cmoitze

22 May 2012

Greed is not so good.

Surprisingly good movie. This is a different movie to it's predecessorwhich is refreshing. It questions the importance of materialism and theloneliness that can creep into a persons life without the support offamily and friends.Micheal Douglas portrays Gorden Gecko as a somewhat matured man,scarred by his years in prison and family dislocation. Shea Labeouf wasalso solid and believable in his role as Jake Moore, an extremelyambitious stock broker. There was an interesting contrast between hischaracter and his girlfriend, who was politically left wing.Probably not as dynamic as Wall Street, but, particularly towards theend, an emotionally rewarding movie that the viewer should enjoy.

firefox2k

22 May 2012

Greed is good, Revenge is better

I just saw this movie and am writing my review in the theater. i foundthis movie to begin slowly, and starts to heat up very quickly. I amnot going into details about the movie itself, due to you can probablyguess it without actually seeing the movie. What I will say is that thehigh points of the movie, is that it is very suspenseful, powerful, andhas a touch of passion. This movie could have been really great if itwas allowed to grow in the development of the story. I thought it wouldbut it is actually very short for an oliver stone film, probably one ofhis shortest in run-time. I also will say that this is one of thebetter films of the year, possibly the best film of the year so far, inwhat has definitely been a ho-hum season for movies. I would recommendfor people to go see the movie, however it isn't something that youwill hate yourself for not seeing, but you will miss some of thegreater performances this year.

JOHN_REID

19 May 2012

Very disappointing indeed

In a film that deals primarily with excesses of money and greed, it isinteresting that the budget for this movie was in the region of anobscene $70,000,000.00. I'm not sure how much of the budget was devotedto script and substance but the end result was a banal and poorlydeveloped screenplay with puerile, soppy sub plots of romance and thestrained relationship between father and daughter.Ultimately the story is grossly simplistic, cashing in on the globalfinancial crisis, without any attempt to provide real detail as to howthe end results are achieved. You are supposed to just accept thateverything that occurs in the film is plausible without any meaningfulattempt at a reasonable explanation. Leaving aside the flaws in the plot there was an opportunity to developsome suspense but Olvier Stone missed his chance and concentrated onexpensive sets and effects that did absolutely nothing to provideanything substantial. The cast all do their best but they are hamstrung by an unimaginativescript and poor direction.At the screening I attended, the person in front of me was playinggames on his mobile phone and many people left before the end creditswere shown. That, I'm afraid, says it all.

brucev13

18 May 2012

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.

wilsr

16 May 2012

If pushed, Ill give it a threeten

Sequels rarely come out of a comparison looking good - and this one'sno exception. The original Wall Street was a classic on several planes,but "Never Sleeps" just isn't.Douglas, as usual, gives a strong and perceptive performance: he isbacked up by the rest of the cast. The acting throughout is good.So are the camera-work, the lighting, the sets and the locations.The problem is in the direction: at 133 minutes this film doesn't havethe meat to fill the time out. Twenty minutes could be cut and therewould be little effect on the storytelling, there's so little of it.Visual metaphors come in chunks and, yes - we *do* get them. It's justthat they don't advance the action: it's almost as if we've suddenlyturned up at a powerpoint presentation.And what on earth possessed Stone to spend so much time on aerial shotsof the city? This isn't a travelogue, for God's sake. And exactly whyis a slightly competitive motorbike ride brought into it? Because acouple of bikes happened to be available and the trees were turning?This is year 12 film club stuff, Oliver.I gave this movie four out of ten, but, thinking about it i have comeback to edit my review to a three. I'd better stay clear of IMDb or wecould end up with one.....The general feeling of drift was, for me, not exactly helped by apretty ordinary soundtrack. Some of the dialogue is indistinguishablefrom the background track and, at times, the score is also a hindrancerather than a necessary part of the experience.I have had to walk out of several films this last year: there are sofew movies being made that justify anything like the moolah being spenton them. I stayed to the bitter end of "Never Sleeps" and will give ita generous four - but it won't be on my DVD Christmas list.

gradyharp

15 May 2012

Bloody Dull

In WALL STREET: MONEY NEVER SLEEPS Oliver Stone delivers one of the topRotten Tomato movies of the year. There is so little story to tellthroughout this 134 minute endless mess of a film that the viewers mustresort to just ignoring the fact that we are being drowned inWallStreetSpeak and settle instead for watching the skills of such fineactors as Michael Douglas, Carey Mulligan, Shia LaBeouf, Josh Brolin,Susan Sarandon (for a brief moment), Eli Wallach, and Frank Langella(one wonders why they ever signed on to this film if they read thescript). Perhaps it is the current economic climate that makes it difficult tofind any humor or concern for these characters crippled by therecession: there are no redeeming outcomes form the crash that wouldsuggest that anyone involved with Big Money learned a thing form thegovernment bailout of Wall Street. But watching the prison release ofGordon Gekko (Douglas) and discovering that his angry, unforgivingdaughter Winnie (Mulligan) has taken up with a bright lad Jake(LaBeouf) who in many ways is like the father she loathes, then in asmarmy manner climbing back into the money game only to destroy anyseed of conscience that might have grown from his incarceration and indoing so drive a wedge between Winnie and Jake is hardly the stuff ofwhich memorable movies are made. Oliver Stone drowns us in noise anddespicable malicious characters and in the end beats the audience todeath with his excesses in every aspect of this film. It is a waste oftalent for the cast. Grady Harp

Fields201

13 May 2012

Money Will Die

Having never seen the original Wall Street, and being that I was nineyears old when the movie was released and kids just don't like watchingmovies that deal with money, this movie did intrigue me enough to seeit at theater. It wasn't the greatest movie I've seen, but it had agood story to tell and some really good performances.Going into this movie, I really didn't know what the plot was. In fact,I'm a terrible reviewer because I can't remember many of thecharacter's names in this movie. I guess Shia Labitch's character'sname is Jacob, and his girlfriend's name is Winnie Gekko. MichaelDouglas's character's name is Gordon Gekko and Josh Brolin (who I amglad is still working after all these years since being Brand on TheGoonies) is named Breton. Maybe that's all I needed to know.So I thought the plot was that Shia's character finds Gordon and wantshim to show him the ways of making money and getting to the top, like amentor. I was sorta right, however, and the film started out that way.Shia has this boss who the movie establishes very early on that he's afather figure and gives him this huge sum of cash and tells him tospend in on the economy. Shia gives him a kiss on the head and rightthere, I should have thought, "Frank Langella is going to die." By theway, Frank offered a wonderful performance in this movie.In the scene where he is gathered around the round table while hispeers tears him down for being bankrupt was the film's turning point.Our villain, played by Josh Brolin, offers to buy his shares for twodollars a piece. Frank responds with that he would never sell to thelikes of him. So just as they are leaving, Frank counter offers withsix. Josh raises the stakes to three. After some negotiating, Frankends with four, and says something like, "I don't want to look anymorepathetic that it already is." And as the true villain, Josh stickswith, "Three. And not a penny more." I was half expecting him to spitin his face when he left, as it would be just as kosher.So then Frank commits suicide and Shia wants revenge against Brand fromThe Goonies. Meanwhile, he seeks advice from Gordon Gekko in exchangefor reuniting him with his daughter who Shia just happens to be dating.The true scene stealer in this movie is Michael Douglas as GordonGekko. He has the best lines, by far, like, "You stop telling liesabout me, and I'll stop telling the truth about you." However, I felthis character was underused, and the focus is more on Shia's characterrather than Gordon's. Which is a shame, because honestly the movie is alot more enjoyable with Gordon than with Shia.After the movie was over, it felt underwhelming. It was a good film,with several scene encounters between characters that make you wonderwhat exactly is going to be exchanged between the two and the twists inthe story keeps it interesting. However, the ending just didn't feelright to me. I don't want to say much but it just seemed like theoverall product was initially longer than what it was supposed to beand that the ending was probably more chosen by the studio than OliverStone himself. I could be wrong but it felt that way.Does it make me want to see the first Wall Street? Absolutely. Withmore Gordon Gekko and less with Shia is always a plus to me.

Nat26

13 May 2012

Not Worth The Wait

Wall Street (1987) was so good, I felt that it was my duty to bookmyself a VIP seat for the sequel. However I did go in with the fearthat Shia LaBeouf was in it and to me this guy is a joke. He's OK forkid movies like Transformers but Shia in a serious Wall Street movie,that's got to be a mistake! A few minutes into the movie and you getintroduced to Shia and Carey Mulligan (Gekko's daughter but you don'tknow that yet). It's clear that they are a couple and I was then afraidthat Oliver Stone was setting the tone of the movie: It won't be likethe first one -- more like jello. Seeing Gekko getting out of jail wasa quite anticipated moment. I did laugh at the brick-stone mobile phonebeing handed over to him (even though it was already in the trailer). Ihave to say Michael Douglas still looks & sounds as good as ever. Fromthen onwards, I was able to breathe a sigh of relief... but that wasshort lived.I eagerly anticipated a captivating Gekko speech, like in the firstmovie, but more tied up to 2008 climate. Unfortunately the use of fadesand showing Shia's and the audience face ruined this moment for me. Itwas such a butch job that I could hardly concentrate on what Gekko wassaying. As the movie progressed, I got the feeling that I was beingrushed through it (most scenes were not concluding well). To that, Ican only wonder whether the movie is actually final version.Halfway through I got really bored. The movie is really about atriangle between Shia, the daughter and her dad - nothing to do withWall Street. There was hardly any portrayal of Shia or Gekko or Brettonof having a high testosterone trader attitude. Actually the movie triedto stay clear from the jargon which made the first Wall Street somemorable. You just hear "moral hazard." Hello? Show us, this is amovie. Even the guys in Boiler Room (2000) payed a homage to WallStreet 1 by doing a little Gekko re-enactment. The sequel didn't evenseem keen making another such mark in history (obviously not the samestuff but carefully researched & current trader daily speak material).As for the rest of the cast, it's a major thumb down. Mostly gutlessand pale, except for Josh Brolin who totally had the attitude for sucha movie. Frank Langella was OK. His suicide scene was pretty shocking.You get to see Charlie Sheen (ah good old Bud Fox) but not for long.When I came back home, I played the original Wall Street and thedifferences were really obvious. Oliver Stone has softened up over theyears. He doesn't know New York as well as he did back in 1987. Youhardly see that city life in the sequel. He completely missed out onshowcasing the new-era busy & macho trading floor. It looked more likethe Transformers NSA analyst floor. The romance and bike race werereally cheap distractions. He could have worked a bit more on thefinancial collapse and rescue deals. Instead, he rushed through it byusing graphics that were supposed to wow us. Instead, he uses a clichégobblin old banker with white side-hair (and god knows how manyearlobes) to make a strange pathetic bird sound, and we're supposed tofeel a sense of impending doom. Terrible."Money never sleeps?" OK, here's one, "Everything that rise musteventually fall" and this is exactly what Oliver Stone & Shia did tothat movie and hopefully themselves. I haven't't gone to a cinema in 6years and that's what I get when I do.

nama chakravorty

10 May 2012

The Return Of Gordon Gekko!

Back in 1987, 'Wall Street' spoke the Stock-Market language, with astellar, academy-award winning performance by Michael Douglas. OliverStone and Douglas bring back the language and the legendary characterafter 23 long-years. And The Return Of Gorden Gekko, is one comeback! 'Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps' catches you from the word GO, Stone'sdirection, Douglas's stylish performance & striking Cinematography keepyou at the edge of seat. Without a doubt, Money Never Sleeps is a punchtribute to it's Prececessor.'Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps' takes place 23 years after theoriginal, revolving around the 2008 financial crisis. The film's plotmainly centers around the reformed Gekko acting as more of an antiherorather than a villain and follows his attempts to help Wall Streetbefore its soon-to-be stock market crash as well as trying to repairhis relationship with his daughter Winnie with the help of Jacob,Winnie's fiancé.'Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps' is a terrific cinematic experience.Stone's ever-worthy Direction and Style never lets the momentum go low,he brings back his favorite 80's characters, Gekko, and uses him to theoptimum. This is one his finest works to date. Rodrigo Prieto'sCinematography should earn him Awards. His work is truly astonishing!He captures each moment, with grace. Craig Armstrong's Music is good.Acting Wise, 'Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps' belongs to Michael'Gordon Gekko' Douglas from start to end. Gekko is suave, conning &absolutely stylish. Another Academy-Award Worthy Portrayal! ShiaLaBeouf is superb. He shines even when he has to share screen spacenear the mighty Gekko! Josh Brolin excels as an antagonist. CareyMulligan as Gekko's Daughter, is splendid. Frank Langella is memorablein a brief role. Susan Sarandon is decent. Charlie Sheen makes a fineappearance.On the whole, 'Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps' is amongst the mostinteresting, gripping and memorable films to come out of 2010. Gekkoand Stone still rule! Two Thumbs Up!

Jay Raskin

09 May 2012

Better and More True to Life Than the Original

This review contains major spoilers, so please do not read it untilafter you have seen the film. If you have not seen the film, put it onyour must see list. Yes, Shia and Carey are dull as dishwater onscreen, but Michael Douglas deserves a best supporting actor Oscar forhis brilliant, warm, witty and charming performance. See it beforereading the rest of this review.I enjoyed the movie while watching it, but felt a slight let down withthe apparent Hollywood ending. I agreed with the reviewers who sawMichael Douglas' character as being too reformed and too soft. However,thinking about it more, I realize that Stone was delivering an evensharper critique of capitalism than he did in the first film.Think about what Gordon Gecko did. He pretended to be reformed andpretended to be poor. He showed humility and claimed to have learnedfrom his prison experience. He fools everyone. Now realize that he has100 million dollars that he stole in a Swiss Bank Account in the nameof his daughter. She now hates him and blames him for her brother'sdrug death. The only way to get the money was to establish arelationship with his daughter again. He uses her boyfriend, ShiaLabeouf, to re-establish his relationship with her. He uses both ofthem to get the money out of the Swiss account and he promptly stealsit from them.He quickly makes a killing when the housing bubble bursts. Whilemillions are losing their life savings in the greatest stock marketcrash since 1929. He turns the 100 million into a billion, a neatprofit.He then invests in green energy, "the next bubble" as he calls it. Itis not because he believes in it, but he believes it is the next moneymaking thing. He invests in his daughter's leftist website because hesees how useful it has been in bringing down his Wall Street enemies.He is left at the end with more power, more control and more money thanever before. He is free and on top of the world. All of it due to themoney he stole. The opposition from his idealist daughter andson-in-law is gone. They are now in his control and debt.This is a much more realistic and cynical movie than the original "WallStreet." In that movie, the Wall Street crooks end up broke, disgracedand in jail. In this movie, the Wall Street crooks end up rich,powerful and live happily ever after. Yes, Josh Brolin does not fare sowell. But that is only because he is stupid and arrogant and "doubledips" using his own personal account to make even more money. Hebetrays his Wall Street friends and mentors who have helped him. Heturns them over to the police. Be smart and play by the rules of WallStreet and you end up on top, don't play by the rules, betray your WallStreet buddies to the cops, you can end up in jail.There is one image that Stone keeps going back to - bubbles rising intothe sky. It is a precise and brilliant metaphor. We know that one daythe bubble will burst, even if we do not see it happening on screen.Has Oliver Stone gone soft? No he has grown more cynical.

jjjppplll

07 May 2012

Misses on Almost Every Cylinder

The short review is as follows: This is a bad movie. It starts with thescript. It is beyond awful. Not only is the writing stale, lifeless andunoriginal (except for that one line, the only decent one in the entiremovie "If you stop telling lies about me, I;ll stop telling the truthabout you."), but, frequently, the actors mumble these lines, so it isdifficult to even know what the hell they are saying.One of the things I look for in all movies when I'm trying to determinewhether it's any good is the quality of acting from the minorcharacters (e.g. college buddy of a lead actor, co-worker of a leadactor). Well, they stink.I like Carey Mulligan, but I don't like her in this movie. She playsher character throughout with so much sadness and lack of humor that,after a while, you start to cringe whenever she's coming up in a scene.Shia LaBeouf does a harmless job with his character. Michael Douglasstruggles (as does the film) to find some kind of spark or energy orany reason at all to keep on watching.Do yourself a favor and pass on this stinker.

lengi555

07 May 2012

The legacy of Gekko should have been left alone

A cult movie. A piece of art. It captures the essence of Wall Streetduring and before the credit crunch. It was.. is phenomena. Truly, thismovie is in a league of its own. Well, this is how I would have wantedto describe Money Never Sleeps, but I just can't lie to myself or toreader of this review. To put it bluntly this movie isn't worth yourtime nor your money. I'm a huge fan of the first movie. And many willagree with me on that for very good reasons. Firstly it had ancaptivating plot, great cast and dialogue was just supreme to say theleast. Almost everybody knows the "Greed is good" speech and how Gekkotells his broker : "Rip their throats out!" etc. Secondly the storylinewas well developed and above all Wall Street had an identity, it knewwhat it was: A movie trying to show the vices of Wall Street. Enough ofthe original movie, now I will tell why, in my opinion, the sequel is aflop. This film has no identity. I don't know what it was supposed tobe. A love story? No, the movie had something to do with banking and aex-convict. A story of Gekkos rehabilitation? No, he hasn't changed. Orshould it portray the insanity on Wall St. ? But why then the lovestory and Gekko.. It is all very confusing. In comparison the dialogueswere bad: "You are the NINJA generation…" sounds almost like aprophecy, but It lacks something… you don't get goose bumps all overyour back like you did when Gekko said: "Greed ,for the lack of abetter word, is good" The plot line is sometimes inconsistent andclunky. As an example: One of the characters uses rumors to upset afirms stock price but how he does it- that remains a mystery to theviewer. And that is a bad thing in my opinion. In the original moviethe plot line lifted the veil and showed how things are/were done onWall St. And that gave so much value to the movie. Regular people gotsome insight to the financial establishment. All in all I amdisappointed and I would like to give this film 2/10 , but that wouldbe unfair, because I feel very strongly about the first movie. So , tocompensate for my emotional attachment for the first movie , I willgive it a 5. I would suggest this movie for people who haven't seen theoriginal, if you have you will be as disappointed as I am. Cheers, M

Turfseer

06 May 2012

Zuccotti Park vs. One Percenters in microcosm

If you haven't already discovered it, Oliver Stone is a preacher. Hismovies always boil down to the proverbial 'us vs. them'. Back in 1987,with the release of the first 'Wall Street', there was some ambiguityin Gordon Gekko's famous phrase, "Greed is Good." Although Gekko was abad guy, there was something charming about him, so one could stillfeel sorry for the rapacious financier even though he's being sent awayto prison. In his later days, Stone's sense of subtlety has waned.While he still holds a great attraction to the world of wealth andprivilege (after all, he is a very well off in real life), it would notbe politically expedient for Stone to identify himself with the 1%crowd. Thus, the heroes of Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps are (interms of today's nomenclature) the 99 per centers, who completelyreject the "greed is good" mantra.'Money Never Sleeps' is set in 2008, the year of the Wall Streetfinancial meltdown. If it were today, Stone might have had Jake, hisproprietary trader protagonist, hanging out for a few hours in ZuccottiPark each day. Even though Jake professes his love for the 'green',he'll only invest in progressive companies that promote alternativeenergy. And his girlfriend, Winnie, who also happens to be GordonGekko's estranged daughter, runs a small website designed to expose onepercenter shenanigans. Jake's mentor at his firm, Keller ZabelInvestments, is Louis Zabel, another "word is my bond" good guy amongstthe wolves, who can't take the heat when the firm loses 30% of itsvalue at the beginning of the 2008 crisis. His solution is to jump infront of a subway train after one percenter bad guy Bretton James (JoshBrolin), CEO of Keller Zabel's rival, blocks a bailout for the troubledfirm .Enter Gordon Gekko, ex-con, who wants to re-establish a bond with hisdaughter. He conscripts Jake by making a deal with him: if Jake canhelp him reconcile with Winnie then he'll provide information that cansink Brett. Jake uses information that causes Brett's' firm to lose$120 million but Brett inexplicably offers Jake a job. Jake's plan isto take revenge on the evil Brett who he holds responsible for hismentor's suicide. There is some hint that although Jake intends toundermine Brett from the beginning he's seduced by the wily CEO afterBrett promises to steer a Chinese company toward investing in thefusion energy company Jake's been touting. When the economic crisisaffects the firm, Brett plays it safe by promoting bunk solar panelsand fossil fuels to the Chinese. Jake throws a fit when all bets areoff for his fusion energy company; his 'dark moment of the soul' occurswhen he blows his cover by cursing out Brett and getting himself fired.The solution is that Gekko reveals to Jake that he's had $100 millionstashed away in a Swiss bank account all along and needs for hisdaughter to sign the money over to Jake who will in turn hand it overto Gekko who promises to invest it all in the fusion energy companyJake's trying to save. At first, Gekko appears to be returning to formwhen he disappears with the $100 million and the fusion company appearsto be sinking like the Titanic.Jake's revenge plot against Brett turns wimpy when he merely givesWinnie some information that she publishes in her blog, leading toBrett's downfall. If you can believe that the unsubstantiated rumors ina small left-wing newspaper can destroy this powerful CEO, then perhapsI can sell you the Brooklyn Bridge. Whatever the case, Jake's passingof information to his girlfriend, is hardly the stuff of excitingdenouements.The ultimate wimp-out of course is Gekko's decision to join the 99percenters by returning the $100 million to the now reconciled coupleand get to see his grandchild a year later. The good guy crowd wins theday by shouting the new 2008 mantra: 'Greed is bad'. Had 'Money NeverSleeps' been filmed during the time of OWS, Stone would have had Gekkoalong with Jake, Winnie (and a photo of the deceased Zabel) snuggle uptogether inside one of the newly minted pup tents in Zuccotti Park.Shia LaBeouf is really perfectly cast to play Jake. The actor whousually plays hotheads (and is a hothead in real life) shows himself tobe more comfortable in a place like Zuccotti than inside an investmentbank. In 'Money never sleeps', his rebellion takes the form of somewild riding on a motorcycle and well as cuddling with his 'greed isbad' significant other.. Carey Mulligan has little to do as liberalblogger Winnie but Josh Brolin is more enjoyable as a sinister over thetop head honcho. Frank Langella is stuck in the role of the kindlymentor Louis Zabel and is too idealistic a character to be believable.Michael Douglas manages to pull off some real acting, particularly inthe emotionally powerful scene when he first makes a real attempt toreconcile with Winnie. But the absurdity of Gekko suddenly reversingcourse at the film's climax, undermines all the good acting Douglas haddone beforehand.'Money Never Sleeps' is Oliver Stone's attempt to be accepted by hismiddle-class audience. There is no chance anymore that Gordon Gekko canexist as both good and bad at the same time. Gekko can now only be goodin the present. The bad guy of today, the Brett's of this world, theone percenters, must be thrown under the proverbial bus. In reality,however, none of the 'villains' of the 2008 economic crisis were calledto the bar of justice. Quite the contrary, they made out like bandits!Thus, Stone's comeuppance of the one percenter crowd, rings as false asthe idealized crowd of do-gooders he creates, that are depicted goingto battle with them!

06 May 2012

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.

Colin George

05 May 2012

Gekkos and Dinosaurs

You don't exactly need to see the sequel to "Wall Street" to comprehendhow completely the market has changed in the past twenty years—Watchingthe original film today makes that more than apparent. It's still afascinating time capsule from 1987, almost a work of science fictionnow. Cue Rod Serling—"Imagine, if you will, a world in which thegreatest economic hazard is making too much, too quickly."But greed is not the antagonist in "Money Never Sleeps." Debt is.Gordon Gekko (Michael Douglas) is released from prison after aneight-year stretch for insider trading only to discover that his moneynow torments him in its very absence. Picking up in 2008, the entirecast of affluent characters in the film is haunted by the globaleconomic crisis and even more intimate money matters.Shia LaBeouf plays Jake Moore, a trader who invests his million-dollarbonus the night before the market collapses, just after buying anextravagant wedding ring to propose to his girlfriend, Winnie Gekko(Carey Mulligan). After Moore gets the opportunity to speak with hisnew father-in-law, the two begin a series of unorthodox transactions;Gordon wants an opportunity to get closer to his estranged daughter,which Jake orchestrates in exchange for the opportunity to further hiscareer.In that way, "Money Never Sleeps" follows a similar template to theoriginal, with Gekko acting as protégé to a young, cutthroat trader.The sequel, however, has a more ambitious, branching story and whatfeels like a much larger cast. It suffers somewhat for its sprawlingnarrative, but the film is grounded by a strong emotional center. "WallStreet" is still the more rousing film, but "Money Never Sleeps," isappropriately more dour, downbeat and moody; the films are alike onlyin their committed reflection of their respective economic climates.Both "Wall Street" films seem to find Oliver Stone at his mostexperimental. His multimedia gimmickry doesn't always work, but henever seems to be at a loss for a new way to present information."Money Never Sleeps" paints the stock market index across the New Yorkskyline, fractures into split-screens, and cedes itself entirely toillustrated figures that would seem more at home in a documentary.Stone can sometimes be a frustratingly predictable director, and smallflourishes like these are what make the "Wall Streets" stand out in hisfilmography.But viewer beware, for all its stylishness, "Money Never Sleeps" willbore many. It is an uncompromisingly slow film, especially in itsdrooping middle—devotees of the fast-paced original will beparticularly let down. But while the clock-check quotient is relativelyhigh in places, I believe it ultimately reaches a satisfying payoff.After all, what makes these films tick is their characters, and thissequel is no slouch. They make not be as vibrant or distinct as thepeople who populated the 1987 film, but again, they have to support amodern disillusionment with the market that didn't exist back then. Thecharacters in Stone's original are eccentric, quirky, domineering, andvivacious. The characters in "Money Never Sleeps" are sullen, worn, andscared.And then there's Gekko. It's interesting that Douglas' portrayal of himis the most enduring part of the original film; but then it's obviouswhen you see him as that character. He is capitalism, a physicalmanifestation of it. Douglas owns the performance, and though Gekko hasbeen beaten into a shell of his former self in "Money Never Sleeps,"he's still plain fun to watch. The charisma is there, and Douglassupplements a terrific irony to the character in playing him broke."Bet you don't have one of these," he boasts to Moore during theirfirst encounter, flashing his NYC MetroCard."Money Never Sleeps," for better or for worse, is the "Wall Street" ourgeneration gets. It's a time capsule from 2010, an imperfect butequally relevant window into our languishing economy. In twenty years,we can only hope it all looks like science fiction.

ANGEL-S

05 May 2012

Perfect for experts in economy

First, I haven't seen original from 1987 yet, didn't realise this is asequel. Second, I am half through my "Broker course" at my university,by no means expert for high-level economy, this is only optionalsubject I simply picked. "Wall Street 2010" is one of severalobligatory movies we must see before final exam, which will have somequestions regarding key moments in those movies. So far, this washardest for me to understand and actually had to rewind some scenes onDVD to fully figure what is going on.This is a perfect film, acting is superb, high-budget production, andaddresses some key elements regarding 2008 economic crisis. It is notfor everyone, since it requires higher knowledge of the topicspresented in the film to be fully appreciated and understood. I have nodoubt this movie will acquire a cult status in the years and decades tofollow, despite low ratings in the opening year, jugging by 6.3 averageat present on IMDb.Perfect dialogues and metaphores of speculation bubbles and moralhazards, only one frame on Citibank banner was enough to completeintroductory scene. Artistic perfection!Young actors did astonishing effort to make characters believable, sowas performance of well established names like Michael Douglas.Absolute recommendation if you are into stock exchange movies.Acting: 10/10, Story 10/10, Factual accuracy 10/10

nerfball_king

03 May 2012

Okay, but pales in comparison to the original

Saw the film on Opening Weekend, and thought that it was okay. Therewere some pretty big leaps you had to take which didn't add up, and itjust didn't seem to have the same verve, flair and intensity of theoriginal. Gekko's eventual redemption was EASILY foreseen; I'd havegiven this 5 stars (or maybe even 4), but the graphics at the end ofthe movie were really captivating.The female lead of this movie is really weak, almost 2 dimensional, andthe relationship between Brolin and Shia le Beouf lacks credibility.Overall, not a bad movie, just thought it would be so much moredynamic.

DICK STEEL

03 May 2012

A Nutshell Review Money Never Sleeps

Money Never Sleeps succinctly wrapped up the recession of our recenttimes, with the collapse of a trusted, mammoth investment banks (hint),the dog-eat-dog world of the inner financial circle, and how the entiresub-prime nonsense which preyed on everyone's insatiable greed, proveto be everyone's downfall in a buyer's beware market, if only thingswere that clear especially when rumours are used as tools and weaponsto mislead and force a predictable outcome through which to hedge fundson. There were many instances with the release of Gordon from his jailsentence, where his second career as a writer/sought after speaker(only in America folks) brought about opportunities for the characterto serve as a mouthpiece of caution in today's world.There's a new protagonist in the film in Jake Moore, played by ShiaLaBeouf, who's very much into alternative energy markets and has a handin the investment and development of one such nuclear fusion farm.Unfortunately the investment bank he works in goes belly up causing thedemise of his much respected mentor Louis Zabel (Frank Langella), Jakeswears revenge against Josh Brolin's Bretton James, another head honchobanker in a rival firm, and if you've not been listening attentively,or are not remotely familiar with the financial terms being mouthedaround, you're more than likely to find it hard pressed how this linkwas made to position Jake and Bretton as rivals.Gordon Gekko enters the picture because of Jake's fiancé Winnie (CareyMulligan), Gekko's daughter, and through a potential in-law relation,both men who see so much similarities in each other, especially theolder in the younger's fire in the belly, forge a trade of sorts whereGekko provides much needed inside research and knowledge to Jake inexchange for opportunities set up to reconcile with his estrangeddaughter. And of course, a leopard never changes its spots, and despitewarnings from Winnie, we're left to expect how Gordon will actuallyscrew them all over, if he does decide to put aside family bonds.In many instances of relationships here involving Jake and his peers onthe Street such as Louis, Gordon and Bretton, there's this hark back tothe Dark Side in Star Wars where each master keeps only one protégé toinduct into the evil side of things, and each of these relationshipsare very pronounced in showing that. Of course one has to demonstrateenough rottenness and ruthlessness in order to be spotted for furthergrooming, and I found it mildly amusing it had to boil down to that.More interesting would be the fact that they're maneuvering in groundsthat are set up for such unethical behaviour that it'll either surpriseyou that such moves are possible, or make you resign to the fact thatit's life.Shia LaBeouf probably benefited from not being overexposed, especiallywith bad films, and Oliver Stone probably elicited one of his bestperformances here, which is subdued rather than the smart-alecky youngadult he usually plays. Here he's more a deer caught in the headlightsas a greenhorn yet to but eager to earn his stripes as he goes headlongagainst seasoned players. Unfortunately for Carey Mulligan, her Winnierole isn't all that fleshed out, being just the romantic lead oppositeShia (which became real for all you tabloid followers out there) andher reconciliatory difficulties with her dad. Perhaps the only brightspark in her character is that she epitomizes free press/speech in theform of a non-profit, independent website out to provide stingingexposes, which has a purpose of course in the last act, like atorchbearer for Stone to champion freedom of speech to bring down thecorrupt.Josh Brolin had starred in Stone's previous film W as the ex USpresident, and here he becomes chief antagonist with great ambition andis behind every shady deal, that you can't help on one hand to hatethis guy, while on the other admire his brilliance to exploit withconfidence every loophole in the legal and financial system. Villainshave seldom looked that suave in a tuxedo hiding behind arrogantsmirks. Michael Douglas' Gordon Gekko seemed to have mellowed, thoughyet having enough scenes to spout soundbites and through the narrative,makes you wonder if he's really reformed and out to make peace, orstill has that shrewd streak within him, waiting like a coiled snakeready to strike another blow in the markets. Rounding up the starstudded billing is Susan Sarandon as Jake's mother, a real estate agentcaught up with multiple housing mortgages and serving as the precursorto inevitable trouble.Rumoured to have had its ending edited after reactions in Cannes, WallStreet: Money Never Sleeps hit plenty of right spots in delivering arelevant followup film on the financial markets of today. For afictional film it's rather insightful in its ability to bring forthreal issues and ideas to the mass market, and I enjoyed its subplotsuggesting how the rich can bury innovation should those breakthroughsthreaten the well being of their cash cow commodities, where short termbillion dollar gains to these folks far outweigh the benefits andgreater good for mankind in general. Think about how alternative fuelshave always stagnated, or why the electric car had failed to take off.Highly recommended for an all round great film!

TamPalm

02 May 2012

Solid Offering from Stone

I was hesitant about seeing this film because my last Oliver Stoneexperience, "W," was underwhelming to say the least. However, the fameddirector redeemed himself with "Wall Street 2." The cast is superb.Shia is not only eye candy, he has the goods, he'll be an actor towatch for the foreseeable future. Mulligan with her unique look tooksome adjusting to as the female lead, but once you get used to her, hercharacter works. You begin to accept and even root for them as acouple. Their chemistry is really appealing and even welcoming.Other highlights are the cameos, from Charlie Sheen to what seemed likethe whole cast of CNBC anchors to even Stone himself who appeared morethan once on film.The plot and storyline are solid, even if predictable in some areas(like Gecko cleaning out his house and shipping out after being wiredthe money from overseas.) The movie is great but not flawless. It felta little slow, long, and drawn out in some areas. As aforementioned,some of the characters took a little getting used to. Frank Langellalooked out of place when first being introduced on screen, on the stockexchange floor, his age a major contrast to the surrounding moreyouthful stock traders. Mulligan's character was a little irritatingwith all her hatred towards her dad, especially so if you didn't knowthe storyline from the previous movie. In fairness, they did attempt toexplain a little afterwards so it wasn't a huge problem. It also tooksome getting used to seeing Susan Sarandon play a slacker. And evenLebouf's character seems a little old for the young looking actor atfirst, but he pulls it off as the film unfolds. I could nitpick othersmall things here and there, but none of it really takes away from theoverall quality of the film.7.5/10

Hellmant

02 May 2012

Surprisingly family friendly, the original was anything but!

'WALL STREET: MONEY NEVER SLEEPS': Three Stars (Out of Five) Michael Douglas reprises one of his most famous roles, Gordon Gekko, inthis sequel to the 1987 hit co-written and directed by Oliver Stone.Stone once again directs and casts Shia LaBeouf (one of my favoriteyoung actors) in the lead (taking over for Charlie Sheen, *spoiler* whomakes a small appearance in the film *end spoiler*). The film alsostars Carey Mulligan, Josh Brolin, Eli Wallach, Frank Langella andSusan Sarandon. With such an impressive ensemble of talent both infront of and behind the camera you'd think they could have came up witha better movie than this. I wasn't a huge fan of the first film; I'mnot interested in Wall Street in any way and characters (and people)fascinated only by self preservation and financial gain are boring anddisgusting to me. With that said the original film was still somewhatinteresting and well made and Douglas was great in it. Here his onscreen time is kept to a minimum and although he was a supportingplayer in the first film he was still the most fascinating thing aboutit and they should have capitalized on that with the sequel. LeBeouf isgood but he's been better, he's much more of a gifted quirky comedicactor than a serious dramatic one.In the film LaBeouf plays Jake Moore; a young trader in love withWinnie Gekko (Mulligan) daughter of Gordon. Winnie despises her fatherand wants nothing to do with him. Moore is fascinated by the man thoughand introduces himself to Gordon at a conference. Gordon is intriguedby Moore as well and sees a way back in to a relationship with hisdaughter, as well as possibly a puppet to use. The two meet secretly asGordon councils Moore on his Wall Street plans of revenge for the deathof his mentor Louis Zabel (Langella) against the man they believe isresponsible Bretton James (Brolin). In exchange Jake tries to reconcileWinnie with her father.The film begins in 2008, right before economic disaster as Gordon Gekkopredicts. A film dealing more with this subject would have been muchmore interesting. The character study, love story and familyrelationship are all adequate but they could have been much better. Therevenge tale is a good plot devise but not effectively played out.There's a lot of different stories going on here that aren't balancedout very well and kind of take away from one another. Stone's directingis interesting at times but he's gotten soft and a little unfocused inhis old age. The film should be much darker and compelling; there's noreal danger or despair in this movie. The film is surprisingly familyfriendly as a result (the original was anything but). The movie has alot of potential but it just doesn't deliver.Watch our movie review show 'MOVIE TALK' athttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B8w-4xZ94ZU