I haven't seen the original but just saw this today.

I thought it was a well made movie, if a little long. The performances IMO were strong all around and that along with the direction more than made up for the trip to the editing room that they overlooked and a sometimes muddled script.

Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps shouldn't really be called a sequel as the entire story has been shifted over into something new with not many hints of the film before it. The film's structure works very well within today's society and unlike the original Wall Street, the actual feel of the downfall of a company is more present and more surreal in the sequel. The money competition is hotter and the struggles between are more evident. Character interactions could of used a bit of work and they aren't as strong as the 1987 film but even in some downfalls can still be effective. There are a couple of hints to the last film that will bring nostalgia to the people who have watched it but the amount of time spent on these matters is brief. Shia LaBeouf is surprisingly solid here and proves that really outside of the Transformers threshold, he is a solid enough actor. Michael Douglas is strong again as Gordon Gecko, though he does still feels new and unique which doesn't hurt. Josh Brolin is a bit of a stickler and his story resolves a bit too quickly to really be grasped. Carey Mulligan does the best with what she has though her character was written in a bit of a typical matter though she doesn't act it out as such. Frank Langella also has a very effective part in the film. Another tiny downfall is that there were some iffy camera moments that could put a strain on the eye. Outside of its flaws, Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps is actually good and actually slowly advances above the original overall though both do end up getting the same grade. ***

So you wouldn't need to see the original in order to understand this one fine? I have the original but haven't seen it yet. I do plan on watching it before seeing the sequel but I'm just curious if I went with someone who didn't see the first if they'd have any trouble following this one.

You don't need to have seen the original. Just know: Gordon Gekko, Wall Street titan in the '80s, went to prison for illegal trading practices.

No yeah you really don't have to see the first one to get this one. The worst that may happen is you miss out on some references to the first that are basically there for nostalgic purposes.

Until a mediocre, underdeveloped denouement, this is a sharp sequel with fantastic performances. Michael Douglas returns to (and expands) his signature role with ease--greyer, rounder, as intense as ever. Shia LaBeouf is solid, delivering a Tom-Cruise-in-the-'80s-esque performance and holding his own against the cast's various veterans. The supporting cast is almost blemish-free. Carey Mulligan is exquisite, Frank Langella is magisterial, and Josh Brolin is a stone-cold villainous delight. Susan Sarandon, however, should have been cut. She's fine, but her character is not pertinent--a two-scene distraction in a crowded film.

Now is the perfect time for a Wall Street sequel and, for the most part, Oliver Stone does a splendid job drawing from the headlines. In the last ten minutes, however, he and the screenwriters stumble. The film ceases to be clear-eyed and complex; it becomes saccharine and undermines the Gordon Gekko character. Redemption is fine. Redemption as a flat, mainstream-ready afterthought? Not so much. Still, this sequel is well worth seeing--for the performances in particular.

B+

Ugh, this movie's ending. I can't get over it. It's as if a switch was flipped in the last ten minutes.

The problem though is that the movie really isn't interested in his . Although , he hasn't really changed all that much by the end of the movie. He's still the same son of bitch, just not quite as harsh.

And I actually like the final scene even though it's only there for the bubble. And even though that metaphor is practically shoved in your face throughout the movie, it works. If the first movie was a warning/prediction, like a ship sending out a distress signal, about where the economy was heading thanks to people like Gekko, the sequel is the flare that's set off by the survivors on the lifeboat as the ships sinks to the bottom. Wall Street is just one bubble after another.

As for the entire movie, it's pretty good. It's not quite as memorable as Wall Street was, or as important (maybe - I hope we're not fucked), but it's very good. It's Stone's best in quite awhile.

***½

maybe because I was really tired.. but it almost put me to sleep during it.

lol, I enjoyed this movie, but found this amusing.

#1 bugged me, too. And I noticed #4. The bump seemed so...intentional, not just "Let's convey this is a hectic street."

Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps won the weekend on its way to (almost certainly) winning a few Razzies. It’s by far the worst movie I’ve seen in a theater this year. But that’s boring. What’s not as boring are all the crazy many plot holes and super goofs in this movie! Here are just a few me and viewing partner Katie Bakes (who didn’t hate the movie, for the record) noticed. (Spoilers ahead, but, like, don’t see this movie anyway.)

1. The film begins with Gordon Gekko getting out of prison in 2001. Then the screen says “2008: seven years later.” But for the entire movie, Gekko acts - and everyone treats him (Graydon Carter, Charlie Sheen, etc) as if he JUST got out of prison and they’re seeing him for the first time. It’s this whole running theme - and he also constantly talks about prison as if he’d just gotten out. I know this is because they had to set the movie during the financial crisis, but couldn’t they have given him a longer prison sentence? Where has he been for seven years that he hasn’t run into a single person he knew until now?

2. After Shia and Bretton’s (HILARIOUS) motorcycle-off in what appears to be very rural upstate New York, Shia quits on Bretton in the woods and says “fuck you!”. But Shia got there via Bretton’s private helicopter, so how the hell does he find his way back to Manhattan? Bretton yells “you can keep the bike as severance!” presumably to cover this, but it still seems like Shia would have, like, a days-long adventure trying to get back.

3. The stupid ring! Carey Mulligan’s engagement ring is this big running theme in the movie because it represents money or how she doesn’t care about money or whatever. But it’s also a source of many goofs. Carey is seen wearing the ring, then she sees her father, then her father tells Shia to “get her a ring, will you?” But she already had the ring. Also, Shia is never seen giving it to her, which is weird. Also, in the beginning, Shia asks the guy at the ring store to take him to “the money room” and then they do a fast cut to a crowded nightclub full of Shia’s friends and coworkers. In the language of movies, this fast cut means the night club is the money room, but it’s not. They just skipped the money room scene. It’s weird.

4. As Shia and Norman Mailer’s son leave the nightclub after Shia has just shown the ring, which cost $450k, to him, they walk along a crowded Manhattan street at night. A man bumps into Shia noticeably and Shia acknowledges it with an “excuse me” or something. So of course we think the ring is stolen! But it’s not. So that was just some kind of weird trickery or something. I didn’t like it.

5. EVERYTHING ABOUT CAREY MULLIGAN’S BLOG! Haha, these were the best goofs. Like in one of the first scenes of the movie, Carey tells Shia that she has to go down to Washington for a week because the blog is relaunching, and “the site goes down for 10 days starting tomorrow.” Shia comments about where lefties will get their news for 10 days or something. But that’s not how website relaunches work! The site does not go down for 10 days. Ever. Then later, Carey is seen in front of her computer poring over a blog post, but it’s printed out on paper in front of her (with her picture.) Only Tina Brown prints out blog posts.

6. The entire nonsensical ending. Why does Gordon Gekko giving the money to the fusion company suddenly mean Carey and Shia can be back together? Why are they all one big happy family at the baby’s birthday party at the end, especially when all three of the main characters have committed felonies in the course of the movie? Why are they letting Gordon Gekko back in their lives when he did nothing but prove himself to be exactly what Carey thought he was? He’s JUST GOING TO DO IT AGAIN! Which is worrying, because this movie should not have a sequel.

Also, oh my god, all of the old wrinkled skin and, worse, terrible plastic surgery in this movie! Cat lady socialites galore. And whatever has happened to Charlie Sheen’s face. God, I hated this movie (also, I think there were more goofs, even.) Don’t see it!

http://lindsayrobertson.tumblr.com/post/11...parade-of-goofs

Nah, you're not alone. I went to the premiere last Monday, and I've seen at least 20 walk-outs.

I'm right there with Gunslinger and will even give you more. I also enjoyed this movie a lot. But that is merely based on Douglas is still a great actor, Brolin was good, and so was Shia. Everything else is a mess. To say this movie is even half as good as the original is a slap in the face to the original.



To go even further on other points of my own: Spoilers beware!!!!!
1. How dare they downgrade the entire first film and Sheen's character, and just invent a new villain in Josh Brolin. Are we really suppose to believe that Brolin and Douglas were up and comers together. He's barely the age of Bud Fox in this film. Gecko looked older than Brolin in the 80s. Brolin's character really should be played by Terrence Stamp, bring a continuity back to the original, and the ages would be more appropriate. It also adds to the whole revenge thing if Terrence ended up destroying not only Douglas money wise, but crippled him and sent him to prison.

2. Another Age flaw with me. The reason I think going the Daughter route was a bad idea is her motivation. In the first film, the son is what like 4 at the most. Then Gecko is in court for 5 years, and jail for 5 when his son commits suicide. That would mean he was a habitual drug user at 14. Stone fucked this timeline up so much that I couldn't believe two of the more central characters of the film.

3. One of the big things that worked about Bud Fox in the original was that he was nobody and wanted to be someone, so he sold his soul to the devil. Very simple, wanted to be rich. I don't know what the hell Shia's storyline was (He acted well in it about the same as Sheen in the original) But why is he so obsessed with the energy? Why does he seek out Gecko? And his revenge plan is so stupid (Despite his first being good, "I'm going to make him beyond rich, then destroy him, then at the first hint of his plan going wrong he gives it up)

4. How did Gecko get his license back for the market. And he's retarded to begin with. This whole film wouldn't have needed to happen if he was in court for 5 years. He honestly never had this idea??? He had most likely well over 100 million. He could have escaped with his family to Switzerland and continue trading globally. Hell isn't that why he went to London to begin with. Why even bother with court, he was the most powerful man in the world at that point. He's with his family (Who in the first film looked to be a loving and awesome father) and noone can touch him now.

In the end I did like this film, on nostalgia mostly . Loved Sheen's cameo. But I can't help but thing that the new film should have had Sheen and Terrence Stamp in it, make Gecko more of the central character and his allegory that Greed never Sleeps, not money. The acting and the basic plot saves it though. Stone's message, whatever the hell it is, is one of his worst yet. But yet it is his only good film in a decade.

C+

I have no interest in seeing this movie.

It was pretty terrible. Stone's flagrant use of silly, amateurish director tricks (swish pans, long tracking shots of buildings, lens in cuts) are distracting and serve no stylistic purpose. He treats the material as if the audience should automatically care about these occurances, after all he IS Oliver Stone, and this is a long awaited sequel to his much acclaimed former film. Yet, somehow, I could not have cared less about the poorly portrayed melodrama of Shia and his life. Speaking of the new big star that people seem to already be losing interest in, he really is a bad actor. He has a natural charm that works for a movie or two, until you realize that he's never really acting at all. He's just posing in front of a camera, scrunching up his face, and saying lines. Mulligan, whom I had not seen before, is clearly a talented actress, but this is an effortless performance given with bad material and directing. I barely even noticed Douglas. It is boring, trite, self-important, and often silly. Ultimately I walked out when Shia and Carey broke up, not sure how much I missed but I'm glad I cut my losses at that point.

Hadn't seen the original, but this one didn't keep my interest. At times I felt like it was over my head when it was focused on the Wall Street game, other times I was completely bored. The whistling bird old guy was the best part as he seemed so unintentionally random. Shia and Douglas I guess were solid.

C+

Seems like you're speaking for yourself there. That's less of a defense for Shia and more of an observation of pretty much every single post on this thread that stated Shia's performance, at least in this movie, was "solid" at worst.

Also not to defend the movie, which from a collective point of view obviously sucks. Again I am speaking from a collective perspective, as you mention people, not you individually, are losing interest in.

I was not saying that people are losing interest because they all think he is a bad actor, as I do. Rather that the general public is simply not as interested or infatuated with him as they were three years ago. When he starred in Transformers it looked like his star was on the rise and he would be the next big thing. Now he just isn't that played up in the media or the general public, as far as I can tell. I'm not suggesting that is a result of him giving a bad turn here, rather most people I know still like him but just don't really care about him anymore.

And the "you realize" was merely a figure of speech. I was entirely expressing my personal opinion there.

I really enjoyed the movie myself. I would give it the same rating as the original. I can see how fans of the original would be disappointed by this one, but I just found the original solid and don't worship at its altar like some. This was perfectly enjoyable, well-filmed, and well-acted. Douglas certainly isn't as awesome here as he was in the original, but he's still good. Surprisingly enjoyed Shia, and loved Carey, which isn't so surprising.

7/10 ( B )

Allow me to begin with the good things I have to say about WS: Money Never Sleeps...

1. It's got a killer funky soundtrack featuring David Byrne and Brian Eno that sets a jittery melodramatic tone.
2. Michael Douglas is still the rightful son of Kirk.
3. The facts are straight.

But alas, I must move on to the grim aspects of Wall Street: MNS...

1. Weasel Face. (aka: Shia LeBeouf) That guy's been pulling the same schtick forever. He was great in the role of Ecaf LeSaew in Holes because a Weasel Face was just what that the role required. Problem is, he's been coasting on the same WF ever since. Yawn.
2. Carey Mulligan. She's underused here, but I'm beginning to doubt she's even got what it takes to be a successful actress in the long run.
3. The story. Yow! What a byzantine schemozzle. By the end I cared less than when I started.


All in all, it appears that my initial instincts were correct.* I would have been better off not seeing this movie at all. Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps was like a failing bank - - it didn't hold my interest.


2 out of 5.





(* q.v.: my earlier post in this thread.)

Nice continuity.

Oh, please.

I was less than impressed with her in An Education despite the accolades the media heaped upon her, and even in Never Let Me Go, which I loved, I found Mulligan to be the least effective player. Sure - - she's getting a lot of attention right now, but mark my words, her star will fade far faster than most.

Nothing in this movie made any sense.

I like that Gordon won.