OT Greed is good
Doesn't look that good, but I hate Shia Labeouf and this fact alone makes me biased. Plus Charlie Sheen only has a cameo.
Oh come on, he was good in Even Stevens
I 3 Ren
Although only time will tell if Shia can get through a movie without a "NONONONONONONONONO!" moment. If he does, I might stop hating his guts.
somehow that 56 second clip is still one of Michael Bay's best movies...go figure
BLUE HORSESHOE recommends that you do not watch this movie
Oliver Stone has been a crummy filmmaker for about 20 years now. I don't see this one being nearly as good as the first one. The first movie in some ways was a masterpiece way ahead of its time. This one seems like a cheap cash in to take advantage of the country's anger towards Wall Street. So I guess you might say "Greed is good."
Oliver Stone has been a crummy filmmaker for about 20 years now.Evidence to support this statement: Exhibit A - Any Given Sunday Exhibit B - Alexander Exhibit C - Nixon Exhibit D - The Doors Exhibit E - JFK That is all....
Any Given Sunday and The Doors were pretty good, for what they were.
He hasn't made a watchable film in years though.
can be good is if Megan Fox is costar.
Michael Douglas is no Megan Fox.
Unfortunately that flies head-on into the maxim "Any movie starring Megan Fox is invariably one of the worst ever created."
"Any movie starring Megan Fox is invariably one of the worst ever created... but for some reason, you won't mind as much as you should"
As someone who loved the first one I think that this can be lumped in with the KK2 movie. It's going to suck and kill the legacy of the first ones.
artists decrying greed who turn around and make a gazillion dollars acting and directing films, and work gladly with Wall Street money men, is funny on its face. It's as though the connection between belief and behavior is missing in action.
Michael Moore will never understand the point you are making.
I can appreciate your point but I am not going to judge a director or actor for taking part in this. I am more interested in the story than the process and reasons for making the film. Gordon Gecko as the good guy is intriguing to me and I hope Shia can hold his own.
Not since Keanu Reaves 'acted' alongside Al Pacino in The Devil's Advocate has one actor had the potential to be blown off the screen so thoroughly by his co-star.
I have a strong feeling that working in finance will make me cringe at several parts of this movie (unlike the original Wall Street).
That being said, I think LaBoooof gets a bad rap. The interview he did in playboy shed a lot of light on his life and he's a true "nothing to something" case.
The first one was a pretty good movie, but I don't see this one being anywhere near as good as the first. We had to watch the first Wall Street in my highschool Econ class a few years back. The teacher was all about it. Probably the obvious choice for an Econ movie. All of this said, I'm probably not gonna see this movie. Doesn't look very good. It has been way too long since the last movie to draw a lot of Wall Street 1 fans.
"artists decrying greed who turn around and make a gazillion dollars acting and directing films, and work gladly with Wall Street money men, is funny on its face."
I think you missed the point of the original movie. Stone's father was a stock broker and he made that movie as an homage to his dad's generation (as portrayed by the Hal Holbrook character) while castigating the following generation (the Ivan Boesky's of the world).
Stone's point wasn't that making money was bad. His point was that making money by manipulation, criminal acts, and destruction was bad. What's the big plot point of "Wall Street?" It's the purchase and operation of Bluestar Airlines. Gecko realizes it's worth more if he chops it up into millions of little pieces than if he actually tries to turn it around. Ultimately, the major union players turn to Gecko's opposite number (the guy who played Zod in Superman II) to try to save them.
Stone was never critical of investors, capitalists, brokers, or the major players that can really impact entire markets. He was critical of people who carelessly wrecked companies, small countries, and entire markets simply because they were there.
Everyone remembers the "Greed is good" speech. Michael Douglas said that conservatives come up to him all the time and shake his hand and tell him how much they love that moment. (a scene that gets played out in "Boiler Room.") But the movie is really about the scene in Gecko's office when Sheen realizes he's about to get anal-raped.
Why do you need to wreck THIS company?
Because it's wreckable.
and will always be, a political movie. Given the era it was made, the political debates of the time, and Oliver Stone's track record as a distinctly political director, such a definition is unavoidable. I rather enjoyed the movie. It actually had a heart. We'll see if the new one does. I suspect not. It has high polemic potential.
Now, if you want my favorite movie about a rapacious Wall Street guy, I give you Pretty Woman for such sterling dialogue as Julia Roberts actually saying "Did I mention my leg is 44 inches from hip to toe, so basically, we're talkin' about 88 inches of therapy wrapped around you, for the bargain price of three thousand dollars! " Only in the movies, gents, only in the movies.
i was hoping for the title of this thread to be mistakenly spelled "CREED is good". (-1?)
A good friend of mine is an ex-broker (who wisely moved on in 2005). I asked him if he was looking forward to this movie and he said it was TOTALLY unrealistic.
Why?
"Because any major player from the 80s who got sent to prison in 1987, missed the 90s, the single-greatest decade in the history of free markets, only to get released from prison in THIS economy would have hanged himself in his cell."
Stone should have considered casting the cockney amphibian from Geico ads as Gekko, dressed him in suspenders and a blue shirt with white cuffs:
Sheen: How many yachts can you water-ski behind? How much is enough?
Geico Gekko: It's not a question of enough, pal. It's a zero-sum game. Somebody wins, somebody loses. [Blinks his bulbous eyes].
That's a remake I'd go see. Seriously.
When I heard this film was in the works, I assumed it was going to be a rehash of first version, to which I was like, 'what's the point?' (1st was pretty solid, I thought). I don't know if I buy Gekko as a reformed man, but I guess I'd have to see this one to judge. Still, I think I'll wait until it hits Netflix, given Stone's track record.
Hollywood's creativity...Not so much.
"Now, if you want my favorite movie about a rapacious Wall Street guy, I give you Pretty Woman for such sterling dialogue as "Did I mention my leg is 44 inches from hip to toe, so basically, we're talkin' about 88 inches of therapy wrapped around you, for the bargain price of three thousand dollars! " Only in the movies, gents, only in the movies."
You should seek out the original script for that movie. It was a project called "Three Thousand Dollars."
Now, I hated Pretty Woman. And the original script was much better. But I liked it because it was honest. Vivian was a whore and the dude paying her was a piece of crap. There was absolutely ZERO of the Cinderella-theme.
That said, "Three Thousand Dollars" was a film that would have made slightly less than its title. No one wants to watch a movie that ignores fantasy and wish-fulfillment. Kudos to the executive who bought it, recognized the potential, and fixed it.
I think they made a movie about that guy called "The Player."