2010 Sequel Film 'Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps' is C+ Technical? Starring Michael Douglas and Shia LaBeof

66 year old Gordon Gekko (Michael Douglas) should have made the first hour of this movie into a documentary, explaining how stock-market-trading actually works in today's 2010 society and then begin the actual theater movie after-wards!

The first confusing hour of this historical C+ sequel movie begins with Geckko getting out of prison after 7 years, with no one sadly waiting for him on the outside, and then suddenly film viewers are thrust into a world of stock market trading without any on-screeen education?

After the first hour of confusing non-education stock market film portrayed trading, the plot or love story slowly begins to unravel revealing how Gekko's beautiful estranged 25 year old daugther Winnie (Carey Mulligan) refuses to ironically accept a 100 million dollar Swiss trust fund account from her past imprisoned father (Michael Douglas) after she turned 18 years old.

Dark and sometimes even humorously never telling her live-in boyfriend Jacob "Jake" Moore. This story is entirely juvenile for 133 minutes of viewing, especially for the academy-award winning director Oliver Stone! Ironically? Based on the fact of pregnant Winnie.

Although the sinister and crooked father Gordon Gekko had already made plans ahead of time in prison to schmooze and con her also stock-market-trading gullible/lovable boyfriend "Jake Moore" . Money and or human value seemed to have no importance regarding this film.

Especially the motorcycle chase episode, between Jake Moore and Bretton James (Josh Brolin) where the two of them compete fast-speed motorcycle riding in a secluded wooded park area, whereas they finally end up arguing with each other about more confusing stock market problems for the daily average film viewer to understand. (Be sure to get a stock market education before viewing this part II sequel film).

What I personally thought was strange regarding this sequel film? "Is the the fact that historic Hollywood actor Michael Douglas seemed to change his facial appearance during filming? In other words? The film story was based on a 1year period, but yet, Gordon Gekko's appearance seemed to change as though he had aged at least 10-20 years or so? At the very end of the film Michael Douglas looked horribly just like his 94 year old father Kirk Douglas if you look closely during this film on the big screen theater.

Beautiful English actress Carey Mulligan stated in her recent 2010 FOX interview that this was a true "Learning experience regarding the stock market and how it works!" She also expressed in-person interview her gorgeous dress, make-up, English accent, beautiful body, and most of all?

How well she carries herself as a performance actress in today's worldwide films, which reluctantly never showed her natural talent in this what I would call a personal number C+ film called "Wall Street: Money never sleeps", but a childish/juvenile state of behavior for film viewers, especially in the end of this film while she is pregnant with "Jake Moore's" baby for approx. (1) one minute or less. The ending of this hyped film was terrible.

Actor Michael Douglas and director Oliver Stone are both known for severe alcohol drinking and smoking tobacco, which Michael Douglas has been 2010 recently been diagnosed with throat cancer, which could also show a low lack of quality in this modern day sad film called "Wall Street: Money never sleeps"

The both of them need to seriously think about their paid viewers which made them rich and famous over the years. "Who knows? Douglas and Stone may have both stayed drunk while making this mostly disappointing viewer movie?

Famous 72 year old American actor Frank Langella also played a small part in this film in the beginning, but later on committed suicide in a dramatic scene. One of the original actors of the 1987 movie called "Wall Street" Charlie Sheen also made a small cameo appearance in this childishly C+ written film. Yahoo.com movie original first week viewers rated this as a "B" movie. However?

After looking over the latest results on this date and time of this article review, the viewer comments and expectations are absolutely terrible probably because of high movie sequel expectations, which could possibly be a D+ for paid theater viewers.

The "B" movie critics reviews still remains the same on Yahoo.com/movies regarding the original release date of this film on their website. If you have intentions of paying and also viewing this particular movie on the big screen theater? I would carefully read over all of the recent Yahoo.com members reviews here in the month of October 2010, which seems to be really bad at the time?