Wall Street - Il denaro non dorme mai

SPOILER WARNING

I'm afraid I have to add my voice to the others who have made negative comments on this film. I finally got to see it on HBO and just barely got through it. An absolutely dreadful sequel.

The story should have picked up where the first left off. I actually felt sorry for Bud Fox at the end as he walked into prison. Now I find out that everything just went swimmingly and he's now a multi millionaire after selling the airline that was so much a focus of the original story. A huge insult to all of us and an embarrassment to Charlie Sheen, as if he needed another one, in a cameo that had no point other than to wreck the character from the first Wall Street.

Don't like any of the actors here. Really miss Martin Sheen who always adds something in whatever he is in. Have no interest in the main characters this time around and I agree that Michael Douglas looks as if he can't stay awake and I don't blame him.

Sequels are virtually never any good. Once you catch lightning in a bottle, you don't go out and stand in a field in a rainstorm hoping you can do it again without getting electrocuted. Oliver Stone did himself and his reputation nothing but harm in this pointless, witless and uninteresting tale.

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.

I loved this movie until its final thirty minutes or so. During those thirty minutes you realize that Stone and his team of writers were searching desperately for a way to end the movie on a positive, hopeful note. We are left to plod along with them on this implausible track. Also, during the ending Gekko's daughter's character consistency is shot to hell and she appears as venal as the characters against whom she rails.

Those moments are especially disappointing because I believed that this movie had the potential to be Stone's best film ever. Carey Mulligan and Michael Douglas in particular delivered great performances. Shia Lebeouf is "good enough." The writing is fairly unpredictable then everything seems to be tied into a nice bundle near the end. The problem was that Stone couldn't quite bring himself to put the bow on that bundle. He wanted to add a bit of glitter to it, which seemed gaudy and completely out of place.

Bottom line: if this movie had ended on a somewhat dark note it would have reflected the reality of modern day Wall Street, and it would have made for a tighter, better movie.

It's worth watching, and if you liked the first Wall Street it probably won't disappoint you. You might want to leave during its third act, though :)

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.

You like songs, that's nice, they belong on the radio. There were so many dramatic moments ruined in this film by pushing in a song and turning it up LOUDER AND LOUDER, to try to make up for a dramatic moment that was lost by using a song. Dramatic underscore that's written by a real film composer is what makes the music work in a film. Stuffing songs into it is nothing more than the production company trying to make money selling a soundtrack album that has no real relationship to the film. You might notice on soundtracks they include songs that weren't even in the film! Ever since David Chase ruined The Sopranos with poorly placed songs people have come to accept this as what they should do. Get back to the basics of music scoring.

The plot was truly horrible. So many disjointed ideas that didn't come together to form any sort of story.