The Wolf of Wall Street - (New Scorsese Film)

123468

Comments

  • blueisthecolourblueisthecolour Posts: 20,119
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I enjoyed the first couple of hours but lost interest in the third. But then I found The Departed boring and, being honest, I think that Goodfellas drops off towards the end. It must just be my taste in movies.

    As for people not liking the main character, or thinking it glamorizes the lifestyle; all I can say is that I think the movie just actually reflects what happened in real life. I don't know why people expect a movie telling a real life story to change the facts/characters to fit in with some ideal of modern day morality?
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 10,273
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    I think those that are saying this is a 'truly great film', really need to step back and get a little perspective.

    Whilst it's undoubtably very watchable, there's really no substance to it.

    1) Man makes a lot of money.
    2) Man spends money in a myriad of debauched ways
    3) Man gets caught

    For 3 hours, it does wear a little thin.

    Can you honestly tell me this film is in anywhere near the same league as Goodfellas or Casino?...I'm all ears.

    I assume you haven't watched it? It's easily on a par with Casino and Goodfellas. Your 3 point summery is pretty daft, you could reduce any film to 3 points like that, including Casino and Goodfellas.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 472
    Forum Member
    awesome movie and very funny in parts , highly recommend watching !!
  • jules1000jules1000 Posts: 10,709
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    gmphmac wrote: »
    I thought it was a load of rubbish! Thoroughly banal, with no real storyline. Couldn't wait until it was over.

    With respect, I really dont know how you can say there is no storyline unless you weren't listening....
  • Martin BlankMartin Blank Posts: 1,689
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    GOGO2 wrote: »
    I assume you haven't watched it? It's easily on a par with Casino and Goodfellas. Your 3 point summery is pretty daft, you could reduce any film to 3 points like that, including Casino and Goodfellas.

    Incorrect in your ASSumption.

    The thing is, whilst Scorcese's films are essentially the same - as in they show a guy, their world being 'cool' and aspirational, making it big and the inevitable crash at the end - they pretty much all have some kind of emotional context. This movie...lacks it.

    Agreed, that could be it's big draw to many people but for me, 3 hours of taking qualudes and shagging hookers wears a little thin after a while.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 10,273
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Incorrect in your ASSumption.

    The thing is, whilst Scorcese's films are essentially the same - as in they show a guy, their world being 'cool' and aspirational, making it big and the inevitable crash at the end - they pretty much all have some kind of emotional context. This movie...lacks it.

    Agreed, that could be it's big draw to many people but for me, 3 hours of taking qualudes and shagging hookers wears a little thin after a while.

    Emotional context?? Could you explain what you mean by that?

    I didn't feel any emotional attachment to the characters in Goodfellas and I very much doubt I was supposed to. They were a bunch of greedy psychopaths... Not unlike Jordan Belfort.

    Also... I don't see the characters in any of these films as "cool" or "aspirational", I find them utterly loathsome, albeit very amusing.
  • sinbad8982sinbad8982 Posts: 1,627
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Entertaining movie with a briilliant bravura performance by Leo, it was about half hour too long though and I thought it lacked any real depth for a three hour movie. 8/10
  • blueisthecolourblueisthecolour Posts: 20,119
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    GOGO2 wrote: »
    Emotional context?? Could you explain what you mean by that?

    I didn't feel any emotional attachment to the characters in Goodfellas and I very much doubt I was supposed to. They were a bunch of greedy psychopaths... Not unlike Jordan Belfort.

    Also... I don't see the characters in any of these films as "cool" or "aspirational", I find them utterly loathsome, albeit very amusing.

    I agree. It's like people that watch the Godfather series and want to be Michael Corleone; despite the fact that his personal life is clearly devastated on many levels.
  • Oicho ThrowOicho Throw Posts: 516
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    - they pretty much all have some kind of emotional context. This movie...lacks it.

    That's kind of the point, though. Scorcese is pretty much waving it in your face that these sorts of people are total screw-ups and are really not operating on any kind of human emotional level us normal can comprehend.

    Repeatedly through the film we get teased with the prospect of normal human interaction - the sit downs with his first wife, his dad, Aunt Emily in the park, Donny at the end, the crying speech when he almost quits - and each time he rejects it. You'd have to be a lunatic to not want to settle down with his gorgeous wife in his huge house and live happily ever after, but each time he rejects it for no reason we could comprehend. It's fairly explicit that there's no emotional context because these dudes are really weird. People keep comparing Wolf to Casino and Goodfellas because of the era, suits and staggering wealth, but ultimately this has more in common with Taxi Driver - an unrelenting and unflinching look at a psyche so far away from the norm that we can only hope to get a little insight.

    The film's bruising length seems to be for that purpose, too. A normal person is exhausted by the constant parties, orgies, drug taking and consumption after a mere two hours of watching it. Jordan Belfort lived it for decades. I felt like someone had taken a hammer to my brain by the time he met Naomi, but he still continued blazing on, drugging and whoring. Sometimes it's not enough to tell you someone is totally broken - sometimes you have to show it. And Wolf of Wall Street shows it big time.
  • Jo MarchJo March Posts: 9,256
    Forum Member
    If just half of the stuff that we saw in the film went on it is still a jaw dropper in many ways.

    The drugs,the sex - how on earth did they manage to make all the money they did?

    The scene with the Lamborghini and the tablets was an absolute classic!:D

    A truly great performance from Leonardo DiCaprio - he has turned into a fine actor.

    The actress who played his second wife reminded me of Jaime Pressly - Earl's ex in 'My Name Is Earl - co-incidentally Ethan Suplee who plays Earl's brother is in The Wolf Of Wall Street.

    Edit...

    Upthread it was asked if you had seen both this and American Hustle which you preferred?

    For me it is The Wolf Of Wall Street.
  • blueisthecolourblueisthecolour Posts: 20,119
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    That's kind of the point, though. Scorcese is pretty much waving it in your face that these sorts of people are total screw-ups and are really not operating on any kind of human emotional level us normal can comprehend.

    Repeatedly through the film we get teased with the prospect of normal human interaction - the sit downs with his first wife, his dad, Aunt Emily in the park, Donny at the end, the crying speech when he almost quits - and each time he rejects it. You'd have to be a lunatic to not want to settle down with his gorgeous wife in his huge house and live happily ever after, but each time he rejects it for no reason we could comprehend. It's fairly explicit that there's no emotional context because these dudes are really weird. People keep comparing Wolf to Casino and Goodfellas because of the era, suits and staggering wealth, but ultimately this has more in common with Taxi Driver - an unrelenting and unflinching look at a psyche so far away from the norm that we can only hope to get a little insight.

    The film's bruising length seems to be for that purpose, too. A normal person is exhausted by the constant parties, orgies, drug taking and consumption after a mere two hours of watching it. Jordan Belfort lived it for decades. I felt like someone had taken a hammer to my brain by the time he met Naomi, but he still continued blazing on, drugging and whoring. Sometimes it's not enough to tell you someone is totally broken - sometimes you have to show it. And Wolf of Wall Street shows it big time.

    This is an interesting analysis but I disagree that Jordan Belfort character is fundamentally different than that of Henry Hill (Goodfellas) or numerous others in literature (Tony Montana in Scarface?). Ok, it's an extreme example, but basically it's a person whose drive and talents brings them riches and power but who can also never be satisfied. No matter how much they have they always want more; more excitement, more money; more respect. And it ends pretty much the same way every time, addicted to drugs, family life in tatters and pushing the 'establishment' so far that they eventually react.

    You even see it in real life with politicians, movie stars and billionaires who seem to have everything but still seem to have this destructive urge in them, whether it's Bill Clinton and his interns, Beiber and his drag racing or the Mayor of Toronto and his crack pipe.
  • andy1231andy1231 Posts: 5,100
    Forum Member
    Left before the end, at least 90 mins too long, got bored.
  • nw0307nw0307 Posts: 10,888
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Muttley76 wrote: »
    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 exactly how I would describe it. It was overlong, and really didn't like any character in it. I have to be rooting for at least one person but they were all horrible people. I guess it was good for showing how greed and money change people for the very worse but I got sick of seeing the orgies, drug taking and excessive behaviour for most of the 3 hours. And yes, it seemed like Good Fellas but just set in Wall Street. But I much preferred GF and Casino. I did like Matthew McConaughey's cameo though!
  • blueisthecolourblueisthecolour Posts: 20,119
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    nw0307 wrote: »
    that's exactly how I would describe it. It was overlong, and really didn't like any character in it. I have to be rooting for at least one person but they were all horrible people. I guess it was good for showing how greed and money change people for the very worse but I got sick of seeing the orgies, drug taking and excessive behaviour for most of the 3 hours. And yes, it seemed like Good Fellas but just set in Wall Street. But I much preferred GF and Casino. I did like Matthew McConaughey's cameo though!

    Which character was you rooting for in Goodfellas?
  • Trsvis_BickleTrsvis_Bickle Posts: 9,202
    Forum Member
    Which character was you rooting for in Goodfellas?

    'Jimmy rooted for the bad guys in the movies.'

    Yes, I know it doesn't quite fit but it was the best I could come up with.:blush:

    Seriously, it's gotta be Tommy DeVito, right? I mean, when people are w**king on about 'likeable' characters, he's just what comes to mind.:p
  • Victoria SpongeVictoria Sponge Posts: 16,645
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    I loved it. I thought Leo's performance was fantastic, and that of the guy who plays Donny. It's the sort of film I love anyway, how a guy builds up from relatively nothing to a lavish and thoroughly outrageous lifestyle. It was long but I was hooked the whole way through.

    I'd rate it 9/10.
  • Xela MXela M Posts: 4,710
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I watched four of the Oscar best film nominations (The Wolf of Wall Street, 12 Years a Slave, Dallas Buyers Club and American Hustle) and the Wolf of Wall Street is in a completely different league to the other films. It is genius and people who say it glorifies stockbrokers have really missed the point. I have rewatched it a second time and I could not fault a single scene.

    It is a shame that Hollywood is now so ridiculously PC that you can only get an Oscar if you play a slave or an AIDS sufferer. Di Caprio and Hill give unbelievable performances (as does the whole cast). The script is perfect. Scorsese is only director of his generation still capable of producing films of such magnitude!
  • TakaeTakae Posts: 13,555
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Xela M wrote: »
    It is a shame that Hollywood is now so ridiculously PC that you can only get an Oscar if you play a slave or an AIDS sufferer. Di Caprio and Hill give unbelievable performances (as does the whole cast).

    Really? Let's look at these films that won the Best Film award:

    2012 - Argo - nothing to do with slavery or AIDS
    2011 - The Artist - nothing to do with slavery or AIDS
    2010 - The King's Speech - nothing to do with slavery or AIDS
    2009 - The Hurt Locker - nothing to do with slavery or AIDS
    2008 - Slumdog Millionaire - nothing to do with slavery or AIDS
    2007 - No Country for Old Men - nothing to do with slavery or AIDS
    2006 - The Departed - nothing to do with slavery or AIDS
    2005 - Crash - nothing to do with slavery or AIDS
    2004 - Million Dollar Baby - nothing to do with slavery or AIDS
    2003 - The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King - nothing to do with slavery or AIDS
    2002 - Chicago - nothing to do with slavery or AIDS
    2001 - A Beautiful Mind - nothing to do with slavery or AIDS
    2000 - Gladiator - BINGO! It does feature slaves. Dang, you're right. Hollywood is ridiculously PC. (Edit: to clarify, Russell Crowe's character was a slave and he won an Oscar for it. :D)
  • Xela MXela M Posts: 4,710
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Takae wrote: »
    Really? Let's look at these films that won the Best Film award:

    2012 - Argo - nothing to do with slavery or AIDS
    2011 - The Artist - nothing to do with slavery or AIDS
    2010 - The King's Speech - nothing to do with slavery or AIDS
    2009 - The Hurt Locker - nothing to do with slavery or AIDS
    2008 - Slumdog Millionaire - nothing to do with slavery or AIDS
    2007 - No Country for Old Men - nothing to do with slavery or AIDS
    2006 - The Departed - nothing to do with slavery or AIDS
    2005 - Crash - nothing to do with slavery or AIDS
    2004 - Million Dollar Baby - nothing to do with slavery or AIDS
    2003 - The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King - nothing to do with slavery or AIDS
    2002 - Chicago - nothing to do with slavery or AIDS
    2001 - A Beautiful Mind - nothing to do with slavery or AIDS
    2000 - Gladiator - BINGO! It does feature slaves. Dang, you're right. Hollywood is ridiculously PC. (Edit: to clarify, Russell Crowe's character was a slave and he won an Oscar for it. :D)

    Oh dear... obviously my comment was meant to be taken literally... I will rephrase it... If McConaughey and Leto didn't play AIDS suffers and Ejiofor a slave, there would be no doubt in my mind that Di Caprio and Hill would win hands down. However, as it stands, Leto is by far the favourite for the supporting actor Oscar and McConaughey will most likely win best actor.
  • Naa_KwaKaiNaa_KwaKai Posts: 1,883
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I watched the movie, despite suddenly losing the ability to BREATHE in the last hour (maybe my body's response to being sat down for 3 hours?) It was a very fun ride but way too long, it could have easily have been 2 hours if it wasn't for the excessive orgies and 15 minute conversations that really should have been 2. Like I said before I saw the movie, very few films justify being 3 hours long and Wolf of Wall Street is no exception to that rule.

    The sex scenes were excessive to the point of being tedious. There is one sex scene (rape scene?) at the end where Leo's character forces himself on his wife and it was the only sex scene where nobody laughed. By then people were all-sex out and deflated.

    Loved the wife's freak out at the gay orgy "they were everywhere!" So 80s. :D

    Funnily enough, the thing I thought would bother me didn't at all - in a way, the fact that the characters are so despicable made it easier as you didn't care if anything bad happened to them. So in effect I was able to just sit back and enjoy the ride.

    The drug binges were fun although the so-called hilarious car crawling scene was the least funny of them all. I didn't laugh once until Leo's character became tangled in the telephone wire with Jonah Hill's character. 8.5/10 Would be a 9 if it wasn't so long.
  • nw0307nw0307 Posts: 10,888
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Which character was you rooting for in Goodfellas?

    not so much rooting for, but Henry Hill did have some charm and a likability at times when he questioned himself. Maybe it was Liotta's portrayal. Certainly it still showed repugnant and horrific characters like a lot of Scorcese films. But with TWOWS I really found it too much. I felt like I needed a shower after watching it. I found it incredibly misogynistic, vulgar, overlong and devoid of any charm. Yes maybe it was a film that was asking us to judge but I just felt like I was watching an updated "Porkys" adolescent w@nkfest for young men. I felt I couldn't laugh at any of Belfort's exploits as I was too disgusted by his behaviour. The only comical moment was his dad who after ranting about getting disturbed, answered the phone politely in a mock English accent.

    It brought it home that the film lacks any moral questioning when Belfort rapes his wife and there is no outcome or judgement of the act. Just like it's another one of his bad boy capers. But then again, Scorcese who just doesn't use women in his films for more than wives, girlfriends, molls and hookers so there's no surprise there.

    I think what makes it worse is that clearly it indicates that crime and greed does pay for some as Belfort is still earning a good living with his talks whilst his victims still hope for some cash to be returned. Worst still is the reports that several stockbroker firms have had screenings of it and see it as some kind of aspirational film :o I don't know, it all just leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
  • Xela MXela M Posts: 4,710
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    nw0307 wrote: »
    not so much rooting for, but Henry Hill did have some charm and a likability at times when he questioned himself. Maybe it was Liotta's portrayal. Certainly it still showed repugnant and horrific characters like a lot of Scorcese films. But with TWOWS I really found it too much. I felt like I needed a shower after watching it. I found it incredibly misogynistic, vulgar, overlong and devoid of any charm. Yes maybe it was a film that was asking us to judge but I just felt like I was watching an updated "Porkys" adolescent w@nkfest for young men. I felt I couldn't laugh at any of Belfort's exploits as I was too disgusted by his behaviour. The only comical moment was his dad who after ranting about getting disturbed, answered the phone politely in a mock English accent.

    It brought it home that the film lacks any moral questioning when Belfort rapes his wife and there is no outcome or judgement of the act. Just like it's another one of his bad boy capers. But then again, Scorcese who just doesn't use women in his films for more than wives, girlfriends, molls and hookers so there's no surprise there.

    I think what makes it worse is that clearly it indicates that crime and greed does pay for some as Belfort is still earning a good living with his talks whilst his victims still hope for some cash to be returned. Worst still is the reports that several stockbroker firms have had screenings of it and see it as some kind of aspirational film :o I don't know, it all just leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

    I have started to respond to this, but then I saw on another thread that you didn't like the acting of Marlon Brando, Jack Nicholson or Daniel Day Lewis, so we will never agree on anything :p
  • nw0307nw0307 Posts: 10,888
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Xela M wrote: »
    I have started to respond to this, but then I saw on another thread that you didn't like the acting of Marlon Brando, Jack Nicholson or Daniel Day Lewis, so we will never agree on anything :p

    ha ha ! Well the world would be a boring place if everyone had the same view wouldn't it? Actually I do like Marlon and Jack, but not in everything. But really don't like DDL or Christian Bale - more ham than a gammon joint! :D
  • TakaeTakae Posts: 13,555
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Xela M wrote: »
    Oh dear... obviously my comment was meant to be taken literally... I will rephrase it... If McConaughey and Leto didn't play AIDS suffers and Ejiofor a slave, there would be no doubt in my mind that Di Caprio and Hill would win hands down. However, as it stands, Leto is by far the favourite for the supporting actor Oscar and McConaughey will most likely win best actor.

    I already got that, but my point is that Hollywood isn't as 'ridiculously PC' as you believe they are.

    By your logic, The Sessions should have dominated the 2012 Oscars, but it didn't. The only thing it managed to collect is a nomination for Helen Hunt as Best Supporting Actress that she didn't win. Lincoln collected only one Oscar: Best Actor for Day-Lewis. The 2012 Best Film went to Argo, which isn't exactly a 'ridiculously PC' film, is it? How about the fact the Best Actor award went to Philip Seymour Hoffman for his role in Capote instead of Heath Ledger for his role in Brokeback Mountain? If Hollywood were that ridiculously PC, it should have gone to Ledger, not Hoffman.

    I'd have supported your charge if you had accused Hollywood of being self-centred, but unfortunately, you're so in love with Wolf of Wall Street that you went for the 'PC gone mad!' angle as well as belittling other nominated films. Come on, you can do better than that.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 129
    Forum Member
    Just got in from seeing this film. The most overrated pile of crap I have seen. I felt the film would never end, I kept on looking at my phone to see what the time was! The film was way too long and many of the scenes could have been cut. Leo did give a good performance but still it didn't do anything for me. What a let down.
Sign In or Register to comment.