Martin Scorsese’s The Wolf of Wall Street

Happyman42

Having watched all of Scorese's output you have got to say that he is totally in love with this lifestyle, a lifestyle I was bored with after an hour. In my opinion that homage to excess without looking at it's other side rules Martin out a serious film-maker.
Far far too long to be seen as a good movie let alone a classic. In saying that, a lot of the elements were good and stopped me switching off half way through, the acting and cinematography being two.

e_e

Happyman42 wrote: »

Having watched all of Scorese's output you have got to say that he is totally in love with this lifestyle, a lifestyle I was bored with after an hour. In my opinion that homage to excess without looking at it's other side rules Martin out a serious film-maker.

Yep, it amazes me when people defend the film as some sort of staunch criticism of the lifestyle. It's nothing of the sort. I'd argue that the film is so empty and lacking in insight that the viewer just sees what they want in it, confirming what they already thought and not having their perceptions challenged in any way. The whole film is just totally glib like that, just seems like an excuse for Scorsese to indulge in his own well worn style and not give the subject any serious consideration.

Gandalph

Belfort coming to Dublin on the 27th of may.

IvaBigWun

Rewatched this last night on Blu Ray and because I could see loads more detail I noticed some things I didnt on first viewing;

The helicopter CGI is shíte at times, and

The amount of false tan they put on Leo!

Still though, it cemented my original thought on this film, it is one of the very best of the last 5 years

Anniebell

IvaBigWun wrote: »

Rewatched this last night on Blu Ray and because I could see loads more detail I noticed some things I didnt on first viewing;

The helicopter CGI is shíte at times, and

The amount of false tan they put on Leo!

Still though, it cemented my original thought on this film, it is one of the very best of the last 5 years

The first thing I noticed was the Tangoed Leo! Even when doing promo for Django Unchained he looked unbelievably orange.

Did you import the blu ray? Does it have the 4-hour version or is that not being released anymore? I'd love to see the longer cut but only have DVD.

Neeson

Is it worth looking at a blu-Ray version to see the parting between Robbie's legs?

IvaBigWun

Anniebell wrote: »

Did you import the blu ray? Does it have the 4-hour version or is that not being released anymore? I'd love to see the longer cut but only have DVD.

The Region Free edition is here http://www.amazon.co.uk/Wolf-Wall-Street-Blu-ray-Region/dp/B00DGWS39Y/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1399139297&sr=8-1&keywords=wolf+of+wall+street+blu+ray

Im not aware of any 4 hour versions being released yet? Although Marty says thats what the original clocked in at so hopefully a Director's Cut surfaces soon!

Anniebell

IvaBigWun wrote: »

The Region Free edition is here http://www.amazon.co.uk/Wolf-Wall-Street-Blu-ray-Region/dp/B00DGWS39Y/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1399139297&sr=8-1&keywords=wolf+of+wall+street+blu+ray

Im not aware of any 4 hour versions being released yet? Although Marty says thats what the original clocked in at so hopefully a Director's Cut surfaces soon!

Thanks for that, unfortunately
I've no blu ray player so need a DVD, hopefully the same
Extras will be on that.

Fingers crossed for the Directors Cut!

IvaBigWun

Question: I downloaded a sample of the book last night to see if Id like to buy the full thing and so far Im on the fence.

Its well written and Im liking Jordan's style but it seems to more or less jump straight to him almost crashing his helicopter and then the fights with his second wife Nadine.

Does the narrative then work its way backwards to him building his own brokerage and even as far back to his meat packing business?

Ive read all there is from the free sample and this would be the deciding factor if Im going to buy it in full. The point of reading a book after seeing the film its based on is to gleam more details from the story and so far Im not seeing that

Raoul

IvaBigWun wrote: »

Question: I downloaded a sample of the book last night to see if Id like to buy the full thing and so far Im on the fence.

Its well written and Im liking Jordan's style but it seems to more or less jump straight to him almost crashing his helicopter and then the fights with his second wife Nadine.

Does the narrative then work its way backwards to him building his own brokerage and even as far back to his meat packing business?

Ive read all there is from the free sample and this would be the deciding factor if Im going to buy it in full. The point of reading a book after seeing the film its based on is to gleam more details from the story and so far Im not seeing that

The narrative is in the same order I think. The main difference between the movie and the book is that in the book you get to see what he is thinking in each situation and how exactly he is playing people. There are extra "scenes" in the book too. For me it's worth it for his thought process and you actually see how smart he really is.

Dman001

IvaBigWun wrote: »

Question: I downloaded a sample of the book last night to see if Id like to buy the full thing and so far Im on the fence.

Its well written and Im liking Jordan's style but it seems to more or less jump straight to him almost crashing his helicopter and then the fights with his second wife Nadine.

Does the narrative then work its way backwards to him building his own brokerage and even as far back to his meat packing business?

Ive read all there is from the free sample and this would be the deciding factor if Im going to buy it in full. The point of reading a book after seeing the film its based on is to gleam more details from the story and so far Im not seeing that

Very little is mentioned in the book about his early life, from what I can remember. He does go into a bit of detail about starting the brokerage firm, but that's as far back as he goes. Been a while since I read it, so could be a bit off with that. However, there are some further mental bits in the book that the film doesn't cover. Worth the read IMO.

Oafley Jones

Anniebell wrote: »

Thanks for that, unfortunately
I've no blu ray player so need a DVD, hopefully the same
Extras will be on that.

Fingers crossed for the Directors Cut!

Scorsese doesn't believe in directors cuts.

Jimmy Iovine

I watched it last night. Margot Robbie is unreal.

I'm not sure about the rest of the film though. Maybe I should have watched it in the cinema.

It's a very long three hours. It drags in places.

I don't think I'll watch it again. It isn't very funny and the story isn't particularly engaging, despite the fact that I'm usually drawn to stories like it.

The only thing that would make me watch it again are the tits.

IvaBigWun

Jimmy Iovine wrote: »

The only thing that would make me watch it again are the tits.

Tokarev

Anniebell wrote: »

I've no blu ray player so need a DVD, hopefully the same
Extras will be on that.


Get yourself a bluray player as they are now cheap as anything.
The different between normal and HD is unreal.

OldRio

Really enjoyed this. DiCaprio was very very good. Excellent actor.
I normally read the book first and then moan about the film.:D

So if I may be so bold by asking, is the book worth buying?

Ash.J.Williams

I see your man is playing a gig here soon...

IT'S a CON!

e_e

Rewatched it last night, still not at all won over by it. It's a film so uninterested in exploring its own themes that it falls into the exact flaws of the character: Fitfully amusing and diverting but empty, shallow, repetitive and kind of obnoxious. I still hold the opinion that if it had of taken a step back from the material and looked at it from a different perspective it would have had a lot more bite. Doesn't feel like Scorsese's passion and vision was in this film at all, just taking a bawdy comedy and transplanting it onto the sctructure of Goodfellas/Casino which doesn't work for me.

CPSW

OldRio wrote: »

Really enjoyed this. DiCaprio was very very good. Excellent actor.
I normally read the book first and then moan about the film.:D

So if I may be so bold by asking, is the book worth buying?

I would be the same as yourself in regards to book first, then movie, but in this case, I bought and read the book after seeing the movie in the cinema. Seeing as you are a fan of the film, I would recommend the book, there is a bit more in it, in regards to the crazy lifestyle and dodgy dealings!

TheCitizen

This film was basically Goofellas except the mafia gangsters were substituted with financial gangsters. Wasn't as good as Goodfella's though and I gave up on the film before it ended.

Neeson

Anyone see this on blu-ray?

When this hit theaters I wasn't in a position where I could sit down for 3 hours and enjoy a film so I had to miss this when it was playing on the big screen and it's one of those films which I really wish I could have seen as the director intended. So with little to do today I set aside the afternoon so as to fully engross myself in The Wolf of Wall Street and what a treat it was.

The Wolf of Wall Street is the kind of epic cinema that has sadly became something of a lost art. These days, if you're film doesn't cost North of $300 million, then the chances of you getting a three hour film on screens is slim, and if you do manage it then your film isn't likely to play in anything but a handful of "art house" cinemas. The Wolf of Wall Street is one of those rare exceptions where one of cinemas finest auteurs was allowed to deliver the film he wanted and what a joy it is. The Wolf of Wall Street is a giddy, bold, overwhelming and adrenalin laced film that offers more bang for your buck than a dozen Transformers ever could.

It's a film which revels in excess and decadence and as such Scorsese is at his most playful in how he subverts traditional shooting techniques. One of the films most striking aspects is how the story is told, during any scene where our characters are under the influence of illicit substances the rule book is thrown out the window along with any sense of continuity. There's a jagged, otherworldly feel to the editing in these scenes which makes them stand out as it's at direct odds with the sober scenes which are all shot with a keen eye to detail. It's a small and oft used technique which demonstrates that if anything Scorsese is getting more adventurous with age.

On the page the story of Jordan Belfort reads like it was written for Scorsese, a tale about a criminal who survived and one could easily draw comparisons to Goodfellas. They share similar story beats, characters and Wall Street has more in common with the mob that many would like to think. As such there was a real chance that The Wolf of Wall Street could have very easily been a best of picture, one where all the boxes were ticked but Scorsese finds the substance in a story that's lacking in such.

The most striking aspect of the film is that it never tries to be a morality tale. The complete lack of morals on display is evident by the fact that none of the victims are ever shown, the closest we get to it are the early scenes which follow Belfort and introduction to the world of trading. For a few brief moments he's the voice of reason but it's short lived and all the better for it. By not giving a voice to the victims, Scorsese has crafted a far more unique and compelling film that pulls the audience in making them complicit in the actions of Belfort and his cohorts. The final scene, where a now reformed Belfort speaks to a room of eager to get rich ordinary folks, is the films most striking and one feels that were he able to, Scorsese would replace it with a shot of the enraptured viewer.

It's only after the credits have rolled that we are able to reflect on what we have seen and realise that the film is as much a critique on how the media turns notoriety into celebrity. The Wolf of wall Street could so easily have been another bland morality tale where a film maker tuts his head at wall street but in Scorses's assured hands it's says so much more, it's a film which holds a mirror up the audience and isn't afraid to pull it's punches. In essence it's one of the most daring and fun films in many a year and unlike so many, it's one that doesn't try to hide what it wants to say.

Just to add, I really feel sorry for anyone who watched the screener of this. Such a visually scrumptious film should be experienced in the cinema and if not on DVD. The sound design is stunning and the way music is used cries out for a proper set up.

Forgot to mention but it's always nice to see Bo Dietl and here he plays himself, well a fictional version of himself. For those that don't know Dietl was one of the most decorated cops in New York history and the film Bad Lieutenant is based on a case he worked.

Dietl has said that he thought Belfort is an "unremorseful scumbag" and has spoke at length about how Belfort had quite a few mob guys around him. It's an interesting aspect of the true life tale which I would like to see more about.

e_e

Good review Darko, and I think it ironically pinpoints my issues with the film. I complete disagree with the film making tactic of "Make the audience laugh along and then have them feeling guilty later!" because it's such an easy, cheap and smug punch to pull on the viewer.

As for the style, I really think I've seen nearly everything here in Casino and Goodfellas before. Rather than a manic step forward for Scorsese that it's praised as it honestly felt like more him resting on his laurels to me. I mean we've all seen the "everything goes stylistically nuts once drugs are introduced" thing tonnes of times, even in the likes of Grand Theft Auto. It's just nothing new to me and the "implicate the audience" ending felt tired and cheap especially considering how bored I was by that point. The film repeats the same scenes over and over to the extent of them becoming enervating. It's just hard to gather any interest or entertainment value out of the sex and drug use when you're being hit over the head with it constantly, all the while the film resists exploring character and themes in a refreshing and insightful way. It's a well that has been tapped dry by Scorsese long ago.

I probably sound like a broken record at this point but having recently rewatched it it's still disappointment of the year for me.

e_e

e_e wrote: »

Good review Darko, and I think it ironically pinpoints my issues with the film. I complete disagree with the film making tactic of "Make the audience laugh along and then have them feeling guilty later!" because it's such an easy, cheap and smug punch to pull on the viewer.

As for the style, I really think I've seen nearly everything here in Casino and Goodfellas before. Rather than a manic step forward for Scorsese that it's praised as it honestly felt like more him resting on his laurels to me. I mean we've all seen the "everything goes stylistically nuts once drugs are introduced" thing tonnes of times, even in the likes of Grand Theft Auto. It's just nothing new to me and the "implicate the audience" ending felt tired and cheap especially considering how bored I was by that point. The film repeats the same scenes over and over to the extent of them becoming enervating. It's just hard to gather any interest or entertainment value out of the sex and drug use when you're being hit over the head with it constantly, all the while the film resists exploring character and themes in a refreshing and insightful way. It's a well that has been tapped dry by Scorsese long ago.

I probably sound like a broken record at this point but having recently rewatched it it's still disappointment of the year for me.

I don't mean to imply that it makes the audience fell guilty later but rather Scorsese subverts expectations and it's not till the film is over before you realise that you were utterly captivated by what was occurring and as such never question any of it.

I can understand how some grew weary of it, there's a certain repetitive nature to events but much like real life they are part and parcel of the story. The constant one night stands and ridiculous scenes of debauchery are key to making us not just identify with the characters but also envy them. There's no question that the lifestyle of the rich and famous is at once vapid and tempting.

And as for the style, yes we have seen it before but rarely has it been so much fun. Scorsese is like a child with a box of toys and he's just out to enjoy himself, and sometimes all you really want is for a director to be so sure of his abilities that he just goes full out. And here it works, could you imagine how differently the film could have turned out, had say first choice Ridley Scott directed. At least with Scorsese there is little compromise and he's true to his vision throughout.

All that said I do think there is a case to be made for a tighter edit, there's some scenes which aren't necessarily fat but could be lost with little overall impact to the wider canvas. Yet I think that I could happily sit down some day soon and watch the initial 4 hour cut.

e_e

To me Hugo was the really fun and inventive film where Scorsese did really interesting things with mechanics that have become tired (namely 3D and CGI effects). I can't really begrudge Scorsese going crazy with his well worn style here either. I think my problems mostly come down to script level tbh, to the extent that I'd say Scorsese and his actors make it a mixed bag rather than something outright terrible as it would've likely been with a different director.

I really liked Hugo, it was Scorsese's love letter to cinema and one which had some of the most imaginative visual flourishes in quite some time. It's a shame that it never reached the audience it deserved and again, it's one I missed in cinemas and really regret not seeing as the director intended. Watched it in 3D on blu-ray and really like how the tech was used, it wasn't flashy or gimmicky, rather it was subtle and allowed Scorsese to layer his image in a rather impressive manner.

One thing that really struck me about The Wolf of Wall Street was the true terrible green screen work. There was some naff, sub SyFy creature of the week CGI used a number of time but the scene in the park in London has to be one of the worst uses of green screen in years. It looked so sterile and fake that it was obviously shot on a sound stage.

Dirty Dingus McGee

Just watched it.I thought it was brilliant I heard people complain the film was too long but it flew by for me and was entertaining throughout, one the funniest films I have seen in a while.Brilliant performances by Di Caprio and Jonah Hill and McConaughey was great for his cameo appearance as well.

My only complaint was I didn't feel there was enough nudity.

bnt

Deleted User wrote: »

By not giving a voice to the victims, Scorsese has crafted a far more unique and compelling film that pulls the audience in making them complicit in the actions of Belfort and his cohorts. The final scene, where a now reformed Belfort speaks to a room of eager to get rich ordinary folks, is the films most striking and one feels that were he able to, Scorsese would replace it with a shot of the enraptured viewer.

Does a film need to "give a voice to the victim" directly, to make its point? Do we really need to be told that fraud is a crime, and that it's ethically dubious to take advantage of your fellow man? I don't think so, any more than we needed Oscar-bait 12 Years A Slave to ram home a "Slavery was bad" message.

The "Sales" seminar at the end - complete with introduction by the real Jordan Belfort - was a nice way of closing the narrative loop, I thought, since Belfort found his feet as a salesman, rather than as a stockbroker. Early on we see him on the phone giving a remarkably successful sales pitch: he could have been selling vacuum cleaners instead of penny stocks, for all the difference it would have made. That seminar was mostly full of people looking to become better sales people, the better to take advantage of their fellow human beings. I have no sympathy for them, but neither do I have any sympathy for anyone who would risk their life savings after a sales pitch from a voice on the phone.

I just saw The Wolf Of Wall Street for the first time today, and spent quite a lot of it laughing at Jordan, Donny and his colleagues. Laughing at, not with, them. Had Belfort

died trying to drive his Lamborghini while high on Quaaludes

, we would have said "served you right": had he

gotten his daughter killed while trying to abduct her after snorting cocaine

, that would have been another matter entirely. The difference was clear, the danger to an innocent victim (or victims) did not need to be hammered home as a "moral lesson".

I thought the timing of this movie's release was impeccable: filmed during the 2012 US Presidential campaign, in the aftermath of the financial crisis. If you were a home buyer who took out a hefty mortgage, or an investor in sub-prime mortgage-backed securities, you were just as much a "victim" of a Sales pitch as Belfort's clients. That was what I took away from the film, and the final scene in particular: it's all about Selling something, even if it's yourself you're selling. (See Glengarry Glen Ross for another example.)

K4t

Deleted User wrote: »

I don't mean to imply that it makes the audience fell guilty later but rather Scorsese subverts expectations and it's not till the film is over before you realise that you were utterly captivated by what was occurring and as such never question any of it.

I can understand how some grew weary of it, there's a certain repetitive nature to events but much like real life they are part and parcel of the story. The constant one night stands and ridiculous scenes of debauchery are key to making us not just identify with the characters but also envy them. There's no question that the lifestyle of the rich and famous is at once vapid and tempting.

Are you 12 years old?

I've watched the first 40 minutes and the strongest feeling I have is nausea, followed by boredom. I feel like I'm watching an Anchorman movie except this is supposed to be some kind of important, American masterpiece! I'm honestly stunned here after all the talk and nominations. This movie has conned people more than Wall Street itself ever did. Which was maybe the whole idea. Horrendus stuff.