Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation | Release Date: September 24, 2010
5.8
USER SCORE
Mixed or average reviews based on 156 Ratings
USER RATING DISTRIBUTION
Positive:
57
Mixed:
76
Negative:
23
Watch Now
Stream On
Review this movie
VOTE NOW
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Check box if your review contains spoilers 0 characters (5000 max)
6
grandpajoe6191Sep 27, 2011
"Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps" is for the nerds who are obsessed with economics. However, its a decent movie even in money-looking standards.
3 of 3 users found this helpful30
All this user's reviews
4
MarcDoyleSep 27, 2010
Coming from a huge fan of the first film, I was terribly disappointed by Money Never Sleeps. It has major pacing problems, Mike Douglass is criminally underutilized, and the story - the characters' story - is just not compelling. It spendsComing from a huge fan of the first film, I was terribly disappointed by Money Never Sleeps. It has major pacing problems, Mike Douglass is criminally underutilized, and the story - the characters' story - is just not compelling. It spends much of the 2+ hour runtime covering the tragic financial crisis of 2008, which is dramatic and interesting, but Gordon & Company's role within that crisis left me bored. Mulligan is decent, but LaBeouf just doesn't do it for me. He doesn't hold a candle to Sheen's Bud Fox. Expand
2 of 2 users found this helpful20
All this user's reviews
0
conschobharOct 4, 2010
This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Am I missing something here? This is one of the worst films I have ever seen. I spent most of the film wondering, "Is this a joke?". One thing I will say is that there are some fine actors in this movie but they play such one dimensional, unlikeable, and inconsistent characters that their talent is completely wasted. Michael Douglas as Gordon Gekko is the best part of this movie, but the ending completely ruins that. None of the motives of these characters make any sense, the plot makes no sense, and much of the financial "jargon" used makes no sense. The dialogue is not intelligent, it comes straight from CNBC and Fox News. So many horrible things about this film:

1. Stone's gratuitous special effects
2. A completely dated look and dull cinematography often makes one wonder if we're still in 1987. I understand Stone was trying to capture the vibe of the original (complete with a David Byrne soundtrack!) but my the result is simply painful to watch for a film set in 2008
3. An embarrassing cameo from Charlie Sheen
4. The central romantic pairing is unconvincing and impossible to get behind
5. The pacing is completely off, never giving a clear sense of time passing and repeatedly relies on newspaper headings and tv anchors to provide narration

I know better than to go into a Stone film expecting a light touch, but does every aspect of this movie have to ooze heavy handedness? The absolute atrociousness of this film could actually develop into a cult following. Move over Twilight, next time a play a movie drinking game, this will be at the top of my list.
Expand
2 of 2 users found this helpful20
All this user's reviews
1
BoredatWorkOct 6, 2010
This movie was awful. First off the actual storyline has major problems - 1 full of cliches, 2 totally predictable, 3 unnecessary confusion. Overall just very poor writing. Inexcusable given the number of awesome real life storylines in theThis movie was awful. First off the actual storyline has major problems - 1 full of cliches, 2 totally predictable, 3 unnecessary confusion. Overall just very poor writing. Inexcusable given the number of awesome real life storylines in the financial crisis that could have been just ripped off and been awesome. Second on my list of gripes is that the acting just stinks. Shia Lebeouf should not be in this movie, he was terrible. Michael Douglas had a few moments but his character was generally just a confused mess, really disappointing. The rest of the cast was blah. The main bad guy was pathetic. Just a sorry wasted opportunity. Expand
2 of 2 users found this helpful20
All this user's reviews
5
charles19Nov 19, 2010
This movie falls short, for the simple reason that there was no character that actually one could feel sympathy or affinity for. The plot was facile. The ending was the worst part of the movie and was a terrible let down. This movie took theThis movie falls short, for the simple reason that there was no character that actually one could feel sympathy or affinity for. The plot was facile. The ending was the worst part of the movie and was a terrible let down. This movie took the easy way out and left the audience unsatisfied. Unlike the original, the pacing was uneven and the characters weakly presented. Expand
2 of 2 users found this helpful20
All this user's reviews
6
whitSep 27, 2010
If you've seen an Oliver Stone film (especially within the past few years) then this movie is not going to surprise you much. Oliver Stone and Tony Scott both seem to be stuck in some weird Peter Pan phase where the older they get the dumber,If you've seen an Oliver Stone film (especially within the past few years) then this movie is not going to surprise you much. Oliver Stone and Tony Scott both seem to be stuck in some weird Peter Pan phase where the older they get the dumber, louder, and more over-stated their movies get. It's worth the price of admission, but not much more. Expand
1 of 1 users found this helpful10
All this user's reviews
4
ShiiraOct 5, 2010
About Goldman Sachs, journalist Matt Taibbi wrote, "The world's most powerful investment bank is a great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity, relentlessly jamming its blood funnel into anything that smells like money." AfterAbout Goldman Sachs, journalist Matt Taibbi wrote, "The world's most powerful investment bank is a great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity, relentlessly jamming its blood funnel into anything that smells like money." After all, the vampiric have no compunction, no second thoughts about bleeding its victims until they're in a cadaverous state of immutable inanition. This is no time for a tempered film about our economy. But unfortunately, as a result of transforming Gordon Gekko(Michael Douglas) from a villain into an anti-hero, "Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps" can't match Taibbi's rage because the filmmaker is hampered by a vampire squid with qualms about bloodsucking. Just in case you haven't heard, "Rolling Stone" rocks again. Anybody who's picked up a copy of the hallowed magazine lately, knows that Taibbi's post-crash coverage of our financial marketplace, regularly outshines its music reporting, and now, this somewhat feeble sequel to the 1987 original that co-starred Charlie Sheen(as Bud Fox). While Gekko was doing time for insider trading, deregulation(the Phil Gramm-orchestrated revocation of the Glass Steagall Act in 1999) paved the way for the vampire squids to steal without amercement, since now there was no government interference to keep those cephalopods honest. Outside the federal penitentiary on Gekko's release date, a rapper walks straightaway to an awaiting limo that the white collar ex-con presumes is his, which has the accidental effect of recalling the very recent past when musicians were the stars at the musical institution, not the sociopaths that Taibbi regularly writes about. "Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps" gets bogged down by humanity; its new characters, primarily, Gekko's daughter Winnie(Carey Mulligan) and her fiance Jake Moore(who in a smartly-written film, would have prefigured Winnie's windfall), played by Shia LeBouf, retard the pacing with their earnest love for each other, which seems out of place in a movie where love of money should search and destroy anything pure and unalloyed, and dominate the film's time of possession. "Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps" needs a heavier heavy to counterbalance all that guppy love. As Bretton James(a stand-in for Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein), Josh Brolin, who portrayed George W. Bush in the filmmaker's last effort(the controversial and sometimes incendiary "W."), needed a scene where he interacts contemptuously with somebody from the general public, a scene in which the moviegoer can see how our ordinariness serves as both mirror and platform for people of his ilk's rampant megalomania. Considerably less provocative this time out, "Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps" shies away from dramatizing Barack Obama, the sitting president who helped bail out Goldman Sachs and AIG. But he's inferred. In a brief throwaway shot of black commuters, who, quite pointedly, share the same subway car with Gordon and Jake, the filmmaker creates a juxtaposition between the haves and have-nots, which serves as a sad reminder about how the former senator out of Illinois, essentially lied, reneging on his campaign promise of change, since he retained some key cabinet holdovers from the Bush administration in a plot to maintain the status quo. By keeping Obama off-screen, however, the film misses a golden opportunity to drive home the point that it's the financial sector which runs our country, stretching its long tentacles up inside the puppet head of our president. Also off-screen, often for prolongated chunks of time, is Gordon Gekko himself, whose absence reinvents the omnipresent icon from the late-eighties into an inverted version of Hannibal Lecter, the, yes, principled cannibal from Jonathan Demme's "The Silence of the Lambs". Whereas the Anthony Hopkins character eats total strangers(he never hurts Clarice Starling), Gekko is willing to eat his own(like Bernie Madoff). But alas, the blood funnel regurgitates Winnie, striking a false note in the way a man such as Gekko would operate, as it's Taibbi's assertion that vampire squids are relentless, entailing an unhappy ending of insolvent portfolios and reamed asses, should one ever cross your path. Expand
1 of 1 users found this helpful10
All this user's reviews
5
SmellyCatOct 4, 2010
In the first Wall Street film, Oliver Stone made a very straight-forward, dialogue heavy film that focused on the business and dirty dealings of Wall Street stockbroker industry. And what we got was a film with an amazing performance fromIn the first Wall Street film, Oliver Stone made a very straight-forward, dialogue heavy film that focused on the business and dirty dealings of Wall Street stockbroker industry. And what we got was a film with an amazing performance from Michael Douglas surrounded with endlessly dull talking business deal scenes and a horrible performance from Charlie Sheen. The film just didn't even make the characters likeable or dislikeable or even have discernable personalities. With this second Wall Street film, Stone almost goes the complete opposite way of the first, adding numerous unnecessary flourishes such as motorcycle scenes, crazy taxi drivers, and long shots of rich people's jewelry that really distract you from the characters. Stone needs to find the balance. The acting this time around was good, and the chemistry between LaBeouf, Mulligan, and Douglas is amazing. It's just that I still don't care about the business talk, or even quite frankly, the stock market industry. Maybe it's just that the topic of the movie doesn't interest me, but Money Never Sleeps was another disappointment. Expand
1 of 1 users found this helpful10
All this user's reviews
4
cockaigneSep 27, 2010
Shia's character is not believable as an uberethical protagonist, a twenties-nothing making enough to afford a lavish manhattan apartment even before he gets mixed in with the big hitters, and getting married at such a young age. Nobody canShia's character is not believable as an uberethical protagonist, a twenties-nothing making enough to afford a lavish manhattan apartment even before he gets mixed in with the big hitters, and getting married at such a young age. Nobody can relate to that. Shia essentially plays the antithesis of Bud Fox: already comes from money vs. comes from nothing, already has a great job and great relationship with the management vs. underdog, wants to settle down vs. wants to live it up. Bud Fox's character is what made the first movie so relatable - we understood Bud Fox. Other than that whole mess, the movie is very polished, the acting is solid, and you may be tricked into thinking this movie is worth your Friday evening. Until the ending comes and you want to vomit your popcorn on your date because the whole thing gets tied up so nice and neat it seems like a disney flick. The ending is what makes this movie a waste. Expand
1 of 1 users found this helpful10
All this user's reviews
4
raco2046Oct 9, 2010
3/4 into this film make you smile due to the Talking Heads, Geeko-Bud Fox (why not change the name the second time around?) moment and 90s reminiscence. But... the closing scene and overall end is a tremendous let down. Why o why does Stone3/4 into this film make you smile due to the Talking Heads, Geeko-Bud Fox (why not change the name the second time around?) moment and 90s reminiscence. But... the closing scene and overall end is a tremendous let down. Why o why does Stone do this? He enthralls us to go back and so dissapointly lets everything go to pieces. Please don't let me read or see a 'Director's Cut'. Rodrigo Prieto's photography is consistently good, as expected. Expand
1 of 1 users found this helpful10
All this user's reviews
5
brewcrewprideOct 5, 2010
It is risky business making a sequel on movie, especially one that had major success and inspired people. There is a lot to live up to, and the extreme pressure of not ruining the name of the franchise. This movie has a strong premise andIt is risky business making a sequel on movie, especially one that had major success and inspired people. There is a lot to live up to, and the extreme pressure of not ruining the name of the franchise. This movie has a strong premise and comes out ready to take on something that could actually end up being more successful than the first movie but it strays on one problem. This film weaves through repairing relationships and greed. What doesnt work though is that it is focusing on is now Gecko's weakness of wanting to repair his life instead of being so ambitious then he was before. He later grows into his ambition again I do admit, but he still is plagued by love. This film spends way to much time at first on a new subject than the last film was based on. Gecko is so far OUT of the action that it takes awhile towards the end where we get a little bit of him actually being in the action again. Along with skimming the service on Gecko, this film spends a lot of time emphasizing on Gecko's quest to make his relationship right, but it just skims the service and their really isnt any depth that makes this the least interesting. The script is very hollow and my advise would be that if they cut back on the Act I and went for more of the rest of the movie after, this film COULD have been a better, but they still would have to fix up a lot of flaws. Overall, this movie is okay, it certainly doesnt offer what the original "Wall Street", I could never really tell what this movie was trying to prove but whatever the case is, there are a lot of gaps that had some potential but are strained back and focused on staying out of the action of Wall Street. Expand
1 of 1 users found this helpful10
All this user's reviews
4
platguy4Oct 5, 2010
A purely average film in every respect. Though Michael Douglas fits perfectly into the role, the remaining cast either perform averagely or are hampered by poor script writing. Not only do the characters lack depth, theyre lifeless andA purely average film in every respect. Though Michael Douglas fits perfectly into the role, the remaining cast either perform averagely or are hampered by poor script writing. Not only do the characters lack depth, theyre lifeless and boring. If Shia Labouf's character is supposed to offer an alternative ethos or lifestyle choice to the greed of bankers, im not surprised the bankers are still going strong. To top it off the story is simply bland; this could have been a really potent film about big money and the crisis that recently swept the world, but as it stands its just another sub-standard love story woven in with a bit of revenge and crime. Expand
1 of 1 users found this helpful10
All this user's reviews
4
deerammNov 2, 2010
all this film done was ruin the orginal classic. Douglas was not the orginial charchter le bouf was a pounce and with all that not working they added a love element that was like melting choclate in your arm pit
1 of 1 users found this helpful10
All this user's reviews
4
OscarPicks2010Dec 26, 2010
Wall Street 2 doesn't live up to its original also starring Michael Douglas. It falls flat on every point that it was trying to make, Shia LaBoeuf's performance is a shame, and the movie simply bores.
The original with Michael Douglas and
Wall Street 2 doesn't live up to its original also starring Michael Douglas. It falls flat on every point that it was trying to make, Shia LaBoeuf's performance is a shame, and the movie simply bores.
The original with Michael Douglas and Charlie Sheen is enjoyable and scandalous, the updated version is dull and annoying. Although Michael Douglas's performance almost match up to his original performance, Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps makes us & the money sleep. OscarBuzz: Best Actor (Michael Douglas, very long shot)
Expand
1 of 1 users found this helpful10
All this user's reviews
3
fantasySep 27, 2010
Marc I couldn't agree with you more as this was a terribly disappointing effort. After 20 years you would expect they would come up with a better story than this. The Gordon Gekko character of the original movie captivated the silverMarc I couldn't agree with you more as this was a terribly disappointing effort. After 20 years you would expect they would come up with a better story than this. The Gordon Gekko character of the original movie captivated the silver screen. He was so slick that he made us all think that greed was good. They recast him in this movie as a pathetic softee who is basically good although absolutely brilliant as a financial analyst. The movie just meanders at a very slow deliberate pace. Within 20 minutes we all know where this movie is ultimately going. There are absolutely no surprises. Just a so so movie that's soon forgotten. And the man we all came to see Michael Douglas as GG has been reduced to nothing more than a supporting actor in this flop. Expand
4 of 6 users found this helpful42
All this user's reviews
8
TVJerryOct 3, 2010
This sequel takes up 8 years after Gekko has been released from jail and the economy is going crazy. Although his influence is felt throughout, this narrative follows a driven young stockbroker (Shia LaBeouf) and his girlfriend (CareyThis sequel takes up 8 years after Gekko has been released from jail and the economy is going crazy. Although his influence is felt throughout, this narrative follows a driven young stockbroker (Shia LaBeouf) and his girlfriend (Carey Mulligan), who happens to be Gekko's daughter. Navigating the financial details is a challenge, but the basics of love and revenge are pretty clearly spelled out. Director Oliver Stone is at the top of his game: rich locations, attractive cinematography, snazzy editing and uniformly rich performances. If only the screenplay were a little less trite and filled with attempts at profundity, it would be a great film. Expand
2 of 3 users found this helpful21
All this user's reviews
10
Forrestgump1Oct 9, 2010
"Wall Street Money Never Sleeps , as far as sequels go is stunning and immersible , Cleverly written , with Micheal Douglas bringing back his iconic role as Gecko , But the real show stealer is newcomer Shia Labouf who delivers an Oscar"Wall Street Money Never Sleeps , as far as sequels go is stunning and immersible , Cleverly written , with Micheal Douglas bringing back his iconic role as Gecko , But the real show stealer is newcomer Shia Labouf who delivers an Oscar worthy performance" .. A+ Expand
2 of 4 users found this helpful22
All this user's reviews
7
AudiowombatSep 24, 2010
Entertaining overall and if you can follow the financial jargon, it hits home regarding the depth of stupidity and greed which came so close to taking us all down. MD is excellent. Not so much SL. Yet, the human elements of the story justEntertaining overall and if you can follow the financial jargon, it hits home regarding the depth of stupidity and greed which came so close to taking us all down. MD is excellent. Not so much SL. Yet, the human elements of the story just don't hold together...a little too pat. A little too tidy. Expand
1 of 2 users found this helpful11
All this user's reviews
9
Mengels7Sep 25, 2010
As a huge fan of the original, I loved the sequel, though it did seem a bit slow at points. If you've never seen the original, this would bore you to sleep in a heartbeat.
1 of 2 users found this helpful11
All this user's reviews
5
JamesLOct 3, 2010
This film is another step backwards for Oliver Stone. It seemed like he was trying to tell two stories but did not succeed with either. One was the return and redemption of Gordon Gecko while the other was the systematic system of Wall StreetThis film is another step backwards for Oliver Stone. It seemed like he was trying to tell two stories but did not succeed with either. One was the return and redemption of Gordon Gecko while the other was the systematic system of Wall Street that led to the 2008 collapse. The scenes with the Federal Reserve and Hank Paulson figure were vintage Stone except he failed to follow through. The old Stone would have weaved a tapestry of tension, deception, and intrigue of the corruption with Gecko as our eyes. Instead he inserted this lame love story and tale of family redemption that was rather unexciting. Stone captured more views of the New York skyline than he did of Wall Street.. Expand
1 of 2 users found this helpful11
All this user's reviews
8
VelendrisSep 27, 2010
Decent movie all around, though I agree that the Wall Street lingo can be a bit confusing sometimes. Regardless, Micheal Douglas is amazing in his revitalized role as Gordon Gecko. The storyline is overall decent, and you will get chillsDecent movie all around, though I agree that the Wall Street lingo can be a bit confusing sometimes. Regardless, Micheal Douglas is amazing in his revitalized role as Gordon Gecko. The storyline is overall decent, and you will get chills once the financial crisis begins. Expand
1 of 2 users found this helpful11
All this user's reviews
6
RyanGeeSep 28, 2010
In a decade where franchise reboots are of the norm, Oliver Stone brings back his eighties dog-eat-dog film in a perfect time corresponding with present-day economic turmoil. With his sequel Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps, Stone delivers aIn a decade where franchise reboots are of the norm, Oliver Stone brings back his eighties dog-eat-dog film in a perfect time corresponding with present-day economic turmoil. With his sequel Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps, Stone delivers a solid and entertaining film, even though it is not quite sure which direction it wants to take. Money Never Sleeps is set two decades after the original film, where hotshot stock investor Gordon Grekko (Michael Douglas) has been just released from prison. Instead of the villainous character Douglass portrayed in the original, Grekko decides to try to reestablish his relationship with his scornful daughter Winnie (Carey Mulligan). Winnieâ Expand
1 of 2 users found this helpful11
All this user's reviews
10
bojOct 7, 2010
Wall Street Money Never Sleeps was a very surprising film. I liked it very much. It is a must for everybody connected in any way to the financial world. 10
1 of 2 users found this helpful11
All this user's reviews
9
YoungProdigyOct 13, 2010
I thought this movie was great. It has an inside view of how Wall Street is run. The cast was great many people thought Shia Labeouf had a weak performance but i think he fit into the role well. Give it two thumbs up.
1 of 2 users found this helpful11
All this user's reviews
5
DukeNov 2, 2010
"Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps" doesn't succeed to tell the rise and fall of a man who's obsessed with money and his job, instead it tells a love story that is not believable nor intriguing. Full review:"Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps" doesn't succeed to tell the rise and fall of a man who's obsessed with money and his job, instead it tells a love story that is not believable nor intriguing. Full review: http://www.dukeandthemovies.com/search?q=Wall+Street+Money+Never+Sleeps Expand
1 of 2 users found this helpful11
All this user's reviews
3
DiezmartinezOct 10, 2010
Esta secuela tardía y fallida de El Poder y la Avaricia (1987) tiene algunos momentos buenos -los primeros 15 minutos, dominados por Frank Langella y... ehh... como decía, los primeros 15 minutos, dominados por FrankEsta secuela tardía y fallida de El Poder y la Avaricia (1987) tiene algunos momentos buenos -los primeros 15 minutos, dominados por Frank Langella y... ehh... como decía, los primeros 15 minutos, dominados por Frank Langella- y nada más. El resto del filme, incluyendo su absurdo desenlace incoherente y la deshilachada dirección de Stone -¿andará en ácido?- es un desastre irredimible. Expand
1 of 4 users found this helpful13
All this user's reviews
10
Lopez17Nov 14, 2010
Oliver Stone's "Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps" is one of those rare non-consecutive sequels that works. In fact, it is one of the very few non-consecutive sequels ever been made; "Money Never Sleeps" picks up the story of "Wall Street.â
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews
8
DarkCriticSep 28, 2010
Wall Street-Money Never Sleeps gets the job done for the sequel and it accomplish for Gekko,so he thinks that he really turns himself into good or bad.
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews
5
TheUnpaidCriticSep 24, 2010
If you're not savy to "wall street speak" it can be a little confusing. But, all in all, above average performances by a stellar cast, very good storyline and, that most important thing to me in a movie, great pacing.
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews
6
cabales1Sep 28, 2010
Enjoyed this remake....most aren't nearly as good as the original, and this one is no exception. But having said that, the cinematography was super (New York never looked so good) and the cast was superb. The story line was a bit of aEnjoyed this remake....most aren't nearly as good as the original, and this one is no exception. But having said that, the cinematography was super (New York never looked so good) and the cast was superb. The story line was a bit of a letdown, but still an engaging movie. Expand
0 of 2 users found this helpful02
All this user's reviews
6
richardradOct 6, 2010
Oliver Stone loves conspiracy theories, and this movie is no exception. "Wall Street Money Never Sleeps" has splendid cinematography and some fine acting from always watchable Michael Douglas (back as Gordon Gekko), and Josh Brolin. ShiaOliver Stone loves conspiracy theories, and this movie is no exception. "Wall Street Money Never Sleeps" has splendid cinematography and some fine acting from always watchable Michael Douglas (back as Gordon Gekko), and Josh Brolin. Shia LaBeouf and Carey Mulligan are only OK. This Wall Street is better than the last, but during the second half the plot sort of falls apart, and the dialog is poor. That said, the subject is compelling and the movie has a nice take on the Bear Stearns/ Lehman Brothers mess in 2008. Worth seeing. But you can wait for the DVD Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews
6
nutterjrDec 10, 2010
What made the original Wall Street film exciting to watch was the focus on the call-me-greed Gordon Gekko and his twisted ideology that infected his protege as well. What made this sequel less appealing was the sheer number of parallelWhat made the original Wall Street film exciting to watch was the focus on the call-me-greed Gordon Gekko and his twisted ideology that infected his protege as well. What made this sequel less appealing was the sheer number of parallel unnecessary stories and characters that simply distracted the audience from the main subject. That and the fact that Shia laBeouf is not a good casting choice - in fact he is the wrong choice for any role. Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews
4
MT_WriterSep 25, 2010
In the original Wall Street movie, even the names had moxie. Bud Fox, the blooming thief; Gordon Gekko, the cold-blooded lizard.

In the sequel Wall Street 2: Money Never Sleeps, Shia LeBoeuf attempts to replace Charlie Sheenâ
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews
6
TonyOct 12, 2010
There are great performances from Douglas, LaBeouf, and Mulligan that make the film worth seeing, but it clobbers you over your head repeatedly with its message in a truly obnoxious way. Also problematic were its length (maybe about 20There are great performances from Douglas, LaBeouf, and Mulligan that make the film worth seeing, but it clobbers you over your head repeatedly with its message in a truly obnoxious way. Also problematic were its length (maybe about 20 minutes too long--ridiculous racing scene, I'm looking at you) and laughably bad CGI. Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews
6
JonnyFendiJan 17, 2011
If you asked me: what were they thinking to resurrect 23 year old movie for a sequel? Well, let me tell you, it is all about money! Just like every successful film that has sequel to follow later, a well-experienced PLATOON (1986) Director,If you asked me: what were they thinking to resurrect 23 year old movie for a sequel? Well, let me tell you, it is all about money! Just like every successful film that has sequel to follow later, a well-experienced PLATOON (1986) Director, Oliver Stone eventually settles his first sequel. Michael Douglas replays one of his lifetime famous performances as Gordon Gekko, like what he did in 1987. It tells the notorious corporate raider Gekko has finally got out of prison where he redeemed his sin on illegal insider trading. The film also focuses on Jacob Moore (Shia LaBeouf), the young ambitious trader who is the fiancé of Gekko daughter, Winnie (Carrey Mulligan). There are several Cameo appearances, include main character from the first one, Bud Fox (Charlie Sheen). Douglas himself seems to be lack of space to repeat his charisma as seen on its predecessor, the script could not reserve enough space to describe his zero to hero situation smoothly, Douglas is just fine. Carey Mulligan once again shows her capability as one of the most promising Actresses in thiz generation. Two corporate tycoons were stirring conflict among Jake character played by Josh Brolin and Frank Langella, recently they had something in common, both of them portrayed President character in 2008, Langella convincingly played as Richard Nixon in FROST/NIXON and Brolin acted the other-side of George W. Bush in short-titled movie W. (also directed by Stone). Oliver Stone is a Director who always improvises with different methods. At thiz movie, he used a lot of attractive graphics and split-screen techniques like we had ever seen in his previous works, NATURAL BORN KILLER (1994) and U TURN (1997), which I like it so much. But, something is disturbing me, the promising storyline during almost the entire film crashes down in the end. The plots rush into solution too quickly. I know any single deathly rumor can kill any market stock instantly in thiz wide-open market. But hey, at least you give something detail to make it real. It is an awful ending. Even while the ending tries to consolidate everything with centerpiece of human relationship. At the end, if someone tells you, It is not about the money, it is about anything else, no matter how will you debate on a topic, trust me it is not true! Even Gekko once said, money is a b!tch that never sleeps.

Visit My Blog on JONNY'S MOVEE: http://jonnyfendi.blogspot.com
Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews
5
DirtyCashFeb 2, 2011
Bland and unsatisfying sequel to a light weight classic from yesteryear. Poor casting, soapy screenplay/story topping it with the most embarrassing cameo in the history of film. A movie that self destructs, it should never have been attemptedBland and unsatisfying sequel to a light weight classic from yesteryear. Poor casting, soapy screenplay/story topping it with the most embarrassing cameo in the history of film. A movie that self destructs, it should never have been attempted to be made on the basis of a hand full of silly human-interest plot devices that would have looked outdated even back in the 80's. Uncomfortable to watch. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
7
Khunter4382Jul 11, 2011
Solid script, acting, and overall entertainment. Douglas does another fantastic job and the scenes with his character are the most riveting, though he doesn't appear in this film as much as he should. The performances here are all excellent,Solid script, acting, and overall entertainment. Douglas does another fantastic job and the scenes with his character are the most riveting, though he doesn't appear in this film as much as he should. The performances here are all excellent, but the script gets a tad bogged down. This still makes for an entertaining 2 hours, though I don't know that the repeat-viewing value is as strong as the first film. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
6
PhoenixeuhouaiNov 29, 2011
It was okay, entertaining, nothing more, nothing less.
It's probably a bit too economics-obsessed-oriented.
This is the kind of movie you watch without really thinking.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
8
spadenxJan 15, 2012
Everyone seemed to expect Wall Street 2 to be a re-package version of the first film but its really its own film and it did well seperating itself from the first film and establishing itself as its own good film. Yes a good film because IEveryone seemed to expect Wall Street 2 to be a re-package version of the first film but its really its own film and it did well seperating itself from the first film and establishing itself as its own good film. Yes a good film because I liked it. I think LaBeouf was a good lead, Douglas is great, Brolin was a good villian, and the rest of the cast was solid as well.

The one big flaw is that Brolin's character seems like the villian type but hes not as straight forward as Gekko was in the first film. He is more secretitive and I feel it hurt the film quite a bit. They could have done a better job at putting Brolin's character into the limelight. Still enjoyed the film though.
Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
7
imthenoobJan 24, 2012
I liked this film a lot more then the first film. Shia was a great lead (better than Sheen from the first film imo) and Michael Douglas is great as well, so is the rest of the cast. The whole problem I had with the film is that you knewI liked this film a lot more then the first film. Shia was a great lead (better than Sheen from the first film imo) and Michael Douglas is great as well, so is the rest of the cast. The whole problem I had with the film is that you knew Brolin's character was the villian but he never really felt like it. Thats what made the first film so great, Douglas was a great villian in the first film but in the second film there really is no villian and it hurt the film quite a bit. I still enjoyed it though, Definently worth the watch. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
7
Critic2012Apr 17, 2012
Director Oliver Stone (PLATOON) presents the sequel to his Academy-Award winning film WALL STREET, in which we find a more subdued and less volatile Gordon Gekko (Michael Douglas) who is released from prison and emerges once again into theDirector Oliver Stone (PLATOON) presents the sequel to his Academy-Award winning film WALL STREET, in which we find a more subdued and less volatile Gordon Gekko (Michael Douglas) who is released from prison and emerges once again into the world, struggling to connect to his daughter (Carey Mulligan) while drawing her fiance (Shia LaBeouf) into the deceiving world of money. The film presents itself as a tale of revenge, greed, corruption, and love: however, the issue of greed remains everlastingly at the center. Not the best as far as sequels go, but it delivers. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
7
Meth-dudeJun 10, 2017
It's a fairly entertaining and well made movie. The acting was good, the events were well described and there was some real tension at times. It may have been a little bit too melodramatic and the movie could've benefited from a shorterIt's a fairly entertaining and well made movie. The acting was good, the events were well described and there was some real tension at times. It may have been a little bit too melodramatic and the movie could've benefited from a shorter running time, but it was watchable. You should watch it if you're interested in the big wall street crash or if money is appealing to you. If not, you're probably better off watching something else. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
3
Moo-viesNov 30, 2016
Wall Street Money never Sleeps is a manifest to the embourgeoisement of Oliver Stone.
Between the original film and this one, the approach of this movie went from a social critic to a collaborator of the system.
A shameful admittance of
Wall Street Money never Sleeps is a manifest to the embourgeoisement of Oliver Stone.
Between the original film and this one, the approach of this movie went from a social critic to a collaborator of the system.

A shameful admittance of one's personnel philosophical failure and losing its soul because of 30 years of embourgeoisement. Shame on you Mr Stone.
Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
4
amheretojudgeNov 5, 2018
by contradicting its own methods..

Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps Stone's after apocalyptic world of the previously played characters which was ought to work like an epilogue, instead shucks away the integrity through it. What was once an
by contradicting its own methods..

Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps

Stone's after apocalyptic world of the previously played characters which was ought to work like an epilogue, instead shucks away the integrity through it. What was once an ethically challenged world, what was once three dimensional, has now narrowed down to more simplicity that it claims to be a sensibility. Stone lops off the soul of this brutal corporate world and makes it your usual revenge based script. On terms of execution and editing, Stone, as always, doesn't hold back on trying new stuffs, but unfortunately in here it backfires vigorously, he fails to keep the tone persistent.

There are few bits well crafted. Few conversation that lures you in, few dialogues that holds you tightly onto your seat, but before you know it, it starts the clock back to zero by contradicting its own methods. The narration is neither adaptive nor gripping, and ticking for more than two hours, the overkill sets in early. It stretches its somewhat good moments to a point where the audience breaks. The emotions are overridden and the characters are undercooked. Its thoughts are platitudes and the turns predictable, it is practically a weaker version of its predecessor, personally I prefer the good old 80's familiar methods.

Douglas is back on the throne and this time he has evolved into a much more mature character. But unfortunately, none of the other characters has the potential to ping-pong back his ace. LaBeouf, the protagonist, doesn't have what it takes to get your hands dirty in this cold and dry profession. The one who has the guts to do so, is underused and that is Brolin in his leather jacket. Mulligan gets a more safe and mellow role to portray Douglas's daughter which she is convincing in. Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps is a huge swing and a miss, it should have actually slept its way through.
Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
3
FilipeNetoDec 14, 2019
Honestly, I still don't understand why this movie exists.

This movie is the sequel to the movie "Wall Street" which Oliver Stone directed in the late eighties. It's strange for a sequel to be nearly twenty years away from the original, and
Honestly, I still don't understand why this movie exists.

This movie is the sequel to the movie "Wall Street" which Oliver Stone directed in the late eighties. It's strange for a sequel to be nearly twenty years away from the original, and if we look closely at the original movie, I honestly think it was not worth investing in this movie. In fact, comparing them is fatal for this movie, which is not even half the quality of the 1987 movie.

The film shows the return of Gordon Gekko, just out of prison where he paid for the stock fraud he committed, and the attempts of a young stockbroker to approach him, taking advantage of the fact that he is engaged to the daughter of the former financial shark. What we see next is highly predictable, and the slowness with which it happens does not help. It feels like the movie has been purposely stretched to last longer without the script having material to justify it.

Michael Douglas returns to his old character, Gekko, for more of the same. Okay, the character has evolved and looks softer, no longer the rude amoral bastard we saw in 1987. I think the prison stay and aging softened him, and Douglas tried to reflect that in the way he interpreted it. But whoever saw the original saw everything and will miss old Gekko. I also enjoyed the performance of Frank Langella, who gave birth to a responsible and sensible businessman who, trapped by finance sharks, chooses the one that seemed the only honorable way out. On the other hand, Shia LaBeouf and Carey Mulligan are obnoxious. LaBeouf spent the entire movie copying Charlie Sheen in the 1987 movie, which brings nothing new or original to this movie when compared to the previous one, and Mulligan had a cliché and depressing interpretation of a character she couldn't understand.

The film also no longer has the moralizing background that the previous one had. The previous movie, in fact, was able to show the darkest, most selfish side of the financial market, with speculation, greed, how a group of profiteers can break up whole firms and send hundreds of people out of unemployment just to make money. This movie forgets all this, puts it all behind the scenes, to accompany a bland family drama between Gekko, his daughter and the man who wants to marry her.

Personally, it was a disappointment. It was impossible for me not to compare the two films and this one inevitably lost out. Not even Douglas's performance totally saves this movie.
Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews