PDA

View Full Version : Wolf of Wall Street



Reisen
01-16-2014, 01:01 PM
So, WWS just received a bunch of Oscar Nominations, including best picture, best actor, and best supporting actor. There was some discussion a few weeks ago about this movie, but it was randomly buried in the top 5 film thread. JE, did you do a full review and I missed it?


Saw Wolf of Wall Street.....and it's my favorite movie of the year. It was 3 hours long, and I wanted it to last even longer. Excellent acting by pretty much everyone. It's a shame that DiCaprio won't win Best Actor (because the guy from 12 Years a Slave will), because he deserves it. They both do, really - but I thought DiCaprio was better.

If you can find the time, go see this movie. You will not be disappointed.


Saw it last Friday and the more I think about it the better it gets. Probably the quickest 3 hours at the movies you'll ever have. It also has the funniest scene of 2013.


I actually know a pretty fair number of people who were disappointed in it. The movie got a very poor C rating from Cinemascore, which means a lot of people who saw it were turned off. Many have described it as "rich person porn" because there is a lot of sex and drugs in the film without really advancing the story much.

Personally, I thought there were things to love about it and things to not really like very much. It was wonderfully acted and has some great humor but I thought it did go on and on and on with the same thing happening over and over again (sex, drugs, make a great sales speech and then do it all over again). I was also bothered by the utter lack of any moral compass for the film as the main characters never show any remorse and we never see the impact of their crimes on the victims. These guys sold hundreds of millions of dollars of essentially worthless stocks -- in some cases wiping out the savings of hard-working middle-class American families -- and we never see them have to deal with how they hurt people.

Bottom line -- it is not going to win awards because it is not as good a film as some of the other top pictures of the year. And it is ridiculously over-long. Heck, everything is over-long this season. American Hustle should have been 15 minutes shorter, WWStreet should have been 30 minutes shorter, and Hobbit should have been 45 minutes shorter. Sigh...

-Jason "my wife hated WWStreet and I am yet to meet a woman who said she really liked it" Evans


JE - I agree there's no impact of the actions of the stock sellers, but I think that was the point. These guys are like gangsters - only they make millions and don't end up in a pool of blood after some gunfight.

I can also see why women wouldn't like it much.

But I still found it profoundly impactful. The scene with him trying to take his daughter showed what kind of a person this was. And yet the movie had long stretches of incredible humor. As NashvilleDevil said it also has the funniest scene of the year (by far) with Leonardo at the country club.

As for the length, I was enjoying it so much I didn't want it to end. I cannot say that about The Desolation of Smaug, or Anchorman 2, or even American Hustle and 12 Years a Slave.

This movie has been high on my list for a while, and I finally got around to seeing it last night. It did not live up to my expectations, but they were very high, and I still really enjoyed it. A couple of thoughts:

- I don't know whether my wife will like it or not. I guess we'll find out, as she's interested enough that I'll probably see it again with her.

- Per the above, there is a lot of sex and nudity. Indeed, many scenes really push the R rating. I don't know if I would agree that it's basically a 3 hour adult movie, because realistically, sex scenes are maybe 10 minutes of total screen time in a 3 hour movie, but there are a ton of short, casual ones. More importantly, some of the specific scenes (I'm thinking of the opening scene, the scene after Jordan and Naomi fight, and the scene shortly before the big fight with Naomi) go beyond the types of sex scenes normally found in mainstream cinema. I actually found the first two hilarious.

- I don't think the movie deserves best picture, but I think Leo EASILY deserves best actor. He gave a really just fantastic, standout performance. Everyone did, but he was over-the-top good. This movie has excellent acting that I would put up there against any other recent movie.

- As I wrote above, I don't really think this is a 3 hour adult movie. Nor is it a 3 hour crime / fraud movie. I think it's a 3 hour drug movie. More attention is paid to the drugs, & they get more screen time, than probably anything else. This might be what dissapointed me slightly about the movie. The whole thing was supposed to be over the top, but, by the third hour, I think I got the concept that it's hard to drive a car, fly a helicopter, avoid wiretaps, launder money, fight with your wife, or pretty much do anything while high out of your mind.

- I was a little put off by the fact that Belfort kept starting to explain what he was doing, then saying "You don't care and wouldn't get it". I suspect some of the audience (including many on this board) already knows, and does get it. Maybe that's the point.

- All that said, you're seeing this film for Leo, Margot, Jonah, and I'd argue, Rugrat (who I thought was hilarious). Matthew McConaughey features prominently in the previews, but has minimal screen time, and I thought that scene was "just ok". Kyle Chandler was good, but I think they could have developed that character (the FBI agent) better. A lot of his scenes have no or minimal dialogue. The mom from HIMYM is cute in a LI sort of way, but you write her off knowing what's going to happen to her. The Swiss banker was good, but alternating between English and French was a little disconcerting, and his dialogue was intentionally hard to understand. In contrast, Leo, Margot, and Jonah get a ton of screen time, and are all fantastic.

NashvilleDevil
01-16-2014, 01:46 PM
I was a little put off by the fact that Belfort kept starting to explain what he was doing, then saying "You don't care and wouldn't get it". I suspect some of the audience (including many on this board) already knows, and does get it. Maybe that's the point.



I think this was done intentionally because Belfort is trying to seduce the audience the way he was seducing the clients.

Ima Facultiwyfe
01-16-2014, 04:31 PM
The Old Professor suggested we go see WWS. I said, "OK". We walked in and up to the counter to get our senior citizen tickets and our popcorn. No doubt noticing both of our heads of white hair, the kid behind the counter said "Sir, are you aware this is R rated? Just want to make sure you know." The OP chuckled and assured him we could handle an R. So we went in.

Welllllll, I don't mind telling you I would never rate this an R !!!!!! Woah! It's an X fer sher! We learned a LOT. I just hope it didn't give the OP any big ideas. He could surely hurt himself, bless his 75 year old heart!
Love, Ima:rolleyes:

Reisen
01-16-2014, 05:29 PM
The Old Professor suggested we go see WWS. I said, "OK". We walked in and up to the counter to get our senior citizen tickets and our popcorn. No doubt noticing both of our heads of white hair, the kid behind the counter said "Sir, are you aware this is R rated? Just want to make sure you know." The OP chuckled and assured him we could handle an R. So we went in.

Welllllll, I don't mind telling you I would never rate this an R !!!!!! Woah! It's an X fer sher! We learned a LOT. I just hope it didn't give the OP any big ideas. He could surely hurt himself, bless his 75 year old heart!
Love, Ima:rolleyes:

I love this post! Probably my favorite post on DBR this year!

I was definitely surprised they got away with an R rating. I don't know about X, but I wouldn't be surprised if it had been NC-17.

JasonEvans
01-17-2014, 11:31 AM
I was definitely surprised they got away with an R rating. I don't know about X, but I wouldn't be surprised if it had been NC-17.

To be clear, there is no such thing as an X rating any longer. Back in 1990, the MPAA changed its rating beyond R to NC-17, meaning no one under 17 would be admitted. They later changed NC-17 to mean that you had to be older than 17 to be admitted. But, back on point, the MPAA gave up on the X rating because it was basically stolen by pornographers and everyone had grown to assume that X meant pornography. So, they invented NC-17 which we now all understand to mean a film that is extremely graphic in some fashion but is not just an excuse to show explicit sexual acts (often with closeups that make you wonder how the cameraman could get in there without wearing a latex face-mask).

Anyway, sorry for that diversion. Bottom line -- the MPAA no longer rates anything with an X. NC-17 is the furthest they go.

-Jason "I wonder if this post should be rated NC-17" Evans

devildeac
01-18-2014, 09:04 PM
This movie also sets the bar higher (?lower) in this category, eclipsing the old record by 71:

http://entertainment.time.com/2014/01/03/the-wolf-of-wall-street-breaks-f-bomb-record/

throatybeard
01-24-2014, 11:45 PM
To be clear, there is no such thing as an X rating any longer. Back in 1990, the MPAA changed its rating beyond R to NC-17, meaning no one under 17 would be admitted. They later changed NC-17 to mean that you had to be older than 17 to be admitted. But, back on point, the MPAA gave up on the X rating because it was basically stolen by pornographers and everyone had grown to assume that X meant pornography. So, they invented NC-17 which we now all understand to mean a film that is extremely graphic in some fashion but is not just an excuse to show explicit sexual acts (often with closeups that make you wonder how the cameraman could get in there without wearing a latex face-mask).

Anyway, sorry for that diversion. Bottom line -- the MPAA no longer rates anything with an X. NC-17 is the furthest they go.

-Jason "I wonder if this post should be rated NC-17" Evans

Furthermore, it's worth watching the documentary This Film is not yet Rated about the enduring arbitrariness and hypocrisy of the MPAA in their consderation on these matters.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/This_Film_Is_Not_Yet_Rated

DukeDevil
01-26-2014, 02:45 AM
To be clear, there is no such thing as an X rating any longer. Back in 1990, the MPAA changed its rating beyond R to NC-17, meaning no one under 17 would be admitted. They later changed NC-17 to mean that you had to be older than 17 to be admitted. But, back on point, the MPAA gave up on the X rating because it was basically stolen by pornographers and everyone had grown to assume that X meant pornography. So, they invented NC-17 which we now all understand to mean a film that is extremely graphic in some fashion but is not just an excuse to show explicit sexual acts (often with closeups that make you wonder how the cameraman could get in there without wearing a latex face-mask).

Anyway, sorry for that diversion. Bottom line -- the MPAA no longer rates anything with an X. NC-17 is the furthest they go.

-Jason "I wonder if this post should be rated NC-17" Evans

I rate this post NC-17.


I just saw WOWS. I agree that I don't think it deserves best picture, with a lot of better movies that come to mind for the year deserving the nominations over it, but I do agree that Leo at least deserves a best actor nomination.

I think the most capturing description I've heard of this movie "douchebag porn." I think a shallow interpretation of the movie can lead you to be captivated by the glamorous, over the top excesses of the life they are leading. I think it goes deeper to show the destructive, abusive nature of their lives personally, and I don't think you have to go very "deep" to get to that interpretation. Overall I enjoyed the movie. I tend to rate movies as "see in the theater" "rent at home" "wait till it's free on TV" "avoid altogether." I'd rate this a "rent at home."

throatybeard
01-28-2014, 11:59 PM
I tend to rate movies as "see in the theater" "rent at home" "wait till it's free on TV" "avoid altogether." I'd rate this a "rent at home."

This is a very good rubric. I'd go five stars with it, though. (5) See in theater. (4) Rent at home when it comes out on DVD four months later. (3) Rent at some unspecified point in the future. (2) Wait till its on TV IFF I've heard about it for years and somehow managed to miss it. (1) Avoid altogether.

Time is dear, and much of the indy stuff that's good you can't even see in the theater anyway. Also, in terms of quality, I think you'd get a huge bulge in "rent at home." I think all sorts of things are worth Netflixing. But increasingly, me showing up at a movie theater is an extreme gesture of respect to an established artist. (I sat through ILD even though it's the Coens' worst film in a while). I don't have time to see something in the theater if I don't have a hunch that I'll love it, based on the opinions of people with similar taste and critical opinion. I'll save it for six months later when I can't sleep at 1AM.

Oh look! I have a DVD of Blue Jasmine that I'm putting in right now.

The trailer isn't always representative of the movie, but the trailer for Wolf of Wall Street made it look awful. Aw. Ful.

Jim3k
01-31-2014, 08:20 PM
OK. I agree that Leo's performance is outstanding.

But the best part of this flick is: Margot Robbie.