Rogue Trader (1999) Reviews

• 6 bid on just 10 lots.

  Oro-Indiano2000-04-19

  Any film dealing with a largely technical business such as the derivatives industry is going to be caught between a rock and a hard place before it even gets going; on the one hand, if the film-makers spend too much time explaining the complexities of the market, they will bore those in the know and probably send everyone else to sleep too, whereas if they don't indicate what's going on then they risk limiting their audience to only those with direct experience of trading. There can be no drama if the majority of viewers don't actually realise what's happening. "Rogue Trader" then, for it's many flaws, is at least partially successful, because it makes clear the central principles of what Leeson was doing - making a double bet on the market going only in one direction. Having worked on London's futures exchange, I can't really be objective. I laughed out loud many times at the actors' and extras' bad hand-signals, the unrealistic dialogue in relation to price and size etc. "Real" market-speak often takes for granted that both parties understand alot more than needs to be said, thus leaves alot out. But of course that makes for bad cinema, so one can't grumble too much. The cast is generally pretty good, McGregor acting his socks off as always. The main problem is that the script and direction are, from the get-go, just totally OBVIOUS. By this I mean that no visual or audio cliché is left unused. For example, every Barings office in London seems to have a plum view of St. Paul's Cathedral, just in case we forget where they are. And if these scenes can be accompanied by some chamber music, to remind us of the history and upperclass pedigree, then they will be. The reckless young traders, by contrast, are followed around by a largely anachronistic soundtrack of dance music and Britpop. When Leeson arrives in Asia for the first time, we hear Kula Shaker! Please! Perhaps a different, less conventional style of direction might have improved matters... It's interesting that many people have commented along the lines of "Leeson only does what I'd do in that situation, trying to make things better". Since it's based on his book, the film unsurprisingly tries to make Leeson look... well, if not good, exactly, then at least not like a total idiot. I can't sympathize entirely, because "NEVER double up" and "a small loser is better than a blow out" are amongst the first things you learn down there. But even if only one tenth of all this is true, it's still truly stunning that Barings London didn't know what was going on, and accepted his story unchecked for so long... If they were that incompetent, they deserved to go bust. Ultimately, "Rogue Trader" is neither a great movie nor a terrible one. As far as finance-films go, it rises majestically above the plain awfulness of "Dealers" or "Limit Up", but is still less informative than what is still the best market movie, "Trading Places". But who knows, maybe "I have just lost 50 million quid!" will enter traders' vocabulary in a few years, just as "Turn those machines back on!" already has. As a film, it's an entertaining diversion, and an interesting footnote to the headlines. (6/10)

• Pulling non-existent rabbits out of imaginary hats

  mystarry2005-07-27

  A cunning scoundrel in exotic Singapore single-handedly brings down Barings Bank, established two centuries ago and one of England's foremost financial institutions. Another wildly improbable sting flick? Not at all - the story is based on actual events and the film sticks pretty close to the facts. Nick Leeson, brilliant and ambitious young trader, superstar of the Singapore stock market, incurs staggering losses. Unwilling to jeopardize his prospects for advancement, he tries to cover his tracks by pulling non-existent rabbits out of imaginary hats. The literally gut-wrenching stress of this Sisyphusian endeavor is illustrated by Leeson's frequent bouts of vomiting (while in prison, he underwent surgery to remove a tumor along with part of his colon and large intestine, and chemotherapy after being released). The film's flaw is that it glosses over the bank's role in the disaster. Barings turned a neophyte loose in an foreign arena with total control of the operation and minimal supervision. Putting the same individual in charge of both the front office and back office bypasses the appropriate checks and balances, and is tantamount to having the fox guard the hen-house. The official report of the Bank of England concluded that Barings' failure to segregate Leeson's duties was "reprehensible," and those with "direct executive responsibility for establishing effective controls must bear much of the blame." Yet little mention is made of this in the film. And the mechanizations of the stock market are downright incomprehensible at times. Nevertheless, this is an interesting story and Ewan McGregor turns in another outstanding performance.

• amateur in a big bad world .......

  welshNick2006-02-11

  I spent twenty years working in the City of London and was actually working for Barings at time of the scandal. Naturally it shook the city, I will always remember the Monday morning, cutting through the press corps outside the building asking such idiot questions like 'Have you heard the news about Barings ?' But back to the film, it tells the story of Nick Leeson the man who broke Barings. He tells of all the problems he suffered with untrained staff, mistakes, and how he tried to cover for his staff. Nothing was ever his fault. This part of the film was pure fiction, mistakes always get made and the mistake Kim made at the start would not necessarily have resulted in her firing. Nick himself remains blameless in the film when what he should have been doing was telling his boss to hire some decent people. The fault with the Barings scandal of course lies with the management. They believed it because they wanted to. No dealer can make 20 million in a week unless he is gambling in excess of 2 billion or committing a fraud. A good film for those uninitiated in the way the financial world works but not totally accurate. I hear Nick Leeson is working for a football club in Ireland now. I harbour no grudges for the fact I didn't get my entire bonus that year or the fact ING made me redundant when they took Barings over !!!

• You think your job is stressful?

  frenchie-161999-06-30

  When I saw the ratings and the comments listed for this movie, I wasn't sure that this was the movie I saw last night! If you're looking for a history lesson on the fall of Synex, read a book. If you're looking for an edge of your seat thriller, with no violence at all, and hilarious breaks in the tension, this is your flic. First, Ewan McGregor is becoming one of my top actors. His portrayal of a cool-as-a-cucumber trader, even under incredible stress is delightful. You can't help but be nervous as Nick Leeson dodges bosses, controllers, and his wife. The level of the stress is clearly portrayed, and his fantasy scenes are great. The other actors are shallow, but hilarious. Enjoy this flic. I did.

• Very Enjoyable

  jamesedunne2003-12-18

  I very much enjoyed this film for two main reasons. Firstly, it closely resembles the book written by Nick Leeson, and secondly it does take slow steps to try and guide the viewer through the complex world of options & futures. The film did leave a realistic impression of what the high-life is for some of these traders especially those from England to which Singapore must have felt like another world. The soundtrack, although quite varying at times, also helps create the buzz of Singapore & Asia in the early 90's. There have been a lot of vocal critics of the film with comments such as boring and lack of dramatic material, but I often prefer films that stay strictly to the subject material and don't get too carried away for dramatic effect. The performance which I actually thought was best was that of Lee Ross who played Nick's friend Danny. Although quite different from the character in the book (Danny actually doesn't drink and is Greek not English), Lee's performance was well-rounded and very enjoyable as the loyal and dependable friend of Nick. That scene in the bar during the famous "mooning" incident was hilarious. If you look closely during the film you will actually see the real Danny Argyropoulos & "Ches" Lemming of which the latter actually worked alongside Nick on the Simex trading floor. Ewan McGregor was great as usual and I often find it strange to see the real Nick Leeson in a photo, as I'd became so accustomed to seeing Ewan as Nick. The very attractive Anna Friel didn't have much material to work with, but did manage to pull off the role of Lisa Sims. Although I've read much criticism of Nick Leeson, I still have seen or heard nothing to make me doubt the overall story as told by Nick. He could have put a very big boot into Barings when writing his book and would have been perfectly justified in doing so, but his main criticism was of their management practices and not whether he was in fact a "Fall Guy" for Barings. When reading the criticism of Nick, I've tried to put myself in his position and try to imagine how things were for him. Imagine you've been offered a fantastic job in the vibrant early 1990's market of Singapore, you've just been married, and your earning a fantastic salary. Surround yourself with many others like yourself, and you can imagine how things can get carried away with young guys in their mid-20's who must have thought of themselves as invincible. In the end I did end up feeling quite sorry for Nick. I'm sure if I'd lost money from investments in Barings, my sympathy wouldn't be as strong! But going from the high life in Singapore to being alone for 4 years in a jail cell is quite a shock to anyone and especially with the added pressure of developing cancer and ultimately the breakdown of your marriage. Having to part with your wife in that German police station must have been very hard. Lisa sums up the subject material late in the film when she said to Nick; "You were gambling, with other people's money", and if that is the case, then Nick is guilty as sin. But, according to the story, it all started from trying to fix the errors of others and so on. He did get himself back to profit at one point, but with most gamblers, especially after winning back lost money, it's hard to resist that one last punt. Chin up Nick! 4 out of 5 stars