I've seen this movie just too long ago and forgot the plot.
In fact, from the performance point of view, it is not bad. Michael Douglas and Carey Mulligan presented good acting skills. Douglas played a guilty and repentant father in front of him. It was too real. Mulligan is an innocent little white rabbit with a sweet smile. Crying scenes are naturally sincere and emotional. Josh Brolin was not as famous as he is now, but his acting skills are also top-notch, but why is this film so much lower than the first one? I think it may be because the plot put a big man who was addicted to money and immorality in prison for more than ten years. Because of the death of his wife, he turned around and became a good and caring father for the family. Although the former reconciled with his daughter The emotional drama is actually a means to get the daughter to sign to deceive the son-in-law, but in the end, the future grandson becomes the original intention of the old man to repent.
In terms of plot, this film not only wants to show that family is an important part of life and money is not, but also wants to reveal the greed of Wall Street, so that the plot of this film is positioned on the wall, weakening the only theme of the first Wall Street film. , is to criticize the greedy capitalists on Wall Street, doing everything for profit, even if it is to let the company go bankrupt and lay off workers, all for the "sin" of capital and profit. The former Douglas created an image of a repentant good father, but later knocked down the previous image. It turned out that he was still doing it for money, but in the end, his conscience found that he had become a good father again. Brolin, the bad guy, is investigated, and the man who denounced Douglas is brought to justice, like karma, who is punished by God. So the plot goes back and forth, plus the main conflicting plot is that the company goes bankrupt, how to retaliate, and then it is about the love between father and daughter and the love between son and daughter, and the scattered force makes the theme weak.
Speaking of actors, Charlie Sheen guest starred in the last movie. 27 years have passed (1987-2010), and the years have turned this former little fresh meat (22 years old) into an uncle (49 years old), the contrast is obvious. Michael Douglas also changed from 43 years old in the first part to 70 years old in the second part. In fact, for his age, he is well maintained. He is still young, and his inner self-confidence, intrigue, and domineering momentum are still there. The slow-motion scene of meeting his daughter for the first time also shows the complex psychology of a father very well. It should be said that Douglas is especially suitable. Play this ultra-confident tycoon. Even though some actors are old and have unstoppable folds on their faces, their inner momentum and temperament are still unique, and people with taste will never go out of style, so although the years have brought a youthful appearance, they have accumulated life experience. More calm and graceful. Older, but still an old drama because of its unique and distinctive style (unlike some old drama bones are chameleons, according to the characteristics of the plot) such as: Al Pacino, Jeff Bridges, Christopher Walken . The protagonist , Shia LaBeouf , is still an impulsive boy in style. After the fame of Transformers One, there has been little improvement.
The title of the movie: Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps, does not seem to clarify the true meaning of money never sleeps.
View more about Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps reviews
