Tip jar

If you like CaB and wish to support it, you can use PayPal or KoFi. Thank you, and I hope you continue to enjoy the site - Neil.

Buy Me a Coffee at ko-fi.com

Support CaB

Recent

Welcome to Cook'd and Bomb'd. Please login or sign up.

March 28, 2024, 02:11:42 PM

Login with username, password and session length

The Wolf of Wall Street

Started by El Unicornio, mang, June 18, 2013, 11:45:29 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

kitsofan34

So yeah, I've just heard that this film includes a scene where Jonah Hill masturbates a prosthetic penis by a pool. Currently cancelling my plans to go watch this with my father as we speak.

Pissant

Quote from: El Unicornio, mang on January 13, 2014, 05:18:19 PM
My only real gripe is that they didn't show enough of the impact his activities had on the victims, and the eventual downfall.
Yes, I struggled with this, theatrically speaking.  It's a film starring a mega-rich movie-star who plays a mega-rich stockbroker who wrote a book about his story and then sold the rights to make even more money.  Okay, I get it: it was a wild, thrilling, vacuous ride, but you need contrast somewhere in there.

Johnny Townmouse

I thought that was an incredibly enjoyable comedy satire, with really quite brilliant performances from Hill and Caprio. I thought that scene made the film, and the final shot of all those blank, miserable, stupid, pathetic faces a timely reminder of how we came to be in the shit we currently endure.

A film about the most awful cunts of our time that made me laugh. Quite a feat.

Shoulders?-Stomach!

The Metro Film movie critic on Sky News just said "I don't know about you but when I think of Martin Scorcese I don't think 'Crazy comedy' ".

Moments you think you could do other people's jobs.

Johnny Townmouse

Jesus fucking christ in a bicycle-basket.

Crabwalk

Quote from: Shoulders?-Stomach! on January 16, 2014, 08:49:41 AM
The Metro Film movie critic on Sky News just said "I don't know about you but when I think of Martin Scorcese I don't think 'Crazy comedy' ".

Moments you think you could do other people's jobs.

Name. Give me a name.

Shoulders?-Stomach!

It was an odd name, double barrelled, she was 30-something, white, with short dark hair.

Sorry that's all I've got, even thinking about her hurts my vitals.

Bad Ambassador

Larushka Ivan-Zadeh. She's fucking terrible, worse than Winkleman.

Shoulders?-Stomach!

Winkleman is appalling, they should bring back sexual discrimination but just for her.

biggytitbo

Quote from: kitsofan34 on January 13, 2014, 07:51:27 PM
So yeah, I've just heard that this film includes a scene where Jonah Hill masturbates a prosthetic penis by a pool.

Why wouldn't he just masturbate his own penis? Al the graphic sex in this, do you see it go in?

Pancake

Quote from: Funcrusher on December 19, 2013, 09:50:36 PM
The Departed - really, really shit
Shutter Island - also shit

Ye jesting big man????

El Unicornio, mang

I think if it's an actual erection, it gets NC-17 rating (only 17+ can view it) which would be the kiss of death for a film that cost $100million to make.

It would probably be an actor's preference, also...

Shoulders?-Stomach!

100m?

How? Scorcese is bloatware.


El Unicornio, mang

I imagine a lot of the cost is because they filmed in New York city (often they use Toronto as a stand-in as it's a lot cheaper), shot a lot of film (the first cut he presented was 4 hrs) and I think DiCaprio probably got about $20million of it.

Noodle Lizard

Huge advertising campaign too (though that's probably in addition to the $100 million budget).

phantom_power

Plus recreating the lifestyle of a rich show-off is probably quite expensive

Shoulders?-Stomach!

Some of it. Quite a lot of the film is people being in a room.


graffic

#77
Great thats what we need, another film like American Psycho and Money Never Sleeps, which are supposed to say something about nihilism and the sociopathic culture we live in but instead get completely misinterpreted by the majority of people who interpret it as yet another film glorifying being a rich thug and a cunt. De Caprio will get made into man of the year by Zoo and Nuts and Boris Johnson will reference him in a speech like when he called on the "Gordon Gekko's" of London to flaunt their greed.

I find stock brokers and financiers completely uninteresting. Scorcese will no doubt glamourise it, just like he glamourises the mob in Goodfellas and Casino.

I find his films nasty, offensive and shallow that don't say anything interesting, its just "heres some nasty sadists and sociopaths, they're cool and stuff happens to them. The End." Goodfellas is probably the nastiest film I've ever seen by a long stretch.

biggytitbo

I could have made this film for £50 in Hull with some blokes from the estate, it would have been virtually the same film and I know a girl who'll get her minge out on camera[nb]Hard to stop her actually[/nb] too.

phantom_power

I thought it was great, while agreeing with another poster that I am not likely to see it again in a hurry. Great performances  very funny, kinetic (as you would expect from Marty) and all round his best film in a good while. It doesn't surprise me it cost a lot, probably a lot of it going on
Spoiler alert
Joanna Lumley
[close]
's wages

phantom_power

Quote from: Pissant on January 13, 2014, 09:15:42 PM
Yes, I struggled with this, theatrically speaking.  It's a film starring a mega-rich movie-star who plays a mega-rich stockbroker who wrote a book about his story and then sold the rights to make even more money.  Okay, I get it: it was a wild, thrilling, vacuous ride, but you need contrast somewhere in there.

It is a rise and fall story though. The victims are implied by the shitty behaviour. Do you have the same problem with Goodfellas, for instance, which similarly focuses on the perpetrator rather than the victims?

Pissant

Quote from: phantom_power on January 17, 2014, 05:19:49 PM
It is a rise and fall story though. The victims are implied by the shitty behaviour. Do you have the same problem with Goodfellas, for instance, which similarly focuses on the perpetrator rather than the victims?
But then Henry Hill is in constant conflict throughout goodfellas, with his own conscience, his fellow hoodlums, getting whacked.  Every scene is nuanced with threat and morality.  What does Belfort actually have at stake?  Getting busted for fraud and losing his fast cars, trophy wife with no characterisation etc?  I just didn't care.

Not to say it would have been a better film with some crowbarred-in subplot about 'real-world consequences'; that would be piss, too.  I just think it was all incredibily one-note and unengaging (bar the occassional well-crafted humourous scenes).  It all just felt a bit silly rather than immoral.

phantom_power

The silliness and immorality were part of it though.  He is am immoral character but I don't think we are ever supposed to side with him.  Even when he should be redeeming himself at the end it is all self interest and he does awful things

El Unicornio, mang

I listened to this interview with Mayo/DiCaprio http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6gCZqzwAzo4 and it made the lack of focus on the fallout/victims make more sense. Basically they wanted to avoid showing any of the other side, as it was supposed to be entirely through his eyes. He never even thought about the victims, or even his own family, as he was spending so much time making money/taking drugs/shagging prostitutes (not to mention probably being a sociopath), so they're not part of the story. From what I understand, the book it's based on is pretty much the same way, it's all about him.

Glebe

Saw it today... I have to say, I thought it was pretty good. It's definitely intended to be a black comedy and is actually pretty funny. The greed, sex and drugs are relentless, but I think the whole point is how dehumanizing and degrading such a life can be. There's a definite 'fall of Babylon' vibe to it. Despite all the partying and wacky goings-on it's actually quite dark in places... in fact I felt like there was a shadow over the whole thing. Some people have complained that it's 'amoral' (not the first time such an accusation has been levelled at Scorsese), but I felt that from the very start it's pretty plainly stated how ludicrous and warped Belfort's world is. He actually starts out as a pretty decent fellow and ends up a washed-out prick.

I've seen reviews accusing Scorsese of sexism too, but I felt that Belfort and his cronies' treatment of women was intentionally portrayed as unpleasant.
Spoiler alert
The first office party scene with the (clearly distressed) woman getting her head shaved for 10 grand while strippers flood the room, to the tune off a wonky-sounding 'Smokestack Lightening'... I definitely got the sense that it was intentionally disturbing.
[close]

Also
Spoiler alert
the 'cerebral palsy' crack could be seen as tasteless, although I think any harm was intended... that whole quaalude scene made clear how pathetic and irresponsible deliberately fucking yourself up on drugs is. Also, the darker tone towards the end is more effective after all the fun and games... Belfort assaulting his wife, and nearly killing his child in the car.
[close]


Glebe

Mark Kermode's review.

Donald Clarke (Irish Times).

Quote from: Bored of Canada on January 19, 2014, 07:42:35 AMhttp://www.latimes.com/entertainment/envelope/cotown/la-et-ct-paramount-digital-20140117,0,5245137.story#axzz2qlJkUiMq

Funnily enough, was struck by how solid and sharp the image was at the screening I went to. In one scene in particular, the patterns on Belforts suit have that 'perfect' HD look. It was mostly shot on film, though.

Oh yeah, except for a couple of perfectly acceptable voice syncing moments (Belfort talking to Lumley and the FBI guy), I didn't spot any of these 'bad' edits people are on about. Scorsese has said something to the effect that the drug-addled scenes are deliberately cut to create that disorientated feel. If you want to talk clumsy editing and ADR, take a look at Christopher Guest's For Your Consideration, the improvisational style of which would have been better served with the 'documentary' style of his other movies.

CaledonianGonzo

It's difficult to believe that this is the work of a bloke - and a female editor - in their seventies.

On the whole it's a blast and the first time that the Dicaprio / Scorsese partnership have come within spitting distance of the latter's work with De Niro, but I'm not sure the central story was quite interesting enough to justify the length.  It could drop 30 minutes and not be a substantially different film, though I do sense that some of the extended conversations were intended as a way to (slightly) differentiate it from Goodfellas, stylistically speaking.

Dicaprio really is fantastic in this.  Some of his physical comedy in the 'ludes sequence is superb - though it's a pity they stopped just short of making him do a sex scene with Joanna Lumley.

Quote from: CaledonianGonzo on January 19, 2014, 10:17:41 AM
It's difficult to believe that this is the work of a bloke - and a female editor - in their seventies.

I'm fine with the ageism[nb]Hee Hee Sounds just like "A Jizm."[/nb] but the editor's gender feels irrelevant in that statement of disbelief.

CaledonianGonzo