The Wolf of Wall Street

[Johnny Drama]

| think it's desirable in that people wish they could be that shallow but certainly not desirable in the sense of 'i'd like to do that!' cuz most probably couldn't even pull it off let alone live with it. For my part I just saw it as like...these people are fuckin' scum. Not in an i hate them way but in an aknowleging a fact way. To me its just like a sort of demented ammoral circus, it's don't really function on an 'oh i'd've loved that!' way, it's more a sort of spectacle to behold. The movies an asthetic expierience, thats where the substance is at, if asthetics can be deemed to be substancial in the way, i think it can, after all, we are talking about an art here.

This.

[GivenToFly]

Watching it again.

"If anyone's gonna fuck my cousin it's gonna me. Out of respect." ROFL!

I think it's the best comedy since In Bruges, and it's not even close.

[Black Sabbath]

Apparently the dvd/blu-ray release is going to be an hour longer: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2546958/EXCLUSIVE-Wolf-Wall-Street-DVD-HOUR-longer-F-bombs-longer-sex-scenes.html

[Nosaj Thing]

Nice. It's supposed to be released on March, 25th. Can't wait!

loldvd

[ITG]

I get what Red is saying. This was from a bygone era and I think that Belfort will become humanized by it all. Straight stockbrokers are pretty much gone. He did basically steal from poor people and then eventually wealthier people and the movie didn't spend any time showing how he affected their lives. It happened when I watched the movie too. I couldn't help but enjoy the entertainment. I stopped analyzing it and just wanted to see what would happen next. Especially at the end where I guess you are supposed to feel sorry for him but it's like, wait, he helped investors lose $100M gets to walk around. I did envy the life he had and it is kind of a shame that Belfort will be partly redeemed by the movie and made a celebrity. I can't say I don't wish I could have had everything he had. I used to admire Charlie Sheen when he was "Winning!" but the smoke clears and you realize he is just a disgusting human being that treats his family like shit. When I was watching the movie I actually did want to see Belfort win somehow, especially when they were being investigated and everyone kept quiet. The movie does a good job of making you empathize in his favor.

To me it was satire like, the way Dr. Strangelove wasn't supposed to make killing hundreds of millions of people cartoonishly funny, but demonstrate how truly absurdly insane it was. The Wolf of Wallstreet could have the same effect, making people really distrust people in the finance industry which I think is necessary. The moment where Hanna talks about reinvesting his clients gains just to earn more commissions is tantamount to "churning" which many people are unfamiliar with but definitely should be. A lot of the financial schemes outlined in movies are complex in general but is the very, very, first movie to my knowledge that outlays what meaningless work a lot of brokers get paid to do other than answer the phone. Brokers and financial advisors should be compensated for the time they spend with clients but it goes without saying that a lot of people aren't getting what they pay for. The whole financial services industry, in a way, is insane.

In part I think that satire was educational. It goes with the old saying, "Would you buy a used car from this man?". I think the movie will add much needed skepticism to the general population when it comes to investing and dealing with people in finance that are only interested in having you do some meaningless transaction that doesn't really put someone in a better position necessarily, just so they can collect fees. I don't how it is outside of the U.S. but that is still a modern day problem.

[GivenToFly]

Many people assume by default that you are supposed to agree with the main character when watching a movie and the message of a movie can be found in the actions of the main character. It's obviously wrong but it's what people tend to believe.

[Mysteron]

I get what Red is saying. This was from a bygone era and I think that Belfort will become humanized by it all. Straight stockbrokers are pretty much gone. He did basically steal from poor people and then eventually wealthier people and the movie didn't spend any time showing how he affected their lives. It happened when I watched the movie too. I couldn't help but enjoy the entertainment. I stopped analyzing it and just wanted to see what would happen next. Especially at the end where I guess you are supposed to feel sorry for him but it's like, wait, he helped investors lose $100M gets to walk around. I did envy the life he had and it is kind of a shame that Belfort will be partly redeemed by the movie and made a celebrity. I can't say I don't wish I could have had everything he had. I used to admire Charlie Sheen when he was "Winning!" but the smoke clears and you realize he is just a disgusting human being that treats his family like shit. When I was watching the movie I actually did want to see Belfort win somehow, especially when they were being investigated and everyone kept quiet. The movie does a good job of making you empathize in his favor.

To me it was satire like, the way Dr. Strangelove wasn't supposed to make killing hundreds of millions of people cartoonishly funny, but demonstrate how truly absurdly insane it was. The Wolf of Wallstreet could have the same effect, making people really distrust people in the finance industry which I think is necessary. The moment where Hanna talks about reinvesting his clients gains just to earn more commissions is tantamount to "churning" which many people are unfamiliar with but definitely should be. A lot of the financial schemes outlined in movies are complex in general but is the very, very, first movie to my knowledge that outlays what meaningless work a lot of brokers get paid to do other than answer the phone. Brokers and financial advisors should be compensated for the time they spend with clients but it goes without saying that a lot of people aren't getting what they pay for. The whole financial services industry, in a way, is insane.

In part I think that satire was educational. It goes with the old saying, "Would you buy a used car from this man?". I think the movie will add much needed skepticism to the general population when it comes to investing and dealing with people in finance that are only interested in having you do some meaningless transaction that doesn't really put someone in a better position necessarily, just so they can collect fees. I don't how it is outside of the U.S. but that is still a modern day problem.

I think as a film though, it gets repetitive a little.

There are many classic scenes, very funny scenes, and also very good storytelling scenes, but the film meandered too much to please the shock jocks out there, scenes which should have been left for the DVD

You 'get it' after a while, there is no need to keep repeating certain scenes at such length where you are just setting a scene rather than telling a story

As a story, it was 2 hours, 2 hours 10 max

[Nobodys_Fault]

Does it matter even if it is glorified? Does that make it a bad movie? If you got the impression that he was anything but a cunt, that's your own moral compass failing you.

Yes it does matter. Any piece of art only becomes acknowledged or credited as being significant because of the context in which it is produced. Had this film been produced 5 or 10 years ago I would have viewed it in a completely different light.

Of course Belfort was portrayed as a cunt, but the general style and mood of the film showed that lifestyle as being desirable. For a lot of people that IS desirable, but for all the wrong reasons.

I guess the biggest factor for me was that I don't think this film needed to be made at all. In a time when the western world needs to learn how to live with less, be more creative, be a little more philosophical instead of materialistic, this film did nothing but present the opposite. It didn't inform us about anything we don't already know, it's just entertainment but without a message. That industry doesn't even exist today in the way it was portrayed in that film. I guess it was just a piece of retrospectivity which felt very staged and artificial .

By that logic Goodfellas didn't need to be made either considering both films are essentially about the same thing. A spectacularly successful heist that eventually comes crashing down on the heads of the characters thanks to the greed and arrogance displayed by the protagonist. I was only a child at the time but I don't recall a resurgence in mob violence in the 90's thanks to the release of Goodfellas... probably because people generally don't view films as a tutorial on how to live their lives.

I loathe this idea that a filmmaker has the responsibility to explicitly point at something and say "that's bad, don't do that" like some sort of overprotective parent. The danger of greed is highlighted constantly throughout the film. SPOILERS He's almost constantly in danger of losing his life. Hell, we're even told that the one character who 'gets out' dies two years later. DiCaprio, much like Ray Liotta in Goodfellas, ends the film having escaped jail with some semblance of a life thanks to grassing up everyone around him. This isn't Scorsese saying, "this guys alright and doesn't deserve any comeuppance." The point is that the audience should be angry at him and, more importantly, the system that allowed it.

[GivenToFly]

I loathe this idea that a filmmaker has the responsibility to explicitly point at something and say "that's bad, don't do that" like some sort of overprotective parent.

Word.

The film anticipates this kind of reaction though. Remember that scene after the newspaper article thrashing Belfort comes out and there's a crowd of applicants wanting to work for him and essentially be like him? It's exactly the kind of reaction you would expect from a large portion of the audience who will inevitably end up loving the movie for the wrong reasons.

[Guest NGOG]

I loathe this idea that a filmmaker has the responsibility to explicitly point at something and say "that's bad, don't do that" like some sort of overprotective parent.

In a way, I agree with you. Art is something that you have to interpret, otherwise it becomes nothing more than a visual lesson. Like one of those really black and white morality stories you watch in school.

But in an age of economic crime, it would be good for an institution as powerful as Hollywood to outright expose monopoly capitalism. As somebody else said, it'd have been nice to get an insight into those who had their lives absolutely destroyed by Belfort's antics. How about a scene depicting a father going out and hanging himself because he can't satisfy his children's tuition fees? Or a marriage breaking down because a man thought he was bettering his family's opportunities by investing in something he was taught to believe in?

While Wolf is enjoyable as an entertainment piece, it's dangerous in the mind of the stupid. When you have somebody like DiCaprio portraying a character, a sizeable proportion of the audience is automatically endeared (irrespective of the deplorable acts committed by the character). "It's DiCaprio man, he's fucking cool right? I wish I was slick enough to lead such a lifestyle. Fuck any chick when I want, and when shit hits the fan, there's a pill for that! And guess what, money frees you of any long-term punishment. He's not deterred, he goes straight out and starts again. Because that's the spirit of an alphamale!" See, you'd be surprised, but there are more people reacting like that than to the contrary. That's how stupid our society is. They don't see Belfort as a nihilistic, self-asorbed, money-consumed, ignorant ratbag; he's just a fucking cool guy that played the system and got caught. I see the narrative that Scorsese subtly introduced, so do you. But 75% of the cinema on any given night don't. Yes you shouldn't dumb down your sense of art, but as a mainstream director you also have a moral responsibility to enlighten. And unfortunately for the art perhaps, that involves making a clear-cut point.

Edited January 29, 2014 by NGOG

[Black Sabbath]

Apparently the dvd/blu-ray release is going to be an hour longer: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2546958/EXCLUSIVE-Wolf-Wall-Street-DVD-HOUR-longer-F-bombs-longer-sex-scenes.html

This turned out to be false, actually

Oh well, still can't wait to buy this when it comes out.

[Redhead74]

Does it matter even if it is glorified? Does that make it a bad movie? If you got the impression that he was anything but a cunt, that's your own moral compass failing you.

Yes it does matter. Any piece of art only becomes acknowledged or credited as being significant because of the context in which it is produced. Had this film been produced 5 or 10 years ago I would have viewed it in a completely different light.

Of course Belfort was portrayed as a cunt, but the general style and mood of the film showed that lifestyle as being desirable. For a lot of people that IS desirable, but for all the wrong reasons.

I guess the biggest factor for me was that I don't think this film needed to be made at all. In a time when the western world needs to learn how to live with less, be more creative, be a little more philosophical instead of materialistic, this film did nothing but present the opposite. It didn't inform us about anything we don't already know, it's just entertainment but without a message. That industry doesn't even exist today in the way it was portrayed in that film. I guess it was just a piece of retrospectivity which felt very staged and artificial .

By that logic Goodfellas didn't need to be made either considering both films are essentially about the same thing. A spectacularly successful heist that eventually comes crashing down on the heads of the characters thanks to the greed and arrogance displayed by the protagonist. I was only a child at the time but I don't recall a resurgence in mob violence in the 90's thanks to the release of Goodfellas... probably because people generally don't view films as a tutorial on how to live their lives.

I loathe this idea that a filmmaker has the responsibility to explicitly point at something and say "that's bad, don't do that" like some sort of overprotective parent. The danger of greed is highlighted constantly throughout the film. SPOILERS He's almost constantly in danger of losing his life. Hell, we're even told that the one character who 'gets out' dies two years later. DiCaprio, much like Ray Liotta in Goodfellas, ends the film having escaped jail with some semblance of a life thanks to grassing up everyone around him. This isn't Scorsese saying, "this guys alright and doesn't deserve any comeuppance." The point is that the audience should be angry at him and, more importantly, the system that allowed it.

Maybe you missed my point about context.

The funny thing is with Goodfellas that film did a lot to glorify the mob, even more so than WOWS glorified stock brokers. It's very literal to suggest that glorifying something equates to people running off in their life and doing that exact thing. That's not the essence of glorification. It's the idea that people's perception of what is essentially a parasite to society is now surrounded by this halo of 'coolness', 'the ultimate badass', so to speak. As a result they are relinquished from the harsh judgment they deserve from society.

I didn't suggest that Hollwood is in any way required to send out a 'message'. Art is a free creation that needs to evolve on its own, but to be considered Art it also needs substance and has to have a context that is meaningful in some way to the time we are living in. I don't think this film had that at all. I don't think most people walked away from that film feeling anger towards Leo's character. Partly because of the tone of the film and partly because its Leonardo DiCaprio, an actor who is generally esteemed and a heart throb to many women (and probably some men too ).

[Nosaj Thing]

Apparently the dvd/blu-ray release is going to be an hour longer: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2546958/EXCLUSIVE-Wolf-Wall-Street-DVD-HOUR-longer-F-bombs-longer-sex-scenes.html

This turned out to be false, actually

Oh well, still can't wait to buy this when it comes out.

Nooooooooo

[Nobodys_Fault]

Maybe you missed my point about context.

I didn't. Just didn't think it was particularly valid.

a time when the western world needs to learn how to live with less, be more creative, be a little more philosophical instead of materialistic

Had this film been produced 5 or 10 years ago I would have viewed it in a completely different light.

How does that vague "context" not apply in 2009? To say that the western world has changed that much since that it completely alters your perception of a film about Wall Street in the 90's is a bit ridiculous in my opinion.

Art is a free creation that needs to evolve on its own, but to be considered Art it also needs substance and has to have a context that is meaningful in some way to the time we are living in. I don't think this film had that at all.

I don't really agree with this but I can't see how the film's context is in no way meaningful to the present day. It's a black comedy. The entire idea is to make light of, otherwise serious, subject matter. The subject matter in this case is a financial system so corrupt it rewards the worst people in society and a justice system that prevents them being punished for it. Pretty sure that still exists today.

As somebody else said, it'd have been nice to get an insight into those who had their lives absolutely destroyed by Belfort's antics. How about a scene depicting a father going out and hanging himself because he can't satisfy his children's tuition fees? Or a marriage breaking down because a man thought he was bettering his family's opportunities by investing in something he was taught to believe in?

I understand what you're saying but this would be the explicit pointing I was alluding to earlier. It's shitty film-making.

While Wolf is enjoyable as an entertainment piece, it's dangerous in the mind of the stupid. When you have somebody like DiCaprio portraying a character, a sizeable proportion of the audience is automatically endeared (irrespective of the deplorable acts committed by the character). "It's DiCaprio man, he's fucking cool right? I wish I was slick enough to lead such a lifestyle. Fuck any chick when I want, and when shit hits the fan, there's a pill for that! And guess what, money frees you of any long-term punishment. He's not deterred, he goes straight out and starts again. Because that's the spirit of an alphamale!" See, you'd be surprised, but there are more people reacting like that than to the contrary. That's how stupid our society is. They don't see Belfort as a nihilistic, self-asorbed, money-consumed, ignorant ratbag; he's just a fucking cool guy that played the system and got caught. I see the narrative that Scorsese subtly introduced, so do you. But 75% of the cinema on any given night don't. Yes you shouldn't dumb down your sense of art, but as a mainstream director you also have a moral responsibility to enlighten. And unfortunately for the art perhaps, that involves making a clear-cut point.

But making a clear-cut point like that is dumbing it down. I don't think Scorcese has a moral responsibility to do anything. And he certainly shouldn't have to cater to the "mind of the stupid". There are plenty of film makers who already have that covered.

[wasted]

Leo seems to get the Al Pacino roles.

[Redhead74]

| think it's desirable in that people wish they could be that shallow but certainly not desirable in the sense of 'i'd like to do that!' cuz most probably couldn't even pull it off let alone live with it. For my part I just saw it as like...these people are fuckin' scum. Not in an i hate them way but in an aknowleging a fact way. To me its just like a sort of demented ammoral circus, it's don't really function on an 'oh i'd've loved that!' way, it's more a sort of spectacle to behold. The movies an asthetic expierience, thats where the substance is at, if asthetics can be deemed to be substancial in the way, i think it can, after all, we are talking about an art here.

I'd call The Great Gatsby an aesthetic experience, but not The Wolf of Wall Street. There was a lot of (staged) fun, but nothing really engrossed me from a visual perspective at all with this film. Considering it was set in the early 90s I think they could have done a much better job from a stylistic perspective.

Edited January 30, 2014 by Redhead74

[Redhead74]

Maybe you missed my point about context.

I didn't. Just didn't think it was particularly valid.

a time when the western world needs to learn how to live with less, be more creative, be a little more philosophical instead of materialistic

Had this film been produced 5 or 10 years ago I would have viewed it in a completely different light.

How does that vague "context" not apply in 2009? To say that the western world has changed that much since that it completely alters your perception of a film about Wall Street in the 90's is a bit ridiculous in my opinion.

Art is a free creation that needs to evolve on its own, but to be considered Art it also needs substance and has to have a context that is meaningful in some way to the time we are living in. I don't think this film had that at all.

I don't really agree with this but I can't see how the film's context is in no way meaningful to the present day. It's a black comedy. The entire idea is to make light of, otherwise serious, subject matter. The subject matter in this case is a financial system so corrupt it rewards the worst people in society and a justice system that prevents them being punished for it. Pretty sure that still exists today.

Three letters: GFC

[Guest Len B'stard]

Maybe there is no lesson unless you decide on one, maybe it's just a picture of life.

[Nobodys_Fault]

Maybe you missed my point about context.

I didn't. Just didn't think it was particularly valid.

a time when the western world needs to learn how to live with less, be more creative, be a little more philosophical instead of materialistic

Had this film been produced 5 or 10 years ago I would have viewed it in a completely different light.

How does that vague "context" not apply in 2009? To say that the western world has changed that much since that it completely alters your perception of a film about Wall Street in the 90's is a bit ridiculous in my opinion.

Art is a free creation that needs to evolve on its own, but to be considered Art it also needs substance and has to have a context that is meaningful in some way to the time we are living in. I don't think this film had that at all.

I don't really agree with this but I can't see how the film's context is in no way meaningful to the present day. It's a black comedy. The entire idea is to make light of, otherwise serious, subject matter. The subject matter in this case is a financial system so corrupt it rewards the worst people in society and a justice system that prevents them being punished for it. Pretty sure that still exists today.

Three letters: GFC

... which happened in 2008. I'm not sure I understand your point. You think now is "a time when the western world needs to learn how to be less materialistic" but not five to ten years ago when rampant greed and materialism tanked the worlds economy?

[wasted]

Scorsese films things very well, bit of a facile way to say it but he is very into that aspect. He's quality innit.

[classicrawker]

| think it's desirable in that people wish they could be that shallow but certainly not desirable in the sense of 'i'd like to do that!' cuz most probably couldn't even pull it off let alone live with it. For my part I just saw it as like...these people are fuckin' scum. Not in an i hate them way but in an aknowleging a fact way. To me its just like a sort of demented ammoral circus, it's don't really function on an 'oh i'd've loved that!' way, it's more a sort of spectacle to behold. The movies an asthetic expierience, thats where the substance is at, if asthetics can be deemed to be substancial in the way, i think it can, after all, we are talking about an art here.

I'd call The Great Gatsby an aesthetic experience, but not The Wolf of Wall Street. There was a lot of (staged) fun, but nothing really engrossed me from a visual perspective at all with this film. Considering it was set in the early 90s I think they could have done a much better job from a stylistic perspective.

The wife loved "The Great Gatsby" when I got the bluray from Netflix recently but I fell asleep............I must have missed the "aesthetic experience" of it I guess............ .............

Edited February 2, 2014 by classicrawker

[Redhead74]

| think it's desirable in that people wish they could be that shallow but certainly not desirable in the sense of 'i'd like to do that!' cuz most probably couldn't even pull it off let alone live with it. For my part I just saw it as like...these people are fuckin' scum. Not in an i hate them way but in an aknowleging a fact way. To me its just like a sort of demented ammoral circus, it's don't really function on an 'oh i'd've loved that!' way, it's more a sort of spectacle to behold. The movies an asthetic expierience, thats where the substance is at, if asthetics can be deemed to be substancial in the way, i think it can, after all, we are talking about an art here.

I'd call The Great Gatsby an aesthetic experience, but not The Wolf of Wall Street. There was a lot of (staged) fun, but nothing really engrossed me from a visual perspective at all with this film. Considering it was set in the early 90s I think they could have done a much better job from a stylistic perspective.

The wife loved "The Great Gatsby" when I got the bluray from Netflix recently but I fell asleep............I must have missed the "aesthetic experience" of it I guess............ .............

My partner didn't like it all that much either because the script was rather weak and all it really had going for it was the costume and cinematography spectacle (that's typical Baz Luhrmann for me). You can't deny that from a visual perspective it was pretty spectacular?

[classicrawker]

Agree 100% visually it was striking especially the party scenes and it looked beautiful in HD but the story bored me to death....my wife knows once I get horizontal on the couch it is all over as far as watching the movie................

Edited February 2, 2014 by classicrawker

[Sixes]

the wolf of wall street, at the end of the day, is just not a very good film

[Coma16]

Finally got around to watching this last night. I loved it and don't understand why there is controversy over it. It's a dramatized story from a certain perspective.

I love that chick from Pan Am

Edited February 2, 2014 by Coma16