no, films dont have to make clear moral judgements. i wasnt expecting a clear cut condemnation.
but while yes it might point out some terrible behaviour, and steve carrells character might walk around the whole point with the same look of disgust on his face (i wondered if it was a prosthetic at one point), at no point does the film seem to actually consider them to be as much a part of the problem as everyone else they righteously shake their head over.
i mean, great, its showing that if you cant beat the worst of capitalist behaviour, then you might as well find a way to play the system at its own game, but the film basically wants you to identify with these apparent 'mavericks', rather than the people who were fucked over by 2008. of course, why would anyone want to see a film about the people who lost in the crash, rather than the victors who profited? the whole film has its extremely expensive cake and dollops it all over our faces. it gets to sneer at bankers and act as the sardonic voice of truth telling while just - yet again - reinforcing our great fascination with bankers, banking, money, and capitalism.
in its defence, it might work as a more effective, cleverer critique of the financial system for framing it as a comedy, and not making you hate its lead characters, if it gets people who hate the idea of regulation to watch it, but its also just a great advert for money.