Enjoyed this film, it is a little long but I'm sure what could be cut. Leonardo DiCaprio is excellent as Belfort as is Jonah Hill and Margot Robbie. Matthew McConaughey who was such a treat to watch in his few scenes.
I don't think the film glamorises the behaviour of Belfort, we see that his excess lifestyle costs him two marriages and his career.
Went to see this on Friday and although it was by no means a perfect movie I still really enjoyed it.
In terms of the 'issues' that I had with it, I wasn't completely comfortable with how DiCaprio's narration etc was incredibly similar to Ray Liotta's in 'Goodfellas' and in addition to that I felt the final thirty or so minutes were ever so slightly dull compared to what had preceded them.
That said, both DiCaprio & Hill gave superbly OTT performances and they were surrounded by a very decent collection of supporting actors.
Overall, it's not my favourite movie of the month (that's really only because quality bar has been set surprising high in January) but it definitely still deserves a solid 8/10 from me...
Breif summation: Leo was good, some nice little cameos from McConaughey, Dujardin and Lumley. Film is a self indulgent mess that's about an hour over long, and tbh I found it to be morally repugnant. 3/10
Saw it earlier tonight and loved it, it was a lot funnier than i was expecting it to be. Leo was superb, as was Jonah Hill, the scene where they have a delayed reaction to one of the drugs was absolutely hilarious. It didn't feel like it was on for 3 hours either. Overall, a highly enjoyable movie (even if all of the characters are repugnant pricks!).
I was in a tube station earlier this morning when I noticed a wall poster of this film. While studying it, I realised who I thought DiCaprio looked like:
Julian McMahon, the actor who played a sleazy surgeon in TV series, Nip/Tuck.
Watched this last night. Thought it was very good. DiCaprio and Scorcese make a great combo. I even thought Jonah Hill was good in this and I haven't been able to stand him in anything he's been in since I first wanted to cause him serious injury after being subjected to "Superbad".
Breif summation: Leo was good, some nice little cameos from McConaughey, Dujardin and Lumley. Film is a self indulgent mess that's about an hour over long, and tbh I found it to be morally repugnant. 3/10
That's why I'm going to give this one a miss. The media reporting that banks and other financial organisations are making block bookings, with city types whooping and cheering, is enough to turn my stomach.
I'm sure it's a very good movie, but it's too soon after these guys (or ones like them) plunged half the world into recession while running away with bulging pockets, for me to find it amusing.
I really enjoyed the film. LDC does a great job in it and the DVD Screener I had was just a kick off 3 hours and it flew by. Like others the delayed reaction to The Lemon tablets was hilarious. Like others have said there is plenty of swearing and sex in it as well.
That's why I'm going to give this one a miss. The media reporting that banks and other financial organisations are making block bookings, with city types whooping and cheering, is enough to turn my stomach.
I'm sure it's a very good movie, but it's too soon after these guys (or ones like them) plunged half the world into recession while running away with bulging pockets, for me to find it amusing.
That would turn my stomach seeing that at the cinema. I liked the film, but the character was an utter disgrace of a human being.
Breif summation: Leo was good, some nice little cameos from McConaughey, Dujardin and Lumley. Film is a self indulgent mess that's about an hour over long, and tbh I found it to be morally repugnant. 3/10
It seems a bit odd to object to a film because of its perceived 'morality'. As another poster has pointed out, depicting something is not that same thing as endorsing it. Directors should not be afraid to make films that go against Hollywood morality, in which the good guys get rewarded and the bad guys get their come-uppance. Look at the Godfather films. The Corleones get away with murder, corrupution etc. It doesn't stop the films being masterpieces.
That's why I'm going to give this one a miss. The media reporting that banks and other financial organisations are making block bookings, with city types whooping and cheering, is enough to turn my stomach.
I'm sure it's a very good movie, but it's too soon after these guys (or ones like them) plunged half the world into recession while running away with bulging pockets, for me to find it amusing.
It's simplistic to conflate the film's events with the banking crisis. The former was deliberate securities fraud whereas the latter was largely negligence on the part of senior bankers combined with a political failure to regulate.
Not seen the film (not something I'd make a trip to the cinema for), but what do you think?
Love Kermy, his Sucker Punch and Sex and the City 2 rants are two of the funniest movie reviews I've ever seen. I thought his full review of WOWS was very informative: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ot0KC1s1U1g
Not seen the film (not something I'd make a trip to the cinema for), but what do you think?
I think professional reviewers tend not to place such importance on the entertainment aspects of a film, as someone who has to pay cash to watch a film you should. There are no qualifications required to review, there is very little intellect needed to sit infront of a screen, any idiot can do that, so don't take very much notice.
Wolf is entertaining enough, DeCaprios character is charming, you could argue that the way it ends the FBI man on his crowded train (loser?) and DeCaprio filling halls with fans (winner?) wont please many people other than bankers. Keep small kids away from it though as they may want to grow up like Leo rather than David Beckham.
It seems a bit odd to object to a film because of its perceived 'morality'. As another poster has pointed out, depicting something is not that same thing as endorsing it. Directors should not be afraid to make films that go against Hollywood morality, in which the good guys get rewarded and the bad guys get their come-uppance. Look at the Godfather films. The Corleones get away with murder, corrupution etc. It doesn't stop the films being masterpieces.
Lets me be very clear, I have seen a lot of tough and uncompromising films in my life, and I'm really not so stupid as to be unable to see that depicting something doesn't necessarily endorse it. As an example I saw Snowtown a couple of years ago, one of the most physiologically disturbing films ever made, but also bloody good. I could never sit through it again, but it was amazing work by all concerned, and hey, I was never left with the idea that that the film makers were endorsing serial killers. I actually feel that it's a rather patronising and dismissive comment to make, actually, because there is some kind of suggestion that anyone who finds the way this film is presented troubling in any way is a bit on the thick side.
Lets contrast this film to Wall Street. One key reason why I think it works much better as a film exploring these themes is because the morale compass for the audience is Charlie Sheen's character, who through the course of the film has a range of conflicting thoughts on the situation he gets himself in and the people he comes in to contact with. We see his hero worship, we see it gradually corrupted, we see him realising he has made bad choices. Thats really rather satisfying to me as a viewer, to see genuine character development, and the film itself allows the audience to draw their own conclusions rather than going for a crude good/bad model.
The morale compass in Wolf basically remains the same obnoxious bastard from start to finish. This wouldn't be such an issue if the film weren't to me showing his choices to be favourable, for example, to those of the diligent agent who eventually took him down (and really it's unarguable that this is what the scenes at the end are saying to this audience - look at this smuck on the subway while our hero is having a cushy old time of it in jail playing tennis with his chums before going on with life in exactly the same way with $$$$ in the bank, isn't that brilliant?!). Not only that but there are key scenes we the audience are openly invited to feel sorry for him for his destructive behaviour up to an including smacking his wife in the stomach and almost killing his own child.
My point is that I felt the film, deliberately or otherwise absolutely DID glorify the character and the behaviour, and a more deft script and better editing could have avoided my feeling that way. it's nothing to do with whether or not people got their comeuppance or not. You may feel they got it spot on in tone, I don't, and clearly I'm not alone in this.
Not seen the film (not something I'd make a trip to the cinema for), but what do you think?
Can't be arsed to visit youtube but disliking a film (or, indeed, any other piece of art) because a protagonist is 'unlikeable' is the height of stupidity.
Is King Lear 'likeable'. What about Catherine Earnshaw and Heathcliffe? Michael Corleone? It's up there with 'self-indulgent' as a way of criticising something without being able to explain why you don't like it.
Lets me be very clear, I have seen a lot of tough and uncompromising films in my life, and I'm really not so stupid as to be unable to see that depicting something doesn't necessarily endorse it. As an example I saw Snowtown a couple of years ago, one of the most physiologically disturbing films ever made, but also bloody good. I could never sit through it again, but it was amazing work by all concerned, and hey, I was never left with the idea that that the film makers were endorsing serial killers. I actually feel that it's a rather patronising and dismissive comment to make, actually, because there is some kind of suggestion that anyone who finds the way this film is presented troubling in any way is a bit on the thick side.
Lets contrast this film to Wall Street. One key reason why I think it works much better as a film exploring these themes is because the morale compass for the audience is Charlie Sheen's character, who through the course of the film has a range of conflicting thoughts on the situation he gets himself in and the people he comes in to contact with. We see his hero worship, we see it gradually corrupted, we see him realising he has made bad choices. Thats really rather satisfying to me as a viewer, to see genuine character development, and the film itself allows the audience to draw their own conclusions rather than going for a crude good/bad model..
I don't know why you've embarked on some exercise to contrast The Wolf of Wall Street with Wall Street. Yes, I'm aware of Stone's use of Bud Fox as a means of clumsy moral exposition in the latter. It sounds as though Scorsese hasn't bothered with something similar in his film. So what? Maybe he's left the audience to work it out for themselves. Show, don't tell and all that.;-)
I was making a general point that it's odd to criticise film because it doesn't fit your (necessarily) subjective morality. So do you object to the Godfather films on moral grounds? Surely murdering people is worse than jibbing them out of a few quid.:D
I don't know why you've embarked on some exercise to contrast The Wolf of Wall Street with Wall Street.
I don't see whats so confusing about providing examples to back up issues I may have had with the film.
And I've never seen The Godfather, not my cup of tea.
Also you've also totally missed the point of what I was saying/failed to even acknowledged what I have said, which is I am not criticising the film just because i'm too thick to be able to seperate something from depicting something from endorsing it. At the very least you could acknowledge that you have gotten that wrong based on my what I said rather than just ignoring it and basically reiterating it in the very next post.
If you like the film, thats great, but it;s perfectly okay for me to take a different view, isn't it? At least I can articulate my reasons for not liking it beyond the "what a pile of shit" school of thought.
eta: thinking about it, your point about the godfather is addressed my post in any case.
Can't be arsed to visit youtube but disliking a film (or, indeed, any other piece of art) because a protagonist is 'unlikeable' is the height of stupidity.
Is King Lear 'likeable'. What about Catherine Earnshaw and Heathcliffe? Michael Corleone? It's up there with 'self-indulgent' as a way of criticising something without being able to explain why you don't like it.
Interesting you should mention that because he references Lear directly in the video. Maybe you should watch it before criticising?
I really don't get the acclaim for this film - I can't see how this rise/fall/divorce/jail story is any better or more interesting than other similar films.
I know that the lack of financial detail and victims is just a way of underlining the moneygrabbing bubble Belfort was in. However, all it leaves you with is a string of wild party anecdotes, which certainly don't deserve a 3 hour Scorsese film with DiCaprio playing the lead. I can't see what the fuss is all about.
Can't be arsed to visit youtube but disliking a film (or, indeed, any other piece of art) because a protagonist is 'unlikeable' is the height of stupidity.
Is King Lear 'likeable'. What about Catherine Earnshaw and Heathcliffe? Michael Corleone? It's up there with 'self-indulgent' as a way of criticising something without being able to explain why you don't like it.
If you had visited YouTube your post would have been different. He makes a big deal in the video that it's not that the main character is dislikeable that ruined it for him - he's liked films when the lead is dislikeable before, it's more that we never find a way into Leo's character, he has no depth or anything you can relate to therefore you don't care about him. Watching a 3 hour movie about someone you don't care about is tedious.
Comments
I don't think the film glamorises the behaviour of Belfort, we see that his excess lifestyle costs him two marriages and his career.
In terms of the 'issues' that I had with it, I wasn't completely comfortable with how DiCaprio's narration etc was incredibly similar to Ray Liotta's in 'Goodfellas' and in addition to that I felt the final thirty or so minutes were ever so slightly dull compared to what had preceded them.
That said, both DiCaprio & Hill gave superbly OTT performances and they were surrounded by a very decent collection of supporting actors.
Overall, it's not my favourite movie of the month (that's really only because quality bar has been set surprising high in January) but it definitely still deserves a solid 8/10 from me...
Julian McMahon, the actor who played a sleazy surgeon in TV series, Nip/Tuck.
Trimmed eyebrows, fake sun tan, etc.
That's why I'm going to give this one a miss. The media reporting that banks and other financial organisations are making block bookings, with city types whooping and cheering, is enough to turn my stomach.
I'm sure it's a very good movie, but it's too soon after these guys (or ones like them) plunged half the world into recession while running away with bulging pockets, for me to find it amusing.
That would turn my stomach seeing that at the cinema. I liked the film, but the character was an utter disgrace of a human being.
It seems a bit odd to object to a film because of its perceived 'morality'. As another poster has pointed out, depicting something is not that same thing as endorsing it. Directors should not be afraid to make films that go against Hollywood morality, in which the good guys get rewarded and the bad guys get their come-uppance. Look at the Godfather films. The Corleones get away with murder, corrupution etc. It doesn't stop the films being masterpieces.
It's simplistic to conflate the film's events with the banking crisis. The former was deliberate securities fraud whereas the latter was largely negligence on the part of senior bankers combined with a political failure to regulate.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=piRZxG_7qjE
Not seen the film (not something I'd make a trip to the cinema for), but what do you think?
Love Kermy, his Sucker Punch and Sex and the City 2 rants are two of the funniest movie reviews I've ever seen. I thought his full review of WOWS was very informative:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ot0KC1s1U1g
I think professional reviewers tend not to place such importance on the entertainment aspects of a film, as someone who has to pay cash to watch a film you should. There are no qualifications required to review, there is very little intellect needed to sit infront of a screen, any idiot can do that, so don't take very much notice.
Wolf is entertaining enough, DeCaprios character is charming, you could argue that the way it ends the FBI man on his crowded train (loser?) and DeCaprio filling halls with fans (winner?) wont please many people other than bankers. Keep small kids away from it though as they may want to grow up like Leo rather than David Beckham.
Lets me be very clear, I have seen a lot of tough and uncompromising films in my life, and I'm really not so stupid as to be unable to see that depicting something doesn't necessarily endorse it. As an example I saw Snowtown a couple of years ago, one of the most physiologically disturbing films ever made, but also bloody good. I could never sit through it again, but it was amazing work by all concerned, and hey, I was never left with the idea that that the film makers were endorsing serial killers. I actually feel that it's a rather patronising and dismissive comment to make, actually, because there is some kind of suggestion that anyone who finds the way this film is presented troubling in any way is a bit on the thick side.
Lets contrast this film to Wall Street. One key reason why I think it works much better as a film exploring these themes is because the morale compass for the audience is Charlie Sheen's character, who through the course of the film has a range of conflicting thoughts on the situation he gets himself in and the people he comes in to contact with. We see his hero worship, we see it gradually corrupted, we see him realising he has made bad choices. Thats really rather satisfying to me as a viewer, to see genuine character development, and the film itself allows the audience to draw their own conclusions rather than going for a crude good/bad model.
My point is that I felt the film, deliberately or otherwise absolutely DID glorify the character and the behaviour, and a more deft script and better editing could have avoided my feeling that way. it's nothing to do with whether or not people got their comeuppance or not. You may feel they got it spot on in tone, I don't, and clearly I'm not alone in this.
eta: adding spoiler tags as a precaution.
Can't be arsed to visit youtube but disliking a film (or, indeed, any other piece of art) because a protagonist is 'unlikeable' is the height of stupidity.
Is King Lear 'likeable'. What about Catherine Earnshaw and Heathcliffe? Michael Corleone? It's up there with 'self-indulgent' as a way of criticising something without being able to explain why you don't like it.
I don't know why you've embarked on some exercise to contrast The Wolf of Wall Street with Wall Street. Yes, I'm aware of Stone's use of Bud Fox as a means of clumsy moral exposition in the latter. It sounds as though Scorsese hasn't bothered with something similar in his film. So what? Maybe he's left the audience to work it out for themselves. Show, don't tell and all that.;-)
I was making a general point that it's odd to criticise film because it doesn't fit your (necessarily) subjective morality. So do you object to the Godfather films on moral grounds? Surely murdering people is worse than jibbing them out of a few quid.:D
I don't see whats so confusing about providing examples to back up issues I may have had with the film.
And I've never seen The Godfather, not my cup of tea.
Also you've also totally missed the point of what I was saying/failed to even acknowledged what I have said, which is I am not criticising the film just because i'm too thick to be able to seperate something from depicting something from endorsing it. At the very least you could acknowledge that you have gotten that wrong based on my what I said rather than just ignoring it and basically reiterating it in the very next post.
If you like the film, thats great, but it;s perfectly okay for me to take a different view, isn't it? At least I can articulate my reasons for not liking it beyond the "what a pile of shit" school of thought.
eta: thinking about it, your point about the godfather is addressed my post in any case.
Interesting you should mention that because he references Lear directly in the video. Maybe you should watch it before criticising?
I know that the lack of financial detail and victims is just a way of underlining the moneygrabbing bubble Belfort was in. However, all it leaves you with is a string of wild party anecdotes, which certainly don't deserve a 3 hour Scorsese film with DiCaprio playing the lead. I can't see what the fuss is all about.
If you had visited YouTube your post would have been different. He makes a big deal in the video that it's not that the main character is dislikeable that ruined it for him - he's liked films when the lead is dislikeable before, it's more that we never find a way into Leo's character, he has no depth or anything you can relate to therefore you don't care about him. Watching a 3 hour movie about someone you don't care about is tedious.