Genres

Visitors Review

lewiskendell 2012-05-25 18:01:12

A big departure from the original, for better or for worse.

"You tell them for me, babe, Gordon Gekko is back."It's more than a decade since the events of the first movie, andnotorious Wall Street kingpin Gordon Gekko is out of jail, broke, andapparently reformed. He even seems to be the voice of reason andsanity, amidst a sea of greed that dwarfs even his own. He comes backinto the lives of his estranged daughter and her young, idealisticinvestor boyfriend, but does a man like him deserve a second chance?I actually preferred Money Never Sleeps to the original Wall Street.There was less financial jargon and dense investor speak being thrownaround, the main characters were easier to identify with, and the plotthat was at least partially focused on human drama that I could relatetoo, instead of only numbers, stock quotes, and indices. Both moviesare clearly products of their times, as well, and Money Never Sleepsdeals with things and events that I'm familiar with in a way that theoriginal (which came out when I was only two years old) does not.Not to say the sequel is perfect, though. Or anywhere close to it. Ittends to be overly sentimental, at times (especially the ending). We'retalking soap opera levels of cheesiness. And Stone uses it as a vehicleto push his point of view across with all the subtlety of a hammer tothe kneecap. This is Stone, though, so that's basically expected. Mybiggest criticism is how little depth there are to the characters. Noneof them are really anything more than a collection of one or two broadqualities (naive, earnest, amoral, caring, deceitful, vengeful, greedy,etc.), which is a real shame when you have truly talented actorsinvolved like Josh Brolin, Carey Mulligan, and Frank Langella. They doa good job with what they're given, but it's not a lot.It wouldn't surprise me at all if a lot of people favored the firstmovie over this one, as they are quite different in tone. But, if WallStreet left you a bit cold, as it did me, then maybe the sequel will bemore to your liking. If you loved the first...well, your impression maynot be as favorable as mine was.

brucev13 2012-05-25 02:18:48

Unbelievable mess!

The first twenty minutes were very promising.Then it got boring.Extremely boring.There just isn't any plot.Gekko getting together withhis daughter maybe was touching for a moment.But the girl crying allthe time got on my nerves.She is supposed to be an adult. In stead sheis acting like a little child. I like Shia,but what on earth was herepresenting. At least Charlie Sheen as Bud Fox had a clearobjective.(Speaking of which,his cameo as the guy we know from Two anda half men is so in contrast of the character Bud Fox that completelydiminishes the first movie.I could not believe that they would make aparody of his role). Shia was a guy who was ambitious but stuck withhis green energy project.While any men or woman with common sense wouldbail on it.No,it is the right thing do.Oh,please. Now,this isn't Shia'sfault. But Oliver Stone,what happened to him. He used to be brilliant.This movie is not even a good depiction of the economic crisis theworld is in right now,so it is not even enlightening.Incredible wasteof time and celluloid.

Special_J91 2012-05-24 22:24:11

Slowly booms, ends in early recession

Having watched the first movie a few weeks prior, I was excited to seethe return of Gordon Gekko (and even just Michael Douglas, having notbeen the lead in a film for a few years now). I enjoyed the first film,however being a person born in the nineties, I could not relate to whatseveral people now look back on and remember as "the excess of the 80s"etc etc I found Wall Street 2 to be relevant and as authentic in itsportrayal of the GFC as a mainstream commercial Hollywood movie couldbe. Frank Langella does a good job of portraying the struggle andvulnerability that many suffered - you really do feel for the guy.Meanwhile, Brolin does an equally good job of being the guy you love tohate, great casting. Every time he merely showed up on screen, heannoyed me. Once the impact of the crisis on Louis Zabel (Langella'scharacter) occurs and once Jake (LaBeouf's character) starts turning toGekko for guidance, the movie starts to heat up.Being a business student I enjoyed knowing all the terms and references(Tulipomania was nice). Even if you're not in business, it's stillpretty easy to follow, although some conversations you may find quiteboring and tedious.Charlie Sheen makes a cameo as Bud Fox but seems to just be hischaracter on Two and a Half Men. Would have been nice to see more firebetween Gekko and Fox. After all Gekko goes onto emphasize all thehardships that he has been through in prison throughout the movie.Susan Sarandon's character correctly emphasized the shift of people'sperceptions towards the property market (they can only go up in Americaright?) Gekko's presentation was eerily reminiscent of my own economiclecturer's lectures so I'd have to say the writers did their researchwell. HOWEVER, Jake tries to speak a bit of Chinese to impress theChinese business people and um according to my Chinese friend it didn'tmake sense lol.There's a scene where you think Jake will get Gekko back by blackmailor the like but instead pulls on Gekko's heartstrings (won't give a waytoo much). This scene is the start of the movie's downturn. Gekko endsup righting his wrong several months later (for reasons unknown) buteven then would he even be forgivable? Since it's likely that by thenhe would have made much more than the principle he gives back. He alsomanages to show up at the same time that Jake bumps into Winnie...whata convenient family reunion just in time for an even more convenientcheesy and cliché ending! For its (mostly) well researched script, asaccurate as you can be portrayal of the GFC in a commercial Hollywoodmovie and solid performances by the cast, the movie was a joy to watch.Definitely could have been better though.

virek213 2012-05-24 07:08:18

Money Never Sleeps...And Neither Does Gordon Gekko

Back in 1987, director Oliver Stone's financial drama WALL STREETturned out to be a very prescient critique of the Reagan era's legacyof greed and excess, personified in the character of corporate raiderextraordinaire Gordon Gekko, played to an Oscar-winning tee by MichaelDouglas. Twenty-three years later, Stone returned to the world ofhigh-stakes finance for his first-ever honest-to-goodness sequel, WALLSTREET: MONEY NEVER SLEEPS; and he and Douglas have resurrected Mr.Gekko. Only this time, instead of being a corporate raider, he istrying hard to be a changed man.In this case, after years in prison, Douglas is out to burn his backpages from those heady "Greed Is Good" days by writing a best-sellingbook that turns it into a question ("Is Greed Good?"). He then meets upwith an ambitious young stockbroker (Shia LeBeouf) who, as it turnsout, not only admires him but is intent on marrying his daughter (CareyMulligan) who, at the moment, isn't about to get back to her disgracedfather. But Douglas sees a way back in when he learns how LeBeouf hasfallen under the spell of a corporate leech (Josh Brolin) whose actionshave led to the suicide of LeBeouf's boss (Frank Langella), and who,not so ironically, was the one who put Douglas in jail. Though there'sa little bit of the old Gekko in him, Douglas is more intent on gettingrevenge on Brolin, while at the same time attempting to save LeBeouffrom going to prison, and getting back on good terms with Mulligan.Stone's commitment to character and plot, redolent in all of his bestfilms from PLATOON through the original WALL STREET to JFK, NIXON, andWORLD TRADE CENTER, is very evident here in MONEY NEVER SLEEPS; and ashe shows, the high-stakes casino that Wall Street was in the Reagan erahas now grown into a high-tech monster that, in 2008, was threateningto swallow all of America whole. And while Douglas may have beensoftened from what Stone had shown him as in the original, there isstill a lot of that craftiness left in Gekko, only this time directedat saving rather than destroying. LeBeouf and Mulligan do good turnshere, as does the legendary Eli Wallach in a prominent cameo role(amusingly, LeBeouf's cell phone rings with the theme from THE GOOD,THE BAD, AND THE UGLY, the legendary 1967 Sergio Leone spaghettiwestern in which Wallach played a bandido).Just like the original, WALL STREET: MONEY NEVER SLEEPS will likely beseen as emblematic of its time--a film that saw America's hubris bitethe nation and the world on its behind, but where a couple of decentpeople did the right thing to avoid the ultimate financial abyss.

garyvanhorn 2012-05-22 09:00:15

An unexpected sequel that is unexpectedly bad.

Rarely is such a great film like Wall Street followed up with such acraptastic squeal. I'm not real sure what Oliver Stone was thinking,other than he wanted to make some dough at the expense of the public,not unlike the majority of the characters in the film. Wall Street:Money Never Sleeps does everything it can to paint Wall Street as acollection of evil, soulless tyrants that were solely responsible forthe recent economic downturn.The biggest problem with the film, and there are a lot of problems mindyou, is that there are no less than four distinct story lines that areinelegantly and, at times, ham-fistedly mashed together to form adisjointed central narrative. One story follows Gordon Gecko (MichaelDouglass), the central (and most interesting) character from theprevious Wall Street, as he gets out of prison and tries to put hislife back together. A second story follows the young hotshot Jake Moore(Shia LeBeouf) and his mentor Louis Zabel (Frank Langella) through thefinancial meltdown. The third story is that of Winnie Gecko (CareyMulligan) and her fiancée Jake Moore and their personal life and howGordon Gecko's release from prison affects it. A fourth story followsJake Moore as he begins working for his mentor's longtime rival BrettonJames (Josh Brolin) in the cutthroat world of alternative energyacquisition and development. These plot lines are so ineptly woventogether that it is possible to make four completely independent shortfilms out of Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps. Additionally, because ofthis plot diffusion, none of the story lines have any kind of emotionalappeal or resonance with the audience, there just isn't enough there tolatch on to. The movie also reaches a logical climax and ending almost30 minutes before the film's actual end, and then reaches another, thenanother, eventually leading the audience to wish for an actual end tothe film and completely destroying any sense of satisfaction or closurethat might have been achieved by tying off the film sooner.The story is fractured, the message trite and unimaginative, thecamera-work is at times questionable, and Gordon Gecko is a mere shadowof the Academy Award winning character from the original. Sometimes itis best to sit on one's laurels and not attempt to relive the glorydays of yesteryear. Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps should never havebeen made and will hopefully be quickly forgotten.

Floated2 2012-05-22 03:05:03

Has its moments but is pretty disappointing as a sequel

I found this movie to begin slowly, but it started to get slightlybetter quickly. This movie could have been really great if it wasallowed to grow in the development of the story. The story focuses alot more on Jake Moore (Shia LaBeouf) than on Gordon Gekko (MichaleDouglas) which isn't a bad thing but Gekko should have been in it more.The film starts out with Gekko coming out of prison which is 7 yearslater. The character of Jake Moore was pretty good, his intentions wereconvincing, but Winnie (Carey Mulligan) wasn't great. Her characterdidn't seem to fit in well with the story and it dragged on. She becamevery annoying quickly because she was mostly crying/tearing out. Alsothe film showed too much of romance between Jake and Winnie. AlsoGordon Gekko didn't seem the same compared to the original. In thisone, he changes for the better and seems to have learn his lesson. Theending shows this instance. Overall, the film should have been muchbetter than it was.

pepitko p 2012-05-19 06:24:46

Great premise spoiled by too many plot points

The Wall Street Money Never Sleep had a great premise at the beginning- return of great characters from the original and very interestingsubject matter (worst financial and economical crisis since the WorldWar II). While the movie succeeds in taking us through the financialcrisis as it gradually unfolded, it is constantly dragged down by waytoo many plot points, but mainly the hardly believable revenge and veryslow paced love story subplots.Let's get one thing clear at the beginning first. It is an immenselydifficult task for the writers to portray the financial crisis into amovie for general masses, while explaining the workings of the crisis,not bogging down the viewers with too much financial jargon and at thesame time keep the movie entertaining. This is the part that you cansee the makers have made their homework and is something to beappreciated about the movie, such as the Bear Sterns inspired collapseof Keller Zabel.My biggest problem with the movie is that the character with the mostscreen time, Jacob Moore, is not a believable character. It might bedue to casting Shia LeBouf, who for one looks too young and too soft tobe earning $1.5m bonuses and living in a $6m apartment. Second, he is a"prop trader," which means that his job is to constantly trade stockson his company's account. Yet, we see him trying to raise $100m for arenewable energy source, which isn't the job of prop traders. Even heis pitching the idea to Chinese investors, which is nonsense, since hewould have had nothing to say about the company unless he was an equityanalyst responsible for the energy sector. This brings the obviousquestion, why was he so interested in the little fusion plant project?His job is to make money not save the world.And than there are the inconsistencies and plot holes: At the beginningof the movie Jacob invests $1m from his bonus on 50% margin into hisfirm Keller Zabel and keeps his position even as the stock isplummeting putting him into sizeable amount of debt (film hinted $0.5mil). Now, first firms usually prohibit employees on speculating ontheir own stock due to the possibility of having insider informationand second if Jacob was such an excellent prop trader he wouldn't havetouched the stock if there were rumors of its impending collapse. Thisalone is hardly believable and our intelligence is assaulted again whenthe film somehow forgets his debt (before he even admits the debt whenproposing to his girlfriend), when he writes his mom a check for$200,000 without a second thought.Jacob spreads rumors about an African oil rig being nationalized inwhich Bretton's company has a big stake, which ended up costing thecompany millions. And Gekko ends up explaining to Jacob that it wasillegal because he pushed other people to make traders based on falseinformation, so Jacob realizes that the two are alike. How can a WallStreet rainmaker such as Jacob not realize that he manipulated themarkets, which is illegal? Other problems: Gekko's London hedge fund growing from $100 mil to $1.1bil during Winney's pregnancy? At one point, we saw workers dismantlingthe fusion plant, would it have been too little too late to give the$100m to an empty factory site?To conclude, this is a revenge and redemption movie with Wall Streetand market crash as a backdrop. If they had cut down the crying-girlscenes, to improve pacing, maybe it could have turned out better. Thisway, it's just plain bad.

Jim Garrison 2012-05-18 14:36:56

Is A Window Into Government Bailouts, Too

Even without the references to current events, the movie is enjoyable, and all the acting is good. But the added bonus is clearly the many references to the failure of Bear Stearns (represented by the fictional firm, Keller Zabel, down to the $2/share firesale offer), the failure of AIG, the enormous bailout received by the likes of Goldman Sachs (represented by the fictional firm Churchill Schwartz, or initials CS) and other investment firms and banks, and the Federal Reserve's role. The movie does its best to expose the con of TARP and similar programs, the same con from the Egyptians; privatize the gains, socialize the losses. It also raises the risk of moral hazard multiple times. (In short, moral hazard is a question of incentives; if a bank is rescued from its "bet the farm" management-style, why wouldn't that be an advantageous style for other banks? Beat the odds, bank management wins bigger than ever. Succumb to the risks, taxpayers rescue bank management and their money.) For these reasons, it's an important film, to help more people understand one of the biggest cons of our lifetime, making other cons appear to be Bernie who? The film isn't really about the technical aspects of Wall Street, and you don't have to know them to enjoy the film. Students of human nature, of comedies and trajedies, will easily get it. At play, there are egos, vengeance, greed, arrogance, idealism, betrayal, love, and pain; all the makings of great drama and real life.

trysorel 2012-05-17 22:44:01

could be better

it has no life. no action nice beginning, but i am still waiting forthe end. I has no scope. no purpose. The end is forced. A suddenmovement of the hero that makes no sense, and everybody is happy. Themovie has horizontal line of action, no emotion, no fire. It startsright away and it ends right away, even after 2 hours. No feelings.They tried to do some damage killing the broker in the subway, but ithad no significantion to the other heroes. Or yes, for 5 minutes. Allthe charancters were like in a TV-news edition. All talking aboutsomething but i dind'nt see feelings, see them walking, or kissing, orthinking.. 7 for the story 8 for the actors 4 for the producer

MichaelPG1977 2012-05-17 07:13:33

Great... Until The Third Act

I loved this movie until its final thirty minutes or so. During thosethirty minutes you realize that Stone and his team of writers weresearching desperately for a way to end the movie on a positive, hopefulnote. We are left to plod along with them on this implausible track.Also, during the ending Gekko's daughter's character consistency isshot to hell and she appears as venal as the characters against whomshe rails.Those moments are especially disappointing because I believed that thismovie had the potential to be Stone's best film ever. Carey Mulliganand Michael Douglas in particular delivered great performances. ShiaLebeouf is "good enough." The writing is fairly unpredictable theneverything seems to be tied into a nice bundle near the end. Theproblem was that Stone couldn't quite bring himself to put the bow onthat bundle. He wanted to add a bit of glitter to it, which seemedgaudy and completely out of place.Bottom line: if this movie had ended on a somewhat dark note it wouldhave reflected the reality of modern day Wall Street, and it would havemade for a tighter, better movie.It's worth watching, and if you liked the first Wall Street it probablywon't disappoint you. You might want to leave during its third act,though :)

theataembomb 2012-05-17 09:53:57

watched first movie and second movie together

Im one of those people who hasn't seen a huge amount of "classics" andso when sequels come out i get the chance to watch movie arcs together,and not have to wait decades between films . Wall Street is one suchfilm.With the first movie being made in the 880s i thought it wouldhave dated,but surprisingly it holds up OK.The second movie although is average, it could have utilised theoriginal cast more.Instead we get a kinda remake on the original movieas opposed to a continuation of the original characters. Douglas isunderused in this movie, when he could very easily have been given agood storyline could easily have stolen the show.The other downside tothis film is that i wasn't aware that Oliver Stone made them, the firstfilm which is made in the 80s you can forgive Oliver as these days hesregarded as one of the best out there but in the 80s not as much, so ihad high hopes for the second movie in regards to camera work, storytelling etc, but it fails to have any "Oliver" imprint on it. Finallythe main character whose name i forget is OK in the movie but everytime i see him on screen i just think " its the annoying person fromthe even more annoying Transformers movie ! All in all the 2 movieswhen watched together are a good watch, but if any movie producers arereading this, if your going to make a sequel, invest some time andenergy into it .. after all, the fans have invested some 20 odd years .

ptb-8 2012-05-17 03:52:27

awww. poor little rich kids

Really who actually cares about such rich people moaning they just losttheir $100m and then grimacing wistfully that it is back. The level of'family wealth' here is so absurdly far from what 99.99% of any cinemaaudience will ever see in their own lives that the 'drama' here mightas well be about well dressed aliens. All the screen gimmickery andposturing that passes for techniks and acting becomes boring and all weare left with is how pretty Carrie Mulligan is and what a pleasantmarsupial is Shia laBeuf... or whatever. He looks like Dick Powell in a1933 WB musical. My biggest moment of interest is seeing AustinPendleton again on screen, a sure favorite since I first saw him inWhat's Up Doc. Sylvia Miles looked as though she needed to encounterJoe Buck again and Susan Sarandon affected a hilariously awful JewishMumma accent. Far too much product placement with logos front andcenter, and a Ratzo Rizzo performance from a skeletal Eli Wallach. Amoney movie about awful people with money. It all just made me yearnfor Midnight Cowboy. However I do believe Josh Brolin gets better andbetter.

2012-05-16 17:32:46

Disappointing sequel to the best finance movie ever

One of the reasons why the original "Wall Street" was IMHO the bestfinance movie ever was that it was plausible. As I worked on dealingfloors at various times for Barclays, Citigroup, UBS, HSBC and Nomura,this matters to me.Ambitious salesman (Fox) gets attention of big shot trader (Gekko) andbecomes loyal sidekick. Well, of course: Gekko wants someone to do hisdirty work for him. Who better than a young man blinded by ambition?Plan eventually backfires when Gekko tries corporate raid on Fox'sfather's company as Fox, suddenly gaining a conscience, reports him tothe authorities, even though he is likely to go to jail himself aswell. Simple plot, really, but works well, especially as the technicaldetails are right.Now ... fast-forward to the 2010 sequel. Profitable young energy trader(Jake) at Keller Zabel (based probably on Lehman Brothers), gets abonus of $1.45 million. Quite plausible. Not plausible, though, is thatit is given to him in the form of a cheque by the company chairman LouZabel - a bonus that large would be paid in stock, and in instalments.Also, junior traders do not get to talk to the chairman - there is amanagement hierarchy to respect, and Jake's line manager would havereason to be angry if he/she was bypassed like this. A bear raid byChurchill Schwartz (based on Goldman Sachs) sends the Keller Zabelstock plummeting, and Lou Zabel commits suicide (in reality, of course,no Wall Street bosses had the honour/decency to do this). With the helpof Gordon Gekko, Jake discovers that Bretton James, CEO of ChurchillSchwartz not only led the bear raid on Keller Zabel, but did so also onhis personal account. Jake is determined to get even and starts falserumours about one of Churchill Schwartz's interests. Stop right there:if Jake is this petty and vindictive then he is not a good trader. Ifyou allow the machinations of the marketplace to get to you personallythen you should not be in it. Short selling is a risky strategy, andyou would do it because you think you might make money, not because youare out to get someone. Also, if you start false rumours, that ismarket manipulation, which at the very least, if found out, will costyou your license. In the movie, though, instead of losing his tradinglicense as he should, word gets to Bretton James, who respects Jake'saudacity and offers him a job at Churchill Schwartz. This absolutelydoes not happen - the situation is not like Gekko hiring Bud Fox theoriginal. Apart from anything else, Wall Street CEOs simply do not talkto junior traders, and in any case the Churchill Schwartz CEO is in avery different position to Gekko in the original movie - he would haveappearances to maintain. Also, starting a false rumour is not exactlyEinstein-like in its brilliance. Why would James take an interest inhim?So as far as authenticity goes, I do not rate this highly, andcertainly nothing like the original. Really, it comes down to whetheryou like the non-finance parts. These were good drama, I think, butcertainly not the reason I went to see the film.

meeza 2012-05-15 21:17:48

You wont fall asleep with "Money Never Sleeps" due to Douglas' always winning Gekko!

The Greed God himself Gordon Gekko is back! And no, he is not relatedto that talking lizard in those commercials of that insurance companythat sounds like Gekko. However, both of them do have big tongues thatare used to suck up your money. "Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps" isthe sequel to the 80's predecessor hit film which featured W.S. tycoonGekko going head to head with that guy with the Adonis DNA. At the endof the 80's "Wall Street" movie, that guy's Adonis DNA was FBIwiretapped in a confrontation with Gekko which caused Gordon to spillall the beans on his corrupted money laundering schemes; which led toan eventual trip to the big house. By the way, just in case you are notin the loop with this one, it was the character of Bud Fox portrayed bythe wirehead Adonis DNA king Charlie Sheen that caused Gordon's "go tojail" trip due to Gekko's attempted monopoly on Wall Street. I ampunning, duh! The "Two and a Half Men" star even makes a two and a halfminute cameo in the sequel. "Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps" startswith Gekko in 2001 upon his prison release of his 8-year jail term.However, there is no one there to pick him up once he is freed. Thenthe movie quickly zips ahead to 7 years later in 2008. Gekko is not theleading character in this sequel. It is the character of Jake Moore, ayoung savvy stockbroker who seeks revenge on a merciless financialexecutive who Moore thinks caused the suicide of his stockbroker mentorLouis Zabel. But that's not all, here is more on Moore; he happens tobe engaged to Gekko's estranged daughter Winnie. Jake does end uphaving an association with Gordon Gekko and they even start trading.Gordon provides Jake inside information on his former nemesis BrettonJames who happens to be the executive that Jake wants to crash I meancrush. In return, Jake has to find a way for Winnie to reconcile withher daddy G.G. With the economic crisis of 2008 in the background,"Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps" encompasses many financial debaclesand shady deals within the the narrative. If you are not into financialverbiage (as yours truly), you have to be paying close attention andnever sleep to this one or else you will be lost as a puppy. So call mefinancial-verbose challenged, but Screenwriters Allan Loeb and StephenSchiff's complex "write me the money" screenplay will leave manymoviegoers puzzled and confused. Personally, the first "Wall Street"was easier to understand and I saw it when I was 19; or maybe thismeans that my money market intellect is crashing as I am getting older.Director Oliver Stone returns to helm the sequel with the same finesseas he did in the first one. Shia LaBeouf's rapidly rising acting stockcame to a halt with his overacted performance as Jake Moore. JoshBrolin played just another one of those what has become hisstereotypical villain roles with his formulaic performance as BrettonJames. Carey Mulligan's work as Winnie was a bit too bratty-like for mytaste, and did not cause me to root for a win-win situation for thewhining Winnie. However, the acting of "Wall Street: Money NeverSleeps" was bailed out by the legendary Michael Douglas with hischarismatic performance as Gekko. Douglas won the Best Actor Oscar backin the late 80's for his star turn as Gekko in the first "Wall Street".And though his work in the sequel borders between a supporting and leadperformance, it still shows that Douglas, for lack of a better word, isgood; very good! I think you should invest some time in "Wall Street:Money Never Sleeps" but the dealio is that dow will probably not loveit. *** Average

khan2705 2012-05-12 23:19:29

entertaining, witty, excellent performances.

i just loved this movie, so interesting to watch, excellentperformances by Carey Mulligan, Shia Labeouf, frank Langella and joshBrolin. Michael Douglas was good too but not as much as he was in thefirst movie of course. Susan sarandon and sheen in cameo, wow. Stonehandles the financial stuff quite well. This movie is by turnsbrilliant and dumb, naive and wise, nowhere near good enough andsomething close to great. "Money Never Sleeps" is never boring, even asits plot descends into cheap melodrama and the script runs out ofbanter about the "the NINJA generation - no income, no job, no assets."If you haven't seen the original Wall Street, you better. Its amasterpiece, in Oliver Stone's hey day, the iconic movie of the 1980'syuppie lifestyles of the rich and shameless. This sequel can beentertaining, but it's flat, the whole concept I think was toocomplicated for the masses, I would understand if it was too hard tofollow for many. It wasn't spectacular in any way, but I didn't likeits bluntness and how relationships were explored, and it was not untilthe latter part of the movie when the whole plan is revealed would youget to appreciate the whole "con". Oliver Stone's direction iscertainly apparent throughout this film. From a technical standpoint,Stone, along with Scorsese among others, is very much known for the wayhe edits his films. He is also known for the ways in which he utilizesmultiple types of cameras and filming techniques. Here the film feelsquite slick in the way Stone uses his rapid fire cityscape shots as away to draw out stock market graphs on top of skyscrapers, as well ashow he portrays the Wall Street of today with all the fanciertechnology that is in use. Well-crafted with intelligent direction byOliver Stone, and extraordinary cinematography by Rodrigo Prieto. Aeminently watchable and captivating film, that guarantee's cinematicsatisfaction. Highly Recommended. loved it.

katiewon 2012-05-12 06:14:20

Curse of the Sequel

Anyone who loves the first "Wall Street" for anything other than 'greedis good' quote, will not like the sequel. No memorable quotes oranything really compelling. The original "Wall Street" had so many elements that could be used fora sequel, plus the recent meltdown of the financial markets, this was aGOLDEN OPPORTUNITY to make the sequel. Instead what you have is a moviethat tries to be something to everyone. The dialog by Aaron Sorkin isexcellent, but the movie is flat, shallow and not engaging at all.Let's start with the obvious - a central character in the new movie isthe daughter of the villain Gordon Gekko, but she didn't exist in theoriginal. Gekko had a son, Rudy, who is discussed but he's now dead.He's discussed briefly and then, oh well! The daughter is a blogger,with a liberal blog and her boyfriend/fiancé is a trader. Yawn. Theactor, Shia Lebouf, to me is not a great actor or interesting to watch.Gekko is older and wiser and the scene of him getting out of jail isthe best part of the movie. Now he's older and wiser and time is moreimportant than money. He writes a book in prison and goes aroundspeaking about the over-hyped markets and how it is all going to comecrashing down. No one will listen and that part of the story line isn'treally fleshed out. Too bad.The movie tried to include elements of the world we live in, concernover energy for the future and investing in 'green' technology; thereal estate bubble. Individual characters are also used to representcurrent events and ideologies, for example: Shia Lebouf is big onenvironmental companies and money isn't that important to him; CareyMulligan (Gekko's daughter) is a 'modern woman' who also writes aliberal blog - the new 'Wall Street Chronicle' used to manipulate themarket.Susan Sarandon as Shia Lebouf's real estate investing mother. Overleveraged when the market starts to crack, but she USED to be a nurse!Selfish, narcissistic, she is the new greed. Why be a nurse when youcan flip houses for more money? Hey, nurses make real good money ANDhelp people, that's why.The NEW villain, Josh Brolin is no Gordon Gekko. Instead he is BP Oil,Goldman Sachs, and George W. Bush. The scenes with him and Shia are ayawn.The NEW hero/mentor/older wiser guy with good values is Frank Langella.He represents Lehmann Brothers and the 'old way' things were done onWall Street. 'Old' meaning the previous movie.There is too much time spent trying to tie the first movie into thesecond because two of the three main characters weren't even BORN whenit was made! To add insult to injury is the cameo of Charlie Sheen.Basically you get Charlie Harper instead of Bud Fox.

MrKlette 2012-05-06 23:59:07

Change? No.

There is something strange when you watch Wall Street: Money neversleeps. The first thing that comes to ones mind is that it is thecamera, colours, sound. Everything has a certain back-to-the-eighties-touch. You cannot find it in hairstyles or sunglasses, but it is there,woven into the movies fabric - and yet, there is more to it. OliverStone managed to deliver a sequel that is, at the same time, its ownremake and a homage to itself, respectively its prequel. Thisrelationship with itself does not stop in the look-and-feel-compartmentof the movie, it comprises the story, too. And not only the story thatgets told but the whole topic of the financial crisis that itself wasrepeated - with another repetition being projected within the moviethat also spawns another Gekko-generation. So here we are at thedecisive point: Wall Street: Money never sleeps is not so much a storyabout money. Not even a story about the value of time. It is a storyabout repetition, a story about reflection, about learning. Sadly, mostof the things to learn get hammered into the audiences heads. But onthe other hand, some don't, even though they get repeated over and overagain. One of them being the value of experience. So go and experiencethe acting of an experienced actor at his best, it is worth the time.

perkypops 2012-05-06 15:03:20

The original was good and so is this sequel

It is always hard to make a sequel, even more so when the original filmwas of such a high calibre as Wall Street, and what I enjoyed aboutthis most was the development of Gordon Gecko's character in the morethan capable hands of Michael Douglas.And the plot is riveting, warped and twisted, even if the film is alittle long at over two hours. But the script is often razor sharpwarranting a repeat performance to capture all the nuances and cluesthat lead you along to where things are headed. Nothing about this filmis straightforward and if you think it is then you are probably asgullible as I am when it comes to making money at the expense ofsomeone else's flawed trust. And the film is full of flawed characterswho must have seen it all before but still they do not always get thetrust thing right. It is an exercise in studying the low regard somepeople have.There is some very fine acting on display too particularly from CareyMulligan who plays Gecko's daughter. The film is well cast, thedirection is almost always at the correct pace to maintain interest,and the cinematography is superb. I also enjoyed the sound track whichseems to fit the action very well.A well deserved seven out of ten which is high praise for a sequel.

nwfield 2012-05-06 13:57:27

Confused, contradictory mess with some good camera work

Wall Street (1987) became the iconic film it did because it saidsomething new about the change taking place in finance, and did itthrough the medium of a simple, compelling morality tale. It succeededas much by capturing an element of the Zeitgeist as by its artisticmerit.A sequel could never have achieved the original's iconic status, but itcould have come a lot closer than this deeply confused train wreck of afilm does. Sound harsh? Well, I didn't walk out, but as I watched theending I rather wished I had.Amidst the debris of this film, there are some individually attractivefeatures. Douglas puts in a strong, if rather self indulgentperformance. From his point of view at least, this film was undoubtedlyworth making.The camera work is almost uniformly exquisite. From the soaringpanoramas of Jake's office building to the gorgeously lit conversationbetween Gekko and Winnie, this is a technical masterpiece. Sensitiveuse of strong depth-of-field effects is rare, and this guy pulls themoff very well.Some of the dialogue is outstanding, and the set-piece scenes in theboardroom of the NY Fed are really very compelling. The single bestline in the film will I'm sure stay with me for years (Gekko 'Stoptelling lies about me and I'll stop telling the truth about you.').The plot is the problem.At the micro level, it is shot through with tired stereotypes andinconsistent characterisation. Shia LaBoeuf as Jake has to carry a lotof weight, and the depth of characterisation just isn't there. Hisblend of massive earnestness and total implausibility reminded me ofRyan Phillipe's similarly doomed performance in 'Antitrust' (2001).Similarly, Winnie's trustafarian idealist shtick seems to come and goas the plot demands, and never seems terribly believable. Inparticular, the speed of emotional transition in her relationship withGordon really could only seem plausible in the head of a ratherdesperate scriptwriter.However, in a film with a better central narrative, disbelief would besuspended; these small details would not matter.The macro problem for this film is the story arc, and the messagebehind it. Fundamentally the story is this; Gekko gets out and redeemshimself for his past crimes by making even more money, using theillegally laundered proceeds of his previous frauds. Then everyonelives happily ever after. Even his idealistic daughter who hated himand everything he stood for is compelled to forgive him by hissubsequent financial success.If this were intended as a deeply cryptic indictment of the seemingimpunity of white collar criminals, then it would at least have amessage. But it isn't. The reality is much simpler than that.The writer got completely suckered by the material wealth and glamourof the characters. The message of this film is that the differencebetween a penniless fraudster and a billionaire fraudster is that oneadmires the latter. Little could express the value system that createdthe financial crisis better than that.Technical Stuff: In places, this film seems to attempt to 'explain'financial concepts. It doesn't do a fantastic job. To a specialist thefinancial detail seems painfully naive, whilst probably still beingcomplex enough to totally confuse a lay person.

FlashCallahan 2012-05-06 05:38:41

Buy My Book!!!

Gekko is promoting his book, his estranged daughter Winnie is apolitical muckraker engaged to Jake Moore, a hot-shot Wall Streettrader, and an old nemesis of Gekko's, Bretton James, devours the firmJake works for. When Jake's mentor takes his life, Jake wants revenge and Gordon may bethe perfect ally. Can Jake maintain Winnie's love, broker arapprochement with her father, get his revenge, and find funds for agreen-energy project he champions?...A belated sequel to a classic film is sometimes uncalled for, but inthis instance, this film is very topical and one feels that it was onlymade due to the 2008 financial meltdown.The best thing in the film, Langella, is only in it for the openingact, but sets the whole story moving. And because Langella puts in sucha great performance, the rest of the film sadly goes downhill fromthere, but only slightly.For once, Labeouf is watchable, and isn't as unlikable as he is in hisother movies, but there isn't much chemistry between him and Mulligan,and as they are more or less the central characters, they sub-plot isquite boring and there scenes feel lethargic.Douglas on the other hand, is what you expect, a little more vulnerablein some instances, but still the man. And you can tell he knows thisfilm wouldn't have been made if it wasn't for him, as he swaggersaround in his scenes and is effortlessly cool whenever he utters aline. And kudos to him for making Gekko more human this time around.Whenever the more seasoned actors are on screen (Brolin et al), thefilm is electrifyimg and is as good as the original, but these scenesare few and far between and Brolin doesn't get as much screen time ashis character deserves.These are a few minor gripes though, the film is slickly made and hasthe Stone trademark to the film, but the yuppie thing is missing, andthat was a pivotal point of Wall Street.So all in all, it's a good movie, sometimes pretty pointless, but it'sgood to see what Gordon did next.The Sheen cameo is nostalgic, but feels very awkward and is pointless.