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?
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.
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
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
Why are you wasting time here when you could be wasting it by listening to the latest episode of the DBR Podcast?
This movie also sets the bar higher (?lower) in this category, eclipsing the old record by 71:
http://entertainment.time.com/2014/0...f-bomb-record/
[redacted] them and the horses they rode in on.
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
A movie is not about what it's about; it's about how it's about it.
---Roger Ebert
Some questions cannot be answered
Who’s gonna bury who
We need a love like Johnny, Johnny and June
---Over the Rhine
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."
Duke '03
Tent 1 '99/'00
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.
A movie is not about what it's about; it's about how it's about it.
---Roger Ebert
Some questions cannot be answered
Who’s gonna bury who
We need a love like Johnny, Johnny and June
---Over the Rhine
OK. I agree that Leo's performance is outstanding.
But the best part of this flick is: Margot Robbie.