Wall Street: l'argent ne dort jamais

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.

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.

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.

I was looking forward to seeing what Oliver Stone & the ensemble he got together could do with an updated version of an even greedier Wall Street that was gambling with obscene amounts of money & making their own rules that the S.E.C. didn't do anything about or even try to understand it seems.

I was very disappointed. This follow up didn't fare well against the original...which is almost always the case. But with Stone directing again & Douglas in again...I thought this may have a chance. Some part 2's are just laughable...I guess they make money or they would stop doing them. The big exception of course was "The Godfather part 2".

Anyway - this movie just didn't have the snap, crackle & pop of the original. And I think the movie spent way too much time on the Jake & Winnie relationship played by Shia LaBeouf (wasn't that Glenn Campbell's name in the original "True Grit", well....maybe it was LaBeef) & Carey Mulligan. By the way...very sad about Campbell's Alzheimers admission.

When I saw this movie I knew that LaBeouf had been in a lot of Hollywood movies & must have been well thought of....but it was the 1st movie I had seen him in. I thought he did OK with the part he was given. But Mulligan was such an annoying character as Winnie....or was it Whiney? Every time she was in a scene it was like fingernails on a blackboard. Did anybody else feel that way about Mulligan's performance?

And as others have said...the ending was just not very good.

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.