Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps

Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation | Release Date: September 24, 2010

5.7	USER SCORE Mixed or average reviews based on 164 Ratings

USER RATING DISTRIBUTION

Positive:

Mixed:

Negative:

Watch Now

Stream On

Buy on

Stream On

Expand

Review this movie

VOTE NOW

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Please sign in or create an account before writing a review.

Check box if your review contains spoilers

0 characters (5000 max)

User Reviews

User score By date Most helpful

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

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

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

DiezmartinezOct 10, 2010

Esta secuela tardÃa y fallida de El Poder y la Avaricia (1987) tiene algunos momentos buenos -los primeros 15 minutos, dominados por Frank Langella y... ehh... como decÃa, los primeros 15 minutos, dominados por FrankEsta secuela tardÃa y fallida de El Poder y la Avaricia (1987) tiene algunos momentos buenos -los primeros 15 minutos, dominados por Frank Langella y... ehh... como decÃa, los primeros 15 minutos, dominados por Frank Langella- y nada mÃ¡s. El resto del filme, incluyendo su absurdo desenlace incoherente y la deshilachada direcciÃ³n de Stone -Â¿andarÃ¡ en Ã¡cido?- es un desastre irredimible.… Expand

1 of 4 users found this helpful13

All this user's reviews

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 ofWall 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

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, andHonestly, 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