@Kermode (continuing from previous comment) So this would justify LaBoeuf's character in the film who isn't ashamed to be a wall street broker but instead 'does the right thing'. In a scene with Gecko, when asked if he's an idealist or capitalist, LaBoeuf's character wittily responds he's a 'realist', and that is the message of the film: to know where to stand between idealism and capitalism in an imperfect world. I enjoyed this sequel, Gecko's comeback, and also the cameos from the 1st one.
I agree, I largely enjoyed it too and I thought it really did explore the complexities of the current world we live in, and the chaos of the GFC. I also thought that LeBoef did a great job as the young and slightly naive, but not stupid, protege, and I thought the dynamic between him and Mulligan really worked. The ending was the only thing that sucked.
@Kermode It's true that O.Stone has melo'ed but I think what he attempted to do with Wall Street 2 is to wrap up what he started 20 or so years ago (with Wall Street) with a positive note altogether. He doesn't want to condemn capitalism or the profession of wall street brokers but at the same time, in this sequel, he is telling us what the most valuable things in life are; they are 'time', as Gecko points out in the film, and 'family', hence the happy family and friends gathering in the end
I just revisited this movie on the 10 years of the crisis , imo it has the same issues that the godfather part III compared to part II regarding the character of Michael Corleone and Gordon Gekko two iconic characters that went through the terrible process of redemption , but you don't see them as they go through that process the struggle to get to that point , those characters are not made to be morally good they are what they are and we love them because of that , we don't like an old hesitating weak Michael Corleone the same goes for Gordon Gekko here , there is only one character that I can think of that went through that process successfully and its Darth Vader on the return of the jedi , but the different there is that you can see him getting into that struggle the whole first two movies and at the end is just one part that you see him at the end as a kinda morally good person not the whole movie because that would've kill the character imo , exactly what we got on the other two examples
Excellent assessment. I was disappointed with Wall Street 2 [aame way about Shia LeBouf I might add] The rason I was so disappointed was that what Stone was looking at in the original Wall Street has in fact gotten much worse and like Kermode, I could've done with more shouting....
The real problem with this film is Gordon Gekko. In the first film he becomes one of the great villains of American cinema. In this film he's "learned his lesson" (?) in jail and spends most of the film trying to do good and be a hero. Only toward the end does he revert back to his villainy. It would have been far better if there was no rethinking his ideals while in prison and he comes out the same as he went in, perhaps a bit more angry and bitter and careful. A great villain is neutered and spends most of the film being a wimp. Boring. And yeah... Shia LeBoef...
I disagree. Gordon clearly starts to formulate a plan to deceive Shia' s character from very early on, upon their first or second meeting. The real problem comes from his sudden u-turn 10 minutes before the end of the film, it's as if Douglas is playing a different character
@@cayranm I feel like the last 10 mins happened because a guy like him clearly would have wanted a son not a daughter and the idea that he could potentially have a real father son relationship with his own blood plays on his mind, so when looks at the bottom line on the spreadsheet he thinks about the £100 million and does what he thinks may satisfy all parties in an effort to bring things back to the point they were at before they went to Switzerland, hoping this will be a way to gain access to his grandson which is the real goal. Also when Jake met with Gordon and tells him about his grandson, I feel like Gordon was really considering the trade, but what was offered was not enough, so when Jake & Winnie take down Bretton James and Gordon gets in with Churchill Schwartz this helps him to reconsider his position.
Dreadful film. Nearly walked out the cinema but me and my pal were a bit drunk and began to find it hilarious - it's that bad. Shame as Douglas has made plenty decent films. Le Beef on the other hand...
He's being far too generous in this review. It is genuinely one of the worst films I have ever seen. Dreadfully acted, convoluted plot and horribly shot.
![[กูเพิ่งซื้อมึงปิดหนี] 20 นาที ผมรีวิวเกมที่แย่ที่สุดในโลก CONCORD](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/XhC-3q3Ii7I/mqdefault.jpg)
Perhaps our four month old film critic would have preferred Stone's post natal depression psychodrama,
'Bawl Street : Baby Never Sleeps'.
@Kermode (continuing from previous comment) So this would justify LaBoeuf's character in the film who isn't ashamed to be a wall street broker but instead 'does the right thing'. In a scene with Gecko, when asked if he's an idealist or capitalist, LaBoeuf's character wittily responds he's a 'realist', and that is the message of the film: to know where to stand between idealism and capitalism in an imperfect world. I enjoyed this sequel, Gecko's comeback, and also the cameos from the 1st one.
I agree, I largely enjoyed it too and I thought it really did explore the complexities of the current world we live in, and the chaos of the GFC. I also thought that LeBoef did a great job as the young and slightly naive, but not stupid, protege, and I thought the dynamic between him and Mulligan really worked. The ending was the only thing that sucked.
On the plus side, it had a memorable cameo from the great EHW.
@alabam5 hello there. we checked the file and it works ok. have you tried to refresh your browser?
@Kermode It's true that O.Stone has melo'ed but I think what he attempted to do with Wall Street 2 is to wrap up what he started 20 or so years ago (with Wall Street) with a positive note altogether. He doesn't want to condemn capitalism or the profession of wall street brokers but at the same time, in this sequel, he is telling us what the most valuable things in life are; they are 'time', as Gecko points out in the film, and 'family', hence the happy family and friends gathering in the end
as soon as he said shia la beouf was a charisma vacuum i knew would like the review
4:42- extreme ponder
I just revisited this movie on the 10 years of the crisis , imo it has the same issues that the godfather part III compared to part II regarding the character of Michael Corleone and Gordon Gekko two iconic characters that went through the terrible process of redemption , but you don't see them as they go through that process the struggle to get to that point , those characters are not made to be morally good they are what they are and we love them because of that , we don't like an old hesitating weak Michael Corleone the same goes for Gordon Gekko here , there is only one character that I can think of that went through that process successfully and its Darth Vader on the return of the jedi , but the different there is that you can see him getting into that struggle the whole first two movies and at the end is just one part that you see him at the end as a kinda morally good person not the whole movie because that would've kill the character imo , exactly what we got on the other two examples
Excellent assessment.
I was disappointed with Wall Street 2 [aame way about Shia LeBouf I might add]
The rason I was so disappointed was that what Stone was looking at in the original Wall Street has in fact gotten much worse and like Kermode, I could've done with more shouting....
I wonder about that too!
at 4:33-4:45 the guy looks like Thomas Jane :)
The real problem with this film is Gordon Gekko. In the first film he becomes one of the great villains of American cinema. In this film he's "learned his lesson" (?) in jail and spends most of the film trying to do good and be a hero. Only toward the end does he revert back to his villainy. It would have been far better if there was no rethinking his ideals while in prison and he comes out the same as he went in, perhaps a bit more angry and bitter and careful. A great villain is neutered and spends most of the film being a wimp. Boring.
And yeah... Shia LeBoef...
I disagree. Gordon clearly starts to formulate a plan to deceive Shia' s character from very early on, upon their first or second meeting. The real problem comes from his sudden u-turn 10 minutes before the end of the film, it's as if Douglas is playing a different character
@@cayranm I feel like the last 10 mins happened because a guy like him clearly would have wanted a son not a daughter and the idea that he could potentially have a real father son relationship with his own blood plays on his mind, so when looks at the bottom line on the spreadsheet he thinks about the £100 million and does what he thinks may satisfy all parties in an effort to bring things back to the point they were at before they went to Switzerland, hoping this will be a way to gain access to his grandson which is the real goal. Also when Jake met with Gordon and tells him about his grandson, I feel like Gordon was really considering the trade, but what was offered was not enough, so when Jake & Winnie take down Bretton James and Gordon gets in with Churchill Schwartz this helps him to reconsider his position.
A fisher man always sees another fisherman from afar.
Mark,
You left "China Syndrome" off your list of Michael Douglas zeitgeist films.
@scoop05333 Congratulations...
I quite like Douglas its a shame about his cancer
The film’s well acted, stylish, well directed & intriguing, however Shia LaBeouf’s acting is poor, the film’s poorly written, unfocused & long. (59%) (3/5 stars) (mixed)
This movie had a terrible terrible ending; I wanted to vomit.
Dreadful film. Nearly walked out the cinema but me and my pal were a bit drunk and began to find it hilarious - it's that bad. Shame as Douglas has made plenty decent films. Le Beef on the other hand...
1st
He's being far too generous in this review. It is genuinely one of the worst films I have ever seen. Dreadfully acted, convoluted plot and horribly shot.