Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps

Oliver Stone’s “Wall Street” was a wake-up call about the financial crisis the place was headed for. If only we listened. Or maybe we listened too well, and Gordon Gekko became the role model for a generation of dishonorable financial people who put hundreds of millions in their wallets while bankrupting their firms and brining the economy down. As “Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps,” released in 2010, starts, Gekko has been able, as Roger Ebert put it, “cool his heels for many of the intervening years in a federal prison, which is the film’s biggest fantasy; the thieves who plundered the financial system are still mostly in power, and congressional zealots resist efforts to regulate the system.”

Ebert continued, “That’s my point, however, and not Oliver Stone’s. At a time when we’ve seen several lacerating documentaries about the economic meltdown, and Michael Lewis’ The Big Short is on the best-seller lists, “Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps” isn’t nearly as merciless as I expected.” This is an entertaining story about ambition, romance, and greedy trading practices, but it looks more fascinated than angry. Is Stone suggesting this new reality has become surrounded, and we’re stuck with it?

Ebert noted, “In some ways, Gordon Gekko himself (Michael Douglas) serves as a moral center for the film. Out from behind bars, author of Is Greed Good? and lecturer to business students, he at first seems to be a standard repentant sinner.” Then he meets a young trader named Jake Moore, played by Shia LaBeouf, and finds himself reverting back to his old self. Jake wants to marry Gekko’s daughter, Winnie, played by Carey Mulligan, who hasn’t spoken to her father for years. Maybe Jacke can be the agent for their resolution. He sincerely loves Winnie, who is a liberal blogger. Jake himself is ambitious, already has his first million, wants more, but we see he has a good heart because he wants his firm to help alternative energy. Is this because he is environmentally friendly, or only likes it? Maybe a little of both.

Jake works for an old-line Wall Street house named Keller Zabel, led by his mentor and father figure Louis Zabel, played by Frank Langella. This firm is taken down by a crook named Bretton James, played by Josh Brolin, who is good at spreading rumors about its instability. Stone does not underline the irony that James’ firm, and every Wall Street firm, is equally standing on so much worthless debt. Ebert said, “In a tense boardroom confrontation, Zabel is forced to sell out for a pittance. The next morning, he rises, has his soft-boiled egg, and throws himself under a subway train. It is instructive that although tycoons hurled themselves from windows during the Crash of 1929, the new generation simply continued to collect their paychecks, and Gekko expresses a certain respect for Zabel.”

The death of his beloved mentor gives Jake a motive: He wants revenge on Bretton James, and suddenly everything starts to come together: How he can hurt James, enlist Gekko, look good to Winnie, gain self-respect, and maybe even make so much money along the way? It takes an hour to get everything together, but Stone does it confidently, and his casting choices are good. Then the story goes along as more melodrama than display.

Of course, Michael Douglas is reprising an iconic role, and it’s interesting to observe how Gordon Gekko has changed: just as smart, sly, still with tricks up his sleeve, older, a little wiser, strongly feeling his separation from his daughter. Shia LaBeouf, having previously been in Indiana Jones and, at the beginning of this film, with Louis Zabel, falls in place eagerly next to Gordon Gekko, but may find out not everyone in his path wants to be his helper.

Langella has little screen time as Zabel, but the character is important, and he is flawless in it. Ebert said, “To the degree you can say this about any big player on Wall Street, Zabel is more sinned against than sinning.” Finally, there’s Carey Mulligan as Gekko’s daughter, still blaming him for the death of her brother, still suspicious of the industry that made her father and now looks to be making Jake.

Ebert said, ““Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps” is six minutes shorter than it was when I saw it at Cannes and has a smoother conclusion. It is still, we might say, certainly long enough. But it’s a smart, glossy, beautifully photographed film that knows its way around the Street (Stone’s father was a stockbroker). I wish it had been angrier. I wish it had been outraged.” Maybe Stone’s feelings are correct, and American audiences aren’t ready for that. They haven’t had enough of Greed.

Charlie Sheen makes a brief cameo in this sequel. As a surprise sequel, I think this was good. Obviously, it may not be as good as the first, but it is still a good sequel that shows what Wall Street has become. If you liked the first one, then you can see the sequel on Hulu right now. Check it out and see for yourself.

Alright, we have come to the conclusion of “Michael Douglas Month.” I hope everyone enjoyed it and hopefully people have seen all of his movies. Stay tuned next month to see what I have in store for everyone.

The War of the Roses

The first and last shots of “The War of the Roses,” released in 1989, shows a divorce attorney with a tragic story to tell. He tells a client that there will be no charge. “I get paid $450 an hour to talk to people,” he says, “and so when I offer to tell you something for free, I advise you to listen carefully.” He wants to tell about a couple of clients of his, Oliver and Barbara Rose, who were happy, and then got into a divorce, and were never happy again.

Roger Ebert said in his review, “The attorney is played by Danny DeVito, who also directed “The War of the Roses,” and although I usually dislike devices in which a narrator thinks back over the progress of a long, cautionary tale, this time I think it works.” It works because we must never be allowed to believe, even for a moments, that Oliver and Barbara are going to get away with their happiness. The lawyer’s lesson is that happiness has nothing to do with it, anyway. He doubts that any marriage is destined to be happy (as a divorce lawyer, he has a particular angle on the subject). His lesson is more brutal: “Divorce is survivable.” If only the Roses had listen.

The movie stars Michael Douglas and Kathleen Turner as the bickering Roses, and despite both of them also starring with DeVito in “Romancing the Stone,” those two movies could not be more different. Ebert said, ““The War of the Roses” is a black, angry, bitter, unrelenting comedy, a war between the sexes that makes James Thurber’s work on the same subject look almost resigned by comparison.”

However, the Roses fell so naturally and easily into love, during those first bright days so long ago. They met at an auction, bidding on the same cheap figurine, and by night they were in each other’s arms (“If this relationship lasts,” Barbara thinks, “this will have been the most romantic moment of my life. If it doesn’t, I’m a complete prostitute.”) He went into law. She went into housekeeping. They were both great at their career. Oliver made a lot of money, and Barbara spent a lot of money, buying, furnishing, and decorating a house that looks like just about the best home money can buy. Meanwhile, a couple of children, one of each gender, grow up and leave home, and then Barbara decides she wants something more in life than curating her own domestic museum. One day she sells a pound of her famous liver head to a friend and realizes that she holds in her hand the first money she has actually earned for herself in 17 years. It feels good. She asks for a divorce. She wants to keep the house.

That is the start of their war. Ebert noted, “There have been battles of the sexes before in the movies – between Spencer Tracy and Katherine Hepburn, between George C. Scott and Faye Dunaway, between Mickey and Minnie – but never one this vicious. I wonder if the movie doesn’t go over the top.” The war between the Roses starts in the lawyer’s office and increases into a violent, bloody fight that finally finds them both locked inside their house beautiful, doing fights with their very symbols of their marriage: the figurines, the gourmet kitchen range, the chandelier.

There are so many great funny moments in “The War of the Roses,” including one where Turner (playing an ex-gymnast) jumps to her feet from a flat position on her lawyer’s floor in one agile movement and another where Douglas makes absolutely certain that the fish Turner is serving some of her clients for dinner will have that fishy smell. However, the movie walks a dangerous line. There are times when its cruelty threatens to break through the boundaries of comedy – to become so constant we see we cannot laugh.

It's to the credit of DeVito and his co-stars they were willing to go that far, but maybe it shows more courage than wisdom.

Ebert ended his review by saying, “This is an odd, strange movie and the only one I can remember in which the moral is, “Rather than see a divorce lawyer, be generous – generous to the point of night sweats.””

I first heard about this movie when Danny DeVito was interviewed on “Inside the Actors Studio.” This is a good movie to watch, even though it is dark, but you should see it because it is really good. You will love this movie, especially with the way the story unfolds. I guess there are people out there that could relate to this movie, even though there might be relationships that end the way the Roses’s relationship did. Check it out and see for yourself.

Next week, I’ll be ending, “Michael Douglas Month” with the sequel to “Wall Street.”

Wall Street

How much is enough? The young man keeps asking the affluent robber and trader. How much money do you want? How much would you be satisfied with? The trader appears to be thinking hard, but the answer is, he just doesn’t know. He’s not even sure how to think about the question. He spends the entire day trying to make as much money as he possibly can, and he happily bends and breaks the law to make even more millions, but somehow the concept of “enough” escapes him. Like all gamblers, he is perhaps not even really interested in money, but in the action. Money is just the way to keep score.

Roger Ebert described in his review, “The millionaire is a predator, a corporate raider, a Wall Street shark.” His name is Gordon Gekko, the name is inspired by the lizard that eats insects and sheds its tail when trapped. Played by Michael Douglas in Oliver Stone’s “Wall Street,” released in 1987, he paces harshly behind the desk in his skyscraper office, lighting cigarettes, stabbing them out, checking stock prices on a bank of computers, shouting buy and sell orders into a speaker phone. In his personal life he has everything he could possibly want – wife, family, estate, pool, limousine, priceless art objects – and they are all just additional stuff to have. He likes to win.

Ebert mentions, “The kid is a broker for a second-tier Wall Street firm. He works the phones, soliciting new clients, offering second-hand advice, buying and selling and dreaming.” “Just once I’d like to be on that side,” he says, eagerly looking at the telephone a client has just used to give him a $7,000 loss. Gekko is his hero. He wants to sell him stock, get into his clique, be like he is. Every day for 39 days, he calls Gekko’s office for an appointment. Ebert said, “On the 40th day, Gekko’s birthday, he appears with a box of Havana cigars from Davidoff’s in London, and Gekko grants him an audience.”

Maybe Gekko sees something he recognizes. The kid, named Bud Fox, played by Charlie Sheen, comes from a working-class family. His father, played by Martin Sheen, is an aircraft mechanic and union leader. Gekko went to a cheap university himself. Desperate to impress Gekko, Fox gives some inside information he got from his father. Gekko makes some money on the deal and opens an account with Fox. He also asks him to obtain more insider information, and to spy on a competitor. Fox protests that he is being asked to do something illegal. Perhaps “protests” is too strong a word. He “observes.”

Gekko knows his man. Ebert said, “Fox is so hungry to make a killing, he will do anything.” Gekko promises him perks – big perks – and they arrive on schedule. One of them is a tall, blond interior designer, played by Daryl Hannah, who decorates Fox’s expensive new high-rise apartment. Ebert described, “The movie’s stylistic approach is rigorous: We are never allowed to luxuriate in the splendor of these new surroundings.” The apartment is never really seen, never relaxed in. when the girl comes to share Fox’s bed, they are seen momentarily, in silhouette. Intercourse and possessions are secondary to trading to the action. Ask any gambler.

Ebert described, “Stone’s “Wall Street” is a radical critique of the capitalist trading mentality, and it obviously comes at a time when the financial community is especially vulnerable. The movie argues that most small investors are dupes, and that the big market killings are made by men such as Gekko, who swoop in and snap whole companies out from under the noses of their stockholders. What the Gekkos do is immoral and illegal, but they use a little litany to excuse themselves:” “Nobody gets hurt.” “Everybody’s doing it.” “There’s something in this deal for everybody.” “Who knows except us?”

The movie has a traditional plot structure: The desperate young man is impressed by the successful old man, seduced by him, betrayed by him, and then tries to turn the tables. The actual details of the plot are not so important as the changes we see in the characters. Few men in previous movies have been colder and more ruthless than Gekko, or more convincing. Ebert said, “Fox is, by comparison, a babe in the woods. I would have preferred a young actor who seemed more rapacious, such as James Spader, who has a supporting role in the movie.” If the film has a flow, it is that Sheen never looks quite relentless enough to move in Gekko’s circle.

Stone’s most impressive achievement in this film is to allow all the financial wheeling and dealing to look complicated and convincing, and yet always have it make sense. Ebert said, “The movie can be followed by anybody, because the details of stock manipulation are all filtered through transparent layers of greed.” Most of the time we know what’s going on. All of the time, we know why.

Although Gekko’s law-breaking would obviously be against by most people on Wall Street, his larger value system would be applauded. The trick is to make his kind of money without breaking the law. Ebert described, “Financiers who can do that, such as Donald Trump, are mentioned as possible presidential candidates, and in his autobiography Trump states, quite simply, that money no longer interests him very much.” He is more motivated by the challenge of a deal and by the desire to win. His honesty is refreshing, but the key to reading that statement is to see that it considers only money, on the one hand, and winning, on the other. Ebert said, “No mention is made about creating goods and services, to manufacturing things, to investing in a physical plant, to contributing to the infrastructure.”

What’s investing about “Wall Street” – what may have been the most discussed about the film – is that its real subject isn’t Wall Street criminals who break the law. Stone’s subject is the value system that places profits and wealth and the Deal above any other consideration. Ebert ended his review by describing, “His film is an attack on an atmosphere of financial competitiveness so ferocious that ethics are simply irrelevant, and the laws are sort of like the referee in pro wrestling – part of the show.”

This is probably another one of my favorite movies. This really describes what Wall Street is like and why you should never invest in stocks when you get older. Of course, people who see this probably knows about that but it’s worth seeing nonetheless, especially how great the three lead actors play their roles. If you love these three actors, you should see this movie, I give it a high recommendation. Like I already stated, don’t play the stock market, get a fiduciary. According to Charlie Sheen, it was Oliver Stone’s idea for Martin Sheen to play the father in this film, which you couldn’t have picked anyone better for the role.

This movie, which may come as a surprise, had a sequel, but I’m not looking at that next week. Instead, I will be looking at another classic movie in “Michael Douglas Month.”

The Jewel of the Nile

“The Jewel of the Nile,” released in 1985, is more absurdity in the same vein of “Romancing the Stone,” which was actually a funny action comedy inspired by the Indiana Jones epics. We put on the film expecting absolutely nothing of substance, and that’s exactly what we get, given with high style. The movie brings back three main cast members – Michael Douglas, Kathleen Turner, and Danny DeVito – and actually adds a fourth cast member with Avner Eisenberg as a holy man of nice insanity.

Roger Ebert noted in his review, “Movie-industry gossip has it that Kathleen Turner didn’t particularly want to make this sequel, and that even Michael Douglas, who produces as well as stars, thought it might be best to quit while he was ahead. But the original contract specified a sequel, and it’s to everybody’s credit that “The Jewel of the Nile” is an ambitious and elaborate attempt to repeat the success of the first movie; it’s not just a ripoff.”

In hindsight, it lacks some of the enjoyment of the last film, especially the development of the romance between Douglas and Turner. Here, as the movie starts, they’re old friends, relaxing in Cannes and reminiscing about the good times they had in South America. Maybe feeling that there is nowhere to go with this mainly stable relationship, the movie throws them almost immediately into Middle East scheming.

A ridiculously wealthy Arab, played by Spiros Focas, invites Turner to travel with him to his homeland, for reasons as vague as they are fascinating. Ebert said, “Douglas temporarily drops out; after a manufactured spat, he decides he would rather sail his boat through the Mediterranean.” Turner is quickly involved in danger as the Arab reveals plans to seize the role of a legendary holy man, and Douglas becomes a friend of the great spiritual leader, who is known as the Jewel of the Nile. (Ebert noted, “Danny DeVito is some what lost in all of this, and left for long stretches of the film to wander through the desert and suffer meaningless tortures in lieu of a clearly defined role.”)

Ebert continued, ““The Jewel of the Nile” expends amazing resources on some of its scenes, including a gigantic spiritual meeting in the desert that is staged as a cross between a rock concert and the Nuremberg Rally.” What makes the Middle Eastern material work, however, is the performance by Eisenberg, who is a real comic discovery. He has some of the same sarcastic innocence we saw in Harold Ramis’ character in “Ghostbusters” – he’s very wise and very innocent. Ebert pointed out, “Some of his best moments involve his bewildering cross-cultural dialogue: He speaks in vast metaphysical concepts, which are unexpectedly interrupted with 1985 slang and pop sociology.”

Meanwhile, Douglas and Turner have fun with two of the largest roles in recent memory. They fight, they make up, they joke at the look of disaster. Ebert noted, “Just as Woody Allen and Diane Keaton always seem to be on the same wavelength in their comic dialogues, so do Douglas and Turner, in their own way, make an ideally matched comedy team.” It is evident that they like each other and are having fun during the constant ridiculous situations in the movie, and their chemistry is sometimes more entertaining than the devices of the plot.

Ebert admitted, “My favorite moment between them comes as they hang by their hands over a rat pit, while acid gnaws away at the ropes that suspend them above certain doom. Sure, this scene owes something to “Raiders of the Lost Ark.” But what’s new about it this time is the dialogue – the way they break down and confess that they love each other, and make marriage plans as death inexorably approaches. And then, when DeVito appears and might possibly save them, there is some business with a ladder that is followed by dialogue so perfectly timed that I laughed not so much in amusement as in delight at how well the mechanisms of the scene fell together.”

For all of its enjoyment, “The Jewel of the Nile” is a minor and unimportant entertainment. How could it be otherwise? Even though it is not the same of “Romancing the Stone.” That’s not a surprise. For what it is, however, it’s fun. Ebert ended his review by saying, “And for what it’s worth, Douglas and Turner could keep on working in this tradition forever, giving us a 1980s version of the Bing Crosby and Bob Hope “Road” pictures. I guess they don’t want to, though, and perhaps that’s just as well. What I hope is that a casting director sees Avner Eisenberg for what he is: the most intriguing comedy discovery in a long time.”

Yes, this is not as good as the first movie, seeing how it might be a disappointment when revealed that “The Jewel of the Nile” is a person and not an actual jewel, but I still thought it was good. This is still at a time when Zemeckis was at his prime and I think everyone should check this one out. I don’t think everyone will like it as much as the first movie, but that is to be expected with certain sequels. You will still have fun when watching it, I can say that much.

Next week, I will look at another classic film as we continue “Michael Douglas Month.”

Romancing the Stone

For this entire month, I thought of reviewing films that star one of the greatest actors of all time, Michael Douglas. I know I have reviewed some of his films in the past, but there are others that I have not looked at, so let’s get started with the 1984 Robert Zemeckis classic, “Romancing the Stone.”

It may have an awkward title, but “Romancing the Stone” is a silly, high-spirited chase films that takes us, as they say, from the mountains of Manhattan to the deep jungles of South America. Roger Ebert pointed out in his review, “The movie’s about a New York woman who writes romantic thrillers in which the hungry lips of lovers devour each other as the sun sinks over the dead bodies of their enemies.” Then she gets involved in a real-life thriller, which is filled with cliffhanging dilemmas just like the ones she writes about. The writer, played by Kathleen Turner, uses her novels as a type of escape. Ebert said, “Throbbing loins may melt together on her pages, but not in her life.” Then she gets a desperate message from her sister in South America: Unless she comes to Cartagena with a treasure map showing the location of a priceless green jewel, her sister will be killed.

Ebert said, “What follows is an adventure that will remind a lot of people of “Raiders of the Lost Ark,” but it will be a pleasant memory. After all the “Raiders” rip-offs, it’s fun to find an adventure film that deserves the comparison, that has the same spirit and sense of humor.” Turner lands in Colombia, and almost instantly becomes part of the plans of a whole army of desperadoes. There are the local police, the local thugs, the local mountain bandits, and the local hero, a guy named Jack Colton, played by Michael Douglas.

Movies like this work best if they have original inspirations about the ways were the heroes can die. Ebert admitted, “I rather liked the pit full of snarling alligators, for example. They also work well if the villains are colorful, desperate, and easy to tell apart. They are.” Danny DeVito, who plays Louie DePalma in “Taxi,” plays a Peter Lorre type, complete with a white tropical suit and a hat that keeps getting crushed in the mud. He’s a gangster from up north, determined to follow Turner to the jewel.

There’s also a charming local soldier hero named Zolo, played by Manuel Ojeda, who wears a French Foreign Legion cap and desires after not only Turner’s treasure map but all of her other treasures. Also, Alfonso Arau plays a country bandito who looks like he has memorized all of Turner’s thrillers.

Movies like this have a habit of turning into a long series of scenes where the man grabs the woman by the hand and leads her away from danger at a desperate run. Ebert criticized, “I always hate scenes like that. Why can’t the woman run by herself? Don’t they both have a better chance if the guy doesn’t have to always be dragging her? What we’re really seeing is leftover sexism from the days when women were portrayed as hapless victims.” “Romancing the Stone” doesn’t have too many scenes like that. It starts by being entirely about the woman, and despite Douglas takes over after they meet, that’s basically because he knows the area. Their relationship is on an equal balance, and so is their love affair. We get the feeling they really care about each other, and so the romance isn’t just a distraction from the action.

Reviewreviewer1 had recommended this movie to me long ago because he was saying that I need to watch the best Robert Zemeckis films during the highlight of his careers in the 80s. I checked it out and I really loved this film a lot. If you haven’t seen it, you should. This is definitely one of Zemeckis’ best works and if you’re his fan, then this one shouldn’t be missed.

Next week, I will look at the sequel to this film in “Michael Douglas Month.”