Yes, but why...? Why make a sequel? It was never going to be as good, as cutting edge and raw as the first film. Is it just to prove that in the intervening 20-odd years nothing has really changed? The world is just as venal and full of greedy gits? Anyway, the newly released "Gekko" (Michael Douglas) takes the young "Jake" (Shia LaBeouf) - who is dating his estranged daughter "Winnie" (Carey Mulligan) under his wing. Ostensibly on the straight and narrow now, but soon we sense - and see - that this young man is every bit as gullible and easily led as "Gekko" sets about rebuilding something of his multi-million dollar empire. To be fair to LaBeouf, his portrayal of the young man trying to balance the needs of his relationship with his ambitions is actually quite reasonable, but sadly both Douglas and the writing have lost much of their potency and the on/off familial stuff just drags the already quite weak pace down all too often. I actually found the ending quite fitting - but for the most part this is a very, very, poor cousin of a much better story that I feel probably cinema could have done without.

<em>'Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps'</em> falls short of its predecessor, even though it is still satisfactory. It does have issues, for example it overruns and has some ill-fitting editing. The original had top (+ better) performances but wasn't fully reliant on the cast, this is more so. It's cool to see Michael Douglas reprise his role, the same can be for that rather fan service-y moment in the middle of the film. Shia LaBeouf, Josh Brolin and Carey Mulligan are positive new faces and give enough, even if I've seen greater from each one of them in other productions. This 2010 sequel isn't as much about Wall Street as the first flick, which I think is a mistake. Of course there is plenty in there about it, but to me it felt much more about Gekko and his personal life - which isn't quite as interesting to watch unfold across 120+ minutes.