New Reviews: Wall Street 2 & Howl

Money Talks

Current events do as much to inspire the marketplace of storytelling as those in the past. Oliver Stone used to be a man obsessed with the past, constantly diving into the subjects of the Vietnam War, the Kennedy Assassination, and former presidents decades ago, not to mention that certain Macedonian leader from a few centuries past. Recently, Stone's obsession with the past has shifted in gaze, and his aim has less reach lately. His George W. Bush film was even released with the president was still in office. Even though his new film is a sequel to a film that was released more than twenty years ago, it's themes and plot still reach into the limited past. And the results are just about the same as the first time.

The first Wall Street film ended with the notorious Gordon Gekko being sent off to prison for insider trading. Michael Douglas reprises his Oscar-winning role as Gekko is released shortly after the September 11 attacks. Seven years later, he's slowly returning to the public eye with a book about his life. He soon attaches himself to Jake Moore (Shia LaBeouf), a young Wall Street hotshot who collaborates with Gekko to get revenge on the banking firm run by Josh Brolin that drove Moore's firm to belly up, which was run by his mentor (Frank Langella). There's also a side plot concerning Jake being engaged to Gekko's daughter (Carey Mulligan) and try to reconcile their own relationship.

The film has mostly been sold on the promise of Douglas returning to the role which gave him even more fame, not to mention his first and only acting Oscar. However, for most of the film, he's sidelined and feels more like a supporting player. In truth, that's pretty much how Gekko was handled in the original film. But in the first film, he was so much better than the mediocre rags-to-riches tale of Charlie Sheen that he could outshine the rest. This time, the appearance of Douglas feels more like fan service, and even though it's nice to see Douglas shine in a performance he can relish in, it feels unnecessary. The rest of the plot that revolves around Gekko is actually a lot more interesting.

Stone has always been a stylized director, and as the times have evolved, his tricks have gotten a bit more flashy (JFK might be an outlier of the early days), but conversely a bit muted. This film works like it's trying to reach back to what Stone has done before, and in terms of a directorial effort, it is much more memorable film than the last few films of his. I do think Stone gets lost in his own world a bit, and lets the story and actors fend for themselves at several points. The script itself is a bit overstuffed and juggles far too many story elements, which leads to some sluggish plotlines and a film that ends up being about twenty minutes too long.

As I said, Douglas is a great actor, and he shines in this role. There's also an added bit of depth to his performance with his recent health problems, which gives him just an extra bit of self-reflection to his persona. It's not quite as engaging as the first time, and even though this film probably could have worked without him, you still get a kick watching him. LaBeouf still hasn't broken out as a serious actor to me, so his role to fulfill the role that Sheen had in the original serves its purpose, but nothing more. Mulligan does her crying best, but she's a little wasted. The best players are Brolin and Langella (by coincidence both have played presidents). They command the screen whenever they appear, and are obviously the best parts of the film.

I'm not always pleased when filmmakers retread on their own material, and the world would have been perfectly fine without another Wall Street revisit. Stone and company don't reinvent the wheel with this one, but they do offer some nice entertainment. Most of the performances are good, and Stone's effort as a director has enough stylish flare to compensate for the lackluster storytelling and sluggish pace. Whether Stone's next journey takes on the events from centuries ago or what just happened twenty minutes ago, I'm sure I'll be there to witness his slow dissent into mediocrity.

B

Poetry Slam

I'll admit it: I'm not the biggest poetry fan. I'm sure it's got all the great assets necessary for compelling reading, but it generally doesn't float my boat. I tend to be an even lesser fan of the film dramatizations of poets. However, I do have an open mind, and if one comes along that I enjoy, then I'll sing whatever praises I can for it (I adored last year's Bright Star). In the beginning, I had similar reservations about this film, but soon I started to gain interest in it. Unfortunately, this film has yet to make it to a theatre in Chicago, but by the godsend that is Comcast's On Demand section, I was able to see this anticipated film. While nowhere near a masterpiece, I have to say there's quite a few elements that I did enjoy.

In case you don't know, Howl is the name of famous poet Allen Ginsberg's most famous writing, the one that inspired a landmark, controversial trial to determine whether or not the poem would be deemed as obscene. James Franco is at the center as Ginsberg, and he pops in and out of the film as either the interview subject spouting about his feelings of life and art or as the narrator of "Howl" set against vivid, animated sequences. Ginsberg is absent during the trial, as the prosecution and defense attorneys (David Strathairn and Jon Hamm, respectively) battle each other over the material.

If you're looking for a straight forward, comprehensive biopic on Ginsberg's life, then you might be disappointed. This is less a story about Ginsberg and more of a meditation on his life and work. Directors Rob Epstein and Jeffrey Freidman have worked in the world of documentary up until this point, and their feature film debut certainly has the fluid storytelling that can often be seen in documentaries. They know that each segment brings in a certain perspective: the Ginsberg interviews give light to his mind and his background, the animated sequences express the power of the poem, and the trial is meant to show the absurdity of the oppression on speech. Of all of these, I think the court room is the weakest, as these are the moments that are flatly shot, muddled in pace, and harping on ideas that are self-explanatory and don't need further exploration.

Some could get tiresome of the animated scenes, and I think eventually they get to the point of one too many. But I think the vivid style of them does give a greater significance to the poem, and whether you have read "Howl" or not, you might find a deeper appreciation of the writing, or at least understand where that appreciation comes from within others. Everything revolving around Ginsberg the man shows him as a pretty isolated figure, but by careful direction and the ace cinematography from Edward Lachman, it never feels stuffy and is always intriguing to watch.

For most of the film, Franco is doing a one man show, and his performance as Ginsberg is a much understated one. There's no showy moments that would scream, "Here's my Oscar scene"; the closest would probably be his reading of the poem in front of a live audience. What Franco does do well is embody the mind of this character, so that even though he's calm in every scene, he feels real and believable as this character. The supporting players are pushed to the extreme sideline, with the only one snatching attention would be Jeff Daniels as a dismissive literary elite who gets into a very descriptive war of words trying to examine, what he feels to be, a lesser literary work like "Howl." He's a good actor who distracts us from the stiff Hamm and phoned-in Strathairn.

If you need only one reason to see this film, I'd say it's James Franco's performance, as he does so much with so little that it's really a special kind of magic to watch him subtlety inhabit this character. But if you know me, you generally need more than one good performance to recommend a film. Well, I can say that the insight brought to Ginsberg and "Howl" is sincerely felt, and the way the film executes his life and the meaning of the words can give you a brand new sense of discovery, even when a portion of the film in the courtroom may not be quite as captivating. This is a film that can easily be lost in the shuffle, and I suspect it will be. I know I won't forget it, and if you take the chance either in the movie theatre or at home, I hope you can give it a chance as well.

B+