I'm not the best to talk about this movie because i watched only the Darryl scenes: honestly, i don't know today actress with the same soft, dreamy blonde attitude: sure she has a halo from my Swedish friend but all her 80s movies are really good: here she plays an art expert for the tycoon Douglas and falls in love with the yuppie. For sure she lives over the top and doesn't want to lose that, even for love! But i'm sure that if the yuppie would have talked better to her instead of threaten her, she would have stayed!

Martin Sheen plays a blue-collar worker. You know he's a blue-collar worker because he always wears an unbuttoned blue shirt stained with mechanic's grease, and he hangs out in a classic dive bar in Queens with his burly, beer-drinking buddies. He wishes that his son, played by Charlie Sheen, would have become this or that instead of a stockbroker. Can you guess which two professions he envisions for his son? If you guessed lawyer and doctor, congratulations, you've seen a movie and you know the clichés. And if you've paid attention, you know why that cliché is all wrong for Martin Sheen's character. He is created in the classic image of the hard-working, straight- shooting, lunch-pail-carrying union man, so what use does he have for a lawyer son any more or less than a stockbroker son? All a doctor son would do is tell him to put out the cigarettes he smokes as a kind of socio-political statement. If it's just upward mobility he's after for his son (it's not, as he makes clear), then high- powered trader ought to be good enough. His "lawyer or doctor" speech is not just a hack line of dialogue, it's the wrong hack dialogue in the wrong hack character's mouth.Between that early scene and the end, "Wall Street" and the people in it change very little. The mode of expression is obvious and labored and faux-intellectual for the duration. The movie is Oliver Stone's spoonful of supposed truth about the rotten core of American capitalism, force-fed to audiences without any adulteration of wit or charm. A lot of critics and audiences lapped it up in 1987. They and the Oscar voters were Father Stone's choir, happy to give a pass to his pulpit-pounding so long as he was sticking it to the Reaganites and Thatcherites. Michael Douglas's Gordon Gecko and his British counterpart played by Terrence Stamp are the strawmen who stand in for the latter groups. Conveniently, they know they are bad guys. They don't have the pesky tendency of real-world people to believe that they're basically decent. When Gecko says "Greed is good," one of many soundbytes the script tries on and one of few that fits, he is trying to persuade a roomfull of stockholders that capitalism is the engine of progress and a force for good in the world. If he believed that, as many people do, he'd have been a much more interesting figure. The characters played by the Sheens would have to engage him more thoughtfully in order to make a case to the contrary. Happily for them, no such effort is required by them, Stone, or the audience, because Gecko doesn't really believe what he says; he knows he's hurting others, and he doesn't care. The lifestyle he has, the language he uses, and the amorality he cultivates all exist in real life, and maybe sociopaths like him do exist in greater proportions on Wall Street than on Main Street. But characters as black and white as Douglas and Martin Sheen's are the exception. "Wall Street" is a fantasy movie, the world as Stone's conspiratorial mind imagines it to be. It is neither politically nor emotionally intelligent.It is, however, cheesy, and this goes a long way toward making the film watchable. Charlie Sheen's Bud breaking down by a hospital bed is as old a chestnut as the scene where his meat-and-potatoes father looks askance at a hoity-toity piece of sushi and the one where Gecko quotes Sun-tzu. These moments are so earnest and yet so cartoonish that they create some unintentional levity by virtue of their familiarity.There is some good stagecraft and visual communication in "Wall Street." Many shots are stuffed front to back with people, and this brings the always-inhuman spectacle of the trading floor into the usually quieter spaces of white-collar offices and the executive conference rooms. All levels of the Wall Street world are thus implicated in the madness. At the back and along the edges of many of these crowded rooms, Stone carefully places "real" workers doing hands-on jobs: window-washers, janitors, many of them minorities and women. This is as subtle as the film gets, and it is more effective in its quiet way than Gecko's villainy or Martin Sheen's self- righteousness.

I have only just watched this movie today, which means my review comes around 30 years too late. The movie is OK, not great, but definitely watchable. The plot is a little too predictable in my opinion. Maybe it wasn't 30 years ago. This is yet another story about how a young man is pretty much willing to sell his soul to make it to the top of the financial world: Wall Street. And he does so by joining forces with the most ruthless of investors: Michael Douglas. A man whose only pleasure comes from making money without any regards for anything or anyone. The predictable twist comes when the two characters are about to close a multi billion airline deal. It they go ahead with their plan, great wealth awaits both of them, but the young broker's father and thousands of other co-workers lose their jobs in the process. The young broker faces the ultimate dilemma: to become what he had always wished for or to save his father by relinquishing his dreams. But if he does the latter, he takes down his partner...Not telling you the end, otherwise there's nothing left to watch.I'll just finish by saying that its a good enough movie (and I am extremely fussy) to watch on a Sunday afternoon, while you check your whatsapp and your facebook feed.

Normally I would write a commentary on a movie within a few days of seeing it, however I have made an exception to this film because I really don't want to go through the bother of trying to find it again, and then sitting through two hours that the film takes to reach its conclusion. It is not that it is a bad movie, but rather it is a movie that I am not really all that interested in watching again. The only reason that I ended up watching this movie again (I have seen it twice now) was because I wanted to watch it before watching the sequel.We all know what this movie is about, and in fact this movie ended up creating a culture on Wall Street, with the style of shirt that Gordon Gecko wears being called a Gecko, and the phrase 'Greed is good' being bandied about. What is generally forgotten though is that the actual phrase is 'for lack of a better word, greed is good'. Rather surprising coming from a film whose intention is to actually criticise the casino culture of Wall Street, and the fact that people are stepping over the boundaries of illegality for the sack of greed. I guess though that the Wall Street millionaires that ended up watching this film probably did not see their actions actually being illegal (even though, like Gordon Gecko, they were practising insider trading and asset stripping companies – acts which in the end put Gordon Gecko behind bars).Unlike the sequel, which was made in response to the Global Financial Crisis, the original was made during one of Wall Street's hey days, when the market was going up and many people believed that the sky was the limit. However within a year the entire edifice would end up coming under strain when the Savings and Loans scandal hit and caused a stockmarket crash, followed by a recession, in America. Still, nobody learnt from their mistakes, and even before the crash on 08, there were a number of other crashes (and recessions) that preceded it.The other problem with films criticising Wall Street is, as I said, the Wall Street bankers generally do not take much notice of it, and those who do, generally do not have much influence to actually do anything about it. On the other hand those of us plebs who watch this film are reminded that those people in their ivory towers may be living the good life, but it does not last forever, and sometimes, having a clear conscience, is much better than having more money that you know what to do with.