The Wolf of Wall Street (2013)

[Gopher]

Okay, I've seen this three times now. That wasn't exactly in my control. What is in my control is when I say this is the best film of the year. Hands down. What a movie. Got more enjoyable and more meaningful each time. 

[baumer]

Well, this was...hm.

 

I'll start with the positives. DiCaprio really is fantastic, and this is coming from someone who thinks his standing on the Internet is immensely overblown. Several times I have found him to be merely serviceable in roles that others have praised him to high heaven for. Here, however, he goes all in in a way that I have never seen from him before. Between this and Django, it seems clear (to me at least) that DiCaprio should have been playing these sorts of slapstick villains all along. I wouldn't quite give him "best performance of the year" status (I'd put Blanchett, Exarchopoulos, and Ejiofor ahead of him), but he certainly deserves a lead actor nomination (although I have yet to see several contenders).

 

The rest of the cast is also a pleasure to watch. Jonah Hill proved to me for the first time that he might actually have acting talent after all, and Margot Robbie has several excellent scenes as well. McConaughey and Dujardin are great in their small roles, and nobody really sticks out as a weak link.

 

That said, the stellar performances are the only reason I did not totally loathe this film. For much of its completely unmerited 3 hour runtime, I felt as though I was watching Scorsese lose his mind and devolve into self-parody. I can't totally blame him, however, since the script is a meandering mess that no director could have possibly turned into anything more than an adequate final product. A full hour could have been removed from this film and absolutely nothing would have been lost in terms of either narrative or entertainment value. There are, to be fair, a few genuinely hilarious moments in this film--McConaughey's scene and Belfort's exchange with the FBI agent come to mind--but these are more than undercut by the far more numerous scenes that neither advanced the plot nor amused me in any way whatsoever. I suppose I should have known what I was getting into when the film began with a dwarf being tossed, but things really only went downhill from there.

 

I'm sure someone will say that I have a stick up my ass or that I need to "lighten up," but I have no problems with raunchy/offensive humor if it's executed well. There is nothing clever about most of the humor in this film, however. It's simply scene after scene of puerile fratboy idiocy that loses whatever comedic potential it may have had about 5 minutes into the film. One might say that Scorsese is trying to make a point about excess and the depravity of the 1%, but excess really only makes an impression if we're given something to compare it to. Not only was I not amused by any of the countless scenes involving sexual violence or drug abuse, but I wasn't really repulsed or offended by them either; I was simply bored, waiting to see if this story had any sort of destination at all.

 

Things improve slightly when the story actually begins to progress--a solid 2 hours into the film--but we're still forced to endure cliched nonsense like the shipwreck scene and, of course, one last Quaalude scene, another mildly funny premise that Scorsese milks far past its worth. The story that the film has to tell isn't particularly captivating either--we've seen it before, and it's no different from hundreds of other Wall Street slimeball narratives.

 

Finally, the misogyny in this film cannot be ignored. Certain people here are going to tell me that I'm hypersensitive or overly politically correct or whatever, but the attitude toward women here is harsh even by Scorsese's standards. I mean, Belfort literally rapes his wife at the end of the film, but the viewer is supposed to think little of this since she suddenly is okay with it because it's "the last time."

 

I will emphasize that I did not actually despise this film as much as I easily could have. There were a few points at which I almost completely lost interest in the film but my attention was quickly drawn back to the screen thanks to the animated performances. I will also give one last compliment to editor Thelma Schoonmaker, because the film went by rather quickly for a 3 hour bloatfest that had little actual narrative to tell.

 

5.5/10, C/C+

 

Do you not understand that this is not a handbook for life that Scorsese is recommending to us?  Nowhere before or after the film does it say that they spent 100 million dollars on this film so that you and I and the rest of the world should emulate what we saw in this movie.

 

And where is there sexual violence in the movie?  Please tell me you are not referring to S&M.  People have been doing candle wax on the body forever, it turns some people on.

 

And he didn't rape his wife at the end.  She willingly had sex with him because she knew it was the last time.

 

Did you life Goodfellas, Pulp Fiction or other mob movies?  So I guess it's fine to show films about violence but seeing someone get a blowjob or fucking the hell out of everyone is too much for your standards?

 

This is a movie about 80's excess.  The misogyny and the drug use and the debauchery is not something being condoned in the film, it's being shown because that was how Jordan lived his life.  This is a movie based on his book.

 

When you watch Hostel, do you think it is telling you to go to an abandoned warehouse in Serbia and pay big money to torture young men and women?

 

When you watch Friday the 13th, is it telling you to get a hockey mask, become invincible and kill horny teenagers?

 

When you watch Django does it mean they are condoning slavery?

 

This is a movie and you, as an adult, an intelligent one at that, should know that this is not being condoned, it is being shown because that was his life.

 

And even if it is being condoned, are you that weak minded that you are afraid you are going to start acting like them?  Maybe you are the problem then, not the film makers.

Edited December 30, 2013 by Christmas baumer

[robocop deluxe]

There were so many great scenes but how about the one where Leo is on the floor and his wife is saying, I have no panties on and you will never touch my pussy again. While spreading her legs. I just got horny again.

[Ezen Baklattan]

There's no filmmaker like Scorsese, nor is there an actor like DiCaprio. This film is a testament to their audacious, exhilarating craft.It's engaging and hilarious for its entire runtime, and everything about it is just really great. These are despicable people on screen, and we're fooled to see them as so desirable. It's something Scorsese excels at.And the Popeye scene, my god.

[Ezen Baklattan]

Oh, and Jonah Hill getting high in this somehow managed to be funnier than him getting high in 21 Jump Street.

[Sims]

Do you not understand that this is not a handbook for life that Scorsese is recommending to us?  Nowhere before or after the film does it say that they spent 100 million dollars on this film so that you and I and the rest of the world should emulate what we saw in this movie.

 

Uh, where did I say that I thought Scorsese was "recommending" this lifestyle? I'm aware that he's not. I do think if he wanted to make a critique of excess and hedonism (which, as I said, I believe he does) he could have done a much better job (and I think he actually has in other films he's done). Here it's just scene after scene of coke binges and other things that are supposed to "shock" me but which really begin to lose their potency by the 400th time they're shown. These scenes do nothing to advance the plot and very little to develop character (we get that these are selfish assholes very early in the film).

 

 

 

And where is there sexual violence in the movie?  Please tell me you are not referring to S&M.  People have been doing candle wax on the body forever, it turns some people on.

 

LOL, believe me when I say I have zero problem with S&M. I probably should have clarified what I was saying in that sentence; I'm not talking about just the S&M or "violence" but the way that sex as a whole is depicted throughout the movie. But are you seriously going to tell me that Scorsese does not want us to have some sort of visceral emotional response to the S&M and the orgies and the rest of the sexual debauchery? Because to me it's pretty obvious he wants us to be either disgusted or amused by all the sex in the movie. But as with all the other forms of "excess" in the movie, the sex just becomes boring and completely irrelevant to any semblance of a narrative very early on.

 

 

 

And he didn't rape his wife at the end.  She willingly had sex with him because she knew it was the last time.

 

Yeah, after he was already screwing her. Before that she pretty blatantly says "no" and "I won't have sex with you" so there's really no denying the fact that it's a rape scene. And to clarify what I'm saying about the misogyny, I am aware that Scorsese probably thinks he's making some sort of commentary about the way women are being treated--and to an extent that is what he's doing. But there comes a point in the film where Scorsese's intention is irrelevant; he spends so much time reveling in women being beat up and shit on that it's just something the viewer is supposed to accept. 

 

 

 

Did you life Goodfellas, Pulp Fiction or other mob movies?  So I guess it's fine to show films about violence but seeing someone get a blowjob or fucking the hell out of everyone is too much for your standards?

 

Did you read my post? I have no "moral objection" or whatever to artistic depictions of sex or violence or drugs or anything. The difference between this and films like Goodfellas/Pulp Fiction is that those films know when to stop. They actually have a justification for their lengthy running times; for example, they don't spend what must have been a half hour on the characters' various Quaalude reactions in scenes that do very, very little to advance the plot or increase our understanding of the characters (like I said, we get that these are drug addicted shitheads about ten minutes into the film). It would be different if I felt like there was a point to all the time Scorsese spends on these types of scenes, but I don't. Pulp Fiction and Goodfellas do spend a ton of time depicting the drugs and violence of mob culture, but when they do they do it in a way that seems pretty indispensable to the film as a whole. I can't imagine Pulp Fiction without Mia Wallace's overdose but I can very easily imagine Wolf of Wall Street without any number of its scenes.

 

Overall, you seem to be missing my point: I am very clear on what Scorsese's intention is (how could I not be when it's as subtle as a shovel to the face). But his intention doesn't really matter when the final product (in my opinion) does a totally ineffective job reflecting it.  

Edited December 30, 2013 by Sims

[RobinHood26]

If thats rape then I'm sure every single married woman has been raped by there husband. 

[MrPink]

Sims, I don't wanna say you have a stick up your ass...but maybe a candle in your butthole.

 

But sorry you didn't enjoy it

[AniNate]

I don't think he's wrong when he says that final sex scene was a rape. But I also don't think the movie was telling us that it was "okay" just because she ends up giving in, especially since he attempts to kidnap his daughter minutes later.

Edited December 31, 2013 by tribefan695

[Kevin Bacon]

Well fuck me, I guess I have to go see this tomorrow. The reviews had me to the point where I'm still gonna see it but not in a hurry, but reading all this super duper acclaim has me wanting to just go see it without a care in the world.

[luna]

i had a lot of hopes for this, but ultimately came out disappointed. it takes a suitably hard view of its characters, but while it has some original moments, it can't help but throw in plenty of hollywood cliches, which perhaps makes it feel tamer than one would like. it's also an extreme caricature of wall street, so it would need a lot more stylisation than it has here to properly remove it from a reality it doesn't deal that well with. in saying all this, i did enjoy its three hours.

 

60

[luna]

If thats rape then I'm sure every single married woman has been raped by there husband. 

 

look, i dunno if i'd call the film sexist, but that final scene was obviously fucking rape. not just that, but scorsese obviously intended it to be rape. and if every married woman has been fucked like that, well then yes, every husband is a rapist. and fuck 'em.

[RobinHood26]

look, i dunno if i'd call the film sexist, but that final scene was obviously fucking rape. not just that, but scorsese obviously intended it to be rape. and if every married woman has been fucked like that, well then yes, every husband is a rapist. and fuck 'em.

 

I was kinda joking but my point was they were married, and she ended up going along with it. Being raped and not being in the mood for sex is different. 

[luna]

I was kinda joking but my point was they were married, and she ended up going along with it. Being raped and not being in the mood for sex is different. 

 

yeah, but she said no, and he physically forced himself upon her. she didn't give a resigned yes in the beginning, she clearly said fuck off, i don't want to.

 

yes, after a while, she gave in. well, she was fucking pinned to the bed, what the fuck else could she do?

 

also, being married has absolutely nothing to do with it.

[The Panda]

Uh, where did I say that I thought Scorsese was "recommending" this lifestyle? I'm aware that he's not. I do think if he wanted to make a critique of excess and hedonism (which, as I said, I believe he does) he could have done a much better job (and I think he actually has in other films he's done). Here it's just scene after scene of coke binges and other things that are supposed to "shock" me but which really begin to lose their potency by the 400th time they're shown. These scenes do nothing to advance the plot and very little to develop character (we get that these are selfish assholes very early in the film).

 

 

 

 

LOL, believe me when I say I have zero problem with S&M. I probably should have clarified what I was saying in that sentence; I'm not talking about just the S&M or "violence" but the way that sex as a whole is depicted throughout the movie. But are you seriously going to tell me that Scorsese does not want us to have some sort of visceral emotional response to the S&M and the orgies and the rest of the sexual debauchery? Because to me it's pretty obvious he wants us to be either disgusted or amused by all the sex in the movie. But as with all the other forms of "excess" in the movie, the sex just becomes boring and completely irrelevant to any semblance of a narrative very early on.

 

 

 

 

Yeah, after he was already screwing her. Before that she pretty blatantly says "no" and "I won't have sex with you" so there's really no denying the fact that it's a rape scene. And to clarify what I'm saying about the misogyny, I am aware that Scorsese probably thinks he's making some sort of commentary about the way women are being treated--and to an extent that is what he's doing. But there comes a point in the film where Scorsese's intention is irrelevant; he spends so much time reveling in women being beat up and shit on that it's just something the viewer is supposed to accept. 

 

 

 

 

Did you read my post? I have no "moral objection" or whatever to artistic depictions of sex or violence or drugs or anything. The difference between this and films like Goodfellas/Pulp Fiction is that those films know when to stop. They actually have a justification for their lengthy running times; for example, they don't spend what must have been a half hour on the characters' various Quaalude reactions in scenes that do very, very little to advance the plot or increase our understanding of the characters (like I said, we get that these are drug addicted shitheads about ten minutes into the film). It would be different if I felt like there was a point to all the time Scorsese spends on these types of scenes, but I don't. Pulp Fiction and Goodfellas do spend a ton of time depicting the drugs and violence of mob culture, but when they do they do it in a way that seems pretty indispensable to the film as a whole. I can't imagine Pulp Fiction without Mia Wallace's overdose but I can very easily imagine Wolf of Wall Street without any number of its scenes.

 

Overall, you seem to be missing my point: I am very clear on what Scorsese's intention is (how could I not be when it's as subtle as a shovel to the face). But his intention doesn't really matter when the final product (in my opinion) does a totally ineffective job reflecting it.  

 

I think you missed the point of how the excess worked.

 

My interpretation was that Scorsese made all the excess of drugs and sex to be extremely amusing and hilarious at first (with other bursts of hilarity within it) but as the movie trudges on and you see more, and more, and more of it it becomes numbing as if it is emulating the effect it is having on Belfort.  He starts out young, fresh, and ready to roll with it and eventually what was once extremely entertaining to him (as well as addictive) becomes a numbing burden that keeps him from functioning.

 

The more I think about it, the more the excess was needed to prove the point of the movie.  The excess was also needed to get people talking about the movie and get what was shown to the forefront of the newspapers, seriously everybody is talking about it because of the controversy, and the controversy of the movie is the very thing that Belfort did in real life and that still goes on in Wall Street today.

 

The film subconsciously exposes Wall Street today by making certain people disgusted at the behavior that they see taking place in the movie.  Sure, a lot of it is definitely amusing too.

 

All of these moments of excess build on the character of Belfort, Scorsese even said this would not be his typical film but a character study, a character study of what people will do when they get this kind of power and how no matter how much they get they will always want something bigger until it explodes in their face and they fall because of it. 

[mattmav45]

yeah, but she said no, and he physically forced himself upon her. she didn't give a resigned yes in the beginning, she clearly said fuck off, i don't want to.yes, after a while, she gave in. well, she was fucking pinned to the bed, what the fuck else could she do?also, being married has absolutely nothing to do with it.

Marriage= shit happens.  (mod edit)IMO.

Edited December 31, 2013 by Christmas baumer

[baumer]

Marriage= shit happens (mod edit)IMO.

 

Come on dude.  That's uncalled for.  I'm going to censor that for your protection.

Edited December 31, 2013 by Christmas baumer

[Ezen Baklattan]

Personally, I don't think the film went really overboard in its depiction of drugs and sex. We saw what we needed to in order to establish just how fucked up these characters were. A lot of these scenes, including the car/stairs jaunt, (which as a side note, proves what a great physical actor DiCaprio is) examine the consequences that they have to face because of these habits.

[Kvikk Lunsj]

Just got the movie in time right when the preview were starting after a long day of work.

[Kvikk Lunsj]

Loved one of the best of the year. A