Martin Scorsese’s The Wolf of Wall Street

JP Liz V1

Filming has started on Scorsese’s new film The Wolf of Wall Street with his muse Leonardo DiCaprio playing stockbroker Jordan Belfort and some set photos are out now

http://thefilmstage.com/news/first-look-jonah-hill-sports-fake-teeth-and-matthew-mcconaughey-goes-gaunt-in-scorseses-wall-street/

BTW McConaughey's weight loss is for another role but it is good to see him continue his current wave of taking meatier roles working on a Scorsese film

Jonah Hill and Jean Dujardin my guess is care of their Oscar nomination and win are also in the cast plus it is interesting to see Gene Hackman also in the cast as a narrator

Gandalph

Anyone got any ideas on the plot? Looking forward to this

Neil McCauleys Cooler Brother

Gene Hackman is back? Just narrating, but does this mean he might actually be coming out of retirement?

D-Generate

Gandalph wrote: »

Anyone got any ideas on the plot? Looking forward to this

Given its already a book the below might be a spoiler.

I imagine with the name that it is based on the book "The Wolf of Wall Street". Frankly, I didn't think much of the book but in short its a true story about the head of a boiler room stock brokerage in New Jersey. He lived quite the wild lifestyle in a palatial mansion, jets, boats, cocaine and hookers and basically is the prototype for the stereotype of traders being coked-up party animals.

Eventually he was indicted for a pump and dump stock scheme and served some time in prison.

Gandalph

D-Generate wrote: »

Given its already a book the below might be a spoiler.

I was wondering where I recognised the name from, might give it a read before the movie.

Kinski

Didn't Oliver Stone already make this film in the 1980s? And revisit it (unsuccessfully) with a recent sequel? A film about the decadent lifestyle of a corrupt Wall Street stockbroker? Wow, that's so "topical" and "relevant" and all that ****...

AnonoBoy

Kinski wrote: »

Didn't Oliver Stone already make this film in the 1980s? And revisit it (unsuccessfully) with a recent sequel? A film about the decadent lifestyle of a corrupt Wall Street stockbroker? Wow, that's so "topical" and "relevant" and all that ****...

So nobody can do another film about Wall St. because Stone already made one?

If anything it's more topical now than it was then.

It's like saying, "Bourne Identity? Didn't someone already do a film about spies? How boring!"

Kinski

AnonoBoy wrote: »

So nobody can do another film about Wall St. because Stone already made one?

If anything it's more topical now than it was then.

It's topical in a really, really obvious way, which makes me think they'll end up making a film that has something to say, but something really banal and *erm* obvious.

It's like saying, "Bourne Identity? Didn't someone already do a film about spies? How boring!"

Well, "film about spies" is a very broad category, including very different takes on the same basic premise, from Bond and Bourne to Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy and The Quiet American.

But if you were to say "nobody should make another film about a suave spy with a way with the ladies, a penchant for Martinis and an array of over-the-top gadgets," even the producers of Bond would largely agree.

The decadent, corrupt Wall St. investor has been done-to-death, with Douglas's seminal turn as Gordon Gecko and Brett Easton-Ellis's notorious "investor as literal psycho" Patrick Bateman (from 1987 and 1991, respectively) remaining the high watermarks.

At this stage, it's a stock character - if Scorsese and DiCaprio can breathe new life into it, great, but I wouldn't bet they will.

AnonoBoy

Kinski wrote: »

The decadent, corrupt Wall St. investor has been done-to-death, with Douglas's seminal turn as Gordon Gecko and Brett Easton-Ellis's notorious "investor as literal psycho" Patrick Bateman (from 1987 and 1991, respectively) remaining the high watermarks.

At this stage, it's a stock character - if Scorsese and DiCaprio can breathe new life into it, great, but I wouldn't bet they will

Well those characters are worlds apart. One of them is realistic the other is over-the-top and satirical. I wouldn't even equate the two characters as being similar except that they both work in finance. I would say American Psycho is much more a satire on consumerism and the American male than the world of finance really.

Also Wolf of Wall St. isn't set now so it's not as if DiCaprio is going to be working in Enron or Lehman Brothers in this century so I think they'll be able to concentrate on the story of what this guy did without having to go through the 'and that's why we're where we are now' motions. I believe Scorsese is smarter than that.

AnonoBoy

Trailer is up. Not really spoilery like a lot of trailers these days which is good.

It looks quite funny too.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iszwuX1AK6A

Dman001

Looks to be another great film from the brilliant DiCaprio/Scorsese collaboration.

krudler

glad McConaughey is tackling meatier roles than the romcom fluff he was floundering in for years. Killer Joe, Mud and now this are a return to form , the guy can act when he wants to he just got lazy.

expectationlost

the question is has done anything new with it, and from the trailer i don't see it

FlashD

expectationlost wrote: »

the question is has done anything new with it, and from the trailer i don't see it

It's Scorsese, the guy is a genius, decades later still making solid engaging films for adults while the majority of his generation have fallen by the wayside or are too busy blowing stuff up with their computers.

JP Liz V1

Is it suppose to be a comedy?

krudler

FlashD wrote: »

It's Scorsese, the guy is a genius, decades later still making solid engaging films for adults while the majority of his generation have fallen by the wayside or are too busy blowing stuff up with their computers.

for kids too, I liked Hugo, aka how to teach kids the history of cinema.

AnonoBoy

expectationlost wrote: »

the question is has done anything new with it, and from the trailer i don't see it

What do you mean by 'new' though. A new way to tell a story about financial corruption? To be honest I don't see how you expect to see that from a trailer.

You'd really have to wait until you watch it to see that.

Dman001

Is it suppose to be a comedy?

More of a Dramedy really, along the lines of Catch Me If You Can. The book highlights Belfort's total disregard for money, excessive drinking and drugs and his overall flamboyancy, which caught up with him in the end.

expectationlost

AnonoBoy wrote: »

What do you mean by 'new' though. A new way to tell a story about financial corruption? To be honest I don't see how you expect to see that from a trailer.

You'd really have to wait until you watch it to see that.

a trailer is supposed to attract you to see a film, give you a reason to go

didn't think the departed was any great shakes

porsche959

JP Liz V1 wrote: »

Is it suppose to be a comedy?

If it's anything like the book, yes. Very funny in an over-the-top way.

Belfort is what you might call an "honest" Wall Street crook. He was never under any illusions that what he was doing was completely unethical.

FlashD

expectationlost wrote: »

a trailer is supposed to attract you to see a film, give you a reason to go

I know, should probably have more explosions, more bells and whistles,more in your face over the top acting, more vulgar jokes and swearing, more head shots with more blood, more crack cocaine, pills and heroine, bigger, better faster machines blowing the sh*te out of everything. Don't forget a pumping soundtrack too, so loud that blows the head right off ya, right into the back of the auditorium, now that's a trailer and all in 3D too...f*ck ya!

...gotta see that movie!

Mellor

Kinski wrote: »

Didn't Oliver Stone already make this film in the 1980s? And revisit it (unsuccessfully) with a recent sequel? A film about the decadent lifestyle of a corrupt Wall Street stockbroker? Wow, that's so "topical" and "relevant" and all that ****...

It's a film based on a real person, and real events during the 90s.
So no, Oliver Stone hasn't already made this film.

The spy genre example previous was a bit broad. Your suggestion is more along the lines of; "films about the Iraq War (2003) are pointless because were films were made about the gulf War (1991) in the mid 90s".

neaideabh

This film is based on the book of the same name by Jordan Belfort!

Great read.... I read the first page or 2 on amazon and had to get it!

expectationlost

FlashD wrote: »

I know, should probably have more explosions, more bells and whistles,more in your face over the top acting, more vulgar jokes and swearing, more head shots with more blood, more crack cocaine, pills and heroine, bigger, better faster machines blowing the sh*te out of everything. Don't forget a pumping soundtrack too, so loud that blows the head right off ya, right into the back of the auditorium, now that's a trailer and all in 3D too...f*ck ya!

...gotta see that movie!

such a lazy reply

FlashD

expectationlost wrote: »

such a lazy reply

......that was the whole point, it was intentionally lazy!

JP Liz V1

2nd trailer out

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pabEtIERlic

grames_bond

why Jonah Hill?!....WHYYYYY?!

apart from him it looks good!

Gandalph

Completely forgot that I posted in this thread like a year ago! Since then I've read both the books and they are amazing, got me hooked after the first chapter.
Has anyone looked at it on IMDB yet? Most the actor names are unrelated to anyone in the book for some reason...I was disappointed to not know who was playing who.
AFAIK it's coming out christmas day.

JP Liz V1

grames_bond wrote: »

why Jonah Hill?!....WHYYYYY?!

apart from him it looks good!

Some good reviews out for the film and Jonah Hill too

Consensus seems to be that the film is a comedy hence also it's Golden Globe nominations but with nearly 3 hours in length seems a tad too long

Chareth Cutestory

Release date Christmas Day in America, Irish release date Jan 17th. I thought it strange it was being pushed as a comedy, I'd say 'dramedy' probably seems like a better description...I hate that word though. 3 hours does seem quite lengthy, don't think I've ever sat through a film that long and thought 'yep, they needed every minute of that'! bit surprised to see the Jonah Hill casting but I think it works, if you can get past those choppers!

johnny_ultimate

There'll always be a place in cinema for the long film - if anything, it would be great if more mainstream filmmakers embraced the potential of a well-crafted epic (and I don't mean the faux epic, Peter Jackson!). As long as you can justify the runtime, a film should be as long as it needs - many great films are far, far in excess of 180 minutes, which is basically the upper limit commercially allowable in Hollywood these days (especially since studios are so keen to cut films in half). Some films simply need time to breathe.