I watched about half of the original movie awhile back, in preparation for the sequel, and the scenes with Gecko were great. I thought Charlie Sheen was over-acting to the point of being borderline annoying. As for the sequel, I understand that it would have been difficult to avoid inclusion of the market meltdown of 2008 in a movie named "Wall Street". I just didn't think the movie did a good job of capturing the raw fear and the financial carnage that was happening at the time. Without giving anything specific away, I didn't think the movie's ending was very believable or satisfying. I'm not going to say the movie was bad, but it really wasn't all that interesting and rather formulaic in my opinion.
Just seen the movie tonight, I was niether disappointed nor impressed. I thought the original Wallstreet was tough if not impossible to overtake as it was a truly iconic movie that no doubt was instrumental in shaping an era. I thought last year when I heard the Shia the beef would be playing the young ambitious role of the 2000s version of Bud Fox that it would not be a good selection and I still feel the same now even though it wasnt as bad as I thought. Maverick summed it up in an earlier post in that the young males seemed somewhat feminized but then most young men in America today are more feminized and sensitive to the opposite sex then the Bud Fox's of the world 25 years ago (case in point, I think Shia shed more tears in the movie than Carrie did). I thought the story had more than a resemblance of the original with Josh Brolin playing the modern era Gordon, Shia trying to play Sheen, as well as the vengance play by Shia after his mentor died. Although it seemed to me to be a little rushed, unrehearsed and too deliberate in some parts (mostly by Shia). The cameos by Sheen, Chanos, Buffett and Stone were neat touches as well as the reference to bubbles and tulipmania and the esoteric foretelling done by Gordon as well. In the directors commentary of the original, Stone mentions that Gekko is well ahead of his time and even with this sequel you can see some of those thoughts being reiterated (ie; Gekko mentions something to the effect of that they will bring it (the market) up to a bubble again and when it turns down again that will be real crash). Remember this was filmed before this runnup we have just experienced in 2010. Overall the actors with exception of Douglas was weak. While most won't dispute that Douglas was born for the role of Gekko, Shia seemed to be a typical unisex neutered modern American male, Carie Mulligan seemed to be a typical clueless over liberalistic young modern American female and Brolin seemed just a little out of his league in this role, A for effort for Josh but I thought Stone could have found someone just a little older, and more seasoned for his role. Overall it was worth the watch and really I just wanted to the return of GG anyways. While I would give the original Wallstreet five stars the sequel gets three, it's a ways from what it could be but much better than the mindless, leave your brain at the door BS coming out of hollywood nowadays.
wow you should be a film critic! http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100922/REVIEWS/100929993
Saw the movie with my Wife yesterday. What's funny, and the reason we went is Wall Street the original was on cable, so I told her I'd fix her breakfast in bed if she watches it with me. After coming back in the door with take out breakfast we had some food, and I couldn't believe she actually watched the entire thing. She knows I can recite the movie word for word, but only do that a time of two since that's annoying when someone else does that. The original was more "down and dirty" and a more realistic portrayal of what it's like to work in a wirehouse where there is no salary, just commissions, and in a cut throat office environment where only the hungry, and motivated survive. The original was more trading related. i.e., Gecko telling Bud Fox to spread the buys accross his Client accounts, and to buy some "bow wow" stocks he pitched with puts on each. The new movie was ok I guess. More imagery. Had to love the red tickers streaming across the city... The good part was the fact that Gecko pointed out that he's small change compared to the investment banker crooks, and I agree. 3 out of 5 stars.
The wife and I loved it. Great cinematography, good acting, great detail to follow if your in the biz or knowledgeable about the biz..story line was ok. All in all my personal rating system puts it at 4 out of 5. Lets put it this way...if you loved "Avator" and disliked "Money Never Sleeps" then there is a high probability we couldnt even have a beer together without arguing.
Wall Street didn't become renowned because of its focus on human relationships, it was because it grittily portrayed the cut-throat aspects of finance, something that wasn't really done well on screen before. There are thousands of identikit films about human relationships, but hardly any about Wall Street. Just like poker fans don't watch Rounders because of the scenes with Matt Damon and his on-screen girlfriend, but because of the poker scenes, so the same is true with Wall Street. When people go to see a film called Wall Street II, they want to see the grubby innards of finance, the wheeler-dealing, the drama of megabucks deals and market meltdowns. They don't give a damn about romance plots. The first film understood this, that's why the romantic interest was a blonde leggy bimbo who looked good, gave blowjobs in the back of limos, but otherwise kept her mouth shut.
I saw it last night. 2 stars, and that is probably because I have an interest in the subject matter. Wait to rent it on DVD. Spending $10 to go see a movie should be reserved for spectacular films, which seem to be rarer and rarer. I have noticed that ever since they took big theaters and broke them down so that there are now 15 theaters or more, they are mass producing films that barely make good tv episodes. Frankly, HBO turns out better stuff than what we see in the theaters these days. I had no problems with the cast at all. Even the story line is interesting. The problem with the movie is that it probably tried to be much to too many people. It is as if the movie was shot by committee each pandering to make money by pleasing some demographic, instead of by the vision of one man. Only James Cameron continues to put out such creative work - he controls his art. On another news, Star Wars is coming out in 3-D. LOL, talk about beating a dead horse with a stick..
Do you honestly think Oliver Stone cares what "you" are interested in seeing? Do you honestly think he cared what conservatives thought of the movie "W"? He makes a movie to tell the story "he" wants to tell. That is why his films have never really been huge commercial successes. As much as I disagree with his politics, I respect him for telling the story "he" wants to tell. The fact of the matter is, 99% of the public could give two shits about finance anyway and are not interested in seeing a movie that is basically CNBC replayed. There are outstanding documentaries out there on the financial crisis if that is your thing. I highly suggest you watch one of those if you want to see the so called action. Most people go to movies to see something more, something they can relate to and more importantly something that creates an emotional response. That is what art is for now isn't it? Whether it be music, paintings, live theater or film.
James Cameron? You mean the guy that turned the sinking of the Titanic into a soap opera? Or Avator, the love story between a crippled soldier and an Navi alien? Come on Nitro. There are outstanding directors out there. If you are going to dismiss Oliver Stone, you have to at least pick someone on the level or better.
Oliver Stone _is_ outstanding. I just think this movie was going backwards for him. He listened to the Wall Street guys too much. I don't know if he made the film he wanted to make. Honestly!