Metascore
56

Mixed or average reviews - based on 16 Critics What's this?

User Score
8.6

Universal acclaim- based on 76 Ratings

Your Score
0 out of 10
Rate this:
  • 10
  • 9
  • 8
  • 7
  • 6
  • 5
  • 4
  • 3
  • 2
  • 1
  • 0
  • 0
  • Starring: ,
  • Summary: Bud Fox has his sights set on conquering Wall Street. When legendary broker, Gordon Gekko, takes him under his wing, Fox figures he's on his way. But the road to success is paved with all sorts of corrupt acts that compromise his integrity and sense of self. Will he be able to get outBud Fox has his sights set on conquering Wall Street. When legendary broker, Gordon Gekko, takes him under his wing, Fox figures he's on his way. But the road to success is paved with all sorts of corrupt acts that compromise his integrity and sense of self. Will he be able to get out before it's too late, that is, if Gekko will let him out? Expand
Watch On
Score distribution:
  1. Positive: 8 out of 16
  2. Negative: 2 out of 16
  1. Reviewed by: Mike Clark
    100
    It's slick, melodramatic, even inherently trashy - but a blue-chip moviegoer investment. [11 Dec 1987, p.1D]
  2. Reviewed by: Angie Errigo
    80
    As with Platoon, Stone captures the horrific essence of an environment and transfers it to us without the need for prior knowledge. Dazzling filmmaking.
  3. 75
    The world of Wall Street is that of a lush soap opera-"Dynasty" with a moral. It gets the barn burning, all right, but it has no impact. [11 Dec 1987, p.A]
  4. 60
    Douglas plays Gekko with a terrible intensity. He raves and rants, but he has a rascal's humor.
  5. Wall Street is a silly, pretentious melodrama that panders to the current fascination with insider trading. [10 Dec 1987, p.1]
  6. Wall Street wants to be a shrewd piece of movie making, our own insider's tip, but it's tinny and thin and close to moral bankruptcy. As for its veracity, it's probably no closer to Wall Street than "The Bad and the Beautiful" was to the skills of movie making. And it's a lot less fun. [11 Dec 1987, p.1]
  7. For all its hip, rat-a-tat dialogue and a sharp photographic look that give Wall Street a feeling that something exciting is happening, the movie's a bankrupt deal. [11 Dec 1987, p.E1]

See all 16 Critic Reviews

Score distribution:
  1. Positive: 5 out of 5
  2. Mixed: 0 out of 5
  3. Negative: 0 out of 5
  1. CRL
    Jul 28, 2011
    9
    Wall Street combines one of the most interesting and deepest villains ever in Gordon Gekko with an interesting and emotionally-charged plot asWall Street combines one of the most interesting and deepest villains ever in Gordon Gekko with an interesting and emotionally-charged plot as well as a great performance by Charlie Sheen to make one of my all-time favorite films. Expand
  2. Mar 18, 2011
    7
    I had heard a fair amount about Wall Street in the past and had dismissed it as likely being more or less what it did end up being:I had heard a fair amount about Wall Street in the past and had dismissed it as likely being more or less what it did end up being: interesting, but not absorbing. I wanted to have watched it, though, to provide context for when I eventually watch Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps, and the fact that it stars Charlie Sheen made it all the more relevant and fascinating. Charlie, as Bud Fox, is in nearly every scene of the movie, and given recent events it was hard to watch for anything other than his performance. Having watched and enjoyed Platoon last year, though, I wasn't really surprised that he performed quite well. He was dark and brooding and very intense, and more or less nailed the role, even intermittently causing me to forget that I was watching Charlie Sheen. Michael Douglas also did a fantastic job at embodying the ruthless, unscrupulous character he was portraying. That character, in turn, embodied the tone and the overarching theme of the movie, most notably with his famous "greed is good" speech. In fact, Michael Douglas was awarded the Academy Award for Best Actor for this role, and I would say deservedly so, although I haven't seen any of the other performances that were nominated that year. Martin Sheen was also great as Bud's father, but his casting made it so that, again, examining the acting - in this case Charlie and Martin's father-son dynamic - was more interesting than watching the actual movie. Add that to Charlie's mere presence, Darryl Hannah's lack of charm, wit, or sexiness as Bud's love interest, and the laughable 80's-style art, decor, fashion and technology that featured in the movie and it made for an overwhelming number of distracting factors that precluded any real immersion in the movie itself. In the end though, the main distracting factor - studying Charlie Sheen - is also the most compelling reason to watch, at least at this point in time. Combine that with Michael Douglas' performance and Wall Street becomes quite a worthwhile viewing experience. (http://diversionary-tactics.blogspot.com) Expand
  3. Jan 24, 2012
    7
    I liked the film. It was driven by Douglas's amazing performance through out and the rest of the cast was solid as well. I did not likeI liked the film. It was driven by Douglas's amazing performance through out and the rest of the cast was solid as well. I did not like Charlie Sheen at all in this film and thought he was terrible for this kind of role. The film is interesting and definently worth the watch but dont expect it to be the greatest film you have ever seen. Expand
  4. Jul 20, 2014
    7
    Overall, not many complaints here. Michael Douglas is phenomenal here and really commands your attention when he is on the screen. Heck, heOverall, not many complaints here. Michael Douglas is phenomenal here and really commands your attention when he is on the screen. Heck, he commands it even when he is not on screen. The film as a whole is also very interesting. It feels a bit rushed in the beginning, which can lead to confusion, but as it slows down and settles in, things improve. However, the film still requires that you know at least a little bit about the stock market and even then, there will be things that will be confusing for many. But, the story is well-written and well told thanks to solid direction from Oliver Stone. Aside from Douglas, the acting is also pretty solid, though there are some moments of very poor acting from some of the supporting members and Charlie Sheen just never really works too well for me here. He is alright, but gets outclassed by Douglas. Overall, this film is made by Douglas and has a pretty effective story surrounding him that never really fails to have you attention. In spite of its negatives, the overall product is pretty good and enjoyable. Expand
  5. Jan 15, 2012
    7
    It was an interesting movie but overall it had quite a bit of flaws. I still enjoyed it though and thought Michael Douglas was an amazingIt was an interesting movie but overall it had quite a bit of flaws. I still enjoyed it though and thought Michael Douglas was an amazing lead. Worth the watch imo. Expand

Trailers