Critical response The film's reception was mixed.
Review tallying website
Rotten Tomatoes reported an approval rating of 54%, based on a sample of 234 reviews, with an average rating of 5.97/10. The website's critical consensus reads, "It's more entertaining than many sequels, but with Oliver Stone directing, a terrific cast, and a timely storyline that picks up where the original left off,
Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps should be better." By comparison,
Wall Street (1987) had achieved a 79% positive rating. On
Metacritic, the film has a weighted average score of 59 out of 100, based on 39 critics, indicating "mixed or average reviews". Audiences polled by
CinemaScore gave the film an average grade of "B−" on an A+ to F scale. Joe Neumaier of the
New York Daily News awarded it five out of five stars saying that it is a sharp sequel that is worthy of its investment. He also saluted the cast's performance and noted that Douglas gives Gekko "uncounted layers as he fakes, deals and fuels fire". Matthew Toomey of Australia's
612 ABC Radio Brisbane gave it a B-rating and said that Douglas is the film's "biggest positive", finding LaBeouf to be unconvincing in his role.
Christy Lemire, in
The Canadian Press, claimed that the film ultimately "goes soft and loses its way" and described the contrast in its final scenes as being "laughable". Furthermore, the subplot between LaBeouf and Mulligan's characters was criticized as unneeded and pointed out that their relationship leads viewers to wonder why Winnie, who despises Gekko, would be involved with a man who does exactly the same thing as him, which she condemns; however, Lemire acknowledged that the movie is an uncommon sequel that seems to be both relevant and necessary and said that it proves that "greed can still be good". Film critic Colin Newton of the
Brisbane Sunday Mail felt that the plot lacked the enthusiasm of the first film. Along the same lines,
Village Voice contributor Nick Pinkerton pointed out that the
Wall Street sequel did not have the "clean, fable-like arc" formula of its predecessor. Kirk Honeycutt of
The Hollywood Reporter said that the film succeeded in being one of the better sequels in a while, but that Stone "gets too fancy here and there", the film's "heavy reliance on multiple screens, graphics and digital tricks makes it feel like one is watching
CNN with all its computer-screen busyness."
Roger Ebert, reviewing the movie in the
Chicago Sun-Times, noted that it ended with a better conclusion when Stone had edited the film after its Cannes viewing, but still felt it was a little too long. He considered the film to be sophisticated and said its photography was aesthetically pleasing but stated he wanted it to be "outraged." In
The Guardian, Peter Bradshaw gave the film two out of five stars, commenting that "despite the pious waffle about market craziness being like cancer, no one is ever shown enduring the actual misery of losing money." Writing for
Time magazine,
Richard Corliss stated that the film has the "drive, luxe and sarcastic wit of the snazziest Hollywood movies."
David Edelstein, writing in
New York Magazine, described the film as being "full of promise, with minuscule returns." He concluded that, like Stone's other recent work, it is difficult to distinguish what the project's focus is supposed to be.
Joe Morgenstern from
The Wall Street Journal wrote that the movie manages to keep a hold on its audience's attention. He thought that Douglas measured up to Gekko's standards in the film, believing that he was the only actor to sustain a "sense of nasty fun", and felt that LaBeouf's effectiveness was within the range of the film-maker's direction, but was unimpressed with Brolin's portrayal of James. He concluded that the script takes an unconvincing jab at Gekko's "spiritual regeneration," which was due to a scene that he considered to be "inherently illogical and emotionally inert."
The Daily Telegraphs David Gritten said that
Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps lacked the "punch" of the original film and was annoyed by the number of cameos throughout the film.
Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps received three out of five stars from Stephen Lambrechts of
IGN Australia. Lambrechts felt that Stone's growth as a film director might mirror Gekko's as a person; having had used time to calm down over the years and settle into a more relaxed state of being. He concluded that the film's final result is not "quite the incendiary attack that it could have been, but it still has plenty to say while also managing to be an entertaining crowd pleaser." In contrast to the film's detractors,
BoxOffice journalist Pete Hammond said the film was "brilliantly cast" and labeled it a "crackerjack powerhouse of a movie that shines a light on the financial machinations". He stated that Douglas does not lose any of the substance of Gekko and LaBeouf is firm as Jacob. The writer predicted the
Wall Street sequel's box office performance would be brisk, while the prospects were assured on DVD. Andrew O'Hehir's of
Salon.com reviewed the film from Cannes, calling it an "ambitious, uneven, surprisingly talky melodrama, which mixes a quasi-documentary approach to the crash of 2008 with the story." O'Hehir's considered the film to express a more "personal, intimate sense of moral hazard".
Marshall Fine, writing in the
Huffington Post, viewed the film as an "overstuffed blend of agitprop and melodrama" that contains a cautionary story pertaining to unchecked capitalism. He considered Stone to be proclaiming a message of the "cancerous effects of greed". Bill Goodykoontz of
Arizona Republic admitted that he was not surprised to see that the sequel is not as effective as its predecessor, though it was an engaging film at the top of its game when it is hostile, and less satisfying during romantic parts. He ended by saying that it is not a "great movie", but explained that it is an "effective commentary on what greed cost" everyone. CEO of
Tullett Prebon,
Terry Smith, one of the largest inter-dealer money brokers in the world, reviewed the movie for
Today on
BBC Radio 4. He gave it three out of five saying that, although it was "a little bit corny in some respects", it puts the events of the credit crunch into context and that "it rings reasonably true," capturing some of the activities, the moods and the individuals quite well."
Accolades == See also ==