Wow. I don't think you write film criticism very well. I cannot agree with or even understand many of your premises. First of all, the OWS movement should have nothing to do with an objective critique of a film. Second, and more importantly, I think most critics worth their salt agree that we really are not being asked to empathize on a deep level with these characters. Of course, we are invited to do so if we wish, but only one or two characters are sympathetic and, even then, only marginally so. That is actually a strength of the film - we can see what the characters go through but still judge them harshly. Third, the dialogue is quite realistic and there are precious few "speechifying" moments. Sorry but the New Yorker couldn't find a disingenuous piece of dialogue - and they hate pretty much everything. Fourth, what does it mean to say this movie "suffers from a deflated sense of timeliness?" We are still in the midst of the crisis. You sound like you are very young, to think that 3 years since the events of 2008 somehow makes this movie's subject less than completely timely. Again you focus on OWS. Why? Who cares? Love or hate that movement, it is a movement and not this movie. Finally (well, finally in that I will make it my last point - I could go on at some length) you seem to laud the Company Men for sharing your own moral viewpoint. I certainly don't dispute your right to dislike this film. I just don't see your critique as well-reasoned in the slightest. Nor do I agree with it remotely. This was a spot-on, pitch-perfect movie, among the best in many years in its depiction of Wall Street. Perhaps that last part is the tragic part and you blame the picture for so accurately depicting reality (though I doubt you have the experience regarding finance to understand how realistic this film is).