The Wolf of Wall Street

[wasted]

THe Departed is great, well not really a great film as in the script seems kind of pointless with a bad ending, so how botched but characters, dialogue, music, entertainment, sexy scenes, all the things we go to movies for are there. script a bit obvious but great fun movie, so many great lines and use of music. Marty can carry the script. It's so rewatchable like Goodfellas 2. but it's not mesmerizing, or new or even really well put together but "no one gives it to you, you have to take it" (gimme shelter starts up)

Aviator is an interesting one, it's a good film.

Gangs is a disaster. but it still has cool characters and scenes. i don't really like period drama old stuff anyway so I'm biased but it still a bit stagey or something.

So Im expecting Wolf to be more Marty over content. filmed in an engrossing way with lots of fucked up shit happening.

Edited December 28, 2013 by wasted

[Bulldog]

I enjoyed it. My only complaint is that it ran a bit long/slow in the last 45 minutes (which I know is a weak complaint).

Very entertaining, but I find it glorifies greed and corruption more than it condemns it.

Also, Naomi is ridiculously attractive

[Guest NGOG]

I'm sorry, but I absolutely deplore the concept behind this film. While Oliver Stone's piece exposes Wall Street as a despicable institution, Scorsese's film is actually about vindicating that lifestyle (and this is proven by Di Caprio promoting Jordan Belfort's latest venture as a motivational speaker). Instead of providing an accurate commentary about a system in dire need of reform, Scorsese distracts the audience by providing them with an overload of endearing, but utterly empty glamour.

Scorsese has lost a lot of credibility in my eyes.

[Black Sabbath]

Meh.

[Gia]

I'll go see it but it's something I won't like, I can already tell

hopefully I will be pleasently surprised

[Angelica]

I'm sorry, but I absolutely deplore the concept behind this film. While Oliver Stone's piece exposes Wall Street as a despicable institution, Scorsese's film is actually about vindicating that lifestyle (and this is proven by Di Caprio promoting Jordan Belfort's latest venture as a motivational speaker). Instead of providing an accurate commentary about a system in dire need of reform, Scorsese distracts the audience by providing them with an overload of endearing, but utterly empty glamour.

Scorsese has lost a lot of credibility in my eyes.

This debate is raging all over the place, and I couldn't disagree more. While Scorsese is clearly fascinated by the excess of their lifestyle, he doesn't vindicate the character or the lifestyle at all. He presents Belfort as a loathsome cunt, he doesn't spare a moments sympathy for him. While he's found the humanity in psychopaths and gangsters, he can't for the life of him seem too here (not that I blame him). DiCaprio's views are his own, as an actor he has to approach the character from a different perspective to play him, but not for a second did I get the impression that Scorsese was viewing Belfort from anything but arm's length and with great distaste.

I can't believe Scorsese is getting piled on and I'm on his side...

Edited January 5, 2014 by Angelica

[wasted]

Well, Olly is quite heavy handed. He wants to make a point. A film isnt a manifesto, Scorsese always dabbling in grey, I mean gangsters are just murderers in suits. As bad as wall street guys are they are also people to. In most cases they are playing a game.

[highvoltage]

I've been dying to see it and none of the theaters around here are playing it. I'm fascinated by what these guys managed to get away with.

I don't know if it's because I'm in small-town Kansas and they're not showing it because of what it depicts?

[wasted]

Wolf and American Hustle OST pretty good.

Edited January 9, 2014 by wasted

[wasted]

Fuck American Hustle, Wolf of Wall Street is da bomb.

"I don't want to be a product of my environment, I want my environment to be a product of me." Frank Costello, The Departed.

But Jordan Belfort in Wolf is a product of his environment.

[Guest NGOG]

I can't believe Scorsese is getting piled on and I'm on his side...

I respect your view.

But when it comes to this film, Leo isn't just an actor, he's an executive producer. Belfort wasn't somebody that exclusively stole from the rich. In order to reach that position, as the film depicts, he professionally exploited the poor by giving them a sniff of the 'American Dream'. I'm concerned by the way people are reacting to the piece. They're not aghast by Belfort. They're actually endeared by the possibility of leading such an excessive lifestyle.

The disturbing theme in Wolf is Belfort constantly achieving redemption. The Rothschild organization folds? Have no fear, a few scenes later Belfort is wowing his colleagues by upping the ante at a pink slips racket. Belfort is so slick, right?

Next thing you know, the feds have gotten Belfort to rat. Does he sink everybody like a real Wall Street gangster would? No, he ensures the legal safety of Jonah Hill's character. How loyal!

After he's consumed a cocktail of rare drugs provided by Jonah Hill, and needs to get home to stop Jonah's drug-fuelled phonecall to the Swiss bank, does that sense of desperation remain? No, it's quickly replaced by Belfort saving his buddy. The audience never gets a chance to taste the lows Belfort stooped to.

Does Scorsese portray his marriage break-up as being the product of Belfort's own narcissism? No, there is a strange sense of 'this is happening because Belfort can no longer provide the lifestyle his possession-obsessed wife craves'. Scorsese should have clearly captured that well actually, both are equally deplorable products of unregulated capitalism.

Edited January 14, 2014 by NGOG

[wasted]

These are all good points, but the book is called The Wolf of Wall Street, not The Douchebag of Wall Street. Whether the myth is perpetrated by the real Belfort or is some sort of status he just reached is hard to tell as the audience without prior knowledge of him.

The ending kind of hinted, I'm not sure who those guys in the audience were, were they just like eager Americans ready to learn how to make money. That's how I took it, and that made think this is what Scorsese is trying to get over. That actually "Yes, we all do want to get filthy rich" and there's this unspoken notion that it's just a game and this guy is a major player. I mean it's white collar crime, he gets 5 years but this is America where money talks like nowhere else.

Kind of the same point The Departed was making, "This is America, if you don't make money you're a fucking douchebag" - and everyone will cheer that sentiment!

Ok, so a fracture the occasional law but you got to get in the game.

It's like this entrepreneurial spirit that never dies. It's what drives Capitalism. To take that drive and maybe go too far and do illegal stuff to get there, it's just a more transparent example, more dangerous and sexy and mythological or whatever, a better story.

50% of the population are poor so they probably broken a few laws here and there. I would say Oliver Stone is more of a moralist, whereas Scorsese is really showing how things are. Like how do kinds that grow up in mob families end up in the life.

Wolf seems to just show you what happens, Belfort's goals in life come from his environment, the game already existed before he started playing. And look how easily we root for him. Then at the end, with the music it's like saying "and the beat goes on" there's a hint of question but there's no answers anywhere, look there's new crop of people ready to learn from the master. Marty isn't preaching, it's the way of the world.

Edited January 14, 2014 by wasted

[Angelica]

I can't believe Scorsese is getting piled on and I'm on his side...

I respect your view.

But when it comes to this film, Leo isn't just an actor, he's an executive producer. Belfort wasn't somebody that exclusively stole from the rich. In order to reach that position, as the film depicts, he professionally exploited the poor by giving them a sniff of the 'American Dream'. I'm concerned by the way people are reacting to the piece. They're not aghast by Belfort. They're actually endeared by the possibility of leading such an excessive lifestyle.

The disturbing theme in Wolf is Belfort constantly achieving redemption. The Rothschild organization folds? Have no fear, a few scenes later Belfort is wowing his colleagues by upping the ante at a pink slips racket. Belfort is so slick, right?

Next thing you know, the feds have gotten Belfort to rat. Does he sink everybody like a real Wall Street gangster would? No, he ensures the legal safety of Jonah Hill's character. How loyal!

After he's consumed a cocktail of rare drugs provided by Jonah Hill, and needs to get home to stop Jonah's drug-fuelled phonecall to the Swiss bank, does that sense of desperation remain? No, it's quickly replaced by Belfort saving his buddy. The audience never gets a chance to taste the lows Belfort stooped to.

Cause beating your wife and almost killing your child don't qualify as 'lows'? Again, I don't get how someone can watch the film and not get that Scorsese is completely repulsed by Belfort. From start to finish, he's presented as an utterly venal buffoon. However, there's no doubt that a lot of people are stupid as fuck and will only take away the money/drugs/sex aspect, and the film is already ushering in a whole new generation of wannabe Belfort's. The film itself predicts it, the last scene with that roomful of guys gazing at him in slack-jawed wonder as he does his motivational speaking bullshit is Scorsese's condemnation of that part of the audience, IMO.

Edited January 14, 2014 by Angelica

[wasted]

That's what I thought, he nearly kills his child, just after she wants a divorce. And he stumbles into the penny stocks, he's kind of down and out before that, not slick.

I would say it's more balanced. The audience must decide. Although I do think Scorsese has always been exploitative.

There's a kind of Fear and Loathing element to it. I can't see how he can condemn it, but leave it in the grey area.

But I find it very hard to believe he's saying "yay for corruption". He's just another hollywood liberal that is saying these guys are evil but hey aren't we all a little evil?

People are fascinated by gangsters and crime. I doubt people really like Goodfellas for it's deep social commentary. It's just that hell is a nice place to visit. There's a fantasy element to it, like what would it be like to live like a gangster and we romanticize it.

So I reckon, deep down Marty is trying to say No but at the same time he's like yes, yes, yes.

Also, there's probably a working class hero type thing, where if you're poor then he's like a hero. He doesn't do much in the movie that most guys haven't done. It's just he was charismatic or smart enough to play the system and make millions of dollars.

Edited January 14, 2014 by wasted

[Guest NGOG]

Cause beating your wife and almost killing your child don't qualify as 'lows'?

The film itself predicts it, the last scene with that roomful of guys gazing at him in slack-jawed wonder as he does his motivational speaking bullshit is Scorsese's condemnation of that part of the audience, IMO.

His wife struck him and he struck her back. Does that really constitute 'beating her up'?

He didn't nearly kill his child. Sure he reversed his car into a pillar, but the only thing his child seemed to endure was trauma. That's my point, the commentary is too careful. Nothing creates a prolonged sense of repulsion. Everything that could be percieved as a criticsm are ultimately undone by pseudo acts of redemption.

I agree with you when you say that Scorsese subtly criticizes how these sharks can keep going. That's captured by Belfort posing the same question that he posed to table of his associates, "sell me this pen". Scorsese is asking, how is this person free to ask such a question? My point Angeles, is that Scorsese had a great opportunity to nail monopoly capitalism with this piece. Instead of just providing a balanced commentary, it would have been nice to see him aggressively expose Belfort. I know that's not Scorsese's style, but unfortunately that indecisiveness has inadvertently created a lot of false glamorization. Not necessarily by Scorsese, but by an extremely naïve audience.

And he stumbles into the penny stocks, he's kind of down and out before that, not slick.

Not by his own actions though. The only reason Belfort ends up in pink slips is because the system itself fails. It's only a matter of scenes before he's on top of the world again.

[Black Sabbath]

The only thing I'll give you, NGOG, is Scorsese giving Belfort a cameo at the end.

While I'm on Angelica's side that I don't think Scorsese is praising Belfort the whole movie, or however you want to word it, I do think him having a cameo was making light of his actions a little.

I don't really care either way, though. I still loved the movie.

[Guest NGOG]

Exactly, I can't believe I forgot Belfort's cameo. That completely reinforces my arguement that Wolf's message is skewed. Why would you give a cameo to the person whose story you're scrutinizing? It completely compromises the objectivity. Even if that was the cost of Belfort participating, it's wrong.

As a Hollywood film, it's top notch. But in terms of intellectually advancing the audience - which is key to great art - it's actually harmful.

Edited January 14, 2014 by NGOG

[Guest Len B'stard]

Scorsese is still embarrassingly inept with female roles.

Age of Innocence? Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore? Cybil Shepherds character in Taxi Driver? Cathy Moriarty in Raging Bull?

[Guest NGOG]

http://youtu.be/Hx58UfP8LUI

[Guest NGOG]

I find the guy nauseating:

[Black Sabbath]

Kind of looks like Chris Kattan.

[Guest Len B'stard]

Just saw it, that was fantastic, best film i seen in ages. And y'know, I think you guys miss the humanity of movies sometimes.

[wasted]

Cause beating your wife and almost killing your child don't qualify as 'lows'?

The film itself predicts it, the last scene with that roomful of guys gazing at him in slack-jawed wonder as he does his motivational speaking bullshit is Scorsese's condemnation of that part of the audience, IMO.

His wife struck him and he struck her back. Does that really constitute 'beating her up'?

He didn't nearly kill his child. Sure he reversed his car into a pillar, but the only thing his child seemed to endure was trauma. That's my point, the commentary is too careful. Nothing creates a prolonged sense of repulsion. Everything that could be percieved as a criticsm are ultimately undone by pseudo acts of redemption.

I agree with you when you say that Scorsese subtly criticizes how these sharks can keep going. That's captured by Belfort posing the same question that he posed to table of his associates, "sell me this pen". Scorsese is asking, how is this person free to ask such a question? My point Angeles, is that Scorsese had a great opportunity to nail monopoly capitalism with this piece. Instead of just providing a balanced commentary, it would have been nice to see him aggressively expose Belfort. I know that's not Scorsese's style, but unfortunately that indecisiveness has inadvertently created a lot of false glamorization. Not necessarily by Scorsese, but by an extremely naïve audience.

And he stumbles into the penny stocks, he's kind of down and out before that, not slick.

Not by his own actions though. The only reason Belfort ends up in pink slips is because the system itself fails. It's only a matter of scenes before he's on top of the world again.

but that is what happened. Its not like Marty skipped the scene where he argues with his wife or has some doubts.

But I agree the movie isnt bagging on him overtly and does glamorize the partying. Scorsese is an entertainer. Theres definitely something to work out. In what way are his movies enjoyed. What is it about Goodfellas people like? the comedy violence dynamic? the more realistic depiction of criminals?

another director might look more at the personal flaws of Belfort or make a more damning assessment of Wall Street.

But I think these books, wall street stories are popular for the glamor of excess. Then maybe we like to be told or shown that big corps are corrupt. Wevare the dignified poor.

Belfort in this situation is a hero storming the swiss banks, showing you how corrupt things are. We get our thrills but we kind of see the pitfalls and maybe question our values. Thats why the ambiguous ending is important. It makes you think just enough to give you a hint of scorsese opinion. Just before that he just said actually money is king even if youre in prison.

So I think he plays both sides. You get to see the excess and the american nightmare but not at the expense of entertainment.

[wasted]

Just saw it, that was fantastic, best film i seen in ages. And y'know, I think you guys miss the humanity of movies sometimes.

People seem to lack empathy, in the superhero age we need a good and a bad guy and like a clear moral pov.

The bad man doing good is very 70s. The sort of fetishization of the soul. Another movie that tackles this was Changing Lanes with Sydney Pollack and Ben Affleck. This grey area that this young lawyer has to come to terms with.

[Angelica]

Cause beating your wife and almost killing your child don't qualify as 'lows'?

The film itself predicts it, the last scene with that roomful of guys gazing at him in slack-jawed wonder as he does his motivational speaking bullshit is Scorsese's condemnation of that part of the audience, IMO.

His wife struck him and he struck her back. Does that really constitute 'beating her up'?

He didn't nearly kill his child. Sure he reversed his car into a pillar, but the only thing his child seemed to endure was trauma. That's my point, the commentary is too careful. Nothing creates a prolonged sense of repulsion. Everything that could be percieved as a criticsm are ultimately undone by pseudo acts of redemption.

I agree with you when you say that Scorsese subtly criticizes how these sharks can keep going. That's captured by Belfort posing the same question that he posed to table of his associates, "sell me this pen". Scorsese is asking, how is this person free to ask such a question? My point Angeles, is that Scorsese had a great opportunity to nail monopoly capitalism with this piece. Instead of just providing a balanced commentary, it would have been nice to see him aggressively expose Belfort. I know that's not Scorsese's style, but unfortunately that indecisiveness has inadvertently created a lot of false glamorization. Not necessarily by Scorsese, but by an extremely naïve audience.

He punches her in the stomach, yes I would say that counts. He also clearly intends to rape her until she turns the tables on him out of desperation with her 'one last time' speech.

I completely disagree, there's scarcely a moment he's on-screen where he's not blatantly being presented as repulsive and pathetic. That Belfort has a cameo, can also be viewed as being the absolute last joke on him. (Although he's such a delusional prat, he'll never get it). Do we *really* need someone to sound out for us that the top tier wall street guys got there by being cunts? Does a movie that contains a scene where a bunch of adults gleefully discuss the prospect of dwarf tossing need to further underscore that these people are titanic assholes? Scorsese has spent his entire career bestowing a certain tattered humanity upon psychotics and murderers, he has none for Belfort. Just a series of jokes at his expense.

Edited January 15, 2014 by Angelica