Scorsese loves his Leo.
They must work awesome together on the set. High fives all the time.
Last edited by Fedor; 06-17-2013 at 02:12 PM.
Scorsese loves his Leo.
They must work awesome together on the set. High fives all the time.
Looks great. I generally don't give a shit about which actors are in which movie, but I am willing to give anything with Leo DiCaprio in it the benefit of the doubt and see it at least once.
was i the only one hoping this was about rich werewolves that secretly controlled the stock market?
Looks so good. Can't go wrong with Leo.
Looks awesome. Blows my mind to remember that there was a time when everyone wrote off Leo as a pretty boy one hit wonder teen hearthrob type.
" I wonder if you are destined to be forgotten. Will your life fade in the shadow of greater beings?"
When was that? Dude has been killing it since Basketball Diaries.
Curious to see it but... What's the idea behind Jonah Hill's fake teeth?
Looks entertaining. Having a finance degree I don't do shit with always makes me enjoy these "what if" type movies.
John Leguizamo was killing it in Romeo + Juliet.
Black dude who played Mercutio was amazing too.
If you're into modern Shakespeare remakes, worth checking out the version of Macbeth they did set in Melbourne underworld.
" I wonder if you are destined to be forgotten. Will your life fade in the shadow of greater beings?"
I had a massive crush on Claire Danes when R+J was in the theatres. Hmmm... I think I still have a massive crush on her.
This looks like a nice flick. He seems born to play the rich handsome playboy everyone hates to love.
I wanna see this more than Hodj wants Kentucky to be in the north.
I'm hearing this is pretty wild. DiCaprio putting stuff in his ass, orgies, that sort of thing.
Just got back from seeing The Wolf. It was a very very entertaining movie. Many laughs.
The Wolf of Debauchery more like it. Jonah Hill deserves a best supporting, and Margot Robbie is fucking delicious.
Great movie. Jonah Hill, again, fucking A+. You can tell when he Jonah's it up in some riffing too.
Only about...100 boobs in this movie, probably.
The movie kind of sucked. Its just insanely over the top and there's no reprieve. When you have some loud insane screaming scene or 50 hookers getting railed in the office, you need some lull so the audience can relax for a minute, but this movie just kept escalating, scene after scene. Its 3 hours of escalation after escalation. I got a massive headache. Leo was great as always and Jonah hill was good, but the movie was way, way too intense
Last edited by Fedor; 12-28-2013 at 04:58 PM.
Felt far too inferior to The Departed for me to fall in love with it. I also object to some of the choices on what to put in and keep out of the movie, specifically that rat fuck Steve Madden.
"...in the present case it is similarly necessary to renounce a freedom that does not exist, and to recognize a dependence of which we are not conscious." - War and Peace
Not Scorsese's best, but good lord the fap material. My spank bank is just received a year's supply.
I'd love to know what was cut to avoid the NC17
I did not expect this movie to be what it was, but shit.. it was pretty damn entertaining lol
His bachelor party stumble across the room to grope a chicks face/tit had me rolling
Last edited by Needless; 12-30-2013 at 05:06 PM.
The movie follows the memoir pretty closely, but most of it is probably bullshit. And by most accounts, he's a bigger jerk than depicted in the movie.
He scammed people out of over 100+ million dollars, of course he's a jerk.
I think it's strange that he's made motivational speaking his new career. Dude is a fucking psychopath. The fact that he got only 2 years in prison shows what a joke the U.S. justice system is.
That's what happens when you can be used to put dozens of other people away for years and years. Something could be said for him with how he positioned himself in the event of his downfall.
Was highly enjoyable but all in all thought it dragged on too long and that the ending was a bit rushed. All of a sudden there's Jonah Hill hiding like a bitch while all his friends are locked up. Some really memorable scenes though that I'm still chuckling about hours later.
Movie was awesome but Brando is right that it dragged a bit about 3/4 through. All in all though I loved it and would give it an 8/10.
Just got done watching it, it really didn't need to be 3 hours long. Great performances all around but it did drag. Needed a solid 45-60 minutes trimmed off.
Just watched it myself, and I enjoyed it. Like many of you, I'm pretty much a sucker for anything Leo does nowadays. I didn't like him early on in his career (apparently I'm one of the few people that HATED The Beach), but he's been fucking money for years now.
Not my favorite movie ever, and it was longer than it needed to be, but I'm glad that I watched it. I don't think I'll ever watch it again except for maybe nude scenes/unrated extras, but it was a good movie. I'd recommend others to watch it, which is sort of how I judge a movie that I'm not clearly raving about.
EDIT: I forgot, I'd have been pissed if someone called in the middle of The Equalizer too! Loved that show.
Last edited by Void; 01-09-2014 at 06:50 AM.
45-60min? That would have butchered this movie. I can see maybe 25 minutes or so but to take a full 1/3 out of the fil would have destroyed it imo.
Also I don't get how the open letter from Jordan's daughter about how the movie portrayed him as a good guy who lived the high life with no consequences is true. I mean yes I get that they didn't really concentrate on the people he fucked over but the movie to me painted him as a horrible human being who was driven by greed, money, drugs and hookers.
Also I like when true stories always wrap up movies telling about what happened to them after the movie was all said and done and they didn't do that, which I thought was kind of a bummer.
I mean, I enjoy gratuitous TnA as much as the next guy but eventually it gets to a point where I just wanted to say "We get it, they love drugs and sex" Could have cut the scenes of just random debauchery that add nothing to the actual story and the movie would have been at least 30 minutes shorter with no effect whatsoever on the feel or the storyline.
The thought that upon initial submission this was going to get an NC17 rating is pretty funny, wonder what had to be cut when you consider what was in the movie.
They did say what happened to him, he went to jail and then became a motivational speaker.
Not everyone else though.
Movie was pretty good. Leo was good as he usually is these days and Margot Robbie is certainly a piece of ass.
The movie certainly didn't glamorize using Quaaludes.
That scene with him crawling out into the car was awesome. The Popeye cartoon giving him the powerup idea to go get the coke for strength had me dying.
Yeah, that whole fucking scene with the Lemmon pills was fucking crazy. Everybody in the theatre was groaning when he was looking at rolling down those stairs with the thought he was going to fuck himself up bad.
The office scene where the hot chick walks in during a party and the guy with glasses and huge teeth started to Jack Off right there, had me laughing for a solid 3 minutes.
I don't think that was at the office, unless they had a pool at the office I guess.
Yeah, now that I think about it, it was at the house.
It was an awesome scene either way!
I think that beats Scarface.....wow.
I don't think the movie did a very good job at showing how bad he screwed people over. You see a little about how he has little concern for his family, but not the hundreds of people he scammed. They could have easily added a scene where the dad watches the news while a victim tells their story about losing their retirement etc. I was talking with someone that worked for him out of college. The firm had a rule that you couldn't park in the parking lot unless you drove a benz or bimmer. Basically they wanted to give the clients the impression that everyone involved was rich, even though it wasn't the case. So he had to park his crappy Ford several blocks away and walk to work. The movie makes it look like he was always looking out for his employees etc. Only if he profited from it somehow
Finally released in the UK today, saw it earlier. In no way did it drag, the only time I wanted to look at my watch was well after the point when everything was starting to catch up with him because I figured it must be relatively near the end.
I can only guess the people saying "it dragged" were the losers sat at home watching the screener on the laptops because their dog needed a walk or some pathetic shit
IMO it could have been shorter and with more of a explanation of what exactly he did that was illegal and what other shady stuff went on, and how it affected other people. a couple of times the character starts to explain the mechanics of what he was doing, but then snapped back saying "but you don't care about that! was it illegal? yes! now more drugs, sex and drama!"
The movie too me was not meant to be a documentary. It was taking a person's story and adding debauchery to it in its most extreme form. The movie even describes itself when the father is telling his son that eventually the chickens come to roost. It was "obscene" in its portrayal. That being said, Leonardo did a fantastic job with its execution. Having seen the near 3 hour version of it, made me appreciate more, how good of an actor he has become.
I don't know about you guys but I laughed my ass off at this movie. It was a little long (close to 3 hours) but overall it was worth the $10 to see.
The only problem I had with the movie was the soundtrack. Many of the songs were used to indicate a change in the timeline but they also felt out of place. Why the fuck would you use Foo Fighters in a movie like that?
Didn't really enjoy this movie, the humor felt too forced. There were some moments that I thought were funny, but more often than not I was just thinking to myself "Jesus I wish they would just shut the fuck up."
Last edited by Fedor; 01-25-2014 at 09:20 PM.
Thought it was OK. Entirely way too long. Wish I had cocaine to sniff from my partner's ass to get me through it. I agree that the constant show of debauchery was tiresome and should not have been added. If not for the length of the movie, it was a pretty good movie; but, because it was 3 fucking hours, eh.
Didn't feel long at all for me. Thought it was awesome and Leo did a great job. The only scene where I thought the comedy was forced was when they were talking about the midgets in the office. Other than that is was hilarious. Definitely one of my favorites last year.
I must say I had difficulties empathizing with the marital and substance abuse problems of a billionaire and difficulties finding anything funny when in the back of my head I know Belfort cashed a juicy check for the right of his book while still not paying the money he owes. Ultimately I find the discourse of the movie unclear: is it saying that Belfort was just the product of an era and a business culture and that everyone in his position would have done the same thing and took the opportunity to live large as he did? That demonstration is a bit weak without showing the moral compromise needed (the film never shows the victims and refuses any kind of explanation as to how and why the things they are doing are illegal). Is it saying that money does not mean happiness? Then why use a crook to prove that tired point? Bah.
That said, I loved all the scenes where Hill is spewing bullshit while trying not to laugh. The guy has such amazing delivery.
Watching a guy feel bad because he's coming off a huge coke binge and doesn't have anymore supermodels to snort his next line off of? Come on. It's just insulting that they even try to wrap this up as a moral lesson by trying to tug some heart strings with his poor kids.
Last edited by Lithose; 02-02-2014 at 01:10 PM.
The best review I saw was, "It's a masterfully well made movie, great performances, and it's not judgmental of the subject material".
And i'm sitting here thinking... well, why the fuck NOT? If there is only a presentation without any hint of editorial slant, it's just a glorification. Like it or not, something like this is a political movie.
And I'm sure it is a great movie about a poor little rich boy. It really makes a lot of sense that this movie came out of New York though.
Because you just watched a movie about a crook based off a book about the crook's life written by the crook himself. If anything I think the movie has done a horrible job preparing people for the fact that it was not an impartial observer's telling of the life and times of Jordan Belfort nor was it an attempt to critique him or his actions. They took a book written by a megalomaniac and made a movie.
The quaalude scene makes that point loud and clear.
Last edited by Foggy; 02-02-2014 at 09:58 PM.
Anyway, what bugs me is movies like this always try to trace the route of the problem to money. And that narrative IS the problem; because money is NOT the problem. This guy was just a dick. He was no different from a guy who say: robbed banks, except his ability to lie was probably better. Movies always have such a hard time just portraying that. In all of these movies the crimes are victimless and the laws they are breaking are arcane; so you almost get a sense the government is just being a dick, and the real tragedy here is the main characters lack of self control. Yet these crimes typically hurt a lot of people and the tragic thing here should be how these guys destroy a lot of lives and then walk away.
Instead it just shows a guy that gets addicted to a wealthy life that rots him from the inside out. It tries to purport money as if it were a cancer--a terrible cocaine snorting, super model fucking cancer that this man couldn't control! Almost like he was addicted to heroin or alcohol and it robbed him of what makes life REALLY worth living; his family! And that's why all us poor folks should be happy; because we may have to worry about car payments or keeping our homes. But because we are such salt of the earth workers; we won't have to face this kind of insidious evil known as material wealth, the destroyer of families. And we'll get to keep what "really" makes people wealthy, the little things, like the love of our children (Dawwww--because you know poor people don't get divorced and estranged from their children or succumb to substance abuse; oh wait, they do at a higher rate than wealthy people.).
Essentially, it boils down to what Siz said. The movie is trying to convey money can't buy happiness (Or more appropriately it, it causes unhappiness). And that's not true. Money CAN make people happy. What it can't do is fix someone who is a psychotic asshole with no regard for other people. And these story lines that push the former narrative? Are dumb and tiresome. This movie should have instead emphasized the latter; that this guy WAS a criminal.
Last edited by Lithose; 02-02-2014 at 11:36 PM.
Ben Affleck is such a bad actor.
I think this is more where my approach to the movie differs. The film, being an adaptation of an autobiography, was never trying to present any concept or idea of money, personality, outside influences, drugs, etc... changing a person or vice versa. The original point of view of the story and events do not allow that type of narrative to occur, ever. It is your interpretation and/or disappointment that Belfort did not see those things or choose to analyze his life in those terms.Essentially, it boils down to what Siz said. The movie is trying to convey money can't buy happiness. And that's not true. Money CAN make people happy. What it can't do is fix someone who is a psychotic asshole with no regard for other people. And these story lines that push the former narrative? Are dumb and tiresome.
Were the film an original piece of work I think we could certainly claim the director, writer, actors, and contributors missed the opportunity to tell a different story or allegory about money and the root of evil.
tl;dr: the movie cannot try to convey money can't buy happiness if Belfort did not intend that within his book.
edit: ah sorry you edited your post to remove what I responded to so it is kind of less relevant. Doing this on a tablet while cooking wings for super bowl party
Last edited by Intrinsic; 02-02-2014 at 10:22 PM.
Edit: One thing I will say. I actually found him getting off at the end of the film, great. Because it didn't try to say "see; look, he paid!" I just wish they wouldn't have kept up the pretense of him being just carried along by the times and his crime being victimless. The director should have shown it's effects more--that would have really made that final scene carry some heft. Even if it wasn't in the autobiography.
Last edited by Lithose; 02-02-2014 at 11:28 PM.
I would add two things:
1) What the hell is the point of making a movie out of a book if it's not to make the material your own or at least shine an original light on it?
2) Belfort, the people that rushed to his company after the WSJ article, the people that go to his seminars... not one of them saw the actual impact on the victims. The victims are just an idea the crooks and wannabe crooks can toss aside and easily forget (only the first wife does not forget and proposes the not much less immoral idea of screwing rich people instead of poor people). So I guess the only argument that can be made for the movie is that instead of reminding the viewers there are victims, it puts us in the same situation as Belfort and test our moral compass: Do you want to be like him or are you able to realize what he did was wrong without having the film shove it in your face? That argument is a bit of circular one though and it does not cover the drug/family problems.
Well, if you want to understand why the narrative of 'wealth is evil; plebs have it better' has pervaded our culture so thoroughly, look no further than the texts of Antonio Gramsci.
Marx, however, constructed a good argument against money in his early works. If you're interested, it's not long.
Last edited by Dumar; 02-03-2014 at 12:45 AM.
The theft was a lot more direct and deceitful than most people realize. Because it took a really terrible person to sit there, and hear some small business owner literally tell you he was moving his nest egg into the stock you're peddling, all while knowing he will lose it all by letting you control it because you're putting it into junk. (Also, they tried to say they were going after "the 1%"...but everything I've read says he went after, essentially, small business owners--not the super wealthy. I think he put that in there himself to make him seem more sympathetic.)
However, that wasn't really what annoyed me; what got to me was what you mentioned at the end.
The drug/family problem. They were so heavy handed with making money out to be just another drug that they literally just say it at the start of the movie: "I'm addicted to this, 100 dollar bills baby!" And then they tried to work in the family problems, and other addictions, like they were symptoms of that main addiction of money. It's that narrative that just....really rubs me the wrong way, like as if we are supposed to feel sorry for him, because how could he stop it when the money forced him into all this and all that stuff is just a byproduct of how evil and addictive money is. Bleh. I just despise that narrative for all the reasons in the above posts.
Last edited by Lithose; 02-03-2014 at 01:31 AM.
But this is nothing more than an emotional defense of the culture of deceit. Might be a good movie, I just don't think it was a good idea. The subject matter is just not entertaining, and the simple act of making entertainment out of the subject matter says more about the movie than the script. You can't go with "it's educational, a human interest story, it's a cautionary tale, trying to raise awareness, it's trying to tell the other side" because honestly it's none of those things either.
These guys seriously destroy lives. But heeheheheh cocaine.
Last edited by Iannis; 02-03-2014 at 04:19 AM.
Yeah Lithose, once you get in to looking at the details it becomes even more heinous and sinister. Had Belfort really targeted just the 1%, super wealthy, we all probably would have sat back and laughed at them getting what they deserved. Like umm... what's his name, the ponzi scheme guy who basically ran that and took money from other billionaires. In the current environment there would have been a different resonance. I would hazard a guess though that Belfort wouldn't have specifically differentiated between the two. They were all just means to fuel his end. The other thing that comes to mind is the whole code of the team in the show Hustle and their Rule #1: You can't cheat an honest man.
Since this thread is moving off on a tangent I'll add again that I didn't really like the movie. Not for any thematic reason it just didn't work for me for reasons that some others have said.
It is a great question, and one that I'm extremely unqualified to answer. Based on your postings throughout the Movie, TV, and Book Houses I'd honestly consider you way more qualified. If I were to answer as a casual moviegoer I'd say that where an autobiography is concerned the director doesn't have the same leeway to change or drastically alter an individuals ethics and moral compass (think that is the way I want to phrase that...). His creative license is to cast Brad Pitt to play me and whichever FOTM hot chicks to play my girl friends! I joke, but think it is much more constrained than say against a complete work of fiction.1) What the hell is the point of making a movie out of a book if it's not to make the material your own or at least shine an original light on it?
Whether it was a cautionary tale, fair look at, or however else Scorsese and DiCaprio want to spin it, I'd say Belfort's book (and the movie) were a resounding success if most of us look at him as a despicable person. And maybe he didn't quite know how to explain the family and drug stuff, or the chicken and egg of money, drug, abuse. You're right though, the movie does start off with him calling money his addiction.
You guys don't remember how at the end of Goodfellas Ray Liotta was whining that he had to live a normal life? That was my biggest problem with the movie, I'd seen it before with cooler criminals. Good god that blonde wife though.
There's also a very plain cops and robbers expectation on the part of the audience for Goodfellahs. Even if Ray Liotta had never got caught, retired to Miami, and lived the goodlife it's a different type of narrative. It's just a political subject. Honestly, I think only 3 dudes could get away with making this film. Speilberg could get away with it, but he'd never make it. Tarrantino could get away with making this movie -- but that would be a bizzare fucking movie.
You're right though, I hadn't really thought about it. It kinda is the same basic story.
Wouldn't put it past Scorcesse to make a movie that's intended to age 20 years before it reaches its real audience. He is one of the best and he elevates the form.
As for the movie, I got really bored with it. It isn't fun for me to watch endless scenes of druggies partying, especially when interspersed with stealing and nothing to counterbalance it. The tipping point for me was where they had a really dragging scene of him trying to leave the country club, staring down at the steps, tumbling down them, etc. Just FOREVER spent on a scene that I could have cared less about. After that point, I was just checking the time the entire rest of the movie, hoping it would end.
I also felt very cheated that the movie never touched on the victims whatsoever. Boiler Room is a much much better movie on the same topic, which actually showed families being talked into putting their entire nestegg into this junk and then losing all their money, their house, their family. It also showed the moral conflict also, where some people were perfectly happy to rip people off, but it must have torn others apart. I can't even imagine my reaction after some of the calls back (that were shown in Boiler Room).
Uhh yeah there was supposed to be something after that sentence that didn't make it sound like I was calling the small business guys greedy, not sure where it went. I blame work conference calls. But I'm with you on the rationalization.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)