A young and impatient stockbroker is willing to do anything to get to the top, including trading on illegal inside information taken through a ruthless and greedy corporate raider who takes the youth under his wing.
Now out of prison but still disgraced by his peers, Gordon Gekko works his future son-in-law, an idealistic stock broker, when he sees an opportunity to take down a Wall Street enemy and rebuild his empire.
The story of the famous and influential 1960s rock band The Doors and its lead singer and composer, Jim Morrison, from his days as a UCLA film student in Los Angeles, to his untimely death in Paris, France at age 27 in 1971.
On the Wall Street of the 1980s, Bud Fox is a stockbroker full of ambition, doing whatever he can to make his way to the top. Admiring the power of the unsparing corporate raider Gordon Gekko, Fox entices Gekko into mentoring him by providing insider trading. As Fox becomes embroiled in greed and underhanded schemes, his decisions eventually threaten the livelihood of his scrupulous father. Faced with this dilemma, Fox questions his loyalties.Written by
Oliver Stone used food to symbolize Gordon Gekko's voracious nature in the early scene where he takes Bud Fox to lunch at an exclusive restaurant. Gekko treats his new protégé to his favorite off-the-menu dish: Steak tartare (raw beef) with a raw egg on top. See more »
(at 43:27 and 1:48:14) In the two instances that Bud calls the Wall Street Chronicle to tip them off about the shares, although the occasions are days apart, the same people are sitting/standing/walking at exactly the same places with the same dresses (down to the wrinkles of the rolled sleeves of the manager), with the same set of pictures scattered on the table. Obviously, the two scenes were shot one right after the other. See more »
[a crowd of businessmen stampede into an elevator]
See more »
Building illustrations are shown during entire end credits See more »
Let's put it this way: I did enjoy the picture, but I'm not particularly eager to see it again in the near future
After making "Platoon" in 1986, film director Oliver Stone decided to once again cast Charlie Sheen as a youth caught up in loyalties between two conflicting father figures. Only this time instead of caught between two opposing sergeants in the jungles of Vietnam, he's a Wall Street broker and his opposing sides he must choose between are his father played by his real-life father Martin Sheen and a conniving and greedy corporate executive played by Michael Douglas, who won the Oscar for Best Leading Actor the following year.
"Wall Street" shows Oliver Stone's skill and craftsmanship as a filmmaker. There's not a bad-looking or badly-done moment in the entirety of the running time. And we have some great performances, especially by Michael Douglas and Charlie Sheen. However, "Wall Street" is not as good as "Platoon" simply because I'm afraid, the subject matter is not very interesting and the story is basically a standard rise and fall cliché.
I have some strong praises for "Wall Street", however a lot of complaints as well. Apart from being able to predict the story a little too easily to be shocked or absorbed, I also didn't become so drawn into the story because I didn't feel a real connection between Charlie Sheen and either Michael Douglas or Martin Sheen. As a matter of fact, between him and the latter, the relationship seemed kind of watered down. He has no connection at all to his love interest played by Darryl Hannah; their scenes just fill up time and slow things down. But my biggest complaint is that although the movie is about greed and pride preceding the fall, frankly the business of stock broking is a little uninteresting to the casual viewer such as me. Maybe if Oliver Stone had chosen to explore a more human side to the story outside of the company walls – strengthen the relationship between Charlie Sheen and Martin Sheen and Darryl Hannah – then he would have had a better film.
Nevertheless, in the end, I do give "Wall Street" a marginal recommendation. It's a professionally-made movie and it does hold out as an entertaining and certainly interesting picture, however the premise does wear out rather quickly. Let's put it this way: I enjoyed the picture, but I'm in no particular hurry to see it again.
4 of 4 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful to you?
| Report this