Mark Kermode reviews The Wolf of Wall Street
Вставка
- Опубліковано 16 січ 2014
- Mark Kermode reviews The Wolf of Wall Street. Directed by Martin Scorsese, The Wolf of Wall Street tells the rise and fall of wealthy stockbroker Jordan Belfort. Starring Leonardo DiCaprio and Jonah Hill.
Please tell us what you think of the film -- or Mark's review of the film below. We love to include your views on the show every Friday.
www.bbc.co.uk/5live
Fridays at 2pm on BBC 5 live. - Фільми й анімація
I so cool that people cant just say "i disagree" with a critic and not just resort to insult him personally
Or even better: use arguments on why they like it.
It's called real life, man. Most people don't feel need the scream insults at each other if they disagree on something, unless you're on the internet ofc!
I love all these people claiming Mark is a "prude" when he openly says he has no problem with the morals of the film whatsoever. The film portrays a hateful lead character and makes no bones about how hideous he is, Mark's issue with the film is that it doesn't provide any reason to become invested in said character, the film has nothing to do other than portray this guy being horrible and hateful for 3 hours. It's not a matter of being a prude, it's a matter of being bored.
Venice Beach Sports Network you don’t get opinions, informed or otherwise
HEDOESTHOUGHHEDIDNTUNDERSTANDTHATSCORCESEWASTRYINGTOFILMEXCESS!
@@joysharma5304 He understands its about excess. But thats why he didn't like it
Bang on. You are 100% bang on.
It's definitely supposed to be a cautionary tale like Scarface or whatever, that's the main thing to keep in mind.
This guy is so eloquent and his vocabulary is awe inspiring
That's sarcasm I hope.
I did not despise Belfort, but I didn't necessarily like him, either. I definitely saw him as a complex character, and at times I enjoyed him and at times I was appalled. he was fascinating. I think the film takes a pretty ambivalent approach and just steps back and shows you exactly what happened and lets you judge it for yourself in hopes that you have the conscience to recognize that what they did was wrong. Also, every scene in the movie needs to be there because the film very intentionally portrays their excess IN excess, just like how Inherent Vice made the plot increasingly convoluted and confusing in order to mirror Doc's hazy, drug-addled mind.
what did you find complex about him?
Cocaine is a hell of a drug. Money is a hell of a drug.
DiCaprio made him seem more interesting than he actually is. His book makes it clear that he's just a low life scam artist.
This film don't need a "victim representation" , because the victim is us the lawful citizens.
To me this film is more of a "look what we have created (this monster)" rather than a depiction of a complex character. (that is not to say the character have no depth, just not the most important part)
it is crucial to only have the view of the main character, for there's lots of people dislike him just because they are not the ones who made the money. the film puts us into his view, so we can question "if I am the guy, do I feel sorry about it ?"
If I hosted a dinner party, Mark Kermode would definitely be invited.
Kermode and I have a 100% aligned viewpoint on movies so far. Would love to get a beer with this dude.
Honestly. The guy should be a script doctor. Killing those darlings
I think mark would do much more than get a beer with another man
@@oscarsalesgirl296 childish
I think Mark got it pretty much spot on here, to me this film is just unnecessary, and to top that, I can't even enjoy it on entertainment value alone because it is so god damn long, and the whole time you are being reminded that this is alot like Goodfellas, just not at all as good.
By the way, I urge people to watch Paul Thomas Anderson's recent interview with Scorsese and their shared first assistant director (for Inherent Vice and The Wolf Of Wall Street), and also mentioned briefly in Simon Mayo's interview with DiCaprio too for why they never really condemned Belfort's (or his colleagues') actions or tried to make you sympathise with them. Basically he said what I assumed - that he's not going to spell it out for you, and the inherent satirical nature of the film should be enough to carry the message. He's trying to only show the excess and greed and hedonism to provoke a reaction within the audience - some won't get it, but some will, and hopefully it will have a gradual effect on the public consciousness and we will see how it's not a healthy way for a culture to be like. If anything, even on paper it's a call to arms against the recklessness of Wall Street culture.
This is why I love Kermode. He absolutely nails it. I loathed Scorceses treatment of that story as well as every character in it.
Well said.
I agree with Kermode, i felt a revulsion towards Jordan Belfort that i didn't even feel disposed to try to overcome...
And? I wasn't making a critique of the film, just an observation about the protagonist...
No - i agreed with Kermode that i found the character abhorrent and unrelatable... you've either misread my post or you've misinterpreted it... please don't put words into my mouth.
Also i didn't even use the words 'inside the character' - you appear to have a problem reading simple text...
Mark didn't like a film, get over it guys, in case you haven't been paying attention, quite a few critics have critiqued WOWS for the same things Mark has.
I've not seen fully eye to eye with a lot of Mark's reviews recently but I think he hits the nail on the head in this one. I do feel like their are a few too many parts of the film that come across as unnecessary.
Scorsese has that amazing ability to make a 3 hour film feel like a 2 hour film. Every scene is interesting and brilliantly paced. If i learned anything from this film is this - don’t invest in Wall Street.
Yes! I'd been having trouble elaborating on what my problems with the film were, but you crystallized my feelings perfectly, Mark
I like Mark, but I find his logic very strange here. He thinks the Wolf of Wall Street has a problem with women, while he gives The Boat That Rocked a (mostly) positive review. The Boat That Rocked doesn't have a female character in it who isn't a the girlfriend, the groupie, the wife, the mother or the lesbian, none of who have much of anything like character development and the attempted rape by deception of a woman is played for comedy. While The Wolf of Wall Street, whether you enjoy it as a film or not, has female characters such as Teresa - the most moral and sympathetic character in the film, Naomi - the one person who stands up to Jordan, Emma - the classy, intelligent aunt or the memorable cameo of the feisty secretary - are far more developed and well-written. And the scenes of women being abused are disturbing, not played for laughs. I can see legitimate criticisms of the film, but being anti-women isn't one of them.
the boat that rocked was such a dissapointment
xValetinax You're dead right. I absolutely hated The Boat that Rocked from beginning to end. I've gotta admit I normally don't notice when films present female characters negatively and when people complain about them like Mark is in this case of Wolf, i think it's without reasoning. However, TBTR is literally the most sexist film I've ever seen without a doubt. Not one woman in it exists other than for some explicit reason or joke. I saw the film a few years ago when I was pretty young and even then I was shocked at how bad the women were presented. Strange how some films escape his shunning.
On the trailer alone and the hype around it, this is exactly how I thought i'd feel about the film. Catching 10 minutes of it when my parents were watching it further confirmed it.
I think the problem is that it was just a straight adaptation of Belfort’s autobiography; it was never meant to dive into the moral questions or critique the life of these people. I’d be interested to know why Kermode thinks we feel sympathetic for Henry Hill but not Belfort
I think we empathise with Henry Hill because he was a sort of middle level gangster in the shadow of Tommy and Jimmy who were the real monstrous villains of the story. Belfort on the otherhand was the centre of all the debauchery. He steered the whole ship, so it's difficult to compare him to Henry from Goodfellas because of their positions in their respective organisations.
I don't know the real story of Henry Hill, but in the movie he never killed anyone and often did what he could to save people from Tommy and Jimmy, (i.e. Maury with the wigs). And there was a level of humanity to him that allowed us to sympathise with him, even though he did a lot of other reprehensible stuff.
Because he was young when he saw Goodfellas and old when he saw Wolf of Wall Street.
"Omg wtf lol, stupid critiques always overanalyse these types of movies! You just don't get it, its a masterpiece! I'm going to hang myself if Leo doesn't win an Oscar!!!" ....... Seriously though. I'm SO happy that mark didn't just take part of the global circle jerk that has been surrounding this film, and actually addressed some of its major flaws.
I loved the movie and personally disagree with some of his points, but I love hearing his point of view. If I wanted a feedback loop I'd go to Reddit.
Watching this review had me checking off all the boxes on why I disliked this movie too.
i watched it as a piece of art-i just didn't take any moral standpoint on it
I agree that Jordan Belfort is completely unlikable. But when he asked can you like a film about a unlikable character the answer to me is yes you can. Which is why I liked this film. The film isn't glorifying his lifestyle it's merely taking you on a journey in the absurd lifestyle and showing you how he was able to do it. That being said maybe by the end a Goodfellas change in moral and lifestyle would have been more suiting but if you are dealing with facts and that was what happened to him then you can't do anything about it.
I think you're missing the point. Mark Kermode is saying that because Gordan Belfort is dislikeable and unsympathetic that to sit through 3 hours of his life when you don't actually care about him is boring. You wouldn't spend 3 hours with somebody you hated in real life so why would you do it for a movie? Because the film doesn't take a stance it's just a sequence of events, there's no suspense or intrigue it's just one big long party with somebody that's really horrid.
Matthias Baldwin
That's because the movie itself is very good and goes through several phases, and emotions, every scene is concise and non repetitive and Scarlet O'Hara gets her comeuppance in more ways than one. It's not just an endless party.
My Name is Nicky Thank you - you've articulated something important that people never seem to say! I can't comment on this film but in general I think you're absolutely right and it never cease to amaze me that some people consider certain (e.g.) Lars Von Trier films masterpieces, despite the fact that they only feature ghastly characters that most people would avoid at all cost in real life.
I actually didn't care much for Henry Hill. I didn't like neither Henry Hill nor Jordan Belfort but these movies were still exposing the truth of this world.
he felt empathy for Henry Hill??
If nothing else, this has probably set the record for the number of times the word "chauvinist" was used in a film review.
This film is a masterpiece! makes you feel guilty for laughing. Scorcese is rubbing your nose in the values of our society, Drugs, Sex, but most of all money! All false gods, the ending is brilliant, my complaint is that he doesn't show any alternative values, but I guess he trusts our intelligence to see that and at least question our cultures present ones.
He shouldn't trust our intelligence because many people were lauding the values presented in this film
I really like this interpretation. Seems more accurate than the many others I've heard
Agreed with everything you said. Great performances, 45 mins too long, hateable characters. Was well shot and the soundtrack was fine but overall not a masterpiece
I didn't find the movie made a statement of any kind. I felt it was rather pointless.
There's such a massive and powerful layer to this film that no one seems to get. Jordan was was like a cult leader trying to make an army of followers of the same religion which is money. In real life there is nothing more pointless than being a stock broker but this film gave it a point. Jordan had an contagious talent to it. That final shot in that last scene is what brought it full circle. It may be pro-wealth but its still a very powerful film and there's nothing else like it.
i'm glad i saw the film but i'm in pretty much full agreement with Mark on this one (while quibbling over maybe a few small points), which is not always the case.
Mark is a great film critic, perhaps the country's finest, but this type of ''ethical quandary'' has long been his Achilles heel. Whenever he's faced with a protagonist not designed for endearment his response is that the film can therefore not be deemed a success. I'm sure that I would have been troubled by TWOWS had it asked the audience to condone or applaud Jordan Belfort's conduct, but Scorcese has steered away from both congratulation and vilification in this and every one of his films. Instead of what would have been a rather inane and patronising narrative we are treated to a masterful investigation into a life, a mind and an all too topical community. I don't need to like the dude to enjoy that.
I completely agree. That was my problem with Mark's assessment of this film. Having a dislike for (or in Mark's case, hating) the central character, doesn't mean the film lacks other interesting and important themes within its narrative. I didn't hate Jordan, I pitied him. He's a narcissist and a chancer who sees money and sex as being key to self fulfilment. But it's more than just about him. Only the saddest person could look at that hollow lifestyle as aspirational, which may go some way to explaining why there have been reports of bankers applauding the film's more ostentatious moments. I took more from it than that. In many ways it mirrors present times and the depths of greed man has always grappled with. Exploring that in a way that's both engaging and humour-filled, is not something to be frowned upon.
Levar Polson Well said.
***** Thank you
I've not seen the film yet but I'm naturally suspicious of this idea of morally passive film-making - as with newscasting, the act of selecting one person's life rather than another's, showing someone at an orgy as opposed to reading a book, already makes a value claim on what's worthy of our attention. You may well be right in your assessment of the film otherwise (as I say, I've not seen the film) but I'm still sceptical of the more general and ubiquitous notion of 'value-free' cinema.
Oliver Wood The ''value claim'' made in depicting an orgy scene over a book-reading scene is that one is more interesting or valid to the narrative, and by no means a moral judgement and so no-one is proposing a ''value-free cinema'' (far from being ubiquitous, it is a non-existent concept). Morally passive film-making on the other hand is as valid, or in the case of stories adapted from real life more valid than any other approach to storytelling. If you do feel the need to make a moral judgement on every character and action up on the screen then surely you would be served best by the material being presented as honestly and nuetral as possible without the director having weighted it out with contrivance and suggestion. I'm curious if this ''suspicion'' you speak of is derived from interpreting the disinterest in taking an overt moral stance as only a facade to mask exoneration or approval. In my opinion, jumping to this conclusion is pointless, baseless, and without any place in intelligent critical analysis.
I don't always share Kermode's views, but he bang on worded how I felt during this film.
I hated this film,the performances are good but Mark is right about the treatment of the story and characters. It does glamourise him,that's why is such twisted following of this film people want to be him despite him being loathsome
Could not agree with you more, Mark.
Nail on the head. Exactly what I thought.
I'm conflicted about Mark Kermode. Often I agree with him, often I don't, and I find some of his opinions baffling. I could easily forgive that, but I can't easily forgive his absolute hatred of video games. Films and video games are brothers; they are so similar in every way that matters. I'm amazed there are film critics that can't see that.
nothing to worry about, man. We are all adults, we supposed to have our own thoughts.
I think the point is that DiCaprio's character is so amazingly hateful that it's such a spectacle to watch
Never have I disagreed with a kermode review than this .
I thought as a comedy movie this film was good and made me laugh a lot but as a serious movie mark is right.
You can't deny, Kermode usually hits the nail on the head.
I swear half the people who think it's some kind of masterpiece are frat boy types who missed the point entirely
KironVB It's like that video of one of the speeches on UA-cam which has something like "inspirational scene" in the title, you would have to have completely missed the point to think it was supposed to be inspirational at all.
It may be close to the case of Fight Club, where they believe the message is to destroy the institution.
Personally, I think Wolf of Wall Street is very good. It is nonstop indulgent filmmaking and I love that when it's Scorsese doing it. I think Belfort is a terrible, but honest, person.
I agree 100% except about Belfort being honest. He made a living by conning people out of their lifesavings.
Scorsese achieved his objectives. The script is great, the conematography, the acting. Good film.
@@Lilyanna298 honest in terms of what happened.
Most movies I love are about characters I hate.
I think Mark makes a good point here, but I personally found Jordan Belfort's character all the more fascinating because of just how deplorable his lifestyle is. I think the film was successful because we spent so much time with this character and seeing all the things he's done and been through, and for that reason I though the length was, at least mostly, justified.
The haters are out in full force about Mark's review. Get over it. Not everyone has the same opinion about this film. And the fact that some of you gave this video thumbs down is just childish.
I know, right? lol "Mark, you didn't like a movie I liked waaaaaah!" Like 5 year olds.
Luvie1980 So i can't give the video a thumb down if i didn't like it? Yeah sure.
Nailed it Mark, ignore the naysayers, you are so damn right here.
Agreed.....3 hours of non-stop debauchery...one of Scorsese's worst IMO
He's my favourite critic, but I have to say, I feel he's wrong here. Hating a character is not the same as hating the merits of a film, which is what a review should be about.
I was praying he would like this! Not that I've seen it but now I'm not sure if a cinema trip is worth it, so many films I want to see at the moment. Regarding GoodFellas, I think we connect with Henry Hill because the people he's surrounded by have no conscience whatsoever, whereas his character does, at least to a certain extent.
I thought The Wolf of Wall Street was brilliant. I've never left a film with so much anger, and it was very hard to watch, but it was brilliant.
I feel like there's a great 2h25 minute film here hidden by it being 2h50. Having unlikable characters can be fine if it's entertaining to get through. WoWS felt like a slog
I greatly enjoyed The Wolf of Wall Street, and personally I felt that Belfort is a character who you are supposed to hate, but I was still charmed by DiCaprio's performance to the point where I did kind of sympathise with him. At the end of day, it's more down to bad luck than his own foolishness that he gets caught.
I wouldn't mind at all if it wins Best Picture at the Oscars, but I know that's not likely to happen.
The problem for me was DiCaprio, he was too charming to dislike fully. He has a little boy naughtiness about him which made me want to laugh at him rather than hate him.
I knew stockbroker, city types in the 80s.
They were almost always arrogant pricks, at no point did I feel that way about him.
I think that Mark is more personally threatened by chauvinist characters like Belfort than by violent mobsters in other films because his wife is a feminist professor and he is also a staunch feminist. Belfort reminds him of people he's met in his own life whereas gangsters are almost a fantasy. It's like how you if you've ever been bullied you will hate characters like Biff in Back to the Future more than a cannibal serial killer like Hannibal Lecter.
You know, I like his reviews, but from what I've seen I'd say your spot on.
It has nothing to do with feminism. Everyone reacts more viscerally to bully characters than fantasy serial killers, because we relate them to things and people we have first-hand experience of in real life.
You may have a point there
chauvinists are commonplace, fantasy characters are not
Very fair point
I also wasn’t really a fan of this one. Not really any specific reason, I just didn’t like the characters or find the plot that interesting unlike something like GoodFellas or The Irishman where I found myself engaged beginning to end. It’s just excessive really. I don’t think it needed to be the three hours it was. I found some bits funny, like when he’s trying to get Donnie off the phone, or when Joanna Lumley suddenly hijacks the Voice Over, but it just goes on a bit. It’s not even like GoodFellas where there was a real throughline between sequences. I may be misremembering, but it just felt like a thousand things happening once after the other without any real connectivity. Not to mention how uncomfortable a good chunk of it made me feel. What can I say, I’m not one for huge indulgent parties.
The scenes are excessive, it's glorious. You may not like it, but thats different than saying it's not good or bad.
I think Mr. Kermode's reviews are usually very good but not this time around. I think his personal moral standard is getting in the way of his critic's eyes.
I didn’t despise Belfort nor did I like his character, he exists somewhere in between those 2 realms.
These are my EXACT thoughts on the movie, right down to the "lack of moral depth in Scorsese's greatest work", which I wrote myself a couple of weeks ago. Cheers, Kermode.
Liking or not liking Belfort is kind of irrelevant to me. It was just funny and compelling, period.
Not only does it have many scenes that could've been left out, almost every scene feels like it drags on too long. Goodfellas is an example of how Scorcese films are often fast moving with little fat on them but it feels like he made a conscious decision to change tack and dwell on situations. The result for me is an opportunity missed and a film that stinks of self-indulgence and.. dullness. I really like Scorcese films and was very disappointed, I still am ;)
Yeah, it seemed like Scorcese picked out all the interesting bits he liked from this guys autobiography, and tried to string them together in a half-assed narrative. It was one of his sloppier films.
Nah I loved how it extended scenes. The excessiveness of the characters extended into the editing. It was a deliberate choice. This film is indulgence incarnate. Just as Jordan Belford couldn't help but take everything a step too far out of greed so did Thelma Schoonmacher and Scorsese.
I enjoyed the character and the movie, probably because I love sex, drugs and money but one thing that irritated me about the movie is that there's no character development at all. He ended exactly the way he started off, as a greedy selfish amoral douche. He goes to prison but it's shown that "lol i'm rich so prison was nice and comfortable for me ;)". The FBI character is also grossly underdeveloped, he's not faceless but at the end of the movie you still know nothing about him and what motivates him. I didn't mind the 3 hour run time, the movie is entertaining enough so that you don't really feel its time. It's also an amazingly acted movie with great cinematography so overall I like the movie.
I hated this movie for all of the reasons you mentioned. Also, the constant cutting was frustrating, and I was cheering for the government to catch him about half way through.
I will never understand why the length of a film has become such an issue. I'm glad Lawrence of Arabia came out in the 60's, because today the film wouldn't be considered a masterpiece at all. I can imagine Mark reviewing the film by saying : Okay, I get it Mr. Lean the desert is big. I've got your point, move on please ! I really don't like this fast food approach to films. I think a bit wisdom from Roger Ebert is required : "No good movie is too long and no bad movie is short enough." Wolf of Wall Street is a brilliant film. I hated the character of Jordan Belfort, but I still loved the film. Martin Scorsese is showing us this horrible world, and he's not sugar coding it. This is who they are, and this is how they act. I think it's fascinating, and we should all be delighted that at 71 years old, Martin Scorsese can still make a film like Wolf of Wall Street. It reminds me of Alfred Hitchcock with Frenzy. 70 years old, but still on top of his game.
This is such a perfect review. Spot on! But unfortunately, a lot of half-wits did like what they saw in The Wolf of Wall Street and they want to have the same lifestyle. This whole spectacle made me hate this world a bit more, and wonder why I'm still here. 50 Shades came out 4 days ago, that was worse. I don't understand this obsession with sex and spelling it out on the screen with a magic marker.
I'm with Kermode on this one. Endless depravity and debauchery in this film. A far cry from Scorsese's other work. I hoped for so much more but was sorely disappointed.
Well said, Mark. 💯% nailed it!
If Mark hated the characters & this world he should never watch "Mad Men".
Mark nailed it here. I thought the same thing about this film.
How is this film different from Entourage?
Kermode got it spot on with this one
if he lost a lot of those partying, drugs and objectifying of women, etc... the main character would look like less of a bad person. it's like watching a serial killer film and asking that she murdered fewer people...
Wow. This is pitch perfect. My feelings exactly. I enjoyed some of the film (it’s Martin Scorsese after all!) but 3 hours?
Mark, your final comment that the film doesn't 'tell' you it's wrong simply patronises everybody. I can't be told to enjoy Trainspotting, it either happens or it doesn't. It happens to have not happened, and I can't stand that film. This on the other hand I could end up enjoying. I saw American Psycho recently, and whilst I think it was a messy piece of work I found Christian Bale's performance alluring and genuinely quite hilarious. Similarly the Nicolas Cage film Vampire's Kiss is a little more dumbed-down but I felt the same way there. And lastly A Clockwork Orange has a despicable character, and yes there is some redemption for him later on in the film but it wasn't necessarily needed - that's just how Kubrick is with that subject matter. I don't need to be 'told' if something is wrong - much like Sofia Coppola's The Bling Ring and Harmony Korine's Spring Breakers, it's up to us to find that out by ourselves. I felt both of those films were quite cold, and one of those reasons I think was the lack of humour, which by the sounds of things The Wolf Of Wall Street has a lot of. Saying all of this, I still must admit I never really related to the central character in Goodfellas and am mystified why people constantly quote that as Scorsese's masterpiece - I think it's a good film, but it's nowhere near as well written and performed as Raging Bull or Taxi Driver. So there is still a chance I won't like this as much as I'm expecting. But I won't be troubled by its depiction of excess as that is completely what I am expecting - it will have to be something really lacking, or something way too heavily laid on to put me off.
Couldn't agree more
This is why Mark is a great reviewer. Even if you do not agree with him, you can understand where he is coming from.
I totally agree. Thanks for this.
I've not seen the film but judging from the comments, it makes it sound as though if Mark went into American Psycho and came out disliking it because Patrick Bateman and everyone in the film are absolutely despicable, misogynistic and totally unlikable...despite that BEING the point.
Is that a fair comparison? I'm just trying to gauge what's caused such a polarising opinion here. Is the theme that subtle that it's been missed by Mark or what?
Patrick Bateman was a relatable character. You cared about what happens to him despite the fact that he's a sociopathic murderer.
Wolf of Wall Street is a disgusting film. Purposefully, masterfully, but disgusting nonetheless. I truly hated it and the characters it portrayed. I think Mark's take here is spot on.
@@ShirDeutch Wait what??... If Patrick Bateman is relatable you might want help haha. Extreme narcissism with no care for others. The Wolf of Wall Street is hilarious and fun. Yes the characters are "bad" people, but what they are doing and the situations they get into are entertaining. Like It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia or Arrested Development.
Love you take on this film. I was given it and could never bring myself to bother watching it.
This guy is on to it.
I agree with Mark on the length, and Jordan Belford is basically reprehensible, albeit with enough funny moments (the delayed OD / crawl / Lamborghini section one of the funniest things I’ve seen in cinema) to make him likeable and interesting at least to me. All criticism of him and his lifestyle should be applied as well to the main character of Goodfellas. So I don’t quite get Mark giving that film a free pass.
Exactly! That OD scene is an absolute scream
Excellent job
he's a fantastic reviewer is our Mark, eloquent as ever, buuuut, I think this movie is great. Of course the main character becomes chauvinistic in conjunction with how his wealth grows, plus, if you do that much charlie, you're bound to turn into a egomaniac. I don't think we always have to empathise with the central character to enjoy a flick, and I couldn't imagine these types behaving in another way.. I'd rather an honest portrayal, and I think we get one.
I'm surprised Mark didn't like it. I thought it was a great film.
bit random, i just watched the film and the sound track is abit diferent at the scene in the cafe the music is either off or alot quieter
My exact problem with this movie.
Could not care less what happened the main character, same reason I hated Scarface.
Unfortunately, the good Doctor seemed to completely miss the point of the film. I can't think of a single time Scorsese wants you to feel sympathetic towards Belfort or his colleagues. I couldn't believe that anyone would actually believe that the film was supporting this lifestyle, but I guess for each their own.
"can you be dramatically interested in a character you just hate?"
There Will Be Blood, Aguirre the Wrath of God, Taxi Driver...short answer, yes. American Psycho and A Clockwork Orange too to an extent. I'm looking forward to the film.
Good point, well said.
velocirapta also most of shakespeares best plays are about protagonists who are bad people
You hated Travis bickle? I kinda felt sorry for him,I hated the smugness and insincerity of palatine more and don't even get me started on keitel character....if anyone deserves a bullet it was him. Travis wasn't likeable but he wasn't hateworthy. Not that I can see anyway
spot on. i wanted this to end after 90 minutes..
Stop after the first 10 then 😂
I thought the point of the film was to drop your draw at what was going on, I don’t think anyone is saying you should do these things.
My problem with the film was similar - not knowing the story, and with the level and extent to which obscenity was depicted, I was waiting for the hammer to come down on him so hard that we would leave afraid to even look at anything larger than a $50 bill.
Epic hands.
I like Mark Kermode's reviews but he got this one spectacularly wrong. I thought there were at least 3 classic moments in the film and I loved every minute of it. Sure, you don't like Belfort, you're not meant to, but you can be entertained by him, especially considering the performance of Di Caprio who is amazing. The main issue for me is the length, there is an easy 25 minutes that could be cut (did we need the 5 minute debate about dwarfs?) but overall this was a brilliant movie, and the majority of people I know also loved it.
I felt the exact same way...to the point when I had to stop watching it cause my hate was just at boiling point
To me, the tagline should have been "reality is an afterthought", but then again, that is cinema. Every time something bad happens, it is very brief. This was x's great life, oh by the way he killed himself. Here's the 95% awesome, oh and the 5% bad. It's like Trainspotting meets the Hangover. All the excess of the former, all the laddish charm and fun of the latter. I don't think Ive ever felt so conflicted about a film, because i looooooved to watch it, and all my logic about all the people suffering for the good times on screen was hushed by the glimmer of it all.
This review is spot on. Felt apathetic to the character, how it was written (despite the acting chops and directing). Way too long. Just a circus of Hollywood kind of movie
it was a good film but they didnt show his victims in the film
The main character isn’t going to care about the victims and would never want to see them and so that makes sense why we never see them as the film is from his point of view. I don’t think that’s a mark against the film, it just shows you there was no time for thinking of the consequences when you’re having fun and making bank.
First of all, you people that say Kermode got it "wrong" need you need to get your heads checked. Kermode is an educated film critic and this is why people listen to him so lets give him that. Also, It's just HIS experience of the film. He's not saying it's YOUR experience. It's one guys opinion. Stop trying to say he's "wrong." How could his educated and informed experience of something be "wrong." You don't get films right or wrong.. you experience them and this was his experience of The Wolf of Wall Street. I liked the film but he makes valid points. He points out the films good attributes as well as criticising it's faults. Just because you have a fantastic experience with a film, doesn't mean it can't have faults. Guys learn to experience criticism.
I freaking loved. Wolf of w st movie so much fun
100% agree
I always thought the point of the films repeated, lengthy excess was to immerse you in how exhilarating and ultimately exhausting and hollow the lifestyle it portrays is.
The most hateable character that i liked the most?
Javier Bardem as Anton Chigurh in No Country for Old Men.
for me its daniel day lewis as bill "the butcher" cutting in gangs of new york
Agree with Mark's review 100%. Lots of the comments seem to assume he's being overly PC or sniffy about bankers, I certainly didn't watch it with that idea and I'm sure Mark didn't, it just wasn't a great movie. To show that someone is living a crazy lifestyle, you can show that in one or two standout scenes, you don't need 20-30, that's not good film making. It's funny the first couple of times, after that it's "enough already", how many scenes of drug taking?, Di Caprio must have spent 10 minutes on screen sniffing substances, farcical. Had all the makings of a good film but ended up rank average. I think Mark was kind saying half hour too long, I would gladly have cut an hour from it.
He's right.