10/13/10 - Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps

Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps (2010, 133 min)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1027718/

Well I finally got around to seeing Wall Street's sequel about two days before it leaves theaters. A lot of the reviews gave it around the B range but I was still hoping it was a solid movie. I didn't have exceedingly high expectations but I was hoping for a fun movie.

The film picks up in 2008 which is seven years after Gordon Gekko (Michael Douglas) has gotten out of prison. The main plot of the movie is how he wants to return to being an important investor while Jake Moore (Shia LaBeouf) has a complicated relationship with his daughter Winnie Gekko (Carrie Mulligan). However, there's also another plot involving Moore's mentor Louis Zabel (Frank Langella) and his company being destroyed by Bretton James (Josh Brolin).

The problem with Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps is that it splits it's time almost haphazardly between two different plots. We have the "family" plot that revolves only around Gordon, Jake, and Winnie. Then there's the "revenge" plot revolving around Gordon, Jake, Louis, and Bretton. The movie bounces back and forth between each and never seems to give enough attention to one to make it more important than the other. I guess this is good in one way but it's not great. For one, it shows how money isn't the only important thing but that family is also way up there. This might sound cheesy but it is a point the movie stresses repeatedly. It's bad however, because I never felt like Winnie or Bretton were fleshed out enough. In Wall Street, I said it was great because there were two great characters in Gordon and Bud Fox and they were surrounded by flat characters that all served their own purpose in creating a really good story. In fact, the story was almost absurd but it made a point and made it well. Here, director Oliver Stone again creates two good characters in Gordon and Jake. The problem here is that there's too many secondary characters that demand too much attention. Louis Zabel is an example of what works here. He's only really in the beginning. He's facing lots of problems and he commits suicide. So then he serves as a motivation for Jake to seek out revenge against James. Jake's Mother (Susan Sarandon) is also a good character. She's somewhat there for comic relief but she's there in only two scenes and serves a purpose and that's it. She's not there too much or too little. Winnie is an example of where the movie fails for me. She's given enough character to make her obviously a secondary character, right below Gordon and Jake. However, she really doesn't have any personality besides "the relationship with my father is messed up" and that can only go so far. Had the movie instead only focused on this family plot or the revenge plot it would have been great and probably actually been better than Wall Street. But as it stands, it bounces back and forth awkwardly and doesn't really succeed at either.

As for Gordon Gekko I think he's created again fantastically. The first scene featuring him is simply amazing. As he leaves federal prison he looks worn down and beaten. This is how the character should look. He returns to his slimy ways in no time and with his climb to being a billionaire complete, he also returns to slicking his hair back which only makes him look more untrustworthy. In the end I guess he comes around to be nice to Winnie but like I mentioned above I just don't think this plot is all that great as it's delivered. The Jake Moore character is well done but he's no Bud Fox. There's not the conflicting morals and tension here that Charlie Sheen was so deftly able to deploy. Fortunately, there's not a "No no no no no" moment from Shia LeBeouf which is at least one positive there. I'm still not a huge fan of his overall acting talent though.

One small thing from the film that I really liked is the soundtrack. It's usually done during the shots of the city and between the scenes. The tunes are memorable and really work with the imagery of the city and the plot. I was surprised at how much I liked this. As for these scenes, I also think they work really well. Naturally, establishing New York City as the hustle and bustle city that it is is important for the plot. There's a few other scenes in London but simple establishing shots work there. Anyway, New York City's landscape is captured well and the constant motion of the city is shown which works well with the "Money Never Sleeps" part of the title. One last thing here is that there's sometimes some odd cuts in the movie. There's a weird use of on screen graphics here and there throughout and there's the occasional use of the split screen technique. I don't think either of these things were necessary but they don't really detract from the movie either. They do seem a little out of place though as they're used so sparingly.

Overall, I gave this film a 5/10. Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps just isn't as good as the first one. It's not that it's bad though it's just that it tries to do too much. Having a simple revenge plot or a simple family plot would have instead provided Gordon and Jake amazing character arcs.