I'm nearing 40. An older guy recently said: "you know you're oficially old when your balls outgrow your dong.":eek: :eek: HELP!!!:eek:
The Bud Fox character is why I became a Stock Broker. I was born without, and when I saw that movie after I left the Marine Corps a... well few years ago, I went for it. Got hired at Merrill Lynch, and learned that the real crooks were the brokers, not Gordon Gecko's... I left and went Independent after a few years of that mess. The only problem is the difference between then and now. Back in the 80's, the riffs were HUGE. Today, you can open an account with a discount broker and they actually pay you $100 or some gimmick to get you trading. I knew guys who were brokers back in the 80's who used to make thousands per day buying and selling. i.e., skating the thin churning line... I decided to go performance only RIA as that's THE only model that's fair for my Clients imo. If they don't make $$$$, I don't get paid. No commissions. Anyhow, the original Wall Street, I could recite word for word. Doesn't sound like I'm going to be doing the same with this one. What a shame that a classic movie like the original is basically a chic flick from what you guys are saying. I guess at least my Wife will sit through it while I nod off...
I am going to see it tonight. Originally I was going to go by myself, but from the comments, maybe I will invite a woman to see it with me and not feel bad about inviting her to see a guy flick.
I liked it. Yes, original was better but they almost always are. Shia played well, but he was not a good pick, since he looks too young, almost high school, yet operated with hunders of millions. A bit too much romance, but that makes it appealing to more audience. As I was walking out, I have heard 2 people talking that the crisis makes much more sense now.
From Boxofficeguru.com: "Greed ruled the box office as Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps topped the charts on Friday with an opening day tally of $7M, according to studio estimates. The Fox title should find its way to a debut weekend take of $19-21M easily beating out all competition." From Wiki: "Wall Street was released on December 11, 1987, in 730 theaters and grossed USD $4.1 million on its opening weekend. It went on to make $43.8 million in North America." According to the inflation calculator: "What cost $1 in 1987 would cost $1.86 in 2009." So the sequel needs to make about 80 million in the US to match the success of the original.
I saw it, I liked it. Good movie. I thought the cameos were a little over done but they obviously were brought in to add humor. The over the top product placement was a little annoying. The actors were fine and Stone was trying to make the film current not only with what was going on in the financial world but also style wise. In other words, the casting of Shia and Carey were deliberate. The men of Wall Street today are very different then the ones from 1987. Anyone who has read Michael Lewis will get this. Back in 1987 Wall Street recruited big dumb football players and jocks. Guys that could eat 10 hamburgers in one sitting. Now you see really small tiny feminine type guys with 2 advanced degrees who are vegetarians. Stone is smart, he catches on to that stuff and puts it into his film. The casting of Carey Mulligan represents the new independent liberal woman that has infested NY. Gone are the blond darryl Hannaghs with the 10 IQ. Now we have strong independent women that hate men and hate anything capitalism and runs a left wing blog. Perfect casting choice. The soundtrack was modern, hip and not over the top. The cinematography was outstanding as it is in all Stone films. Once again does an outstanding job of making New York itself a character in the film. What a lot of guys on this thread don't understand is Stone is not at all interested in making a movie about finance. But rather the human element of it. The first movie was not as much about greed and money as it was about a relationship between a father and his son and between a young man and his older mentor. This movie is about both the relationship about a father and his daughter and also the relationship between Shia and Brolin's character. Stone is not so much interested in making a final judgment on the financial crisis as he is about the players in it. He wants to show how the financial crisis is actually affecting the lives of the people who choose to be involved in it. Once you get the idea of how Stone makes these movies you start to appreciate them even if you are not a fan of his politics or the message of the film. He has always done a great job of putting the characters first and the story second. World Trade Center was not a movie about left wing politics or the reasons for the attack on 9/11, but rather how it affected even the smaller people involved, the people not in the headlines. W was not a hit piece on the former president but rather a look into the relationship between a father and his son and why his son grew up to be the person that he did. I'm sure there are ways the film could have been better. I think the whole 2008 storyline was a distraction. We could have done without that because most of us are already aware that it happened and it would have been better to never bring it up but let the viewer understand that it actually is happening in the background. Kind of like making a movie that takes place during WWII but not having to beat the dumb viewer with a 10 IQ that needs to be reminded that a war is taking place. Overall, great movie and I highly recommend others to see it only to understand a more human element of the financial crisis. There were some great lines in that movie. And one other thing, this fallacy that sequels are never better then the original stems from a weakness we all have in our minds that tends to overweight how good things were before and underweight things that are current. Most people do this with music i.e music is not as good as when I was young. But other people do this with politics, actors, how honest people were years ago, etc. People are very cynical in general and are always suspect of the present and by default believe the past was always better. The original movie was very corny. I loved it because there were so many great lines in that movie but I also loved it because it was corny. I no longer took the original seriously when Bud Fox said Gecko was selling NASA stock short 2 minutes after the shuttle Challenger blew up. Obviously NASA is a government agency, not a stock.
I wish I had read some of these reviews before I went to see Wall Street II. I walked out half way through. I am a big Josh Brolin fan, loved him in No Country for old Men. I don't think he did a good job in this movie. Many great actors like DeNiro etc do their best work as gritty blue collar characters, taxi driver, raging bull. Shia is no bud fox. Douglas acted like an old fart. Very predictable boring movie..waste of time.
I agree with maverick. I thought the movie was great and represented the industry as it is today and not how you old school traders remember it - going to NYC with your zero-haliburton briefcases and polyester shiny suits with gel slicked back locks looking for donald trump. I also think the movie did a good job explaining the financial crisis from the bottom up to appeal to yet inform non financial professionals.