Martin Scorsese’s The Wolf of Wall Street

johnny_ultimate · 09-01-2014 01:11AM

Deleted posts about illegal downloading. It's out next Friday, see it in the cinema like it deserves to be seen.

mystic86 wrote: »

Mr ultimate, how the heck did you get to see this today?! Can I see it early too?

Media screening!

Bullseye1 · 09-01-2014 01:30AM

How does one get invited to media screening? Competition or professional? Do you pay for the pleasure?

johnny_ultimate · 09-01-2014 01:52AM

Writing or contributing to some sort of media outlet tends to be the main way, and maybe a few other miscellaneous attendees: the occasional exhibitor, distributor etc...

They tend to hold special previews for competition winners, usually in the evening. They're typically associated with a radio station, Metro newspaper or something like that. Haven't heard of any for Wolf of Wall Street, but I'm sure there's probably some sort of preview scheduled over the next week.

09-01-2014 05:32AM

Incredibly funny film. Leo commands your attention whenever he's on screen and that's for most of the 3 hour runtime. Something felt unnatural about Jonah Hill's character but he really gave it his all. As mr. Ultimate has said McConaughey was brilliant in his cameo. I felt that Kyle Chandler was incredibly underused too.

Ultimately it's a film about excess, debauchery, scumbags, misogyny, sex and drugs...and it's brilliant.

Looper007 · 09-01-2014 09:13AM

Liam O wrote: »

Incredibly funny film. Leo commands your attention whenever he's on screen and that's for most of the 3 hour runtime. Something felt unnatural about Jonah Hill's character but he really gave it his all. As mr. Ultimate has said McConaughey was brilliant in his cameo. I felt that Kyle Chandler was incredibly underused too.

Ultimately it's a film about excess, debauchery, scumbags, misogyny, sex and drugs...and it's brilliant.

I have to disagree with you about Hill, I thought without him been the sidekick to Leo the film wouldn't have been half as good. It's Leo's best performance in a long time for me, I never understood the praise for him in Django as it was Waltz's and Jackson's film all the way. He's no De Niro but he handles himself well but I like Scorsese to go for another actor next time.

FloatingVoter · 09-01-2014 10:24AM

Laugh out loud funny in places. One of the few three hour movies that you won't notice it slipping by. Where they found time for work is beyond me. And Leo's lesson in safe and sober driving is a mini-classic.

09-01-2014 06:26PM

Looper007 wrote: »

I have to disagree with you about Hill, I thought without him been the sidekick to Leo the film wouldn't have been half as good. It's Leo's best performance in a long time for me, I never understood the praise for him in Django as it was Waltz's and Jackson's film all the way. He's no De Niro but he handles himself well but I like Scorsese to go for another actor next time.

I can appreciate the feeling about Hill, he acted the role well but something felt slightly off I thought, can't really put my finger on it but it makes me hold off on calling it a great performance.

It did a great job of showing how far removed from reality these people were in an entertaining way. It didn't really focus on the illegality of it enough and considering it was 3 hours long should have given Chandler a few more scenes to show both his acting ability and focus more on the other side of the coin. Would have made for a better story but probably not as good a comedy.

titan18 · 09-01-2014 06:49PM

Absolutely fantastic. DiCaprio was excellent and really has an excellent shot at winning an Oscar for it (although Ejiofor should get it). Loved the

'cerebral palsy' phase

. Margot Robbie is also ridiculously good looking.

Chareth Cutestory · 09-01-2014 07:39PM

There is an Irish premiere scheduled for next week with opportunities to win tickets through the twitter and Facebook pages as well a radio station. I think today may be the deadline for competition entry though. It's out next week officially anyway so you won't be watching much later than most other people!

IvaBigWun · 09-01-2014 08:40PM

A very good film but over long for a film that is, mostly, a comedy. It feels about 20-30 minutes in excess and considering that Marty's peerless Goodfellas is 40 minutes shorter you have to wonder why he needed 3 hours to tell this story.

The Good

Leo was great. Jonah was good. But McConaughey absolutely steals this film in the mere 10 or so minutes of screen time he has.

Margot Robbie is sex on legs. Hollywood has a new glamorous siren who can act too.

It is, at times, hilarious. The business like discussion of organising a dwarf throwing competition, McConaughey's restaurant moment and that scene with Leo and Jonah on some hardcore drugs are standouts.

I cant put this any other way ... the abundance of tits and sex were fantastic. Its been awhile since a mainstream film had so much of it. In a cinema world where recent Die Hard films are now PG 13 to make as much money as possible we finally have a film for grown ups.

The Hmmm

McConaughey needed much more screen time. Given how flexible these "based on a true story (kinda)" adaptations are there's no reason why he couldnt have have come back in for the third act. An opportunity missed I feel.

As mentioned, its too long. Id have reigned in a little on Jonah's scenes and Leo's grandstand speeches to the troops are too fat and too much.

Although the cameos of Spike Jonze and Ocean's 11 writer Ted Griffin work, Joanna Lumley's doesnt quite click.

Overall a very worthy addition to the canon of one of the top 3 film directors of all time.

8/10 on first viewing. Double the rating Id give American Hustle

Zico · 09-01-2014 08:45PM

LOL DFX I generally worry about over-hyped movies but the fact that it hasn't been utterly panned here gives me hope for this one.

SimonQuinlank · 09-01-2014 08:49PM

Bullseye1 wrote: »

How does one get invited to media screening? Competition or professional? Do you pay for the pleasure?

Are crap to go to as they are usually held on weekday mornings few days before release.I wrote a few reviews for a now defunct magazine a few years back and I still get invite emails from some distributors.

mystic86 · 10-01-2014 03:21AM

Could someone who has seen this please help me out, just want some clarification:

Is it Aerotyne or is it Aerotyne?

So my real question: Donnie passes Jordan's note (informing him of the fact that he is tapped) on to the FBI right?
That's why the FBI arrived in Jordan's house and showed him the note and said he was going to Jail... right?

But then, I thought that meant his plead deal was off the table, because he tried to tell Donnie... yet he still got the plead deal.. can somebody explain what happened there?

Was it the case the original plead deal included no Jail time, but after the note he was still allowed a plea deal that included Jail time? I'm surprised they would still work with him after trying to go against the first plea deal by telling Donnie...

Also, after the FBI show the note to Jordan we see Donnie furiously deleting files on the computer, while files in the office are being shredded.. why didn't he do all this BEFORE he handed in the note to the FBI?!

And how come there seemed to be no affect whatsoever on Donnie and Jordan's friendship after this? I mean I don't think it went out of its way to show them getting along the exact same or anything it's just that I thought it would have affected it somewhat...

Thanks for reading..

10-01-2014 03:44AM

You have to love the fact that many if the people who have watched the film have experienced it not in the cinema as the director intended, but rather in their own home with a copy that looks like utter crap. Many of those who watched the leaked copy are the same people who are constantly complaining about the quality of films playing in their local multiplex.

If you watch this or any of the other screeners which have leaked you cannot call yourself a fan of the medium of cinema. Why would you spoil the experience by watching a film in less than ideal conditions?

10-01-2014 07:48AM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

You have to love the fact that many if the people who have watched the film have experienced it not in the cinema as the director intended, but rather in their own home with a copy that looks like utter crap. Many of those who watched the leaked copy are the same people who are constantly complaining about the quality of films playing in their local multiplex.

If you watch this or any of the other screeners which have leaked you cannot call yourself a fan of the medium of cinema. Why would you spoil the experience by watching a film in less than ideal conditions?

I seen it in a quite full cinema and honestly it was a slight bit uncomfortable that a lot of people were clearly offended and me and my friend who I was with found everything so hilarious. Seen a couple or 2 walk out

Definitely not first date fare, were groups of 3 or 4 women around me that seemed uncomfortable with some aspects of the film. It is very funny but I guess it was more tuned to our sense of humour than a lot of people. I suppose it must be noted that a lot of people still largely have an aversion to the large amount of sexualisation present in the film. Would probably be a more pleasant experience in Ireland in the cinema though as I think more people will appreciate the humour and not focus on the means to achieve it as much.

The people who watch those online rips can't be helped, the shining light is that they will normally recommend it to friends and may even accompany them to a cinema screening in the future. I remember doing so with Super 8 in the only time that I've really done it with something still in the cinema.

FloatingVoter · 10-01-2014 11:48AM

Deleted User wrote: »

You have to love the fact that many if the people who have watched the film have experienced it not in the cinema as the director intended, but rather in their own home with a copy that looks like utter crap. Many of those who watched the leaked copy are the same people who are constantly complaining about the quality of films playing in their local multiplex.

If you watch this or any of the other screeners which have leaked you cannot call yourself a fan of the medium of cinema. Why would you spoil the experience by watching a film in less than ideal conditions?

As Liam O said that word of mouth is often used by people to judge whether a movie is worth paying into. Look at the (lukewarm) reviews of American Hustle on here and on various other forums from early viewers then compare with the rave reviews of the mainstream critics. Movies often look better than they are when the studio / distributor has plied you with free booze and a flight to somewhere sunny for a screening.

Ole Rodrigo · 10-01-2014 12:11PM

Deleted User wrote: »

You have to love the fact that many if the people who have watched the film have experienced it not in the cinema as the director intended, but rather in their own home with a copy that looks like utter crap. Many of those who watched the leaked copy are the same people who are constantly complaining about the quality of films playing in their local multiplex.

If you watch this or any of the other screeners which have leaked you cannot call yourself a fan of the medium of cinema. Why would you spoil the experience by watching a film in less than ideal conditions?

+1.I was speaking with someone recently who watched Gravity and said yeah it was just ok, didn't see what the fuss was about. He neglected to add he had downloaded a screener copy and watched it on a laptop. :rolleyes:

zarquon · 10-01-2014 01:08PM

ror_74 wrote: »

+1.I was speaking with someone recently who watched Gravity and said yeah it was just ok, didn't see what the fuss was about. He neglected to add he had downloaded a screener copy and watched it on a laptop. :rolleyes:

That's the problem with personal reviews. Watching a VHS quality version of visual masterprice on a small computer screen does not really give you the required experience but yet people will still jump in with a less than complementary opinion. The opinion of anyone who has only seen the screener version of Gravity should be disregarded. It's a shame they have missed the incredible cinema experience of the movie.

Ole Rodrigo · 10-01-2014 01:12PM

zarquon wrote: »

That's the problem with personal reviews. Watching a VHS quality version of visual masterprice on a small computer screen does not really give you the required experience but yet people will still jump in with an opinion. The opinion of anyone who has only seen the screener version of Gravity should be disregarded. It's a shame they have missed the incredible cinema experience of the movie.

There's no reasoning with some folks though - you're only accused of snobbery.

Decuc500 · 10-01-2014 01:18PM

FloatingVoter wrote: »

As Liam O said that word of mouth is often used by people to judge whether a movie is worth paying into. Look at the (lukewarm) reviews of American Hustle on here and on various other forums from early viewers then compare with the rave reviews of the mainstream critics. Movies often look better than they are when the studio / distributor has plied you with free booze and a flight to somewhere sunny for a screening.

I wouldn't be quite so cynical about reviewers being bought with free booze etc. but I wouldn't trust most reviews until I see a film myself as (bad) critics can have their own agenda to push.

I certainly wouldn't judge a film by the reception on boards as negative reactions to films usually outweigh positive ones. Just look at the voting in the film awards section. Worst, most overrated and most disappointing film are getting all the votes!

FloatingVoter · 10-01-2014 01:24PM

re. the Gravity thing - I watched that on my 42" TV. I knew I lost a lot of the special effects but I still found it a good movie from a story alone point of view. Myself and a few mates then went to see it properly in the cinema. Gravity is definitely a movie for the big screen, ditto the Hobbit. Wolf of Wall Street, American Hustle, 12 Years a Slave can be watched on any decent TV. How many of you can honestly say you've seen Casablanca, Cirtizen Kane, Godfather etc. on a big screen. Bar screenings at the IFI and a few other select cinemas we've only seen them on TVs.

zarquon · 10-01-2014 01:30PM

FloatingVoter wrote: »

re. the Gravity thing - I watched that on my 42" TV. I knew I lost a lot of the special effects but I still found it a good movie from a story alone point of view. Myself and a few mates then went to see it properly in the cinema. Gravity is definitely a movie for the big screen, ditto the Hobbit. Wolf of Wall Street, American Hustle, 12 Years a Slave can be watched on any decent TV. How many of you can honestly say you've seen Casablanca, Cirtizen Kane, Godfather etc. on a big screen. Bar screenings at the IFI and a few other select cinemas we've only seen them on TVs.

Completely agree. Story driven movies do not necessarily need the cinema experience but visually driven movies should be watched in the cinema where possible. I usually go the cinema 2 or 3 times a month but can't watch everyting. American Hustle got completely slated on here therefore i wasn't bothered about viewing it in the cinema so watched the screener instead and i have to say i am glad i did not waste my money. Some movies i wished i saw the screener for instead of watching in the cinema like anchorman which was a disappointing movie.

titan18 · 10-01-2014 02:19PM

Deleted User wrote: »

You have to love the fact that many if the people who have watched the film have experienced it not in the cinema as the director intended, but rather in their own home with a copy that looks like utter crap. Many of those who watched the leaked copy are the same people who are constantly complaining about the quality of films playing in their local multiplex.

If you watch this or any of the other screeners which have leaked you cannot call yourself a fan of the medium of cinema. Why would you spoil the experience by watching a film in less than ideal conditions?

What would you define as ideal conditions?Sitting through a 3 hour film trying not to go to the toilet incase you miss something isn't very ideal to me anyway. Copy wasn't utter crap either, it's pretty good as screeners go. I've watched it, I won't go see it in the cinema, but I will buy it on Blu-ray.

It's also more important that people actually watch the film, and not how they happen to watch it. If people don't have money to go to the cinema, then they shouldn't be judged for that (I don't, I'm unemployed and looking for work, can't justify spending money on going to the cinema sadly)

johnny_ultimate · 10-01-2014 02:29PM

The Wolf of Wall Street is a cinema film, just as pretty much any film from a major auteur is. In terms of cinematography and editing it's a big, bold delight that can happily overwhelm the senses. The sound design deserves the quality of cinema sound systems - whether that's the intense hollering of DiCaprio in some of his best scenes or the giddyburst of adrenaline that is the

Mrs. Robinson

music cue. It's a film to watch with a crowd, if only to further appreciate the wit and energy of the comic setpieces.

Even on an off day Martin Scorsese's films are typically worth a look. The Wolf of Wall Street is not an off day. If you feel the need to 'try before you buy' when it comes to the latest acclaimed film from one of American cinema's most established directors, then I'm not sure what to say. It's an extremely safe bet - I can't see many people at least not appreciating it in some respects, even if it might not be an out-and-out masterpiece (and that's a subjective question). I don't know why you'd waste your first opportunity to see it in an inferior format - like someone said one of the suspect versions floating about has scenes (of a sexual nature) cut out. That's an instant no-watch right there, let alone the quality of the recording. I'm not saying that everyone can afford to go see everything in the cinema - and certainly there are economic and personal circumstances in individual cases that are hardly negligible - but I'd say there's an awful lot of people who can.

Also, I'm firmly of the belief that it's the auteur-driven films that cinema fans need to get out there and support. Many believe it's the big budget, spectacle films that need to be seen on the big screen, but really they're very often the most ignorable. It's up to us all to get out there and support the distinctive visions, to show there's an audience out there for films that aren't directed by committee. While a Martin Scorsese film is always likely to get a generous release, it people aren't encouraged to go out and see his work, then I really fear for the smaller films that truly need our support. People wonder why more cinemas don't screen smaller, independent or foreign language films - sadly, audience habits are a major reason for that.

FloatingVoter · 10-01-2014 03:28PM

As for auteurs, I'm not losing sleep over Scorcese, Woody Allen's latest "masterpiece" or Clint Eastwood. They'll all get major releases. I do make time and pay to see smaller productions even if they're only showing for a week down in the Screen cinema or the IFI. Screeners are generally DVD quality - they're originally meant for people (academy members) who can judge a movie on technical grounds.
Given that we're talking screeners, these are movies that have made it in the first place. We're talking serious contenders for Best Picture, Actor, Screenplay here. The screeners for animated shorts and foreign language films are few and far between. They're smaller productions and less likely to leak. The film that's a non-shower in the screener season this year so far is Philomena which surprise,surprise is a pretty small budget affair.
The problems with non-Hollywood films lie mainly with the distributors and cinema chains knowing they'll make more money from showing the Hobbit over three screens for four weeks. My internet connection is not destroying the cinematic arts.

Shiraz 4.99 · 10-01-2014 05:23PM

I'll make no secret of the fact I've a DVD quality screener copy of Wolf of Wall Street lined up to watch tonight.
I appreciate what many are saying but financially I'm not in a position to see it in the cinema.
The cost of 2 tickets plus 4 hours babysitting makes it prohibitive.
If I wait for the DVD I'll have lost out on the current hype which adds to the experience plus there will be far less live discussion online to engage with about the film.
Then I have to make sure I don't stumble on any online spoilers for the next 6 months or whatever.
The screener is a no-brainer for me I'm afraid, I'm not proud of it but I have legitimate reasons.

10-01-2014 05:33PM

Liam O wrote: »

I seen it in a quite full cinema and honestly it was a slight bit uncomfortable that a lot of people were clearly offended and me and my friend who I was with found everything so hilarious. Seen a couple or 2 walk out Definitely not first date fare, were groups of 3 or 4 women around me that seemed uncomfortable with some aspects of the film. It is very funny but I guess it was more tuned to our sense of humour than a lot of people. I suppose it must be noted that a lot of people still largely have an aversion to the large amount of sexualisation present in the film. Would probably be a more pleasant experience in Ireland in the cinema though as I think more people will appreciate the humour and not focus on the means to achieve it as much.

The people who watch those online rips can't be helped, the shining light is that they will normally recommend it to friends and may even accompany them to a cinema screening in the future. I remember doing so with Super 8 in the only time that I've really done it with something still in the cinema.

FloatingVoter wrote: »

As Liam O said that word of mouth is often used by people to judge whether a movie is worth paying into. Look at the (lukewarm) reviews of American Hustle on here and on various other forums from early viewers then compare with the rave reviews of the mainstream critics. Movies often look better than they are when the studio / distributor has plied you with free booze and a flight to somewhere sunny for a screening.

zarquon wrote: »

Completely agree. Story driven movies do not necessarily need the cinema experience but visually driven movies should be watched in the cinema where possible. I usually go the cinema 2 or 3 times a month but can't watch everyting. American Hustle got completely slated on here therefore i wasn't bothered about viewing it in the cinema so watched the screener instead and i have to say i am glad i did not waste my money. Some movies i wished i saw the screener for instead of watching in the cinema like anchorman which was a disappointing movie.

titan18 wrote: »

What would you define as ideal conditions?Sitting through a 3 hour film trying not to go to the toilet incase you miss something isn't very ideal to me anyway. Copy wasn't utter crap either, it's pretty good as screeners go. I've watched it, I won't go see it in the cinema, but I will buy it on Blu-ray.

It's also more important that people actually watch the film, and not how they happen to watch it. If people don't have money to go to the cinema, then they shouldn't be judged for that (I don't, I'm unemployed and looking for work, can't justify spending money on going to the cinema sadly)

Shiraz 4.99 wrote: »

I'll make no secret of the fact I've a DVD quality screener copy of Wolf of Wall Street lined up to watch tonight.
I appreciate what many are saying but financially I'm not in a position to see it in the cinema.
The cost of 2 tickets plus 4 hours babysitting makes it prohibitive.
If I wait for the DVD I'll have lost out on the current hype which adds to the experience plus there will be far less live discussion online to engage with about the film.
Then I have to make sure I don't stumble on any online spoilers for the next 6 months or whatever.
The screener is a no-brainer for me I'm afraid, I'm not proud of it but I have legitimate reasons.

Saying that people pirating the film will help it thanks to word of mouth is ridicolous. The latest film from Martin Scorsese, starring Leonardo DeCaprio does not need word of mouth in order to be a success.

The justifications people come up with for stealing is mind boggling. A film like the Wolf of Wall Street is one best experience on the big screen and anyone who thinks that the rip online is of DVD quality has obviously never seen a DVD in their life. It looks like a 5th generation VHS tape. Friends of mine were watching it last night and it looked like a rather poor cam rip.

If you find the cost of a ticket to the cinema to be too expensive then don't go. Wait for the DVD. Don't try and say it's okay to steal simply because you haven't the cost of a ticket to spare. I'm out of work atm and don't get to the cinema as much as I would like but I can still afford to go once or twice a week. The fact that most cinemas have special afternoon or unemployed rates means that lacking employment is not a valid excuse. There seems to be some mindset shared by a lot of people where it's acceptable to steal simply because they can't be bothered to get off their ass and pay to see a film in the cinema.

The sad thing is that the people who are downloading the film will be on here in a few months posting about how crap the selection is at their local multiplex, completely oblivious to the fact that they are part of the problem. If you want to see intelligent, adult cinema being produced then you need to pay to see it when it's in the cinema and not steal it. All the justification in the world can't hide the fact that you're a thief and directly hurting the chances of studios taking a chance on anything that isn't a 200 million dollar FX extravaganza

FloatingVoter · 10-01-2014 05:45PM

Word of mouth may not help but it can certainly hinder overhype. Being forewarned that spending your €10 on Wolf of Wall Street and waiting to rent American Hustle would be pretty good advice.

Rida · 10-01-2014 05:47PM

watched a DVD quality rip of it last night - quality film 9/10 and very funny

American Hustle not great 6.5 outta 10 for me

Gravity - 8/10

All watch on VOD straight from my laptop to 40" TV - all screeners and all worth the watch

FlashD · 10-01-2014 07:02PM

Deleted User wrote: »

You have to love the fact that many if the people who have watched the film have experienced it not in the cinema as the director intended, but rather in their own home with a copy that looks like utter crap. Many of those who watched the leaked copy are the same people who are constantly complaining about the quality of films playing in their local multiplex.

I think it's a legitimate point you make, and not something I thought of before.

I always presumed that all posters on here are reviewing the new cinema releases as they see them on the big screen rather than substandard downloaded rips.

Difficult to take these reviews & comments as serious TBH.

Martin Scorsese’s The Wolf of Wall Street

Comments