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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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