Two movie reviews for today. First is a review of the sequel of the 80’s hit Wall Street; Wall Street 2 money never sleeps. Then a review of the 80s sci fi hit, Tron.
Wall Street 2: Money never sleeps
I only recently saw the first Wall Street and enjoyed it but wasn’t overly impressed with it. I’m guessing that if I had seen it back in the day I would have enjoyed it more, since it would have felt new and fresh. I wasn’t really expecting much from the follow up but was fairly confident it wouldn’t be terrible. I’d have to say that my prediction was just about correct. I enjoyed it, but felt there was a lot of room for improvement.
Some of the stuff I liked:
- Gordon Geko was a little changed but who he was in his heart of hearts was still the same
- Josh Brolin was excellent as to be expected and I was a fan of Shai in this movie since he was nervous and stammering the whole time
- The way they explained why Geko was in jail so long, since the circumstantial stuff Charlie Sheen got on tape in the first movie didn’t seem like a huge slam dunk
Stuff I thought could have been done better:
- Geko’s motivation at the very end seemed kind of forced, and maybe they could have made that scene longer and given Michael Douglas a longer more detailed speech
- The time that takes place between scenes is hard to keep up with at the beggining of the film, are days passing, are months, etc?
- Much of the money making / money loosing is rushed although it kind of has to be I guess. The biggest example of this is the economic collapse. More details would have been helpful, although it might have made the movie too long.
- Charlie Sheen made a cameo… the character wasn’t Bud Fox. I know Geko called him Bud Fox, but he totally acted like charlie sheen and not at all like what Bud Fox would be acting like……. it was a money cameo though based solely on the fact that I called it at the begining of the movie.
Stuff I hated:
I hate explaining things like this cause I don’t know enough about film but i’ll do my best. There was a lack of consistency in the feel of the theme in terms of production and cinematography. I feel that a movie should stick to one style of film and not mix and match styles. For example, if you have voice overs in the movie, you usually need to lead off with a voice over and end with a voice over and maybe have two or thee additional voice over moments in the movie. If you don’t set up the movie as the type where you have an omnitiant point of view and then right in the middle of the movie you do a freeze frame and have the main character do a voice over, it will take a lot of the viewers out of the moment. Instead of thinking about what is being said and what is happening, they will be thinking, oh I guess this movie has a voice over out of no where. This is a small example that really isn’t in the movie, but i’m trying to use it to illustrate a larger problem.
Several times in the movie, Oliver Stone used transitions that didn’t feel germane to the rest of the film. At one point he ended a scene by having the screen go to black as the visible circle of the screen shrank into a single point. Kind of like in old timey movies. As the circle shrank it didn’t focus on anything of importance and that type of affect was never seen again in the movie. Then there was a transition scene that was almost like a NYSE dream sequence montage of scrolling tickers and clocks in a black void. No real world structures or people in this which made it feel completely out of place with the rest of the movie that was shot in reality.
I’m not sure if I’m doing a good job of explaining this but basically imagine the movie…. i don’t know… Bull Duraham and just in the middle of it there’s some kind of weird artful cgi dream sequence that looks like Donnie Darko or Southland tales with the Requiem for a dream music playing over it. While watching it you would probably for a brief second think, what the fuck did they splice in another movie for a second. Well there were at least three or four things like that in this movie.
So what is my rating of it overall? I’d give it 6 out of 10 Jessica Alba sexy gifs. (I’m choosing this because JA would have made a much better love interest for Shai since the chick he was with was just kind of plain in terms of Hollywood movies) http://thechive.com/2010/10/06/if-theres-anything-better-than-jessica-alba-gifs-i-havent-found-it-14-gifs/
Lets get two things out of the way. 1. I honest to God never saw this movie before even though I’m sure everyone who knows me will find this very hard to believe. 2. The guy pictured below is not me.
I have no idea how they were able to make such a visually interesting movie back in the 80s. This movie blows weird science and the last star fighter out of the water in terms of effects and back in the day CGI. Plot wise the story makes virtually no sense and it all seems like it was thrown together just so they could put some kind of context behind the awesome effects…… kind of like Avatar but with less of an 1984 theme…. 1984 the book, not the year in the 80’s in which this movie may have been made for all I know.
Ok let’s be honest. I only really watched this just so that I could then watch the new movie when it comes out which also looks visually stunning, and also has Olivia Wilde who is just as visually stunning.
If I had to rate it anything, I would give it 7 out of 10 light bike races…. speaking of which, check out the trailer for the new movie. It looks money in HD.