turn out? Let's figure it out.
The plot of this film is based on real events and tells the story of two African Americans - Joe Morris and Bernard Garrett, who founded a successful real estate agency in the 1950s and became one of the richest African Americans in the country. Leading the agency on behalf of the front white leader, and meanwhile pretending to be a simple janitor and driver.
The authors of this tape managed to tell a really interesting and unusual story. At first glance, the authors of this film raise current topics of racial segregation, oppression of the rights of blacks and even women (in some places). However, despite this, not only not boasting and not shouting about it similarly to most modern paintings, but also in fact turning out to be much deeper and more interesting than it might seem at first glance.
The authors of this film tell the classic ' the story of Cinderella' with the achievement of the American dream and the ascent from poverty to wealth only by mind and work. However, at the same time, the authors of this tape turn this very "American dream" & #39; inside out and allow you to look at it from a slightly unexpected side. The whole story is presented with a little irony and a very subtle humor, which does not set itself the goal to make the viewer laugh, but makes the story easier and gives it a little dynamics. Moreover, on the example of the two main characters, the authors of this tape willingly say that a person is determined not by his origin and skin color, but by who he really is, what decisions he makes and how he ultimately acts. Thus, willingly saying that nothing is impossible and, if desired, a person can achieve absolutely everything.
The director of this film George Nolphy made a great film, which I personally watched with great interest and in fact in one breath. Not least due to how subtly Nolfi managed to create on the screen a symbiosis of genres of biographical drama and adventurous comedy. Thus, on the one hand, creating a fairly easy, pleasant and dynamic film. On the other hand, deep enough and piercing that would willingly listen to raised on the screen morality. Not to mention the fact that Nolfi was able to perfectly recreate and convey the spirit and atmosphere of the time.
Of course, the film is supported by the excellent acting of the trio Anthony Mackie, Samuel L. Jackson and Nicholas Holt. All three actors demonstrated a strong acting, full immersion in their images on the screen and most importantly - did not try to pull the strap of attention on their side.
7 out of 10
The banker is a rare example of a really good picture that raises the theme of racial segregation and oppression of black rights. But at the same time, does not shout about it throughout the tape and approaches this topic much deeper than it may seem before the start of the viewing. The authors of this tape managed to create a fairly light, interesting, deep and at the same time quite original film, which, if not ideal, but it looks with interest and in one breath for sure.
Ostap Bender in the American manner? No, two ostapa.
I've spent my whole life watching others. My job is to suffer for others.
- Are you a faker?
- Yes, I'm Vice Chairman Poont. I always sat. I sat with Alexander the Second 'The Liberator', with Alexander the Third 'Peacemaker', with Nicholas the Second 'Bloody'. I sat under Kerensky, too. Under military communism, I did not sit at all, pure commerce disappeared, there was no work. But how I sat at NEP. How I sat at NEP! Those were the best days of my life. . .
' Golden calf', 1968, dir. M. Schweitzer
Fascinating biographical drama, where two blacks put ' on the ears' white America. And although there is no comical comedy here, right, I want to laugh from the clever forts of two African-Americans. Bravo-bravo. A smile is evoked by the character of Samuel L. Jackson, who has found with his partner an effective method to do it ' to do what I don’t want ' arrogant Yankees, with the US government, and Congress, too.
Racism with the division of people by color into categories in the land of Liberty and Democracy has always flourished. Even on the bus, the first seats are only for 'gringo'. Indians, Black - ' in the ass '. If there were not enough white seats, the colored had to give up. What about jobs, rights, opportunities? If you are not 'white suit' - rotten your business. You can't go out, you can't build a career, you can't cook a business. Your lot is to wave a broomstick in the street, brush other people's shoes. A brush? Shoes? That's where he started. He passed it. He knows the value of money. A smart mind, business acumen, tenacity lead a black boy to the real estate market. The edge of Texas changes to California Los Angeles. Enterprise - business partnership ' there-sham' although racial segregation has not been abolished. And by the age of 30, he is a co-owner of a mass of real estate.
How is that possible? Where are the authorities looking? What are they thinking? The upstart paves the way to the capitalist elite. He buys a bank, lends money at low interest to white depositors despised by colored people. Are you kidding me? Formal mockery of ' highly spiritual' morality about the superiority of man over man... Oh, yeah!
Before us is a fascinating story in the spirit of I. Ilf and E. Petrov. Those very ' Horns and hoofs' with the definition of a person ready to represent interests in the director's chair ' firms'. A front man. Covers, so to speak. Fast forward from the USSR to America for a while. And let's laugh at the two great combatants. And the characters are not made up. Bender's two staples were, existed, did business.
It's an amazing story. Interesting story. Funny.
In conditions of self-isolation and boredom, I decided to try myself in the role of a film critic, especially now the topic “what should I see?” is relevant.
I have no idea why, but I decided to start with the movie "Banker", which I just watched. Probably because it makes no sense to write about popular box office films, and this had one review on the CD, and I did not read it. I turned it on because of the name. I was expecting another movie about a bank scam or robbery, and it's about the hardships of black people in the U.S. in the 50s and a separate "revolutionary." Bernarde, played by Anthony Mackie. Someone may find his play mediocre and boring, but it is worth clarifying that the film is based on real events, and, therefore, he conveyed to the screen the image of a real person. From the first scene, his character makes him interested in him and his future fate, hinting at the genius of the guy from a young age. The turning point in his life is the acquaintance with the charismatic and rich investor Joe, who was perfectly played by Samuel Jackson. His laugh is worth it! One has money, the other has intelligence, and they're both black. But they still successfully break into the real estate business using an ordinary white guy Matt (Nicholas Holt) as the first person of their company, and they themselves have to change into drivers and janitors. It is significant that for one it is a masquerade, for another it is humiliation. Question in relation? Having mastered California, Bernard decides to return to his home state of Texas, where the problem of race is extremely acute. To help his black brothers, he persuades his partners to buy a local bank, but, as is often the pinnacle of success, does not assess all the risks. Especially the lack of experience in bank management.
The subject of racism is neutral to me, so I will not go into it. And in general, in my opinion, the film is delayed, but it was done to convey the atmosphere of the 50s in the United States. Perhaps the American age audience will be more interested. But I want to highlight the scene of Bernard’s speech in court, I was impressed with it – fortitude and defending your moral values! This was the beginning of the subsequent revision of the country's legislation on black people.
I recommend watching this story because of its reality.
"Banker" is one of those rare films on the subject of, uh, banking, in which the bank is not robbed, and the lifestyle of a rich man is not shown from the point of view of the greedy hedonist. More like a drama about those “superior Negroes” based on real historical events, the film tells the story of Bernard Garrett and Joe Morris – African-American entrepreneurs who became kings of real estate in Los Angeles in the 1950s. Not only did the two men get rich, but they were able to inject black into the respectable white neighborhoods of Los Angeles, leading to the end of segregation in the city. Knowing that the real estate business is integral to banking, two blacks hire a Zitz chairman named Matt Steiner; a white simpleton was taught to behave like a burned-out banker to be the face of the firm, because black businessmen will not be taken seriously.
In December 2019, “Banker” was conceived as the first film project to be distributed using the Apple TV Plus service and the choice of bosses from Apple is partly clear: it is a film against racism and the first good bid for victory. However, the project was postponed after an ironic situation: in real life, Bernard Garrett's son, um, got into a sex scandal on the wave of accusations of harassment of rich people. The name of Bernard Garrett Jr. was removed from the list of producers of “Banker”, he (as well as his father, about whom the film tells) was damaged reputation, which is why the drama on the topic of the struggle of suffering blacks for their civil rights looks ironic on the screen.
The plot of "Banker" offers several good explanations for the complete lack of charisma in any of the central characters, but none of them meets the requirements of the concept of the film. The script is literally suffocating in the financial reports; there are only a couple of decent scenes. As a result of its meager cinematography, The Banker never achieves the moral contribution necessary to enable the viewer to draw conclusions from the story. The atmosphere, however, succeeded: "Banker" impresses with costume design and music, but intermittent editing is sometimes confusing.
A good feature of the script is the development of friendship between the two main characters. It is their emotions that can attract the attention of the viewer. When the plot repeatedly refers to investments, interest and mathematical equations, everything that happens on the screen simply dies. The mysterious world of finance and figures in “Banker” for some reason cannot be presented in a fascinating and interesting way; too often the film slides into the chronicles of the life of bankers, and without much artistic embellishment, which looks boring.
It is clear that the best of the actors was Samuel L. Jackson, who introduces his character as a hedonistic but honest real estate mogul. He revels in his ability to fool white competitors. It seems that his character Joe Morris was written exactly for Jackson, without looking at the historical prototype. Anthony Mackie is a much more bland figure. Nicholas Holt plays that white fake guy. The actor does his best to get the most out of his empty role, but he manages only boring training cuts. Even when Holt’s character in the plot comes to the fore, he still cannot push the black characters of the film.
"Banker" is probably more socially close to American viewers: it touches on the themes of heritage, the white man's burden, housing and banking discrimination. In general, this is a typical representative of biased films on the subject of racism, let there be room for psychological dilemmas. The endless arguments on the topic “racism is bad” in the case of “Banker” are slightly less intrusive than in other, not so elegant projects, but in the case of the film it looks a little cynical: still in “Banker”, except for the main trio of actors Jackson-Mackey-Hoult and nothing special is contained.