Wall Street (1987)

Save your money for something good and enjoyable

Nice effects though.

A film with more than the usual spoiler issues. Talking about it in any detail feels akin to handing you a gift-wrapped present and saying, "I hope you like it -- It's a thriller about a diabolical secret experiment."

The film's masterful storytelling did its job. The message was clear. No need to overdo.

The characters are interesting and richly developed, with the exception of Darryl Hannah's underwritten character. I can see why she didn't like playing that role. Douglas is always a joy to watch, and makes a suave yet slimy villain. I wouldn't necessarily say he deserved an Oscar, but he did a fine job nonetheless. So did Charlie Sheen, who is actually the star of the film despite the fact that most people remember "Wall Street" for Douglas as Gordon Gecko. Sheen gives a fine multi-dimensional performance. I love the scenes between him and his father Martin Sheen, who plays his father in the film. Oliver Stone made a great choice casting the father-and-son team, since the tension in their scenes feels very authentic.There are some predictable plot turns and character arcs, but altogether Stone keeps the excitement going. I like how the climactic scene between Douglas and Sheen is shot without cuts, with the camera moving from person to person, keeping the tension going. If I knew at least an inkling about the stock market, I wouldn't be completely lost during certain scenes, but what can you do? I still think it's a fine film with solid performances.

I think this movie achieves almost perfect what it wants. A nice story about the Wall Street, money and crave. The camera gives nice images from New York, the actors are good (even though I sometimes find Charlie Sheen to act a little over the top), and the story has nice depth and a message. It perfectly shows what crave and money can do with you. It is able to destroy relationships, even your life. BUT: The story is just boring. It is so well made, but because it is so not relatable it is boring. Added to that, I wasn't really worried about the characters, I didn't feel for them, because if you think of it, you realize they are not in real danger. I mean... if Buddie would have failed on half of his way, what would have happened to him? He would have continued his "normal" lifestyle. That is just not that exciting. That is why the movie is just 'ok' for me

Young and ambitious stockbroker Bud Fox (Charlie Sheen) hits the big time when he ends up going under the wing of ruthless, but highly successful stockbroker Gordon Gekko (Michael Douglas). Gekko takes Fox under his wing and helps Fox to become a wealthy and successful stockbroker, but do wealth and power ultimately come at a price? The first 15 minutes or so of this film are explosive and extremely fast-paced and Oliver Stone certainly helps to give us an insight into stockbroking and the world of commodity sales etc. On the one hand this is interesting and sets the stage well for things to come, but on the other hand (to someone like me who knows nothing about the world of stockbroking), the rapid fire dialogue and early segments of the film make it difficult to ascertain what's actually going on? Does any of this have any relevance to the story or is Stone merely showing off? I'll let you be the judge of that.Another problem with the rapid fire script is that it doesn't really allow the characters much room to breathe (both Gekko and Fox always felt a bit one-dimensional to me and the script never seemed to allow much room for development). As a result of these things I found Wall Street to be well-made but also quite an alienating experience. If this had been presented in a less 'showy' manner then this could have proved to have been an interesting character study, but as mentioned before the flashy script never manifests itself in this manner and it ultimately leaves Wall Street feeling a bit superficial at times.The performances between Douglas and Sheen are both excellent and do make the film a little bit stronger; Douglas at this point in his career almost felt born for this role. The father/son dynamic between the Sheens was OK, but again probably would have been stronger if it had been given a bit more focus. I also thought that the ending was good and from a 'moral' perspective I felt that it was probably the best way to wrap it up.Wall Street is by no means a terrible film and does offer some interesting commentary by the time the credits roll around, but Stone's presentation in the main is a little too flashy and at times the film comes across as being a bit pretentious. It's an easy film to admire, but it's a little too cold and clinical to be enjoyed from an emotional perspective.

Definitely one of Oliver Stone's better films, this indictment of corporate raiders and unscrupulous stock brokers hasn't lost any of its impact since the same type of activities are still in practice, and the gap between rich and poor in the United States has never been higher. But nowadays, since Wall Street has learned to finance the Democrat Party and pay lip service in the press to liberal causes, we hear a lot less about "wall street greed" in the national media. Now many of them are just as hypocritical as they are greedy. But Stone's film is all about the Wall Street of its day. In other words, we get lots of suspenders, big gray cell phones, women with big hair, and shots of people smoking in public. Throw in a scene with a cheesy robot, and you have a an 80s film on your hands. Seriously, what was is with lame robots in 80s films? Rocky IV, R.O.T.O.R., Revenge of the Nerds, Short Circuit.... digressing here.The plot deals with a fresh-faced, but oily-haired Charlie Sheen working as a hustling young stock broker. He doesn't seem to be doing that well at it, he is mired in debt, and his working-class hero father doesn't respect his line of work. He spends every free minute trying to get into business with Michael Douglas, who is one of the most feared and respected traders in the business. Finally a box of Cuban cigars hand delivered on his birthday is enough to get Sheen into the door. Desperate to get on Douglas's good side, Sheen leaks some insider info about the airline his father works for. It ends up making Douglas some $$, and starts Sheen on his way quickly up the financial ladder. But as you'd expect, Sheen wants it all too fast, and he ends up not only using illegal insider trading practices, but he also ends up as a pawn in Douglas's plan to take over the the airline. You don't have to know all that much about the business to follow the story, but it helps to pay attention. There is a lot of dialogue, and most of it is important.The casting is exceptional. Charlie and Martin Sheen make a great father-son pairing. Probably better than they do in real life. Martin Sheen gets to do plenty of sermonizing about the value of hard work and whatnot, and you have to think he loved the chance to play this character. Michael Douglas gives probably his most memorable performance as the evil Gordon Gekko. "Greed is good..." etc... He is almost good enough to convince you his character isn't even that bad of a guy. Douglas actually rises about the character in a sense. Hal Holbrook is on hand as a veteran broker who tries to talk Sheen out of chasing the quick buck. He is always appreciated in any film. Wall Street strikes out, however, with its two main female characters. Darryl Hannah is lost as Sheen's tacked-on love interest. Its a thankless role she isn't even talented enough to handle. Honestly, why was she wearing a wet-suit in her scene on the beach. Wouldn't some kind of swimsuit have been more logical or hot? And Sean Young as Douglas's wife?? Always a train wreck, she was apparently such a problem on the set that her role was drastically reduced. Overall, a very good film though. 8 of 10 stars.The Hound.