Oct

11

I would love to hear comments from you all if you've seen Oliver Stone's new Wall Street II. Yesterday, my companion and I went to see the movie and nearly walked out after 15 minutes, it was that bad. Blaming speculators for the "Crisis," irrelevant discussion of "Moral Hazard," the Lehman and Bear Sterns references, heroic yet cutthroat actions of the bankers, artful cutouts of the talking heads of CNBC, the Oracle of Omaha, the improbable plot line, the horrible dialogue, Michael Douglas' insufferability, the resurrection of the corpse of Eli Wallach, the Phoenix like rise of Gordon Gekko, the tangled plot line!!!

I could go on and on. Does anyone else agree with me or am I overreacting? Frankly, instead of wasting my money on this horrible movie, I wish I would have sat home watching the local Spanish Channel watching my favorite telenovela, where the passion is real, and the revenge is sweet…and believable.

Sushil Kedia writes:

I attended the movie too. One good thing was the movie hall, the seats were extra comfortable, and it had a really good ambiance. Some things in India have changed for the better, in such measure.

But that's not all. Michael Doulgas resembled someone too popular on Wall Street. Someone whose name reads backwards and forwards the same kept coming to mind on the facial lines and contours that Douglas exuded effortlessly. The flinch, the long deep gaze, so many other things were all pretending to mimick the famous name. Was it a flawed make up design or a purposeful resemblance created for getting "eyeballs"?!

As a movie making exercise, this seems to me an outright fraud. But then again, I did witness such fraud pass by in the form of a movie effortlessly. The crowds in India may not have noticed it, really.

In the same vein, my two humble cents submitted herewith are that for non Wall Streeters the movie could well be a good entertaining account of so many things relating to lives on the Wall Street. A movie is after all an illusion and an entertainment. For those from the Street and around it, of course the real stuff is so much more real that forget Oliver Stone, any other movie maker will find it difficult to please us and to get close to portrayals of genuine resemblance.

But then, how could Douglas be made to resemble the big name so well. Accident? Design? Transferred Epithet?

The human touch, the daughter, the fetus, the tears all came in to show that the street does have living beings. Huh! I would say the guy scripting the story forecasted the depressing markets would be lasting until the 3rd quarter of 2010 and settle with a simpler way of reasoning why the movie is what it is: It wasn't made for educating this universe about what Wall Street is. It was made for making money while the makers forecasted the Street would still be not making any. Bad forecast, that's all. Else the movie being a movie is fine.

Jeff Watson writes:

Did you notice the photo-shopped picture on the fireplace mantle of Josh Brolin with his character and the Palindrome? I got a kick out of that one.


Comments

Name

Email

Website

Speak your mind

Archives

Resources & Links

Search