Page 1 of 1

Wall Street 2: Oliver Never Sleeps

Posted: Tue Sep 28, 2010 5:17 am
by POOPERSCOOPER
Alright so it's a sequel to the 1988 movie called Wall Street which was pretty good and I usually watch it on TV every once in awhile. I'm going to assume that all of you have seen the original and basically the sequel starts off with Micheal Douglas getting out of prison and then another 7 years goes by and its like 2008 and the stock market is crashing.

The movie plot wise is really pretty good if not a bit too big to handle. It has a lot of themes going on and they are all pretty good but in effect Douglas doesn't get as much screen time as you would think and he is basically a side character. The idea of including the 2008 stock market crash is pretty cool and I liked it but you can tell Oliver Stone has been trying to make something with good timing but not really hitting the mark like with that WTC movie and the Bush movie.

Either way it has a lot of good acting and stuff in it besides Shia Labroof and that girl friend of his in it. My dad said the same thing and he also said the girl has wider shoulders than Shia and I mentally logged that in my brain so I could say it here and get some laughs.

Either way if you liked Wall Street I think you will like this movie. Also Micheal Douglas was complaining about a sore throat for awhile and no one did anything and now he has stage 4 throat cancer.

Posted: Wed Sep 29, 2010 5:05 am
by jetbaby
Being as that the whole marketing campaign [or what little I saw] shoved Douglas down your throat, you'd think that he would be a central character, having been pretty damn important in the first one and the only actual connection back to it otherwise.

Regardless, I'll see it when I don't have to pay for it :salute:

Posted: Wed Sep 29, 2010 1:21 pm
by rad resistance
Sounds like shit. Good review anyway poops.

Posted: Wed Sep 29, 2010 6:45 pm
by POOPERSCOOPER
I would have liked to see more of Douglas character but I think they have some pretty big balls for not using him to the full extent they could have for the sake of just having him in. They kind of held to the story they wanted to tell and didn't sacrifice to the idea of getting the best bang for your buck.

Kind of the opposite of having someone like Tom Cruise then feeling like he has to be in every shot even though he doesn't really need to be.

Posted: Tue Oct 05, 2010 12:20 am
by S4ur0n27
This sounds like the worst movie since Ballistic : Ecks vs Sever.

Posted: Sat Oct 23, 2010 9:29 pm
by Aneurysm
Shitty ending.