Mixed or average reviews - based on 16 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 8 out of 16
  2. Negative: 2 out of 16
  1. Reviewed by: Mike Clark
    It's slick, melodramatic, even inherently trashy - but a blue-chip moviegoer investment. [11 Dec 1987, p.1D]
  2. 88
    Stone's most impressive achievement in this film is to allow all the financial wheeling and dealing to seem complicated and convincing, and yet always have it make sense.
  3. Reviewed by: Angie Errigo
    As with Platoon, Stone captures the horrific essence of an environment and transfers it to us without the need for prior knowledge. Dazzling filmmaking.
  4. 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]
  5. Reviewed by: Staff (Not Credited)
    Stone intentionally set out to make a good old-fashioned liberal drama about the evils of unchecked capitalism. This approach results in a film with few shades of gray and lots of moralizing speeches, but Stone nearly pulls it off through his usual visual verve and keen casting instincts.
  6. Wall Street isn't a movie to make one think. It simply confirms what we all know we should think, while giving us a tantalizing, Sidney Sheldon-like peek into the boardrooms and bedrooms of the rich and powerful.
  7. Reviewed by: Jay Carr
    Oliver Stone's Wall Street plays like "Platoon" in civvies. It's a good bad movie, unable to muster the moral firepower of the earlier film, but entertaining on the level of a big, bold, biff-bam-pow comic strip that likes high-profile high-rolling more than it perhaps realizes. [11 Dec 1987, p.45]
  8. Despite some casting problems, director paints a convincing portrait of a frenzied world. [11 Dec 1987, p.D1]
  9. Reviewed by: Desson Howe
    The film is best when Gekko and Fox power it up, but Wall Street falls into the red when Stone's heavy-handed moralizing takes over.
  10. 60
    Douglas plays Gekko with a terrible intensity. He raves and rants, but he has a rascal's humor.
  11. Wall Street is a silly, pretentious melodrama that panders to the current fascination with insider trading. [10 Dec 1987, p.1]
  12. 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]
  13. Reviewed by: Richard Corliss
    The entire film is in fact a ferocious meditation on the dilemma of a son choosing his father. Which one will Bud emulate: the noble failure or the triumphant sleaze? The outcome is never really in doubt, so streamlined and predictable are the characters. [14 Dec 1987, p.82]
  14. The sensibility of this movie is so adolescent that it's hard to take it as seriously as the filmmakers intend us to.
  15. Reviewed by: Staff (Not Credited)
    Watching Oliver Stone's Wall Street is about as wordy and dreary as reading the financial papers accounts of the rise and fall of an Ivan Boesky-type arbitrageur.
  16. 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]
User Score

Generally favorable reviews- based on 44 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 5 out of 5
  2. Mixed: 0 out of 5
  3. Negative: 0 out of 5
  1. Jan 15, 2012
    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 amazing lead. Worth the watch imo. Full Review »
  2. Jan 11, 2014
    Esta pelicula me gusto mucho, tuvo drama."Wall Street" es una pelicula que tiene un excelente guion y un excelente argumento, con buenos personajes y con excelentes actuaciones de Charlie Sheen y Michael Douglas. Full Review »
  3. Jan 24, 2012
    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 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. Full Review »