Wall Street (1987)

In this article, we will be looking at 2019’s book “1001 Movies to See Before You Die” and going through each film in a random order that I have chosen. We will be looking at what constitutes this film to be on the list and whether I think this film deserves to be here at all. I want to make perfectly clear that I won’t be revealing details from this book such as analyses by film reporters who have written about the film in question, so if you want the book itself you’ll have to buy it. But I will be covering the book’s suggestions on which films should be your top priority. I wouldn’t doubt for a second that everyone reading this article has probably watched many of these movies anyway. But we are just here to have a bit of fun. We’re going to not just look at whether it should be on this list but we’re also going to look at why the film has such a legacy at all. Remember, this is the 2019 version of the book and so, films like “Joker” will not be featured in this book and any film that came out in 2020 (and if we get there, in 2021). So strap in and if you have your own suggestions then don’t hesitate to email me using the address in my bio. Let’s get on with it then.

Wall Street (1987) dir. by Oliver Stone

Honestly, I did enjoy this film better than the second instalment of the same series. The first film seems almost like the setting for “American Psycho” and there is so much to learn about when it comes to the characters and the way they interact in reality and through deception. Starring Michael Douglas and Charlie Sheen, this film is one of my most loved films of the eighties whilst also being the one film that I could never watch twice in one week because, well when it comes to stock brokers, I just think it is so boring even Gordon Gekko could not make me sit through it that often.

Roger Ebert praised the film whilst giving it three and a half out of four stars. He stated that the film was allowing:

"all the financial wheeling and dealing to seem complicated and convincing, and yet always have it make sense. 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…”

Whilst TIME Magazine weighed in and stated about Stone that his directing seemed out of this world:

"This time he works up a salty sweat to end up nowhere, like a triathlete on a treadmill. But as long as he keeps his players in venal, perpetual motion, it is great scary fun to watch him work out…”

The Globe and Mail praised the performances of Michael Douglas and Charlie Sheen as many had failed to see the true impact of them upon the film though they were the leads:

"But Douglas's portrayal of Gordon Gekko is an oily triumph and as the kid Gekko thinks he has found in Fox ('Poor, smart and hungry; no feelings'), Charlie Sheen evolves persuasively from gung-ho capitalist child to wily adolescent corporate raider to morally appalled adult…”

Whilst The Washington Post had this to say about the storyline, narrative and the way in which the film displays a certain amount of ironic ‘soap-boxery' as it is put:

"is at its weakest when it preaches visually or verbally. Stone doesn't trust the time-honoured story line, supplementing the obvious moral with plenty of soapboxery”

When the sequel came out twenty-three years later, Variety Magazine took it upon themselves to review the original again. Here is what they had to say:

“[The film was] intended as a cautionary tale on the pitfalls of unchecked ambition and greed, Stone's 1987 original instead had the effect of turning Douglas' hugely charismatic (and Oscar-winning) villain into a household name and boardroom icon – an inspiration to the very power players and Wall Street wannabes for whom he set such a terrible example…”

Well, no wonder Michael Douglas got the Best Actor Academy Award that year, he was absolutely brilliant as the machiavellian Gordon Gekko.