The End Justifies the Means. Does it? The show has been carefully crafted to make the actions and motivations of the two main characters morally ambiguous. Both do reprehensible things based on their belief systems, but one is also extraordinarily generous, motivated by guilt, “donor power”, and looking after one’s own, and the other is fighting for justice, motivated by ego, ambition, and jealousy. One is self-made, the other born to privilege. The confrontation in the final episode lays out their two world views, extreme positions that ask the viewer to choose, but there are too many shades of grey. This series is better written than expected, mostly avoids clichés, and contains some surprising twists.
I really liked this series right from episode one. The bad guy(Damian Lewis) is not as bad as we want and the good guy(Paul Giomatti) is not as good as he should be. Great tension between the characters, good dialogue and superb acting, esp. from Giomatti as a man possessed by an obsessive fixation on arresting the super rich hedge fund manager Damian Lewis. Both men break the law to achieve their goals.
I liked Billionaire as there was a fine line between the hero & the villian. The billionaire is assumed to be the bad gay, but he is human. The tax man assumed to be the good but has multiple character defects. The government tax man has a penchant for seing dominatrixes & is a big massochist amont other weaknesses. I liked the plot twists. Viewers are kept guessing.
Paul Giamatti is a man on fire. Every episode, or just about every episode, of the 12 that make up season one he knocks it out of the park. Damian Lewis and Maggie Siff try to keep up -- Maggie Siff is particularly good as the female in the ménages à trois -- but Giamatti is so good, so obviously relishing this role as a destructively ambitious U.S. Attorney for the hallowed Southern District of New York, that he gobbles them up in most scenes. I'm not a big fan of writer Andrew Ross Sorkin, a star of The New York Times business page and a lickspittle of the Wall Street 1%, but season one chugs along at an engaging pace.
I haven't seen it yet but with Paul Giamatti in the cast it's sure to be great.
A brilliant character study. Those of you who gave this show a lousy review clearly didn't give this show a chance. It's a gritty, realistic look at the financial industry and not everything in the show is as it seems. One of the best shows to come out in years.
I agree with others that there's a certain slime factor when it comes to the subject matter, but I don't agree with those who say the writing is bad. (One of the writers is a columnist for the New York Times and another co-wrote the Clooney hit, Ocean's Thirteen.) There's a psychological element too that makes this show fairly interesting. I admit I fast-forwarded through sex scenes that creeped me out, but the show has substance--or at least more than average--and the acting is what you'd expect from performers of this caliber.
Pure slime. An vicious eviseration of the financial sector, which may be well deserved, but if you enjoy bathing in toxic waste be my guest. Honor, notility, love, selflessness are drowned in pathological filth. Not a bubble of decency this sewer. The stench is still all over me.
Outstanding TV program.. Reflects how business is done on wall street. If you like House of Cards, you will love this program. Powerful men still act like cave men.
I will say, it took me a while to get into this. Probably around half way is where I got interested to watch to the end, but the ending of the first season wasn't that great and I am not sure I will continue watching the next season.
The show does feel like a spin off of 'Suits', even some of the actors are the same.
gracieclover thinks this title is suitable for 21 years and over
There are no summaries for this title yet.
There are no notices for this title yet.
There are no quotes for this title yet.