Wall Street and Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps

Wall Street and Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps

Watched: December 30^th 2010

Alright, I was really, really hoping to enjoy these movies. Both bored me to death. A key reason for this is that I’m not at all versed in money vernacular. So half of the movies’ dialogue I couldn’t comprehend. I could keep track of who was screwing over who by the actors’ reactions. The broad strokes were there, but the finer details were lost. I think it’s important to make intelligent films. An audience should not be spoon fed. However, use too much on jargon and your movie will not be relatable to certain viewing groups—which can break the films gross. Beyond that though, the acting was a major problem. Charlie Sheen (who played Fox in the original) did not tug at my heartstrings with any of his weepy, whiney moments. I felt no reason to care for his character at all; and with no interest in the main character why care about the movie about them? His trashy girlfriend was actually interesting but not onscreen enough to save the film. However, her detached voice was not as captivating as her dance between Gekko and Fox. Michael Douglas (Gordon Gekko) was the only one who made a dislikable character charming enough to keep the audience engaged, but he was weighted down with wordy speeches that dragged on (an overall problem in BOTH films). Douglas was great in both but despite a supporting cast of great actors; the sequel missed the mark as well. Shia LeBeouf and Carey Mulligan did as much as they could with crappy roles. Both connected to the ridiculous emotions expected of them and they made valiant attempts to add truth to totally unbelievable moments. Why at the end, after making vast amounts of money, did Gordon’s donation to Jake’s (LeBeouf) charity make Winnie (Mulligan) forgive both of them despite being totally furious with both and claiming to “not care about the money” throughout the film, is beyond me. Josh Brolin did a fantastic job playing the “bad guy” in the sequel, but again he’s hardly featured. Oliver Stone’s shots of the city with numbers and symbols streaming through and all the side shots (specifically those with the dominoes) only lengthened the already boring film and provided no deeper meaning to the film. The effects weren’t even all that visually appealing either. Literally all the wrong people were featured, the villains were more interesting than the heroes, and most of the shots could’ve been cut. I suppose if I understood stocks better I could appreciate the first film as a classic… but there’s no excuse for the sequel.