Wall Street - Il denaro non dorme mai

Michael Douglas's performance was great. But he usually delivers solid performances. Beyond that, the acting in this movie was not great. I don't understand why Shia LaBeouf and the Carrie Mulligan were cast in the movie at all - they seem so weak and lacked even an iota of glamor. Susan Sarandon's character seemed unnecessary. The movie did have some funny lines. I liked the Ducatis and some of the wardrobe design. The cinematography was excellent - especially the racing scenes with the Ducatis! However, overall this movie was nowhere near as good as the original. The ending of this movie was very abrupt. Overall, it was a complete letdown.

I wouldn't go as far to say that a Wall Street sequel was "long overdue" but it was more or less necessary due to the open ending of the first film. Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps takes place more than twenty years after the events of the first film. Gordon Gekko is now getting out of prison after serving an eight year term for trading insider information. He meets a young Wall Street broker named Jake Moore, who is also his future son-in-law. He sees Jake's ambition and decides to aid him in his climbing of the Wall Street ladder. But, as would be expected from the sly Mr. Gekko, he has other intentions and we see almost a repeat of the first film, just set in the future coinciding with the 2008 stock market crash. It seems unoriginal but I think the only reason it works is because it is a fairly intriguing alternate reality take on an event we all witnessed.

This film starts out promising enough. Seeing Michael Douglas reprising his role as the infamous Gordon Gekkos is pleasing and putting his character in these modern times is interesting, as he is now no longer a huge name on Wall Street, and there are now crooks way more greedy than he ever was. The introduction of all the new characters is also interesting. Shia LaBeouf plays his eager young Wall Street fast talker role fairly well, not as well as Charlie Sheen from the original, but it's not bad. Carey Mulligan is as beautiful as ever and does a great job as Winnie Gekko, Gordon's daughter. Frank Langella even has a brief role as an older stock broker who doesn't have anything left to live for after the crash. However, great performances can only take a film so far.

What Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps suffers from the most is just being really boring. It starts out so interesting and promising, but as the plot develops it eventually stops going anywhere and flat lines. This film doesn't help out the non-stock broker types like the original did. You have to know the lingo and you have to understand how Wall Street works and you need a lot of back story on the 2008 financial crash. I myself understand these things to a certain degree, but this film just moves too fast and doesn't let you keep up with the lingo and the fast talking. And so once you get behind you're behind for the whole film. I understood enough to follow the gist of the plot, but I also think that it is just too dull of a plot to really be that enticing whether you understand it or not. For a film that is over two hours long, it really goes nowhere after a certain point.

This isn't a terrible film, but it just doesn't really amount to much. There are some good things about it, like all the performances as well as Oliver Stone's direction. He pulls off some slick editing that gives the film a more technologically hip feel to it. If the film had kept with this same pace from start to finish it probably would have been a lot better. But when you boil it down there isn't much to see here and your mind moves right along as soon as the credits role.

Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps isn't the sharp, critical film that its makers want you to think of it as. The sequel to the supremely influential, endlessly quotable original from the 80's is a dull whimper about what triggered the present financial meltdown and though it's cut from the same cloth as the original, it possess all of the bark yet, sadly, none of the bite.

Gordon Gekko is a name that defined an era. Played by Michael Douglas twenty three years ago, he reverberated in the minds of viewers as a ruthless, amoral investor without a soul. Years later, the sequel finds him released after serving his prison sentence. Cut to seven years after his release, and its 2008, the dawn of the financial crisis. Gekko is now known as a speaker publicly vilifying the notion of greed in corporate America while simultaneously, and some would reckon quite ironically, publicizing his book inspiringly titled "Is Greed Good". A loner who travels in subways, he is estranged from his daughter Winnie (Carey Mulligan, androgynously unglamorous) who is engaged to a young trader named Jake Moore (Shia LaBeouf). Jake bumps into Gekko at one of his speeches (the films finest scene) and the two form a mentor-protégé relationship that irks Winnie but allows Jake to benefit by plotting revenge from Bretton James (Josh Brolin, the films principle villain), suspected of being responsible for the suicide of Louis Zabel, a close friend and confidant of Jake.

If the film sounds like a mess of relationships, then it is. As muddled as Stone's own political activism it has no clarity on what its trying to say. From trying to rationalize the reasons behind the market crash to the impulsive nature of human behaviour, it doesn't get either right. Not helping are the actors that Stone assembles. It's a mystery to me why Shia LaBeouf is constantly being thrust down viewer throats in film after film by studios convinced he is the next best thing. He is not, and despite being dressed up in expensive designer garb, cannot pass off as being anything more convincing than a working intern. His relationship with Gekko has none of the enticing quality that Charlie Sheen's Bud Fox did and a cameo appearance by Sheen only underscores this disparity. Douglas himself has none of the limelight. He has some powerful lines, but feels largely sidelined by the revenge/relationship/murder subplots and behaves uncharacteristically, especially in the very last scene (these were probably added as an afterthought). After showing some promise of returning to his incendiary, often infuriating filmmaking style and point of view with his previous film W, director Stone seems to have gone back to being comfortable working with drab studio approved material.

Not only was the original Wall Street a tremendously entertaining film, but one that was blessed with the critical foresight of its maker. The sequel partially entertains but does not have a new perspective. It is neither critical nor insightful and could have, with the same script and actors, been the work of a lesser director than Stone. The films themes are also impersonal - none of the characters suffer directly from the financial crisis the way they did in the original, they suffer from their own incompetent decision making, a sharp departure from how the original handled and fused stock trading with personal loss and gain.

Director Oliver Stone and Michael Douglas. Again. Twenty years later. Gecko is out of jail. And he wants to work a deal with Jake, his daughter's boyfriend (Shia LeBeuf). Frank Langella is Lou, the old stock pro at his office. Susan Sarandon (Janet ! In rocky horror) is mom. John Mailer and Josh Brolin are in here. Check out austin pendleton, who was so awesome in Whats up Doc and Skidoo (they are both incredible films, if you haven't seen them.) lots of music by David Byrne, Brian Eno. More shenanigans in the stock markets... Gecko says he just wants to have a good relationship with his daughter, but he seems to be manipulating the boyfriend. To what end....? What's more important... money? Revenge? Or does he really just want to be on good terms with his daughter? Michael Douglas won the oscar for part one, but no oscars for this one. Interesting that acc to imdb, this was filmed at the end of 2009, just a few months AFTER the actual bottom of the economic crash of 2008, 2009. This one was just okay; doesn't have the impact or power of the first one.

Having waited impatiently over a year to see this film I found it disappointing. I will tell you why.

Firstly, Oliver Stone and Michael Douglas always said they were amazed that Gordon Gekko was an inspiration for many a man to take up a job on Wall Street. Gekko had been intended to be a repulsive character representing greed. The fact that he was, in fact so inspirational was the reason that Wall St was such a hit. In the new film Gekko's edginess is gone. He seems almost human, and save a couple of good lines, he is an inspiration for nobody.

Second, The financial crisis has provided remarkable material that could have been made into a fast moving and exciting storyline similar to the first film. Instead Oliver Stone has chosen to tell a moral tale. The trouble is the character that Stone holds up as a helpless victim deserved his fate and Gekko also makes a choice that is supposedly the moral one but he does it only because he can afford to.

The message in the story? For me it's just that nobody knows what is moral any more, not even people who make films about morality.

Should you watch it? Yes, it's engaging and fun but don't expect the wheeling, dealing testosterone of the first film. This is a story about people, not deal making. It's just OK.