Discussion of movies and ReelThoughts topics

It is currently Sun Apr 20, 2014 11:22 pm




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 28 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
WALL STREET (1987) 
Author Message
Site Admin

Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2009 10:55 pm
Posts: 3059
Location: Mount Laurel, NJ, USA
Post WALL STREET (1987)
Click here for the review of Wall Street (1987)

Part of the "1980s" series.


Thu Jul 16, 2009 10:50 pm
Profile WWW
Post Re: WALL STREET (1987)
James,

How do you feel about Oliver Stone and Michael Douglas making a sequel to "Wall Street" after 22 years?

Good idea? Bad idea?


Thu Jul 16, 2009 11:00 pm
Post Re: WALL STREET (1987)
And I think of this as the beginning of Oliver Stone-itis, where it's all "Look at me!"

And I liked it!

But Wall Street is good even though Platoon, JFK and Natural Born Killers are better


Thu Jul 16, 2009 11:02 pm
Post Re: WALL STREET (1987)
This movie has been making the rounds on the "Encore" channels recently and I caught some of it just the other day. It's still a provocative look at the wheelings and dealings of Wall Street in the good and bad perspectives. Douglas is to "Wall Street" what Anthony Hopkins is to "The Silence of the Lambs". He's simply terrific and all the other male actors do well.

I hope the upcoming sequel is worth the wait after 20+ years unlike some other sequels that took the same amount of time to arrive..........(*cough* Indy 4 *cough*)


Thu Jul 16, 2009 11:09 pm
Post Re: WALL STREET (1987)
If you want to see the definitive movie about Greed.

"Greed" is the 64th best film ever made. It's four hours long, silent and only available on YouTube

The last 40 minutes are arguably the greatest scenes ever filmed!

It's hard work, but very rewarding

Rob


Fri Jul 17, 2009 1:21 am
Post Re: WALL STREET (1987)
Robert Holloway wrote:
If you want to see the definitive movie about Greed.

"Greed" is the 64th best film ever made. It's four hours long, silent and only available on YouTube

The last 40 minutes are arguably the greatest scenes ever filmed!

It's hard work, but very rewarding

Rob


Is Greed the kind of movie that can be enjoyed on the installment plan? 4 hours of YouTube and their tiny tiny screen sounds like an alarming headache waiting to happen.


Fri Jul 17, 2009 6:48 am
Post Re: WALL STREET (1987)
majoraphasia wrote:
Robert Holloway wrote:
If you want to see the definitive movie about Greed.

"Greed" is the 64th best film ever made. It's four hours long, silent and only available on YouTube

The last 40 minutes are arguably the greatest scenes ever filmed!

It's hard work, but very rewarding

Rob


Is Greed the kind of movie that can be enjoyed on the installment plan? 4 hours of YouTube and their tiny tiny screen sounds like an alarming headache waiting to happen.



oh how you guys suffer before me.... :D

here you go dudes. thought i'd help. also, the words "only available on YouTube" were just...insulting. i assume you guys have no trouble with piracy - watching a movie on youtube counts.

[Reveal] Spoiler:
http://www.mininova.org/det/2055417


[Reveal] Spoiler:
PS- any governmental guys out there - im out of your jurisdiction. HAHAHAH!!!!


[Reveal] Spoiler:
PPS- just kidding ...please dont hurt me. :(


Fri Jul 17, 2009 7:35 am
Second Unit Director

Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 4:52 pm
Posts: 264
Location: North Carolina
Post Re: WALL STREET (1987)
Robert Holloway wrote:
If you want to see the definitive movie about Greed.

"Greed" is the 64th best film ever made.


Good call. Greed is a remarkable silent movie; it's one of my favorites, along with Metropolis. TCM showed it a few years ago, and IIRC their web site had a good summary of the trials and tribulations of making this epic. I think the uncut version (long since lost) was something like 10 hours long.


Fri Jul 17, 2009 8:53 am
Profile
Gaffer

Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2009 9:21 pm
Posts: 29
Post Re: WALL STREET (1987)
hate to tell ya, greed existed in the 90s too. As well as the 70s, 60s, 50s, and so on. Greed exists in government as well as Wall Street (and today thanks to the current politicians they are one in the same). What you saw in the 80s and 'late 00s' is no worse than seen as any other decade. Your political affiliation looks to be influencing your logic. Just saying.


Fri Jul 17, 2009 9:06 am
Profile
Post Re: WALL STREET (1987)
A defense of Greed Is Good.

First, I think it helps to have the whole speech quoted, to present context. Go here to read.

The statement "Greed ... is good" is an analysis of drive and ambition. And in the context of Capitalism, it's an expression of maximization of profit. It is not, however, an expression of immorality. To a capitalist, the maximization of profit is not in and of itself immoral. Socialists may consider it immoral because they define a concept of "need", and if you have more than you need, you are keeping something from somebody else who also has needs. This concept is typically the result of zero-sum thinking, whereby there is only a fixed amount of goods to be distributed. Under this line of thought, if someone is hoarding in the midst of this fixed amount, they are depriving another of the opportunity to acquire those goods on their own.

Zero-sum thinking comes from "common sense". Economists understand the principle of wealth creation, which, contrary to the notion of zero-sum thinking, shows that there is not a fixed pool of wealth to be distributed throughout society. Capitalists/Classical Liberals believe that the maximization of profit leads to the expansion of wealth, thus, providing a net benefit to society.

Why else is Greed good? Gecko was modeled after the "Corporate Raider". Corporate Raiders are maligned because of their disruptiveness. They analyze a corporation and try to determine if the sum of the parts is greater than the whole. If so, they see uncaptured value that can be released via the dissolution of the corporation. This dissolution has the potential for negative short term consequences due to job losses that may result from the restructuring. However, the net result is a more efficient deployment of capital, which provides a net benefit to society in the long run.

One issue that tends to corrupt the concept of greed, beyond zero-sum thinking, is the occasional amoral actions of people who hold greed in high regard. However, this is not a function of greed. This is a function of the individual actor. Greed is not inherently amoral. Greed though can lead to a "power corrupts" situation. This is not because the individual was greedy, but it is because the individual's pursuit of wealth has led them to abandon a moral basis for their actions. Political achievement is another common avenue that leads to "power corrupts". Is this an indictment of politics, or an indictment of humanity's willingness to abandon morality in light of personal gain? I suggest the latter.

In sum, Greed Is Good. Greed drives people to achieve greater heights. Greed drives efficiency in Capitalism. This is what Gorden Gecko was saying. And thus, contrary to what Oliver Stone may have been trying to achieve, I believe that Gecko's speech becomes a ringing endorsement, not indictment, of Capitalism, while the overall movie highlights the failure of individuals who cannot handle the trappings of power while maintaining their morality.

EDIT: I narrowed the "ringing endorsement" down to just the Gecko speech. I got carried away with my hyperbole.


Last edited by I_Am_Not_Herbert on Fri Jul 17, 2009 12:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.



Fri Jul 17, 2009 10:02 am
Post Re: WALL STREET (1987)
majoraphasia wrote:
Robert Holloway wrote:
If you want to see the definitive movie about Greed.

"Greed" is the 64th best film ever made. It's four hours long, silent and only available on YouTube

The last 40 minutes are arguably the greatest scenes ever filmed!

It's hard work, but very rewarding

Rob


Is Greed the kind of movie that can be enjoyed on the installment plan? 4 hours of YouTube and their tiny tiny screen sounds like an alarming headache waiting to happen.



Hi there

I watched the entire film in one evening and then watched the last forty minutes again.

It is a long haul and there will be times when you might consider giving up.
However, it's a remarkable movie and one that will stick with any film fan for ever.

The ending makes the whole effort more than worthwhile
Rob

PS - I watched it in 10 minute slugs on YouTube.


Fri Jul 17, 2009 10:29 am
Director

Joined: Sat Jul 11, 2009 8:28 pm
Posts: 1537
Location: Atlanta, Georgia
Post Re: WALL STREET (1987)
The number weakness in this film is Charlie Sheen, he tries but i just couldn't buy it. Now, if it was James Spader in the Charlie Sheen role, maybe the film could have more better. Spader could make you believe he's fallen to the dark side.


Fri Jul 17, 2009 11:56 am
Profile YIM
Post Re: WALL STREET (1987)
I_Am_Not_Herbert:

I take issue with a few points in your post which I believe mischaracterizes some ideas, but I'll just settle for making one point which is that even under your formulation, this movie is far from a ringing endorsement of Wall Street. The characters are shown casually engaging in insider trading with no regard for the fact that it's illegal. A real capitalist believes that everyone should compete on a level playing field which is why laws against insider trading were instituted in the first place. The problem for Charlie Sheen's character isn't that he loses perspective and morality on the way to the top. The problem is that the game is rigged (as depicted in the movie) and only insiders who are willing to bend ethics can get to the top. This is the criticism many people level at Wall Street financiers today. Just to name one example, there's something wrong about a system in which ratings agencies derive much of their income from the very corporations that they rate.


Fri Jul 17, 2009 12:36 pm
Gaffer
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 10:14 pm
Posts: 19
Location: Rochester, NY
Post Re: WALL STREET (1987)
Only three stars?

I'm guessing Wall Street lost that extra 0.5-1 stars to the underwritten roles and undistinguished performances of the main female characters in the film.


Fri Jul 17, 2009 3:42 pm
Profile ICQ
Post Re: WALL STREET (1987)
I have to admit, I'm really stoked to see what James will pick for 1989. 'Casualties Of War', 'War Of The Roses', 'Drugstore Cowboy', 'The Killer', all worthy (and popular) candidates . I just hope it's not 'Driving Miss Daisy'. I have a feeling about two people (being generous) want to read about that borefest, but I also feel that it has as good of a chance of being reviewed as 'Out Of Africa' did due to it's Best Picture win.

A few I'm guessing he won't pick but are still amazing films: 'City Of Sadness', 'Monsieur Hire', 'Time Of The Gypsies', 'Sweetie', and perhaps one of the saddest films of the 80's, 'Black Rain (Kuroi Ame)'. NOT featuring Michael Douglas and Andy Garcia, this is a haunting flashback to the nuclear era from a Japanese perspective. It's just as effective at shedding back the glory of war and it's effect on civilians as 'Grave Of The Fireflies' and 'Barefoot Gen' (albeit it is live-action), but is in some ways even more bleak and has the benefit of being filmed in rich black and white, which adds to the film's emotional glow.


Sat Jul 18, 2009 1:30 pm
Post Re: WALL STREET (1987)
Evenflow8112 wrote:
I have to admit, I'm really stoked to see what James will pick for 1989. 'Casualties Of War', 'War Of The Roses', 'Drugstore Cowboy', 'The Killer', all worthy (and popular) candidates . I just hope it's not 'Driving Miss Daisy'. I have a feeling about two people (being generous) want to read about that borefest, but I also feel that it has as good of a chance of being reviewed as 'Out Of Africa' did due to it's Best Picture win.

A few I'm guessing he won't pick but are still amazing films: 'City Of Sadness', 'Monsieur Hire', 'Time Of The Gypsies', 'Sweetie', and perhaps one of the saddest films of the 80's, 'Black Rain (Kuroi Ame)'. NOT featuring Michael Douglas and Andy Garcia, this is a haunting flashback to the nuclear era from a Japanese perspective. It's just as effective at shedding back the glory of war and it's effect on civilians as 'Grave Of The Fireflies' and 'Barefoot Gen' (albeit it is live-action), but is in some ways even more bleak and has the benefit of being filmed in rich black and white, which adds to the film's emotional glow.
Glad you weren't tlaking about Douglas Black Rain, cause that film REALLY sucked! :evil: IMO


Sat Jul 18, 2009 1:44 pm
Post Re: WALL STREET (1987)
Evenflow8112 wrote:
I have to admit, I'm really stoked to see what James will pick for 1989. 'Casualties Of War', 'War Of The Roses', 'Drugstore Cowboy', 'The Killer', all worthy (and popular) candidates . I just hope it's not 'Driving Miss Daisy'. I have a feeling about two people (being generous) want to read about that borefest, but I also feel that it has as good of a chance of being reviewed as 'Out Of Africa' did due to it's Best Picture win.

A few I'm guessing he won't pick but are still amazing films: 'City Of Sadness', 'Monsieur Hire', 'Time Of The Gypsies', 'Sweetie', and perhaps one of the saddest films of the 80's, 'Black Rain (Kuroi Ame)'. NOT featuring Michael Douglas and Andy Garcia, this is a haunting flashback to the nuclear era from a Japanese perspective. It's just as effective at shedding back the glory of war and it's effect on civilians as 'Grave Of The Fireflies' and 'Barefoot Gen' (albeit it is live-action), but is in some ways even more bleak and has the benefit of being filmed in rich black and white, which adds to the film's emotional glow.


James has already revealed somewhere that one of his '89 picks is The Abyss. Of course, being James' biggest fan, you probably already know that, but hey.


Sat Jul 18, 2009 2:01 pm
Post Re: WALL STREET (1987)
Evenflow8112 wrote:
I have to admit, I'm really stoked to see what James will pick for 1989. 'Casualties Of War', 'War Of The Roses', 'Drugstore Cowboy', 'The Killer', all worthy (and popular) candidates . I just hope it's not 'Driving Miss Daisy'. I have a feeling about two people (being generous) want to read about that borefest, but I also feel that it has as good of a chance of being reviewed as 'Out Of Africa' did due to it's Best Picture win.

A few I'm guessing he won't pick but are still amazing films: 'City Of Sadness', 'Monsieur Hire', 'Time Of The Gypsies', 'Sweetie', and perhaps one of the saddest films of the 80's, 'Black Rain (Kuroi Ame)'. NOT featuring Michael Douglas and Andy Garcia, this is a haunting flashback to the nuclear era from a Japanese perspective. It's just as effective at shedding back the glory of war and it's effect on civilians as 'Grave Of The Fireflies' and 'Barefoot Gen' (albeit it is live-action), but is in some ways even more bleak and has the benefit of being filmed in rich black and white, which adds to the film's emotional glow.


Some 1989 movies I'd like to see James review:

-Major League (He's already reviewed #2 and #3)
-Lethal Weapon 2 (He's already reviewed #1 and #4)
-Road House
-Born on the Fourth of July
-Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure
-Dead Poets Society
-Casualties of War
-Crimes and Misdemeanors
-Driving Miss Daisy
-Say Anything
-Steel Magnolias
-Uncle Buck


Sat Jul 18, 2009 2:23 pm
Post Re: WALL STREET (1987)
Zeppelin wrote:
Evenflow8112 wrote:
I have to admit, I'm really stoked to see what James will pick for 1989. 'Casualties Of War', 'War Of The Roses', 'Drugstore Cowboy', 'The Killer', all worthy (and popular) candidates . I just hope it's not 'Driving Miss Daisy'. I have a feeling about two people (being generous) want to read about that borefest, but I also feel that it has as good of a chance of being reviewed as 'Out Of Africa' did due to it's Best Picture win.

A few I'm guessing he won't pick but are still amazing films: 'City Of Sadness', 'Monsieur Hire', 'Time Of The Gypsies', 'Sweetie', and perhaps one of the saddest films of the 80's, 'Black Rain (Kuroi Ame)'. NOT featuring Michael Douglas and Andy Garcia, this is a haunting flashback to the nuclear era from a Japanese perspective. It's just as effective at shedding back the glory of war and it's effect on civilians as 'Grave Of The Fireflies' and 'Barefoot Gen' (albeit it is live-action), but is in some ways even more bleak and has the benefit of being filmed in rich black and white, which adds to the film's emotional glow.


James has already revealed somewhere that one of his '89 picks is The Abyss. Of course, being James' biggest fan, you probably already know that, but hey.



Well, one definite mark against me is that I didn't remember the gardening incident :P I didn't even know he practiced botany!


'The Abyss' is a pretty sure-fire 3-star film for me (using James' rating system). I imagine James has a similar feeling, I don't think anybody has a great, undying passion for the film (despite it being competently made).


Sat Jul 18, 2009 2:26 pm
Post Re: WALL STREET (1987)
Evenflow8112 wrote:
Zeppelin wrote:
Evenflow8112 wrote:
I have to admit, I'm really stoked to see what James will pick for 1989. 'Casualties Of War', 'War Of The Roses', 'Drugstore Cowboy', 'The Killer', all worthy (and popular) candidates . I just hope it's not 'Driving Miss Daisy'. I have a feeling about two people (being generous) want to read about that borefest, but I also feel that it has as good of a chance of being reviewed as 'Out Of Africa' did due to it's Best Picture win.

A few I'm guessing he won't pick but are still amazing films: 'City Of Sadness', 'Monsieur Hire', 'Time Of The Gypsies', 'Sweetie', and perhaps one of the saddest films of the 80's, 'Black Rain (Kuroi Ame)'. NOT featuring Michael Douglas and Andy Garcia, this is a haunting flashback to the nuclear era from a Japanese perspective. It's just as effective at shedding back the glory of war and it's effect on civilians as 'Grave Of The Fireflies' and 'Barefoot Gen' (albeit it is live-action), but is in some ways even more bleak and has the benefit of being filmed in rich black and white, which adds to the film's emotional glow.


James has already revealed somewhere that one of his '89 picks is The Abyss. Of course, being James' biggest fan, you probably already know that, but hey.



Well, one definite mark against me is that I didn't remember the gardening incident :P I didn't even know he practiced botany!


'The Abyss' is a pretty sure-fire 3-star film for me (using James' rating system). I imagine James has a similar feeling, I don't think anybody has a great, undying passion for the film (despite it being competently made).


Here is what James has to say about "The Abyss" at the moment:

"It's one of the '89 movies I'll be reviewing (some time in the middle of August). The theatrical release was an embarrassment but the director's cut is quite good."

He also said this about the movie from a review he did for for "Star Trek: The Motion Picture (Director's Cut):

"To be fair, most special editions exist primarily for creative reasons (although the studios backing them dream of $$$), and often result in a vastly improved product. James Cameron's The Abyss is a completely different movie - confusing and dissatisfying in the shortened theatrical version; sublime and brilliant in the director's cut."


Sat Jul 18, 2009 2:33 pm
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 28 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by Vjacheslav Trushkin for Free Forum/DivisionCore.
Translated by Xaphos © 2007, 2008, 2009 phpBB.fr